|
|
nocaplato
Adventuring Hero
Lover of Ancient Philosophy
|
posted October 23, 2008 04:07 AM |
|
|
Elodin said:
Quote:
Your video lie about beliefs. Pentecostals do not desire a war to end the world. Your video also lie about Palins "mission from God" statement as I proved already.
These videos are mostly from the source. If there's a lie, in most of them, it comes then from the people who said these things themselves. For example, the one I called 'Church Lady' is a report from CNN (which you cited earlier as a trustworthy source). The material they offer are parts of a promotional video Palin's church itself put out. I fail to see how that makes it a lie.
I intentionally tried to find material devoid of editorializing, material which comes directly from the people themselves. I also commented that I wish there weren't any of the pop-up editorials and cut scene imagery because it distracts from the power of the films left alone.
Quote:
You provided no proof of war with Iraq being religious war. Most of links not even related to war at all. Show where Bush said "My fellow Americans, we are Christian nation and must kick Islamic countrie's butts in name of Jesus. We will start with Iraq."
Bush's Crusade:
While on one level I agree, Bush never said anything exactly like that, it would also have been rather stupid to expect such a bald statement. However, it's not as though the subtext is hidden. In the first clip, Bush says, "This crusade, this uh... war on terrorism, is gonna take a while." The Crusades were (in the most idealistic versions) a series of wars carried out by the Holy Catholic Church against the 'Saracens' of the middle east... i.e. Christian kingdoms against Islamic ones, begun by God's representative on Earth, popes. So, yes, he does say almost exactly "We are a Christian nation and must kick Islamic countries' butts in the name of Jesus." It can hardly be any clearer than that.
I grant that he never specifically says 'We will start with Iraq', but why would he have to? We were already in Iraq when he said it (and Afghanistan for that matter).
As for the rest, starting with McCain's supporters, many of them don't actually call for an explicit war with Iraq. Instead they suggest religious conflict between Christians and Muslims in general. It shouldn't take a rocket scientist to see the connection between such a conflict and the war in which we were already engaged when these sermons, addresses and interviews were given.
Analysis of Conrad's invocation:
Conrad is suggesting that non-Christians around the world are hoping Obama wins, which by itself is a big 'so what?' However he also is appealing to the idea that Obama receives no Christian support, and aligns Obama with Islam, Buddhism and Hinduism. Conrad isn't suggesting a crusade against Iraq, he's implying that a vote for Obama is a vote against (the Christian version of) God. He's also suggesting a win for Obama is a win for all those 'foreign' religions, thus a loss for America.
Coupled with the repeated tying of Obama to terrorism by association, or by connecting to his middle name, 'Hussein', the goal is to make Obama appear not just anti-American, but anti-Christian, therefore more than just a bad presidential selection, but downright unpatriotic and dangerous.
Hagee, Parsely, Robertson:
There are two key issues with this series of links (again all from reliable sources, or from the horses mouth... so how they are lies is beyond me). The first is that they display a pattern of aggression and fear mongering. For example, Hagee says God will unleash terrorists against us '...and this nation is going to go through a bloodbath' (my emphasis). The second is, that there is, as a matter of fact, a very strong urge toward war among the Christian Right.
I included such a range of speakers because I wanted to point out how common these attitudes are among the religious right, this is not just one crazy old geezer, it's very common, coming from some very mainstream and widely respected (in many circles) Christian leaders. Does this mean that all Christian leaders feel this way? Of course not, there are many churches and leaders who are just as horrified at these kinds of racist stereotypes as most of us are.
Here's a solid example of both from another McCain supporter, Rod Parsely. The clip on Parsely is from ABC news (I assume they aren't overly biased, it's not MSNBC or Fox, after all). The report claims McCain was trying to gain support from the 'Christian Right'. McCain says he is 'very honored... to have the support of one of the truely great leaders of America, a moral compass and a spiritual guide'.
Who is this great leader? How about a few words from this spiritual guide, this moral compass: "Islam is an Anti-Christ religion that intends, through violence to conquer the world." In another quote from his book and DVD he says "America was founded, in part, with the intention of seeing this false religion destroyed and I believe September 11th, 2001 was a call to arms that we can no longer ignore." And then there's "...what some call 'extremists' are...mainstream Muslim believers who are drawing from the well at the very heart of Islam."
How about Robertson? Well, in the clip from his own show Robertson claims 'Islam is not a religion, it is a world-wide political movement meant[sic] on domination of the world and it is meant to subjugate all people under Islamic law.' He goes on to claim that, under Islam there is the 'Realm of War' and the 'Realm of Islam', that there is no middle ground, 'you are either at war, or under submission.'
Let's review: America was founded...[to see] this false religion destroyed, 9-11 was a call to arms, Islam bloodbath, Anti-Christ religion, conquer the world, world domination, realm of war, no middle ground...
Followed later, of course, by the clip from Pat Robertson's show in which we discover that 'Jesus is Lord of Iraq.' Note Robertson's pleasure, the awe inspired, whispered question as though it's too good to be believed.
Soooo...
What was that again about how there's no comment on war or proof of a desire for it? I seem to have forgotten what your point was amid all the evidence I see. Do you have to listen a bit? Yes. Do you have to pay attention a bit? Yes. Do you have to try really hard to see the connection? Sheesh, I just don't think so. Please connect the dots. There is a clear pattern here, a pattern I could back up with a hundred more clips taken from the very religious leaders themselves, not from the innane added commentary of some left-wing nut job who has an axe to grind.
I will concede this point, which I haven't proven because it wasn't my original intention, and one on which your next counter argument should be based. That is, I haven't drawn a clear connection between these leaders and the political decision for war itself. I'm afraid this post is growing long enough, and I haven't even responded to your prosaic response to the Palin material.
While I don't want to talk just now about the Palin stuff, I do want to say one thing. You said Quote:
Perhaps you are athiest[sic] and want Christian hide [sic]in closet and have no say in election
Hmm... I didn't call you any names, nor did I, at any point imply religious people shouldn't be allowed to vote. I just supplied a series of videos and most of what's given is directly from Muthee, Palin or their church. If that's a problem for you, take it up with them. It does make me wonder though, that when confronted with evidence you dislike, you should make such a reactionary comment. It occurs to me that such a response would preculde any possibility of reasonable, evidence based debate.
As a matter of fact, though it's none of your business, I am the son of an Italian man and an Irish woman. I was raised Catholic and still have fond feelings for my early faith, though I find much of the fundamental elements and tenants difficult to stomach in the light of simple evidence (for example, the use of birth control or the rationale behind a male only priesthood). My current beliefs are my own and remain personal, and no business of anyone but my family and friends.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted October 23, 2008 04:30 AM |
|
|
Don't you get it yet?
McCain maverick straight talk patriot american POW experience
Obama arab muslim terrorist corrupt socialist elitist inexperienced
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
OmegaDestroyer
Hero of Order
Fox or Chicken?
|
|
posted October 23, 2008 04:39 AM |
|
|
I'd just like to get this election over with so the Democrats can finally stop whining about the last two election, the Republicans can begin to moan about how McCain should have won and blah, blah, blah, and America can watch as one of the worst Congresses in history continues to be all bark and no bite.
____________
The giant has awakened
You drink my blood and drown
Wrath and raving I will not stop
You'll never take me down
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted October 23, 2008 06:02 AM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 06:05, 23 Oct 2008.
|
Quote:
These videos are mostly from the source. If there's a lie, in most of them, it comes then from the people who said these things themselves
Untrue. Some videos have "popup" text that tell lies.
Quote:
In the first clip, Bush says, "This crusade, this uh... war on terrorism, is gonna take a while." The Crusades were (in the most idealistic versions) a series of wars carried out by the Holy Catholic Church against the 'Saracens' of the middle east... i.e. Christian kingdoms against Islamic ones, begun by God's representative on Earth, popes. So, yes, he does say almost exactly "We are a Christian nation and must kick Islamic countries' butts in the name of Jesus." It can hardly be any clearer than that.
No, that is misrepresentation of what Bush say. He said "war on terrorism." I am sure when he started to say "crusade" he thought how liberal twist his words to lie with so he clarify his thought. In no way can America be thought to be fighting to advance Christianity. That thought is totally ludicrous and cannot be supported from facts.
Quote:
As for the rest, starting with McCain's supporters, many of them don't actually call for an explicit war with Iraq. Instead they suggest religious conflict between Christians and Muslims in general. It shouldn't take a rocket scientist to see the connection between such a conflict and the war in which we were already engaged when these sermons, addresses and interviews were given.
McCain do not seem to be particularly religious. You talking about preachers. Yes, preachers will talk of God lots but they not saying Christianity and Islam at war and did not call for war. Democrats and Republicans both voted for war almost to every individual in congress. They did not call upon preachers to come advise them and them to start holy war.
About Conrad: He is not big name Christain leader I think. And his prayer is not after war in Iraq started, yes? So he could not have called for Christian crusade. And since he is not big name Christian preacher I think he have not big following. Perhaps he is local pastor of church in city where McCain holding rally that day.
So he pray that God answer prayer and help McCain. What is big deal about that? Every religion think it is proper religion or they would be another religion. Sure he don't think Buddha is proper person to follow. He is Christian, not Buddhist. And yes, he don't think Allah is true God or he would be Muslim. I also did not hear Conrad saying all non believer voting for Obama. I also did not hear Conrad even mention Obama's middle name or his ties to terrorist. You thinking of different preacher.
Hagee: What he say is he believe Israel's land is granted by God. That is what Bible said. He say that if US keep presuring Israel to give up land US will be judged. So no, he is not fear mongering or hatemongering at all.
Quote:
The second is, that there is, as a matter of fact, a very strong urge toward war among the Christian Right.
Untrue. Please show quotes from Chritian leaders before war calling on war against Islam.
Quote:
Who is this great leader? How about a few words from this spiritual guide, this moral compass: "Islam is an Anti-Christ religion that intends, through violence to conquer the world."
Quran say to kill Jews and Christians and unbelievers who will not convert to Islam or pay tribute. It say spread Islam by the war so he is saying what Quran say.
Quote:
"Make war on them until idolatry shall cease and God's religion shall reign supreme." (Surah 8:36-)
But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practice regular charity, then open the way for them: for God is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. (9:5)
Fight those who believe not in God nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by God and His Apostle, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book (Christians and Jews), until they pay the jizya [tribute] with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. (9:29).
Quote:
In another quote from his book and DVD he says "America was founded, in part, with the intention of seeing this false religion destroyed and I believe September 11th, 2001 was a call to arms that we can no longer ignore.
I have never heard any other person say America was founded to destroy Islam so that is not Christian position. As far as wake up call, yes, 9/11 should have been wake up call.
Remember, Parsley was not pastor of McCain. Obama's pastor make many racist and Anti-American statement.
Quote:
What was that again about how there's no comment on war or proof of a desire for it?
You have offered not tiny bit of proof that war in Iraq is religious crusade advancing Christianity. And I did not see anyone have "desire" for war. I some as saying war was necessary.
But not even any who said war was necessary was consulted at beginning or war or called for Congress to go to war before 9/11.
Quote:
I just supplied a series of videos and most of what's given is directly from Muthee, Palin or their church. If that's a problem for you, take it up with them
.
As I said lies were the pop up text and the cutting off of quotes to start in middle of sentence to make it seem Palin say what she not say.
Quote:
Hmm... I didn't call you any names, nor did I, at any point imply religious people shouldn't be allowed to vote. I just supplied a series of videos and most of what's given is directly from Muthee, Palin or their church. If that's a problem for you, take it up with them. It does make me wonder though, that when confronted with evidence you dislike, you should make such a reactionary comment. It occurs to me that such a response would preculde any possibility of reasonable, evidence based debate.
You said person laying hands on Palin had "militant ideas about God." I saw no such thing of militant ideas. So I asked question: "What exactly was militant? He say Christians should not just pray but also vote. Perhaps you are athiest and want Christian hide in closet and have no say in election?"
I am glad you say you want Christain to have voice in politics too. But why you say Muthee have militant ideas about God? He say Chritian should not just pray but also vote. How is that militant?
It should be noted there is no war of US on Iraq. There is war of US on terrorists in Iraq and US have other Iraqis fighting on US side. So that alone is proof war is not a crusade of Chritianity against Islam since majority (or all) of those Iraqi allies are Muslim.
|
|
nocaplato
Adventuring Hero
Lover of Ancient Philosophy
|
|
posted October 23, 2008 06:28 AM |
|
|
I'll respond later to some of this, but I'd like to say now that I appreciate the change in tone in this most recent post, no claim of lies, atheism or voter suppression... thank you.
As for the pop-ups and what not, here's what I said as a disclaimer when I posted them, and again with my more recent response (sorry for quoting myself):
First this:
Quote:
Many of these are youtube postings. I'm sorry about. Many of the clips speak for themselves and don't need the stupid editorializing of the posters or the scary imagery they've cut in.
Later this:
Quote:
I intentionally tried to find material devoid of editorializing, material which comes directly from the people themselves. I also commented that I wish there weren't any of the pop-up editorials and cut scene imagery because it distracts from the power of the films left alone.
Later, same post:
Quote:
There is a clear pattern here...taken from the very religious leaders themselves, not from the innane added commentary of some left-wing nut job who has an axe to grind.
Obviously we disagree about the religious element of the war on the right, but on one point there isn't a difference of opinion. I'd rather have raw un-tampered with video. I certainly don't need someone editorializing their own bias into a video, even if I tend to agree with them. Just let the thing stand for itself... I was just culling a bunch of stuff together quick-like late at night, so didn't want to bother finding the raw video.
I promise to try finding more clean video, if you promise to stop accusing me of trying to taint the argument with someone else's edit hack job.
And, like I said earlier, I haven't addressed any of the Palin/Muthee stuff yet. I will do so tomorrow or later tonight when I have the time/energy to go through it point it out.
As far as Conrad as 'leader', I really just included that to point out how much of this sort of thinking is still going on. There's plenty of religious right leadership out there saying this sort of thing that one inconsequential speech by some unknown figure isn't necessary to prove the point.
Also, be careful when quoting religious books, like the Qu'ran. Sure, it says some ludicrous stuff. But then, so does the Bible. I'd rather not get into a quote-a-thon where we dredge out the ugly things either of those two books have to say. They have to be taken as a whole. Both books have their elements of subjugation and imperialism, but both are also excellent sources of moral codes and guides toward peaceful practice. The same can be said of most religious texts.
Only vaguely relevant Side Note, not really meant to be proof of much:
I will point one thing out though, which may be difficult for some to understand... In Arabic, the word 'jihad' or 'jihadist' also has religious connotations.... you can certainly look it up yourself, but here's one from answers.com
Quote:
je-had (noun) Islam.
1. An individual's striving for spiritual self-perfection.
2. Islam. A Muslim holy war or spiritual struggle against infidels.
3. A crusade or struggle: “The war against smoking is turning into a jihad against people who smoke” (Fortune).
While the word has a very negative connotation in the U.S. among non-muslims, it's connotations in the Arab world is quite positive. Note that, while it does carry the connotation for holy war (as in Crusade) it also carries with it, in a more pre-eminent position, the meaning of 'struggling to defeat the imperfections of the self and defeat personal evils.'
Thus, calling an Arab a 'jihadist' is actually a rather high compliment. The problem is that among moderate Muslims, as with the Parsely comments, it conflates extremists with all other forms of Islamic faith. It'd be almost like calling someone a 'elite' and having it mean negative things... oh, wait, we already do that.
More to the point, whether Bush and co. realize it, they are constantly casting the 'War on Terrorism' as a crusade. Of course, that could just be a lack of understanding on his part, but it certainly means something to the less provincial world.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 23, 2008 07:19 AM |
|
|
For Palin: isn't she down and out anyway? Abuse of power, an unmarried, pregnant 17-year old daughter who is therefore everything Palin is against, a tampered-with Wiki article, a hacked e-mail account, 150.000 bucks for clothing, make-up and hair-stylists, and probably worst of all, less than favorable appearances on TV.
I mean, let's face it, short of someone discovers Obama is paid by Osama the election is pretty much decided.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted October 23, 2008 05:17 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I'll respond later to some of this, but I'd like to say now that I appreciate the change in tone in this most recent post, no claim of lies, atheism or voter suppression... thank you.
I made not one accusation against you. I asked you questiions (which you still do not answer) about certain attitudes and things you claim.
You said person laying hands on Palin had "militant ideas about God." I saw no such thing of militant ideas. So I asked question: "What exactly was militant? He say Christians should not just pray but also vote. Perhaps you are athiest and want Christian hide in closet and have no say in election?"
I do not consider call for Christians to not just pray but to vote to be militant. That is why I ask if you think Christian should not vote.
Quote:
As for the pop-ups and what not, here's what I said as a disclaimer when I posted them, and again with my more recent response (sorry for quoting myself):
That may be but certain videos had lies in pop ups regardless and that is what I make comment on. As well as videos that clip out first part of Palin sentence to make it appear she say what she did not.
Such vidoes quite dishonest and should not be posted as "proof" of any thing.
Conrad: AS I said I saw no evidence of Conrad saying all non-Christian vote for Obama or other things you say he said.
Quote:
Also, be careful when quoting religious books, like the Qu'ran. Sure, it says some ludicrous stuff. But then, so does the Bible
Reason I quote Qu'ran is you say about one preacher "Who is this great leader? How about a few words from this spiritual guide, this moral compass: "Islam is an Anti-Christ religion that intends, through violence to conquer the world."
Since Qu'ran clearly seem to say war against non-Muslims until they convert or pay tributes then it is understandable that preacher say what he did.
Quote:
I will point one thing out though, which may be difficult for some to understand... In Arabic, the word 'jihad' or 'jihadist' also has religious connotations.... you can certainly look it up yourself, but here's one from answers.com
If jihad was only struggle to spiritual improvement of self it would indeed be positive. But others carry out jhad of war on non Muslims that Qu'ran call for.
Quote:
More to the point, whether Bush and co. realize it, they are constantly casting the 'War on Terrorism' as a crusade
US is on crusade against terrorism. US is not on crusade against Islam. US is fighting side by side with some Muslims and US have allies like Saudi Arabia, Kwait and Egypt.
Jolly Joker:
Quote:
For Palin: isn't she down and out anyway? Abuse of power, an unmarried, pregnant 17-year old daughter who is therefore everything Palin is against, a tampered-with Wiki article, a hacked e-mail account, 150.000 bucks for clothing, make-up and hair-stylists, and probably worst of all, less than favorable appearances on TV.
I mean, let's face it, short of someone discovers Obama is paid by Osama the election is pretty much decided.
Palin wanted state trooper who drink alcohol in patrol car, taser his son and threaten Palin's family fired. Yes, that is outrage indeed.
Who can control all their child does? You must not have child if you think child always follow teaching of parent. However, 17 year old is basicly grown, would you not agree? At age 16 one can marry with parental assent. At age 18 marriage may be done without parantal approval in Alaska.
http://law.findlaw.com/state-laws/marriage-age-requirements/alaska/
The young woman at least did not kill baby. She could have killed baby to hide pregnancy. So at least part of parent's moral teaching was remembered.
I do not know what you talking about in wiki article. If you refering to wiki article of her biography being edited before she was announced to be VP choice, of course it would be. Every candidate will emphasize ceertain things about themselves and put less emphasis on certain things.
How is someone hacking Palin's yahoo email account reflect negative on her? You can hardly blame victim of crime for action of criminal.
I notice you not condemn Obama for his excess spending for self and wife as I quoted instances in previous post.
How Palin appear on TV is largely dependant of how you view her already. It must be said that her appearance on Saturday Night Live made for biggest ratings in 14 years. I think she have many admirers. She will likely be a leader in Republican party in years to com even if Obama win.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/oct/20/ustelevision-tvratings
Election is not yet decided contrary to what some would like to say. We we see result on Nov 4.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 23, 2008 06:53 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Jolly Joker:
Quote:
For Palin: isn't she down and out anyway? Abuse of power, an unmarried, pregnant 17-year old daughter who is therefore everything Palin is against, a tampered-with Wiki article, a hacked e-mail account, 150.000 bucks for clothing, make-up and hair-stylists, and probably worst of all, less than favorable appearances on TV.
I mean, let's face it, short of someone discovers Obama is paid by Osama the election is pretty much decided.
Palin wanted state trooper who drink alcohol in patrol car, taser his son and threaten Palin's family fired. Yes, that is outrage indeed.
It seems that you fail to realize what abuse of power means in this case: making use of the opportunities of an office for private purposes while ignoring correct procedures.
Quote:
Who can control all their child does? You must not have child if you think child always follow teaching of parent.
Here the point is, that if she isn't able to make her own child follow her view on certain things like, for example, no sex before marriage, how will she do it for the whole nation?
Quote:
I do not know what you talking about in wiki article. If you refering to wiki article of her biography being edited before she was announced to be VP choice, of course it would be. Every candidate will emphasize ceertain things about themselves and put less emphasis on certain things.
Forging your biography means that you think you have something to hide and that you'd lie about it. I'm not aware that "every candidate" forges their biography. Of course it means, implicitly that she'll lie in office as well, when she think she has something to hide.
Quote:
How is someone hacking Palin's yahoo email account reflect negative on her? You can hardly blame victim of crime for action of criminal.
Please. If you cannot keep your private e-mail account from being hacked, how are you supposed to keep secrets? You don't want the vp of the US to be an open book for the whole world and a security risk.
Quote:
I notice you not condemn Obama for his excess spending for self and wife as I quoted instances in previous post.
You mean the fact he wears a 1500-dollar suit? I don't think that 1500 bucks for a suit is expensive. I don't think that 1500 bucks for a suit for Palin would be expensive neither. However, if Obama had made 100 of those from party money it would be.
Quote:
How Palin appear on TV is largely dependant of how you view her already. It must be said that her appearance on Saturday Night Live made for biggest ratings in 14 years. I think she have many admirers. She will likely be a leader in Republican party in years to com even if Obama win.
Well, that's too bad for them.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted October 23, 2008 07:36 PM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 19:38, 23 Oct 2008.
|
[quoteQuote:
Palin wanted state trooper who drink alcohol in patrol car, taser his son and threaten Palin's family fired. Yes, that is outrage indeed.
It seems that you fail to realize what abuse of power means in this case: making use of the opportunities of an office for private purposes while ignoring correct procedures.
It seem you fail to realize in US there is innocence until proven guilty in court of law. A committee found "abuse of power", not court. Others think what she did was proper. I do not think court would find governor guilty for wanting man who do such things fired. She was governor of state.
Quote:
Here the point is, that if she isn't able to make her own child follow her view on certain things like, for example, no sex before marriage, how will she do it for the whole nation?
So you are saying all parents who have daughters who get pregnant are bad parants. That is quite many bad parents my friend. As I said before, you must not have child or been around children to think that child always follows teachings of parent.
And you have misunderstanding of role of vice president in US. VP cannot make people follow their view on things. Perhaps in your country leader can make people follow their views but it is not so in US. US is democracy where people have much freedom to live as is pleasing to them instead of necessity of pleasing ruler. And VP really have very little power.
Quote:
Forging your biography means that you think you have something to hide and that you'd lie about it. I'm not aware that "every candidate" forges their biography. Of course it means, implicitly that she'll lie in office as well, when she think she has something to hide.
Please show what was forged in Palin biography. What is not factual that was put in biography?
Also do you object to lies Obama has told about his past and do you object that he refuse to present birth certificate to show he is US born and thus eligible to run for president.
Quote:
Please. If you cannot keep your private e-mail account from being hacked, how are you supposed to keep secrets? You don't want the vp of the US to be an open book for the whole world and a security risk.
Yahoo email is not so secure as to be impossible to hack.
You must not knkow that hackers are continual problem. I would not say when burgular break in house or car that owner is incompetent. I would not say when virus infects computer that computer owner is incompetent. Such thought is not based in real world facts.
Now did you know Obama's website got hacked? Obviouly now you must think Obama to be no capable of keep secrets so he should not be president. So now that you know Obama incopetent in security you must support McCain who have not had email or website hacked.
http://cyberinsecure.com/hacked-obama-site-redirects-visitors-to-clintons-site/
Quote:
You mean the fact he wears a 1500-dollar suit? I don't think that 1500 bucks for a suit is expensive. I don't think that 1500 bucks for a suit for Palin would be expensive neither. However, if Obama had made 100 of those from party money it would be.
You seem to ignore Obama's wife also got many dresses. It is nice to condemn those who you have different political view from while excuse those you support for doing same thing.
|
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
|
posted October 23, 2008 08:51 PM |
|
|
Quote:
So you are saying all parents who have daughters who get pregnant are bad parants...
No, that's not the logic behind that phrase. It is more like this: Parents who beat their children should not become teachers..
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
|
|
OmegaDestroyer
Hero of Order
Fox or Chicken?
|
|
posted October 24, 2008 02:25 AM |
|
|
Gotta love campaign season.
____________
The giant has awakened
You drink my blood and drown
Wrath and raving I will not stop
You'll never take me down
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted October 24, 2008 03:09 AM |
|
|
Continue the debate over whether American soldiers kill civilians here:
http://heroescommunity.com/viewthread.php3?TID=27321&pagenumber=10
But back to the candidates:
Quote:
Do not dodge my question. You claimed US started holy war. Palin had no part in declaring war.
No, I didn't.
We were talking about Palin.
Quote:
Palin is Christian so no doubt it would be proper for her to say America fighting terrorist is "mission from God."
How is this any different to Muslim extremists killing westerners as a "mission from God"
Sorry if I was offended by someone saying that their God tells them to kill.
Quote:
And Obama want to be "instrument of God" but you do not object. Very stange.
Obama could be an instrument of cheesecake for all I care, as long as he's not saying that the cheesecake is telling him to kill.
What's so hard to understand about that.
And Palin's abuse of power isn't isolated to one incident.
lol
She hired her friend citing her "childhood love of cows" as a credential for the position of State Division of Agriculture.
This is only one of 5 high-school friends she has hired.
In 1997, Palin fired the city attorney, Richard Deuser, after he issued a stop-work order on a home being built by one of her campaign's supporters.
About the email address: the fact is that Palin conducted state business using two separate email adresses, which is against Alaskan law. This is not really the image of a reputable and honest president.
Also what about when she lied to University of Alaska professor Rick Steiner in his investigation into polar bears that his request would cost $468,784 to process and despite finding that the polar bears are in danger, she announced that the found just the opposite and continued to sue the federal government for putting them on the endangered species list?
And she didn't deny the bridge to nowhere as she now claims, but kept the blank check for 223 million tax payer dollars anyway.
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
nocaplato
Adventuring Hero
Lover of Ancient Philosophy
|
posted October 24, 2008 06:05 AM |
|
|
Quote:
I made not one accusation against you. I asked you questiions (which you still do not answer) about certain attitudes and things you claim.
Really?
Quote:
Perhaps you are athiest and want Christian hide in closet and have no say in election? That would be very intollerant view that you only think non religous person should have vote . You vote as you like and allow religious person to vote as they like.
See, all those 'yous' imply accusations. Oh... I see you're one of those people who only sees, hears and reads exactly what he wants to, hence the difficulty understanding how Quote:
Perhaps you are athiest and want Christian hide in closet and have no say in election?
could be taken as an offensive question. Or perhaps Quote:
That would be very intollerant view that you only think non religous person should have vote.
might somehow be taken as an accusation.
And, by the way, you didn't say, as you claim Quote:
That is why I ask if you think Christian should not vote.
You just claimed I felt that way. There was no question about my thoughts, you claimed it. You see, this sentence is not a question: "you only think non religous person should have vote." See the little dot after the word vote? That's what the Brits call a 'full stop'. American's call it a 'period'. Those happen at the end of declaratives, as in 'to state'.
Hmm... and lies... well, here are your words: Quote:
Your video lie
, Quote:
many other lies
, Quote:
One should not resort to lies to smear someone
, Quote:
should feel shame
, Quote:
constantly misrepresent
perhaps one could forgive me for mistaking your good intentions.
I wish you could have just accepted my mellower tone and actual gratitude. I meant seriously that the post before was rather more interesting and well argued and free of the sorts of ad hominem attacks you were making earlier.
As for the rest, you commented: Quote:
I asked you questiions (which you still do not answer)
and as I said, I didn't feel like going into it exhaustively at that moment. From the evidence of Bush's comments on the 'Crusade' (oh, worried about the liberal twist, eh? So, it would be okay to call it a 'Crusade' if only for that no good, left leaning, liberal media? If only it weren't for those guys, we could have ourselves a downright good hoot-n-anny of a Crusade!) through the exhaustive number of religious leaders whose views of non-christian religions are, at best one dimensional, and at worst racist, I feel it's unnecessary to speak any further about the hatemongering and scare tactics of the religious right. To deny it is simply to deny evidence. Yet there it is, claiming we'll be subject to a terrorist bloodbath isn't somehow a scare tactic if we don't change our policies... yep, that's pretty much what you said.
I also don't care to quibble over whether or not Conrad is a 'leader' or not. He was important enough to give the invocation before McCain's speech, he's certainly no schlep. Besides, alongside Parsely, Hagee, Robertson and Falwell, who cares. How many religious figures giving angry, xenophobic speeches does it take to prove the case? Eight more angry speeches? Twelve?
Like I said, you'd have done better attacking the idea that the religious right was directly involved with the build-up to war than in defending their hate rhetoric or continuing to go off on the Muthee thing when I'd already said I hadn't yet responded.
So, at your urging, I shall parse the second string of footage, the Muthee/Palin stuff, hence at least when you make the claim I haven't proved anything, it'll make more sense.
The first clip begins with a frame up from CNN, and does have some editorializing from the person who posted it. Ignoring them was easy for me, I just listened to it while I was writing something else. About 50 seconds in or so, they show a brief clip of a promotional video put out by the church itself. It's short, but of anything in the first many minutes of the report it's the most over-the-top. It depicts several things, houses crumbling or being destroyed in fire and a slow draw back to show Alaska on the globe, and what appear to be missiles flying around leaving trails of fire and smoke behind them. This image is washed out, then fades back in on an idealic backdrop of mountain lakes and a person in the foreground with upraised arms appearing out of the bright orange light.
CNN goes on to say that the church "teaches that Alaska will be a shelter at the end of the world." To point out that it's not just CNN editorializing, they allow the current serving pastor's words to fade in, echoing the comment almost exactly, "I believe Alaska's one of the refuge states, com'on you guys, in the last days, hundreds of thousands of people are gonna come to the state to seek refuge..." It goes on to much less titilating material, much less out there and balanced (served up by CNN, not the Wasilla Assy of God). Of course, my point in linking the first video is mostly meant to illustrate why Palin is such an energizing figure to the far right. She's onstage at her church as Governor of Alaska, definately one of the 'in crowd' of the religious right. She says toward the end of the video that her son is in Iraq, in a "task from God, that is what we have to make sure we are praying for".
The second piece, which is the one about which you are most concerned is from Muthee where he discusses how there is a mission from God in which people must infiltrate the realms of politics. He discusses how there must be people of God in the education system helping to prevent the opposed belief system of Buddhists or Muhammed. That way there won't be curriculum which teaches 'witchcraft'. In other words, non-Christian faiths are themselves witchcraft. While he never says it's an outright war, it is most certainly a conflict between belief systems where failure to elect a true believer, a "born again Christian", so that sorcerous powers don't gain control over our country. He goes on to pray over Palin that we must have those who will stand against the 'hinderance of the enemy'. 'Make a way now, in the name of Jesus'
Why did I claim this to be militant? Because he casts non-religious beliefs as witchcraft, sorcery and the enemy. He feels that we must 'infiltrate' the ranks of these institutions in order to turn the tide back on a proper path. This is not about the war in Iraq, but about a war within our American institutions, like schools and government. The enemy, to Muthee, is any non-Christian belief system. While he doesn't come out and call them 'Anti-Christ' religions, as Parsely does, he does label them as one or another time of 'black magic'.
One of two things happened in his preperation of this address. He either prepared it in some loose fashion or he spoke extemporaneously. If he prepared it, he actively thinks of non-Christian (and possibly agnostic) systems as the enemy and the institutions in need of infiltration. The words in this case are no accident, but meant to appeal to the conflict as he sees it. On the other hand, if he spoke off the cuff, then he likely views the conflict more passively, perhaps even as a subconscious fear. In either case, there is a conflict between the powers of 'good' and the powers of 'evil'.
He seems, also, to believe that the powers of evil are winning. Why else would he appeal to a tactic of infiltration, a secret crossing of borders into enemy controlled territory in order to defeat or alter the institutions from within or to cause some sort of internal havoc in order to weaken an enemy resistance enough that perhaps some more frontal attack from a main group could be attempted at some opportune time.
Certainly, this conflict might be as simple as the 'Culture Wars' or something equally as mundane. However there is a real appeal toward the 'us v. them' belief of his audience, and Palin is the shining white knight to be christened under his hand in the struggle against witchcraft.
This is my meaning when I call the speech militant. While more muted than Parsely, less firey and angry, the same appeal is there.
The following video, from the Palin-Gibson interview allows Palin to comment on her own comments about the holy war mentioned in the first video. Again the quote, "Pray for our men and women that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending them out on a task that is from God." She claims that she's referring to this quote from Lincoln:
Quote:
"The will of God prevails — In great contests each party claims to act in accordance with the will of God. Both may be, and one must be wrong. God cannot be for, and against the same thing at the same time. In the present civil war it is quite possible that God's purpose is somewhat different from the purpose of either party — and yet the human instrumentalities, working just as they do, are of the best adaptation to effect this".
Here is a brief excerpt of the interview
Palin: Let us not pray that God is on our side, in a war or any other time, but let us pray that we are on God's side.
Gibson: But you went on and said that 'There is a plan, and it's God's plan.'
Palin: I believe that there is a plan for this world, and that that plan for this world is good. I believe that there is great hope and great potential for every country to be able to live and be protected with inalienable rights that I believe are God given Charlie and I belive those rights are life, and liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That in my view is the grand plan.
The question I posed at that point was "Are you buying what she says to Charlie Gibson in this piece after seeing those other two clips?"
The first clip shows the church she attends believes in an end times, implying a nuclear holocaust in its video and Alaska as the refuge of the lower 48 and the Bush calling the war on terror a 'Crusade'. The second clip goes on to imply a war (even if only an internal cultural conflict) between the Christians and everyone else. This is a conflict she believes strongly enough in to come forward and have Muthee pray, and do a laying on of hands before the congregation of her long time church.
Now consider the angry rhetoric of Sen. McCain's multiple pastors and their own anti-christ enemies and jingoistic rhetoric.
Much of this is just a sideshow, I don't honestly think even Palin believes she actually knows the will of God, however I'm pretty sure she believes she's got it right. In fact, I think she believes so hard that she's got it right that the difference is almost negligible. The sort of belief that is capable of ignoring knowledge and scientific evidence. The kind of faith that allows you to come forward after the anti-religious speech of Muthee, the extremist view that any non-Christian isn't just wrong and needs to be saved, a tack most Christian faiths take these days as they mellow in their old age, but that they are actively casting spells through dark magic and sorcerors. I'm sorry, but being a Buddhist does not grant you the ability to commune with spirits and what-not, nor do these faiths even come close to believing it or trying to do them.
It would be one thing if she were just there the one time, came up because everyone was expecting her to. If it were an imaginary situation: Muthee up there saying, "come on down Sarah, come down and let me pray over you." She's thinking, "oh crap, after that (muted) hate speech? Hope there aren't any cameras running in here..." But it's not. She goes back again later and frickin' brags about it! Brought it up again in that final video, saying Muthee was so far for her that he's up there sayin' 'Lord make a way!' not just oh Lord, in your name...' or something, but 'Lord make a way!' She obviously buys into the same hate speech as the rest of the religious right does.
Then there's the whole ultra hard belief that denies science, like the faith required to deny scientific information, the kind of belief that makes it reasonable to believe dinosaurs and people roamed around together only a few thousand years ago. Barney is Biography
************************************************
In the end, does any of this religious discussion actually matter in so far as the cause for war or the origin of the policies that sent us there? No, I don't think it does. However, I do think Palin and the Religious right hair raisingly scary. Unbelievably, nightmarishly scary.
From xenophobic hate speech, to fear mongering appeals to our darker natures, to casting those with different faiths as witches and sorcerors, to the barest notion that Palin might think her version of belief is not just correct, but righteous...
The fear I fear most is the fear they are trying to push on me.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted October 24, 2008 06:11 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Do not dodge my question. You claimed US started holy war. Palin had no part in declaring war.
No, I didn't.
Pardon me for pointing out quote on page 31:
Quote:
But when candidates use religion as a cause for war, "god's mission", then it is starting a holy war, justifying military action against another nation.
Quote:
How is this any different to Muslim extremists killing westerners as a "mission from God"
When I looked up actual quote of Palin it was much different from how it was portrayed.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/02/palins-church-may-have-sh_n_123205.html
Quote:
Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also, for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending [U.S. soldiers] out on a task that is from God," she exhorted the congregants. "That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God's plan.
Palin said to pray that leaders made right decision. That is not at all same as terrorists killing westerners.
In way was war in Iraq war against Islam. Many Muslims are fighting by US soldier side.
Quote:
Sorry if I was offended by someone saying that their God tells them to kill.
She did not say that at all. That statement is quite false.
Quote:
Obama could be an instrument of cheesecake for all I care, as long as he's not saying that the cheesecake is telling him to kill.
What's so hard to understand about that.
What I don't understand is you make false statement that Palin say God told her to kill somebody or to tell soldier to kill somebody because your statemnt is false.
Quote:
This is only one of 5 high-school friends she has hired.
If you think politicians don't hire friend you are not knowing much of politics. Look at appointments of any president or governor and you will find many friends appointed. If Obama elected he probably appoint "Reverend" Wright as Secretary of State and Ayers as head of Department of Justice. HA! 
Quote:
In 1997, Palin fired the city attorney, Richard Deuser, after he issued a stop-work order on a home being built by one of her campaign's supporters.
False statement. As mayor she had not power to fire him. City council fired him. He evidently would not give straight answer to questions.
http://www.tnr.com/story_print.html?id=8c130fe3-adab-4cb3-8443-c363f085cf13
Quote:
Palin also persuaded allies on the city council to can Dick Deuser, the city attorney. "She wanted yes-or-no answers ... and he would give her more sophisticated answers," recalls Anne Kilkenny, the local gadfly and author of an anti-Palin e-mail that became nearly ubiquitous after Palin joined the GOP ticket. "She hated it. ... She'd get very irritated, really irritated."
Quote:
About the email address: the fact is that Palin conducted state business using two separate email adresses, which is against Alaskan law. This is not really the image of a reputable and honest president.
I think there is dispute as to whether it was against law. Law have not been updated to deal with emails and such. It is very likely most governors use private email and text messaging in theses times.
About polar bears, Palin opposed protection of polar bears because ""Listing the polar bear as a threatened species [under the Endangered Species Act] will have a significant adverse impact on Alaska because. . . [it] will deter activities such as commercial fisheries, oil and gas exploration and development, transportation, and tourism,"
I do not think Palin lied. She believed report of differnt scientist from Rick Steiner who is environmentalist with axe to grind.
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted October 24, 2008 06:52 AM |
|
|
|
OmegaDestroyer
Hero of Order
Fox or Chicken?
|
|
posted October 24, 2008 07:30 AM |
|
|
Find me an honest politican and I'll call you a liar.
____________
The giant has awakened
You drink my blood and drown
Wrath and raving I will not stop
You'll never take me down
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted October 24, 2008 07:34 AM |
|
|
Quote:
See, all those 'yous' imply accusations. Oh... I see you're one of those people who only sees, hears and reads exactly what he wants to, hence the difficulty understanding how
No, your accusation that I "sees, hears and reads exactly what he wants to, hence the difficulty understanding how" is false. I ASKED question after you made false claim about preacher saying "militant" things.
Here is exactly what I said:
Quote:
I sam (saw) no "Muthee's militant ideas about God." What exactly was militant? He say Christians should not just pray but also vote. Perhaps you are athiest and want Christian hide in closet and have no say in election? That would be very intollerant view that you only think non religous person should have vote. You vote as you like and allow religious person to vote as they like.
Quote:
You just claimed I felt that way. There was no question about my thoughts, you claimed it. You see, this sentence is not a question: "you only think non religous person should have vote."
Perhaps you notice word "perhaps" and question mark in previous sentence? In following sentence I was say that if you belive that Christian shoul not vote that is intollerant belief. Clearly from context of paragraph that was intent of sentence.
Quote:
perhaps one could forgive me for mistaking your good intentions.
Perhaps you could take context of "lies." I stated that about videos that you presented for "proof." Videos were filled with lies mainly in pop up texts as I say previously.
Quote:
So, it would be okay to call it a 'Crusade' if only for that no good, left leaning, liberal media?
Yes, it would be proper to call it crusade on terrorism. But it is not crusade on Islam. US soldiers fight side by side with Iraqi soldier so it cannot be crusade against Islam or Iraq.
Quote:
If only it weren't for those guys, we could have ourselves a downright good hoot-n-anny of a Crusade!)
That is huge misrepresentation of my statement.
Quote:
I feel it's unnecessary to speak any further about the hatemongering and scare tactics of the religious right. To deny it is simply to deny evidence.
Sorry, you present no evidence US started holy war.
Quote:
Yet there it is, claiming we'll be subject to a terrorist bloodbath isn't somehow a scare tactic if we don't change our policies... yep, that's pretty much what you said.
No, you misrepresent statement of pastor. Please read my previous response.
Quote:
Besides, alongside Parsely, Hagee, Robertson and Falwell, who cares. How many religious figures giving angry, xenophobic speeches does it take to prove the case?
They did not give angry xenophobic speeches.
Quote:
Like I said, you'd have done better attacking the idea that the religious right was directly involved with the build-up to war than in defending their hate rhetoric or continuing to go off on the Muthee thing when I'd already said I hadn't yet responded.
The only hate rhetoric is yours against "religous right." You seem to be intollerant of any deviation from your view of religion.
You video claimed Palin's chruch "openly want a world war to end all wars" which is a lie. One of the many lies told in video. CNN also misquoted Palin on "mission from God" statement. She said to pray that leaders made correct decision.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/02/palins-church-may-have-sh_n_123205.html
Quote:
Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also, for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending [U.S. soldiers] out on a task that is from God," she exhorted the congregants. "That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God's plan.
Quote:
Why did I claim this to be militant? Because he casts non-religious beliefs as witchcraft, sorcery and the enemy. He feels that we must 'infiltrate' the ranks of these institutions in order to turn the tide back on a proper path.
I listen to his speech again.
You must be unfamiliar with Pentecostal beliefs. He was not saying non believers are enemy. Enemy is devil. Of course he think Christianity is right or he would not be Christian. It is hardly militant to say other belief is false.
He at no time said there was war between Christian and non Christian. War of Christian is with devil. I heard no such implication of war with nonbeliever.
He say "problem is we just pray and do nothing about it." Yes, he say Christian shoul be active in politics and education and government. What is wrong with that? Nothing militant about that. And why you say Christian being active in education is "infiltrateing" institutions as if they have no right to participate?
Quote:
This is not about the war in Iraq, but about a war within our American institutions, like schools and government. The enemy, to Muthee, is any non-Christian belief system
If you mean there is competing beliefs, yes there are. Christians promote Christian principle. Athiest promote athiest principle. Hindu promote Hindu principles. But he did not refer to any non believer as enemy.
Quote:
While he doesn't come out and call them 'Anti-Christ' religions, as Parsely does, he does label them as one or another time of 'black magic'.
No, "black magic" is not uttered one time in video. What he say was if Christians active then there will be no Buddist, Muslim, witchcraft or sorcery taught in school and ten commandments would still be taught in school.
Quote:
If he prepared it, he actively thinks of non-Christian (and possibly agnostic) systems as the enemy and the institutions in need of infiltration
No, not one time did he say non Christian is enemy and he never say "infiltrate." Christian being active in politics, government, and education is not "infiltration." Christian have right to voice in community also. Pentecostals think of devil as enemy, not unbelievers.
Quote:
The words in this case are no accident, but meant to appeal to the conflict as he sees it.
What words? He sees conflict of beliefs. He never say "infiltrate." He never say nonbeliever is enemy.
Quote:
In either case, there is a conflict between the powers of 'good' and the powers of 'evil'.
Yes, most religion see a conflict of good and evil.
Quote:
He seems, also, to believe that the powers of evil are winning. Why else would he appeal to a tactic of infiltration, a secret crossing of borders into enemy controlled territory in order to defeat or alter the institutions from within or to cause some sort of internal havoc in order to weaken an enemy resistance enough that perhaps some more frontal attack from a main group could be attempted at some opportune time.
He never said infiltrate. He say believers must not just pray but be active in politics, government, and education. That is no infiltration. Believers have right to have voice too.
Quote:
Certainly, this conflict might be as simple as the 'Culture Wars' or something equally as mundane
.
Yes, that it what he say. "War" of beliefs. Christians have right to have say in society too.
Quote:
She claims that she's referring to this quote from Lincoln:
Yes, that is what she is refering to. She said basicly pray that leaders made decision, that is will of God.
Quote:
Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also, for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending [U.S. soldiers] out on a task that is from God," she exhorted the congregants. "That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God's plan.
Quote:
The second clip goes on to imply a war (even if only an internal cultural conflict) between the Christians and everyone else.
No, there is not a single Christian preacher who will say Chritians are waring with all nonbelievers. He did not call for war but for Christains to not just pray but to be active in politics, government, and education.
Quote:
Now consider the angry rhetoric of Sen. McCain's multiple pastors and their own anti-christ enemies and jingoistic
McCain have no pastors in video you present. Who you refer to? A pasor is preacher at certain church you attend.
I saw no "angry pastors" at all much less pastor who was pastor of McCain. And I heard no "jingoistic" (extreme patriotism in the form of aggressive foreign policy)words either.
I looked up pastor of McCain with google. He is Dan Yeary.
http://www.christiantoday.com/article/mccains.pastor.a.sharp.contrast.to.obamas/17481.htm
He seem to be very differnt from Obama's racist hate filled anti Jew, anti-white, anti-American pastor of 20 years, Jeremiah Wright.
Quote:
The sort of belief that is capable of ignoring knowledge and scientific evidence.
That is prejudiced statement.
Quote:
The kind of faith that allows you to come forward after the anti-religious speech of Muthee, the extremist view that any non-Christian isn't just wrong and needs to be saved, a tack most Christian faiths take these days as they mellow in their old age, but that they are actively casting spells through dark magic and sorcerors.
Only anti-religious sppech is yours. And you make false statement that they say any non-believer are actrively casting spells through dark magic and sorcerers.
Quote:
She obviously buys into the same hate speech as the rest of the religious right does.
Yours is the only hate speech I have heard.
Quote:
Then there's the whole ultra hard belief that denies science, like the faith required to deny scientific information, the kind of belief that makes it reasonable to believe dinosaurs and people roamed around together only a few thousand years ago.
Furthur hate speech from you.
Quote:
From xenophobic hate speech, to fear mongering appeals to our darker natures, to casting those with different faiths as witches and sorcerors, to the barest notion that Palin might think her version of belief is not just correct, but righteous...
You continue to misrepresent and say what was not said.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 24, 2008 08:56 AM |
|
|
Okay, for order, here's a reference for the wiki entry about palin. This is an article from the New York Times, by the way:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/01/technology/01link.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&ref=politics
Now, in general, it's always the same interesting phenomenon to see that as soon as you try to let the extreme religious right look into a mirror they cry "Hate! Bash! Foul!"
The constitution grants everyone the right to follow their own religion if it's in keeping with the law which makes it abundantly clear that religion is something PRIVATE! You can pray to your dead grand-grand-grand-ma, if you keep it private - and if you don't start a campaign claiming that your dead grand-grand-grand-ma wants you to go and kill all people who pray to their dead grand-grand-grand-pa.
In terms of THE STATE, it doesn't matter whether you claim "god" or your dead grand-grand-grand-ma to to believe in - the only important thing is that you keep to the law and do your job. If you don't, you suck and are unfit for it. What we don't want is politicians claiming to act with, for or in the interest of ANY god, no matter which one - because they are supposed to act with, for and in the interet of the PEOPLE who voted them and who pay them their money - and the latter is quite obviously exactly what they are doing.
Quite frankly, I deeply distrust politicians who have god on their lips - the best you can say about them is, that they are in the wrong job and should have become preacher. A lot more likely is, though, that they are just trying to fool someone: Jesus and anyone with the faintest similarity would never make it to the top of any political party.
|
|
nocaplato
Adventuring Hero
Lover of Ancient Philosophy
|
|
posted October 24, 2008 10:27 AM |
|
|
I'm tempted to give a fiery response back, but maybe another tack is better...
Quote:
Perhaps you notice word "perhaps" and question mark in previous sentence? In following sentence I was say that if you belive that Christian shoul not vote that is intollerant belief. Clearly from context of paragraph that was intent of sentence.
You've heard of rhetorical questions I assume? You used one. It presupposes your point. Don't hide behind it, pretending to not accuse me of something which is obvious from your question. Throwing a 'perhaps' on something doesn't make it less an accusation.
Quote:
Videos were filled with lies mainly in pop up texts as I say previously.
Really? you're still talking about this? Good gracious, I honestly have no idea what those stupid pop-ups say. Get over them, listen to what's being said. No wonder you can't hear any anti-religious sentiment in the speeches. You're too freaked out by some jaggoff's pop up comment.
Quote:
Yes, it would be proper to call it crusade on terrorism. But it is not crusade on Islam. US soldiers fight side by side with Iraqi soldier so it cannot be crusade against Islam or Iraq.
Really? not a war against Islam? You mean you've never heard the words Islamic Fundamentalist? What about the word 'jihadist' I mentioned before and you even responded to? So you're saying we have a bunch of Irish Catholics locked up in Gitmo? We have some Russian seperatists in their too, right? They're terrorists, aren't they? Oh, wait, we've got a space reserved for Bill Ayers and G. Gordon Liddy, while we're at it. Oh... wait, no, we only have a bunch of Muslims. My bad.
$h!t man, get a clue.
Quote:
Quote:
If only it weren't for those guys, we could have ourselves a downright good hoot-n-anny of a Crusade!)
That is huge misrepresentation of my statement.
Oh.
Quote:
Quote:
I feel it's unnecessary to speak any further about the hatemongering and scare tactics of the religious right. To deny it is simply to deny evidence.
Sorry, you present no evidence US started holy war.
Don't really want to or need to. The Crusade idea isn't an appeal to all of the US at all, it's code for the Religious Right. Read the end of my last post. What scares me is the hate and fear being preached.
Quote:
Quote:
Yet there it is, claiming we'll be subject to a terrorist bloodbath isn't somehow a scare tactic if we don't change our policies... yep, that's pretty much what you said.
No, you misrepresent statement of pastor. Please read my previous response.
What's your point? Do you have some refutation of my analysis? Bloodbath isn't a scary word to you? You're saying Hagee didn't claim it was the fault of US policies he didn't like? He's not saying do it this way or terrorists will get you? Why? Because it talks about splitting Israel in the Bible that makes it not hate speech? Are you telling me the word terrorist is in that same chapter and verse (or anywhere in the good book, for that matter?)
A lack of response is not an argument.
Quote:
Quote:
Besides, alongside Parsely, Hagee, Robertson and Falwell, who cares. How many religious figures giving angry, xenophobic speeches does it take to prove the case?
They did not give angry xenophobic speeches...
Holy crap, you didn't actually just say that did you? Do you need a transcript? Sheesh, you even lumped Parsely in there, someone you were just selling up the river a page ago as not speaking on behalf of the Christian faith. I'm sorry, but you're being ridiculous.
Quote:
Quote:
Like I said, you'd have done better attacking the idea that the religious right was directly involved with the build-up to war than in defending their hate rhetoric or continuing to go off on the Muthee thing when I'd already said I hadn't yet responded.
The only hate rhetoric is yours against "religous right." You seem to be intollerant of any deviation from your view of religion.
Now here is an irony.
Perhaps you noticed the group of preachers and revs from the right who actually delivered hate speech. Perhaps you noticed the concept of Islam as an Anti-Christ Religion. Perhaps you noticed the combination of Buddhist in the same sentence as witchcraft. Perhaps you noticed the suggestion that not following Hagee's advice on Israel would be a bloodbath. Perhaps Falwell wasn't happy that Jesus had won in Iraq. Perhaps Conrad wasn't suggesting a conflict between Christians and other religions. Perhaps Robertson wasn't dramatically oversimplifying a religion into 'War or Subjugation'. Perhaps you didn't notice the lumping of almost all Muslims into a single mass group by claiming all of them are 'extremists' feeding on the very heart of Islam?
Oh, the irony! I'm guilty of hate speech because these guys are intolerant? Perhaps you're misinterpreting my comments as hate speech, because I'm pointing out the actual hate speech of these gentlemen of learning?
See, my belief is that it doesn't matter what your personal religious beliefs are. If you're a good person, you do your best, you're honest and basically strive toward personal improvement, it doesn't matter one good gods damned which god you worship (or don't, for that matter). So long as they don't try to force anything on my personal views or rile up hatred against other groups.
Problem with all those speeches and fiery rhetoric is that they do give a good G@D D@mn. Too many of those 'gentlemen scholars' think you can't be Buddhist, you can't be Hindu, don't even mention atheists, you might be able to make it if you're Jewish, (if you take Jesus as yor personal savior) and don't get me started on the terrori... er... Muslims. Oh, and as for my own Catholic beliefs, why don't you take a look at Hagee there. I always enjoyed having it called the great snow, especially because the Virgin Mary is so important to us.
Paint it up any color you want, accuse me of whatever you'd like. The videos, their words, speak for themselves.
Quote:
You video claimed Palin's chruch "openly want a world war to end all wars" which is a lie. One of the many lies told in video. CNN also misquoted Palin on "mission from God" statement. She said to pray that leaders made correct decision.
What video are you talking about? The one from CNN? The Wasilla Assy. of God's promotional video? Or are you still freaking out about the pop-ups, which I keep discrediting? If it's the last one, just play it, then open a new tab and do something else while you listen. That way you can get past it. That's what I did.
About Muthee... I don't want to have to listen to this again, but here I go...
"When we talk... we are talking about God invading seven areas in our society..." seconds 13-22.... "It's when we see God's kingdom infiltrate, influence, seven areas in our society" seconds 33-42... "We need God taking over our educational system, if we had that, we would not have kids being taught how to worship Buddha, how to worship Muhammed, we would not have, in their curriculum witch-craft and sorcery"... 2:31 through 2:52... "Oh Father, you sir to turn this nation the other way 'round...so that the curse that has been here (lord?) can be broken..." 5:00 through 5:22.... And he does preach next about the hinderance of the enemy, and I take it on faith you're right, 'The Enemy' is Satan, as it makes sense. That occurs in the next few seconds after the line about the breaking of the curse on our nation.
Quote:
Why you say Christian being active in education is "infiltrateing" institutions as if they have no right to participate?
I didn't say it, Muthee did. Seconds 33-42. What's more unnerving to me is that he implies our school systems are teaching Buddhism, Islam, Witch-craft and Sorcery. As though Christianity wasn't already deeply rooted in our schools in the first place, and again, naming those religions in the same sentence as witch-craft and sorcery is to equate them.
Quote:
If you mean there is competing beliefs, yes there are. Christians promote Christian principle. Athiest promote athiest principle. Hindu promote Hindu principles. But he did not refer to any non believer as enemy.
Not just that there are competing beliefs, his speech implies that Christianity has been excluded in favor of these other pagan or heathen belief systems. And what the heck is wrong with promoting the principles of education, the principles of humanity and the principles of responsible citizenship? Why is school supposed to be the place where we advocate these things? In fact, that's the damned worst idea I've ever heard. Religious beliefs should NOT be infiltrating our school system at all. None of them.
Quote:
No, "black magic" is not uttered one time in video. What he say was if Christians active then there will be no Buddist, Muslim, witchcraft or sorcery taught in school and ten commandments would still be taught in school.
So, you're saying that witchcraft and sorcery are being taught in school? By the way, you strike me as a Christian. You're telling me that magic and witch-craft aren't black magic? And yet by your own quote you claim it's being taught in school? Good lord you need to take your kids out of whatever creepy school you've got 'em in buddy.
Quote:
If he prepared it, he actively thinks of non-Christian (and possibly agnostic) systems as the enemy and the institutions in need of infiltration
Quote:
No, not one time did he say non Christian is enemy and he never say "infiltrate."
Um... wrong as usual King Friday. He says "Buddhism and Muslim" in the same sentence as "Sorcery and Withcraft". Maybe you don't think of them Buddhism as non-Christian, but most do, and equating the with black magic (i.e. witch-craft and sorcery) is tantamount to calling them the enemy. And, in point of fact, he does say infiltrate. You do have ears, right? They work and everything? These aren't my words. They're his!
Quote:
What words? He sees conflict of beliefs. He never say "infiltrate." He never say nonbeliever is enemy.
Wait, please, say it one more time for the hat-trick.
Quote:
Yes, most religion see a conflict of good and evil.
You mean like Buddhism, Taosim or Confuscianism? You mean like Hinduism? Or are you only speaking of Judeo-Christian belief system?
Quote:
He never said infiltrate.
Oh my God, you win!!! You said it three times!!!
Quote:
Yes, that it what he say. "War" of beliefs. Christians have right to have say in society too.
Oh, poor Christians, never get to have any say in society. Like, the Deist founding fathers, or the pledge of allegience, or the posting of the ten commandments, or the very fabric of the puritanical belief system, the city on a hill, or manifest destiny, or... holy crap whatever bridge you're trying to sell, I think it's already been purchased.
Okay, I'm kind of bored with the rest of it, more accusations that I'm spewing hatred, yada, yada, yada, and yet you haven't even bothered to listen to the things these people are saying in their own words (note the word infiltrate... which, ironically enough was even editorialized in by those pop-ups you were so fixated on before. How could you have missed it?)
Come on man, bring your 'A' game!
|
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
|
posted October 24, 2008 12:27 PM |
|
|
I'm not sure all posts will stay here if discussion goes on like this....
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
