I didn't read it, and it looks like another overly religious thread, so I'll just leave you all with this:

Quoted: Quoted: Any who, if I understand the article correctly, the writer is assuming that the heathen westerner and the crazy Islamic fanatic are going to square off, both will loose and Christianity will raise from the ashes and we will go back to living like it is 1840 and we will have laws on the books making "morality" the law of the land, creating a theocracy?  Well if I have to choose between Islamic law and Christian law, I would choose Christian law, but this atheist would prefer to live his life as he sees fit. That is strange. In 1840 we didn't have a 'theocracy' here in the United States, nor did we have one at any period in our history, nor, quite frankly, anything remotely resembling a theocracy. Thanks for your choice, I suppose, of preferring to live under Christian law than Islamic law. That's pretty much what America has been doing since its Beginning as a Nation. Eric The(AmericanExceptionalist)Hun

Sorry didn't write my post very well.  My statement about living in 1840 was in reference to the SHTF when we run out of oil and are back to horse and buggy days, I didn't mean to imply that the 1840's were an era of theocracy.

Quoted: That is far to literate for many on this site.

That sounds like the way I talk when I have been drinking.  

Good read. Thanks EtH.

"Have you ever found in history, one single example of a Nation thoroughly corrupted that was afterwards restored to virtue?... And without virtue, there can be no political liberty....Will you tell me how to prevent luxury from producing effeminacy, intoxication, extravagance, vice and folly?"
~ John Adams (in a letter to Thomas Jefferson)

Quoted: Quoted: That is far to literate for many on this site. The irony here just kills me.....

The guardian speaks....I've missed that dry wit.  How you doing boy?

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Cliff notes anyone? We have three choices: 'If it feels good, do it.' 'as-Salamu- 'Alaikum' 'When in the Course of Human Events.....' Jeebus would never allow a species to go extinct from His Creation!  You are a sinner and will BURN in HELLFIRE for ALL ETERNITY unless you CONFESS!  Be HEALED!  The Sun obviously revolves around the Earth, since God put His Creation at the center of the universe!... Eric The(IThinkThisIsWhereWeCameIn)Hun Fixed it for you. Tell you what, Sonny Boy, you don't mock Jesus and you won't have to put up with me mocking the crap outta' Mohammad. Think the Danish cartoons were in poor taste? You ain't seen shiite. By the way, you will never see me failing to address Mohammad by his proper name, nor do I ever fail to capitalize the 'I' in Islam. Next time you see a grainy video of some of my co-religionists about to slice the thoat of a noncombatant, you can call Christians whatever you wish....and we will have to suffer such jeers. How about yours? Eric The(InternationalIntifadahIsTheOnlyGameInIslamdom)Hun

You know what, Erik, for someone who claims to have a brain, you really don't seem to be able to comprehend the possibility that (a) just because someone has a board name ending in "Achmed" does not make him Arab, or Muslim for that matter, and (b) that "shiite" is not the correct spelling of "shit".

You've been acting like a jackass about that for years now.  I just thought I'd mention that to explain that I dislike your bigotry just as much as I dislike the KKK's, the JDL's, and al Qaeda's.  Oh well.  As they say, assholes always advertise, and I'm glad that you are so consistent at doing so.

Quoted: Quoted: Good read (took all of 5 minutes) why some need cliff notes is beyond me.  Any who, if I understand the article correctly, the writer is assuming that the heathen westerner and the crazy Islamic fanatic are going to square off, both will loose and Christianity will raise from the ashes and we will go back to living like it is 1840 and we will have laws on the books making "morality" the law of the land, creating a theocracy?  Well if I have to choose between Islamic law and Christian law, I would choose Christian law, but this atheist would prefer to live his life as he sees fit. That's the point: America was founded by a LOT of Christian fundamentalists....and promptly created the 1st ammendment and were the most outspoken watchdogs about religion and government. Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists (which is twisted to unnatural extremes by certain modern parties...) was to assure them that no national denomination was going to be established in the US as it was in England. They said: "Our sentiments are uniformly on the side of religious liberty--that religion is at all times and places a matter  between God and individuals--that no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious opinions--that the legitimate power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbors;" Fundamentalists Christians like myself are no more inclined to create a theocracy than the fundamentalist Christians around in the 1770s were. It just isn't something we want.

Nah, you just want to ban abortion and physician-assisted suicide, force families to leave their braindead wives and daughters on life support for decades just in case God decides to throw out a miracle, ensure that your religious teachings are forced into public life and daily school rituals, and generally Lord it over everyone else.

Read the news out of South Dakota lately?  That's gonna go great for the 2006 elections.  I bet it's going to blow at least five seats for the Republicans, and I have very little doubt that the SCOTUS will throw out the law because, while Roe v. Wade was a bad decision and routine abortion is a horrible immoral act, the only people who don't believe that rape victims should be allowed an abortion -- which is prohibited under SD's new law -- are the absolute religious fanatics.  Congratulations.

Did you enjoy it when Jeb Bush pushed for re-investigating Michael Schiavo "just in case" he hadn't called the ambulance for two hours after Terri collapsed (fifteen years ago) -- as if she would have lived if the poor guy had waited?  Oh, but he was just pandering to the Christians who were making life miserable for everyone else in that nursing home.

You know, I utterly despise "Baghdad Jim" McDermott, but the day he led the Pledge of Allegiance in Congress and failed to put in the "under God", I damn near sent him a thank-you note.  All of the talk-radio Christian-right hypocrites like John Carlson, who insisted a few months before that anyone who wanted to omit the words was within his rights but that they shouldn't be forcibly removed by the 9th Circuit Court's "separation of church and state" ruling, came out and attacked McDermott for daring to sully the Pledge when he omitted them.  All he did was EXACTLY what all these hypocrites said was just fine and dandy a few months before, which didn't stop them from attacking him in the slightest when he took them at their words.

And on and on and on.

But whatever.  Enjoy pushing your agenda to its limits;  you will lose in the long run.

Quoted: I didn't read it, and it looks like another overly religious thread, so I'll just leave you all with this:

Morality is actually a seperate topic than religion. Just ask Mr. Washington

|
|
|
|
|
V

Quoted: Nah, you just want to ban abortion and physician-assisted suicide, force families to leave their braindead wives and daughters on life support for decades just in case God decides to throw out a miracle, ensure that your religious teachings are forced into public life and daily school rituals, and generally Lord it over everyone else.

You been drinking the bong water, son??

Read the news out of South Dakota lately?  That's gonna go great for the 2006 elections.  I bet it's going to blow at least five seats for the Republicans, and I have very little doubt that the SCOTUS will throw out the law because, while Roe v. Wade was a bad decision and routine abortion is a horrible immoral act, the only people who don't believe that rape victims should be allowed an abortion -- which is prohibited under SD's new law -- are the absolute religious fanatics.  Congratulations. Did you enjoy it when Jeb Bush pushed for re-investigating Michael Schiavo "just in case" he hadn't called the ambulance for two hours after Terri collapsed (fifteen years ago) -- as if she would have lived if the poor guy had waited?  Oh, but he was just pandering to the Christians who were making life miserable for everyone else in that nursing home. You know, I utterly despise "Baghdad Jim" McDermott, but the day he led the Pledge of Allegiance in Congress and failed to put in the "under God", I damn near sent him a thank-you note.  All of the talk-radio Christian-right hypocrites like John Carlson, who insisted a few months before that anyone who wanted to omit the words was within his rights but that they shouldn't be forcibly removed by the 9th Circuit Court's "separation of church and state" ruling, came out and attacked McDermott for daring to sully the Pledge when he omitted them.  All he did was EXACTLY what all these hypocrites said was just fine and dandy a few months before, which didn't stop them from attacking him in the slightest when he took them at their words. And on and on and on. But whatever.  Enjoy pushing your agenda to its limits;  you will lose in the long run.

Mercy.

Do you feel better now??

.

Quoted: You been drinking the bong water, son??

Nope, you drunk the Kool-aid yet?

Quoted: Mercy. Do you feel better now??

Nah.

You know what's truly sad in all this is that you religious zealots just don't seem to get why a lot of people think YOU are more of a threat than al Qaeda.  Keep on pushing and dividing, go on and distract us from Iraq.  When Hillary takes the center and wins in 2008, all thanks to South Dakota's religious-wacko abortion ban, just remember that I warned you about it first.

BTW, Eric, I thought I'd add:  although I wasn't aware that atheists were running around cutting people's heads off, I have come to the realization that you were probably referring to my religious upbringing (what little I got, anyway) by my grandparents, who were Southern Baptist.  I find this rather discouraging, since I thought that Protestants were all pretty tolerant of each other's various groupings, but no doubt when whatever demonination or abomination or denomination you belong to takes over, you'll edumacate us on the doctrinal differences.

You know, if you post something which can be summarized as saying "atheists and freethinkers and homosexuals and feminists are going to destroy the country unless we proper God-fearing Christians retake the country and lead it properly!", you really should expect us atheists and freethinkers, not to mention any homosexuals and feminists who might be around, to take offense.

Quoted: Cliff note: We must regain our morals, our faith, and tell the 'heathen hordes' to FOAD. ANdy

The heathen hordes BOTH within and without.

intresting read i have not thought about A Brave New World in years
I should go reread it
after a hit of Soma and a game of centrifugal bumblepuppy
I can't believe i remember that much about that book  14 years later

Quoted: Quoted: Cliff note: We must regain our morals, our faith, and tell the 'heathen hordes' to FOAD. ANdy The heathen hordes BOTH within and without.

+1

Quoted: Quoted: You been drinking the bong water, son?? Nope, you drunk the Kool-aid yet? Quoted: Mercy. Do you feel better now?? <SNIP> You know, if you post something which can be summarized as saying "atheists and freethinkers and homosexuals and feminists are going to destroy the country unless we proper God-fearing Christians retake the country and lead it properly!", you really should expect us atheists and freethinkers, not to mention any homosexuals and feminists who might be around, to take offense.

So it would seem that, to keep atheists et al safe from the 'religious wackos', you are advocating the removal of faith, belief,religion etc. from the public square. Is that correct?

I was of the understanding that, in a representitive republic that the citizens of said republic had the right to voice, vote, run and campaign on those issues and beliefs that they chose. Given that Christians, when they do anything political, do just that, I fail to see how anyone could possibly consider us "more of a threat than al Qaeda". One group follows the laws and norms of a democratic society, whilst the other flies aircraft into buildings and indiscriminatly murders their own people. How are the two groups equivilent?

Given that the faith of a believer is at the core of their political and social outlook, opposing the expression of religious belief, including those beliefs on how society is to be governed, in the public square effectivly disenfranchises the Christian. How then are the secularists (of which you appear to be one) any different from the Taliban, who outlawed all expression of contrary belief and opinion? Does that not make the secualrist more intollerent of those whom they attack, given that few if any Christians would seek to remove non-relious belief from the public square? I ask because you appear to be demanding tollerence of "atheists and freethinkers and homosexuals and feminists", yet are utterly intollerent of the public expression of Christian belief, especially with regards to the role that a person's Christianity plays in their civic life. How is this consistant?

Quoted: So it would seem that, to keep atheists et al safe from the 'religious wackos', you are advocating the removal of faith, belief,religion etc. from the public square. Is that correct? I was of the understanding that, in a representitive republic that the citizens of said republic had the right to voice, vote, run and campaign on those issues and beliefs that they chose. Given that Christians, when they do anything political, do just that, I fail to see how anyone could possibly consider us "more of a threat than al Qaeda". One group follows the laws and norms of a democratic society, whilst the other flies aircraft into buildings and indiscriminatly murders their own people. How are the two groups equivilent? Given that the faith of a believer is at the core of their political and social outlook, opposing the expression of religious belief, including those beliefs on how society is to be governed, in the public square effectivly disenfranchises the Christian. How then are the secularists (of which you appear to be one) any different from the Taliban, who outlawed all expression of contrary belief and opinion? Does that not make the secualrist more intollerent of those whom they attack, given that few if any Christians would seek to remove non-relious belief from the public square? I ask because you appear to be demanding tollerence of "atheists and freethinkers and homosexuals and feminists", yet are utterly intollerent of the public expression of Christian belief, especially with regards to the role that a person's Christianity plays in their civic life. How is this consistant?

Ok I know you directed the question to 71-Hour_Achmed...but allow me to jump in.

I'm not going to try to speak for everybody, but I can speak as both a homosexual and a atheist. I [and most the LGBT I know] don't have a problem with Christians [in general] or their beliefs. Its when they try to make us conform to their religious beliefs that we have a problem.....Now every group has their "nut jobs" like some of the "gay activists" and of course...ol Fred Phelps. But I don't beleive that Phelps speaks for the majority of Christians...and beleive me I don't go for some of the crap that comes out from some of the freaks on "my" side.

Quoted: Quoted: Ok I know you directed the question to 71-Hour_Achmed...but allow me to jump in. I'm not going to try to speak for everybody, but I can speak as both a homosexual and a atheist. I [and most the LGBT I know] don't have a problem with Christians [in general] or their beliefs. Its when they try to make us conform to their religious beliefs that we have a problem.....Now every group has their "nut jobs" like some of the "gay activists" and of course...ol Fred Phelps. But I don't beleive that Phelps speaks for the majority of Christians...and beleive me I don't go for some of the crap that comes out from some of the freaks on "my" side.

Good response, thanks.

Fair enough, I understand what you're saying. What happens then when firmly held beliefs on both sides are incompatible? For example, (to pick a random issue) on homosexual adoption? I would assume (ass-u-me) that most Christians would oppose this as they see such a practise as detrimental to a non-consenting individual, aka the child. In a civic system where speech and political action are free, I would envisage that both sides would protest, campaign, run for office, etc for their various sides, and when the matter came before the legislature, then the will of the citizenry would prevail, and the "loosing" side would accept the verdict, and continue campaigning on the issue until either they "won", changed their minds or gave up. So much for the theory.

In practise, what we have is a situation where the "non-Christian" side of the debate attacks the "Christian" side on the basis that their position is "just" a religious belief, and therefore has no place in the public square. In practise, our religious beliefs are at the core of our worldview, and so do belong in the public square along side LGBT, or liberal, or libertairian beliefs. It is this attempt to marginalise opposition on the basis of religion that smacks of the very intollerence and discrimination that Christian are accused of.

The way I see it, the secularism of our society is attempting to be just as theocratic as a fundamentalist state. It demands adherence to its belief system to the exculsion of all else, and so is precisly the oposite of the tollerent worldview that it claims to be.

My solution, such as it is, is to actually allow the political process work the way its supposed to. There will be winners and loosers, but that's life. You don't know how fortunate that you are that you have a constitution that defines the rules of the game, and provides a mechanism to change those rules with the consent of the people. It is in everyone's best interests to play the game by the rules, rather than attempt to marginalise them on the basis of belief.

I agree that there are wackos in every group, and they do a great disservice to the civility of a debate. I don't know who Fred Phelps is, but I get the picture.

Just my .177 cents

Let me through a little personal story in on this issue...

Recently JT and I where asked to attend a funeral of the mother of a close friend....The friend's mother had suffered a long term illness [MS] and finally passed. Anyway we were honored to be there to support our friend...but there was one little "catch" the funeral was at the local Baptist church and our friend is not only a lesbian but had been kicked out of the same church over it. So the outlook was less then sunny...but she is going.. so we where going and let the card fall as they may. Well the service went as well as it could...and I thought the minster did a great job of helping Beth as best he could all things concerted. And there was no problem over the homosexualtiy issue...at all.


Now later we had a "wake" for Beth at the local lesbian club....... and overheard some of Beth's friend's bitching about Baptists and why they would never go to anything that was in a Baptist church. And I had to make and few points to them......

1. We are Beth's friend's and where there to support her.
2. The Baptist's and their minster where very supportive to Beth and friendly to us....and Baptist are hardly gay friendly.
3. If the Baptist minster could for go he's condemning of homsexuality and try to comfort a known lesbian.....and they[her other friends] couldn't even come to support their friend in her hour of need?.

The way that you and your friend approached the situation is what I would call true tollerance. Unfortunatly, the way the people at the Lesbian club acted is more the norm. Now, if that's the decision that that they want to make, fine, thats what freedom is all about: personal choice and personal actions that don't affect non-consenting third parties. Its when actions impinge on non-consenting third parties that freedom is stiffled.

Quoted: Nah. You know what's truly sad in all this is that you religious zealots

Well, there he goes again folks.

just don't seem to get why a lot of people think YOU are more of a threat than al Qaeda.

People who think that are completely out of their minds. If they think I am a bigger threat than people who are actively trying to slaughter them wholesale, then they are insane.

Period.

Again, we are seeing hysterical rantings here of the quality you will find at DU. It is every bit as outlandish and rediculous. And frankly I am inclined to pay no more serious attention to those who say such damnably stupid things than I do to the usual DU crowd.

When I become somebody's picture of the boogey man, then they are usually beyond hope.

Keep on pushing and dividing, go on and distract us from Iraq.

What??

Distract you from Iraq???

Is the nation suddenly only able to handle one issue at a time??? In case you haven't noticed, what happens within our borders has always been a major topic of national debate, even in war time.

When Hillary takes the center and wins in 2008, all thanks to South Dakota's religious-wacko abortion ban, just remember that I warned you about it first.

Good grief! You really are coming unhinged. There are like 20 people in South Dakota. To believe that the actions of that state is going to hand Hillary the Whitehouse demonstrates a serious lack of knowledge about our political system.

Study more, rant less.

BTW, Eric, I thought I'd add:  although I wasn't aware that atheists were running around cutting people's heads off, I have come to the realization that you were probably referring to my religious upbringing (what little I got, anyway) by my grandparents, who were Southern Baptist.  I find this rather discouraging, since I thought that Protestants were all pretty tolerant of each other's various groupings, but no doubt when whatever demonination or abomination or denomination you belong to takes over, you'll edumacate us on the doctrinal differences.

Once again, we see that ol' 71 cannot refrain from making hideously inappropriate and COC violating religious attacks.

He certainly isn't helping his credibility.

Quoted: 3. If the Baptist minster could for go forego he's his condemning of homsexuality and try to comfort a known lesbian.....and they[her other friends] couldn't even come to support their friend in her hour of need?.

Took me a minute to figure out what you were trying to say there....

But Stoner makes an excellent point: Often those who cry loudest about intolerance are those who are MOST intolerant.

Baptists (most of them anyway, as there are about a billion flavors of Baptist...) believe homosexuality is wrong. Which in the demented minds of some makes them horrible crusaders running around looking for a homosexual they can chain to their bumper and drag to death. When in reality the overwhelming majority of Baptists have no such intent, and in fact are more than capable of befriending homosexuals and treating them just like they would their dearest friends.

Believing something is wrong does NOT necessarily translate into harboring hatred for those who participate in it.

My grandfather preached all his life that homosexuality was wrong. But when a homosexual prostitute who had been hooked on drugs and who had contracted AIDS was in the hospital dying, it was my grandfather who was beside his bed holding his hand and loving this person. Grandad told him the unvarnished truth: that the Bible taught that homosexuality and drug use were sins that can condemn him to hell.

"So why are you here?" the man asked.

"Because I was going to the very same hell for my sins until Jesus saved me. I deserved to be in outer blackness forever, but Jesus didn't let that stop Him from loving me and from reaching out to me. He hasn't stopped loving you either, so I am going to love you too. I don't care what you have done. " Grandad replied.

It wasn't his "friends" who were there with him in his final hours. It wasn't "gay rights" activists. It was an old fashioned Gospel preacher who stayed with that man and held his hand while he died.

Idiots who are high on their own fumes can call people like Grandad hateful and intolerant all day long. The truth is an entirely different story that you aren't going to hear on the news.

If people are more afraid of guys like Grandad than they are of Bin Laden, then they are mentally derranged.

True love does not just repeat slogans and attend rallies. True love for another motivates you to be at their service no matter what they need. True love focuses on the benefit of the other person, not on our personal preferences.

Quoted: The way that you and your friend approached the situation is what I would call true tollerance. Unfortunatly, the way the people at the Lesbian club acted is more the norm. Now, if that's the decision that that they want to make, fine, thats what freedom is all about: personal choice and personal actions that don't affect non-consenting third parties. Its when actions impinge on non-consenting third parties that freedom is stiffled.

The only real differnce between me and the both sides of the culture war is simple....I actually try to understand where other side is coming from. Doesn't mean I agree with them....but I do try to see their points. But in defense of my brother and sisters in the LGBT it's easy to get intolerant of someone they see as try to make they're lives as miseable as they can.

Quoted: Quoted: 3. If the Baptist minster could for go forego he's his condemning of homsexuality and try to comfort a known lesbian.....and they[her other friends] couldn't even come to support their friend in her hour of need?. Took me a minute to figure out what you were trying to say there.... But Stoner makes an excellent point: Often those who cry loudest about intolerance are those who are MOST intolerant.

Sorry being gay may make me a snappy dresser.....but doesn't help with spelling and grammer