Boots and Sabers - The blogging will continue until morale improves...

Hillary | Home | Thanksgiving Express Lanes

Thursday, November 15, 2007

Coexist?

A bit harder, eh?

Hat tip Tom McMahon.

(100) Comments

Posted by Owen at 2102 hrs

Culture
Tags: culture

My goodness, what a horrible mishmash of paranoid uselesness and random association.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 16, 2007 at 0624 hrs

I never was comfortable with that bumper sticker. And I don’t think there’s any need at all to put a swastika in it to bring it to the fore. It’s simply the case that many of the religious traditions represented in it are fundamentally opposed to coexistence with other faiths. Christianity included. The extent to which the people of these faiths have learned to coexist is the precise extent to which they have learned to abandon and ignore certain aspects of their tradition. I say we could use more of that. Let’s abandon them altogether. Much of traditional religious doctrine is nothing more than superstitious nonsense mashed up with obvious or half-baked, pseudo-intellectual philosophy. Ultimately, nothing is gained by believing things that aren’t true. I swore off it years ago.
Posted by scott on November 16, 2007 at 0718 hrs

LOL. Exactly why the original bumper sticker is so poignant.

It’s the 21st century, we live in the most technologically advanced society on earth, and yet a governor was recently asking a sky wizard for rain.

Seems we haven’t really advanced all that far after all.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 16, 2007 at 0745 hrs

Owen, is your friend Tom McMahon in touch with reality?

Replacing the Star of David with the Swastika is despicable!

Did I, perhaps, miss something?
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 16, 2007 at 0852 hrs

Yeah, those bumper stickers are pretty lame. You can’t fit any good policy position on a 6 inch sticker. It’s a nice thought, but a bit far-fetched.

If only we could live in a world where the people that believe that a cosmic Jewish zombie who is his own father can remove the evil forces attached to us when a woman created from a rib ate a peice of fruit she got from a talking snake if we telepathically tell him we accept him and symbolicaly drink his blood and eat his skin could live in peace with the people that believe that God revealed his law to a nutcase via a dream and that nutcase eventually assended to heaven on winged horse of fire and that God rewards his most loyal followers with pussy.

You may say that I’m a dreamer, but I’m not the only one….
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 16, 2007 at 0927 hrs

Clearly those of you who mock Christianity have no idea the deep and meaningful impact it has had not only on the individual lives of its followers, but on Western culture.

I’d highly recommend picking up a copy of “How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization” to dispel some of that ignorance.

Getting rid of religion - as they did in communist nations - has definitely yielded the atheistic political utopia liberals long for. Only 100,000,000 people killed by those who believed religion was nothing more than the “opiate for the masses”...

Nice.
Posted by Amy P. on November 16, 2007 at 1005 hrs

Throughout history religion has been a force of good and evil. Anyone with half a brain can see where theology can benefit and hinder society as a whole.

The success of human civilization is going to partly depend on the masses realizing we can’t depend on some nice stories to base our societies on. Our problems are too big to be solved by mythology dreamed up in times far different than our own.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 16, 2007 at 1023 hrs

Amy, no doubt Christianity and other religions have enriched many of their followers. There are some nice messages about peace and love to be found in all the religious texts. But a million things from yoga to poetry to sailing to getting on the treadmill three times a week also enrich people. Difference is, the latter things don’t have the inevitable tendency to get distorted and turn people against each other.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 16, 2007 at 1029 hrs

Hand-wringing aside, I think Pete put it best with this line:
“What would our world look like if the Greatest Generation had chosen to co-exist with the Nazis and the Commies?”
Posted by still Unreal... on November 16, 2007 at 1040 hrs

still unreal - Are you saying that we cannot coexisist with Islam? Equating a religion with billions of followers with nazism is unreal.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 16, 2007 at 1112 hrs

You people are all completely correct… What the hell are we doing paying attention to such outdated ideals as “Thou shalt not STEAL” or “Thou shalt not commit ADULTERY”, or “Thou shalt not KILL”? These concepts have absolutely no relevance in our time.

And while we’re on the subject, let’s take a look at the irony of declaring all religion “half-baked, pseudo-intellectual philosophy”, and actually using the words “pseudo-intellectual”...
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 16, 2007 at 1116 hrs

Seems like I have heard Pete can’t even coexist with Latinos.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 16, 2007 at 1135 hrs

Cagekicker - You need a book to tell that those things are wrong? I was raised in a house with copies of the Koran and the Bible sitting on the same shelf next to eachother. There are far better books in my mothers bookcase that provide moral guidance without discriminating against others.

The notion that you need the Bible to lead a morally sound life is insulting. The bible teaches many good things, but there are other things in their that many of us don’t care for.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 16, 2007 at 1143 hrs

It never ceases to amaze… Those out there who are sooooooo determined to further the cause of free speech, freedom of thought, and freedom of expression can in the next breath get sooooooooo out of joint when someone dares to express a thought or belief.

3rd Way, how is that a post extolling the idea that certain moral values, regardless of how you acquire them, or what book you read them in, is such an affront to you and your Mom’s bookshelf. By the way, tell her I said hi, and I hope that the Bible and the Koran haven’t burst into flames from such a close proximity.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 16, 2007 at 1155 hrs

I just thought I would kick your cage… It looks like it worked.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 16, 2007 at 1205 hrs

So then, you can honestly say that….... hey, waitasec…...... that’s a play on words! “Kick” my “cage”..... “Cagekicker”

Pretty funny stuff!
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 16, 2007 at 1211 hrs

Can’t we all just get along?
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 16, 2007 at 1220 hrs

NO!
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 16, 2007 at 1222 hrs

3rd Way,

Those ideals were not always so obvious. It was Christianity that has made those values a given.
Posted by Marcus Aurelius on November 16, 2007 at 1227 hrs

Isn’t that the whole point of this post? We can’t get along because certain people don’t believe in coexistance. Or stupid bumper stickers that advocate it.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 16, 2007 at 1230 hrs

As has scores of other religions, so before Christianity and some after.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 16, 2007 at 1232 hrs

Marcus - Do you honestly believe that without the Bible our society would have no problems with theft, murder or adultery?
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 16, 2007 at 1234 hrs

3rd Way, I’m pretty sure that the bumper sticker is supposed to illustrate the extreme unlikelyhood of coexistence, at least with some of the belief systems represented…

Step out of the box, 3rd Way, it’s nice out here.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 16, 2007 at 1237 hrs

3rd Way, I’m trying to figure out where you sit. You seem to be all over the board on this, depending on who you’re talking to. If it’s verbal sparring you’re interested in, at least try to make some sense, and I’ll be behind you all the way. If you’re trying to make a point, please pick one and stick with it.

I take it back, 3rd Way… stay in the box. I think that would be safer for you, and less irritating for those around you.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 16, 2007 at 1243 hrs

I am not constrained by any boxes (or cages). I was referring to the actual bumper sticker that people put on their cars and not the photoshopped one Mr. McMahon put together.

What is the purpose of photoshopping that coexist sticker other than to suggest that coexistance if futile? If it is futile than what are our options?
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 16, 2007 at 1248 hrs

“still unreal - Are you saying that we cannot coexisist with Islam?”

I’m saying I cant coexist with “follow sharia law or die” islam.
and if you dont think that’s what radical islam is, wake up.
Posted by ...still Unreal on November 16, 2007 at 1253 hrs

How ‘bout we stop trying to make all the individuals happy, and focus on what’s best for the whole in this country. How ‘bout we stop trying to ignore that the country was founded on Christian ideals, and quit trying to change everyone’s mind about what’s right and wrong?

The concepts of Political Correctness and Diversity are going to drag the country right down the toilet bowl
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 16, 2007 at 1254 hrs

If it is futile than what are our options?

Lock & Load.

The concepts of Political Correctness and Diversity are going to drag the country right down the toilet bowl

Come on cage, don’t be so stingy, spread the credit around a bit more.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 16, 2007 at 1300 hrs

Justifying war by equating a religion with some of its radical adherents is what is going to drag this country down the toilet.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 16, 2007 at 1305 hrs

No, I think the war is justified by what the “radical adherents” have done, and have boldly stated that they will do again if given the chance.

On second thought, I think you’re absolutely right, 3rd Way… Let’s just close our eyes and pretend nothing bad ever happened. That way, when the “radical adherents” show up, we can just give ‘em all a big hug, and let love and puppy dogs heal the wounds.

Once again, my belief that the key to happiness is a good set of blinders has been affirmed.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 16, 2007 at 1313 hrs

Once again, my belief that the key to happiness is a good set of blinders has been affirmed.

Ahhh, invoking the roboconservative creed.

But I thought you were a union thug, cage.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 16, 2007 at 1318 hrs

You have been blinded by ideology. In case you haven’t noticed we have been at war for six years, spent $800 billion dollars and we have not dismantled the organisation of people responsible for attacking us.

I am all for getting the people responsible for attacking us. We know where they are. The guy I support recommended bombing the place to kill them. The guys you support ridiculed him for stating that while they support an endless peacekeeping mission in a nation that had nothing to do with the attacks against us.

I think you are the one that needs to remove your blinders.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 16, 2007 at 1325 hrs

You say it like it’s a bad thing, pjr… Oddly enough, Conservatives don’t mind being called Conservatives. And the concept of a “RoboConservative” is actually sort of appealing to me.

“You are in violation of the Common Sense Act of 2007. You have 10 seconds to pull your head out of the sand and think rationally.”

And I thought that all Union thugs were RoboConservatives?
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 16, 2007 at 1327 hrs

3rd Way, I love you, man… You’ve pointed out that I may be “blinded by ideology”, when it’s my ideals that keep me from losing my mind. You’ve also jumped to some conclusion that you know who I may have supported (at what time, what election, or in what year you’ve left out. Possibly to keep your bases covered, I guess).

And, you’ve pointed out the mindblowingly simple problem that this war’s run into. It hasn’t resolved itself because of the scope of the “radical adherents” that we’re trying to root out. Frankly, 3rd, I’m all for glassing that whole area of the world and being done with it.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 16, 2007 at 1331 hrs

“I am all for getting the people responsible for attacking us.”

Bullshit.
What, exactly, are you willing to do? For how long?
To whom?
YOU know who and where they are, huh?
Well bully for you. Run for office and change the world.
Posted by ...still Unreal on November 16, 2007 at 1334 hrs

I don’t think that Tom should say that Christianity and Buddhism are as bad as Naziism and Communism, which is clearly what he is doing here. And if that was not his intention, if he was trying to make some point about moral relativism, then he’s an idiot.

The only way you can get that point from his alteration of the sticker is to assume that some of these ideologies are “like” naziism and communism. I assume he means Islam. His argument for this interpretation seems to be the mere fact that they appear on the bumper sticker with each other. That is no argument at all. It is a non-clever piece of non-art. Plus I think it’s more of an argument for atheism if it’s anything at all.
Posted by PaulNoonan on November 16, 2007 at 1335 hrs

Cagekicker! My union thug brother! I wish I’d known. I’d have been nicer to you the other day.

And speaking of “radical adherents,” not only are we doing that endless peacekeeping mission in a place that had nothing to do with the attack, we’re propping up the dictator that is, by some accounts, likely hiding those “radical adherents” while suppressing civil liberties.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 16, 2007 at 1341 hrs

And the concept of a “RoboConservative” is actually sort of appealing to me.

If the shoe fits wear it. I actually find it amusing. In a good way.

And I thought that all Union thugs were RoboConservatives?

Guess I must have mixed up the labels during the budget.
battle.

Oh and cage;

I think the war is justified by what the “radical adherents” have done.

And Tim Mcveigh was what? A Catholic I think. The Vatican should be an easy target, let’s hit it.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 16, 2007 at 1342 hrs

No, pjr, I’m pretty sure Timothy McVeigh was a nutjob psychopath. He may have justified his actions through some twisted contortion of Catholic dogma, but underneath it all he was a turd on the bottom of society’s shoe.

Apc, I’ve read letters from the soldiers in Iraq who talk about the women and children walking in their streets unafraid of being dragged off to one of Uday’s “rape rooms”. As to the dictator you’re saying we’re in support of, I just refer back to my statement of glassing the whole area.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 16, 2007 at 1347 hrs

nutjob psychopath

or

“radical adherents”

Please help me appreciate the difference.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 16, 2007 at 1355 hrs

WOW. “appreciate the difference??”

How ‘bout: die because my god doesnt want you to live in axcess vs. god, what god?

wow.
Posted by ...still Unreal on November 16, 2007 at 1358 hrs

*excess
Posted by ...still Unreal on November 16, 2007 at 1359 hrs

Just a veritable plethora of “radical adherents” here.

Or do you consider “Glass the whole area” to be a message of moderation, somehow?
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 16, 2007 at 1404 hrs

The Guardian reported that McVeigh wrote a letter claiming to be an agnostic[4], though his execution included a Roman Catholic ceremony.

He was raised Catholic, and he was a registered Republican in New York.

I believe he was found sane enough to be tried and executed.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 16, 2007 at 1406 hrs

Hey, aren’t there any liberal blogs for you guys to hang out on? Or do you all hang out there, get yourselves all pumped up about how smart you are and how dumb Conservatives are, and then come thundering out into the world with absolutely no idea of what it’s like to actually have to… oh, I don’t know….. prove a point?

Unreal, hi, nice to meetcha.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 16, 2007 at 1407 hrs

Or do you consider “Glass the whole area” to be a message of moderation

I believe Cheney would consider this to be a diplomatic statement of restraint.

Backed up by our latest intelligence reports.

And cage what makes you think I am a liberal.

Just because I don’t go along with the radical adherents of conservatism?
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 16, 2007 at 1412 hrs

You proved the point I was trying to make Mr. Kicker. If you don’t feel there is anyway to coexist with Islam our only choice is to “glass the whole area”, whatever that means. We coexist on this globe with many other people. “Glassing whole areas” is going to be a losing strategy on the world stage making many more enemies than allies. If we take that tract it is only a matter of time before someone succeeds at “glassing” our area.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 16, 2007 at 1425 hrs

“glass the whole area”, whatever that means

It refers to nuclear annihilation, where the super heat from the detonation turns sand into glass.
Posted by Owen on November 16, 2007 at 1428 hrs

Still Unreal,
It’s good that the greatest generation didn’t try to coexist with the Nazis. But I think the idea, as expressed by those that would sport this sticker, would apply accross the board. It’s unreasonable and unlikly, but I think the response would be that it would be a better world if the Nazis had tried to coexist with the Jews/Russians/Poles/British/French/Americans etc. Obviously this whole idea of coexist goes terribly awry if even one party decides to stray from it, which is what happened in WWII.

Amy,
To say that Communist nations had no religion is is pretty naive. Communism was their religion. Christianity and Islam aren’t really dangerous. They’re just stupid. (“Faith” and “Stupid” basically have the same definition so be mad at the dictionary for that comment). Same with Communism. It’s just a stupid idea, not an evil or dangerous one. Communism, Islam, Christianity etc. become dangerous when people become dogmatic about them. Dogmatism is the real problem.

Cage-kicker,
To attribute the evil deeds of an extremist Muslim to Islam and refuse to attribute the evil deeds of an extremist Christian to Christianity is insane.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 16, 2007 at 1435 hrs

pjr, I apologize for any conclusions I may have jumped to. Unfortunately, any debate with Liberals tends to sway into the extremes. I think it’s the only way they know how to play, because Liberalism has no room for “shades of gray”.

Would is shock you to know that I honestly believe that the “Truth” lies somewhere in the middle, as opposed to on either the far Right of Left?

And 3rd Way, let’s think about what you’re doing. You’re taking something I say, and stretching to the farthest and most ridiculous extreme you can think of. Yes, there is room on this planet for multiple beliefs. I’m talking about those whose beliefs demand that all other beliefs be abolished. Wow, that kind of Absolutism doesn’t sound very Liberal, does it?

Now, I have to go work. I’ll check back later to see what statement you’ve taken out of context next.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 16, 2007 at 1437 hrs

Hey…what’s everyone talking about?
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 16, 2007 at 1446 hrs

Owen, i cant believe you had to explain “glassing.”
Oy.

JIJAWM….can always count on you to make the moronic correlation between Mcveigh, islamo-terrorists and radical christianity.
Right on cue.
Posted by ...still Unreal on November 16, 2007 at 1454 hrs

No problem Still Unreal. I’m glad I could help spell that out for you. Do you have any other questions for me? Any other completely inconsistent and unreasonable beliefs I can help you with?
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 16, 2007 at 1457 hrs

Thanks for the clarification Owen.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 16, 2007 at 1520 hrs

unreal - It is pathetic that you resort to claiming some moral authority on protecting this country. I stated “I am all for getting the people responsible for attacking us.”
You stated:
“Bullshit.
What, exactly, are you willing to do? For how long?
To whom?
YOU know who and where they are, huh?”

I was all for dismantling the Taliban and securing Afghanistan. If a democrat had fucked that up the way Bush has he would have been impeached by now. Al Qaeda and the Taliban are very likely hiding out in northwest Pakistan. We should drop in and secure that area as best we can, tell everyone that can prove they are not Taliban supporters to get out then “glass” (my new favorite term) the area.

Screw Musharraf he isn’t going into Waziristan because he is afraid. The dudes in Waziristan are way crazier than the Iranians and they are one coup away from having Musharraf’s nukes. Obama is right on Pakistan.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 16, 2007 at 1602 hrs

JIJAWM “To attribute the evil deeds of an extremist Muslim to Islam and refuse to attribute the evil deeds of an extremist Christian to Christianity is insane.”

It is a matter of reaction and intent. I don’t recall McVeigh doing his bombing in the name of Christianity. Whereas the 9/11 hijackers were expressly conducting themselves in the name of Islam.

Furthermore, Christianity did not react after Oklahoma City the way that Islam reacted after 9/11. After Oklahoma City, we did not see people flooding the streets of Vatican City cheering for joy and holding up photos of the destroyed building. Instead, the largest Christian nation in the world went on a manhunt for McVeigh, threw him into prison, and then executed him.

Look around at heavily Islamic cities after 9/11: Cheering, celebration, dancing in the street, etc. And this was from the so-called “mainstream” and peace-loving Muslims. No manhunts for those behind the attacks. No jail time. No executions. At best we saw indifference. But the more typical reaction was pleasure.
Posted by David on November 16, 2007 at 1607 hrs

David,
Fair enough. There is certainly a differance of degree between how dangerous these two religions are. McVeigh probably isn’t the best example of a Christian extremist either. But the point is that if religion is causing all of these problems, maybe more religion isn’t the best solution.
Posted by jesusisjustalrightwithme on November 16, 2007 at 1613 hrs

well, then give us your best example of a dangerous christian extremist, JIJAWM. do tell.

“..maybe more religion isn’t the best solution.”
-maybe neither is sticking your head in the sand ...or more taxes
Posted by still Unreal... on November 16, 2007 at 1700 hrs

give us your best example of a dangerous christian extremist

Marion Gordon Robertson
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 16, 2007 at 1707 hrs

Pope Paul III? Hernando Cortes? Jerry Falwell? Monica Goodling/Albert Gonzales? George Bush? Obviously, “dangerous” is a gray area. I’m not saying that Bush or the AG’s office are as dangerous as Bin Laden. They’re not even close. But they’re still dangerous to freedom, constitutional rights and things like that in part because they put their religion before the laws of this country. And it’s certainly arguable that Bush’s faith has influenced his war position which arguably cost many innocent lives of both American soldiers and Iraqi civilians.

And I’ve never put my head in the sand or advocated raising taxes like you always do. If one of us is a big-goverment liberal, it’s you.
Posted by jesusisjustalrightwithme on November 16, 2007 at 1714 hrs

Cortez, Pizzaro and all of the other conquistadors in the new world were Christian extremists. They slaughtered hundreds of thousands of natives in the name of Christ.

During the crusades the Christian church sanctioned holy war leaving millions dead.

Throughout history there have been horrific things done by Christians in gods name. Luckily the church has gone through multiple reformations and now those things are frowned upon.

Hopefully we can inspire Islam to go through some reformations. To get there we have to empower the moderates, not bomb them.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 16, 2007 at 1721 hrs

pat robertson + jerry falwell = bin laden and ahmadinijad?
i advocate raising taxes?!?

wow.

you both got me.
Posted by still Unreal... on November 16, 2007 at 1723 hrs

ooooooo, 3rd way.
yeah, pizzaro, the conquistadors and the new world….but now christians are better than…..~500 years ago.
so islam just needs to be “inspired” then?

curious….how many more thousands of years you want to give them?
Posted by still Unreal... on November 16, 2007 at 1727 hrs

Well Unreal… Islam is about 700 yrs younger than Christianity. So maybe they are about 200 yrs away from a quality reformation.

To encourage reformation we have to convince moderates to accept western culture, and prop up democratically reformed nations in their region. Ending our reliance on their natural resources would do more to damage to the power structure in the middle east than anything. Saudi Arabia funds most of the religous schools, the religous schools created the 9/11 hijackers and the vast majority of the suicide bombers in Iraq. Who funds Saudi Arabia? All of those people driving SUV’s with the support the troops stickers.

There are more than a billion muslims in the world. More than 3 muslims for every American. If they all become convinced that Jihad is the only answer the game is over and we lose. Waging endless war in their neighborhood is only going to radicalize people that could have become moderate.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 16, 2007 at 1748 hrs

Still Unreal,
I believe I was very clear in stating the Jerry Falwell was not equivlant to bin Laden. Your equation is what is called a “straw man.” As for taxes, I was only responding to your remark. I have heard you call for raising spending (e.g. building fences to keep out immigrants and things like that) so I assume you want more taxes and big government. At least compared to me. As for Pizzaro, 3rd Way hit it on the head. Islam is doing the same shit that Christianity was doing 500 or 600 years ago. Islam is that much younger than Christianity. “Those who don’t learn history” and all.
Posted by jesusisjustalrightwithme on November 16, 2007 at 1803 hrs

I have officially declared the guy with the really long name that starts with “jesus” and 3rd Way complete morons.

I leave for a couple hours to make a few bucks, and I come to see that now we’re comparing Christianity’s early years to the jihad. Yup, a couple hundred years ago, horrible things were done because some religious guy declared that he knew God’s will better than anyone else. His word was taken at face value, because nowhere in any Scripture I’ve ever read have I seen anything to encourage an atrocity of any kind.

Now let’s look at the Muslim religion, and they’re blatant declaration that anyone NOT Muslim is an infidel, and therefore you can kill them and anyone who looks like them, and your reward will be virgins in the afterlife. Take a look at some of the websites out there being run by former Muslims, and you’ll see that people who know the book agree that this is not a religion of tolerance.

Now show me a CURRENT act, committed by Christians in the name of Christianity, that resulted in the deaths of thousands, after which all the Christians in the world jumped up in celebration.

Your comparisons are childish, on a par with the “Oh yeah?” defense. I think the perfect solution would be to send all the Liberals to the Islamic countries we’re supposed to be oppressing, and see how well your hugs and kisses attitude is received. I’ll be looking for the video of you all having your heads slowly sawed off on YouTube.

When you’ve jumped at the chance to pick apart my statements based on improper sentence structure, or some other silliness, instead of actually making a valid point on the behalf of idiots everywhere, I’ll be back to shake my head and wonder why you haven’t all moved to Canada.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 17, 2007 at 0409 hrs

Mr. Kicker - What points are we failing to make that you are so brilliantly articulating? I never drew a direct comparison between anything. Someone asked about Christian extremists and I gave a few examples (both of which caused more death and destruction than the jihadists have).

There are parts of the Bible that can be misconstrued to seem as if they permit the killing of non-believers similiarly to how the jihadists have created their own murderous interpretation of the Koran.

There are no current examples that can compare. This is a clash of civilizations. The 21st century vs the 16th. There is no military solution to this problem. You can’t defeat the people that adhere to the death cult of Jihad with an army. They are living in the shadows all over the world. The only ones that cause a real threat aren’t living in the middle east. They are professionals that are able to move freely in western society, like the guys in Madrid, London and the 9/11 hijackers. How do suggest we deal with them? Glass Europe? Waging endless war only proves the points being made in the propaganda these idiots have been brainwashed with.

You have been ridiculing me as an idiot not able to make any points but I believe I have made quite a few. I can’t tell you what sort of point you have made to prove that a military solution can solve our problem of Jihad. When cornered you stated that you support nuclear annihilitation. That might solve the immediate problem, but I don’t think that is a viable option. There is not a good arguement for endless war. There are certain aspects of this problem that have to be dealt with militarily, but that should always be done as the last option (such as Pakistan). Iran should not have a nuclear weapon. It will be a damn shame if we have to bomb them to prevent it. There is still time dissuade them from such a foolish move.

Staying on the course the Bush administration has set us on is going to lead us to defeat. We will eventually end up bankrupt and with more enemies than we started with. If the American electorate is partialy sane and not completely brainwahsed any presidential candidate that supports the neocon vision of endless war against some illusion of a nonexistent aligned Islamofascist front should be easily defeated in the next election.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 17, 2007 at 1141 hrs

3rd Way, you make a very good point. Nuclear Armageddon, while fun in theory, isn’t a very good option on the long run (I still don’t see why a few more MOABs haven’t been dropped, but okay…). You’re also correct in that endless war will eventually get tedious. I think there are middle ground solutions that could be better employed in the War on Terror.

First, stop punishing American soldiers for doing what they feel they have to do in order to accomplish their mission. Example: The American officer who, while interrogating a prisoner, pulled his sidearm and fired a shot to the immediate left of the prisoner’s head. The officer got the information he needed regarding hidden IED’s, and American lives, and the lives of nearby Iraqi civilians, were saved. As thanks, the officer was given a court martial and kicked out of the service.

Next, let’s forget that “profiling” is always automatically bad. It’s been going on for years, and the only reason that law enforcement agencies keep using profiling is because it works. The claptrap mishmash created where everyone is so afraid of hurting someone’s feelings is keeping the important things from being done. These shadow lurkers you refer to laugh when little old ladies and Congressional Medal of Honor winners are stopped by airport security.

For what it’s worth, I think that you’re right… we should pull out at this point, and let the Middle East tear itself apart. Forget the fact that the smiling woman we’ve all seen in the news, proudly displaying her purple fingertip, will become a target the day after we leave. The civilian populace of the Middle East has lived in fear all this time, apparently they like it.

We have problems at home, and no one’s out there to help us, so we should focus on what’s going on here and let the rest of them hang. Then, when the jihadists finally do get around to coming after us again, hopefully we’ll be a little more organized, and better able to finish what they started.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 17, 2007 at 1303 hrs

Word Up cagekicker. I agree with every point you made in your last post. When it comes to American politics we are all standing on common ground. We are all facing the same problems. If we can get past the bullshit of partisan bickering the sane people among us all get down to the same point. Disregard labels and ideologies and employ the tactics that work.

For what it is worth the only presidential candidate I see capable of doing that is Obama.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 17, 2007 at 1350 hrs

It is incredible how inane arguments over which version of the Sky Wizard, if any, are correct.

Less than intelligent (or honest) among a given belief system object to having their religion equated to the inquisition or witch burning, and then without hesitation claim that disbelief in the Sky Wizard equates to the mass slaughters of communism.

Less than intelligent (or honest) among a given belief system make the claim that without their meme, nobody would believe in honesty or fidelity or not killing people. One goes so far as to post under the name of a Roman Emperor who persecuted Christians and yet advocated many of the same moral laws in his writings.

Then there are the less than intelligent (or honest) among a given belief system who think our country was founded to be run according to their favored principles. This ignores the fact that the Founders who had most to do with establishing our national government despised the established Church and favored individual interpretation of their relationship with God - making a coherent federal policy in this regard impossible to achieve and an outright violation of their beliefs.

The worst part is that our beliefs are in essence arbitrary. Your religious beliefs are almost entirely the result of socialization, and what religion you follow has been reformed and rewritten by people as the result of arbitrary events over a period of thousands of years. Had any of you Christians been born in Gaza you’d be huge fans of Hammas. Had the Byzantine Emperor Constantine (or any of his predecessors) decided to wipe out the Christians you might still be sacrificing lambs to Roman or Greek Gods today.

In other words, don’t confuse the sheer luck that has led to your faith’s dominance or existence with divine providence.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 18, 2007 at 1143 hrs

Yo, the Swastika is Hindu symbol. Figure it out.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 18, 2007 at 1646 hrs

Tosa, you’re points are dead on. Most organized religion these days is taught in various versions interpreted by man. You’re also right in blaming the Inquisition on Christians (again, thank you for bringing it up because no else every does). And thank you for bringing Marcus Aurelius, but it was my understanding that he had converted to Christianity, but I may very well be of the “less than intelligent” group of Christians to which you seem to enjoy alluding.

Another point that I see in your favor is that while Christians do often claim to be the source of all that is moral, their view is again obscured by the slant put on their denomination by the men who have interpreted it. I tend to think that since most of the religions being practiced in the today do have several common factors, most of them are likely to have common origins and have just branched off in different directions.

I would like to point out that it makes no sense for you to rip on Christians and their faith, in whatever version they choose to practice it, here on a Conservative site. It may shock you to know that a great many Conservatives are in fact Christian, and will continue to be Christian regardless of your scathing commentary.

Now here’s a point that I’d like to put out there in favor of the belief you so joyously scorn, TosaVoter: The school of logic, the “religion” of science if you will, shows that faith in a Divine Power is the only way of life that makes sense. I’ll explain…

Option 1: Believe in God. If you’re right, you go to Heaven. If you’re wrong, nothing much changes.
Option 2: Don’t believe in God. If you’re wrong, you go to Hell. If you’re right, nothing much changes.

So there you have it. Logically, it makes sense to maintain a belief in God, if for no other reason that because the benefits far out way the drawbacks.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 19, 2007 at 0048 hrs

Wow Cagekicker, not only do you assert the authority to officially declare that I’m a complete moron, you bring up Pascal’s frickin wager? Pass the cool-aid. Okay, here are the flaws in your “logical” argument:

1) It assumes that god rewards belief. The odds that there is a god that rewards belief are no better than the odds that there is a god that rewards disbelief.

2) It assumes that belief has no cost. Your belief systems arguably have plenty of costs: prohibitions on working on certain days, prohibitions on eating certain things, prohibitions on certain sexual practices, problems in creates in government and public policy etc.

3) A belief founded on the “logic” of Pascal’s Wager is not a real belief. It’s more of an attempt to trick god (if there is a god). And if your god is anything like you guys seem to think he is, he’s probably pretty hard to trick.

There are plenty of other reasons why this is a stupid argument, but this should get you started. Also, I think we can all agree that once a person suggests that Pascal’s Wager is a valid argument, they should be stripped od their authority to officially declareother people to be morons. Moron.
Posted by jesusisjustalrightwithme on November 19, 2007 at 1011 hrs

Wow, whateverthehellyournameis, you’ve brought in the “I am rubber, you are glue” defense.

1) That’s why it’s called “faith”, and it’s no more difficult to comprehend and believe than Darwin’s Theory that we all came from ooze, and the universe around us is just a big happy accident.

2) Of course belief has a cost. Non belief has a cost. Everything has a cost. As for the list of prohibitions you mention: a specific day of worship isn’t any worse than having to face East at a set time every morning to pray; when the book(s) were written certain foods (pork) weren’t cured properly and resulted in sickness and were therefore banned; I can only assume that when you refer to sexual practices, you’re talking about orientation, but at least Christians don’t force clitorectomies on their daughters; any problems created in public policy tend to come from the conflict created when the left tries to crush the right’s religious grounding in one breath, and then demanding freedom of thought/speech/expression in the next.

3)I can’t argue this one with you, nor do I really think I have to. You either believe or you don’t. Personally, I can’t stand in a forest and look around me, and not see a Creator. The theory that all of this just sorta happened is as preposterous to me as the idea of a “Great Sky Wizard” obviously is to you.

I’m not deriding you for your belief (I’m deriding you for your compulsive need to deride me for mine), because frankly what you believe doesn’t affect me in the least. If you’re right and I’m wrong, it doesn’t really matter. I still lived my life with the comfort that there was some purpose to anything, whether or not I fully understood what the purpose was. If I’m right and you’re wrong, I get the comfort of knowing that I’m not the one in the lake of fire… not that I’m saying you’re going to Hell because that’s not for me to decide.

I think that this thread has done a great job of illustrating the preposterous idea of “Coexistence”. So long as there’s a belief in a “Sky Wizard” by any name, the Darwinists are going to continue to claim some intellectual and moral high ground based on some deeply seated belief that all things religious are bad. Unless you’re Muslim. The left seems to really like them, but whatever…
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 19, 2007 at 1122 hrs

BTW, whateverthehellyournameis, my declaration of you as a moron is merely me expressing my belief. So don’t you oppress me.

Dummy
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 19, 2007 at 1124 hrs

The last four post were awesome, arguing for religion is great entertainment. I think religion was invented by a bunch of guys that liked to argue for arguements sake.

There is no cost in being a believer. Costs are only imposed when you link religion to your beliefs. Belief in god maybe divine intervention, but religion is purely a human construct.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 19, 2007 at 1145 hrs

Cagekicker,
1) Darwin’s theory isn’t really about the origin of the universe around us. It’s about the origin of life, but it doesn’t really have anything to do with things happening “by accident.” It’s a big, old world. Stuff is bound to take place.

2) Yes, as I noted, not working on a specific day and praying facing east a few times a day are both costs of believing what you guys believe. I’m cvertainly not drawing a distinction between the costs associated with what you sky-god told one profit versus what he told another. Food is generally safe now for people in this country, yet the prohibitions continue. As with the sex practices, I’m not saying that the costs of Christianity are greater thant he costs of some other religion. I’m just saying that there are costs associated with both. And gay sex isn’t the only sexual practice frowned upon by Christians. Pre-marital sex is another. I think there’s even some shit in there about it being bad to get a BJ. But whatever, the point is that there are costs.

3) I am comfortable knowing that if I am right, nothing happens, and if I am wrong, but you are also wrong, you will spend eternity in a lake full of tapioca pudding. Because that’s just as likly as the fire and brimstone stuff.
Posted by jesusisjustalrightwithme on November 19, 2007 at 1201 hrs

Thank you for laying out your very well thought out distinctions regarding Darwin’s Theory (def: an unproven conjecture). Isn’t funny that the definitions of “theory” and “faith” are pretty much the same? Oh well… “tomato”, “tomahto”.

I never much liked tapioca, so you could be dead on there.

And I think you were referring to “prophet”, not “profit”.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 19, 2007 at 1210 hrs

Ah, the old confusion about what “theory” means when used in a scientific context. It’s far more than a guess. Here’s a very good overview, from an essay in Physics Today:

We…use “theory” in a way that is far from the everyday usage (where a theory is pretty much a hunch), particularly when we talk of “the theory of . . .”; examples are relativity, electromagnetism, evolution, plate tectonics, the standard model of particle physics. (....usually we use “model” for ideas that are less well established.) These theories are far from guesses…they are complex constructs that incorporate and explain a significant body of evidence. They have demonstrated predictive power as well as descriptive power.

We also know that they are not complete. Although they are well tested in some domains, in others uncertainties remain about their detailed application. Indeed, we expect that they will be modified or extended to explain new evidence. But they will not disappear, just as Newton’s laws did not become invalid when we understood special relativity, but rather were seen to be a very accurate approximation under well-defined conditions. Theories such as those listed in the previous paragraph are strong enough that we can use them to say we know certain things—we know that protons and neutrons are composed of quarks and gluons, we know the relationship between mass and energy, we know that Earth’s surface is not a single rigid structure. These are facts, but not just simple observational facts. They come from the amalgam of observation and theory development and testing that is the essence of scientific knowledge development. It diminishes the status of our understanding greatly to say that scientists “believe” these things. We know them.

Apologies for the long cut-and-paste, but this explains an important point a lot better than I can.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 19, 2007 at 1350 hrs

Ah, the old confusion about…. sorry, what were talking about?

Thank you, Gordon, but I do understand scientific theory, inasmuch as an average Joe can, without resorting to another round of cut-and-paste.

Also understand that your somewhat condescending post doesn’t particularly answer, support, or explain anything going on in this thread (I can only guess that you saw a chance to jump in at the expense of one of those dumb hick Christians). In a discussion about Co-existence, it becomes very clear that the left wing scientific community only allows for co-existence so far as they don’t have to actually give any bit of respect for the right wing belief in “Intelligent Design”.

In all honesty, I’m pretty sure that in the end we’re going to find out that the Truth lies, as it almost always does, somewhere in the middle.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 19, 2007 at 1439 hrs

What were we talking about? I was responding directly to your comment that: ”...the definitions of “theory” and “faith” are pretty much the same….”

But that is definitely not the case.

And the scientific community doesn’t give any respect to intelligent design because it has no basis in science.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 19, 2007 at 1554 hrs

Well the Christian community recognizes the value of science, however we don’t really feel the need to give it complete and total credence due to a few inaccuracies.

It was science that proved the Earth was the center of the universe.
It was science that proved the sun orbited the Earth.
It was science that proved the Earth was flat.
It was science that identified Pluto as a planet.

I respect your views, Gordo, even when I don’t fully agree with them. I don’t see the need to tear them down, and am fully aware of the many things I don’t know.

But you’re smart, I’m dumb. You’re right and I’m wrong. Go crack a book, if there are any left after you’ve burned the ones you don’t agree with.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 19, 2007 at 1606 hrs

I think that maybe you should look up the word “proved.” Science never proved that the Earth was the center of the universe. It was a theory. It was based on data that was available at the time. As data improved the theory was disproven. And identifying Pluto as a planet wasn’t really wrong. They just decided to change the nomenclature.
Posted by jesusisjustalrightwithme on November 19, 2007 at 1611 hrs

“the Christian community recognizes the value of science, however we don’t really feel the need to give it complete and total credence”

I love that sentence. It really explains everything.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 19, 2007 at 1623 hrs

*staring blankly at whateverthehellyournameis*

Therefore, all fact as we know it, is subjective to information at hand. And changing nomenclature means they were right all along about Pluto? That just means they rewrote the book and changed the info to suit. This is the all encompassing base upon which science has built its house of cards? “I’m right today, until I’m not, and then I’ll be right again”? Please, I’ll take belief in the Sky Wizard any day.

I think this thread has served it’s purpose very well. As long as the extremists are running the show, there will never be coexistence. And since all of the left wing liberal Moonbats are the ones unwilling to allow for any belief but their own, any debate or argument is pointless if sometimes entertaining.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 19, 2007 at 1628 hrs

“Therefore, all fact as we know it, is subjective to the information at hand.”

Well, sort of. But you’re having some vocabulary problems again. Facts arent subjective to anything. The information we have at hand = facts. We hypothesize and theorize based on these facts, but a theory is not a fact. It is not something less than a fact either though. There are things that we know (facts) and things that the data suggests and can descibe and predict observed data (theories). Then there are things that we just make up (beliefs).

“That just means that they rewrote the book and changed the info to suit.”

Sort of, but they didn’t really change any scientific info. It’s no different than calling a city with a population of “X” a town and a city with a population of “Y” a village. Nothing about them changes, it’s just classified differently. We didn’t observe anything about pluto that made us say, “holy shit, that’s no planet, it’s a space station.” We just saw that it’s properties were very different from those of the other 8 planets, and in some ways simialr to other objects in space. Earth wasn’t a “planet” until we humans came up with that word, but it still had all the same properties.

It’s hard to explain this kind of stuff to you. Many people that grew up with religion in their lives (myself included) are used to thinking in absolutes. And science is full of things that are not absolute. That’s actually what makes science so awesome.

Also, I think we’re coexisting just fine here.
Posted by jesusisjustalrightwithme on November 19, 2007 at 1725 hrs

You’re also right in blaming the Inquisition on Christians (again, thank you for bringing it up because no else every does).

I bring up the inquisition not to tarnish Christianity. The inquisition says more about the savagery of the times and people who implemented it than it does about the faith involved. My point is that it’s hypocritical to complain about your faith being pigeonholed by one event while pigeonholing another “faith” (or lack thereof in the case of atheism) based on the results of one political philosophy.

…it was my understanding that he (Aurelius) had converted to Christianity…

Admitting you may not know the facts is a sign of intelligence. Precisely the reason I reject the idea of absolute divinely-defined truths. A few hundred years back it was the Church’s absolute truth that the Sun revolved around Earth. Didn’t turn out well, did it?

Based on what I’ve read of Auelius, including Gibbon’s “Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire”, Aurelius was a stoic and more an adherent to the dominant pagan reglion of the time. His persecution of Christians wasn’t systematic, he was more tolerant towards other faiths than most other Roman Emperors. But I’ve never heard anything about him converting.

And I highly recommend his “Emperor’s Handbook”.

It may shock you to know that a great many Conservatives are in fact Christian…

Of course. Practicing Christianity or any other religion or living any other lifestyle is not an auomatic mark against anyone. I view religion as a lifestyle choice built on affirmations. Scientific evidence shows prayer has the same positive effect on a person as positive daily affirmations like you’d find in cheesy self help books. Training the mind, the power of belief, etc. If a person needs the affirmative qualities of religion to live an earnest life, then more power to them. Why would I be opposed to that?

Where I have a problem is when people attempt to enforce their lifestyle choice by law. If your lifestyle choice says a certain benign practice is bad then don’t do it. I’ll even defend your right to go on TV or the radio or stand in the park with a sandwich board and try to convince people to not do it.

This is the thing that modern Christian Conservatives don’t understand or won’t admit about the key founding fathers. Of course they were “Christians”, and of course the majority of the public at the time of the founding were Christians. But a thorough and honest read of their writings makes it plain that they believed only individual citizens could and should interpret and live by their own Christian or other religious beliefs, and that any attempt to force them to be “good Christians” through the power of the state represented the very religious persecution they fled in the first place.

In other words, the day socially conservative Christians are happy just being Christians I’ll be happy. The year I can make it through a state-level or federal-level election without having my time wasted and my intelligence insulted by inane arguments over who goes to Church more often, I’ll be happy. When we can get through a debate without hearing which candidates can judge our personal lives for which reason, I’ll be happy. And when we can instead focus on important issues like good fiscal policy and sane foreign policy, perhaps that will be the day e can both rejoice.

Logically, it makes sense to maintain a belief in God, if for no other reason that because the benefits far out way the drawbacks.

With all due respect, arguments claiming a “logical” basis are usually spurious. I can argue that we can cure racism by killing all members of all but one race and that has an inherent “logic” to it. Arguments of this nature are, I bet you will agree, inherently subjective.

You are correct that living by the tenets of your chosen faith are logical to you. However, if we want to consider this as objectively as possible, I can point out that your faith has been mangled by thousands of years of human interpretation. Remember, your bible is a hodgepodge of stories whose collection was fought over and ultimately agreed upon by people who were quite primitive, to be charitable.

There is also the fact that throughout human history thousands upon thousands of cultures have practiced all sorts of faiths and their adherents believed just as intently as do you. The probability that just one group of people at one certain time in history got God’s will 100% “correct” is, I hope you will agree, infinitesimally small.

So yes, if your faith keeps you happy and productive and prevents you from living life as a sociopath, then there is logic in you living by it. However if one does not need the affirmative qualities of a faith to live earnestly, can you understand why adopting a belief in the unknown that has a 99.9999% chance of being incorrect is inherently illogical?
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 19, 2007 at 1735 hrs

Cagekicker says,

And since all of the left wing liberal Moonbats are the ones unwilling to allow for any belief but their own, any debate or argument is pointless if sometimes entertaining.

Extremists on both, or rather all sides of pretty much any argument aren’t terribly interested in allowing people to believe contrary to their wishes.

Assuming you’re a Christian, your chosen meme says you need to “save” people from “burning in hell” if they don’t believe. I’d say that’s more harsh than calling someone un-PC.

There is also, for instance, the fight to say that only people who enter into an approved relationship can have certain legal protections and benefits.

Don’t fall into the trap of thinking “it’s different” just because you like it.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 19, 2007 at 1740 hrs

Tosa, I don’t disagree with one word you’ve said. You’ve pretty well summed up my beliefs without completely undermining them. I think you’re the first person in here who doesn’t make me think pulling the metaphorical plug is the way to go.

I don’t think I’ve ever said anything in this thread, or any other, that go against your well laid out points. Sadly, once again we’re back to the rest of the crowd who can’t let anything be taken as is. They have to analyze and over think and justify, doing anything they can to convince themselves that they’re smarter and better.

I understand why the far left has to oppose the belief in God… It’s because in their minds, they are god. Anything less than that belief, and all of their textbooks are useless.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 19, 2007 at 1750 hrs

I understand why the far left has to oppose the belief in God… It’s because in their minds, they are god. Anything less than that belief, and all of their textbooks are useless.

That’s just silly, Cagekicker. The far left is characterized by precisely the opposite of a god complex. That is, most people on the the far left know that there are thousands and thousands of beliefs on this earth, and that it’s pretty much impossible to know which if any of them are true, and so people on the left keep their minds open and try to learn as much as possible about the world through rational and experiential inquiry.

But if you really believe that people on the far left believe that they’re gods, I’d love some kind of example.

Also: That line about textbooks doesn’t even make any sense.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 19, 2007 at 2233 hrs

Good joke, Gordo. If the far left is so open minded, why do we keep going on about how silly it is to be Christian? If you’d said the moderate left, I might have gone for it.

Also: The line about the textbooks refers to those who spend so much time with their nose in a book, they forget how to relate to what’s going on in the real world. If you find that in any way objectionable or incorrect, you probably stand in that group.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 19, 2007 at 2338 hrs

I understand why the far left has to oppose the belief in God… It’s because in their minds, they are god. Anything less than that belief, and all of their textbooks are useless.

Maybe in the case of some on “the left”, but every Democrat I’ve known well has been a Christian who attended church far more than I ever wanted to.

There is a huge difference between demanding the government be religion-neutral (a demand that can be taken to silly levels) and thinking one is God.

I would also disagree that disbelief in God equates to believing one is God. Having a “God” figure is not a requirement for life.

In other words, I think we’re back to a basic problem: painting all members of a group with the same broad brush. Not all Conservative Christians are overbearing or simple-minded, and not all “leftists” dream of a world where the religious are persecuted.

Painting with broad brushes is what makes it so hard to coexist.

Out of curiosity, do you view me as a “leftists”?
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 20, 2007 at 0755 hrs

Tosa, if you’re on the Liberal side, I don’t think you’re far left at all. You’ve got a lot of points that I agree with one hundred percent. Most of the things I’ve said have been aimed at the far-left, and I’ll say again that the Truth is more in the middle. Once the rest of the extremists on any side figure that out, everything will be fine.

Just out of curiosity, do you view me as an overbearing, simple-minded right wing nutjob?
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 20, 2007 at 1016 hrs

The “far” left and right combined likely make up less than 10% of the populace. Yet whenever opinions are expressed partisan loud mouths shout down people they disagree with and attribute the most far out characteristics to their opponents.

This country has a red and blue problem. Most of us have at least a tinge of purple mixed in with our base color. Most of us want to find a middle ground and look for broadly supported solutions to our problems. The extremists see no middle ground and view opponents to their solution as a larger part of their problem. To work through our differences we need to value others opinions and find compromise.

Coexistance is critical for us to thrive. Anyone that lumps whole masses into groups and claims that coexistance with that group is futile needs to be shouted down for the extremist that they are.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 20, 2007 at 1126 hrs

3rd, your last statement there goes back to one of my previous posts… Having “Celebrate Diversity” shoved down our throats at every turn, instead of the focus being on Celebrating Unity, is one of the big contributors to what’s dividing everyone.

I much prefer the metaphor of the Great American “Melting Pot”, over the “Salad Bowl”.

(Somehow I just know that someone out there is going to want to tear this post apart… and I was just set on letting this thread die)
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 20, 2007 at 1208 hrs

Diversity is a good thing. We are all unique individuals and should be encouraged to do whatever we want to differentiate ourselves from others, these differences lead to a lively and robust culture. But we should be discouraged from holding beliefs that devalue others because of their differences.

This discouragement from discrimination is what the majority of the left supports. The religous among us can believe whatever they want, but don’t restrict others rights based on your beliefs.

The melting pot vs. salad bowl metaphor is tricky. A homogenous society is not something we should strive for, but we should strive for a society where everyone values the same set of personal rights. In principal we are there already, but certain things are defined through a religious context and lead to clouded judgement.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 20, 2007 at 1254 hrs

So everyone has the right to celebrate what makes them unique, say what they feel, do what they want, unless it conflicts with the Utopian ideal?

And the Melting Pot vs Salad Bowl isn’t tricky at all. In a melting pot, you have different components, each with different attributes. They are blended together, mixing and melding, so that all of the attributes are blended together to make a stronger whole.

In a salad bowl, you have a mix of different ingredients, each with it’s own flavor, and they can be great when taken together. However, they aren’t really blended. They’re all just kinda there, and you can pick and chose what you might parts you might like better and discard the rest, leaving you with a clogged disposal. Have you ever tried to clean out a clogged disposal, 3rd? It’s pretty gross.

In theory, the salad bowl is fine, but if you look around, the salad bowl makes it too easy to focus on what makes us all different.

Having diversity in a culture is a good thing. But spending too much time on our differences, instead of our common ground, weakens and divides us. You can call me a bigot if you want, but that’s a fact. You’re entitled to your opinion, but not your own facts.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 20, 2007 at 1311 hrs

So everyone has the right to celebrate what makes them unique, say what they feel, do what they want, unless it conflicts with the Utopian ideal?

I am not sure what your definition of Utopia is, but if you mean a place where equal opportunities and equal rights are guaranteed then… yes.

I think we are essentially saying the same thing on the pot vs. salad comparison. I never advocated spending time on differences. Celebrating diversity should bring people together to find their common ground. The more people that abandon preconceptions about others and accept the values of the greater society the sooner we will reach that Utopia.

Domestically and internationally that means the same thing: assimilating to a culture by accepting its diversity, respecting divergent values as long as they are not harmful to others and learning a common language.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 20, 2007 at 1449 hrs

Just out of curiosity, do you view me as an overbearing, simple-minded right wing nutjob?

To be honest I did at the beginning of this thread, because you responded in typical right-wing nutjob fashion by suggesting that without the bible we couldn’t be honest or faithful or not kill anyone.

However, in my view you redeemed yourself with,

Most of the things I’ve said have been aimed at the far-left, and I’ll say again that the Truth is more in the middle. Once the rest of the extremists on any side figure that out, everything will be fine.

Because I could not agree more. This is always the case - if only the nutjobs, whackos, liars, and political hacks could be locked up at election time, we’d be much better off.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 20, 2007 at 2109 hrs

More in keeping with the the basics of “wherever you go there you are” and the kind of realizations/insights that make the hope of coexistence real;

This old man begins to feel not like an old man in a ghetto in some city in northern Iraq, but rather an old man, broken and impoverished by a society that moves to fast to notice, much like many of the older men and women back home…

This guy gets it!

Read the rest here:

http://seananderson-myjourney.blogspot.c om/2007/11/old-man-and-gheto.html
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 05, 2007 at 1007 hrs

Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.

Coexist?

Show all recent comments

September 2010
Sun	Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat
			1	2	3	4
5	6	7	8	9	10	11
12	13	14	15	16	17	18
19	20	21	22	23	24	25
26	27	28	29	30

Total Entries: 17560
Total Comments: 112294
Total Trackbacks: 1069
Most Recent Entry: 09/02/2010 03:03 pm
Most Recent Comment on: 09/02/2010 05:06 pm
Total Members: 9748
Total Logged in members: 3
Total guests: 76
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 09/02/2010 05:09 pm
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm

Current Logged-in Members: djmamayek laker Owen

Syndication: RSS 2.0 | Atom

Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).