Ralph Sevush, all around good guy, wrote the following short essay which he calls “The Cultural Divide.” I thought it was an interesting take on the current status of things and decided to close out political blog entries for a bit with it:
Regarding the cultural divide
This morning, I woke up thinking…
… that, as Spalding Gray observed, I live on an island off the coast
of America;
… that we should have just let the south secede when they wanted to;
… that perhaps we could consider a new form of secession, a Northern
secession;
… that if Canada could just give up a strip of land along the northern
border of North Dakota and Montana, we could build a “Freedom Trail”
with an “underground railroad” that connected the northwestern corner of
Minnesota to the northeastern corner of Washington state, thus creating
an independent, contiguous nation consisting of the Northeast, the Great
Lake region, the northern midwest, and the westcoast (plus Hawaii) with
full autonomy from the United States;
… that we could then forge a union with Canada, and become the
Federation of North American States (FONAS);
… that we would then be Fonasians, with access to Canada’s national
health care, with religious and ethnic diversity and tolerance,
relationships with the rest of the world, economic justice, individual
freedoms, and great hockey teams;
… that we would then have a nation composed of the cultural, financial
and industrial centers of the former US, and have Canada as our farmland
and ranch, and still have great vacation spots in the south pacific;
… that we could learn a lesson from Israel and build a massive wall
along our southern border that would separate us from the belligerent,
imperialistic, crypto-Fascist military theocracy that continues to grip
the US government, as it presides over a small-minded citizenry steeped
in religious zealotry who love only their god, themselves, their first
cousins and their sheep, and whose leading export to the world is death;
… that I should just roll over and go back to sleep. Perhaps I’ll
dream of Fonasia, in repose on my island off the coast of America.
But when I wake up, I’ll still be here.
Shìŧ.
Did you ever have one of those mornings?
– by Ralph Sevush, Esq.
(a card-carrying member of the ACLU and the MMMS)
• 
Some general thoughts on religion.
How did the universe begin, and how did it get to its present state? Was some intelligence (i.e. God) behind it, or is its
“One question I like to ask religious people, such as the priests and brothers I know, is this: If absolutely incontrovertible evidence was presented showing that Jesus died and stayed dead
PAD,
I don’t agree that my question proceeds from a false premise (but I get the analogy you’re making) since I’m asking whether proof that Jesus was just a guy who lived and died negates his message of love and peace. I don’t think it does. Whatever his birthright, much of what he had to say could still be taken to heart by those who choose to do so.
Now, questions related to whether Jesus’ death absolved us, collectively of our sins _is_ a matter of faith. A Christian (in the “believes Jesus is divine” sense, not the “respects Jesus and tries to follow his teachings of loving one’s neighbor, whether or not he was divine” sense) would very likely argue that the “proof” was tainted in some way. He or she is working on faith.
And, in truth, how could you definitively “prove” the identity of a 2,000 year old skeleton? It’s not like they had dental records back then. The question is essentially a philosophical one, designed to spark discussion, in the Jesuit tradition.
Rick
P.S. Speaking of philosophical questions, why would God _want_ to create a boulder so heavy he couldn’t lift it?
Context, Novafan style: “Additionally, kingbobb said This, also from Novafan: “How about all of the Kerry supporters get their girls pregnant and have them get a partial birth abortion. Fair’s fair right?” Heh, there’s logic for you. I could go into how this is just SO not a logical application of wanting the Bush supporters to enlist…I COULD, but I have to make myself stupider to do so…
Obviously you missed the intent of my response to yours. I was trying to show you by example how rediculous your post was by using your logic on people who voted for Kerry. It’s called reverse Psychology.
Do you get it now?”
Sure, I understand that’s what you were trying to do. here’s the problem with that “logic:”
Asking Bush supporters (and I should limit that to Bush supporters who favor using aggressive tactics to pre-emptively invade another country) to essentially put their sons and daughters, or their very own bodies, where their mouths and votes are, goes like this. If you feel so strongly about it, why don’t you go DO something about it, rather than sit around and watch as someone else’s kids go do it for you? This position says if you’re going to vote for someone to MAKE other people do something you want done, go do it yourself.
Kerry voted against a partial birth ban because it was an absolute ban. He voted against it because it allowed no consideration that the procedure may, under some circumstances, be medically required. But an absolute ban would prevent it’s use in all circumstances. His vote (and the court’s susequent delcaration that the ban was unconsitutional for the same reasons) doesn’t force anyone to do anything. You can’t say, “Kerry voted for this, now someone else has to go do his work.”
So, your logic of trying to show me how ridiculous my statement was doesn’t carry through. All supporters of Kerry have to do is fall back to the position they had before. Which is, don’t tell other people what they can and can’t do unless you have a compelling state interest that overrides the private interest, and when you do impose the state interest, don’t do so in such a way that you trample private rights.
don’t tell other people what they can and can’t do unless you have a compelling state interest that overrides the private interest, and when you do impose the state interest, don’t do so in such a way that you trample private rights.
Folks DO realize that this is a legal principle that underlies much of American law, right? And I don’t mean recently, but from the 19th Century onward….
Is God active in the world today?
I
Rick:
P.S. Speaking of philosophical questions, why would God _want_ to create a boulder so heavy he couldn’t lift it?
To pìšš øff pop psychologists.
Travis
Religious thought dictates that the evidence must be rejected in order to maintain the previously existing thought. It’s called “Faith.” (Ex: Pretty much anything that contradicts those parts of the Bible that support a moralistic argument).
PAD, I expect better of you. First of all, I did not come here bashing you, telling you that you were going to hëll, etc. I did state my view that gay marriage was wrong. I gave arguments that included far more than just religion. I noted that some people who have no particular faith believe gay marriage is a bad idea. I did not come here to proselytize, but I did seek to explain my viewpoint on an issue. I did not come here quoting scripture, but giving what I feel are universal reasons for my position. Many of you disagree. That is fine.
In the process of answering questions, some other issues have come up (particularly because of the assumption that my views can only have a religious basis), but I challenge you to bring up a single quote where I have done what you claim I have. Others on this site may have done so, but I have simply explained my views when questioned.
Second, your definition of faith is the epitome of a straw man. That is NOT how I, or any Christian I know, would define faith. It is not what we mean by faith. It is not how we practice faith. Christian faith understands that, by definition, if a supernatural world (including God) exists, it is impossible to fully prove or demonstrate it by rational means. Faith picks up where it is impossible for humah logic, reason, etc., to take us any farther.
Christian faith is based in a historical reality. If you could prove to me that Jesus did not really live, die, and rise again, I would immediately cease to be a Christian. That is the heart and soul of the Christian faith (at least for conservative Christians). I realize you have already stated that people like me are idiots, so spare me your response that I would refuse to look at the evidence. People far smarter than me have studied the facts and have come to the conclusion that the Bible is true — and yes, people far smarter than me have come to the opposite conclusion. It is a hollow argument, however, to claim that Christians are ignorant imbeciles who can’t even add 2 plus 2. History demonstrates that is not the case.
There are, without doubt, questions to which I do not have the answer. There are parts of Christianity that do not make sense. But that has been true of every other religion and philosophy I have studied. You have to add everything up together and see what hypothesis best fits the facts. I have done so, and am therefore a Christian.
As I said, I honestly expect better of you. I have no doubt some Christians have been as obnoxious as you claim. But you would be the first to say not all liberals are the same, not everyone who votes for Kerry is the same, not everyone who is gay is the same, etc. The same is true with Christians.
Jim in Iowa
Yeah, and if Republicans of 150 years ago had any resemblence to Republicans of today, that might actually be a valid statement.
Which part of an incontrovertible statement of historical fact is invalid again?
Me: “But I’m befuddled to see you, PAD, being so irrationally abusive.”
I disagree. I’m not being irrationally abusive. I’m being quite rational in my abuse.
No. You’re being quite rational in your opposition to Jim’s position. Your abuse is a completely different issue– and I note the irony that this is the first post you’ve made in two days that didn’t call someone a chowder-head, a yahoo, or both. It’s entirely possible to keep ad hominem attacks completely separate from your discussions of philosophical positions. I do it all the time. I argue with you on 2/3 of the political issues that have been discussed on this blog, but I thought you were really nice when I met you. Like PAD, dislike PAD’s philisophy. I do it at work with all of the defense lawyers I have to deal with. Like Lisa, hate Lisa’s criminal clients. On the substantive issue, I agree with you. I grew up Methodist; I don’t like evangelicals either. But my solution is to not answer the door when I see someone approaching the front stoop with a stack of Watchtowers. There’s no excuse for comparing Jim in Iowa to the Spanish Inquisition, without proof that he wars a funny red robe and an aviation helmet. It’s also no defense to observe that the “same attitude” “informs” them both, because Christian missionary zeal also informed Albert Schweitzer, and he turned out okay.
(Now let’s see who writes a post contrasting Jim in Iowa’s conservative Christianity with Schweitzer’s liberal Christianity, and then see who writes the follow-up post quoting the earlier comment about watching a point whiz right by. Or can we just skip that wild goose chase?)
Yeah, and if Republicans of 150 years ago had any resemblence to Republicans of today, that might actually be a valid statement.
David: Which part of an incontrovertible statement of historical fact is invalid again?
Okay, how about this? Lincoln was a Republican, granted. So was Teddy Roosevelt.
But saying they were the same type of Republicans we have today is like saying that Coca-Cola is the same as it started. Not even close (in fact, the Coca stands for Cocaine, which was a main ingredient… not anymore of course)… name is the same, what’s changed is the makeup of the party.
And if you wish to argue that, I’ll remind everyone that the so-called “weak” democrats were war presidents in WWII. And one actually authorized the bombing of Japan.
Totalllly different animals today.
Travis
It was found that the Act of Congress dated January 18, 1837, prescribed the mottoes and devices that should be placed upon the coins of the United States. This meant that the mint could make no changes without the enactment of additional legislation by the Congress. In December 1863, the Director of the Mint submitted designs for new one-cent coin, two-cent coin, and three-cent coin to Secretary Chase for approval. He proposed that upon the designs either OUR COUNTRY; OUR GOD or GOD, OUR TRUST should appear as a motto on the coins. In a letter to the Mint Director on December 9, 1863, Secretary Chase stated:
I approve your mottoes, only suggesting that on that with the Washington obverse the motto should begin with the word OUR, so as to read OUR GOD AND OUR COUNTRY. And on that with the shield, it should be changed so as to read: IN GOD WE TRUST.
The Congress passed the Act of April 22, 1864. This legislation changed the composition of the one-cent coin and authorized the minting of the two-cent coin. The Mint Director was directed to develop the designs for these coins for final approval of the Secretary. IN GOD WE TRUST first appeared on the 1864 two-cent coin.
Another Act of Congress passed on March 3, 1865. It allowed the Mint Director, with the Secretary’s approval, to place the motto on all gold and silver coins that “shall admit the inscription thereon.” Under the Act, the motto was placed on the gold double-eagle coin, the gold eagle coin, and the gold half-eagle coin. It was also placed on the silver dollar coin, the half-dollar coin and the quarter-dollar coin, and on the nickel three-cent coin beginning in 1866. Later, Congress passed the Coinage Act of February 12, 1873. It also said that the Secretary “may cause the motto IN GOD WE TRUST to be inscribed on such coins as shall admit of such motto.”
The use of IN GOD WE TRUST has not been uninterrupted. The motto disappeared from the five-cent coin in 1883, and did not reappear until production of the Jefferson nickel began in 1938. Since 1938, all United States coins bear the inscription. Later, the motto was found missing from the new design of the double-eagle gold coin and the eagle gold coin shortly after they appeared in 1907. In response to a general demand, Congress ordered it restored, and the Act of May 18, 1908, made it mandatory on all coins upon which it had previously appeared. IN GOD WE TRUST was not mandatory on the one-cent coin and five-cent coin. It could be placed on them by the Secretary or the Mint Director with the Secretary’s approval.
The motto has been in continuous use on the one-cent coin since 1909, and on the ten-cent coin since 1916. It also has appeared on all gold coins and silver dollar coins, half-dollar coins, and quarter-dollar coins struck since July 1, 1908.
A law passed by the 84th Congress (P.L. 84-140) and approved by the President on July 30, 1956, the President approved a Joint Resolution of the 84th Congress, declaring IN GOD WE TRUST the national motto of the United States. IN GOD WE TRUST was first used on paper money in 1957, when it appeared on the one-dollar silver certificate. The first paper currency bearing the motto entered circulation on October 1, 1957. The Bureau of Engraving and Printing (BEP) was converting to the dry intaglio printing process. During this conversion, it gradually included IN GOD WE TRUST in the back design of all classes and denominations of currency.
As a part of a comprehensive modernization program the BEP successfully developed and installed new high-speed rotary intaglio printing presses in 1957. These allowed BEP to print currency by the dry intaglio process, 32 notes to the sheet. One-dollar silver certificates were the first denomination printed on the new high-speed presses. They included IN GOD WE TRUST as part of the reverse design as BEP adopted new dies according to the law. The motto also appeared on one-dollar silver certificates of the 1957-A and 1957-B series.
BEP prints United States paper currency by an intaglio process from engraved plates. It was necessary, therefore, to engrave the motto into the printing plates as a part of the basic engraved design to give it the prominence it deserved.
One-dollar silver certificates series 1935, 1935-A, 1935-B, 1935-C, 1935-D, 1935-E, 1935-F, 1935-G, and 1935-H were all printed on the older flat-bed presses by the wet intaglio process. P.L. 84-140 recognized that an enormous expense would be associated with immediately replacing the costly printing plates. The law allowed BEP to gradually convert to the inclusion of IN GOD WE TRUST on the currency. Accordingly, the motto is not found on series 1935-E and 1935-F one-dollar notes. By September 1961, IN GOD WE TRUST had been added to the back design of the Series 1935-G notes. Some early printings of this series do not bear the motto. IN GOD WE TRUST appears on all series 1935-H one-dollar silver certificates.
Below is a listing by denomination of the first production and delivery dates for currency bearing IN GOD WE TRUST:
DENOMINATION PRODUCTION DELIVERY
$1 Federal Reserve Note February 12, 1964 March 11, 1964
$5 United States Note January 23, 1964 March 2, 1964
$5 Federal Reserve Note July 31, 1964 September 16, 1964
$10 Federal Reserve Note February 24, 1964 April 24, 1964
$20 Federal Reserve Note October 7, 1964 October 7, 1964
$50 Federal Reserve Note August 24, 1966 September 28, 1966
$100 Federal Reserve Note August 18, 1966 September 27, 1966
So, it has been on our coins since 1864.
The above info came from:
http://www.treas.gov/education/fact-sheets/currency/in-god-we-trust.html
I am shocked that some Christians are so vulgar that they would insist that money contain an oath to GOD. 🙂
Two points I’d like to address:
The big bang is more realistic and believable than an all-knowing, all-seeing, all-powerful controls-all-matter-and-energey supposedly-intelligent life form who created the world in 6 days and aged all the dinosaur bones…
I find it just a tad confusing that people who question the existence of God often ask “Where did God come from?” yet have no problem believing that one day a bunch of nothing blew up and created everything in the Universe. Doesn’t science dictate that would be impossible? Further more, at best we’ve been able to determine the Universe is only about 20 billion years old. Assuming that is true, then how old is the matter that makes up the Universe? You know, the stuff that didn’t exist before the Big Bang.
2nd Point:
So far I’ve heard the people who voted for Bush called, bigoted, homophobic, vulgar, stupid, intolerant, gay bashers, religious zealots, Crypto-Fascists, sheep-lovers who have sex with their first cousins.
Why do you think this is tolerant behavior? What, are you holding back how you REALLY feel to spare our feelings? and judging from what you say about us now, why should we listen in four years when you ask us to consider voting for your candidate?
I’m asking a serious question, because despite my defense of Bush, I really am an independent, and in four years, I don’t see anyone on the Republican side that I might consider voting for. (Actually, there is one person, but I’m keeping mum) Assuming the Democratic candiate is a true moderate, or better, a conservative, like Lieberman, I couldn’t rule out voting Democrat.
I find it just a tad confusing that people who question the existence of God often ask “Where did God come from?” yet have no problem believing that one day a bunch of nothing blew up and created everything in the Universe. Doesn’t science dictate that would be impossible?
No. Mainly because science is honest enough to say WE DON’T KNOW. Yet. Some of it is due to the existence of virtual particles, which MAY give us clues one day to find out (or may not) (and look up things like virtual particles and quantum electrodynamics…this stuff is pretty established, everyday stuff, yet it’s pretty wild for non-scientists to get their heads around; you can imagine the stuff that’s really cutting edge….)
BBBZZTTTT!!! Wrong answer, but thanks for playing.
THe “Where did god come from?” question is the basic response to the religious idiots that ask “Well if there’s no god, where did the universe come from?”
Since these fûçkìņg religious idiots know everythingcertainly answering where god came from can’t be difficult… oh wait, the bible doesn’t say so because that would disrupt their brain-washing operations that let them control so many weak people by prompting them to question authority and its decisions….
Bladestar:
If you don’t know the answer don’t try to bluff. You just look foolish.
Roger:
Science does basically the same thing that religion does. It comes up with an explanation tor try and account for what it doesn’t know or understand. Example: Black holes, they’re basically just a theory. We think we might have seen a few but we don’t know for certain, and in fact the theory was just recently revised to try and explain what tthey call “particle fountains” which seem to be escaping those same inescapable black holes just fine. Can science prove or disprove the existence of God? In truth I doubt it. After all, if there IS a God and He doesn’t WANT to be found…
Bladestar, I find no reason for you to mouth off the way you do. Why can’t you make your points without cursing?
Peter said This business that “Christians are always being persecuted for their beliefs” is bûllšhìŧ on a gargantuan scale. JEWS are persecuted for their beliefs. By contrast, Jesus has had more people killed in his name than possibly any other religious figure in the history of mankind.
One could argue that more people have been killed for professing Jesus’s name as lord in the history of mankind also.
I’m curious about your situation Peter. Are you Jewish and your wife a Christian? I’ve always wondered what a Jewish person thinks of Jesus. Did he or didn’t he fulfill the prophecies in the Old Testament? If he didn’t, then when is the messiah going to come for the first time? And how would you know it’s the messiah you’ve been waiting for?
Roger said Nope.
Novafan responds:
Yup.
:0)
Bladestar, I find no reason for you to mouth off the way you do. Why can’t you make your points without cursing?
Bladestar makes points? Really?
Bladestar said Novafan, first of all… WHAT? (I stopped reading comics back in 2001, but Spidey-titles were always my favorites, they’ve done WHAT to the character?)
In Spectacular Spiderman, they teamed Captain America with Spiderman against a character nobody’s ever seen before. This character could control things like spiders (thus she controlled Spiderman). She mutated him into a full fledged spider, he gave birth to himself, and now he has enhanced perceptions, organic web shooters that come out of his wrists (imagine that), and enhanced strength. I personally thought it was a sorry story that was contrived to make Spiderman more in line with the Movie version.
and … 2nd. Voting yeah or Nay in congress isn’t that simple, theanks to the stupid practice of putting riders on bills. Each bill voted on should deal with only one thing, no riders. None of this “Well, the primary bill is for funding troops, but by voting for it, you also are accepting the rider that makes cannabalism legal.”
I agree that they shouldn’t have riders on bills. However, you should note that when a User conducts research to find out what a Senate member voted on,9 times out of 10, they will only find the Yeah or Nay vote and not the reason for the vote.
To many people, it doesn’t matter why Kerry voted Nay to fund the troops. They are concerned with the fact that he personally said no Senator would do that and then he turned around and voted Nay anyways. What does that say about him? It appears that if Kerry doesn’t get what he wants, he makes a political statement by using his vote.
And, on a lighter note, the best Kerry quote I could find on the Internet:
“Congratulations, Mr. President”
Granted, there are many front runners, but that one really takes the cake.
Novafan,
Listen carefully:
There were 2 bills to fund the troops.
One bill paid for the additional funds by rolling back the tax cuts. (Which Bush threatened to veto)
They other bill did not pay for the funds and ran up the deficit more.
Kerry voted Yea on the bill that FUNDED the troops but would roll back the tax cuts to pay for it.
He voted Nay on the other bill.
TWO BILLS TO FUND THE TROOPS
Kerry did not vote against funding the troops. He simply wanted to be able to pay for it.
“I’m curious about your situation Peter. Are you Jewish and your wife a Christian? I’ve always wondered what a Jewish person thinks of Jesus. Did he or didn’t he fulfill the prophecies in the Old Testament? If he didn’t, then when is the messiah going to come for the first time? And how would you know it’s the messiah you’ve been waiting for?”
Asking what “a” Jewish person thinks is kind of hopeless, because different Jews will tell you different things. Me? I think, if Jesus existed, he was probably a decent and thoughtful rabbi who had a lot of good ideas, had a lot of followers, and died. The miracles? Things he actually did that were magnified in the retelling. Why not? Happens all the time even to this day. Stories get told, retold, and when they get written down, what do we say they are? Gospel.
I say this with absolutely no disrespect intended, but let’s say…I dunno…that Jesus had never existed, that Christianity never happened. Let’s move it to present day. And there’s this guy, Joshua Ben Joseph who speaks calmly to a man who is suffering from hysterical blindness, and the man recovers his sight, and wow, did you hear about this guy, Joshua Ben Joseph, who cured a blind man? Dude, that’s nothing, my brother Jacob told me he turned water into wine. Big deal, my cousin Eli heard from Crazy Achmed the rug dealer that he brought a dead guy back to life! Guy’s, like, the son of God or something!
Putting aside all matters of faith…honestly, does that sound remotely unreasonable? And that’s not even considering the inevitable counterprogramming from the Swift Camel Shiites for Jihad who didn’t actually witness any of the miracles, but are willing to swear that none of them happened and that Joshua Ben Joseph is a world class liar.
Yes, I’m Jewish, my wife is Catholic, and we’re detectives (okay, not really.) She believes the basic doctrine involving Jesus. She does not, however, believe that I’m going to hëll because I don’t share that belief, because she feels that whatever beings weigh such things in the afterlife wouldn’t consign a fundamentally good person who’s led a decent life to the pits of dámņáŧìøņ simply because I was inculcated from birth into a different religion.
For that matter, I’ve assured her that, in my lifetime, should the skies split open, trumpets sound, and Jesus comes riding down in a chariot while a heavenly choir sings hosannas, I will turn to her and say, “Okay, I’m ready to accept Jesus as my lord now” because, y’know, how stupid would you have to be NOT to under those circumstances?
But Torah is specific as to what the result of the coming of the Messiah would be, and the complete cessation of persecution of the Jews is pretty high on the list. So if nothing else, it’s safe to say that as long as people are strapping bombs to themselves and blowing up our children in Tel Aviv pizza parlors, the Messiah hasn’t come.
You won’t know the Messiah from miracles he is said to have performed, or even coming back from the dead. You’ll know him because a man will come who will inspire mankind to reach its ultimate potential. No more war, no more persecution, no poverty and hunger. Man will live in an idealized state thanks to this individual’s efforts. Because that hasn’t happened, it’s defacto proof that the Messiah hasn’t come.
As for the Messiah I’m waiting for, you know what? If someone comes along and is able to accomplish all that, and then says, “By the way, just FYI, I am not in fact the Jewish Messiah but actually the Shinto Messiah,” I’m not really gonna care. I’ll be busy enjoying a war-free world of peace, and I’m perfectly cool with whoever’s Messiah is able to pull that puppy off.
PAD
Yeah, and if Republicans of 150 years ago had any resemblence to Republicans of today, that might actually be a valid statement.
David: Which part of an incontrovertible statement of historical fact is invalid again?
Okay, how about this? Lincoln was a Republican, granted. So was Teddy Roosevelt.
But saying they were the same type of Republicans we have today is like saying that Coca-Cola is the same as it started. Not even close (in fact, the Coca stands for Cocaine, which was a main ingredient… not anymore of course)… name is the same, what’s changed is the makeup of the party.
You know, I get that. I really do. And anyone with reading comprehension skills should have gathered that I understand this point, since the comment I was being “called on” reads IN ITS ENTIRETY as follows:
Republicans were responsible for abolishing slavery; we should be completely embarrassed that we left it to the Democrats to do in the 1960s what we should have done during Reconstruction, and some members of our party should be utterly ashamed for opposing the Civil Rights Act.
This sort of cretinous nitpicking is not helpful for any purpose. You might make an analytically identical point that modern Americans really shouldn’t take credit for the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence, because the people who wrote those documents were part of a very different nation from the one that we inhabit today. Personally, I think that a continuity of organization is at least a relevant consideration. In this case, however, the accusation that the Republicans have been sleeping on the job for about 100 years, with regard to a field in which there is a moral imperative to act, was actually fairly central to my original point. So “saying they’re the same type of Republicans we have today” is something I didn’t really do, except in the context of criticizing the party’s follow-through over most of its existence.
And for what it’s worth, Bush’s foreign policy is more like Teddy Roosevelt’s than any other President’s in the last century. Unilateral use of force? Check. Implicit endorsement of imperialism? Check. He even has a ranch out West.
And if you wish to argue that, I’ll remind everyone that the so-called “weak” democrats were war presidents in WWII. And one actually authorized the bombing of Japan.
Totalllly different animals today.
Actually, two Democrats authorized the bombing of Japan. Curtis “Bombs away” LeMay was firebombing Tokyo before Roosevelt died and long before the A-bomb prototype was finished, and the firestorms over Tokyo killed far more people than the fallout ever did, and that’s not mentioning the saturation bombing of Germany, which started even earlier. Since we’re being picky.
I apologize in advance for the snottiness of some of this post, but it’s a little annoying to be “corrected” on points that I didn’t get wrong.
“I say this with absolutely no disrespect intended, but let’s say…I dunno…that Jesus had never existed, that Christianity never happened. Let’s move it to present day. And there’s this guy, Joshua Ben Joseph who speaks calmly to a man who is suffering from hysterical blindness, and the man recovers his sight, and wow, did you hear about this guy, Joshua Ben Joseph, who cured a blind man? Dude, that’s nothing, my brother Jacob told me he turned water into wine. Big deal, my cousin Eli heard from Crazy Achmed the rug dealer that he brought a dead guy back to life! Guy’s, like, the son of God or something!
Putting aside all matters of faith…honestly, does that sound remotely unreasonable? And that’s not even considering the inevitable counterprogramming from the Swift Camel Shiites for Jihad who didn’t actually witness any of the miracles, but are willing to swear that none of them happened and that Joshua Ben Joseph is a world class liar.”
Speaking as a Christian, Peter – HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
I loved it! Especially the “Swift Camel Shiites for Jihad”! LMMFAO!!
(And if anybody here doesn’t think that God, Whoever you think He might be, doesn’t have a good sense of humor – look around you, for goodness’ sake!)
Novafan,
Listen carefully:
There were 2 bills to fund the troops.
One bill paid for the additional funds by rolling back the tax cuts. (Which Bush threatened to veto)
They other bill did not pay for the funds and ran up the deficit more.
Kerry voted Yea on the bill that FUNDED the troops but would roll back the tax cuts to pay for it.
He voted Nay on the other bill.
TWO BILLS TO FUND THE TROOPS
Kerry did not vote against funding the troops. He simply wanted to be able to pay for it.
He knows this. He just doesn’t care. He’s cherry picking the facts to support the conclusion he wants.
Oughta have a future in intelligence.
Jim Farrand: If we allow a very small minority, the gay community, to dictate how their deviant behavior is treated, whats to stop other groups from trying the same behavior?
Luigi Novi: What exactly do you mean by
Novafan: Are you telling me that if you were in the same room as Osama Bin Laden that you would care about basic human rights?
Luigi Novi: I
Starving Writer: Here’s to another landslide in 2006, and a new Republican president in 2008! (Oh, please please please nominate Hillary in 2008 — The Republicans could put up a boiled cabbage and it would still beat Hillary in a landslide.)
Luigi Novi: Hey!
Nova, thanks for the spidey update.
as for “To many people, it doesn’t matter why Kerry voted Nay to fund the troops. “
That’s just more reason why the American people are amazingly stupid. They’re little sheep believing the lie that everything is black white and ignoring the shades of gray. I suppose if the troop support bill had included a rider that permitted blacks/gays/women/ to be discriminated against, Bush would stand there and say how horrible Kerry is for not voting to support the troops. And the media is nothing but a gøddámņ accomplice to the crime that is our government….
PAD says:
Yes, I’m Jewish, my wife is Catholic, and we’re detectives (okay, not really.) She believes the basic doctrine involving Jesus. She does not, however, believe that I’m going to hëll because I don’t share that belief, because she feels that whatever beings weigh such things in the afterlife wouldn’t consign a fundamentally good person who’s led a decent life to the pits of dámņáŧìøņ simply because I was inculcated from birth into a different religion.”
Your wife is a lovely person, but we already knew that.
I like the detective show idea…The Bridget Loves Bernie Mystery Hour.
LUIGI NOVi says:
“Bill Mulligan: Well, he sent big bucks to the families of people who murdered jews in Israel by blowing themselves up…if that’s not supporting terrorism what is?
Luigi Novi: You mean Israel is considered part of the U.S.? Wow, I didn
“I was responding to someone who seemed to suggest that Iraq had not supported terror prior to the war. I pointed out that they had. That the victims were not Americans was something I didn’t consider overly important but others may disagree.”
And who helped arm the Taliban in Afghanistan back when they were fighting off the Russians? 🙂
Bill Mulligan: I was responding to someone who seemed to suggest that Iraq had not supported terror prior to the war.
Luigi Novi: But is that what they said, or had they simply said that he had not been proven to have had anything to do with 9/11?
As far as
Karen: Jim, That’s the thing about morals. They are not “Christian”, but have a basis in all religions and governments since the begining of those things.
Luigi Novi: Nope. Morality predates religion. Religion was merely the first institution to formally codify them. Morality even exists in animals, in which Professor Michael Shermer calls it
Luigi said Luigi Novi: She
Peter, thanks for responding to my questions.
Peter said But Torah is specific as to what the result of the coming of the Messiah would be, and the complete cessation of persecution of the Jews is pretty high on the list. So if nothing else, it’s safe to say that as long as people are strapping bombs to themselves and blowing up our children in Tel Aviv pizza parlors, the Messiah hasn’t come.
Do you know that they are now finding a connection between Saddam and the Palestinian terrorists who are doing the bombings you mention? Knowing that, do you still think he should have been left in power?
Bladestar said And who helped arm the Taliban in Afghanistan back when they were fighting off the Russians? 🙂
“From 1979-1989 mujahedin fighters fought Soviet rule; the Islamic students who became known as the Taliban were against the mujahedin fighters
eclark1849: I find it just a tad confusing that people who question the existence of God often ask “Where did God come from?” yet have no problem believing that one day a bunch of nothing blew up and created everything in the Universe.
Luigi Novi: Straw Man. The universe was not
You’re forgetting America helped them against the commies too…
Luigi,
The exact quote I was responding to was “”Hussein may have been a scumbag, but he doesn’t fit with “the War on Terror”…. well, he didn’t until the definition of said war became so convoluted that it is impossible to define.”
As for what you say about “treating” homosexuals–you’re preaching to the choir. Read what I said.
My discussions with you are over sir because I do not lie.
Ahh, well, this would also explain why I will never have a conversation with Bush, either – he’s a dámņ liar.
And if you catch him in a lie, he gets as defensive as Novafan.
Amusing, really.
The truth apparently hurts Novafan alot.
“Do you know that they are now finding a connection between Saddam and the Palestinian terrorists who are doing the bombings you mention? Knowing that, do you still think he should have been left in power?”
I never said “Saddam Hussein should have been left in power.” Here’s what I *did* say:
I said that claiming the world is a safer place with Saddam Hussein out of power is a lie. Not even Iraq is safer, much less the world. If anything, considering the invasion of Iraq has provided a recruitment ground for Al Qaeda and helped to lend credence to every negative claim bin Laden has ever made about the US, it has made the world a less safe place.
I said Bush has approached world politics with the mindset of a religious zealout. That is, of course, merely opinion, but a defensible one, I think.
I said that the assault on Iraq has not only cost us support of our allies on a global scale, but it may well have poisoned any future attempts we will make to form alliances in defending ourselves against threats who really do have WMDs.
I said that Bush claimed he would bring in bin Laden dead or alive, and then started the war in Iraq to keep the American public off balance, their eye off the ball, and maintain such a perpetual state of seige mentality that people would be afraid to vote him out of office…a strategy which worked. When Iraq first launched, I believe it was Jon Stewart who referred to it as “Operation: Re-elect Bush.” And he was right.
I said if he was going to be gotten out of power, it should have been a collective, world-wide endeavor. The Founding Fathers knew the danger of splitting alliances for military undertakings…one of the reasons that the vote for independence was unanimous. When it comes to Saddam, considering the global picture, considering the vast advantage of working in concert with other nations as opposed to the cost of lives and money in flying solo, the harsh fact is this: We should have moved forward against Saddam together with our allies, or together we should have stayed where we were.
Bottom line, when it came to presenting proof of Saddam’s WMDs, we didn’t have the goods, and it’s come back to bite us big time.
PAD
Novafan: My discussions with you are over sir because I do not lie.
Luigi Novi: Your
“Can science say with any degree of certainty that it was NOT GOD that caused the Big Bang?”
It is a basic axiom of logic that one cannot disprove a negative proposition. After all, a single point in contradiction would invalidate such a proof; therefore, it would be necessary to possess every datum in the Universe regarding such a proposition – a daunting task, to say the least.
However, Science, that monolithic entity that is so often propped against Faith by those who like their worlds excessively simplified, is not in the business of proving or disproving the existence of God or gods. It is merely in the business of describing the physical Universe as best our minds can understand it. What came before the Big Bang (or, as Calvin would have it, the Horrendous Space Kablooie)? That is not within the purview of modern physics, as the state of such existence cannot be described with our maths, nor comprehended by our minds.
Similarly, the fact (demonstrated and observable) of evolution does not deny the existence of God or gods; it says that this process happens. Whether it happens with supernatural guidance, or merely in response to the conditions of the Universe, or some amalgam thereof, is not germane to the question of its happening.
Personally, I believe that the God of my faith created this Universe, by setting up the Big Bang. I believe that he has directed the progress of the Universe on occasion, for His own purposes, which I could probably not comprehend. I further believe that it doesn’t really matter to Him whether you have the exact same faith I do, so long as you behave as a decent, honorable human being. I acknowledge that my belief may be incorrect; it is, however, what I hold. Your mileage may vary. (There are further details to what I believe, but they are of no import here.)
Anybody happen to see on BBC that the heroin production in Afghanistan is up to pre Taliban levels?Im not in anyway saying that the Taliban should be back, but since we have a war on drugs and a war on terrorism going on , and we have been told that drug money funds terrorists would it not make sense to somehow ….I dont know,slow down the heroin production??????87% of the worlds heroin comes from there for pete’s sake.We knew this going in right ?Would it not have made sense to wipe out some poppy fields while we are hunting Taliban enclaves?By the way ,i still see women rights are just as sucky as ever in some regions over there.:(
I dont know,slow down the heroin production?
What else are they going to do?
What rebuilding/building have we done to guarantee that they’ll do something other than return to their opium crops? Not a whole helluva lot.