|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 137 responses total. |
kingjon
|
|
response 50 of 137:
| 
Feb 23 01:25 UTC 2006 |
As if that were the only verse they held to be valid Scripture. To paraphrase:
Europeans think religion belongs only in private; Americans think it belongs
nearly everywhere.
|
happyboy
|
|
response 51 of 137:
|
Feb 23 02:21 UTC 2006 |
just like the taliban!
|
keesan
|
|
response 52 of 137:
|
Feb 23 02:27 UTC 2006 |
Some Americans.
|
kingjon
|
|
response 53 of 137:
|
Feb 23 02:34 UTC 2006 |
Some Americans, namely the Founding Fathers: "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion, *or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof* ..." -- based on the short anecdote that I'm referring to, European
public opinion is that the freedom of religion ought to be restricted to "in
private."
|
cyklone
|
|
response 54 of 137:
|
Feb 23 02:42 UTC 2006 |
Re #48: Now, now, junior; you better check that oversize ego or you'll lose
your free pass to heaven. If you want to prove your laughable assertion about
your broad sources, maybe you could favor us with some cites to a few of them.
|
kingjon
|
|
response 55 of 137:
|
Feb 23 03:01 UTC 2006 |
As I recall, this was in a lecture on why and how the Church is expanding in
Asia, South America, and Africa and withering in Europe and North America.
Like I said, however, I didn't want to start a discussion ...
|
marcvh
|
|
response 56 of 137:
|
Feb 23 04:50 UTC 2006 |
Yes, religion tends to wither in places that have economic prosperity.
We see the same thing domestically, as the poorest states tend to also
be the most religious. What was your point again?
|
tod
|
|
response 57 of 137:
|
Feb 23 06:59 UTC 2006 |
WWRCD? (What would Rane Curl do?)
|
rcurl
|
|
response 58 of 137:
|
Feb 23 07:16 UTC 2006 |
I think I've already answered that.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 59 of 137:
|
Feb 23 12:36 UTC 2006 |
Re #55: So you're saying this lecture also supported your claim that
atheists were favored over the religious in European elections? In what
way? Any statistics or facts to back them up? BTW, making unfounded
assertions in a public forum, and then trying to pull the "I didn't want
to start a discussion" is juvenile at best, at least in "fact-based"
communities such as grex. Get it now?
|
kingjon
|
|
response 60 of 137:
|
Feb 23 12:40 UTC 2006 |
Re #59: Reread the discussion. I said *at the outset* that I was just
mentioning it in passing, and that you were free to disregard it. I then
answered questions, and at each stage you have chosen to take my most recent
response in isolation, making conclusions that are contrary to the explicit
context.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 61 of 137:
|
Feb 23 13:08 UTC 2006 |
You wrote:
#41 of 60: by Jonathan Stuart Lovelace (kingjon) on Wed, Feb 22, 2006 (18:16):
From what I've heard, a candidate in those countries could hurt his chances
by declaring himself to be anything *other* than atheist.
Shortly after that you said you were serious but didn't want to start a
discussion. I think I'm completely clear on the context. You wrote
something and then suggested you don't want to defend your "serious"
statement. The only real interpretation is that you CAN'T defend it. Keep
in mind that once you post something, it becomes a subject for discussion.
If you want to decline to provide your sources, fine; that's your choice.
Just don't try to weasel when someone calls you on the crap you post. So
far, the only reasonable conclusion is that while you CLAIM to rely on
"broad" sources, you are unwilling to disclose these sources to anyone
else so they can be independently evaluated. Right now, you've shown
yourself to be no more worthy of credence than the blowhard at the end of
the bar sharing his uninformed opinions with all around him.
You've got a bright future ahead of you, junior.
|
kingjon
|
|
response 62 of 137:
|
Feb 23 13:54 UTC 2006 |
I wrote something *in passing*, not meaning it for anything other than *in
passing*, which means, among other things, that it isn't important enough to
waste time arguing around in circles with twits. "From what I've heard" *means*
that I don't have a specific recollection of a source, but I remember hearing
it somewhere, and you can't truthfully say I'm "unwilling" to provide sources
when I precede my statement with "From what I've heard" and then when asked
provide somewhere I might have heard it. Choosing to ignore information and
then attack the author for not providing it demonstrates you manifestly
unworthy of credence.
|
remmers
|
|
response 63 of 137:
|
Feb 23 15:09 UTC 2006 |
(Could we get back to the free speech issue and maybe take the religious
tangent to a new item?)
|
fudge
|
|
response 64 of 137:
|
Feb 23 15:18 UTC 2006 |
so far it looks that freedom of speech is highly dependedt on the
subject...
I'm also quite surprised at statements of an almost nazi nature...
todd????
can't say I din't expect a certain degree of bias in a mainly leftist
circle, but I'd have thought that objectivity would have prevailed...
flag and book... <shakes head>
|
twenex
|
|
response 65 of 137:
|
Feb 23 16:03 UTC 2006 |
Re: #54. Yeah, that must be why most successful rightwing parties in Europe
either call themselves or identify themselves with the "Christian Democrat"
movement; because those damned Europeans HATE religion!
|
tod
|
|
response 66 of 137:
|
Feb 23 17:42 UTC 2006 |
re #64
I'm also quite surprised at statements of an almost nazi nature...
todd????
Emperor Shaddam Bush II to the Head's of all Lower Houses:
"The Spice Must Flow."
|
khamsun
|
|
response 67 of 137:
|
Feb 23 20:13 UTC 2006 |
Re #66:
Emperor Shaddam Bush II and the Spice: :-) great! really nice!
|
cyklone
|
|
response 68 of 137:
|
Feb 23 21:50 UTC 2006 |
Re #62: It is you who are unworthy of credence when you claim to rely on more
sources than others and then can't identify them. I also find it odd that you
responded to mcnally by saying you were serious about your assertion even
though you can not recall the source. Those are some mighty high intellectual
standards you got there, junior.
|
kingjon
|
|
response 69 of 137:
|
Feb 23 21:58 UTC 2006 |
I responded to mcnally's question of "was that intended as a joke, or as a
serious comment?" with "in seriousness". If you interpret that as meaning
"important, worthy of infinite weight", or for that matter you interpret "I
heard somewhere" as "this comes from an authorititative source," I suggest you
reexamine your interpretive functions.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 70 of 137:
|
Feb 24 05:01 UTC 2006 |
I suggest you develop some communication skills. Saying you consider something
seriously at least implies you've given it some thought and can defend your
views. Obviously you can't.
|
happyboy
|
|
response 71 of 137:
|
Feb 24 05:20 UTC 2006 |
typical protestant!
|
mcnally
|
|
response 72 of 137:
|
Feb 24 05:43 UTC 2006 |
Ironically you're only reinforcing his belief that Christians are a
persecuted minority. He probably eats this kind of thing up..
|
happyboy
|
|
response 73 of 137:
|
Feb 24 06:25 UTC 2006 |
it really IS ironic!
|
gull
|
|
response 74 of 137:
|
Feb 24 08:01 UTC 2006 |
Re resp:48: That's only true if your religion is Protestant
Christianity. It can really damage your campaign if your religion is
something else. JFK had to face tough questions about his Catholicism.
|