Subject:
|
Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 21 Apr 2004 14:02:43 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2997 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
| |
Perhaps this is a matter of semantics. Under what I understand of your
faith, you are “free” to to worship God or to condemn yourself to eternal
damnation, but that’s like saying “you’re free to eat this ice cream cone or
to hit yourself on the head with this hammer.” The fact of that you have a
perceived choice doesn’t mean you have freewill; the choice must be between
two equally appealing or equally unappealing options in order to be truly
free.
|
The choice is to accept God or not. I’m sure that dwelling with God is as
wonderful as dwelling without God is miserable.
|
I figure that you and I both know that we’re getting off the initial point of
the debate, so our audience may wish to tune out at this point!
On what basis are you sure of that? Faith? I’m afraid that’s simply
insufficient for me (and in any case it would be a circular argument)
| |
Freedom of religion doesn’t mean “freedom from religion”.
|
As a matter of fact, I think it means *exactly* that. More specifically, it
means “freedom from government endorsement of religion.” I recognize that my
definition of “endorsement” differs from yours, but that’s another matter.
| |
But let me ask you: do we have an obligation to assist those under
persecution? Can we all be free if there are those who aren’t? And for
those who have been brainwashed to believe that freedom is evil, do we not
have an obligation to enlighten them? Isn’t the Cause of Freedom that
noble? Is that such a horrible cultural idea to export?
|
Not long ago I addressed this
very point. Here’s the relevant bit:
| |
The notion that it (violence & bloodshed) somehow doesn’t affect us as a
nation, or isn’t our business because it happens to someone else, is
directly in conflict with any notion of world-wide peace I can envision. If
a nation needs and asks for our assistance and we are able to give it, how
can we morally refuse that nation? For that matter, if a nation needs our
assistance but is unable to ask for it, how can we refuse that nation?
|
Here are a few possibilities I hadn’t considered at the time: What if the
nation chooses not to accept our help? What if the nation asks for help that
directly conflicts with our own values? What if our definition of “help”
differs so sharply from that nation’s definition that our offer of “help” is
more disruptive than helpful to that nation?
I would say that, if we are able to provide assistance, then we have an
obligation to assist those who ask for it or (if they are unable to ask for it)
those who do not refuse our assistance. Additionally, we should respect their
assessment of the help they need, rather than forcing them to accept our
estimation of that need. Further, our offer of assistance should not be
contingent upon the recipient’s acceptance of terms antithetical to the
recipient’s values or culture. Finally, we must not use assistance to gain
leverage to force the recipient to undertake action in conflict with its own
values.
However, because I am a creature of reason, rather than dogma, I reserve the
right to modify this answer upon further reflection.
| |
| |
Why, then, did Democrats resist his appointment? And please don’t pretend
it’s because he’s Catholic.
|
Because they want their ideas and policies in place, not any one elses.
|
As opposed to Republicans, who embrace dissenting viewpoints with grace and
aplomb?
| |
| |
| |
You and I have very different ideas as to what “establishing” a religion
means. You have a very theoretical idea, and I have a very practical idea.
|
Explain what that means, please.
|
For instance, the phrase “under God”. You claim a voluntary phrase such as
this “establishes religion” and means that our government has in effect
established a religion. I believe the FF had a little more in mind when they
crafted that phrase-- like the setting up of a state church as was the one in
England. The FF envisioned a government that didn’t dictate what religion
you followed, but not a government that eschewed the concept of God.
|
Underlying all of this, IMO, is the fact that the founders wanted no mingling of
state and church, because such mingling would be damaging to both institutions
and to the public as a whole. That’s why there can be no religious tests for
office or citizenship.
The Pledge of Allegiance is, by its nature, a pledge of fealty to the nation.
The Congressional grafting a religious invocation to the official text of
patriotic declaration is an unacceptable endorsement of religion.
I know that you disagree with this, and I reluctantly accept that the Supreme
Court is likely to disagree with this, but in my view it is the correct
decision.
| |
| |
| |
I’m not sure as to the specifics of your allegations, so I assume you are
just stating opinion again.
|
He has gutted the FOIA and has rendered off-limits the papers of Reagan and
Bush Sr. with no more justification than “Because I said so.” That’s hardly
the work of a man who embraces openness in Government. Even if a matter of
national security is at stake, he should subject the materials to review
before summarily declaring them forbidden from public view. They are, after
all, public documents of public employees.
|
It’s a catch-22. We’d need to know what’s in them to decide; it’s a matter
of trusting his judgment; you don’t, I do; been there, done that.
|
I’m curious--on what basis do you trust him, exactly? He equivocates and
dissembles in every single one of his speeches; he is secretive in his policies;
he is deceptive in the naming of his initiatives; he withholds vital information
from budgetary, legislative, and health policies; and he is either deliberately
false or patently incompetent in his preparation and drive leading to the
invasion of Iraq.
If I knew someone in private life who was so thoroughly deceptive, I wouldn’t
trust him enough to let him borrow my pen, much less to run my country. If I
were interviewing him for a job, I certainly wouldn’t trust him enough to hire
him. Consider last week’s press conference, for example, in which he answered
not a single question asked of him!
Honestly, I expect that you’ll declare these objections to be “my opinion” or to
be based on my much-affirmed hatred of Bush, but that’s not the case, and it
doesn’t address the problem.
| |
| |
I find a lot of religious radio programming to be offensive, divisive, and
damaging to society--should it be banned because I say so?
|
Do you find it obscene or profane?
|
I reserve the right to reshape my answer, once I’ve been given a solid
definition of “obscene or profane.” In the meantime, I would definitely state
that the intolerance, homophobia, and desire to recreate the US Government as a
theocracy are obscene, bordering in many cases on “hate speech.” However, I
don’t assert that all religious programming is likewise hateful, in the same way
that not all morning radio commentators are Howard Stern.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism
|
| (...) Yes. Do you claim to only believe in things that are provable? In the final analysis, what would you say about a devout scientist who believed in God? Is he/she compromised as a scientific thinker? (...) Yes, but I'm curious. There are so many (...) (20 years ago, 21-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | Blank checks drawn upon the US
|
| (...) Why? Who placed this obligation on us and what was gained in exchange? (...) Why? (...) Why? What if they are convinced that blue mud is the cure for AIDS (c.f. South Africa right about now) when we know for sure it isn't? (...) Why? Why (...) (20 years ago, 22-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism
|
| (...) The choice is to accept God or not. I'm sure that dwelling with God is as wonderful as dwelling without God is miserable. (...) Freedom of religion doesn't mean "freedom from religion". But let me ask you: do we have an obligation to assist (...) (20 years ago, 20-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
97 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
