USA Politics Thread - *No gun debate*

[Sophion-Black 0]

I knew this file would show up again. This has been the ONLY source of such remarks. Depite having been in power for many years and speaking many times, Ahmad has only one speech against him.

It only takes two words to put your life behind bars: I'm Guilty and when he says something like this. it shows the true intent of this organization. Now, if your going to stand on your soapbox and hoot and hollar that the CAIR is not at all affiliated with terrorists, don't be offended if a rock "suddenly appears out of nowhere" to "relocate" you. I'm just waiting for CAIR to march past the Mason-Dixon line...

I can see it now: "CAIR leaders place lawsuit against southern states."

We all know down here, in the south, CAIR is nothing more than terrorist plotting to take out the US. And in the words of stereotypical southern soldier: "That constitutes an ass whoppin."

Quote[/b] ]Very off key, just like the fundamentalist Christians (and there's a lot of them) who claim that America was founded on Christian values

It is. Your not allowed to kill, not allowed to steal, not allowed to lie to federal officers... should I go on?

Quote[/b] ]Those in the Mid East at least have the excuse of poverty, lack of education and extraordinarily corrupt political systems.

Well if you remember in 1861 a new nation popped up, then a civil war, then a period of social intolerance, then a period of racial wars. Basically, the US fought itself and is still looking to be fighting itself.

Quote[/b] ]In America only lack of education would qualify, but strictly by choice (like the resistance to teaching evolution) rather than by economical necessity.

are you insinuating that America is stupid? or are you just trying to get into a flamefight? OR, are you attacking religion and trying to pick a flamefight that way?

wait...

Quote[/b] ]Ultimately I agree with Émile Zola's statement that "Civilization will not attain to its perfection until the last stone from the last church falls on the last priest."

its the religion route

Quote[/b] ]The least violent countries in the world are the Scandinavian ones who are dominantly atheistic. The most violent countries in the world are the ones in the Mid East who are dominantly religious. The most violent country in the western world is the US and it is no coincidence that it is the most religious one as well.

you know... I'd hate to hear the rap you get when you face the Almighty. i can just hear the simple click of the "going to hell" button right now. or wait, is that the flamebait warning button?

<<< FLAGGED >>>

[quicksand 0]

@denoir

Quote[/b] ]The least violent countries in the world are the Scandinavian ones who are dominantly atheistic. The most violent countries in the world are the ones in the Mid East who are dominantly religious. The most violent country in the western world is the US and it is no coincidence that it is the most religious one as well.

Actually.No.Link

      Last time Ive checked Northern Ireland was hardly atheistic

Sadly while I can be called an atheist mysel,I beg to differ with Emile Zola quotation as I deem it quite narrow when people kill their each other over soccer matches,spilled drinks or just for the fun of it.

       Is religion the excuse for tens of millions of deaths across history.For certian.Is it the cause?I am not so sure.Will the banishment of any form of relligion attain the perfect civillization?One only needs to have a superficial look at todays multitude of global problems that lack any sort of connection with relligion to see the answer.

      Religious people,indeed tend to be more violent then atheists but where does the education factor kicks in when we also know for a fact that there is a strong trend  for atheists to have a higher level of education then non-atheists.

[Sertorius 0]

Quote[/b] ]Please explain why my comments were using racecard and using a strawman argument.

All right, let's look at what I originally quoted: "so is he supposed to blindly follow narrow minded xenophobic ideas of conservatives? I guess being a muslim group and/or attending such function is terrorist supporting."

In this, you accuse him of being a knee-jerk anti-Islamist, as well as implying that Sophion's conservative views are "xenophobic". Though you didn't quote reach calling him "anti-Arab", "xenophobe" is certainly an example of ad hominem debating tactics.

"Straw man" may not have been the best term for the logical fallacy in your argument. However, since much of your argument appeared to depend on the false assumption that CAIR really has no connections to terrorist organizations, you ended up building a baseless argument that people criticizing CAIR were somehow irrationally prejudiced against it.

[Garcia 0]

It is. Your not allowed to kill, not allowed to steal, not allowed to lie to federal officers... should I go on?

Just because the bible says so, doesn't mean that USAs wouldn't have a law against killing...implying that USA was founded on Christian values are simply bullshit. Without Christianity saying "It's bad to kill", countries would still have laws to try to prevent killing. That it is bad to kill, lie and steal are not only christian values. I'm not christian, neither is my mom, my dad, my brothers or my sister...but hey, here's a shocker, I've never killed anyone...neither have anyone else in my family...

Quote[/b] ]are you insinuating that America is stupid? or are you just trying to get into a flamefight? OR, are you attacking religion and trying to pick a flamefight that way?

Or are you totally misunderstanding the point? Did you actually try to misunderstand his point?

Quote[/b] ]Those in the Mid East at least have the excuse of poverty, lack of education and extraordinarily corrupt political systems.

What he said was that fanatics in muslim countries are poor, don't got education and got a corrupt political system. While in USA they're not as poor and their political system isn't as corrupt...but no matter where you are you got people with lack of education...

Quote[/b] ]you know... I'd hate to hear the rap you get when you face the Almighty. i can just hear the simple click of the "going to hell" button right now. or wait, is that the flamebait warning button?

And it would be so fun ifthe Almighty actually was a reasonble god (if he exists) and burnt people for being bad, not for being good but not beliving...if he would actually burn people just because they didn't belive in him, then he's an utter arse.

[denoir 0]

Quote[/b] ]Very off key, just like the fundamentalist Christians (and there's a lot of them) who claim that America was founded on Christian values

It is. Your not allowed to kill, not allowed to steal, not allowed to lie to federal officers... should I go on?

Yes, please do. Of the ten commandments only two are law: don't kill and don't steal. Lying is not a crime unless in a court of law. So eight out of ten commandments are not law, and perhaps you can guess it's not in any way unique to Christian nations.

The founding fathers of America were all deists, agnostics and atheists - they would be pretty appaled if they saw the shape of the country today.

"Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man." — Thomas Jefferson

Quote[/b] ]

you know... I'd hate to hear the rap you get when you face the Almighty. i can just hear the simple click of the "going to hell" button right now.

If there is a god or gods then you are just as likely going to hell. Of the thousands of religions and tens of thousands of sects in the history of human kind, what makes you think that you belong to the right one? Since you belong to the same religion/sect as your parents, your "choice" of religion/god is for all practical purposes random. And since you have not been making sacrifices to the Sumerian god Enlil (I'm guessing), you are in deep shit should he be the true god (there's just as much proof for that as that the Christian god is the true one). Not to mention the fine grained sects - if you are a protestant and the catholics are right, then you'll go to hell. If you are a catholic and the protestants are right, then you'll go to hell etc

Bottom line, if there is a god, the statistics is seriously in favour of you going to hell (or suffer some similar fate, depending on the religion).

Anyway, I digress. There are a few more interesting replies following my post. I'll answer them when I get a bit of free time.

[billybob2002 0]

The founding fathers of America were all deists, agnostics and atheists - they would be pretty appaled if they saw the shape of the country today.

Actually, you are incorrect in thinking that all of the founding fathers were either deists, agnostics, or atheists. Samuel Adams and John Hancock were Congregationalist. Also, Charles Carroll was a Catholic and Alexander Hamilton was a Presbyterian and an Episcopalian.

Here is a quote from Alexander Hamilton:

Quote[/b] ]

I have a tender reliance on the mercy of the Almighty, through the merits of the Lord Jesus Christ. I am a sinner. I look to Him for mercy; pray for me.

Now, here is quote from Patrick Henry:

Quote[/b] ]That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6529440

Quote[/b] ]

In American Gospel: God, the Founding Fathers, and the Making of a Nation, Jon Meacham asks what America's founding fathers thought about religion in public life. Meacham says those on the left and the right often quote the founding fathers to serve their purposes.

There is a link to the interview in the link.

[denoir 0]

Well, they didn't all hold the same beliefs, but the US constitution speaks for itself. I probably shouldn't have used the word "all". Let me rephrase: The majority of the founding fathers were deists, agnostics and atheists who certainly did not endorse Christianity as state religion.

As for the major characters in that play:

President George Washington "The government of the United States is in no sense founded on the Christian Religion."

President Thomas Jefferson –"I do not find in Christianity one redeeming feature."

President James Madison - "A just government has no need for the clergy or the church."

President Abraham Lincoln -"The Bible is not my book, nor Christianity my religion."

As for Samuel Adams:

"Driven from every other corner of the earth, freedom of thought and the right of private judgment in matters of conscience, direct their course to this happy country as their last asylum."

Not quite the proponent of a state church, right?

And of course we have the illustrius W. who concluded:

President George W. Bush "The United States is a Christian nation founded upon Christian principles and beliefs."

Kind of a contrast to Washington's statement, right?

Overall it's a funny developent - America becoming so religious and Europe becoming so secular considering that many fled to America to escape religious persecution in Europe.

[Sertorius 0]

Quote[/b] ]President Thomas Jefferson –"I do not find in Christianity one redeeming feature."

Well, I can't speak for the others, but I know that Jefferson pragmatically supported some semblance of Christian worship in order to maintain societal integrity.

Quote[/b] ]Overall it's a funny developent - America becoming so religious and Europe becoming so secular considering that many fled to America to escape religious persecution in Europe.

Why is it funny? The first colonies here were founded to be a "City on A Hill" (aka a religious wonderland) that was supposed to impress Europeans to the point where they would then emulate America.

Quote[/b] ]Yes, please do. Of the ten commandments only two are law: don't kill and don't steal.

Others have been made law at lower levels (For example, there are places in the US where you can be arrested for making a purchase of any item on a Sunday).

In other cases, laws are not explicitly religion-based, but religion inevitably enters at some level, often the judicial. For example, until 1967, miscegenation was banned in a number of states, and religion entered into state court decision on the matter. As an example, there were decisions with comments like this: "Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, Malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."

In another example of religion-influenced law, 13 US states had legally banned sodomy at the time of the 2003 SCOTUS decision which overruled all such laws. Even at such a late date, the ruling was seen as controversial in many conservative circles.

[denoir 0]

Quote[/b] ]Overall it's a funny developent - America becoming so religious and Europe becoming so secular considering that many fled to America to escape religious persecution in Europe.

Why is it funny? The first colonies here were founded to be a "City on A Hill" (aka a religious wonderland) that was supposed to impress Europeans to the point where they would then emulate America.

It is true that the early wave of colonists were people leaving Europe not to escape religion, but to have their own sect without risking legal consequences. So yes, the mayflower bunch, the calvinists the puritans etc were all religious zealots.

However they didn't found America and it is not their values in the US constitution. Generally they settled, married their cousins, declared themselves prophets and split off into even smaller sects etc

But again, they are not the ones that founded America. It took high caliber enlightenment minds. While the US constitution may look fairly unimpressive today compared to more modern ones, at the time it was truly revolutionary.

I'm saying that it is funny is because the enlightenment era was the beginning of the end for religious oppression (and to a large degree religion as a whole) in Europe. America started with enlightenment philosophy at the core and regressed to a far more conservative and religious arrangement (in relative terms).

[billybob2002 0]

Well, they didn't all hold the same beliefs, but the US constitution speaks for itself. I probably shouldn't have used the word "all". Let me rephrase: The majority of the founding fathers were deists, agnostics and atheists who certainly did not endorse Christianity as state religion.

As for the major characters in that play:

President George Washington "The government of the United States is in no sense founded on the Christian Religion."

President Thomas Jefferson –"I do not find in Christianity one redeeming feature."

President James Madison - "A just government has no need for the clergy or the church."

President Abraham Lincoln -"The Bible is not my book, nor Christianity my religion."

As for Samuel Adams:

"Driven from every other corner of the earth, freedom of thought and the right of private judgment in matters of conscience, direct their course to this happy country as their last asylum."

Not quite the proponent of a state church, right?

And of course we have the illustrius W. who concluded:

President George W. Bush "The United States is a Christian nation founded upon Christian principles and beliefs."

Kind of a contrast to Washington's statement, right?

Overall it's a funny developent - America becoming so religious and Europe becoming so secular considering that many fled to America to escape religious persecution in Europe.

Wrong, again. The majority of the founding fathers (ff) were not deists, agnostics and atheists. The majority of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were of the Christian faith. The majority of the delegates to Constitutional Convention of 1787 and the signers of the Constitution were of the Christian faith. Majority of the signers of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were Protestant. Some (majority? don't know) of the "notable" ff (i.e. Franklin and Jefferson) were deists.

Anyway, who is advocating a state church?

[ralphwiggum 6]

I knew this file would show up again. This has been the ONLY source of such remarks. Depite having been in power for many years and speaking many times, Ahmad has only one speech against him.

It only takes two words to put your life behind bars: I'm Guilty and when he says something like this. it shows the true intent of this organization. Now, if your going to stand on your soapbox and hoot and hollar that the CAIR is not at all affiliated with terrorists, don't be offended if a rock "suddenly appears out of nowhere" to "relocate" you. I'm just waiting for CAIR to march past the Mason-Dixon line...

I can see it now: "CAIR leaders place lawsuit against southern states."

We all know down here, in the south, CAIR is nothing more than terrorist plotting to take out the US. And in the words of stereotypical southern soldier: "That constitutes an ass whoppin."

Actually it also takes word "Not guilty" at the same time. Difference is that you have to prove "Not guilty"

It seems like some just can't accept the fact that when they speak something that is not aligned with their value, it is an enemy. Funnier thing is they are the same side that complains about them getting offended.

The only "proof" of CAIR being a terrorist supporters is that the ex-leader said something that upset a lot of people, and that "proof" itself is shady at best. So the idea that CAIR is a terrorist supporting organization fails miserably. If CAIR was indeed a such group FBI would be all over their ass by now.

don't be offended if you suddenly can't post here.

All right, let's look at what I originally quoted: "so is he supposed to blindly follow narrow minded xenophobic ideas of conservatives? I guess being a muslim group and/or attending such function is terrorist supporting."

In this, you accuse him of being a knee-jerk anti-Islamist, as well as implying that Sophion's conservative views are "xenophobic". Though you didn't quote reach calling him "anti-Arab", "xenophobe" is certainly an example of ad hominem debating tactics.

You must be missing some English classes here and there. Re-read my comment. My sarcasm asks question of "Why should Ellison submit to ideas of rightwingers?" Considering that accusation of CAIR is on shaky proofs and some posts by nemesis6 himself, it is very well waranted that it is xenophobic knee-jerk anti-Islamist argument. Truth hurts, doesn't it? Ad hominem argument is argument that attacks the person, not the subject. I showed that argument against CAIR is shaky, and on top of that I said "xenophobic ideas".

Quote[/b] ]"Straw man" may not have been the best term for the logical fallacy in your argument. However, since much of your argument appeared to depend on the false assumption that CAIR really has no connections to terrorist organizations, you ended up building a baseless argument that people criticizing CAIR were somehow irrationally prejudiced against it.

My assumption is a lot more sound than the opposite assumption of CAIR being a terrorist supporters. In fact the presence of many LEO officials at the meeting shows just that.

[walker 0]

Hi all

Preamble

First off I will lay my cards on the table and state straight out that I believe the Neo Cons to be the cause of massive damage to the USA’s body politic and to the way the USA is now perceived throughout the world.

I Call them NeoConMen to allude to their being conmen or flimflam men. I point to their ideological roots in the writings of Leo Strauss and the so called Straussian text, which is a piece of writing that is deliberately written so that the average reader will understand it as saying one "exoteric" thing but the special few for whom it is intended will grasp its real "esoteric" meaning, in other words a flimflam, “A Con.†Such an embracing of conning the electorate as a core ideological ideal inevitably leads to corruption and it is that that Americans at this election voted against.

I believe the NeoConMen have used Bolshevik entryist techniques to gain control of the US Republican party. A search of the ideological history of the NeoConMen will show they started out under different names as Democrats where they tried out their Trotskyite entryist techniques but the Democrats believe in healthy debate which made entryist techniques impossible. The GOP does not like debate; as it looks too much like a split and traditional GOP strategy is to focus on splits or “wedge issues†hence the insistence on a unified party to prevent such a weakness, but of course so often is the case you make your self strong in one way at the cost of weakness in another. So the NeoConMen shifted targets to the GOP as their interest as entryists is in power. A Republican Party, where dissension is often treated as treachery rather than debate, were ripe for entryist techniques.  

I refer to the Trotskyite roots of the NeoConMen

http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Trotskyism

and their attack on individual freedom in the guise of homeland defence. I also point once again to Leo Strauss and his concept of a Bolshevik ruling elite for whom the "esoteric" text is intended as well as the Marxist continuous revolution that Rove and his NeoConMen promote, they also say there is an “End of History†a Marxist concept. And so I often also call The NeoConMen commies.

After all; where is America now on Torture? Where is America now on Habeas Corpus? Where is America on small government? Does that not look Commie to you?

America's increasing secularism and its effect on future elections.

While fleeing religious persecution was a big part of the original migration to the USA particularly from Northern Europe, I assert the descendants of those migrants have evolved away from strong interpretations of their religions.

I further assert that from the end of the civil war the major cause of migration to the US has been economic with a small amount of political migration. The big Italian and Irish migrations come to mind.

Lately there have been the political/economic migrations from Asian countries like Korea and Vietnam but the economic migrations from Latin America and Eastern Europe outstrip this. There has also been a constant trickle migration of part of the educated elite from Europe and Asia for economic reasons (the so called brain drains of Doctors and nurses, academics, engineers, scientists and the like; ever notice the disproportionate number of talking heads on US news without a US accent?)

I base my assertions on US census figures for migration and this history of Migration to North America

http://www.let.leidenuniv.nl/history/migration/chapter52.html

The continuing rise of secularism

I further assert USA is becoming more and more secular I base the assertion on the US survey figures and bring to your attention this article

http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/kurtz_22_3.htm

The major influence as in Europe and the rest of the world is science; and any nation that was to try, Canute like, to stop this happening will be cutting their economic throat. I do not assert that to mean that science is replacing all religious faith, plainly it is not, but it is causing people to look at religion as truly a matter of faith and not seeing the bible or any other religious book as a description of the nature of the world. I am sorry but you can not learn Pythagoras with just a bible.

As a result like Europe or Japan or Korea and indeed all over the world, as census figures prove, faith has become increasingly a personnel thing, people call them selves Christian/Muslim/Jew/Hindu but do not go to church/mosque/synagogue/temple instead it informs their beliefs, moral and ethical, and is seen by them as their roots; in much the same way as a Native American sees their ancestry and culture, but they are still at heart, no matter their religious belief or lack of it, Americans.

The NeoConMen’ s attempt to take over Christianity

Evangelicals will remain an important and large minority hence they became a target of the NeoConMen’s entryism. I believe the NeoConMen attempted to perpetrate the same con as they achieved on the US Republican Party on the evangelicals in order to create a state religion; to achieve the power of something similar to the advent of Catholicism and its power in the Holy Roman Empire.

While Rove and the NeoConMen tried to use the evangelicals as a political force, politicising and controlling them through their usual Bolshevik entryist strategy of inserting their place men into the leadership of the evangelicals, via Bush's Faith-Based and Community Initiatives con; David Kuo blew that con and the mass of closet gays among the NeoConMen as well as Mark Foley has marked the NeoConMen’s card for the evangelicals. There is then the fact that after 6 years of control of Presidency, Congress and Senate none of the evangelical’s policies were ever enacted.

The fact that Key NeoConMan Placeman Ted Haggard turned out to be a closset gay who was also into drugs was yet another nail in the cofin.

Bohemia Grove

Add to that the increasing awareness of so many NeoConMen’s membership of Bohemia Grove (heck how can folks be Christian and go to Bohemia Grove?)

You then add in evangelical’s increasing awareness of the Franklin scandal and of course the other shoe has still to drop on the Jeff Gannon story.

These were stories that piqued the curriosity of the average Red State evangelical voter who went googling on the internet to find out if they were true. Finding proof in the forms of videos and pictures including aledgedly censored documentries added to the conclusion that the NeoConMen were corrupt.

The shift in the Rockies and Middle America and Rove's strategic error

The major change remains that the USA is more secular and that faith has become more personal. It is evolving and unstoppable. Rove hoped to harness the evangelical’s fear of secularity and turn them into political cannon fodder but the reality is that the increasing secularity and personalisation of faith made it a dead end strategy.

The big strategic error Rove has made is that he ignored the increase in US secularism and the trend it follows; and the inevitable decreasing percentage of the vote any strategy based on the declining religious sector of the electorate entails.

Yes there was an increase in evangelicals but it was at the cost of the more traditional versions of Christianity not the secular. The census figures prove it.

The only real increase in Christianity in the US comes from Latin American immigrants. Maybe I misunderstand Rove and all along he intended to ditch the evangelicals after 2 or 3 elections to replace them with Latinos via the guest worker program and pulling the same con on the Latinos that was perpetrated on the evangelicals.

But using the Latino vote is a circle the NeoConMen could never square. The largely Catholic Latinos do not easily switch to the evangelicals, and anti immigration elements in the Republican Party make it a loose loose for the NeoConMen. Rove the much vaunted reader of statistics miss-read the Christian vote assumed it was all evangelicals and forgot about the Catholic Latinos who switched massively in this election to vote Democrat.

Pigs in pokes

In the election Rove also made a tactical error. Lots of supposed Christian policies got talked about by the NeoConMen over the six years of NeoConMen rule of congress but they never got delivered did they?

As David Kuo points out NeoConMen were "cynically hijacking the faith-based initiatives idea for electoral gain," ignoring issues such as poverty, and limiting faith-based grants to organizations that were "politically friendly to the administration."

The NeoConMen dangled a carrot in front of the evangelicals in the form of Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives set up by George Bush Junior with a supposed budget of $8 billion. Eight billion dollars was promised but only about 21 million was ever paid out. And all the recipients of the 21 million made a big fuss about how good Bush was to the Christian evangelicals. The recipients were people like Ted Haggard.

Interestingly the NeoConMen removed this budget from the oversight by congress. I think a congressional examination of that use of Taxpayers money would prove very beneficial.

The NeoConMen, Rove and all; also failed to understand the complexity of the evangelicals and their hatred of corruption and their feelings of betrayal after six years and four elections of having the carrot dangled in front of them. Their Straussian Text cut two ways they wrote the exoteric text for their cannon fodder but never bothered to see it from the cannon fodders point of view. Like any other flimflam man, they were too taken up with concept of: not giving a sucker an even break. Both evangelicals and Christians in general were seething with quiet rage but it is the nature of a flimflam man that he cannot empathize with those he cons otherwise they would not be able to perpetrate the con.

With so many NeoConMen involved in Malfeasance Abramoff would take a couple of pages to list, Randy 'Duke' Cunningham who's in prison, you have got Bob Ney heading to prison, Kenneth Lay, George Bush Juniors best friend, escaped prison by dieing, Ted Haggard drugs and rent boys, Tom Delay under investigation for money laundering, Bill Frist investigated for insider trading, Bob Corker being investigated for shady land deals, George Allen the man who called an opponents staffer a Macaca and a history of other racial controversy and who's supporters assaulted a US Marine Veteran for asking awkward question like what is your arrest record senator? Scooter Libby under indictment for lying to the FBI while they were investigating a CIA agent’s cover being blown, Danny Hastert and his whole office being investigated for failing to report Mark Foley when he was stalking little boys, ditto Tom Reynolds, Mark Foley himself for chasing after little boys... I could go on but my fingers are sore. Needless to say the evangelicals realised they had been sold a Pig-in-a-poke

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confidence_trick

Howard Dean spots the strategic and tactical errors of Rove

Howard Dean realised Roves strategic and tactical errors and most importantly understood that the balance between the evangelicals and increasing secularism has shifted the electoral balance in many Red states.

So Dean started going after what used to be considered Red states. The massive loss of Red states in this election was the result.

At the next election the Democrats will almost certainly seek to expand that and take many more former Red states particularly along the Rockies and Middle America. It is the biggest change Rove has brought about. Roves concentration on the Christian vote made Dean and the rest look closely at the evangelical vote and question his statistics and realise that the NeoConMen’ s supposed vast strength actually masked a great weakness, growing secularism.

Now Rove's idea of a Bolshevik NeoConMen controlled future is dead. George Bush Junior has even shortened Rove's nick name:

Quote[/b] ]

...It's no secret President Bush has nicknames for his friends and foes.

• To wit: Sneed hears Dubya has now shortened his pet nickname for his chief political strategist Karl Rove, who failed to deliver the goods this time.

• To wit: Quoth a top GOP source: "The president's nickname for Rove was 'Turd Blossom.' Now it's just plain 'Turd.' " ...

http://www.suntimes.com/news/sneed/130272,cst-nws-sneed09.article

Follow link for the full story

Why calling it a War on Terror is a strategic error

The NeoConMen coined the phrase “War on Terror†and it was a gift to Al Qaeda suddenly a bunch of criminal murderers and thugs had been given the protection of the Laws of War. Why else are we having such trouble bringing these people before a court? They are also afforded the publicity of fighting a war.

It is not a war and the methods and people of most use in fighting it are not soldiers but police men and security agents. Calling it a war makes your strategy one of Armies and leads to strategic errors like Iraq. Once the Taliban had been removed from power in Afghanistan we should simply have followed up with policemen hunting down those responsible for 9/11. Instead George Bush Junior hungry for victories in more wars took his eye off the ball left Osama and Al Qaeda’s infrastructure to rebuild and started a pointless war in Iraq.

Bali, Madrid and 7/7 were the result along with the senseless quagmire that is Iraq.  Meanwhile the festering sore that is Israel/Palestine has burst spewing its pus all over Lebanon once again.

Calling it a war, lead inevitably to going into Iraq. After all it is not a war if there are no Armies. So a war we had and George Bush Junior had his moment on deck of the Aircraft Carrier to announce the "End of major combat operations" of course we now all know that was somewhat presumptuous.

We did not even need to go in. There was no threat:

There was no WMD in Iraq.

There was no link between Al-Qaeda and Iraq.

There was no link between 9/11 and Iraq.

Saddam could have been removed by a simply funded coup.

100,000 Iraqi civilians would still be alive as would the more than 3000 coalition soldiers and hundreds of thousands would not have been wounded maimed and crippled.

America's insularity and the bunker mentality of retreat from the world. A victory for Al Qaeda?

America looses influence

The other major effect has been the USA’s retreat in to the bunker mentality a victory that Al Qaeda should never have been allowed, but even before 9/11 I fear the USA has suffered from a corrupting insularity.

I have travelled extensively and the few American travellers I have met, and they were few, very few, are totally culture shocked outside Western Europe. I further distinguish here between: the package tourist, insulated from the culture and the traveller who at least experiences a little of the culture of the country they visit.

I have to state this; Americans are too insular, heck I guess you can be with a country so big, but few US citizens even own a passport and their exposure to other cultures is via migrants from other countries. It is highly unlikely you are going to understand a culture from those who would rather leave it.

The best sources of understanding of other cultures are those who live and work there for a while but they also need to get out of the western enclaves and experience the real culture of the countries they visit.

There is also an under-representation of minority groups being travellers outside the USA. Yes you get the odd Black American visiting the African countries or Eastern Europeans, Latinos and Asians visiting their ancestral country but they rarely visit outside their families country of origin. Black American tourists never mind travellers in Asia and Eastern Europe are as rare as hen’s teeth. There needs to be more of Black American’s out there experiencing other cultures and binging back their understanding.

In Delhi I met two couples who had just flown in. They had been there a few hours and were terrified of the smell and dirt, and the beggars hitting on them, because they were “lobsters†gave them the screaming ab-dabs (“lobstersâ€: In India beggars spot newcomer white travellers by the colour of their skin often sunburnt). They were actually booking their flight back to the USA willing to pay over the odds to get out after spending thousands to get there. I saw few US citizens touring around Asia I saw at least ten times as many of virtually every other nationality. Ditto Eastern Europe.

I think insularity is the biggest problem facing the USA today and the NeoConMen have made it worse, by making so many enemies and snubbing so many friends and allies. As a result the USA has lost influence in the world.

Let's admit it US foreign policy is in the biggest mess it has been in for over a century. North Korea would never have tested a bomb if people had talked to them. Threatening people makes them hunt for a defence real hard. Ditto Iran. It also increases the numbers of groups that ally against the USA.

This insularity needs to change if the USA is to become once again an influence in the world. The Peace Corps needs to be revived and Americans needs to both shake off their fear of the rest of the world and do their best to improve the rest of the rest of the worlds perception of the USA.

Things are getting missed and America’s understanding of the world is dumbed down by a basic lack of people from the USA who are out there seeing and experiencing the rest of the world for real.

On a practical note I dare say US Agents get embarrassed by how easy it is for the opposition to spot them when they are the only US citizen in a crowd. There just is not enough clutter of students on gap years or NGOs or educationalists or business people or tourists for the agents to hide among.

Along with the NeoConMen’s over reliance on electronic intelligence, it has lead to an outsourcing of US human intelligence to foreign intelligence services and dubious assets; who can ignore the damage Ahmed Chalabi http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmed_Chalabi

has done to US intelligence about Iraq?  And does the USA really want to be relying on the Pakistani ISI for its intelligence on the Taliban and Al Qaeda in the tribal areas of Pakistan and border with Afghanistan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inter-Services_Intelligence

or even begging intelligence from France and Germany?

The shift in political balance in South America, the improvement of diplomatic relations between various Middle Eastern and Far Eastern countries, free trade alliances that oppose US interests, the increasing power of Russia over oil and gas reserves, the increasing economic might of China and its major moves into Africa withits vast untapped resouces in minerals and unexplored energy resources; are all indicative of a basic failure of intelligence or just plane lack of citizens on the ground informing US cultural understanding of the rest of the world; so that the USA can understand what the world is really like.

The NeoConMen’s dumbing down of America

I suppose the biggest disservice the NeoConMen have done to America is dumbing down all the departments of government. A sort of anti-intellectualism typified by George Bush Juniors "I don't do Nuance" statement. The lack of understanding and indeed aversion to complexity is downright stupid. It is what has been loosing the war in Iraq under Rumsfeld.

Iraq, as any grunt serving there will tell you, is very complex. The Generals tried to tell Rumsfeld this at the start but Rumsfeld followed the NeoConMen doctrine of "them and us" and "with us or against us." We all understand the world by constructing an inner model of the world; oversimplifying your model of a complex reality does not simplify the reality, it just leads to bad strategic decisions based on an oversimplified model. In Iraq, “them†involves a minimum of at least three major factions and as many as hundreds of major tribes, sects, political and religious splinter groups.

These men just are not business or intelectual heavyweights Cheney after all ran his firm into bankruptcy until he wangled a government payout with the USA's biggest ever social security cheque. Those $7 billion dollar no bid contracts in Iraq.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halliburton

Clearly a thourough audit of the KBR Halliburton is needed. There is still the matter of $18 billion of dollars of US tax payers money that is unaccounted for and the further $23 billion of missing Iraqi oil money. I think there is a need for the senate to audit Cheney because his sudden increase in wealth seems somewhat fishy.

Planning was just too much thought for Rumsfeld and Cheney. And this week in the senate General Abizaid became yet another general to say that it was: Rumsfeld and the NeoConMen's strategy of not putting in enough troops, like all the sacked generals requested, that has so crippled the US millitary in Iraq.

It is that spurning of millitary wisdom of those numbers of generals; consider a general is the equivalent of a professor in the field of millitary science. It was that the dumbed down strategy of the NeoConMen under Rumsfeld and Cheney that has left the USA with the quagmire of Iraq.

Goodbye and good riddance to bad rubbish as far as Rumsfeld goes, he should clearly be sued by every wounded soldier from Iraq for his gross negligence but now we have to start clearing up the mess he left.

The loss of American diplomatic power

Complex situations need a deft hand. Talking quietly while carrying the big stick is not something the NeoConMen seem to understand. Instead the last 6 years have been spent screaming loudly and smacking people with the stick. Big strategic problem: people now know the stick isn’t as bad as all that, it can be survived, this leads countries such as Iran to make errors in their assessment of America’s ability to project its power, very, very dangerous.

American Diplomacy is in the worst state I have ever seen it; and the constant shouting has deafened people to the quiet but firm word. America’s ability to cement coalitions and recruit allies is reduced.

Meanwhile reasons for those who are listed as in opposition to the USA to form coalitions against have increased. Calling people part of the Axis of evil caused them to consider my enemies enemy is my friend.

These are the reasons why Bolton must be replaced. America needs to get out of this bunker mentality. It needs to learn to think once again; to become the intellectual leader it once was. Bolton must be replaced and replaced now.

Kind Regards Walker

[denoir 0]

Well, they didn't all hold the same beliefs, but the US constitution speaks for itself. I probably shouldn't have used the word "all". Let me rephrase: The majority of the founding fathers were deists, agnostics and atheists who certainly did not endorse Christianity as state religion.

As for the major characters in that play:

President George Washington "The government of the United States is in no sense founded on the Christian Religion."

President Thomas Jefferson –"I do not find in Christianity one redeeming feature."

President James Madison - "A just government has no need for the clergy or the church."

President Abraham Lincoln -"The Bible is not my book, nor Christianity my religion."

As for Samuel Adams:

"Driven from every other corner of the earth, freedom of thought and the right of private judgment in matters of conscience, direct their course to this happy country as their last asylum."

Not quite the proponent of a state church, right?

And of course we have the illustrious W. who concluded:

President George W. Bush "The United States is a Christian nation founded upon Christian principles and beliefs."

Kind of a contrast to Washington's statement, right?

Overall it's a funny development - America becoming so religious and Europe becoming so secular considering that many fled to America to escape religious persecution in Europe.

Wrong, again. The majority of the founding fathers (ff) were not deists, agnostics and atheists. The majority of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were of the Christian faith. The majority of the delegates to Constitutional Convention of 1787 and the signers of the Constitution were of the Christian faith. Majority of the signers of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were Protestant. Some (majority? don't know) of the "notable" ff (i.e. Franklin and Jefferson) were deists.

Any references to back that up?

Never mind, the founding fathers were probably a too broad group to begin with. The people I'm talking about are the ones who derived the politics of the philosophical values expressed in the US constitution. I would for instance include Thomas Paine in that category.

If we count the first presidents -  Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison and Monroe, all except Adams were very sceptical of Christianity. Incidentally Adams was a unitarian, and at the time in Europe unitarians were considered to be atheists.

Quote[/b] ]Anyway, who is advocating a state church?

W. obviously when he states that the US was founded on Christian beliefs. If you assume that he thinks it is a good thing the point of the association is pretty obvious. There may be tolerance for sectarian differences but regarding Christianity the position is pretty clear.

This clearly contrasts Washington who said that the US government is no sense founded on Christianity.

For some revealing stats on the position of religion in the US: 0.4% of the US population positively claim to be atheists while 5% said that a god didn't exist and 14% as "without religion". The number of atheists in Sweden for comparison is 85%.

Note though that the stats are difficult to interpret due to differently stated questions. They do however give you a rough overview.

In the US atheists are the most distrusted minority, more than Muslims, recent immigrants, gays and lesbians and other groups. The study in question also unsurprisingly concluded this:

"The researchers also found acceptance or rejection of atheists is related not only to personal religiosity, but also to one’s exposure to diversity, education and political orientation — with more educated, East and West Coast Americans more accepting of atheists than their Midwestern counterparts.â€

It's not surprising that people like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris are calling for American atheists to "come out of the closet".

To be fair, there are several European countries that are very religious (although not in the same way as the US), namely Malta, Poland, Portugal, Ireland and Italy.

Still, even with those exceptions the American system looks very weird from a European point of view - as if looking at something that you would expect to find 200-300 years ago.

Quicksand:

@denoir

Quote[/b] ]The least violent countries in the world are the Scandinavian ones who are dominantly atheistic. The most violent countries in the world are the ones in the Mid East who are dominantly religious. The most violent country in the western world is the US and it is no coincidence that it is the most religious one as well.

Actually.No.Link

      Last time Ive checked Northern Ireland was hardly atheistic

Sadly while I can be called an atheist mysel,I beg to differ with Emile Zola quotation as I deem it quite narrow when people kill their each other over soccer matches,spilled drinks or just for the fun of it.

       Is religion the excuse for tens of millions of deaths across history.For certian.Is it the cause?I am not so sure.Will the banishment of any form of relligion attain the perfect civillization?One only needs to have a superficial look at todays multitude of global problems that lack any sort of connection with relligion to see the answer.

      Religious people,indeed tend to be more violent then atheists but where does the education factor kicks in when we also know for a fact that there is a strong trend  for atheists to have a higher level of education then non-atheists.

In terms of violence, assaults are hardly the primary concern, especially since crime stats are notoriously difficult to interpret. To give you an example, in the US if a person is found guilty of multiple accounts of a crime, in the stats it is only counted as one instance. In Sweden on the other hand each instance is counted separately. In addition, in the US only convictions are counted. In Swedish stats arrests are counted rather than convictions. So for the most part comparing crime stats is nonsensical as each country has its own peculiar way of collecting the data.

Murders, wars, terrorism etc are the really problematic items. Drunk people fighting in a bar are no threat to society unlike organized resistance aiming at hurting or destroying the political and social institutions - or simply a perceived enemy.  Northern Ireland is a good example where people have been murdering each other over religion for over a century.

As for Zola's comment, he did not say that removing religion was the only prerequisite for perfect civilization.

Quote[/b] ]Is religion the excuse for tens of millions of deaths across history.For certian.Is it the cause?

There is a famous quote from Cicero IIRC that goes something like this: "The common people believe religion is true, the educated know that it is false and the politicians that it is useful"

Certainly religion as a divisive force has been used and abused on every imaginable level. Certainly there has been a lot of harm done in the name of religion rather than by religion itself.

The latter is however significant and there are at least two points to be made. The first one is obvious - people crashing planes into office buildings, burning heretics, depriving people of education, forbidding the use of condoms in regions with massive AIDS problems etc, that list goes on. These are deeds done by people with a sincere religious belief who think what they do is the right thing. A similar albeit more complex issue is sectarianism such as the one seen in Northern Ireland or Iraq. It is a bit more complex as it involves politics and historical developments. Ultimately however in a typical sectarian struggle the people on the warring sides are identical apart from their religion. This is all fairly obvious.

There is however a more subtle problem and that is of moderate religion spawning extremists. One feature common to all religions is that there is no empirical evidence of it or objective criteria to judge it by. Faith (i.e blind belief in something you haven't got any evidence of) is considered a virtue. Due to this what specifics you choose to believe is arbitrary. The source texts are complex and contradictory and you can always find something to support your idea.

Moderate and liberal practices of religion promote this methodology. If you say that you shouldn't steal because the Bible says it is a sin you could equally well justify stoning adulterers or people working on Sunday as the Bible instructs you to do so as well. If you promote the idea that you can pick and choose the pieces that you like then you legitimize the extremists who are doing exactly the same thing. Normal people, religious or not, have a baseline morality. Religious moderates will pick the parts that go with that morality and filter out the morally offensive parts. Unfortunately the conviction that the texts are an absolute truth lead some people to override their baseline morality with arbitrarily filtered instructions from an inconsistent and complex text. In most cases it is not their fault - they get indoctrinated by parents, clergymen and teachers. And as we can plainly see religion is quite successful at establishing itself as the primary rule. Religious people for the most part say that they get their morality from their religion.

Even if you do the right thing because of religion, it is corrupting. To do the right thing because God is looking over your shoulder is far worse than doing the right thing because it is the right thing to do. If you get used to thinking that you are doing the right thing because of supervision or because of potential rewards or risk of punishments you will be morally unreliable as first of all the morality depends on how you interpret your religion (arbitrary) - and since religion doesn't cover all conceivable moral situations.

What we human intrinsically consider to be fundamental morals are the same regardless of religion. There are a number of fascinating anthropological experiments that have been conducted that show how the basic morality is more or less the same in all civilizations - even in fairly advanced moral problems. The explanation to that is obviously evolutionary and while a complex problem there are some pretty convincing theories to how we got our sense of moral right and empathy to other people.  

So what about positive reinforcement? An argument that is often made is that religion can give you an extra push to do the right thing - a sort of moral viagra.

Perhaps, but statistics would say otherwise. If we look at a typical example, say donations for the Tsunami victims in 2004. Who do you think gave more per person, the Americans doing their Christian duty or the atheistic Swedes doing the humane right thing? The answer is the Swedes, almost by a factor of three [ref].

[Nemesis6 0]

RalphWiggum, did you read the article I've posted a few times now? Just curious.

[Sophion-Black 0]

Quote[/b] ]President Thomas Jefferson –"I do not find in Christianity one redeeming feature."

President James Madison - "A just government has no need for the clergy or the church."

President Abraham Lincoln -"The Bible is not my book, nor Christianity my religion."

Richard Nixon - "I'm not a crook"

Quote[/b] ]The least violent countries in the world are the Scandinavian ones who are dominantly atheistic. The most violent countries in the world are the ones in the Mid East who are dominantly religious. The most violent country in the western world is the US and it is no coincidence that it is the most religious one as well.

Why would anyone try to do any violent crime when they know the house they are going to attack has an assault riffle hiding inside.

Quote[/b] ]Is religion the excuse for tens of millions of deaths across history.For certian.Is it the cause?

No, war is. Religion just helped identify sides of who fights who.

Look, I can also list out countries who has lost in war and countries who are majority atheist. The countries match. But does that mean atheists loose every war? Does it mean they lost because they were atheists? What do you have to say about that? Can it be coincidence? Could that be an answer to the violent religion argument?

[Garcia 0]

Quote[/b] ]President Thomas Jefferson –"I do not find in Christianity one redeeming feature."

President James Madison - "A just government has no need for the clergy or the church."

President Abraham Lincoln -"The Bible is not my book, nor Christianity my religion."

Richard Nixon - "I'm not a crook"

There is a big difference between lying about having done something bad and lying about your religion...honestly, that example was rather crap...

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]The least violent countries in the world are the Scandinavian ones who are dominantly atheistic. The most violent countries in the world are the ones in the Mid East who are dominantly religious. The most violent country in the western world is the US and it is no coincidence that it is the most religious one as well.

Why would anyone try to do any violent crime when they know the house they are going to attack has an assault riffle hiding inside.

Umm, actually, this argument was crappier than the first one. Why? USA got by far most murders in the western world (ok, the statistic I've seen for this is rather old, but I doubt it has changed that much the last few years...). Also, USA got by far many many many many many many more weapons per citizens than Scandinavian countries...soo, that question is more relevant for USA than Scandinavia, and seeing that Americans tend to kill each other quite much, I guess you should know the answer to that one. You are a citizen in the country where people do commint violent crimes in a house where there is an assaut rifle...

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]Is religion the excuse for tens of millions of deaths across history.For certian.Is it the cause?

No, war is. Religion just helped identify sides of who fights who.

Look, I can also list out countries who has lost in war and countries who are majority atheist. The countries match. But does that mean atheists loose every war? Does it mean they lost because they were atheists? What do you have to say about that? Can it be coincidence? Could that be an answer to the violent religion argument?

Wether or not people lose a war and what their religious belifs are is totally irrelevant. Nobody said atheists are worse than christians/muslims/jews/etc in fighting a war. The question you seemed to miss is, do people fight a war because of religion? Do people use religion as an excuse to fight a war when the real reason is something else? Answer to the last is yes, answer to the first is that probably some wars are because of religion, but most are not.

[EiZei 0]

USA got by far most murders in the western world (ok, the statistic I've seen for this is rather old, but I doubt it has changed that much the last few years...). Also, USA got by far many many many many many many more weapons per citizens than Scandinavian countries...soo, that question is more relevant for USA than Scandinavia, and seeing that Americans tend to kill each other quite much, I guess you should know the answer to that one. You are a citizen in the country where people do commint violent crimes in a house where there is an assaut rifle...

Another fun fact:

We finns have one of the highest gun ownership rates in europe and some of our gun laws are even looser than US ones. Silencers for example are obtainable without a license.

[Garcia 0]

USA got by far most murders in the western world (ok, the statistic I've seen for this is rather old, but I doubt it has changed that much the last few years...). Also, USA got by far many many many many many many more weapons per citizens than Scandinavian countries...soo, that question is more relevant for USA than Scandinavia, and seeing that Americans tend to kill each other quite much, I guess you should know the answer to that one. You are a citizen in the country where people do commint violent crimes in a house where there is an assaut rifle...

Another fun fact:

We finns have one of the highest gun ownership rates in europe and some of our gun laws are even looser than US ones. Silencers for example are obtainable without a license.

Yeah I remembered that while sitting on the toilet an hour ago

But still, Norway don't got much of a gun-culture. Don't think Denmark got it either I think. Same goes for Sweden. Finland however, got like 4 guns per citizen (I think...at least that's what I heard last). But anyway, Denoir, and therefor Sophion-Black was mostly comparing Sweden and USA. And even besides that, USA still got shitloads of guns and shitloads of murders. Using Sophion-Blacks logic with lots of guns means less murders, that should mean that either USA barely got guns, cause how else could they obtain such a large murderstatistic, or the murderstatistic must be quite wrong...

[Sertorius 0]

Quote[/b] ]Considering that accusation of CAIR is on shaky proofs and some posts by nemesis6 himself, it is very well waranted that it is xenophobic knee-jerk anti-Islamist argument. Truth hurts, doesn't it?

It sure does:

Quote[/b] ]A number of other CAIR officials have been charged with, and some convicted of, offenses related to the support of Islamist terrorism.

In December, 2001, Rabih Haddad, a CAIR fundraiser, was charged and deported from the United States because he was the executive director and co-founder of Global Relief Foundation, a terrorist front organization that for financing Al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations.

On December 18, 2002, Ghassan Elashi, a founding board member of CAIR-Texas and a co-founder of the Holy Land Foundation, was arrested by the FBI on charges of having ties with front groups that fund Islamic terrorism. In 2005, Elashi and two of his brothers were convicted on 21 counts of federal terrorism charges related to funding Hamas and the illegal export of electronics equipment to U.S. State Department-designated state sponsors of terrorism. Elashi was sentenced on Oct 13 2006 to 7 years in prison for doing business with a terrorist,( funnelling money to Hamas throughout the the past 10 years.)

According to the Washington Times, In January 2003, CAIR's director of community relations and founder of the Islamic Assembly of North America, Bassem Khafagi, was arrested by the FBI on charges of having ties to front groups that fund Islamist terrorism. Khafagi pleaded guilty to charges of visa and bank fraud, and agreed to be deported to Egypt. The Washington Times however went on to point out that CAIR could not be categorically held responsible for the independent actions of one of its members, and commended it for its condemnation of extremism and terrorism, while at the same time suggesting that "unsettling connections between certain CAIR officials and extremist groups" continued to exist and that CAIR's defense of high-ranking members convicted of terrorism amounted to a "dishonest campaign to create the sense of a widespread inquisition against Muslims and Arabs in America that simply doesn't exist."

In August 2003, CAIR's former civil-rights coordinator, Randall "Ismail" Royer, along with ten other men known as the "Virginia jihad group" were indicted on 41 counts, including training and participating in jihad activities overseas. The group had connections with Lashkar-e-Taiba and five of them possessed AK-47-style rifles and hundreds of rounds of ammunition. Four of the men plead guilty while the other seven were charged with 32 new counts, including conspiring to provide material support to al Qaeda and to the Taliban. He pleaded guilty and is now serving 20 years in federal prison.

Wait, there's more to come!

Quote[/b] ]Critics have also taken aim at CAIR's fundraising and sources of funds. Shortly after the 9/11 attacks, CAIR's website solicited donations for what it called the "NY/DC Emergency Relief Fund." However, clicking on the donation link led to a website for donations to the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF), a charity whose assets were later frozen and confiscated by the United States Department of the Treasury because, according to United States Secretary of the Treasury Paul O'Neill, HLF "masquerade[d] as a charity, while its primary purpose [was] to fund Hamas." The HLF also had funded the creation of CAIR.

Quote[/b] ]CAIR even includes at least one person associated with terrorism in its own ranks. On Feb. 2, 1995, U.S. Attorney Mary Jo White named Siraj Wahhaj as one of the "unindicted persons who may be alleged as co-conspirators" in the attempt to blow up New York City monuments. Yet CAIR deems him "one of the most respected Muslim leaders in America" and includes him on its advisory board.

For these and other reasons, the FBI's former chief of counterterrorism, Steven Pomerantz, concludes that "CAIR, its leaders and its activities effectively give aid to international terrorist groups."

Quote[/b] ]Considering that accusation of CAIR is on shaky proofs and some posts by nemesis6 himself, it is very well waranted that it is xenophobic knee-jerk anti-Islamist argument...Ad hominem argument is argument that attacks the person, not the subject.

Yes, and calling someone's argument "xenophobic" directly attacks the person in question. Unless you really want to play complex games of semantics, calling someone's arguments/beliefs "xenophobic" is tantamount to calling that person a "xenophobe" (AFAIK that's not a compliment).

Quote[/b] ]You are a citizen in the country where people do commint violent crimes in a house where there is an assaut rifle...

He is? Please, cite statistics proving that people "commit violent crimes in a house where there is an assault rifle".

[billybob2002 0]

W. obviously when he states that the US was founded on Christian beliefs. If you assume that he thinks it is a good thing the point of the association is pretty obvious. There may be tolerance for sectarian differences but regarding Christianity the position is pretty clear.

This clearly contrasts Washington who said that the US government is no sense founded on Christianity.

President Bush is not adovacting a state church. There is a difference between adovacting and stating something that you think is fact. If you think that he is adovacting a state church from that comment, you are seeing something that is not there.

Still, even with those exceptions the American system looks very weird from a European point of view - as if looking at something that you would expect to find 200-300 years ago.

What do you mean? I really do not understand why people think that the United States is some sort of a uber religious state.

Oh, I'm sure that the tsunami victims are not angry about receiving 1.875 billion from the American public.

[Sophion-Black 0]

USA got by far most murders in the western world (ok, the statistic I've seen for this is rather old, but I doubt it has changed that much the last few years...). Also, USA got by far many many many many many many more weapons per citizens than Scandinavian countries...soo, that question is more relevant for USA than Scandinavia, and seeing that Americans tend to kill each other quite much, I guess you should know the answer to that one. You are a citizen in the country where people do commint violent crimes in a house where there is an assaut rifle...

Another fun fact:

We finns have one of the highest gun ownership rates in europe and some of our gun laws are even looser than US ones. Silencers for example are obtainable without a license.

Yeah I remembered that while sitting on the toilet an hour ago

But still, Norway don't got much of a gun-culture. Don't think Denmark got it either I think. Same goes for Sweden. Finland however, got like 4 guns per citizen (I think...at least that's what I heard last). But anyway, Denoir, and therefor Sophion-Black was mostly comparing Sweden and USA. And even besides that, USA still got shitloads of guns and shitloads of murders. Using Sophion-Blacks logic with lots of guns means less murders, that should mean that either USA barely got guns, cause how else could they obtain such a large murderstatistic, or the murderstatistic must be quite wrong...

Whats the country that has a gun in each house? I'm thinking its the Swiss but I may have it confused with another country.

But you have to remember it's not the number of guns someone has, its the quality. yes a handgun will kill, but a shotgun or AR will definitely stop a burglar in its tracks! Out of curiosity, what type of the guns in your statistics?

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]President Thomas Jefferson –"I do not find in Christianity one redeeming feature."

President James Madison - "A just government has no need for the clergy or the church."

President Abraham Lincoln -"The Bible is not my book, nor Christianity my religion."

There is a big difference between lying about having done something bad and lying about your religion...honestly, that example was rather crap...

Dude, only one person quoted was actually a FF. Lincoln wasn't born yet, Jefferson was out as an ambassador, But Madison was there at the constitutional convention. BUT, let me add, he was commonly outvoted by his fellow delegates.

Quote[/b] ]The question you seemed to miss is, do people fight a war because of religion?* Do people use religion as an excuse to fight a war when the real reason is something else?** Answer to the last is yes, answer to the first is that probably some wars are because of religion, but most are not.

*"Religion just helped identify sides of who fights who"

**All the time, but in your statement you acknowledge that the real reason is, in fact, something else. That's how America got drugged through the colonial and french and Indian wars. It was France vs. England, Catholics vs. Protestants. The real reason is the French hated the English and were just tried to find something to allow them to get into the fight. But religion isn't the only reason for getting into war. look at the Mexican-American war, Spanish-American war, and WWII. the US was already engaging hostile forces before declaration was made, we just had to find an excuse.

Quote[/b] ]Wether or not people lose a war and what their religious belifs are is totally irrelevant. Nobody said atheists are worse than christians/muslims/jews/etc in fighting a war.

Did you miss this part of the argument:

Quote[/b] ]Look, I can also list out countries who has lost in war and countries who are majority atheist. The countries match. But does that mean atheists loose every war? Does it mean they lost because they were atheists? What do you have to say about that? Can it be coincidence? Could that be an answer to the violent religion argument?

[Sophion-Black 0]

Still, even with those exceptions the American system looks very weird from a European point of view - as if looking at something that you would expect to find 200-300 years ago.

What do you mean? I really do not understand why people think that the United States is some sort of a uber religious state.

Oh, I'm sure that the tsunami victims are not angry about receiving 1.875 billion from the American public.

Let me add, It's an atheist's view, and only one person.

[denoir 0]

President Bush is not adovacting a state church. There is a difference between adovacting and stating something that you think is fact. If you think that he is adovacting a state church from that comment, you are seeing something that is not there.

He's a politician, of course there is intent behind the statement. The same way there was intent behind Washington's statement.

Bush represents a very conservative religious branch that indeed think that Christianity should be the foundation and guiding force of America. The same people that reject with disgust the Islamic claims of supremacy in America (and the rest of the world) insist on that having the ten commandments in front of courts of law is A-OK. How many do you think would support a Koran being there instead of the ten commandments.

While Bush may be forced to have a slightly more balanced view, it is still very clear in whose camp he is.

Quote[/b] ]What do you mean? I really do not understand why people think that the United States is some sort of a uber religious state.

It is über-religious, for a European, or least a Scandinavian person it's like stepping through the looking glass. With 0.4% of people declaring themselves atheists in a technologically advanced society and with 90% declaring themselves 'religious', there is something strange going on. America is in the western world what statisticians call an 'outlier' - an odd sample that doesn't fit with the rest.

It is difficult to comprehend, that ancient superstition and rituals. "In God we Trust", "God bless America" and a million other examples. My God (pun intended), have civilized nations not grown out of that ridiculous rubbish?

And yes, religion is part of our cultural heritage wherever you are in the world. I'm not saying you should ignore or eliminate that (like abolishing traditions like Christmas). What we have in today's America goes way beyond that. Some 50% of Americans believe that Jesus will return within their lifetime (i.e end of the world, Armageddon). And they see it as a positive thing! Not a comforting thought considering how many strategic nuclear weapons America has.

Even with if you ignore the damage done, it is still incomprehensible that grown men and women actually believe that rubbish. It's the same way you might think of a society where it is widely believed that doing a rain dance will make it rain. It has no place in a rational civilized society.

Quote[/b] ]

Oh, I'm sure that the tsunami victims are not angry about receiving 1.875 billion from the American public.

That's hardly the point. The question was if Christianity makes people give more to charity to help other human beings. The answer is a resounding no as for example the Swedes on average gave three times more, and they're godless infidels. Americans give a lot to charity as most Americans are perfectly normal moral beings with the same impulses and the same feeling of empathy as most other human beings. The question is not if they gave something, because everybody does. The relevant point of comparison is that Sweden, largely atheistic is the neutral position when it comes to morality. In addition it is a good comparison as the Swedish GDP/capita is similar to the US GDP/capita. The deduced answer is that Americans, largely claiming to be deriving their morality from religion for some reason underperformed in the charity department. Could it be that they didn't want to help non-Christians to the same extent as the atheists would?

I'm stabbing in the dark here, but I assume that you are a person of average human moral character. Would you say that it is morally correct to deny an injured child help because it (or better to say it's parents) belong to the 'wrong' religion?

If you put it like that, I think even conservative Christians would think of it as morally wrong. Yet in practice that's exactly what they are doing. By helping less than the godless atheists they are demonstrating the true moral character of their beliefs.

This was nothing more than a pre-emptive strike at the "religion makes people do good" argument.

Sophion-Black:

Quote[/b] ]Let me add, It's an atheist's view, and only one person.

Actually, I'm an anti-theist, not just atheist. I'm actively considering religion to be harmful.

You are an atheist as well, in regards to say Hindu gods, ancient Greek gods, Sumerian gods, Babylonian gods etc etc You don't believe in any of those gods (and they are very different from the Christian god). You don't believe in any of the thousands of gods that have been worshiped throughout history, except for one. The difference between you and a consistent atheist is that he or she believes in just one less god - which is a very small percentage of difference. Ask yourself why you are a Christian and ask yourself had you been born in India, had you been a Christian then? Those religions are mutually exclusive, the Hindus and the Christians can't both be right.

In large parts of Europe such a world view became obvious once the oppression of an enforced state church was removed. When you have a bunch of sects claiming different things, not being able to prove one of them, it takes just a very small step to question if they all might be wrong. This started in Europe during the enlightenment period. America branched off from that point but apparently grew in a different direction - which is unique in the western world - or for advanced civilizations in general.

[Garcia 0]

Still, even with those exceptions the American system looks very weird from a European point of view - as if looking at something that you would expect to find 200-300 years ago.

What do you mean? I really do not understand why people think that the United States is some sort of a uber religious state.

Oh, I'm sure that the tsunami victims are not angry about receiving 1.875 billion from the American public.

Quote[/b] ]Let me add, It's an atheist's view, and only one person.

Very large parts of europe are atheists, and many people share his view. And honestly Billybob, if you don't understand why people view USA as a uberreligious nation, you should just see what kind of americans that speak on the news...the sane part of USA should really speak up a bit.

Quote[/b] ]Whats the country that has a gun in each house? I'm thinking its the Swiss but I may have it confused with another country.

Finland got shitloads of guns, but I don't think neither Sweden nor Denmark has many, and I know for sure that Norway don't.

Quote[/b] ]But you have to remember it's not the number of guns someone has, its the quality. yes a handgun will kill, but a shotgun or AR will definitely stop a burglar in its tracks!

Sure, but at least here in Norway, if I were to break in to a house, I would expect there to not be any firearm whatsoever in that house. Guns aren't usual here. I barely know anybody who owns one.

Quote[/b] ]Out of curiosity, what type of the guns in your statistics?

Don't know really.

Quote[/b] ]**All the time, but in your statement you acknowledge that the real reason is, in fact, something else.

Yes, the real reason is usually something else than religion. But, the problem is, religion is sometimes the reason for a conflict, religion is being used as an excuse to do bad things, but mainly, religion is being used to brainwash people into doing bad things. I belive that many people performing terrorist attacks actually do belive they are doing it in the name of their religion, because they've been brainwashed by some religious nutjob. This way religion is the excuse, but indirectly the cause too. Without religion, nutjobs would have a harder time fooling others into dying for a silly cause...

Quote[/b] ]He is? Please, cite statistics proving that people "commit violent crimes in a house where there is an assault rifle".

I was just using his words, and seeing that people over here usually don't even own a handgun, while in USA there is much more usual to have guns, and it's easier to get a gun, the chances that there are assault rifles in a random US home is larger than the chance of a random scandinavian (not including finland ) home having one. Also, since there are much more crimes commited in USA, the chance of someone committing a crime in a home with an assault rifle is larger than the chances that it would happen here. Wether or not it has happened is another question, but I would guess it's happened both in USA and in Scandinavia...

[walker 0]

Hi all

Since the USA is in fact increasingly secular and most religious organisations no longer trust a NeoConMen controlled US republican party the effects of religious organisations on US politics has changed and most religious organisations are avoiding political endorsements as they believe it is corrupting their religion.

Further most voters are secular and increasingly so. Those that do have a faith consider it to be a private matter. They object to the interference of the NeoConMen's attempt to manufacture a state religion, of the ram it down your throat form of religion so typified by the likes Ted Haggard. It is this attempt to regulate their beliefs that is objected to most strongly by freedom loving Americans.

These are the factors that combined during the last election to unseat the NeoConMen. In fact several votes on religious issues were put, and in the vast majority of cases the US voters voted against the NeoConMen contrived wedge issue views on things as diverse as Rove v Wade and Gay marriage. They even did this in what used to be considered Red States.

The evangelicals in particular are now loath to vote republican after the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives set up by George Bush Junior with a supposed budget of $8 billion was dangled in front of them as a carrot. And the Ted Haggard issue has caused many evangelicals to leave the large organised artificial churches in favour of a more local church.

The Christian Coalition of America who's budget has dropped from $26 million to less than $5 million and still falling is said to be in all out civil war, with its newly elected president resigning over a major philosophical split with regard to the failing influences of of the NeoConMen. Another way to read that is after the NeoConMen lost the election they do not want to fund their placemen any more.

Quote[/b] ]Incoming president resigns from Christian Coalition

By Willoughby Mariano

The Orlando Sentinel

(MCT)

ORLANDO, Fla. - The Florida pastor recently tapped to lead the Christian Coalition of America resigned his position in a dispute about conservative philosophy - more than a month before he was to fully assume his post, he said this week.

The Rev. Joel Hunter, of Northland, A Church Distributed, in Longwood, Fla., said he quit as president-elect of the group founded by evangelist Pat Robertson because he realized he would be unable to broaden the organization's agenda beyond opposing abortion and gay marriage...

http://www.belleville.com/mld/belleville/news/nation/16087667.htm

Follow link for the full story

The most interesting fact is that after the NeoConMan controlled Republican party won the 2000 election and had control of congress, senate and executive; evangelical influence went into decline.

Quote[/b] ]...Its influence waned after the Republican right took control of the White House in the 2000 election, said Michael Cromartie, vice president of the Ethics and Political Policy Center in Washington, which has been critical of Christian Coalition founder Robertson's leadership...

Ibid

It is course only to be expected with so many members of the NeoConMen controlled Republican party being members of Bohemian Grove.

A look at the membership of Bohemian Grove is quite instructive. The boys who go there and it is male only all live together in dorms.

I do not know if the dressing up in drag is compulsory or just for selected boys.

Quote[/b] ]...The primary activities taking place at the Grove are varied and expensive entertainment, such as an elaborate Grove Play (known as "High Jinx") and musical comedies ("Low Jinx") — where female roles are played by men in drag — produced by the members and associate members of the Club. Thus, the majority of common facilities are entertainment venues, interspersed among the giant redwoods.

There are also sleeping quarters, or "camps" scattered throughout the grove, of which it is reported there were a total of 104 as of 2005. These camps, which are frequently patrilineal, are the principal means through which high-level business and political contacts and friendships are formed. For senior corporate executives, the camps are said to be the pinnacle of socio-political networking in the US.

According to Joel van der Reijden (see External Links below for a full list of camps and substantive details on the past affiliations of the camps' members), the pre-eminent camps are:

Mandalay (Big Business/Defense Contractors/Politics/US Presidents);

Hill Billies (Big Business/Banking/Politics/Universities/Media);

Cave Man (Think Tanks/Oil Companies/Banking/Defense Contractors/Universities/Media);

Stowaway (Rockefeller Family Members/Oil Companies/Banking/Think Tanks);

Uplifters (Corporate Executives/Big Business);

Owls Nest (US Presidents/Military/Defense Contractors);

Hideaway (Foundations/Military/Defense Contractors);

Isle of Aves (Military/Defense Contractors);

Lost Angels (Banking/Defense Contractors/Media);

Silverado squatters (Big Business/Defense Contractors);

Sempervirens (Californian-based Corporations);

Hillside (Military — Joint Chiefs of Staff)...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohemian_Grove

Follow link for the full article

Having mock human sacrifices and worshiping an owl designated as Moloch does not really gel with being a devout christian.

Yes Realy!

The people on this list worship a statue of an owl and have a mock human sacirifice! No is not some dodgy holywood B movie its for real they do!

Quote[/b] ]...Jeb Bush

Henry Kissinger

George Shultz

Earl Warren

Robert Kennedy

David Rockefeller

David Rockefeller, Jr.

Nelson Rockefeller

James Wolfensohn

Alan Greenspan

Paul Volcker

Colin Powell

Jack Welch

David Packard

Riley P. Bechtel

Henry Ford II

Prince Philip

John Major

Helmut Schmidt

Lee Kuan Yew

James A. Baker III

Newt Gingrich

Arnold Schwarzenegger

Bob Novak

Malcolm Forbes

David S. Broder

Neil Armstrong

Mark Twain

Francis Ford Coppola

Charlton Heston

Clint Eastwood

Walter Cronkite

Billy Gibbons

Mickey Hart

From the current administration:

George W. Bush

Dick Cheney

Donald Rumsfeld

Karl Rove

American Presidents

George Herbert Walker Bush

Bill Clinton

Ronald Reagan

Jimmy Carter

Gerald Ford

Richard Nixon

Dwight D. Eisenhower

Harry Truman

Herbert Hoover

Calvin Coolidge

William Howard Taft ...

Ibid

Quite a list there.

Quote[/b] ]...On July 15, 2000, Austin, Texas-based journalist and filmmaker Alex Jones and his cameraman, Mike Hanson, became the first people to successfully infiltrate the Grove and make it out with documented evidence. With hidden cameras, Jones and Hanson were able to film the Cremation of Care ritual. The footage was the centerpiece of Jones' documentary, Dark Secrets: Inside Bohemian Grove. Jones states that a large number of men were in attendance during an "ancient Canaanite, Luciferian, Babylon mystery religion ceremony" involving a 45-foot statue of an owl which he named Moloch...

Ibid

Nixon started off seeing it as being very gay

Quote[/b] ]"The Bohemian Grove, that I attend from time to time — the (inaudible) and the others come there — but it is the most faggy goddamn thing that you would ever imagine. The San Francisco crowd, it's just terrible. I can't even shake hands with anybody from San Francisco." — President Richard M. Nixon, Bohemian Club member starting in 1953...

ibid

I guess the gay goings on there with all boys together in their little dorms must interest someone. Perhaps evangelicals like Pastor Ted.

After a few years they seem to have converted Nixon round to their view and he quite liked being in the dorms with the other boys.

Quote[/b] ]..."If I were to choose the speech that gave me the most pleasure and satisfaction in my political career, it would be my Lakeside Speech at the Bohemian Grove in July 1967. Because this speech traditionally was off the record it received no publicity at the time. But in many important ways it marked the first milestone on my road to the presidency." — President Richard Nixon again, in a more mellow mood, in his Memoirs (1978)...

ibid

Of course it has remained essentially a non christian event.

Quote[/b] ]..."So, I was there witnessing something right out of the medieval painter Hieronymus Bosch’s Visions of Hell: burning metal crosses, priests in red and black robes with the high priest in a silver robe with a red cape, a burning body screaming in pain, a giant stone great-horned owl, world leaders, bankers, media and the head of academia engaged in these activities. It was total insanity"  — Alex Jones, describing the Cremation of Care ceremony he witnessed at the Grove in 2000..

I do not object to Wicca like religions but I dare say some evangelical Christians do.

It is perhaps one of the many reasons why so many evangelicals are against the NeoConMen run US republican party.

Kind Regards Walker