Iran Shows It Has What It Takes

[Lorax]

With the news of Iran's election this week, I am heartened to see the protesting of the election results which claim Amadinnerjacket won by such a large margin.

This cavalier manipulation of the election results is eerily similar to the two stolen elections by the Republican Reich here in America in 2000 and 2004.

It angers me that there wasn't more protest at the time. Though in truth, there was, it just wasn't reported on by our intellectually lazy media, which as we know, is most interested in appeasing their right-wing masters, or at best, keeping the status quo.

It bodes well for Iran going forward that there is such dissention, and hopefully one day, real change will come to this country.

I will make this prediction here, Amadinnerjacket will take this dissention badly, will kill or imprison his political enemies, and will dare the world to try and keep him from developing nuclear weapons. Really, business as usual, only ramped up.

It wasn't a truly Democratic election, as ours were not in 2000 or 2004.

Voter intimidation, supression, ballot stuffing, "faulty" touch-screens which flipped results in some districts, republican owned voting machine manufacturers such as Diebold stating on TV that they were going to deliver the election for Bush, etc.

Iran just learned a valuable lesson in what to expect from it's hard right-wing fundamentalist religious leaders, as we did with the Bush Crime Family.

I hope they continue to protest, challenge, and always question their leaders.

People should never be afraid of their government, government should be afraid of the people.

[Sstashmoo]

The Ayatollah calls the shots in Iran. This little chicken hawk that has been squawking about Israel, has very little say in anything. The US media has been targeting his jabber, building up support for a strike on Iran. The term "President" here and there mean two entirely different things. Ahmadinejad has to clear anything he does with Khamenei. A little fact our media leaves out.

[gibran]

The Ayatollah calls the shots in Iran. This little chicken hawk that has been squawking about Israel, has very little say in anything. The US media has been targeting his jabber, building up support for a strike on Iran. The term "President" here and there mean two entirely different things. Ahmadinejad has to clear anything he does with Khamenei. A little fact our media leaves out.

And the some folks in the region are already starting their rhetoric why we have to act right now..same mentality that forced us into Iraq

[ccbatson]

Iran is a powder keg on at least to fronts...Israel (and they are more likely to take appropriate action), and the US, although, under Obama, appeasement and cowardice are the rule of the day.

[Lorax]

Iran is a powder keg on at least to fronts...Israel (and they are more likely to take appropriate action), and the US, although, under Obama, appeasement and cowardice are the rule of the day.

Tush and Cheney had their chance to invade Iran and chose not to- guess appeasement and cowardice are the rule of the day with the fascists as well. Interesting.

[ccbatson]

Wow...you think they should have?

[Lorax]

Wow...you think they should have?

Did I say that? No.

I said they had a chance, and were blustering in that direction, then backed off when cooler heads prevailed.

I know you were hoping for yet another quagmire in the middle east, but gladly, you were disappointed.

[oladub]

Lorax says, "Tush and Cheney had their chance to invade Iran and chose not to- guess appeasement and cowardice are the rule of the day with the fascists as well."

Lorax, Have you fogotten? Notes and quotes from the Obama campaign-

"Obama will talk to Iran. If they do not comply, he suggests something has to be done. His tone was emboldened since visiting AIPAC. He "said the military option is "on the table" for dealing with Iran's nuclear program". ""I will do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear" weapon," he said, repeating himself for emphasis, "everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear, everything.""

‘Iran a major threat; I would never hesitate to use our military force in order to protect homeland, US interests, Democratic presidential candidate tells FOX’s ‘The O’Reilly Factor’

In June of (last) year, Obama spoke to the annual AIPAC conference. What he said there about Iran put him once again firmly in the Bush camp:

As President, I will use all elements of American power to pressure Iran. I will do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon….

There should be no doubt: I will always keep the threat of military action to defend our security and our ally Israel. Do not be confused.

Sometimes there are no alternatives to confrontation. If we must use military force, we are more likely to succeed and have more support at home and abroad if we have exhausted our diplomatic options. That is the change we need in our policy."


In June of this year, Obama spoke to the annual AIPAC conference. What he said there about Iran put him once again firmly in the Bush camp:
As President, I will use all elements of American power to pressure Iran. I will do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon….
There should be no doubt: I will always keep the threat of military action to defend our security and our ally Israel. Do not be confused.
Sometimes there are no alternatives to confrontation. If we must use military force, we are more likely to succeed and have more support at home and abroad if we have exhausted our diplomatic options. That is the change we need in our policy."
"Iran is a “major threat” and it would be “unacceptable” for the rogue nation to develop a nuclear weapon,"

[gibran]

Iran is a powder keg on at least to fronts...Israel (and they are more likely to take appropriate action), and the US, although, under Obama, appeasement and cowardice are the rule of the day.

Israel is not above the Law and to attack Iran would be against our interests at this point and would send the region into an end game..with terror and unconventional warfare,,,if Iran continues to develop their weapon grade capability it should be with the UN and the region that action is taken...Israel should not act alone again- nor is this bombing an Iraqi reactor like scenario..This is not like Sharon pressuring the US like the lead up to Iraq ..the whole region knows that Iran could be on the verge of a revolution and with the right amount of pressure they can tip into a western camp...many of the Iranian ex-pats are seeing changes...cc the old warrior ways has not worked in the past..if you want the world to protect Israel like it should-then the world needs to get behind a stance on Iran...going it alone will not stop attacks against Israel,,but having the Arabs on their side with a peace would change the dynamics..


and like oladub so rightfully reminds you...we will always be there for Israel with a threat of military...so with that; the conflicts could ultimately be resolved...Israel should know that any major attack from a nation will be met with force...the key is to help them develop a peace with their immediate neighbors..but is you listen to BIBI bait and switch tactics we are in for a long road.



every one knows (except for the right wingers and BIBI) that peace leads through the solution of Palestine/Israel...that would get the Arab world off of the street and behind us..can't you see past your bias and see the potential for a real and just peace...Israel needs Love from US ..tough love ( you cant have it both ways, support and a blind eye)..but Israel needs the world to stand firmly behind them ...not just the USA. That would happen with a peaceful resolution to an age old conflict...

unfortunately you have BIBI in charge and he is pushing the Bush doctrine of appeasement on one front and war on another and it seems you haven't learned from it also...

[gibran]

Share |

Last update - 07:50 15/06/2009


Netanyahu, Mideast peace and a return to the Axis of Evil

By Akiva Eldar, Haaretz Correspondent

Tags: Benjamin Netanyahu



The prime minister's speech last night returned the Middle East to the days of George W. Bush's "axis of evil." Benjamin Netanyahu delivered a patriarchal, colonialist address in the best neoconservative tradition: The Arabs are the bad guys, or at best ungrateful terrorists; the Jews, of course, are the good guys, rational people who need to raise and care for their children. In the West Bank settlement of Itamar, they're even building a nursery school.

No empathy for the refugees from Jaffa who lost their entire world, not a word for the Muslim connection to Jerusalem - neither a fragment of a quote from the Koran, nor a line of Arabic poetry.

Netanyahu's provincial remarks were not intended to penetrate the hearts of the hundreds of millions of Al Jazeera viewers in the Muslim world. Instead, he sought to appease Tzipi Hotovely, the settler Likud lawmaker, and make it possible to live peaceably with the settler foreign minister Avigdor Lieberman. Netanyahu's demand that Palestinians recognize Israel as the state of the Jewish people didn't even leave him an opening for forging reconciliation with the Arab citizens in the country.
Advertisement


The prime minister's declaration that Jerusalem will remain he "undivided capital" of Israel - only Israel - slammed the door before the entire Muslim world. And his Hebron is solely the city of the Jewish patriarchs; the Arabs have no such rights at all. The Palestinians can have a state, but only if those foreign invaders show us they know how to eat with a fork and knife. Actually, without a knife.

The demilitarization of the Palestinian state was mentioned in the Clinton guidelines, the Taba understandings and the Geneva accord, as was the right of return to Palestine, not Israel. The difference between these documents and the Bar-Ilan address is not only that the former recognized the Palestinians' full rights to the West Bank and East Jerusalem. The real difference lies in the tone - in the degrading and disrespectful nature of Netanyahu's remarks. That's not how one brings down a wall of enmity between two nations, that's not how trust is built.

It's hard to believe that a single Palestinian leader will be found who will buy the defective merchandise Netanyahu presented last night.

[gnome]

1744

You can see a lot by looking.

[gibran]

and some want to bomb these guys now....amazing isn't it..tens of thousands protest and want change and a different climate ...however, the neocons and in some others's minds it is very scary to think that they are escalating rhetoric into war/bombing raids now not knowing this is giving the "I'manutjob" credibilty right after he stole the election...do they not see that this is what he loves to play to?

[oladub]

Gibran, for pure and distilled escalating threatening rhetoric, much of it playing to AIPAC, please refer to Obama's campaign rhetoric found in post #8. I don't think it is different than Bush's. I am glad that President Obama has, at least, toned down his rhetoric toward Iran since the election.

My point in digging up Senator Obama's quotes was not to bring up Israel. It was, instead, to compare Senator Obama's campaign pledges with Cheney and Bush's rhetoric.

[Sstashmoo]

Quote: "My point in digging up Senator Obama's quotes was not to bring up Israel. It was, instead, to compare Senator Obama's campaign pledges with Cheney and Bush's rhetoric."

I got it, and it is an interesting parallel. Seems more and more our politicians are almost required to appease AIPAC. Wonder what would happen if they didn't. Is it possible for one of our "elected" officials to stand up to the most powerful lobby in the United States? I recall the day after securing the Democratic nomination, Obama was on the carpet at AIPAC the following morning pledging his allegience. What gives? Does AIPAC run our country now? Sharon made jests that they do, was he serious?

I have to say, this isn't to align with right or left, but this Obama has really did a 180 since being elected. His tough talk rhetoric about trade and healthcare reform and his supposed stance on all things middle east appear to have been nothing more than BS. I know, I know, give him time. I already see where this is headed.

[ccbatson]

I say just bomb their nuclear programs.

[gibran]

:confused::confused:
I say just bomb their nuclear programs.


:eek:

you are truly kidding..with the potential for real change ...and you're clinging to a failed logic...what is it with you and the rest of the wild west- shoot first ask questions later crowd..can't you see the future with this logic..a region in continuous turmoil ...or is that the only way you can justify war like enterprise...

[Detroitej72]

I say just bomb their nuclear programs.

Only as a last resort, since it was this logic that got us into the mess now.

As far as our 2000 & 04 elections, America proved to the world that we don't go to war among ourselves if an election was screwed up, we handle it peacefully and democratically.

[Bobl]

My question:
How were 40 million paper ballots counted and tabulated in two hours?

[gibran]

My question:
How were 40 million paper ballots counted and tabulated in two hours?

They off:)shored it to Florida

[Lorax]

My question:
How were 40 million paper ballots counted and tabulated in two hours?

They subcontracted it out the the RNC, Diebold, Halliburton & Blackwater.

The masters at Weapons of Mass Deception.:eek:

[barnesfoto]

http://www.flickr.com/photos/armin_bb/

[ccbatson]

What constitutes a "last resort"? If we aren't ther now, we soon will be, and not by our choice and actions.

[rb336]

What constitutes a "last resort"? If we aren't ther now, we soon will be, and not by our choice and actions.


actually because Dubya squandered a mountain of good will that could have been used to stop both iran and n korea from getting to the point they are today. We "libs" warned about this from before dubya stupidly went into Iraq to take down a toothless lion. since YOU voted for that idiot, it is by your choice and actions. be a man and take responsibility for that

[Detroitej72]

What constitutes a "last resort"? If we aren't ther now, we soon will be, and not by our choice and actions.

The U.S. at this point can't afford another war front because our military is stretched thin due to Afghanistan and Bush's quagmire in Iraq.

[ccbatson]

Can they afford to allow Israel to defend itself and have our limited military and full moral support? A bargain in exchange for the diminution of the threat of a nuclear Iran.

[gibran]

does the term "mutual" provocation mean anything? why do you think those countries want to develop weapons of mass destruction...ummm could it be that Israel has at least 150 nukes that could be aimed at them...I am no way justifying anything that Iran does..but let their people speak...BIBI would bomb them today if he could..sending the region into worse chaos ...or is that what some really want?

If we stand by Israel which we will, any real development will bring our wrath as well as the rest of the world's powers...but again, Iran Is not Iraq ( much more credible threat to Israel and their existence...but not through conventional means)...maybe if the people force change..the rhetoric will subside..after all Israel and Iran were involved in clandestine cooperation in the past...and if this is their (Iran) revolution Israel and Iran could become like Israel and Turkey...or even Egypt..


Israel has EU, China (china gets weapon technology) and US on it's side...they could get even someof the Arab states on the bus if they would solve their indigenous people/tribal problems..


but this insane rush to confrontation would spin totally out of control...and both states become even more military minded vs peace minded with each passing conflict...to bad both have extremists in power.

[rb336]

Can they afford to allow Israel to defend itself and have our limited military and full moral support? A bargain in exchange for the diminution of the threat of a nuclear Iran.


what, exactly, does Israel do for the US that is positive? it sucks more money out of us than any other foreign entity, it is an agent provocateur in the region.

[Detroitej72]

With all the protests going on in Iran from the election fallout, perhaps change will come from within sooner rather than later.

We can only hope and pray....

[ccbatson]

Our closest ally, and a sovereign nation is Israel.

Replace them with any other such friend and answer your own question (Britain, Canada, etc).

[rb336]

you can't think of one good thing to come to the US via our support of Issrael, eh Bats? why can't you just admit defeat?

Canada -- our largest trade partner
Britain -- our lapdog

and neither get a cent of US aid

there ya go

[gibran]

Our closest ally, and a sovereign nation is Israel.

Replace them with any other such friend and answer your own question (Britain, Canada, etc).


funny thing no one ever mentions all the european nations, arab nations ie: Jordan and Kuwait or even Morocco ( the first country to recognize the US).:confused:

[ccbatson]

No one? Have I not repeatedly described the justification of the Gulf Wars stemming from Sadaam attacking an ally of ours...Kuwait?

[rb336]

yet again, you missed the plainly obvious point of the comment -- gibran was clearly saying no one has mentioned the very good islamic friends we have had in the middle east

as far as your gw II bs -- hah hah that's funny

[ccbatson]

Did I not clearly point out that I have made that very point regarding Kuwait several times? Given that you (Rb) have engaged me in debate over Kuwait several times, I would think you would have noticed.

[rb336]

Did I not clearly point out that I have made that very point regarding Kuwait several times? Given that you (Rb) have engaged me in debate over Kuwait several times, I would think you would have noticed.


yes, you have, and your contention just gets more laughable every time you make it

[ccbatson]

Thank you for admitting I am right again Rb.

[gibran]

1898


Point is that we have more than one friend in the world..no qualifiers

[mjs]

While its no where near the 33% one website says or even near what dozens and dozens of other propaganda web sites say, Israel did get 7.5% of all US foriegn aid in 2007. Thats fifty times what our poor near neighbor Mexico gets and almost twice as much as the entire Western Hemisphere? An entire hemisphere! What was wrong with the Monroe Doctrine? Are we aware of what's going on in the poor countries to the south of us because we have a major drug problem? Parts of Mexico are like a worn torn country because of us. If anyone should be looking for revenge on Americans, it should be the poor citizens of Columbia. I can only imagine how many immigrants we could afford to let come across the border if we threw $2.5 billion a year at it. Spread that money amongst the rest of the Americas to get oil for Americans. Let Royal Dutch Shell and British Petroleum deal with the Middle East. Europe thinks it has all the answers so lets give them the chance. Muslims think Christians are so bad, let Muslims help them while we help the Christian nations to our south.

Israel usually did better than all of Africa. To beat them, you have to be involved in an active war with American troops on the ground. The holocaust was due to the Europeans. Can't they foot the bill for anything ever? Can't Israel raise these funds through private donors so Americans can actually help poor people for a change? I'm so sick of carrying the weight of the world on our backs. And why in the hell did Egypt need $1.8 billion?

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/tables/09s1257.pdf

[barnesfoto]

Gasp! What a great idea! While Europe, composed of countries that fought wars with each other regularly, continues to unite, even bringing a dysfunctional nation like Romania into the fold, we continue to (mostly) ignore the countries that we share a continent with...Here's to the hopes for a "Community of the Americas" (and to Latin America one day raising taxes on its' tiny uberwealthy elite...)

[Sstashmoo]

Quote: "Here's to the hopes for a "Community of the Americas" (and to Latin America one day raising taxes on its' tiny uberwealthy elite...)"

Now who hates who?

[Red Devil]

"Poor Mexico...so far from God.....so close to the United States"

[ccbatson]

In general, I am not a proponent of unilateral foreign aid to anybody. That said, in the case of Israel, and yes, largely because of the issue of affordable middle east energy, we have an independent good friend which is worth a great deal.

[mjs]

How does an alliance with Israel get us affordable oil? If anything, I would think we could leverage ditching them to get prime contracts.

[Sstashmoo]

mjs, you're making way too much sense.

[gibran]

why not have friends with the other millions of people there also?

[Patrick]

largely because of the issue of affordable middle east energy, we have an independent good friend which is worth a great deal.

So when the oil runs out, I guess Israel is fucked.

[ccbatson]

Prior to Iraq and Afghanistan, Israel was the only truly reliable beach head in the middle east. If not for them, we would be at the mercy of the whims of the other bad players in the region.

Good point regarding when the oil runs out, and not a bad thing for the enemies of Israel to be of less interest, influence, and power in the world.

[Sstashmoo]

Quote: "reliable beach head"

Are you serious? Why didn't we use it when we invaded Iraq?

Quote: " If not for them, we would be at the mercy of the whims of the other bad players in the region."

If not for the Likud's in the region there wouldn't be any. These people are pissed about the Likud's treatment of the Palestinians and our support politically and financially of those actions. That's it in a nutshell. Forget they "hate our western ways" and all the other nonsense.

[gnome]

The stuff going on in Iran is shocking. That footage of that 16 yr old Neda girl is sad in a thousand ways. I salute their struggle and pray things settle down soon.

We may have our problems here in America, but ...

[gibran]

Prior to Iraq and Afghanistan, Israel was the only truly reliable beach head in the middle east. If not for them, we would be at the mercy of the whims of the other bad players in the region.

Good point regarding when the oil runs out, and not a bad thing for the enemies of Israel to be of less interest, influence, and power in the world.


I guess that arab nations who for decades supported us were not in your book reliable..you need to read Carter's latest book: in his chapter on Camp David (he said that Saudi and Egypt put forth full recognition of Israel and trade etc.and Begin accepted all conditions for peace with Egypt) all Israel had to do then and according to agreements which Begin agreed to at Camp David is recognition and autonomy of Palestinians..to date Egypt and Saudi have never again attacked Israel..but Israel continued to violate camp David's original agreement with settlements and with the treatment of Palestinians (no full autonomy)..we never get the real story...cc we have good relations with Jordan; Syria fought with us in GWI; Lebanon has a mixed relationship;, Morocco has based our troops and we have bases in Turkey and Kuwaiti. I just talked to a GWII vet who spent a year in Egypt...support system...we have friend there...we don't have the hearts and minds of all that don't know us..but newsflash we would if we had a fair and balanced approach and were seen as peacemakers...

I read an article about how to love Israel and protect it written in an Israeli newspaper..you know how? hold it accountable, be critical of it's policies and to fulfill the road-map ; or the Saudi Plan for peace or even a new hybred version. Then we can hold their neighbors equally accountable to develop a realistic security plan..and you know who might pull it off ...this admin...and that scare a majority of right wing folks doesn't it.

[sturge]

I like Fareed Zakaria's comment. Playing the nice guy instead of the bully can sway public opinion.



CNN: What should the United States do?
Zakaria: I would say continue what we have been doing. By reaching out to Iran, publicly and repeatedly, President Obama has made it extremely difficult for the Iranian regime to claim that they are battling an aggressive America bent on attacking Iran. In his inaugural address, his New Year greetings, and his Cairo speech, there is a consistent effort to convey respect and friendship for Iranians. That is why Khamenei reacted so angrily to the New Year greeting. It undermined the image of the Great Satan that he routinely paints in his sermons. In his Friday sermon, Khamenei said that the United States, Israel, and especially the United Kingdom were behind the street protests, an accusation that will surely sound ridiculous to most Iranians. The fact that Obama has been cautious in his reaction makes it all the harder for Khamenei and Ahmadinejad to wrap themselves in a nationalist flag.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/06/19/zakaria.iran.elections/index.html

[gibran]

God Bless the people of Iran...

[Sstashmoo]

Some in our government are licking their chops to get some boots on the ground there.

As far as us not being behind this, I'd like to believe that, but history shows this fits our MO to a T.

[ccbatson]

Maybe the protests in Iran will have a positive effect. More likely, as in China, escalating violence will suppress the uprising.

[rb336]

the difference here is that it appears the ruling bodies involved are fracturing

[Lorax]

The Iranians have a new symbol of their three decade long struggle for secular freedom in a young woman named Neda.

She was shot to death by a sniper as she protested this weekend, unarmed- murdered by the fascist religious thugs that make up the ruling junta in Iran.

All the more reason to keep religion out of politics- everywhere. It only leads to death and destruction.

Religion is really the culprit here, and it's overwhelming influence on otherwise educated, seemingly sane people.

The Ayatollah this weekend was spotted circling Tehran in a helicopter directing the military to shoot protesters in certain parts of the city.

This is precisely why religion is doomed.

Religion and those who propogate it's indemic nature of exclusivity and restriction are digging their own graves.

Religion has no purpose in government, a lesson I though we learned in 1776, but have needed to smack down from time to time with regard to the Christian fundamentalists in this country who seek to subvert the Constitution.

Theocracies may have worked in an age when we had no measurable technology, or science to explain things like why the sun goes away at night.

Obviously in a modern world religion and politics cannot work in unison, and one has to fall by the wayside, consigned to the ash can of history, and seemingly it will be religion.

And it should be.

If people choose to believe in unprovable, eccentric theories about life, death, and the meaning of why we are here- that has always been a choice, one protected by our Constitution, and by the constitutions of other nations as well.

But such dogmatic ideals are incompatible with governance, and especially having access to weapons of mass destruction.

This cannot be allowed, since religion extremism has been on the rise, especially in nations where the world and it's influences are shut out, creating a religious fervor that can only end badly for everyone.

I hope Iran uses this critical moment in it's history to end this autorcatic, fascist influence on it's people.

[Danny]

Free Iran from the "Islamic Pope" called the Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Free Iran from "The dictatator" Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

Free Iran for Neda's sake

Free Iran for true Islamic democracy

[Sstashmoo]

Quote: "Religion has no purpose in government, a lesson I though we learned in 1776, but have needed to smack down from time to time with regard to the Christian fundamentalists in this country who seek to subvert the Constitution."

Someone who knows absolutely nothing about this nations history. Yes, Lorax, you're right, you and yours have twisted the constitution around to fit the agenda. This country has turned it's back and you see where it has gotten us. Get ready for more of it. If one were to look and think about it, there is a definite correlation in this country's prosperity and the liberal movement. Look at the data.

Quote: "The Ayatollah this weekend was spotted circling Tehran in a helicopter directing the military to shoot protesters in certain parts of the city."

Did you read this in the Enquirer? Man the mental imagery is tough.. LOL

Lorax, You live in a religious world and country, 90% believe in a higher power. Religion isn't going anywhere.

[rb336]

Quote: "Religion has no purpose in government, a lesson I though we learned in 1776, but have needed to smack down from time to time with regard to the Christian fundamentalists in this country who seek to subvert the Constitution."

Someone who knows absolutely nothing about this nations history. Yes, Lorax, you're right, you and yours have twisted the constitution around to fit the agenda. This country has turned it's back and you see where it has gotten us. Get ready for more of it. If one were to look and think about it, there is a definite correlation in this country's prosperity and the liberal movement. Look at the data.

certainly is. biggest boom in wages was a direct result of strong laws supporting organized labor. when those laws were undermined by ronnie, the current downward spiral began

[Sstashmoo]

Quote: "certainly is. biggest boom in wages was a direct result of strong laws supporting organized labor."

I was referring to THE economy, not YOUR economy. You really think wages are what controls the prosperity of the nation as a whole?

[Bong-Man]

None of this has any effect on the issue that most conservatives hold dear to their hearts....Iran going nuclear. The press constantly makes a big deal about all of the intelligent, under 30, student voters in Iran that lean democratic. Every poll taken has demonstrated that the Iranian people, young or old, and regardless of religion......the issue of Iran having nuclear capability is a no-brainer. 90% of all Iranians want nuclear capability. They feel it is their right as a sovereign nation.

[gnome]

1966

Neda has become the symbol of freedom's cost.

[Sstashmoo]

Sad for Neda.

Don't forget Rachel Corrie.

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

[mjs]

As an American, I say Iran with nukes will be a disaster, but if I were born an Iranian Muslim, I'd say Westerners with any weapons is a disaster. Objectively looking back in history, nobody has been able to kill better than Western Christians, torture better, oppress more, accomplish more imperialistic acts, or even get near as close to an almost complete genocide. I mean any terrorist or warlord has to be very impressed with our tactics on native americans and using religion to get such overwhelming approval for such acts against these heathens that God says must be driven from our holy land. Very sad to say, the US still hasn't risen above torture or regime change and is still so ethnocentric that most Americans still can't tell you how many arabs have been killed in either Iraq or Afghanistan. Why? Because, just as we have viewed other non-white christians in the past, we believe that Arabs are more like our animals than like us so they deserve to be treated like out of control rabid animals.

[oladub]

The BBC wrpte a positive article about how Obama's positive policy toward Iran has been difficult for the leaders there to respond to.

"State department official Phillip Crowley said the offer of engagement appeared to have contributed to the dynamic of events in Iran even though "the debate is mostly among Iranians and about the future of Iran".
"The offer of engagement by the president helped start a debate in Iran that was perhaps more robust than the Iranian government anticipated," he said.
"In the midst of this debate, it would appear the government overreacted and the results of the election have lacked credibility in the eyes of the Iranian people."
- The consequences of engaging Iran (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8111290.stm)

Meanwhile Congress was doing its best to interfere with and embarrass the Iranian regime. It voted 405-1 to condemn the Iranian government. There was really no need for this meaningless posturing gesture while the administration's plan was working well.

"The issue has put Obama in a tough spot, with conservatives blasting him for not showing more support for demonstrators, and Iran criticizing the U.S. and Obama for meddling in its affairs."
- House approves Iran bill 405-1 (http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/house-approves-iran-bill-405-1-2009-06-19.html)

[Lorax]

Quote: "Religion has no purpose in government, a lesson I though we learned in 1776, but have needed to smack down from time to time with regard to the Christian fundamentalists in this country who seek to subvert the Constitution."

Someone who knows absolutely nothing about this nations history. Yes, Lorax, you're right, you and yours have twisted the constitution around to fit the agenda. This country has turned it's back and you see where it has gotten us. Get ready for more of it. If one were to look and think about it, there is a definite correlation in this country's prosperity and the liberal movement. Look at the data.

Quote: "The Ayatollah this weekend was spotted circling Tehran in a helicopter directing the military to shoot protesters in certain parts of the city."

Did you read this in the Enquirer? Man the mental imagery is tough.. LOL

Lorax, You live in a religious world and country, 90% believe in a higher power. Religion isn't going anywhere.

What you fail to realize, and it's odd, considering you live in America (I'm assuming you do), is that America was founded as a SECULAR nation, not a religious one. We have no state sponsored religion as in Iran. I'm quite sure you're aware of this, but it wasn't evident in the final drive-by statements of your post.

The part about the Ayatollah circling the city in a helicopter was sourced through an I-Reporter sending his photos to CNN, which were then repeated on NBC. I'm sure it was on other stations as well, but I can't watch all of them simultaneously.

More to the point, this nation was founded on priciples of secularism, not religiousness. Freedom from as well as of religion was particular to our Constitution, and somehow angers the religious nutbags in this country, since they all seem to think we were founded on Judeo-Christian principles (they call it values) which is another baseless, rethugnican shape-shifting position, used to drive a wedge between liberals and conservatives.

Perhaps you should re-read our Constitiution, and refrain from telling me that I don't know my nation's history. I just refuse to believe those who choose to rewrite history to satisfy their servile, braindead dogma.

[ccbatson]

Basic religious principles are at the core of our government and social system...inalienable rights...according to whom, or what? What are Oaths sworn to?

Beyond this (and it is not a minor point), further organized religion in operation in the public sector should be removed.

[Sstashmoo]

Quote: "More to the point, this nation was founded on priciples of secularism, not religiousness."

Read some of our history:

""1490-1492 – Columbus’ commission was given to set out to find a new world.
According to Columbus’ personal log, his purpose in seeking undiscovered worlds was to “bring the Gospel of Jesus Christ to the heathens. …. It was the Lord who put into my mind … that it would be possible to sail from here to the Indies … I am the most unworthy sinner, but I have cried out to the Lord for grace and mercy, and they have covered me completely … No one should fear to undertake any task in the name of our Saviour, if it is just and if the intention is purely for His holy service.” (Columbus’ Book of Prophecies)""


Interesting timeline:


http://www.forerunner.com/forerunner/X0192_America_-_A_Christia.html

If anything, the Christian based formation and heritage of this country has been downplayed.

[Lorax]

Basic religious principles are at the core of our government and social system...inalienable rights...according to whom, or what? What are Oaths sworn to?

Beyond this (and it is not a minor point), further organized religion in operation in the public sector should be removed.

You mean, WHO are oaths sworn to.

In George Tush's administration, loyalty oaths were sworn to King George Tush. Just ask Monica Goodling working under Gonzo at the Justice Department.

Oaths sworn on a bible is a quaint historical anectdote, but certainly wouldn't have any meaning to a non-christian or an atheist.

[ccbatson]

You agree with me for once Lorax...in a begrudging and bitter fashion, but you acknowledge my point...is there some hope for you?

[Lorax]

Read some of our history:

""1490-1492 – Columbus’ commission was given to set out to find a new world.
According to Columbus’ personal log, his purpose in seeking undiscovered worlds was to “bring the Gospel of Jesus Christ to the heathens. …. It was the Lord who put into my mind … that it would be possible to sail from here to the Indies … I am the most unworthy sinner, but I have cried out to the Lord for grace and mercy, and they have covered me completely … No one should fear to undertake any task in the name of our Saviour, if it is just and if the intention is purely for His holy service.” (Columbus’ Book of Prophecies)""


Interesting timeline:


http://www.forerunner.com/forerunner/X0192_America_-_A_Christia.html

If anything, the Christian based formation and heritage of this country has been downplayed.

And this makes it OK how?

Nothing new here. No one disputes the extreme religious beliefs of Spain at that time.

They were also allowing Torquemada free reign in tortuing and murdering thousands of "heathens" during the Inquisition.

So your point is?

[ccbatson]

Way before our constitution and therefore not relevant to the current conversation...Uh oh, now I agree with Lorax.

[Lorax]

You agree with me for once Lorax...in a begrudging and bitter fashion, but you acknowledge my point...is there some hope for you?

Perhaps it is you who agrees with me- begrudging, bitter and batty, as it were. :eek:

[Lorax]

Way before our constitution and therefore not relevant to the current conversation...Uh oh, now I agree with Lorax.

Careful, I'm not going to date you. :eek:

[ccbatson]

No worries...already very much spoken for.

[WolverinesA2]

Read some of our history:

""1490-1492 – Columbus’ commission was given to set out to find a new world.
According to Columbus’ personal log, his purpose in seeking undiscovered worlds was to “bring the Gospel of Jesus Christ to the heathens. …. It was the Lord who put into my mind … that it would be possible to sail from here to the Indies … I am the most unworthy sinner, but I have cried out to the Lord for grace and mercy, and they have covered me completely … No one should fear to undertake any task in the name of our Saviour, if it is just and if the intention is purely for His holy service.” (Columbus’ Book of Prophecies)""


Columbus discovered Hispanola, NOT the mainland United States. Columbus never set foot on what would become American soil.

And if you want to attribute the genocide of Native Americans and enslavement committed "in the name of Jesus Christ" by Columbus to Christianity, then you aren't really helping the "our national Christian heritage is a good thing" argument. How is genocide and slavery committed in the name of Jesus Christ something worth celebrating?

[Lorax]

That's because he's really never learned any history outside of what he was probably taught in some religious academy.

[Sstashmoo]

You only read one reference to Christianity in our formation, there is plenty more.



""Summer 2-4, 1776 – Declaration of Independence written and signed.
“We hold these truths … that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights … appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world … And for the support of this Declaration, with firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence…”
As the Declaration was being signed, Samuel Adams said: “We have this day restored the Sovereign to Whom all men ought to be obedient. He reigns in heaven, and from the rising to the setting of the sun, let his kingdom come.”
On the same day, Benjamin Franklin suggested that the national motto be: “Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God.”
Historian and philosopher G.K. Chesterton said of the founding of America that it is “the only nation in the world that is founded on a creed. That creed is set forth in dogmatic and even theological lucidity in the Declaration of Independence.”
September 17, 1787 – The Constitution of the United States is finished.""

[mjs]

Batts, weren't you asking who granted the inalienable rights? The founders considered them to be god given rights so no man could sell them and no man could take them away. I love the First Amendment, but people have to realize that laws are society's rules based on their norms and values. Norms and values are heavily based on the predominate religion. No matter how sincerely you try to seperate them, laws will have a religious influence. For example, marriage rights will be differ in a predominately christian nation versus a predominately muslim nation versus a predominately mormon nation. And laws on self defense and animal cruelty will differ between a predominately christian nation and a predominately hindu nation. Now, we obviously make alot more effort than Iran or victorian England, but religion will always factor in.

[gibran]

...ever since they painted a cross on a shield and declared a just battle or war, or claimed as in the old testiment victory has been blesssed has societies moved away from true Judeo-Christian values...every time you establish a country based on religious principles and try to make it homogeneous you move away from the tenets of most religions..especially when there is a heterogeneous population...

we as people bastardize the good things about religion: the morals and values they bring to the table...that is why countries that claim to be founded for the purpose of religion become very intolerant for those not practicing their religion...and why there has to be a separation from state ...doesn't mean a country like the US can't evolve to adopt principles learned from the basic messages..as long as it applies them equally to all people...

the problem in many countries is that while claiming they have been established by a higher authority, or that they are there to protect themselves from others views or values, they become what they are escaping from in the first place..thus the fragility of man.

True believers in many religions wouldn't kill, murder, build walls around people, blow up innocents, kill non believers, practice genocide, ethnic cleansing etc... they would practice what they say in their books if that is truly peaceful ...but it's sad how man through the ages has twisted their beliefs to justify any of the above.

secularism in government shouldn't be considered a bad thing,-it is needed as long as people want their religion to top others or to justify establishmenst of countries, colonize, justify wars, practice ethnic cleansing etc. Religion is a personal choice, an individual code of conduct when applied as directed...but a terrible tool when used to create separation or control of others...One just has to look to the middle-east for good religions gone bad, in the hands of man who want countries based on their religion when living in countries with other types of practices.

[rb336]

You only read one reference to Christianity in our formation, there is plenty more.

""Summer 2-4, 1776 – Declaration of Independence written and signed.
“We hold these truths … that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights … appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world … And for the support of this Declaration, with firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence…”

Those are distinctly NON-Xtian formulations, rather they are Deist



September 17, 1787 – The Constitution of the United States is finished.

another distinctly secular document, not in any way Xtian

[Sstashmoo]

Quote: "secularism in government shouldn't be considered a bad thing"

I personally don't see it as a bad thing, just when someone ignorantly makes the statement that this country was founded on secularism, I call it out. Nothing could be further from the truth, as the timeline of events and statements from the framers indicating their beliefs point out. These were not Atheists that formed this country.

Regarding the "separation" issue. Many claim now that this meant to keep Church out of government, I can guarantee that was NOT their intention. They meant keep government out of the church. They even reiterate, saying Congress shall pass no laws governing the Church, Freedom of religion, Freedom of religious expression, etc. Remember, many of them were fleeing religious persecution. There is not one reference to keeping the Church out of government back then. Only the separation concept that has been twisted recently to serve an agenda.

[rb336]

Quote: "secularism in government shouldn't be considered a bad thing"

I personally don't see it as a bad thing, just when someone ignorantly makes the statement that this country was founded on secularism, I call it out. Nothing could be further from the truth, as the timeline of events and statements from the framers indicating their beliefs point out. These were not Atheists that formed this country.

Jefferson, Adams (actually John and Sam), Franklin, Washington, Madison and several other "founding fathers" were derided by clergy of the day as heretics. The anti-religion comments from them are well known and easy to track down.. In an era when laws were being passed that made atheism an offense punishable by death, it is not surprising that no one was saying flat out that they were atheist.


Regarding the "separation" issue. Many claim now that this meant to keep Church out of government, I can guarantee that was NOT their intention. They meant keep government out of the church. They even reiterate, saying Congress shall pass no laws governing the Church, Freedom of religion, Freedom of religious expression, etc. Remember, many of them were fleeing religious persecution. There is not one reference to keeping the Church out of government back then. Only the separation concept that has been twisted recently to serve an agenda.

actually, it was both. you clearly haven't read any of Jefferson's or Madison's arguments, and the 1st amendment clearly states that they shall make no laws respecting religion. not "in respect to" but "respecting." The letters written about the phrasing clearly indicate a desire to not confer any special status on any religion.

there are dozens upon dozens of references to keeping religion out of government, including article vi of the constitution which states that no religious test shall ever be required for someone to hold office.

Adams said our laws were not based on Christian traditions, but on English Civil Law, which traces its roots to the pagan Anglo-Saxons

[gibran]

I agree but people's influence may not be as direct or indistinguishable as we would like to believe...that is the argument against objectivity. We construct our beliefs based on a variety of influences..including cultural etc.

[mjs]

Adams said our laws were not based on Christian traditions, but on English Civil Law, which traces its roots to the pagan Anglo-Saxons

You need sources for this. The US and England use the common law system, not the Roman based civil law system. Common law came from the King always being right because thats why God himself put the King in charge. If you had a dispute, you went to the king to settle it. If you were smart, you asked one of the King's Counselor's to argue your case. Its where we get the term counselor. Counselor's often held the title of Esquire which is a title many attorneys still use. As the number of cases grew, the King delegated his decisions to Judges who were supposed to do what the King would do which is where we got precedence and stare decisis.

Americans hated the King, but not its legal system, and didn't want an American King to replace the British one they were fighting. John Adams was the attorney that got the British soldiers of the Boston Massacre Acquitted. The law and legal rights were the thing most dear to him. If here today, he'd be an ACLU attorney fighting for Guitanimo detainees. Thomas Paine's "Common Sense", a gigantic influence on the signing of the Declaration of Independence, goes into great depth to dispel the Divine Right of Kings. The King's authority was based on religion. The peasants didn't overthrow the King because the Church told them that going against an appointee of God is like going against God himself and you'd burn in eternal hell for it. The enlightenment lead to our revolution and a system of government where church leaders didn't choose the political leaders.

Like Medieval Europe, Iran isn't ran directly by the religious leaders, but their approval is necessary for the political leadership to remain in power.

[Sstashmoo]

Rb,

These folks were predominantly Christian, when they used terms like "Creator" "Providence" "heavens" "Father" they are referring to Christ. You can believe what you want, the point stands. When our Presidents are sworn in on the ..you guessed it .. Bible, why do you think that is? When they opted to put "In God we trust" on our money, I ask the same. In our pledge, the phrase "One nation under God". Our laws are based on the ten commandments. Lie to a grand jury if you don't believe it. Ask Martha on that. I mean you folks must be outraged, the government forcing someone to tell the truth. What the hell kind of freedom is that? This is a God fearing nation, and as Cheddar says, there is nothing you can do about it.

We need to put prayer back in school, the pledge of allegience, nativity scenes, it wasn't violating anyone's rights. The removal of these was all based on lies.

[rb336]

Rb,

These folks were predominantly Christian, when they used terms like "Creator" "Providence" "heavens" "Father" they are referring to Christ. You can believe what you want, the point stands. When our Presidents are sworn in on the ..you guessed it .. Bible, why do you think that is? When they opted to put "In God we trust" on our money, I ask the same. In our pledge, the phrase "One nation under God". Our laws are based on the ten commandments. Lie to a grand jury if you don't believe it. Ask Martha on that. I mean you folks must be outraged, the government forcing someone to tell the truth. What the hell kind of freedom is that? This is a God fearing nation, and as Cheddar says, there is nothing you can do about it.

We need to put prayer back in school, the pledge of allegience, nativity scenes, it wasn't violating anyone's rights. The removal of these was all based on lies.


who is feeding you this bovine fecal matter? the founders were not, for the most part, devout christians, and there is a pile of evidence in their own words. I think you need to read the treaty of Tripoli

the phrase "one nation under god" was added to the pledge in the heat of the McCarthy era, and "in god we trust" as an official motto dates to the same time, although it started use on coins in the civil war era. this is a secular nation full of superstitious, "god" fearing people. read some REAL history, and not the pseudohistory the right wing religious whack jobs shove down your throught before you canabalize your god

[mjs]

Our laws are based on the ten commandments. Lie to a grand jury if you don't believe it.

I'm not understanding the connection. Please expand on this argument.

I'm baffled by ever lying to a grand jury or advising it to anyone under any circumstances. Everyone has a Fifth Amendment right to avoid perjury by not answering at all. Even though people have to swear to tell the truth and can be subject to perjury charges just like Kwame, people are no longer required to swear on a bible or swear to God to tell the truth. One of the main reasons is that the Oath isn't very effective if you're not a God fearing person.

[Sstashmoo]

Quote: "the founders were not, for the most part, devout christians, and there is a pile of evidence in their own words"

If there is a pile of evidence, how about some of it? And please no direct contradictions against your own points like you've been doing.

Mjs, I know, I was clumsily trying to make a point.

[Pam]

Quote: "the founders were not, for the most part, devout christians, and there is a pile of evidence in their own words"

If there is a pile of evidence, how about some of it? And please no direct contradictions against your own points like you've been doing.

.

Did you know Jefferson made his own version of the Bible?

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




The Jefferson Bible begins with an account of Jesus’s birth without references to angels (http://www.detroityes.com/wiki/Angel), genealogy (http://www.detroityes.com/wiki/Genealogy), or prophecy (http://www.detroityes.com/wiki/Prophecy). Miracles (http://www.detroityes.com/wiki/Miracle), references to the Trinity (http://www.detroityes.com/wiki/Trinity) and the divinity (http://www.detroityes.com/wiki/Divinity) of Jesus, and Jesus' resurrection (http://www.detroityes.com/wiki/Resurrection) are also absent from the Jefferson Bible.




We need to put prayer back in school


There is nothing stopping any school child from praying silently all day long if they wish. Why does the teacher or the rest of the class have to be involved for God to hear the prayer?



nativity scenes, it wasn't violating anyone's rights. The removal of these was all based on lies.


Nativity scenes can be displayed in front of churches and homes.

[Detroitej72]

Nativity (http://Nativity) scenes can be displayed in front of churches and homes.

For now.

A year or so ago, in Sterling Heights, an atheist and the ACLU tried to ban a Nativity scene and a statue of Blessed Mother on the front lawn of a gentleman's house. It seems the dear atheist felt that seeing the statues infringed upon his right of a religious free neighborhood.

Fortunately common sense prevailed and the homeowner, along help from his Muslim neighbor who stood by him in court, was able to continue the displays.


And Stosh, most of the Founding Fathers were known Deists, not staunch Christians. They sought to not have a state sponsored church, everyone is(was) free to worship in whatever way they felt was just.

[Pam]

A year or so ago, in Sterling Heights, an atheist and the ACLU tried to ban a Nativity scene and a statue of Blessed Mother on the front lawn of a gentleman's house.


Do you have any info. that supports this story? It sounds like an urban legend.

[Detroitej72]

Do you have any info. that supports this story? It sounds like an urban legend.

It was in the Free Press, or maybe the News, can't remember which.

I heard about it through my fiancé's parents who live in the subdivision.

[Sstashmoo]

Do you have any info. that supports this story? It sounds like an urban legend.

Fox2 covered it about 4 years ago. It went on for days. Pam, one cannot display a nativity scene anywhere. Seriously, it is some blow molded figures with (deluxe model) light bulbs inside, possibly flashing, possibly not.

It's like the idiots that claimed they were offended because the ten commandments were displayed in a courthouse down south, they won, it was removed. It really makes no difference to me.

[Pam]

I tried googling this alleged nativity story and the only thing I found was about a guy in Novi who was asked to remove a nativity scene by his subdivision because it violated some rule or another that they had. The ACLU was not involved. I looked at the ACLU site and the only nativity scene cases they were involved in were with ones on govt. owned property. The Constitution allows you to display one on private property.

[Detroitej72]

The Constitution allows you to display one on private property.

And that is how it should be.

Neighborhood associations are another beast entirely, but that's for another thread!

BTW, I think I'm confusing the Nativity scene. It was just a statue of Blessed Mother in Sterling Heights that caused the uproar, I was corrected by my better half. :)

[Detroitej72]

It's like the idiots that claimed they were offended because the ten commandments were displayed in a courthouse down south, they won, it was removed. It really makes no difference to me.

I always find it rather ironic that people get all worked up about that, but they never give a second thought to an obelisk marker, and statues of Greek gods anywhere on public property.(I've seen a statue of Neptune at a public aquarium) I also remember the Farmer Jack at Coolidge and 696 had a large menorah on the wall above the office. None of this is hurting anybody, so why make a big deal about it?

Could it be that they just want some attention?

[Sstashmoo]

I have no problem with religious expression of others, strange architecture, I won't go into detail. To each their own. I have no problem with our government engaging in those expressions. Our President lighting the Menorah for Hanukkah, Our post office selling stamps celebrating Kwanzaa, the religion started by the the Keyes fellow a few years back. Shows that our government is diverse in it's interests. And this is a nation of diversity.

There is a definite push and has been for quite some time to eradicate Christianity in this country. What makes these folks tick? I have a few theories, but the reality is, it won't matter. What they see as a victory is seen as affirmation by the believer. They are fulfilling scripture and probably don't even realize it.

[ccbatson]

Wow...I agree Sstashmoo...expression is to be free. However, organized religion exerting any influence in the operation of government is to be prohibited.

[Lorax]

I know some of you want desperately to believe there is some sort of religious perogative in our Constitution, and somehow our laws are created by, and for Christians. However, this is not the case.

If we had a non-Christian president, do you think he/she would be using a bible to be sworn in on?

We handle the institution of marriage as a secular one, as it only becomes a religious rite when the individuals involved choose to make it such.

You are just as legally married in this country married outside a place of worship, by a sea captain, justice of the peace, a mayor, etc. This is why the idea of same-sex marriage is catching on, finally, since there is no constitutional basis for rejecting it.

It took a couple of centuries of getting past the man-injected religious content to finally enforce the secular rights of marriage granted us from the beginning.

Our laws are equally neutral and unbiased, as it should be, since not everyone in America is a Christian. Many are Atheist, Muslim, Hebrew, etc.

What is continually amazing to me are the Christians who are trying to force feed their ideals on the rest of us through shcool prayer, abortion rights, displaying the ten commandments in public places, etc. This assertion that we are somehow a "Christian" nation is a misnomer. Even the founding fathers would agree.

No where in our Constitution is there an established state religion.

Freedom of religion as well as freedom from religion are protected and cherished. Separation of church and state is indemic in our Constitution, written about at length by Jefferson and Madison, and in fact, strengthens both religion and non-believers by offering a level playing field.

When Christian fundamentalists attempt to subvert our Constitution by forcing their ideals on the rest of us is when we need to take action to protect our inalienable rights.

Oh, and the part about "our creator" is about as vague as it got in the 18th century, and is a perfectly apt description of the intent of our founding fathers.

[ccbatson]

I believe that they probably did happen to be Christian values, but that this is/was not the point. It goes back to what I described earlier, religion was foundational leading to the evolution that became our constitution/the rise of individual liberty.

Please notice that it is the current and apparent fall of this concept under Obama that has me very concerned.

[Detroitej72]

The part about a Creator was in reference to the Founding Father's Deist beliefs, nothing more. They were not trying to create a purely Christian nation.

[Lorax]

I believe that they probably did happen to be Christian values, but that this is/was not the point. It goes back to what I described earlier, religion was foundational leading to the evolution that became our constitution/the rise of individual liberty.

Please notice that it is the current and apparent fall of this concept under Obama that has me very concerned.

And you were doing so well!

Our democratic ideals were courtesy of the very pagan, ancient Greeks and Romans.

Many of the founding fathers were certainly Christian, no one denies that, they were at least smarter and more progressive than the backward sliding group of fundamentalists we have now. They realized the freedom to practice all religions in this country would be threatened unless religion was kept out of the public discourse.

That's why we were founded as a secular nation with religious freedoms, freedom of speech and thought. Why is this so difficult for Christians of today to understand?

Do any of them really think we're going backward at this point and going to establish a Chritian theocracy in the US?

Grow up, people.

Perhaps if they feel that way, they should found their own nation elsewhere, perhaps they could adopt the ideals of the Taliban, which would be more in keeping with the fascist right wing talk I've been hearing lately.

[Sstashmoo]

Quote: "Separation of church and state is indemic in our Constitution, written about at length by Jefferson and Madison,"

Oh really? Where? Could you please post a credible source for this "at length" address on the subject. It's my understanding the "separation" was mentioned (one sentence) in a letter by Thomas Jefferson. No other place, other than to say Government would not meddle with the churches. It does not matter really, it changes nothing.

Thomas Jefferson, although a brilliant statesman regarding the organization of government , unfortunately was a proponent of slavery, and essentially a whackjob. The guy wrote his own Bible. My guess he suffered OCD or some other psychosis. Possibly due to his father dying at a young age. The Bible wasn't good enough for him, he had to write his own. His compulsion to do this clearly points to a deranged individual. No one could write the Bible as good as he?

Incidentally, he was in Paris when the Constitution was penned. Also, he wasn't elected until the third presidency, the people did not want him because of his views on religion, He ran to a tie and most of his votes came from the south (ironically). House of representatives had to vote 29 times before he was granted the Presidency.

[Sstashmoo]

Quote: "Many of the founding fathers were certainly Christian, no one denies that, they were at least smarter and more progressive than the backward sliding group of fundamentalists we have now."

LOL

[Gistok]

Quote: "Separation of church and state is indemic in our Constitution, written about at length by Jefferson and Madison,"

Oh really? Where? Could you please post a credible source for this "at length" address on the subject. It's my understanding the "separation" was mentioned (one sentence) in a letter by Thomas Jefferson. No other place, other than to say Government would not meddle with the churches. It does not matter really, it changes nothing.

Thomas Jefferson, although a brilliant statesman regarding the organization of government , unfortunately was a proponent of slavery, and essentially a whackjob. The guy wrote his own Bible. My guess he suffered OCD or some other psychosis. Possibly due to his father dying at a young age. The Bible wasn't good enough for him, he had to write his own. His compulsion to do this clearly points to a deranged individual. No one could write the Bible as good as he?

Incidentally, he was in Paris when the Constitution was penned. Also, he wasn't elected until the third presidency, the people did not want him because of his views on religion, He ran to a tie and most of his votes came from the south (ironically). House of representatives had to vote 29 times before he was granted the Presidency.

Geeze Sstashmoo... you really have some F'ed up ways of looking at things... so he was only the 3rd president... BFD? Washington was the most popular man in the nation at the time... so being 1st was never a possibility for Jefferson.

Also, last I checked Virginia still considers itself a southern state... it was even part of the confederacy.

And so he wrote his own bible? So what? He's not the first nor the last to do so.

He was also an architect and an inventor.... he designed his own house, Monticello as well as the University of Virginia (Charlottesville), which he founded.

He also had the foresight to buy the Louisiana Purchase, and got the Lewis & Clark expedition started.

So he had slaves... name me one 18th century southern millionaire that didn't?

Was he perfect, hell no! He even fathered children from one of his slaves. (But his wife died long before that, and he never remarried.)

But if anyone alive today contributed even 5% of what Jefferson did for his country... they would be considered a national icon today.... all political correctness aside...

And using your logic... Madison the primary author of the Constitution must have been worse than Jefferson... since he was only our 4th president.

[gibran]

I believe that they probably did happen to be Christian values, but that this is/was not the point. It goes back to what I described earlier, religion was foundational leading to the evolution that became our constitution/the rise of individual liberty.

Please notice that it is the current and apparent fall of this concept under Obama that has me very concerned.

where has Obama attacked the underlying religious values of this country? Where has he attacked our liberties...if you are referring to helping us escape from the yoke of economic slavery that our bankers and wall street has placed on the poor ...well maybe he has attacked those liberties.

[oladub]

where has Obama attacked the underlying religious values of this country? Where has he attacked our liberties...if you are referring to helping us escape from the yoke of economic slavery that our bankers and wall street has placed on the poor ...well maybe he has attacked those liberties.

Obama hasn't attacked underlying religious values. He is a proponant of some social libertarian things that religious people don't like though such as gay marriage and abortions but those are things that should be outside of federal jusisdiction anyway. He has attacked our liberties much along the lines of his predessesor Bush. He voted for Patriot Act II and expanding Bush's wiretapping for instance. As you point out, he has also voted for Wall Street interests. His plethora of proposed new middle class taxes such as cap and trade, a UN tax, and internet use taxes will also deprive us of the freedom to spend as we choose .

[rb336]

BTW, I think I'm confusing the Nativity scene. It was just a statue of Blessed Mother in Sterling Heights that caused the uproar, I was corrected by my better half. :)

that was the one where the whole neighborhood was disrupted by that nutjob and his fake "mary's head bowed when I went to the hospital" con. tens of thousands of people clogged the neighborhood

[Danny]

The People of Iran wants NEW LEADERSHIP and reformers. Even they have to start a revolution. FREE IRAN from the supeme leader who is acting a "Islamic Pope". For Neda Soltani's sake, FREE IRAN!

[mjs]

His plethora of proposed new middle class taxes such as cap and trade, a UN tax, and internet use taxes will also deprive us of the freedom to spend as we choose .

Wow. I never heard of this before. Would you agree the first link is an accurate, unbiased description of the bill that was proposed by Senator Obama in 2008? I'm impressed with the website, it even links to the bill itself. Are you talking about that or the second link and do you consider that a neutral description?

http://www.aim.org/aim-column/obamas-global-tax-proposal-up-for-senate-vote/
http://www.aim.org/aim-column/u.n.-to-emerge-as-global-irs/

[ccbatson]

Some rational sentiment in favor of Individual liberty is starting to trickle out on the left here....about time.

[rb336]

the left has always been about individual liberty. it is YOU and your ilk, supporting the decimation of the bill of rights via the patriot act, YOU who don't even understand what the term means, YOU that wishes to impose corporate feudalism on society under the guise of protecting "property rights"

[Detroitej72]

that was the one where the whole neighborhood was disrupted by that nutjob and his fake "mary's head bowed when I went to the hospital" con. tens of thousands of people clogged the neighborhood

No, that was something else.

[ccbatson]

Rb....socialism is the antithesis of individual economic liberty (the most important kind)...liberal socialist tendencies, particularly under Obama make it impossible for the left to have legitimate and genuine claim to be loyal to individual liberty.

How could you not know this Rb? Even I am surprised at this degree of ignorance.

[oladub]

Wow. I never heard of this before. Would you agree the first link is an accurate, unbiased description of the bill that was proposed by Senator Obama in 2008? I'm impressed with the website, it even links to the bill itself. Are you talking about that or the second link and do you consider that a neutral description?

http://www.aim.org/aim-column/obamas-global-tax-proposal-up-for-senate-vote/
http://www.aim.org/aim-column/u.n.-to-emerge-as-global-irs/

mjs, I have read similar articles but usually in more libertarian publications. They often go a bit further with intrigues about banking cartels etc.. Experience shows that such a proposed law is often modified for better or worse before becoming law. The second reading cites a possible funding source, "In terms of new funding sources, the document calls for "innovative sources of financing such as emission rights trading and financial transactions taxes..." When I posted the other thread about cap and trade taxes, I was thinking that much of the money raised would be spent on alternative energy but maybe it has already been spoken for. I don't know but when Bush's Wall Street bailout is added together with Porkulus, the earmark bill, cap and trade, and the UN spending, it totals about $3.632T. and Warren Buffet says another bailout is probably necessary. (ka-ching, ka-ching...) It's difficult to believe that our bipartisan leaders do not see where this is taking us so the question becomes "Why?" and I have no answer.

I am plugging my way through a long and frankly boring article now that does shed a lot of light on how our federal government works including the interplay between parties and corporations. I say boring because the footnotes meticulously are written into the article. It is sort of the Washington Odessey of one highly placed broker/civil servant/business woman who concludes that we better be prioritizing our local communities.
Read the Case Study:
Dillon Read and the Aristocracy of Stock Profits (http://solari.com/realdeal.htm)

[ccbatson]

Corporate socialism is no better (and possibly worse) than direct governmental socialism.

[ccbatson]

Now that is a good find showing incompetence and stupidity..well done Barnes.

[barnesfoto]

A universal conservocrite trait: Poor graphic design.

2004: American Conservocrites show off their lack of Photoshop skills in pro-Bush video

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/10/27/22442/878


2008: Iranian Conservocrites show off their lack of Photoshop skills in pro-Ahmadinnerjacket photo

http://www.pdnpulse.com/2009/06/iran-photoshopping-newspaper-clones-crowd-photo.html

[rb336]

Rb....socialism is the antithesis of individual economic liberty (the most important kind)...liberal socialist tendencies, particularly under Obama make it impossible for the left to have legitimate and genuine claim to be loyal to individual liberty.

How could you not know this Rb? Even I am surprised at this degree of ignorance.


yeah, those poor socialists in Denmark, Sweden, the Netherlands, Germany, etc have no economic liberty. by having so much taken care of by the "socialist tendencies" of their governments, they are free to spend a far greater portion of their income on quality of life issues. oh, and because of the superior outcomes of their socialist medical systems and the greater amount of time off their governments require, they have more quantity of life too

QED

[ccbatson]

Yes, sadly for them, they are all in decline. Fortunately for them, there is growing support for reversing the moves towards socialism in Europe...witness Ireland.

[gibran]

I just started a book on genocide/evil written by OS Guinness and it was stated that more people died in the last century by secularists than in all the wars for religion in the past ...

Mao in China (20 million) and China Famine at the hands of Japanese
Young Turks (Armenians)
Stalin (20 + million) and the Gulags
Hitler (6 million Jews and other's including Homosexuals, Catholics, J. Witness, people with disabilities)
Pot Pal (millions in the killing fields)
Africa...Hutu's, and other secular conflicts...
South American fascism etc...

Instead of evil on the decline globally we are seeing a increase across the board of it when we substitute outrage for it's manifestations with rationalization ...witness the justification of torture instead of solving the root causes..which leads us back to right wing fundamentalism and fanaticism in any level...whether Islamic, Jewish or Christian...i would debate that those who perpetuate evil while hiding behind a religious ideal is not really practicing religion...

but make no mistake..radical secularism is no different than radical anything ...just a different deity

[Sstashmoo]

Gibran wrote: "I just started a book on genocide/evil written by OS Guinness and it was stated that more people died in the last century by secularists than in all the wars for religion in the past ...""

Of course. And these folks think they want to live in a world without faith in God. They are benefactors of a society built by God fearing peoples and are too spoiled to realize it. It's one of these situations where they need to have it their way for a day to understand.

[rb336]

the russian and german genocides were NOT driven by their religiosity (Nazis were vehemently NOT secular, and were endorsed by both the catholics and by protestant groups alike) nor their irreligiosity. it was ethnic cleansing.

china, cambodia, etc, were also NOT anti-religiously motivated. He probably includes deaths from the famine of 1951 in his totals, and the WWII famine at the hands of the japanese -- who were fighting for whom? OH YEAH! the Emperor, who was then worshipped AS A GOD!

Guiness seems to discount the millions wiped out by the various Inquisitions, crusades, etc. One "heresy" led to the elimination of half the population of France, and missionaries didn't exactly "act nice" during the quest to convert native Americans. and those were explicitly based on religion.

then we can answer the qustions about the catholic v protestant 100 years war, and other euro wars of conquest, including the english wars of succession

PS - Guiness' main claim to fame is as an xtian apologist

[Sstashmoo]

Maybe it was their lack of faith and not simply their "faith". Does one really expect anyone to believe that the alleged "ethnic cleansings" (Which I think are total bullshit by the way) were inspired by biblical teachings?

[rb336]

all you have to do is look at the church (catholic and protestant) writings on the subject of Jews. Martin Luther had some rather choice words (he did, after all, pen a book called The Jews and Their Lies in which he paraphrases Matt. 12:34 by calling them a "brood of vipers")

[gibran]

Never said they ( Stalin, et al) were driven to wipe out religion or their believers; nor do I apology for the sins of the Churches...I believe that it was reflecting that some of the genocides, mass murders and crimes against humanity in the last century mounts up and their numbers may be greater than all wars priviously and they were committed by secular regimes or the likes...(Japan while worshipping their was not spreading their brand of worship...they were trying to control reosurces and domination based on a non religiuos agenda)

I believe that broad generalizations that Nazi's genocidal pining was anti-semitic, anti-clergy and anti-intellectual were true ( and they waged war on the Jesuits),,,and in the case of Jehovah's Witnesses that was purely religiously motivated...but there were such things as Polish and German undergrounds and they are made up of a lot of different folks...some Christian, Jewish and secular that never endorsed the Nazi's. The Churches' silence was deadly and wrong, however there was church Resistance to the development of the party to begin with (Holocaust Museum Site) and in the end they failed to stop the horrors.

when you look at the pure numbers you can see that mankind has a tradition of harming each other for many reasons...that's all..it isn't limited to crusades or genocide, secular or religious; war and famine created by man has done it's toll.

personally I believe strongly in the separation of church and state...

ps: The Nazi's didn't have the endorsement of all Christians or Catholics since they killed a number of them...generalizations that Christians or religion is at the root of evil is just as bad as claiming secular governments are godless too.I stand corrected for citing only Os Guiness...but his book raises many points about man's inhumanity to man...and just becuase he stands firm in his faith doesn't make it wrong nor totally right...thats up to the reader to decide...

[gibran]

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm

[gibran]

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm

http://lhynard.livejournal.com/371679.html

Usually RB I agree with you majority of the time..if I am wrong I will drink a cold beer for you....

But I believe that over the course of the last century more people were killed in greater numbers than the crusades or the inquisition

[gibran]

ok this guy makes the most sense,,, and I concede defeat: People kill people more than animals kill people :) ...or should I say greed, power, ideology and ethnic/culture domination is the root of all war...

http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4076

in the end it really doesn't matter whose shirt label you wear while you are killing for religion, power, land or anything else...killing is wrong period...and if we are evolving which I pray (oops ..hope) we are..it really should not be who's at fault but who wants a better future for our children and ourselves..

Secular or religious beleif- that is an individual's right..as long as it isn't used to justify prejudice, bigotry or hate..wars or genocides..I got off track ...RBsorry.

I just wish we didn't brand religion as always wrong; when it's man's interpetation of it that gets it in trouble...the basic tenets of some of the teaching is very cool (Sermon on the mount)..and we can learn from each other more than we think..Ghandi, Budda, Jesus et al.
I would love to see a world where we value each other more than we value land or power...

[Detroitej72]

the russian and german genocides were NOT driven by their religiosity (Nazis were vehemently NOT secular, and were endorsed by both the catholics and by protestant groups alike) nor their irreligiosity. it was ethnic cleansing.

That is a false claim. The late Pope John Paul II was forced to go underground, as were all other students in the seminary during the Nazi regime because Hitler was anti-Catholic and believed the church was a dangerous tool that stood in his way of world domination.

You are letting your dislike of organized religion blind you to the facts.

[Detroitej72]

I (http://I) just wish we didn't brand religion as always wrong; when it's man's interpetation of it that gets it in trouble...the basic tenets of some of the teaching is very cool (Sermon on the mount)..and we can learn from each other more than we think..Ghandi, Budda, Jesus et al.
I would love to see a world where we value each other more than we value land or power...

Unfortunately the anti-religious crowd can be just as ignorant and hateful as the religious fundamentalist crowd, and in the end, all people suffer.

[Lorax]

Rb....socialism is the antithesis of individual economic liberty (the most important kind)...liberal socialist tendencies, particularly under Obama make it impossible for the left to have legitimate and genuine claim to be loyal to individual liberty.

How could you not know this Rb? Even I am surprised at this degree of ignorance.

How is providing a socialized health care system restricting my liberty?

I would feel a hell of alot more free and "liberated" if I didn't have to stress about the medical bills.

Or with Social Security, have something coming in during old age.

The Rethuglicans on this thread need to stop twisting the language, and start calling it like it is.

I'm finished paying into a private insurance systems, whether it's health, home, auto, etc. It's all extremely overpriced for the average person, and even if you have an expensive provider, good luck getting paid but cents on the dollar. I've had insurers say "sue me" as a response to whether or not they were going to live up to their end of the contract.

Time to break the system down, and start over. Public option please, in all areas, health, education, insurance.

[Lorax]

Unfortunately the anti-religious crowd can be just as ignorant and hateful as the religious fundamentalist crowd, and in the end, all people suffer.
Sorry, I have to side with the fundamentalists as being the most dangerous. Religion has no place in a secular government.

Iran is a theocracy, we are not. Christian fundamentalists have tried for years to turn back the clock on blending religion and politics, when it is expressly forbidden in our system.

How do you govern a nation which represents dozens of belief systems when you're Sarah Palin? You can't.

God apparently spoke several times to Governor Sanford in South Carolina, and look what a nutbrick this guy is. God told him to run for office, much as George Tush, and God told him to stay in office, and "fight" for the people of South Carolina, whatever that means.

Leave the religion at home or in church, government is no place for it.

[ccbatson]

Some radical Christians may endeavor to inject religion where it doesn't belong, however the vast majority of conservatives are in favor of adhering to the intent of the founders when it comes to separation of church and state.

[Lorax]

Some radical Christians may endeavor to inject religion where it doesn't belong, however the vast majority of conservatives are in favor of adhering to the intent of the founders when it comes to separation of church and state.

I hope you're right, but evidence is to the contrary. Just ask any of our lovely Rethuglican governors who love to hide behind Jesus when the f*ck up. :eek:

Funny I just heard the words on the TV: "George Bush Presidential Library" and it sent me into a laughing fit!! :D

[ccbatson]

How would even that be an example of an attempt to cross the line of church and state as intended by the framers?

[Lorax]

How would even that be an example of an attempt to cross the line of church and state as intended by the framers?

Not directly, of course, but these guys are committed to mandating prayer in schools, reversing gay marriage, abortion, display of ten commanments in courthouses, keeping the confederate flag on statehouse grounds, etc.

All because of what their religion dictates. It is the root of who and what they are, they are the first to admit it.

Without religion guiding their public lives, as it does now, they would make secular decisions for the betterment of the population at large.

[ccbatson]

Gay marriage is not a religious issue, nor is abortion, or confederate flags. Leaving mandating prayer in school...Who is pushing for that? Other than for Muslim prayer I mean.

[Sstashmoo]

Quote: "It is the root of who and what they are, they are the first to admit it."

Yes we are and some of us like myself shove our chests out at the same time.

[Lorax]

Gay marriage is not a religious issue, nor is abortion, or confederate flags. Leaving mandating prayer in school...Who is pushing for that? Other than for Muslim prayer I mean.

Gay marriage not a religious issue? Not to me, but your crowd sure thinks so. "Adam and Steve" "abomination" Leviticus- yeah, right, not a religious issue for the fundamentalist funbags. LOL!!!

[ccbatson]

Are we talking about somebody actually holding public office, if so, who?

[Lorax]

Quote: "It is the root of who and what they are, they are the first to admit it."

Yes we are and some of us like myself shove our chests out at the same time.

It's good for your posture, I admit.

Perpetually bent over into a "C" shape really isn't attractive. :eek:

[Lorax]

Are we talking about somebody actually holding public office, if so, who?

Just about every Rethuglican. I haven't met one yet who's an atheist, or anything but a so-called "Christian."

[ccbatson]

Not a religious issue by definition Lorax. if it were, liberals would not be interested in it. It is about expanding entitlements as much as possible.

[Detroitej72]

Not a religious issue by definition Lorax. if it were, liberals would not be interested in it. It is about expanding entitlements as much as possible.

What is it with right wingers always tossing around the phrase expanding entitlements?

A private company granting health care to somebody's spouse(usually paid for by the employee themselves with some help from the employer) is not expanding anything. You guys on the right never let facts get into the way of your tired, false rhetoric.

Newsflash: a company has the right to cover whomever they choose, regardless of what the radical right radio shock jocks falsely preach to their brain dead ditto heads.

[mjs]

Just about every Rethuglican. I haven't met one yet who's an atheist, or anything but a so-called "Christian."

Well, Gallup says you are exaggerating once again, but since they disagree with you I'm sure you will tell me why they are full of crap. The old fall back of being Bush cronies?

http://www.gallup.com/poll/10822/political-religious-convictions.aspx

[gibran]

Not a religious issue by definition Lorax. if it were, liberals would not be interested in it. It is about expanding entitlements as much as possible.

not a bad slam when many consider Jesus a Liberal.

[Lorax]

Well, Gallup says you are exaggerating once again, but since they disagree with you I'm sure you will tell me why they are full of crap. The old fall back of being Bush cronies?

http://www.gallup.com/poll/10822/political-religious-convictions.aspx



Gallup tends to be more conervative, but I'm willing to accept their premise.

Though, I'm sure you noticed that atheism and agnosticism were left out of the survey.

I think you'd get different numbers if they were included.

What the poll doesn't address is religion's influence on politics, which is where the fork in the road occurs between Republicans and Democrats/Atheists/Agnostics.

Overwhelmingly these groups favor a distinct separation of church and state over self-identified Republicans who are willing to allow some intrusion, or a whole lot of intrusion, depending on where they fall politically.

[mjs]

Gallup says that only 10% of Americans classify themselves as secularist and only 1% classify themselves as atheist. Yes, the people that believe in a religion were more likely to rate themselves conservative, but 58% said they were moderate or liberal.
http://media.gallup.com/GPTB/religValue/20030422_1.gif

http://www.gallup.com/poll/8239/Who-Secularists.aspx

[Sstashmoo]

Quote: "not a bad slam when many consider Jesus a Liberal."

Lorax is totally perplexed now.. Thanks :)

[Sstashmoo]

Quote: "1% classify themselves as atheist."

Yeah, sounds like some sort of majority.

[Lorax]

Gallup says that only 10% of Americans classify themselves as secularist and only 1% classify themselves as atheist. Yes, the people that believe in a religion were more likely to rate themselves conservative, but 58% said they were moderate or liberal.
http://media.gallup.com/GPTB/religValue/20030422_1.gif

http://www.gallup.com/poll/8239/Who-Secularists.aspx

Again, like all polls, they are only a snapshot. And Gallup is well know to have a right wing bias.

Atheism would beg to differ- I can get you polling that suggest a much greater percentage of Atheists, and growing.

[Sstashmoo]

Quote: "I can get you polling that suggest a much greater percentage of Atheists, and growing."

That would defy the historical precedent, in bad times people turn to religion. These are bad times.

[mjs]

I can get you polling that suggest a much greater percentage of Atheists, and growing.

A poll that a major network would cite on the evening news? Get it.

[rb336]

it is not so much that people self-identify as atheist - in a lot of places that can be social and career suicide - but recent polls have shown a huge upswing in people who have "no religious affiliation"

there is a bit of a myth about the whole "in times of trouble..." no-atheists-in-a-foxhole mindset. no real atheist is going to have a brain fart that drives out rationality in favor of superstition, but those who "believe in something" or who consider themselves religious but non-practicing may well return to whatever church or temple.

[Sstashmoo]

Quote: "it is not so much that people self-identify as atheist - in a lot of places that can be social and career suicide"

I doubt Gallup polled these people at work, polls are usually conducted over the phone.

Quote: "but recent polls have shown a huge upswing in people who have "no religious affiliation" "

Where are these polls at? And that can also mean they are "Christian" As many Christians claim to not belong to any organized religion. I would claim "no religious affiliation" as well. Meaning I don't belong to any churches.

[rb336]

Quote: "it is not so much that people self-identify as atheist - in a lot of places that can be social and career suicide"

I doubt Gallup polled these people at work, polls are usually conducted over the phone.

Quote: "but recent polls have shown a huge upswing in people who have "no religious affiliation" "

Where are these polls at? And that can also mean they are "Christian" As many Christians claim to not belong to any organized religion. I would claim "no religious affiliation" as well. Meaning I don't belong to any churches.

no, the polls i've seen, and there are numerous polls out there (i think one was done by Pew which, of course, i thought was funny) and virtually all of them had a broad range of terms terms - christian, protestant, catholic, islamic, judaic, various forms of buddhism, taoism, pagan, wiccan, atheist, agnostic, no religious affiliation, etc

[mjs]

It is not so much that people self-identify as atheist - in a lot of places that can be social and career suicide - but recent polls have shown a huge upswing in people who have "no religious affiliation".

I'm baffled as to how you ever learn anything if you can't get to the second sentence of an article before you refute it. "Gallup researchers examined the group that claims no religious preference (whom we'll refer to as secularists)". It also says, "Results are based on 14,928 telephone interviews accumulated in polls taken between January and December 2002 with national adults, aged 18 and older."

Once again, if you claim these reputable polls exist, than show it to the rest of us. We'll not only read the first two sentences, we'll read the whole thing. As I once heard on this forum, "My real source beats your imaginary source".

[ccbatson]

Remember that atheism is not synonymous with liberalism or the Democrat party...Libertarianism, Objectivism being 2 examples of this assertion.

[Lorax]

http://www.usatoday.com/graphics/news/gra/gnoreligion/flash.htm

Here's a poll for you guys. Click on a state and see just how many people don't identify as religious or affiliated with any organized religion.

There are many others as well, look 'em up yourself.

[Detroitej72]

Remember that atheism is not synonymous with liberalism or the Democrat party...Libertarianism, Objectivism being 2 examples of this assertion.

I'm glad you get this. Its refreshing to hear it from a conservatives mouth.(or, as is this case, keyboard!)

Many of your co-horts on the right seem to think any one on the left is an atheist, and as a Catholic, I resent that.

[mjs]

Here's the story that the map refers to: http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2009-03-09-american-religion-ARIS_N.htm

The poll I found says 11% and that says 15%. Considering they both have margins of error, were taken at different times, and have small variations in the questions/definitions, I'd say they pretty well agree.

Remember the point of all of this? The data refutes a conclusion that every Republican is a Christian and every Christian a Republican.

BTW Lorax, the poll you found is pretty informative. I thought there were far more Jews and Muslims in the U.S.

[Sstashmoo]

I thought there were far more Jews and Muslims in the U.S.
It would appear that way. I think Jews are like .2% of the US population. Something like that.

I'm all for a nation of diversity and equality, I just wish people would leave their nationality in the nation where they came from when they decide to become an AMERICAN.. If they can't then they should stay there where their heart is.

[Sstashmoo]

The Polls are pretty conclusive and align with what I've said all along. 80-90% of the US believes in a supernatural power. And this bit about religion is on it's way out is total nonsense.

[Lorax]

Based on that one poll, I guess we're largely a Catholic nation. Wonder how well that would sit with the Evangelical crowd.

Suppose we had a presidential candidate who was a fundamentalist Catholic, say, like a Tom Monaghan, or that frothing Caltholic League talking head, whose name escapes me right now?

Supernatural or not, the trend is away from belief in such things, and as we advance as a global society, it will only increase, since Europe is trending heavily toward agnosticism/atheism, and as western influences penetrate the middle east more and more, hard line belief in Isalm will decrease as well.

The genie that is our influence as a secular nation has been released from the bottle. No stuffing it back in.

[rb336]

The Polls are pretty conclusive and align with what I've said all along. 80-90% of the US believes in a supernatural power. And this bit about religion is on it's way out is total nonsense.

a gallup poll from April 9, 2009, shows trends in church-going 1955-present. Catholic attendance is down from 75% to around 45%. Protestents never got above 45%.

Most people who look at those polls believe people over-report attending church, and when a deeper study was done in england, it found a high percentage of non-believing church goers who attend as a social function, but still refer to themselves as members of the Church of England, Presbyterians, etc.

[Sstashmoo]

Claims with no support.

I'm an airline pilot and nuclear physicist on the side.

[mjs]

His poll actually does exist, but rb336, if you know the subject, the exact numbers, and even the date, why didn't you simply add a link to the bottom of your post? There are certain things we can learn from articles that can't be easily translated into summaries on them. It should help others feel more assured that your summary isn't twisting the article and that strengthens your evidence.

For example, after Sstashmoo reads the article, you guys might agree that there aren't significantly less Catholics, but rather that Catholics are significantly less adherent to Catholic teachings. Catholics are certainly more aware of Chreasters than non-Catholics.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/117382/church-going-among-catholics-slides-tie-protestants.aspx

[elganned]

Claims with no support.

I'm an airline pilot and nuclear physicist on the side.
All I can say then is hold onto your day job...

[elganned]

The Polls are pretty conclusive and align with what I've said all along. 80-90% of the US believes in a supernatural power. And this bit about religion is on it's way out is total nonsense.
In the words of H.L.Mencken: "No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public."

[rb336]

or Mr Barnum's "there's a sucker born every minute"

[Sstashmoo]

Batts wrote: "expression is to be free. However, organized religion exerting any influence in the operation of government is to be prohibited."

Oh really? Any religion?

[Sstashmoo]

Quote: "In the words of H.L.Mencken: "No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public."

Yeah, it's a pretty stupid thing to do, those turning their backs on God. As I said yesterday and it was ignored, Atheists enjoy a society built on the beliefs of Godfearing people. Enjoy as long as it lasts.

[ccbatson]

Exerting an influence contrary to the law and the constitution is not the same as freedom of expression.

[Lorax]

"Godfearing?"

Why, that sounds positively Medieval!

We have science to explain why the sun goes away at night, folks.

Religion is on the decline worldwide, we all know it, polls or no polls. Churches in Europe are constantly being converted to alternative uses, as they are here in the States as well.

What of the millions who attend services as if it were a social gathering, though when pressed, would admit to being a member of their "faith?"

Sorry, no amount of Jesus flogging will convince anyone that we're going backward in our understanding of the world, the universe, and how it all works. Are there still mysteries, of course, what would life be without them? Many will never be solved, but looking to a mythical being for direction, when it never presents itself, is delusional.

[Sstashmoo]

Quote: "we all know it, polls or no polls. Churches in Europe are constantly being converted to alternative uses, as they are here in the States as well."

Oh is that a fact? I can't think of one building around here that was used for a church at one time, and is now something else, except the store front efforts.

Quote: "anyone that we're going backward in our understanding of the world, the universe, and how it all works. "


Understanding the universe? We barely understand our own solar system. When you mention "universe", keep in mind, we know basically nothing about it. Other than it is big. Beyond that is just theory.The only method of research we have is by way of telescope. Due to the distance and speed of light, many of the images we are looking at right now outside our galaxy, are a few million years old. We have very little information about whats going on past a few planets in our own solar system.

[Detroitej72]

Religion is on the decline worldwide, we all know it, polls or no polls.

Actually, the church is increasing membership in Africa and South America. That's why many feel the next Pope could be of African or South American heritage.

Lorax, I think perhaps you confuse those who consider them selfs to be Christian to the fundamentalists who seem to grab all the attention in the press.

Fundamentalists are the ones who decry the teaching of evolution, think the world was created in 7 days and take the Bible literally, usually way out of context. The only issues they seem to worry about are abortion and gay rights, while disregarding the teachings of Jesus.

The official Catholic teaching is that we embrace evolution, think there is life on other planets, and have quite a few priests who are also physicists, astronomers, and other scientists.

I suspect if Christ were here today, the Rushies, Hannity's and Beck's of this country would be calling him a radical liberal who pals around with bums and socialists, since his message was quite liberal.

[Lorax]

Claims with no support.

I'm an airline pilot and nuclear physicist on the side.

Claims with no support.

And you post like a circus clown.:eek:

[Lorax]

Quote: "we all know it, polls or no polls. Churches in Europe are constantly being converted to alternative uses, as they are here in the States as well."

Oh is that a fact? I can't think of one building around here that was used for a church at one time, and is now something else, except the store front efforts.

Quote: "anyone that we're going backward in our understanding of the world, the universe, and how it all works. "


Understanding the universe? We barely understand our own solar system. When you mention "universe", keep in mind, we know basically nothing about it. Other than it is big. Beyond that is just theory.The only method of research we have is by way of telescope. Due to the distance and speed of light, many of the images we are looking at right now outside our galaxy, are a few million years old. We have very little information about whats going on past a few planets in our own solar system.

"Oh, is that a fact" (said mockingly)

Well, yes, it is. I travel to Europe constantly, and have observed myself how churches have become venues for theatre, concerts, and the like. And religion is on the wane- more and more Europeans are fleeing churches in droves.

The ones I speak to say that societies in Europe have had enough of the control of organized religion over their governments. There are no religious democracies in Europe, and in fact, they take our Constitution more literally than we do when it comes to the idea of state-sponsored religion, and, of course, the separation of church and state.

And I don't know what city you're living in, but as I recall the Catholic church closed dozens of Detroit parishes since the 1980's. Guess you weren't old enough to remember that. In addition, there are dozens more abandoned and re-purposed church buildings in Detroit.

Better lay off the KoolAid for a while.

[Detroitej72]

And I don't know what city you're living in, but as I recall the Catholic church closed dozens of Detroit parishes since the 1980's. Guess you weren't old enough to remember that. In addition, there are dozens more abandoned and re-purposed church buildings in Detroit.

Truthfully, most of those churches were either sold to other denominations to use as churches, two near Hamtramck have become a mosque, and many were simply torn down because the areas around it were pretty vacant and there was no use for them.

[Sstashmoo]

Quote: "And religion is on the wane- more and more Europeans are fleeing churches in droves."

They'll be back...

I mean, really, what could a church possibly be used for other than a church. Auto parts store? Tire store? "Have a seat in our spacious waiting room"

I think the problem is some folks can't handle something larger than themselves. And anything that doesn't fit in their nutshell of understanding is ruled out.

I'm not close-minded or stupid enough to think a few beings on this tiny rock have this planet, our solar system and the universe understood. In perspective, we don't know anything really. Hell, we don't even fully understand the human body.

[rb336]

Quote: "And religion is on the wane- more and more Europeans are fleeing churches in droves."

They'll be back...

I mean, really, what could a church possibly be used for other than a church. Auto parts store? Tire store? "Have a seat in our spacious waiting room"

I think the problem is some folks can't handle something larger than themselves. And anything that doesn't fit in their nutshell of understanding is ruled out.

I'm not close-minded or stupid enough to think a few beings on this tiny rock have this planet, our solar system and the universe understood. In perspective, we don't know anything really. Hell, we don't even fully understand the human body.


so because we don't understand everything there has to be some sky-fairy-god-of-the-gaps floating around making everything?

[elganned]

Quote: "In the words of H.L.Mencken: "No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public."

Yeah, it's a pretty stupid thing to do, those turning their backs on God.
No stupider than abdicating reason and responsibility and substituting "faith" in a mythology which makes no sense on its face.

The social order built by "Godfearing people" is, at bottom, one based on rational principles derived by men. Over the last 2 million years or so humans have figured out what works and what doesn't in terms of sustainable social constructs. Had we not invented the concept of "God", I believe we would still be operating under the same basic framework that we are today. We don't require the grounding of the rules in Divine Authority in order to adhere to them, we just need to know that they work and other systems have not.

[Lorax]

A Few Facts We've Learned Through Science:

1. Why the sun goes away at night
2. The earth is not flat
3. The earth is billions of years old
4. The fossil record was not placed here by the devil to confuse us
5. Evolution is a fact, not a theory
6. The Elemental Chart
7. Gravity exists
8. Splitting atoms actually happened
9. The earth revolves around the sun once every 365 days
10. We share 98% of our DNA with primates

For those "flat-earthers" out there, we are not going to supress/reject what science teaches us, just because you had an evangelical jesusfreak president in Tush, who said God spoke him and told him to run for president, as well as go to war.

Tush/Cheney supressed and rejected science that didn't fit their world view. We were set back 8 years by religiously deranged individuals who wanted to force a theological dictatorship down our throats.

Trust me, we're not going backward again.

[Sstashmoo]

A little common sense sure derails these folks...

I looked up the correct definition of "liberal", a few interesting attributes.

1. tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded. (bzzzzt wrong)

2. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas (Just don't mention your faith around them)

3. Not strict or literal; loose or approximate. (they seem rather tight and opinionated)

Not many of the "liberals" here seem to fit these definitions.

[elganned]

A little common sense sure derails these folks...

I looked up the correct definition of "liberal", a few interesting attributes.

1. tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded. (bzzzzt wrong)

2. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas (Just don't mention your faith around them)

3. Not strict or literal; loose or approximate. (they seem rather tight and opinionated)

Not many of the "liberals" here seem to fit these definitions.

1. You evidently are confusing being "tolerant" and "broad-minded" with never challenging that which is clearly nonsense, or clearly wrong.

Simply nodding and smiling when someone states that the sun goes around the earth or that pigs really can fly but just don't choose to do so is not tolerance, it is intellectual sloth.

2. You can mention your faith all you want, and if that was all you did, we'd be fine. It's when you insist that all others adhere to that faith that the problem starts.

3. We are no more "tight and opinionated" than those we debate. The length of a minute varies depending on which side of the bathroom door you happen to be standing.

[Sstashmoo]

Quote: "It's when you insist that all others adhere to that faith that the problem starts."

Thats a lie, I never have. It's when people start making assumptions about me personally and calling me names, that I defend myself and put you in your place. I just did it again.

Quote: "We are no more "tight and opinionated" than those we debate."

Oh please. A few of you seem to have have adopted a doctrine and if anyone offers up anything different, you immediately go on the attack. I've said on numerous occasions, I could care less what you believe.

[Pam]

what could a church possibly be used for other than a church


Night club:

http://www.clutchcargos.com/

Restaurant:

http://www.churchbrew.com/

[elganned]

Quote: "It's when you insist that all others adhere to that faith that the problem starts."

Thats a lie, I never have.Then I apologize for the generalization.
It's when people start making assumptions about me personally and calling me names, that I defend myself and put you in your place. I just did it again....yet your objection to generalization seemingly doesn't prevent you from indulging in it. :)


I've said on numerous occasions, I could care less what you believe.Then why are we having this discussion?

[rb336]

A Few Facts We've Learned Through Science:

5. Evolution is a fact, not a theory

It is a theory, and theories are greater than facts. the problem is the general public has no concept about what a theory is. to most, it is little more than a guess. I have posted the AMNH explanation a number of times: "A theory is a well-substantiated explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can incorporate laws, hypotheses and facts. The theory of gravitation, for instance, explains why apples fall from trees and astronauts float in space. Similarly, the theory of evolution explains why so many plants and animals—some very similar and some very different—exist on Earth now and in the past, as revealed by the fossil record."


Tush/Cheney supressed and rejected science that didn't fit their world view.

just like certain dogma-adled types here. it doesn't fit the incredibly subjective matrix of what is "rational" or "logical" to them -- that means it doesn't adhere to or support their dogma. since their dogma is self-evidently correct, the facts, therefore, must be wrong

[elganned]

just like certain dogma-adled types here. it doesn't fit the incredibly subjective matrix of what is "rational" or "logical" to them -- that means it doesn't adhere to or support their dogma. since their dogma is self-evidently correct, the facts, therefore, must be wrong(bold added)
If you are speaking about the original topic of this thread, you may be correct, as both sides have certain "facts" at their disposal--polls, articles, etc. That one side would dismiss the "facts" presented by the other side as bogus, biased, or inconsequential should come as no shock to anyone; that's what makes horse races.

However, if you are addressing the question of "religion vs. rationalism", you are wrong. Religion has only faith, an old book, and a couple thousand years of tradition. All the "facts" lie with the rationalists.

[Sstashmoo]

It's your option to put all your eggs in the basket of researchers who take a few assumptions and form a theory. Science isn't always right. As in most cases, each thing learned, just poses more questions.

Take the flood for instance. Science has discarded the notion and have outlined the impossibilities. However, almost every culture no matter their geographic location have the same story in their lineage. Was it coincidence? Possibly.. The odds of every culture concocting the same rather bizarre story, not all that high.

Then there is the little matter of life itself. Look at our neighboring planets, and our own moon for that matter, in the grand scheme, due to their positioning, the explanations of life here etc., there is no reason for them to be unable to sustain life. Why was life possible on this planet? Then one must ask where life originated. I've read the process that must have taken place and the precision of events that would have needed to transpire and it is off the charts of probability. Science, avoids this area, if you'll notice.

[elganned]

It's your option to put all your eggs in the basket of researchers who take a few assumptions and form a theory. Science isn't always right. As in most cases, each thing learned, just poses more questions.No more unreasonable than putting all your eggs in the basket of some people who read an old book and assert it as The Truth. If the theory explains observable phenomena and doesn't contravene what we already know to be true, there's no reason not to accept it and proceed on the assumption that it's true. If not, the assumptions are discarded and a new theory is proposed. When was the last time you heard of that happening in any religion, anywhere in the world?


Take the flood for instance. Science has discarded the notion and have outlined the impossibilities. However, almost every culture no matter their geographic location have the same story in their lineage. Was it coincidence? Possibly.. The odds of every culture concocting the same rather bizarre story, not all that high.Probability is a poor tool, here. You assume that all cultures existed as they are now in their current distribution, and propose that there must have been a universal event in order to appear in all of those myriad traditions--a rational conclusion, given that assumption.

A different and equally plausible assumption, however, would be that there was originally only one geographically localized culture for whom an event happened, and the memory/tradition of that event and its interpretation was subsequently dispersed as new populations branched from the original one.

Where you end depends in large part on where you start.


Then there is the little matter of life itself. Look at our neighboring planets, and our own moon for that matter, in the grand scheme, due to their positioning, the explanations of life here etc., there is no reason from them to be unable to sustain life. Why was life possible on this planet? Then one must ask where life originated. I've read the process that must have taken place and the precision of events that would have needed to transpire and it is off the charts of probability. Science, avoids this area, if you'll notice.
Actually, far from avoiding it science is very much active in this area. You must not have been keeping up with what's going on in biology lately.

And to state that something is highly improbable doesn't refute it happening. It all depends on how many trials you make. I have, personally, seen a flipped quarter land on its edge. What are the probabilities of it happening the first time? So small as to be incomprehensible. But add up all the coin-flipping over all the centuries by all the people who have flipped coins, and all the future generations who will flip coins, and the certainty of it happening somewhere, sometime approaches statistical certainty.

Anyway, we're still working on it. We'll get back to you. :)

[Sstashmoo]

Re: New direction. "When was the last time you heard of that happening in any religion, anywhere in the world?"

It's the whole purpose of Christ and the New testament.

Quote: "Anyway, we're still working on it. We'll get back to you."

Good luck :)

[rb336]

If you are speaking about the original topic of this thread, you may be correct.

I was speaking to the dismissal of science by the Bush administration and the folks here who dismiss science when it doesn't support their petty dogmas. The rest, couldn't agree with you more

[rb336]

Re: New direction. "When was the last time you heard of that happening in any religion, anywhere in the world?"

It's the whole purpose of Christ and the New testament.

I've read the bible cover to cover at least three times, and I have yet to read anywhere where they threw out an idea that didn't fit the facts to try to come up with a better one

[Sstashmoo]

I was referring to ignorant humans and their petty ideas. :)

[Sstashmoo]

Judging by the way science jumps to conclusions, if the world ended on Dec 24th, future archeologists would be arguing we were all tree worshippers.

[rb336]

Judging by the way science jumps to conclusions, if the world ended on Dec 24th, future archeologists would be arguing we were all tree worshippers.

scientists don't jump to conclusions (example, please?). the mainstream media gets wind of some preliminary study of some sort and runs with it. when the actual report comes out, the results often differ from the media stories

[Sstashmoo]

Now it's the media's fault? :)

[rb336]

of course :p

[ccbatson]

Media has a role in what the perception of the situation is, not the situation itself. They carry responsibility as a result, and are not immune from the consequences of that responsibility.

[elganned]

...future archeologists would be arguing we were all tree worshippers....or at least tree fetishists. :D

[ccbatson]

More like future archeologists would argue that we were all gullible simpletons to believe the liberal propaganda and deceptions of today.

[gibran]

Future archaeologists having arrived from a planet in far solar system finding the world covered with sand and water, find evidence of global warming that ravaged our earth. They also find evidence of wars that have been waged under the neo colonial right wing agendas finally took it toll on the human race. In a time capsule is a photograph of Sarah Palin hunting a Polar bear and a bumper sticker saying drill here and drill often (2012). ..and these brave explores conclude that man has finally exterminated himself.

[Lorax]

The entrenched political dogma of the fascist right in this country fits their political ideology around the predetermined personal/social ideology.

What is "known" to be true by virture of what "God" dictates is then probed, prodded, justified and extruded, and much as a shape-shifter changes shape, what comes out the other end of such an exercise is something entirely new, and unrelated to the original core belief.

This is why we had the tortuous explainations of why we went into Iraq in the first place.

The truth would have been easier, but not politically expedient.

This is why "enhanced interrogation" was actually torture.

This is why the "Healthy Forests Initiative" was really a giveaway to logging interest.

The "Clean Air Act" became the poster child for pollution.

"No Child Left Behind" really meant most children left behind.

The "Patriot Act" really was a euphenism for a promotion of warantless wiretapping.

The "Military Commissions Act" was really a euphemism for rendering American citizens to foreign black-site prisons.

Iran has shown us the determination to free themselves from the authoritarianism of a religiously dogmatic segment of their society, much as we democratically extricated ourselves from continuing down the path of a fascist oligarchy, tinged with phony religious window dressing.

We need so much more honesty and transparency in our national discourse, for without it, we're not going to make it as the Democratic collective we were meant to be from the beginning.

[ccbatson]

By item.

1. Tortuous explanations were unfortunate political decisions because of fear that voters would not understand the true nuanced reasons...a tactical error on GWB's part IMO.

2. Not torture by definition of the word. However, even if it were, the circumstances may have justified it.

3. Look at the statistics as far as amount of forestation exists and where it is concentrated. Logging self interests under principles of free markets has expanded the forestation, not diminished it.

4. Pollution only after the corrupt liberals redefine pollution to include the breath we exhale (CO2).

5. No child left behind shifts some of the onus to the teachers to produce. Too little and too late after the damage done by government in the coercive monopoly that is public education and organized labor removing incentives.

6. The Patriot Act was a well designed and effective temporary act that serves us well without even a single valid complaint of any specific inappropriate invasion of privacy or limitation of liberty.

7. Military Commissions Act as a far better option than having Geofrey Fieger defending suspected terrorists using the argument that they were not read their Miranda rights.

Iran is trying, unlikely to succeed, in no small part as a result of your hero Obama siding with the tyrants.

[gibran]

5. No child left behind shifts some of the onus to the teachers to produce. Too little and too late after the damage done by government in the coercive monopoly that is public education and organized labor removing incentives.

:p

Number five: a statistical failure ...even when hiring stat guys to data mine and try to make look better than it was...(U of A..project to salvage or data mine to statistically prove what most teachers, principals and special needs parent could have told you since it's conception...focus on testing, justification paperwork and less on teaching and support systems to ensure.....what? no child left behind...

Iran is trying, unlikely to succeed, in no small part as a result of your hero Obama siding with the tyrants.[/quote]

Maybe we should have bombed them like BiBI wants or the right wingers here..or maybe we should listen to the many ( including Iranians expats)who say Obama did exactly what he needed to do...not enabled a tyrant and let the democracy grow...and not give the false president of Iran any excuse to unleash his thugs on the general population more than he has already...

If Bomb Bomb Iran was president we would have already shot off our mouths and placed many more potential reformists in a country first position...their revolution may have saved a preemptive strike that would have inflamed the region...thank God for the Iranian people taking matters into their own hands.

[ccbatson]

Here is a funny observation, as I first started to read Gibran #209, I thought....hey, he has it right. Then I realized he was quoting me.

[gibran]

and then I suddenly realized he is right..cc :)...your right on the fact our government (Bush screwed up the NCLB)..accountability is one thing ...teaching to tests vs. teaching critical thinking is another.

[ccbatson]

Since you can't teach critical thinking, teaching to tests is the only and best next thing.

[gibran]

tell that to the students when they get into the world...

[ccbatson]

I always do, and they understand it completely.

[Lorax]

Since you can't teach critical thinking, teaching to tests is the only and best next thing.

Proof is in the photo:


http://ts3.images.live.com/images/thumbnail.aspx?q=1018378721102&id=cf45ca69500af0a70c09b5c1a250dc5f (http://www.detroityes.com/images/search?q=george+bush+photo&FORM=IGRE1&p1=OneRow#focal=6d208841cff0eb90b8e822ea2b557ae1&furl=http%3a%2f%2fwww.newslose.com%2fwp-content%2fuploads%2f2007%2f01%2fgeorge_bush.jpg)

[ccbatson]

Honestly Lorax, could you be any more sophomoric?

[Lorax]

You could post a photo of yourself instead.

Taking one for the team. Scooter Libby did, you could too.

[ccbatson]

Could YOU be any more sophomoric was the question (not me).

[Papasito]

The Ayatollah calls the shots in Iran. This little chicken hawk that has been squawking about Israel, has very little say in anything. The US media has been targeting his jabber, building up support for a strike on Iran. The term "President" here and there mean two entirely different things. Ahmadinejad has to clear anything he does with Khamenei. A little fact our media leaves out.
But I thought Obama was going to make all of our enemies our friends because, simply put, he's a more likeable guy....? Guess that didn't work out for him.

Here's Mr Friendly in action, wow, the world loves him
Russian Politicians & Obama
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/275919

[Sstashmoo]

That's not a good thing...

[ccbatson]

Likeability is irrelevant here....strength and weakness in language and actions are what count.

[rb336]

Since you can't teach critical thinking, teaching to tests is the only and best next thing.


you can't? obviously YOU have never been taught critical thinking, as it shows in every post. that it IS teachable is without question. That it is hard to teach is also without question, yet somehow many have done so. Many courses that require critical thinking skills have been axed from school curricula across the country. teaching to the test creates nothing but drones, perfect for your little us v. them world

[ccbatson]

Critical thinking is an innate and individual skill honed by rational thought. Thought cannot be instilled in an individual. Knowledge can be, not critical thought.

[gibran]

Here's what the experts sya form the Critical thinking academy:

A Working Definition of critical thinking by Michael Scriven and Richard Paul

Critical thinking is the intellectually disciplined process of actively and
skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or
evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation,
experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief
and action. In its exemplary form, it is based on universal intellectual
values that transcend subject matter divisions: clarity, accuracy,
precision, consistency, relevance, sound evidence, good reasons, depth,
breadth, and fairness. It entails the examination of those structures or
elements of thought implicit in all reasoning: purpose, problem, or
question-at-issue, assumptions, concepts, empirical grounding; reasoning
leading to conclusions, implications and consequences, objections from
alternative viewpoints, and frame of reference. Critical thinking - in being
responsive to variable subject matter, issues, and purposes - is
incorporated in a family of interwoven modes of thinking, among them:
scientific thinking, mathematical thinking, historical thinking,
anthropological thinking, economic thinking, moral thinking, and
philosophical thinking.

Critical thinking can be seen as having two components:

1. a set of skills to process and generate information and beliefs, and
2. the habit, based on intellectual commitment, of using those skills to
guide behavior.

It is thus to be contrasted with:

1. the mere acquisition and retention of information alone, (because it
involves a particular way in which information is sought and treated,)
2. the mere possession of a set of skills, (because it involves the
continual use of them,) and
3. the mere use of those skills ("as an exercise") without acceptance of
their results.

Critical thinking varies according to the motivation underlying it. When
grounded in selfish motives, it is often manifested in the skillful
manipulation of ideas in service to one's own, or one's groups', vested
interest. As such, it is typically intellectually flawed, however
pragmatically successful it might be. When grounded in fairmindedness and
intellectual integrity, it is typically of a higher order intellectually,
though subject to the charge of "idealism" by those habituated to its
selfish use.

Critical thinking of any kind is never universal in any individual; everyone
is subject to episodes of undisciplined or irrational thought. Its quality
is therefore usually a matter of degree and dependent on, among other
things, the quality and depth of experience in a given domain of thinking or
with respect to a particular class of questions. No one is a critical
thinker through-and-through, but only to such-and-such a degree, with
such-and-such insights and blind spots, subject to such-and-such tendencies
towards self-delusion. For this reason, the development of critical thinking
skills and dispositions is a life-long endeavor.

Three Definitions of Critical Thinking (http://www.sonoma.edu/CThink/definect.html)

[gibran]

cc...while intelligence can be considerfed innate you have to acquire these skills (critical thinking) and how do you acquire such skills?

[elganned]

Why, you acquire them from Rush Limbaugh. Or better yet, just let him do the thinking for you and join the "dittoheads". (Or is that "doodooheads"?)

[ccbatson]

You don't acquire something that is innate...you refine and practice it.

[Detroitej72]

Why, you acquire them from Rush Limbaugh. Or better yet, just let him do the thinking for you and join the "dittoheads". (Or is that "doodooheads"?)

Well said.

[ccbatson]

Intelligence is a measure of the speed with which a person can acquire knowledge. This is a different entity than critical thinking skills, both are innate however.

[rb336]

Intelligence is a measure of the speed with which a person can acquire knowledge. This is a different entity than critical thinking skills, both are innate however.

wrong again, bats. there is NOTHING innate about critical thinking. nada. zip. zilch. your definition of intelligence is rather --- sophmoric. i suggest you read some Gualtieri (C. Thomas, MD) to educate yourself

[Sstashmoo]

More RAM, smaller hard drive?

[ccbatson]

Definition: the mental process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and evaluating information to reach an answer or conclusion

All innate intellectual skills.

[gibran]

neuro scientists claim IQ is tied more to working memory (short term memory) and remote (or long term)...both used to be thought of crystallized learning...and innate..now understood to be enhanced trough learning, experiences and cognitive exercises...like teaching ....um mm now what would be more enhancing..teaching to a test or teaching critical thinking skills? while both increase utilization ....teaching critical thinking in math, science and philosophy would be considered a way of increasing our children's knowledge ..but if you like the concept of teaching to tests ...then I hope you have stock in Microsoft's intelligence chip program..you will do great.

[elganned]

"Teaching to the test" vs. "teaching critical thinking" is a false dichotomy. Both should and can be done in parallel, not one to the exclusion of the other.

Critical thinking is a tool; in order for that tool to be of any use, the thinker must have something to use the tool on. He/she needs information. "Information" is what the teaching to the test is all about.

There is no problem with "teaching to a test" if the test measures information we want kids to know: how to properly punctuate and form a sentence; how to divide and multiply; what the specific gravity of water is; who John Milton was, when he lived, and what he wrote; when the War of the Roses was fought, by whom, and where; where Beijing is located, and who lives there; etc., etc.

Bewailing "teaching to the test" is simply setting up a straw man to excuse the fact that we do a lamentable job of inculcating in kids that information which any useful and productive citizen should know--or at least know of--when they graduate.

And Bats, you're wrong. Intelligence may be innate, but critical thinking is not. I have known many intelligent, even brilliant, people who couldn't critically think their way out of the proverbial paper bag, even if they had a sharp piece of glass in hand. They'd still be looking around for a knife.

[rb336]

Definition: the mental process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and evaluating information to reach an answer or conclusion

All innate intellectual skills.

first, what is the source of your definition?

second, not one of those is an innate skill. they are innate capabilities which require education to learn to use them properly



From www.criticalthinking.com (http://www.criticalthinking.com)
The Critical Thinking Co.™
"Critical thinking is the identification and evaluation of evidence to guide decision making. A critical thinker uses broad in-depth analysis of evidence to make decisions and communicate his/her beliefs clearly and accurately."

Other Definitions of Critical Thinking:

Robert H. Ennis, Author of The Cornell Critical Thinking Tests (http://www.criticalthinking.com/series/055/index_c.jsp)
"Critical thinking is reasonable, reflective thinking that is focused on deciding what to believe and do."

Dewey, John
Critical thinking is "active, persistent, and careful consideration of any belief or supposed form of knowledge in the light of the grounds that support it and the further conclusions to which it tends (Dewey 1933: 118)."

Glaser
(1) an attitude of being disposed to consider in a thoughtful way the problems and subjects that come within the range of one's experiences, (2) knowledge of the methods of logical inquiry and reasoning, and (3) some skill in applying those methods. Critical thinking calls for a persistent effort to examine any belief or supposed form of knowledge in the light of the evidence that supports it and the further conclusions to which it tends. (Glaser 1941, pp. 5-6).

Moore and Parker, Critical Thinking
Critical Thinking is "the careful, deliberate determination of whether we should accept, reject, or suspend judgment about a claim, and the degree of confidence with which we accept or reject it."



all the above are decidedly NON-INNATE. (see, doesn't my use of caps make it soo much more persuasive? why, i should never bother with giving actual evidence, just use the "BUT IT'S ALL IN CAPS" method of persuasion Bats favors

[ccbatson]

Websters is the source...Apparently, for some folks, it is true that critical thinking is not innate. So, I will qualify my comment as follows:

Most, but not all, human beings use critical thinking skills which are innate and honed by practice and time. Some human beings lack this characteristic and you can identify the high risk group of folks by looking for the Obama bumper stickers on their cars.

[ccbatson]

BTW...as the definition is a form of thinking, and thinking is innate for humans, syllogixtically it is innate.

[rb336]

"syllogixtically" isn't even a word, Bats. it's funny, every time you try to talk syllogistics, you get it wrong..

ok, websters or merriam-websters? it isn't in either of mine (bound copies) nor is it in their on-line dictionaries. you, sir, are a liar


Webster's Online Dictionary says:

Sorry, this definition page is not yet loaded. Based on your search, we are increasing the priority for crtitical thinking and will race to post it for you if we have it on file. In the meantime, the links below are for public service or indexed to crtitical thinking and may be of interest

M-W says:

The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary. Click on a spelling suggestion below or try again using the search bar above.
No suggestions

Dictionary.com has a definition:

Main Entry: critical thinkingPart of Speech: nDefinition: the mental process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and evaluating information to reach an answer or conclusion

yet again, decidedly Not Innate

[rb336]

oh, and saying critical thinking is inate because some of the skills required are inate is like saying that the ability to play guitar is inate because we have opposable thumbs and we can hear

[ccbatson]

Check Dictionary.com, however, it is a moot point, because all of the alternate definitions you posted corroborate my argument that it is a type of thinking and thinking is innate.

[rb336]

first, I included dictionary.com's definition, and ALL the definitions indicate it is a learned/cultivated skill.

your comment is, yet again, like saying that the ability to play guitar is inate because we have the ability to use our fingers. or that calculus is inate because we can count

critical thinking is a learned skill, like playing an instrument, or playing tennis or golf, or the butterfly stroke, and one you obviously haven't developed, given your unncritical acceptance of proven bogus material just because it falls in line with your absurd ideology

[ccbatson]

Thinking...a mental process is not learned it is innate. It can be honed as I explained...unless it is a dogmatic liberal on a city forum.

[Detroitej72]

Thinking is not a process encouraged by conservatives. For an example see how they refer to themselves as ditto heads. This means they are unable or indoctrinated to not think for themselves, and to rely on talking points from their faux gods on AM radio and Fox News.

[rb336]

Thinking...a mental process is not learned it is innate. It can be honed as I explained...unless it is a dogmatic liberal on a city forum.


ah, bats, you just admitted I was right all along, as I never said thinking was not inate, but that critical thinking was not inate. by saying it has to be honed you just admitted that, indeed, it is NOT inate. once again, my previous examples make the difference perfectly clear

and it's funny that, in your desperation, not only did you attempt to change the target of the conversation, but you fell into the trap of echoing my comments. BTW, if liberals were driven by dogma, the health insurance reform would be law by now. QED

[elganned]

I am willing to concede the point that "critical thinking", as a subset of "thinking", is innate to humans. However, it is latent and must be developed to be useful--just as tool usage that requires opposable thumbs is innate in all humans, but that doesn't mean that everyone is born with the ability to use tools effectivly.

Bats, you seem to be advocating the position that "either you got it or you don't" when you come out of the chute, that critical thinking skills appear fully-formed like Athena springing from the forehead of Zeus. That is demonstrably not the case or we would see much more evidence of critical thinking in those around us which, lamentably, we do not.

[gibran]

funny thing about absolutism...is that sooner or later you become a hypocrite...we just have to look at the "family values platform" and its staunch supporters...:rolleyes:

[ccbatson]

We all have it (the meaning of innate), the degree to which we exercise it, and the rapidity of it's refinement is individual.

[elganned]

A latent capacity never developed is functionally identical to no capacity at all.

[Sstashmoo]

Elganned must've bought a bag of fortune cookies...

[rb336]

we all have thinking. critical thinking, however, is a set of learned skills. no one is born with those skills