|
Grex > Agora56 > #84: Newspaper in Denmark prints cartoon pics of Mohammed | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 432 responses total. |
bru
|
|
response 119 of 432:
| 
Feb 6 22:24 UTC 2006 |
the right wing in islamic countries either want or have a theocracy. The far
right wing in the u.s. wants a theocracy. Bush isn't interested in
Constitutional law, he is interested in God's law (just listen to many of his
speeches) Same holds true for Osama Bin Laden.
Richard, this just shows your paranoia.
|
twenex
|
|
response 120 of 432:
|
Feb 6 22:32 UTC 2006 |
Just because he's paranoid doesn't mean the religious right aren't after him.
|
tod
|
|
response 121 of 432:
|
Feb 6 22:35 UTC 2006 |
re #119
I agree. I think he should be impeached for dumping all those millions into
Faith Based organizations. His executive orders piss all over our
Constitution.
|
richard
|
|
response 122 of 432:
|
Feb 6 22:40 UTC 2006 |
re #119 it isn't paranoia bru, if you can't see the similiarities in religious
extremism around the globe you aren't paying attention. What Bush wants is
to follow the laws of "god" That is the same thing the muslim extremists
want. Allah and "God" are the same old testament deity. The islamic
fundamentalists don't like the liberal media, they don't like god or allah
taken in vain or insulted in literature. They promote censorship. Which are
the same things the Bush administration is doing here.
|
twenex
|
|
response 123 of 432:
|
Feb 6 23:01 UTC 2006 |
Bru makes Ray Charles look like Superman.
|
johnnie
|
|
response 124 of 432:
|
Feb 7 00:15 UTC 2006 |
Here's an interesting take on the cartoon controversy (to wit: the
Saudis stirred up the pot in an attempt to divert attention from the
yearly death toll during the Hajj, kinda like when Reagan invaded
Grenada after the bombing of the marine barracks in Lebanon):
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/2/5/13149/60748
|
bru
|
|
response 125 of 432:
|
Feb 7 05:07 UTC 2006 |
Actually, taken in as a whole, Intelligent Design would not support
Christianity any more than it would hinduism, or Shintoism, or North American
Indian creation theory, ir judaism, or islam, or even being visited by aliens
from another planet.
and then again, new theories appear all the time...
http://www.stanford.edu/~afmayer/docs/Lecture2Signed.pdf
|
gull
|
|
response 126 of 432:
|
Feb 7 07:19 UTC 2006 |
Re resp:125: Maybe so, but Intelligent Design is largely being pushed
by Christian creationists.
|
klg
|
|
response 127 of 432:
|
Feb 7 11:55 UTC 2006 |
re: EtP "Opponents of the teaching of ID in public schools are not
afraid that Evolution will not stand up comparison. They are afraid of
the loss of valuable time and resources in the education of children"
The time in public schools is so tight that it can't find the 2 minutes
it would take to read the Dover, PA statement on ID?
What public school did you attend???? And how were they able to keep
your mind so closed??
|
fudge
|
|
response 128 of 432:
|
Feb 7 12:26 UTC 2006 |
my real concern would be that kids that are not really into science, and who
will not put much thought into it, will be left with the absurd notion that
ID has anything to do with science ( which incidentally is a method, not
another fucking religion ), thus growing into misinformed adults, ready to
join the herd...
|
kingjon
|
|
response 129 of 432:
|
Feb 7 12:40 UTC 2006 |
And the concern of thousands if not millions of Americans is that students will
get the idea that molecules-to-man Evolution is the same thing as science --
which is supposedly a method.
|
fudge
|
|
response 130 of 432:
|
Feb 7 12:48 UTC 2006 |
darwinian evolution by selection is not "the same thing as science" but it
definitely *is* a scientific theory, inasmuch as it has been developed by
scientific approach and is a process that has been observed in a number of
contexts. "intelligent design" might be a theory, but it is definitely NOT
scientific and from where I'm standing not even near "intelligent". want to
talk fairy tales? do it in RE or humanities classes, or better at a SF con.
|
twenex
|
|
response 131 of 432:
|
Feb 7 12:54 UTC 2006 |
You lot are as bad as each other.
|
fudge
|
|
response 132 of 432:
|
Feb 7 12:57 UTC 2006 |
I'm badder.
|
jep
|
|
response 133 of 432:
|
Feb 7 13:57 UTC 2006 |
re resp:103: "Are there any honest ACLU opponents out there?" Yes,
there are. I consider myself an honest man, with strong and honorable
convictions which cause me to oppose the ACLU. I don't believe you
have any reason to call me dishonest, but if you disagree, I would
appreciate hearing why.
|
marcvh
|
|
response 134 of 432:
|
Feb 7 14:53 UTC 2006 |
(Re #133, it was a rhetorical question based on the huge number of
distortions and half-truths against the ACLU previously quoted.)
|
rcurl
|
|
response 135 of 432:
|
Feb 7 17:56 UTC 2006 |
I'm puzzled by why an honest person would oppose the ACLU categorically,
unless they also opposed the Bill of RIghts.
|
kingjon
|
|
response 136 of 432:
|
Feb 7 17:58 UTC 2006 |
An honest person could look at the ACLU and come to the conclusion that it's
only paying lip service to the Bill of Rights and is actually trampling on it
instead. (This is *not* my conclusion, but it's a possible explanation for the
honest-person-categorically-hates-ACLU position.)
|
tod
|
|
response 137 of 432:
|
Feb 7 18:02 UTC 2006 |
The ACLU has engaged in lobbying has it not? And a good amount of funding
for the ACLU has come from legal fees payed by states and other entities that
lose cases regarding the Ten Commandments displays and free speech cases?
I can understand entirely why someone would oppose aligning themself with any
lobbyists which may include the ACLU.
|
klg
|
|
response 138 of 432:
|
Feb 7 18:03 UTC 2006 |
(Whose Bill of Rights?? Ours or the terrorists?)
|
marcvh
|
|
response 139 of 432:
|
Feb 7 18:04 UTC 2006 |
I don't see how one could come to that conclusion unless he thought that
the Bill of Rights serves to protect the "rights" of the government
(e.g. the "right" to force schoolchildren to pray, the "right" to grant
special favors to some religious organizations, the "right" to prevent
unpopular groups from expressing their viewpoint, and so on.)
|
kingjon
|
|
response 140 of 432:
|
Feb 7 18:09 UTC 2006 |
I didn't say the hypothetical honest person was *right*, just *honest*. There
are a whole lot of honest but misguided people on every side of every political
debate.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 141 of 432:
|
Feb 7 18:12 UTC 2006 |
In regard to the ACLU lobbying...yes, it does in it efforts to protect civil
rights. But that is not done entirely by lobbying. In fact, much of the
support of the ACLU is tax deductible through the 501(c)3 tax-exempt donations
to the ACLU foundation. Here is a paragraph from the ACLU website about that:
"Defending First Amendment freedoms, equality, privacy rights and fundamental
fairness requires constant vigilance and support. Each year, individuals and
institutions -- including foundations, unions and corporations -- demonstrate
their commitment to those shared constitutional values through steady gifts
and grants to the ACLU Foundation. Many ACLU members also give generously
beyond their annual dues, through tax-deductible gifts to the ACLU
Foundation's litigation and public education programs, as well as through
special gifts that support the ACLU's lobbying efforts. This support is
indispensable in ensuring that the ACLU's core programs and special projects
are fully equipped."
|
gull
|
|
response 142 of 432:
|
Feb 7 19:01 UTC 2006 |
Generally most people I meet who oppose the ACLU do so because they
feel the ACLU is anti-religious. I think this is partly the fault of
the ACLU's public relations -- the many cases where they *support*
someone's right to religious expression don't get nearly enough press,
which allows right-wing mouthpieces to continue the drumbeat of "the
ACLU wants to take God away from you."
|
tod
|
|
response 143 of 432:
|
Feb 7 19:03 UTC 2006 |
Anti-Christian is more on target, imo.
|