Subject:
|
Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 21 Apr 2004 19:20:13 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3002 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
|
| |
| |
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)
|
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?
| |
| |
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.
|
Yes, but I’m curious. There are so many Judeo-Christian references and images
that permeate our federal governmental buildings-- how do you account for this?
Do you assert that we are currently a Theocracy?
| |
| |
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?
|
Interesting, but I can’t imagine anyone refusing freedom (freely). Regarding
Iraq, I believe it is an activist and extremist minority that wants the US out
(fueled by al-Qaeda). We mustn’t let those terrorists dictate policy for the
whole nation (because they don’t represent them).
| |
What if the nation asks for help that
directly conflicts with our own values?
|
I assume you mean the core values of Freedom and Democracy? We don’t help, or
we use our help as a carrot for change.
| |
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?
|
Assuming that the country in question is free and democratic, we would have to
review very carefully the nature of our “help”.
| |
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.
|
I disagree. Our country has a vested interest in promoting freedom in the
world. I see no problem with using aid as a means to encourage the adoption of
Freedom and Democracy. Unconditional humanitarian aid is the job of private
organizations such as the UN, Red Cross, or other such institutions.
| |
| |
| |
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?
|
I have no problem with the “they” in my statement referring to all
politicians. It is the nature of the game. You get in power, you get to call
the shots. Theoretically, your election reflects the will of your constituents.
| |
| |
| |
| |
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.
|
|
|
It was a theory of describing our differences in our understanding of the word
as I tried to illustrate below.
| |
| |
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.
|
Yes, no religious tests-- tell that to Democratic judicial nomination committees
(but I digress;-) But there was religious minglings, especially in terms of
artwork on buildings, etc.
| |
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.
|
If they do find against striking “under God”, it will be because of the lack
of tangible evidence of religious endorsement by government IMO.
| |
| |
| |
| |
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 think the problem lies in the office itself. There is so much going on behind
the scenes that intelligent and informed conclusions just cannot be adequately
drawn-- especially since most of that information is being provided by biased
media (given to them by biased a biased White House).
| |
| |
| |
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.”
|
Don’t hold your breath;-) And that is not meant as a slam on anyone-- how can
those terms ever be finally defined? They are based on temporal, cultural
attitudes.
| |
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.”
|
But you wouldn’t advocate the censorship of them I take it. But the examples
you gave are ideas; what about the simple, gratuitous vulgar use of language, a
la RM’s thoughtful tirade?
| |
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.
|
Curious. Did you have any problems with Stern over public airwaves? Oh, just
thought of something else I’d appreciate your opinion on-- what did you make of
Kerry’s use of vulgarity in print interviews?
JOHN
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism
|
| (...) Well, I guess I'd say that I believe only in those things for which there is empirical evidence or which can, in principle, be proven. As far as a devout scientist is concerned, I say go right ahead! I would, however, offer that IMO the devout (...) (20 years ago, 21-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism
|
| (...) 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 (...) (20 years ago, 21-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
|
|
|
|
