 | | codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
|
Despite being a big fan of Simon Hoggart’s parliamentary sketches, I am not so keen on his weekend column. However, I did enjoy this: (URL) Holy matrimony: the authorised version> As George Bush tries to make gay marriage a key election issue, a (...) (20 years ago, 7-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
|
(...) Please, let's be honest. WHO is making gay marriage an election issue? Who is driving this issue and pushing it to confrontation? JOHN (20 years ago, 8-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
|
(...) Well, honestly, Dubya made it an election issue when he put it in his SOTU address. Watching the speech, it was fairly obvious that the matter would become a proverbial litmus test as the campaigns moved forward. As usual, Dubya can maintain (...) (20 years ago, 8-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
|
(...) I quoted the salient text of the SOTU below: (...) "A strong America must also value the institution of marriage. I believe we should respect individuals as we take a principled stand for one of the most fundamental, enduring institutions of (...) (20 years ago, 8-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
|
(...) And how did Bush become “president”? Was it by listening to the "will of the people"? John: face facts. Bush mixes religion and politics in a rather ugly way when it suits him; this is just another example of that. Iraq showed us all that Bush (...) (20 years ago, 9-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
|
(...) Non-sequitur. (...) Scott: opinions opinions. (...) Don't follow you there. JOHN (20 years ago, 9-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
|
(...) As I understand it, most Christian theologians and church leaders were against the "war". See: (URL) War 'should be last resort'> & (URL) Pope urges Blair to avoid war>. Scott A (20 years ago, 9-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
|
(...) If you'd known me back then, you'd have heard my outrage! That exact example is why certain Liberal pundits have identified Clinton as the greatest Republican President of the latter 20th century. (...) I submit that the DOMA is (...) (20 years ago, 9-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
|
(...) Well, I suppose since I'm not interested in marrying a man, I'll let this one pass for arguments sake to get onto the juicer bits below... (...) Wooohooo! But then, this isn't any different from a standard politician's template - they just (...) (20 years ago, 9-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
|
(...) "Christianity" and opinions (especially political ones) of particular Christians are not synonymous. JOHN (20 years ago, 9-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
|
(...) In all seriousness, how do you define "Christianity?" I would suggest that the answer cannot be "the teachings of Christ according to scripture," because that answer, for all practical purposes, reduces to "the opinions of particular (...) (20 years ago, 9-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
|
(...) Fair enough. (...) Well, it is if the law hasn't even been contested before them yet! There is a process with which they apparently cannot be bothered. (...) Good question. I think he believed that judges would actually uphold the law of the (...) (20 years ago, 9-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
|
(...) Are you saying the Pope was politically motivated, or that killing tens of thousands in Iraq was a political decision? Scott A (20 years ago, 9-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
|
(...) The religion of the believers and followers of Jesus the Christ (Messiah). (...) Jesus' teachings were obviously important, but don't forget His work as Savior, dying for the sins of all people and thereby justifying the world to God. JOHN (20 years ago, 9-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
|
(...) I am not a Catholic so whatever the Pope says is inconsequential to me-- I have no idea as to his motivations. (...) Many died in Iraq because of SH's refusal to abdicate his rule. If he had stepped down, there would have been no need to (...) (20 years ago, 9-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
|
(...) I'm a little lost on the pronouns here--does "they" refer to the people getting married and/or the people performing/solemnizing those marriages? My understanding is that the DOMA frees states from the obligation to recognize same-sex (...) (20 years ago, 9-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
|
(...) But the trick, for outsiders like me, is that there doesn't seem to be a compelling reason to accept one group's system of beliefs in preference to any other group's. Throughout history there have been innumerable groups whose methods of (...) (20 years ago, 9-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
|
(...) Sorry. I was referring to those performing the marriages. California's Prop 22 specifically bans same-sex marriage! I mean, what the hey? (...) This is the problem. Nothing seems to matter-- federal law or state law. Both are in effect and yet (...) (20 years ago, 10-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
|
(...) The proof is in the pudding. Or, as Jesus put it: "If you grow a healthy tree, you'll pick healthy fruit. If you grow a diseased tree, you'll pick worm-eaten fruit. The fruit tells you about the tree." Matthew 12:33 I say: don't tell me you (...) (20 years ago, 10-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
|
(...) Pope aside, are saying that the statments made by many church leaders were politically motivated? (...) He was under no obligation to step down. (...) Come on John, that lie has been long exsposed. Your naivety must be starting to wear by now? (...) (20 years ago, 10-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
|
(...) Oh. Yeah, I guess it's pretty clear: Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. Well, in that case, I applaud Mayor Newsom for defying a bogus, descriminatory law! (...) Hmm. "Civil Right to marry" might have (...) (20 years ago, 10-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
|
(...) I don't know which leaders you are talking about and even if I did I wouldn't have any idea as to their motivations (unless they so indicated). I come from a traditional that believes that each and every person has direct access to God without (...) (20 years ago, 10-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
|
(...) Which doesn't mean a thing if they are in violation of the constition. That's the whole point in doing this kind of thing - to test the law. Gotta admire their courage. (...) What a frivilous and idiotic misuse of the amendment process - just (...) (20 years ago, 10-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
|
(...) Here is his justification: (URL) I find this so disingenuous! "Pursuant to my sworn duty to uphold the California Constitution, including specifically its equal protection clause..." What about the rest of the CA Constitution? Upholding all of (...) (20 years ago, 10-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
|
(...) So you have no problem threatening our own leaders (watch it, with the Patriot Act, you might be locked up for life with no trial on this one...)? Our leaders supported the Taliban, after all... Our leaders supported SH, after all... (I'm too (...) (20 years ago, 10-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
|
(...) What courage? Newsom hasn't even been arrested for disobeying the law! I think I might come to California and steal your LEGO Pirate collection and expect equal treatment Newsom is getting under the law-- namely the law looking the other way. (...) (20 years ago, 10-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
|
(...) Let me clarify: I believe it is totally appropriate to threaten any and all leaders of any nation who aid and abett terrorists who threaten our national security. (...) Against a greater threat, namely the USSR. (...) Against a greater threat, (...) (20 years ago, 10-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
|
(...) Yet. Courage is standing up for something you believe in the face of the consequences - that the other side has turned out too gutless to do anything about it doesn't change that. I (...) Let me introduce you to my counter-argument: Winchester (...) (20 years ago, 10-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
|
(...) That is where you and I differ. I believe in “Freedom”. Not just for me: I believe in freedom for everyone. Scott A (...) (20 years ago, 11-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
|
(...) lol, But -->Bruce<-- I would have expected a little snickersnee from you! Nonetheless, Kewl-- does it still fire, and more importantly: do your Liberal buddies know you own a gun;-) (...) lol I would have said Massachusetts, long before (...) (20 years ago, 11-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
|
(...) Works fine - actually, I had no idea what model it was until I just looked. I presumed it was some thing my grandfather got in the 60's - which he may have, but by it's serial number it is actually 100 years old (1904). Dang. Snickersnee? (...) (20 years ago, 11-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
|
(...) I've got a bolo tie... (...) I read that too early in my life-- never got it. (...) lol Just rented that to watch with my son a while back (catching him up on all of the classics:-) (...) lol If you are going to lob a fat one over the plate, (...) (20 years ago, 11-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
|
(...) That's precisely the problem. You are a bigot and narrow-minded, only, you can't understand that fact and therefore, you think you are not and that everyone else is wrong. You compare Gay marriages to brother-sister marriages and group (...) (20 years ago, 11-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
|
(...) Merely because I think I'm right doesn't make me narrow-minded or a bigot. You think that you're right and I'm wrong.... As far as accusing me of thinking that everybody else is wrong, well I think that you have me confused with Dave! :-) (...) (20 years ago, 11-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
|
(...) That's interesting, but it does not explain your "political" comment, nor does it answer my question. (...) What right did Bush have to threaten him? (...) Not everyone; was that not why Rumsfeld established is own little intelligence fiefdom? (...) (20 years ago, 11-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
|
(...) Oh, give me a frelling break! The world is not coming to an end because 50% of marriages fail, and the world won't come to an end if gays are allowed to *marry*. The society is {not} based on marriage. The Nuclear Family is a farce and a (...) (20 years ago, 11-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
|
(...) I honestly don't know what you mean by that. What does that have to do with people who wish to kill you and will given the chance? Your statement is a feel-good non sequitur. JOHN (20 years ago, 12-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
|
(...) lol What are you talking about?? I thought you wanted to know if church leaders' comments were politically motivated? To which political comment of mine are you referring? As far as your question about church leaders' motivation-- I already (...) (20 years ago, 12-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Terrorists hate freedom (was Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles)
|
|
(...) Now THERE is a peculiarly American point of view. On the basis that terrorists are those who forsake non-violent means of change, and violently target combatants and non-combatants alike to coerce changes in state policy, I'd have thought that (...) (20 years ago, 12-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
|
(...) I do. But you now say "I wouldn't have any idea as to their motivations" (...) It is you who said they were politically motivated, and now say "I wouldn't have any idea as to their motivations"! (...) I'm just not clear on what the threat was. (...) (20 years ago, 12-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
|
(...) Richard explians all: (URL) A (...) (20 years ago, 12-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Terrorists hate freedom (was Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles)
|
|
(...) Oh, great--now Australians hate freedom, too... Dave! (20 years ago, 12-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Terrorists hate freedom (was Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles)
|
|
(...) Well they are a bunch of convicts! ;) Scott A (...) (20 years ago, 12-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
|
(...) Show me specifically where I said that their comments were politically motivated. I think I specifically said that a) they weren't speaking as Christian leaders, because they have no authority (that I recognize anyway) to speak on behalf of (...) (20 years ago, 12-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
|
(...) (URL) see here> (...) So why corner him? (...) Tell that to those who died on USS Cole & in Kenya. Scott A Have you had a look at Arthurs Seat Yet? (2 URLs) (...) (20 years ago, 12-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
|
(...) No answer John? (...) No answer John? Scott A (20 years ago, 12-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Terrorists hate freedom (was Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles)
|
|
(...) "Loving Freedom" doesn't mean "Loving Freedom for me". Denying others' rights to win your own hardly qualifies someone as a "freedom lover"-- more like a disgusting hypocrite. (...) Oppression never justifies the murder of innocents. What is (...) (20 years ago, 12-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Terrorists hate freedom (was Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles)
|
|
(...) Ducking for cover as the opposition has a field day with this... -->Bruce<-- (20 years ago, 12-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
|
(...) Would you compare the Civil Rights Movement of the 60's in the US to the Intifada today? Which group has progressed further-- Blacks or Palestinians? Why is that? Because Palestinian leaders like Arafat are not concerned with the freedom of (...) (20 years ago, 12-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
|
(...) If you have a point, make it. I don't have time for 20 questions. JOHN (20 years ago, 12-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
|
(...) But see, there's the problem. On what basis can one assess someone's actions to be following or not following Jesus? Unfortunately, the Gospels don't qualify as adequately impartial accounts of his life, death, life, or teachings, so we'd need (...) (20 years ago, 12-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Terrorists hate freedom (was Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles)
|
|
(...) SH only became a "problem" after he invaded Q8... i.e. he was America's friend when he perpetrated many of his worst crimes. (...) Tell that to the ANC & IRA. BTW: which terrorist groups have been beaten with force? (...) Indeed! (...) You (...) (20 years ago, 12-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
|
(...) No. Can you show me how that analogy is valid? (...) Arafat has long recognised Israel. Scott A (...) (20 years ago, 12-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
|
(...) I'm asking you which terrorist groups he supported which made him a threat to the USA. Scott A (20 years ago, 12-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
|
(...) Do your own Google Search. I found this for starters: (URL) JOHN (20 years ago, 12-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Terrorists hate freedom (was Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles)
|
|
(...) Much in the same way Stalin was our "friend" during WWII. (...) Yeah, and when did you stop beating your wife, Scott? I do not condone the killing of Iraqi children; I mourn the killing of Iraqi children. You are a jerk for saying so. Iraqi (...) (20 years ago, 12-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
|
(...) Ummmmmm, where are you going with this? You ironically note that quoting yourself as a source is dubious by itself, but with Todd, Tim, and Jake providing corroborating evidence, you are at least more credible. But in the next breath you (...) (20 years ago, 12-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
|
(...) Since they cannot be verified as independent sources and can instead be shown to borrow heavily from one another (in a manner quite similar to the process of editorial revisions of a single work), they cannot, to my satisfaction, be regarded (...) (20 years ago, 12-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
|
(...) It is not me that is making the claim. (...) Hardly a credible objective viewpoint! (URL) About> the same pet group: "Some U.S. officials see Iran as a target for regime change and have suggested using the Mujahedin-e Khalq as a vehicle for (...) (20 years ago, 12-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Terrorists hate freedom (was Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles)
|
|
(...) Show me how that analogy is relevant. (...) Get a dictionary, and see what "condone" actually means. Then look up "cluster bomb"... a weapon of indiscriminate destruction. You are a (...) Did I say civilians were targets at any point? (...) (...) (20 years ago, 12-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
|
(...) I didn't say that I thought they were right, or wrong, just that I was amazed at your example. (...) Freudian equivalent of a banana peel? (...) So, within the universe of the Bible, Luke, Matthew, John, and Mark are sufficiently separate (...) (20 years ago, 12-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Terrorists hate freedom (was Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles)
|
|
(...) I don't have time for your endless tangentalizing-- as if I am obligated to comment on every new topic you toss out in the form of a 6 word question. JOHN (20 years ago, 12-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
|
(...) That's my amazing prose, of course. (...) I don't know that it's two steps back. I can accept that Luke, Matthew, John, and Mark are separate authors of the Gospels, just as I accept that, say, HP Lovecraft and August Derleth are separate (...) (20 years ago, 12-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
|
(...) Er-hem. I know what you are trying to get at, I'm just trying to point out that your examples aren't exactly the best for doing that (and mostly just to give you are hard time for humor's sake). In your example above, all that's true, but it's (...) (20 years ago, 12-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Terrorists hate freedom (was Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles)
|
|
(...) Prove it. (...) So, apparently, does "gentleman's" war, if it's a useful objective. ROSCO (20 years ago, 12-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Terrorists hate freedom (was Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles)
|
|
(...) Perhaps our history has given us additional insights into the importance of freedom, and the lengths one might be prepared to go for it. Not to suggest our thinking is necessarily better, perhaps just a little different ;-) Richard Still (...) (20 years ago, 13-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Terrorists hate freedom
|
|
You know, I had kinda hoped that someone other than John might have spoken up in defence here. Perhaps that they have not is a very good sign. This post is longish, and I do apologise. I don't normally wax quite so lyrical, but it is a deep and (...) (20 years ago, 13-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Terrorists hate freedom
|
|
(...) De plane, boss, de plane! De fence, boss, de fence! Oh, sorry, defense. Ummmmmmmm, okay, maybe if I knew what I was supposed to be defending. Perhaps if I read on and not pick on a minor error... :-) (...) I find something ironic in that (...) (20 years ago, 13-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Terrorists hate freedom
|
|
(...) (snippage) (...) First, I think we all can agree that no nation is perfect, including the US. That said, I am reticent about commenting on Guantanamo because I don't believe that enough facts are about the interned are readily available. I (...) (20 years ago, 13-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
|
(...) hehe You are so predictable! (...) Try (URL) this> viewpoint! :-) JOHN (20 years ago, 13-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Terrorists hate freedom
|
|
(...) I think Richard was talking about the "givens" that they have been held for up to 2 years without being charged, in the name of "security". Something that the administration would frown upon in the name of freedom. (...) Women, pregnant women, (...) (20 years ago, 14-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Terrorists hate freedom
|
|
(...) Mmmmmm. Brevity being the soul of wit etc. 'namby-pamby PC touchy-feely' is a collection of adjectives I seldom encounter in relation to myself (I think if I was John I'd be offended ;-), and its not like the additional detail is helping very (...) (20 years ago, 14-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Terrorists hate freedom
|
|
(...) You have summed up the problem without realizing it, I think. If, for example, an administration wanted to quiet someone, all they have to do is throw them in the Gulag (I like Richard's appraisal of what it is) and simply refuse to divulge (...) (20 years ago, 14-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Terrorists hate freedom
|
|
(...) First off, let's not assume that those detained are "innocent". They all were captured fighting against our forces. When I said "all of the facts aren't in", I meant that I didn't possess all of the facts in order to comment-- and neither does (...) (20 years ago, 14-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Terrorists hate freedom
|
|
(...) No wonder I didn't get it. I would never have thought that I needed a moral justification for freeing myself from 'evil oppression'. I'll think on this some more. (snip) (...) I am not sure that there is a useful difference between the concept (...) (20 years ago, 14-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Terrorists hate freedom
|
|
(...) There are so many different legal issues-- definitions of POWs and of being "at war" and the Geneva Convention and whatnot. It's lawyer stuff and I really try to avoid it. That doesn't mean that there aren't people out there who aren't on up (...) (20 years ago, 14-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Terrorists hate freedom
|
|
(...) (rereading what I wrote) Nope, didn't say that. They all (...) Allegedly. Maybe. Maybe not. If they were, two years held without charges? Those in charge are incompetent or evil. Take your pick, we need to get rid of them either way. When I (...) (20 years ago, 14-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Terrorists hate freedom
|
|
(...) I fear you still don't get it. I am talking about killing an innocent (unrelated to your oppression) in order to free you from your oppressor. I am saying that that action is morally unjustified. (...) WRT to Iraq, the US took great care to (...) (20 years ago, 14-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Terrorists hate freedom
|
|
(...) lol I'll gladly drop it:-) (...) I'm curious. If WMDs were discovered to have been smuggled off to Syria, would Bush be exonerated in your estimation? (regardless of whether you thought attacking Iraq was a good idea or not) (...) I believe (...) (20 years ago, 14-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Terrorists hate freedom
|
|
(...) But a land invasion was tried first! "Oh well, that didn't work looks like more innocents will die that way, lets go with the nuke and see how well that works". And they didn't stop at one to see if it worked, they killed many more thousands (...) (20 years ago, 14-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Terrorists hate spelling properly
|
|
(...) Well, Bruce old man, you sat me back on my heels there for a minute, but no, this is not an error, just yet more American Imperialism and intolerance! 'If you don't do it like me you must be wrong'. Top marks. Next you'll be explaining to me (...) (20 years ago, 14-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Terrorists hate freedom
|
|
Just a drive by participant here in this particular thread, more's the pity as it has been interesting and I wish I had more time.... (...) I agree with this but fear that in some cases (that of the radical fanatic who is convinced that his god is (...) (20 years ago, 14-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Terrorists hate freedom
|
|
(...) It does. There are different kinds of religions. Changing a popular or materially well resourced religion is no small thing. But even Christianity got over this when essentially left to its own devices. Mind you, in the hundreds of years it (...) (20 years ago, 14-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Terrorists hate spelling properly
|
|
(...) Who can keep up with British backwardness, I tell ya! :-) (oops) But still worth making fun of! De feet, boss, de feet! (...) Considering how much you ran on about it, I doubt that! :-) (...) See! I was right! (...) Michaelangelo disagrees (...) (20 years ago, 14-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Terrorists hate freedom
|
|
(...) If the elections are rigged so that only the two entrenched parties can prevail and the facts of the situation are shrouded in secrecy, how exactly are the leaders in any way accountable? (20 years ago, 14-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Welcome aboard [was Re: Terrorists hate freedom]
|
|
(...) …and who is making sure we stay in the dark? The reality is that five Britons were released without charge from Guntanamo Bay this week... a fact that suggests Bush had no reason to hold them! Since their release, they have been giving their (...) (20 years ago, 14-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Terrorists hate freedom
|
|
(...) Why are unlawful killings not investigated? This is from (URL) HRW>: “It’s a tragedy that U.S. soldiers have killed so many civilians in Baghdad,” said Joe Stork, acting executive director of the Middle East and North Africa division at Human (...) (20 years ago, 14-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
|
(...) Maybe at this point I need to fall on my sword and admit that I don't understand quite what you're getting at. What is the flaw, exactly, in the original example? Let me try again, in the spirit of redundancy: Within a single framework, three (...) (20 years ago, 15-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Terrorists hate freedom
|
|
(...) Well, the public can rely on perfectly secure and transparent digital voting systems, as well as an accurately representative and flexible electoral college, just like we enjoy here in the States. Dave! (20 years ago, 15-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
|
(...) I'm saying that your examples are the exact same as the model you are criticizing. You cite three supporting people (from a single source: Lugnet) as an example of a more believable evidence, and I'll I am doing is pointing out that that is (...) (20 years ago, 15-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
|
(...) Well, now I'm confused. Granted, the four magi Dave, Todd, Tim, and Jake are four LUGNET sources, but to LUGNET-savvy people they represent four discrete voices. However, to a non-LUGNET person, all four are subsumed under LUGNET and therefore (...) (20 years ago, 15-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
|
(...) I am still working on a full reply to (URL) your post>, but let me inject here briefly. That there are 4 Gospels does not add any form of credibility to the veracity of the Gospel (Good News) to most Christians, and certainly not me. In fact, (...) (20 years ago, 15-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | BRUCE! Don't reply! Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
|
(...) Now THERE'S an understatement. I finally re-read the original formulation of my example, and the error practically bopped me in the nose. I'll see about reworking it. Dave! (20 years ago, 15-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
