Subject:
|
Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 21 Apr 2004 20:27:40 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2966 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
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?
|
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 scientist has not (or has chosen not to)
subject that portion of his life to scientific analysis, but there’s nothing
wrong with that. Additionally, if the scientist asserts that she has verified
her faith scientifically, I’d love to see the evidence. If the evidence is
compelling, perhaps I’ll adopt her belief. If the evidence is not compelling,
then I will express my reservations to her.
| |
| |
| |
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?
|
I don’t believe we’re currently a Theocracy, though I do assert that there are
inappropriately mingled elements of church & state in the structure of our
government. I don’t object to legitimagely cultural or historical reliigious
elements existing in public venues, as long as these are not framed as
endorsements, but “under God” was specifically added to The Pledge as an
endorsement, and thus it’s inappropriate.
| |
| |
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).
|
Hard to say, alas. There’s a thin line between liberator and occupier, and I
think we crossed it a while ago. I’ve read that many of the people opposed to
our being there simply find us to be objectionably overbearing in our presence.
If I moved into your living room, even if my stated goal were to improve your
life, I expect you’d tire of my presence before long. And, out of respect for
my host’s values, I wouldn’t even bring my MEGABLOKS.
| |
| |
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.
|
That may be the claim, but I don’t find it convincing, given the statements of
Congress and the President at the time when “under God” was added to The Pledge.
After all, Eisenhower is on record proclaiming it as an oath of fealty to the
Christian God!
| |
I think the problem (of trust) 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).
|
That’s not a bad answer, but it doesn’t justify all of Dubya’s secrecy and
prevarication. He’s had plenty of opportunities to inspire trust and confidence
without compromising national security or national interests, and yet he’s still
chosen to hide behind closed doors.
A reasonable critic could be forgiven for wondering if such secrecy implies
wrong-doing.
| |
| |
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.
|
I agree, though I caution you that you’re veering dangerously close to moral
relativism (come on in, by the way--the relativism is fine!)
It’s fine that these are temporal attitudes, but the corresponding penalties
should not be absolute, as they are in danger of becoming. If Infinity
Broadcasting (and the stations that carry Howard Stern) were fined $2.7million
for a single episode, then that is effectively the imposition of an absolute
ban. The punishment should fit the crime, after all, and I can’t believe that
any speech (short of slander, or “shouting fire”) can justifiably be fined so
severely.
| |
| |
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.
|
Right, other than for the sorts of exceptions I mentioned above.
| |
But the examples you gave are ideas; what about the simple, gratuitous
vulgar use of language, a la RM’s thoughtful tirade?
|
Doesn’t bother me, honestly. Of course, since LUGNET is private property with
explicit Terms of Service, it is not inappropriate to exclude someone based on
violation of those Terms. If I were in violation, I fully expect that I would
be excluded, too.
However, I note with interest that the dreaded F-Word has appeared in its
various permutations over a dozen times on LUGNET without corresponding censure
of those users. I’m not calling for their removal, but it can hardly be said
that the word is an automatic cause for censure.
| |
| |
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?
|
No. Often his content is boring and sophomoric, but it has never struck me as
actionably obscene.
Now that I think of it, I’m wholly unfamiliar with the particulars of FCC
licensing. If Howard (or Imus, or anyone else) contractuallly agreed to certain
terms and then violated them, it is entirely appropriate for the FCC to enforce
the contract, but it’s still excessive to levy a multi-million dollar fine.
| |
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?
|
Again, it doesn’t bother me (but I read Bukowski and Burroughs, so Kerry’s
lukewarm profanity carries no shock value, even in context).
Dave!
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | 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)
|
97 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
