|
|
Quote:
You mean the extremely watered down health care and financial reform bills aren't the end of civilization? SI |
(1) Burning a Koran is stupid. No reasonable person should do it.
(2) But, every American has a fundamental right to do it. (3) And I'm not a fan of generals and other executive branch officials going on the record trying to discourage such behavior by private citizens. |
Quote:
I think it's mostly just that life gets in the way. The people that tend to make such "promises" are young, single, childless, and idealitic (At least the ones I knew). A few years go by, suddenly there's a kid running around and a mortgage payment, and the "revolution" seems less important. Tough to jump on a boat to Thailand to make a point then. |
Quote:
The intense liberal views on this are definitely interesting. I wonder if a lot of them just like to be on the opposite side of the GOP Christians. Because you just don't seem them vigorously waving the flag of religious freedom, and especially respect of religion, in many other contexts. (Would they be out in force if people wanted to burn bibles?) |
Someone should have an event where books from all religions are burned together, as an interfaith event, and to show how meaningless it is to burn books.
|
Quote:
That would be a good event, but nobody would care about it, because you're not pitting people against each other as directly. You're just making a fire. Which goes back to why it would be a good event. |
Because I don't want to really face the likely illegal consequences that many neighbors would bring on my property, I've decided I can't do this. But for the past few years, I've wanted a crazy "interfaith" Christmas display in my yard. First, you'd have Jesus and a traditional nativity. But in another side, you'd have, say, Moses- or I could dig up Charlton Heston, maybe. Then I'd have some picture of Mohammad- probably a cardboard cutout from the Super Best Friends episode of South Park. And he could be talking to a cardboard cutout of Kwanza Bot from Futurama. Then...
SI |
Quote:
I agree. Why are we so quick to defend Muslims and their rights (and God forbid we label any of them terrorists) but Christians are just a bunch of homosexual haters? I'm Christian - pre-judge me. |
I think we should be equal opportunity, and burn a bunch of Bibles at the same time this idiot is burning Korans. For every Koran that gets burned, a Bible also gets torched. See how he and his idiot followers feel about that.
|
Quote:
Can I burn a copy of those darn bills I kept getting for some guy who used to live in our apartment in Richmond? I was tired of his non-college-loan paying ways! SI |
Burn anything you like! Bonfire!
|
Quote:
Because I'm kind of a nutjob I would actually find that display spirtually moving. It's like an artistic expression of man's broad attemps at understanding more. |
Here's an interesting story on Rick Santorum's Google problem. From Mother Jones:
Quote:
Have to admit I had never heard of santorum. |
[redacted]
|
Quote:
Ain't nothing harder than being Christian in the USA. |
Quote:
Laughable that you pretend this is the driving force behind your political beliefs. |
Quote:
Not buying this as the reason. (That you're all about sticking up for the less fortunate). And even if that was true - there's people in this country with bigger problems, aren't there? Why is the most important cause right now? Burning books? I just don't buy that the current obsession with this is genuine. It's just the next inning in the political bitch fight. Everybody needs to go feed a homeless person or something. |
Quote:
Huh?? In what other contexts? Religious freedom is all fine and good. But separation of church and state trumps religious freedom, and that's where a lot of conservative-christians seem to want to take the "religious freedom" argument. Is that what you mean, or do you mean something else? |
Quote:
No, I mean that the big liberal pet cause right now seems to be anti-Islam bashing. Which two posters here claim is the case because the Muslims suffer so darn much in America. Olberman's even going the "it will hurt the troops" route. (I haven't heard anyone else try to justify this new "movement" in that way though, I think Olberman is just trying to work the character.) |
Quote:
The last time this happened, the whole world went to hell in a handbasket! Nazi book burnings - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia |
Surely you admit it is easier to be a Christian in the U.S. than it is to be a Muslim?
|
Quote:
WTF? I think the media coverage over the book burning is stupid but that the government, particularly the military shouldn't go to the "Do X and the terrorists win" defense. I remember when you used to get mad at generalizations. |
Quote:
I guess, depending on the region of the country. I don't think it's really that "hard" for either though. Neither are dealing with state raids of their worship services or anything. |
Quote:
LMAO Except for umm...General Petreus on the ground...former troops interviewed on TV stations...common sense (considering they've already burned the guy in effigy in kabul just for planning to do it). Hell - I heard Dennis & Callahan (the conservative morning hosts on sports talk radio here in Boston as you may remember?) this morning talking about how the guy had every RIGHT to do it, but it was a stuipd thing to do because it would get innocent people, or American soldiers over there killed. |
Quote:
This comes from a pretty conservative source, but some think that that may start to happen in France. Breitbart.tv » Paris Authorities Look Other Way as Muslims Block Streets for Weekly Prayers http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/201...g-to-the-West/ Islam in France - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia |
Quote:
But just over the last couple of months Muslims have had protests against houses of worship in a number of states, multiple violent attacks directed at Muslims or suspected Muslims, construction equipment burned at a mosque construction site, etc. You're blind if you can't see a growing anger towards Muslims in the US. |
Quote:
I admit that I'm overly grumpy about this issue and I'm not sure why. I just perceive that I'm always defending religion and Christianity (on this board and in real life) against people who lean liberal (who are the majority of people in my life, and on this board), and now, all of the sudden, a big chunk of them are all concerned about the plight of Muslims in America. It doesn't feel sincere at all to me. Especially when we still (to my knowledge) haven't seen any state action suppressing Islam. Everything else is just free speech. |
I'd be more pissed if Christians started burning Beatles albu.....oh wait, never mind.
|
Quote:
Oh, give it 30-something years, Islam is probably going to be the dominant religion in Europe. Heck, my country, the Philippines, is one of only two predominantly Catholic countries in Asia, the other being East Timor. We've got Indonesia, the largest Muslim population in the world, right next to us... along with Malaysia, and Brunei, both predominantly Islam as well. |
Quote:
I'll try to be polite, because this has set me off a bit. Remember that you don't know me. My religious beliefs are pretty personal and while I don't hide them I don't feel like proclaiming them at every turn. I'm not necessarily the other that you would like me to be. |
Quote:
There was nothing in my last post that was directed towards you personally. I intentionally phrased it (or tried to phrase it) as my general perception about that issue and why it was annoying me this morning. And I have no doubt that some of that annoyance is irrational. I did respond to one of your posts earlier, when I (and someone else) were asking why this issue was so big right now, and you gave an answer, which I said I didn't buy. I have no idea if that was your personal answer, or your guess as to how that was how others felt. Edit: I did notice too that a lot of the biggest anti-religion posters at FOFC are sitting this one out, and not jumping to the defense of Islam, which I can definitely respect. |
Quote:
Unless you mean "in my view" this is absolutely untrue. Separation of church and state is not in the Constitution. Not sure how something not in the Cons't can trump something in it, free exercise clause. Besides, the notion of separation is a wall of separation, meaning at some point there is overlap. |
Quote:
I know how, but I won't get in to it for the 500th time here.... Instead, time for a bagel and coffee. |
Quote:
There are big differences here though. Having big protests over building a place of worship or having talking heads seriously state that a religion doesn't have freedom of religion rights is well beyond anything else. |
Quote:
Can you provide the source for that? |
Quote:
The Establishment Clause and the Free Enterprise Clause together form the basis for the Supreme Court's interpertation of the separation of church and state. You can't have one without the other. And a wall does not imply that there's overlap - not sure where you get that strange idea. What would it have to be called to ensure there's no overlap? What's the right word for that? :p |
Woo-hoo!
Quote:
|
*shrug* They were going to get raised either way. Fucking healthcare companies.
|
Quote:
Next thing somebody will claim is that the housing credit was just a super-expensive way to push the dates of home purchases around and ensure historic low home sales immediately after the credit ended. (Though I definitely enjoyed the government subsidizing more than 10% of the purchase price of my house, when I didn't really need the help.) Now I'm tied into the area and am not going to easily travel and fill in unemployment gaps elsewhere. What did the taxpayers get for this? |
Quote:
Of course there is overlap, no wall, as far as i know, goes on forever. :) Establishment and Exercise are in conflict with each other. There are lots of religious examples and practices within the government: god we trust, one nation under god, prayer breakfast, etc. what is allowed also changes from generation to generation. |
Quote:
+1. Did anyone believe the current state was going to lower costs? |
Quote:
I won't disagree that there are a lot of examples and practices within the government. But I call bullshit on your "overlap" comment. When used in that context, "wall" clearly is referred to as something separating one thing entirely from another. |
Quote:
I don't think anyone would ever confuse me for a liberal. Well not on this board in any case. Although my in-laws and probably a few people at my church would possibly place me in that camp. I believe that advocating the burning of another religion's holy books is definitely against basic christian tenets. Forget all about treating others as you would like to be treated, forget about loving sinners, forget about considering the impact of one's actions on other believers or non-believers. Instead, let's go all in for hate and divisiveness. Opposing this should be a no-brainer for most Christians. |
Quote:
Not sure why anyone is surprised. If you have to accept all those who apply, regardless of condition, they're going to see an increase in costs from those who use the health care system more. |
Quote:
So you do not disagree that there is overlap but you feel that total separation is the intent of the phrase? If government were "entirely" separate from the church then it would be a violation of free exercise (no legal religious marriages for example) |
What's a "legal religious" marriage?
|
Quote:
Agreed on the Christians - what confuses me is why it's such a no-brainer for Keith Olberman and friends. |
But words like "wall" and "seperate" are just policy terms added into constitutional caselaw.
Do these things conflict? -Congress shall make no law: 1. respecting an establishment of religion 2. prohibiting the free exercise thereof The second one is pretty easy, the first one is a little harder to nail down a meaning for. Clearly, Congress can't establish a "national religion", and they can't favor any one religion over another. "Seperation of church and state" may be a perfectly line idea or policy about how government should be run, but it seems like a stretch to me that the constitution requires it. |
Quote:
why not? |
Quote:
Sure - I say that "favoring one over another" extends to putting up statues drawing on one or the other on public property. If you have a statue (built with public funds no less) on public property drawing on one religion and not another then you are favoring one over another. To continue to use that as an example, I'm not sure what's so contentious about that? The Constitution certainly requires it. Then again, I recognize that my views on this issue are probably as extreme as those of the pro-gun folks. I'd advocate more seperation then we have now. But I'm also aware of the fact that that's not necessarily feasible, so I'll take what I can get. |
Quote:
I don't believe items 1 and 2 conflict at all. What they say is: The government will not establish an official religion, while at the same time, not prevent anyone from whatever religion/non-religion they choose. Basically, 'we the government', will stay out of the business of religion. Due to having that in the constitution, the government has to step in from time to time to reinforce the fact that it is NOT favoring or trying establish one religion over another. I don't know why item 1 is hard for people to figure out. Actually I do know why, it's because there are a good number of elected officials that want to inject their religion into legislation, which violates the 1st amendment and they don't always get called out on it, so it may go years or decades before someone calls attention to it. Then people get their panties in a bunch and say, "It's been like that for years and hasn't hurt anyone". Which is true, but, still doesn't negate the fact that it violates the 1st amendment. It's kind of like the speeding ticket story. You go 300 days driving 70 in a 65 and never got a ticket, but on day 301 you get pulled over. Just because you didn't get pulled over the previous 300 days, doesn't mean you weren't violating the law. |
Quote:
"Establishing an official religion" sounds like a lot different than "staying out of the business of religion" entirely. Certainly, government wasn't doing the latter in the years after the constitution was ratified. Why did it only become obvious to us 200 years later? Especially when government/public lands/works are such a huge part of our lives - and exactly how huge depends on the whims of whoever is in power at the time. Is it really up to the year-to-year outcome of the big government/small government debate how much religion one is allowed to express? I don't believe that was the intention. One of the modern ideas is - "go be religious in a church and don't bother anyone, and we won't have a problem". For some though, practicing religion goes beyond the walls of the church. I don't think the constitution forbids that, to bring religious practice into anything that bumps up against government (which can be almost everything outside of a church and private home). What I think the constitution forbids is one religion utilizing political power to push out all others (or to require people, through the government, to convert, ect.) |
Dola, and of course, none of this is written in stone. If religion in America is a dinosaur facing exctinction, then it shouldn't be too hard to get 3/4 of the states to increase the "freedom from religion" idea and minimize the "freedom of religion" idea with some kind of ammendment. That's tough to do, with good reason, but not impossible if we're heading in that direction.
|
Quote:
Would, "staying out of the business of religion the best we can" be better? :) It all means the same thing and shy of playing semantics anything that gives the impression that the government is favoring or trying to establish one religion over another, violates the constitution, regardless of past practices. I think part of it is, there's people (like me) that have grown tired of the religious (this doesn't mean every single person that is religious) trying to monopolize the legislature and other aspects of peoples lives and have become more vocal about it. There's laws still on the books in 5 states (if I remember correctly) that have provisions that outlaw atheists from holding public office. Those laws violate the constitution and have been declared unconstitutional, however, they still remain 'on the books'. I'm kind of torn on the question of the constitution being a 'living' document that can be changed over time or it being a document that is set in stone, black and white. I think I'm kind of in the middle on that, so, when a church group wants to use a public park for a religious celebration, I have no problems with it, as long as they are given no special treatment compared to other groups that use that public land. I don't think there should be any debate. It's quite clear to me: Anyone should be allowed to worship as much or as little (or none at all) as they want. I would be vehemently opposed to any legislation that puts any kinds of restrictions or mandates on that. Likewise, because of the separation of church and state, religious organizations should stay out of any legislation or any government organization. Basically, as much as government should stay out of religion is how much religion needs to stay out of government. |
Quote:
I guess it is a "no-brainer" for anyone with basic human sensibilities. You don't destroy something someone else holds sacred, simply because you have differences with them. I'd be more disappointed with anyone who is supporting this, than I would be questioning the motives of those that oppose it. |
Quote:
I don't know about Keith Olbermann religious beliefs, but many of his "friends" are Christians and it's kind of a stupid stereotype to assume that they aren't. But even among your narrow minded viewpoint, they would obviously be against book burning and one dimensional hatred of an entire group of people. |
Quote:
I get that you're trying to be sarcastic with this, but even the wording of your sarcastic statement confuses me.:( |
Quote:
I think "have differences with" grossly underestimates the situation, to the point of absurdity. "Have differences" is being a fan of the WAC vs the MWC. This is a bit bigger than that. That said, I'm not inclined to invest the energy in burning a Koran, I don't see much point other than a brief moment of pleasure & there are easier ways to get that. If they had called for the pages to be used to wrap bbq pork or bacon sandwiches in, I might have been more motivated, but as is, meh. |
Quote:
I can understand that. I guess the size of the "disagreement" doesn't matter to me. This is simply the wrong thing to do. Not to mention that it isn't every Muslim that falls into the category that this church is presumably targeting. |
Quote:
I guess I just view it as materials. To be sacred, there has to be a connection to it on an individual basis. |
Quote:
At the risk of a sidebar -- in a thread approaching 12k posts, I'll take that chance-- that brings a question to my mind that I figure some FOFC'er can answer. What would the reaction, (moreso emotional than confrontational I mean) be from a practicing Catholic who saw, for example, someone stomping a set of rosary beads to bits on the sidewalk? Is there any "sacred" significance given in Catholicism to the beads themselves or are they more in the realm of a practical aid, like maybe a bookmark or something for lack of a better description? Has nothing to do specifically with the topic at hand, just the mention of assembly lined religious materials caused me to think of it I guess because I've been surprised at some of the places I've seen rosaries for sale. Figured rather than wonder, I'd just ask since I think we've got at least a few Catholics here who could provide an answer. Thanks in advance. |
interesting question jon...
|
A straight-from-the-store rosary doesn't have the same religious connotation as ones that have been blessed by a priest.
|
The response would vary by the individual Catholic person.
|
Quote:
Yeah, I get that, I'm just looking for some sort of general notion of what reaction might be expected from, say, a relatively observant Catholic in the U.S. Let's say a middle-aged lifelong Catholic who lives in Minneapolis, shows up for regular services occasionally as well as most of the major holidays. Regular enough that the priest knows his name but irregular enough that he has to think about it for a few seconds to remember it when he sees him. Is he most likely to be morally horrified at the site of what the rosary stomper is doing, mildly disturbed by it, or disapprove of it but is otherwise relatively unaffected by it beyond a mild head shake? |
Quote:
|
More analysis to come I'm sure.
FOXNews.com - Gov't: Spending to Rise Under Obama's Health Care Overhaul Quote:
|
Nice headline by Fox.
|
The writing is terrible, but I thought the point of this piece was pretty funny.
Quote:
|
Quote:
Try organizing a Bible-burning here in Manila. It'd probably cost you your life. :) |
Quote:
In some areas religion is like 'gang colours' - be shown as not belonging to the right group and you're on shaky ground, be shown as disrespecting the majority shareholder in an area and you're in deep doggy doo. |
Quote:
Trick question as there are only Lutherans in Minnesota ;) SI |
Quote:
Quote:
;) |
Quote:
Roman Catholic here. While the answer would, of course, depend on the Catholic, I do think that rosary beads are seen more along the lines of a sacred object (i.e. like a bible) than an practical aid (i.e like a cushion on a pew). Growing up in New Orleans, we played a lot with Mardi Gras beads as kids. But it was very very clear that we should not play with rosary beads in the same manner. They were not a toy. They had some level of sacredness to them. (Of course, New Orleans' Catholicism, having been influenced by voodoo, etc. over the centuries, probably places a bit more significance on objects as sacred in se than other branches of the Faith. So maybe mine is not the best perspective on the issue.) |
Quote:
No such luck ;) Obama implores minister to call off Quran burning - Yahoo! News SI |
If nominated tonight, I WIN!!!!
|
Quote:
Quote:
That's a silly assertion. Everyone knows that Catholic are just Lutherans who haven't come out of the closet yet. |
Quote:
Thanks albion, I appreciate it, right down to the caveats about how it could also be influenced by region. |
Quote:
Did Rick Monday have a personal or individual connection to the flag that he rescued? I don't think sacred means what you think it means. Or maybe it doesn't mean what I think it means, and I'm using the wrong word. Certainly burning bibles will get a rise out of Christians. We've seen instances where merely not demonstrating proper reverence to the koran has sparked anger from Muslims. So in answer to your question...Yes, these mass produced, straight from the assembly line objects are revered by people. |
My Way News - Obama: Minister must cancel Quran-burning 'stunt'
Obviously, I'm not a fan of BO sticking his nose into this, but at the same time I couldn't help but notice the apparent hatchet job that the AP headline writer did to him with this story. The headline contains the very strong word "must" ... but after reading the full article, I don't see any quote from Obama that goes that far. I'd buy "urge", or "presses", even "strongly urges" or just about anything along those lines but I'm not finding anything that would justify "must", that gives a far more authoritarian impression of what was said than seems fair. Must have been one of the token conservatives on the staff who wrote the header, or else someone trying to generate hits/readership. |
Also Props to the President for calling the Koran burning a "stunt".
|
Quote:
As opposed to what it was: a symbolic gesture to express strong disapproval / disagreement. Jones would have gotten more support if he had just blown up something at random. |
Quote:
I teach at a fairly liberal Catholic college. I don't think anybody would be in physical danger for stomping a rosary, but they would certainly be shunned and it wouldn't surprise me if they were talked to about leaving the college. |
More drama.
Pastor: I called off Quran burning based on Islamic center agreement - CNN.com Quote:
|
*sigh* As an aside, can I be somewhat annoyed that it seems ok and accepted that Koran burning is going to be met with violence? Don't get me wrong- I find it stupid that he's going to do it. But everyone's reaction is that "Radical Muslims are crazy so we all know this will be met with violence".
I'm sorry, but like the Mohammad pictures a couple of years ago and the ensuing violence and death... I just can't help but thinking that Islam as a religion needs to grow up some more before it gets a seat at the big kid's table. SI |
Quote:
I agree, completely. |
'Ground Zero' Mosque Staying Put, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf Says
(Sept. 9) -- The imam behind a controversial plan to build an Islamic cultural center and mosque near the ground zero site of the former World Trade Center says he won't move the proposed project. But if he had to do it over, he'd put it somewhere else. "If I knew that this would happen, cause this kind of pain, I wouldn't have done it," Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf told CNN Wednesday night. But switching locations now will send a dangerous message, Rauf told Soledad O'Brien on "Larry King Live." "The headlines in the Muslim world will be that Islam is under attack," he said, and that could encourage Muslim extremists to attack troops overseas as well as American citizens at home. "It will strengthen the argument of the radicals to recruit, their ability to recruit and their increasing aggression and violence against our country." So now if he moves it, the switch could incite violence? Is that supposed to be a warning or a threat? And the claim of "if I knew this would happen ... I wouldn't have done it"? Is there anyone naive enough not to have anticipated the reaction? Even with my level of cynicism that one is hard to imagine being said with a straight face. This guy is a fucking piece of work, and he'll find no shortage of useful idiots ready to lap it up. |
Interesting:
Judge: Military's gay ban is unconstitutional - U.S. news - Life - Military - msnbc.com DADT revoked. Interesting that this case was brought by Republicans (yes the Log Cabin Republicans), I wonder if that will lower the amount of frothing about "activist librul judges". (who am I kidding, to quote DUNEm the froth must flow!) |
Quote:
Glad you clarified that you were kidding, I was about to ROTFL. Not a big shock with this ruling, she's a Clinton appointee who went to Berkeley. |
Quote:
|
Obama walks back Clinton’s Colombia-Mexico comparison | The Upshot Yahoo! News - Yahoo! News
Pretty bad when I find myself agreeing with Hillary... |
Quote:
I honestly agree. |
Quote:
Is it similarly ok if I think certain other religious groups in Ireland should grow up and get a life instead of encouraging violence and death upon their rival factions? ..... Note - They aren't muslims ... there are idiots in all religions ;) (edited to fix quote - and to admit that both groups involved have 'grown up' a fair bit in recent years and don't openly slaughter each other at least nowadays :D) |
Quote:
Interesting communications flow, would you be willing to complete the left-wing communications flow? right-wing blogs > talk radio > FOX News > Beltway Media left-wing blogs > larger medium > even larger medium > Beltway Media I'm not completely familiar with what "Beltway Media" means unless you mean things like "Meet the Press" and the "Beltway Boys" (if they even still exist). |
Quote:
Yes, 100%. If you can't come to the table and talk, opting only for violence, then, yes. I mean, geez- even Israel and Palestine are coming to the table once again (dog and pony show tho it may be). SI |
Quote:
+1 Also I like the seat at the table analogy. I've said similar regarding Palestine as a nation, but that isn't usually received very well. Does it violate the usage of a "+1" to elaborate? I'm disappointed that a church, or anyone for that matter, would invest in such an act of hatred, but Islam gets no pass for intolerance in response. |
Just want to say, with all this negative hate filled shit going on the positive outpouring of aid and comfort for the victims of the explosion here last night renews my spirit.
Almost immediately people were emptying out costco and dropping stuff off at the shelter. the call for blood was so overwhelming they are telling people to come back next week. they were interviewing people who were dropping off their own clothing and toys and this family of recent immigrants simply said this is what you do when your people in your community are in pain. |
Quote:
I wonder sometimes how much "hate filled shit" is really going on. Most of the people I talk with don't seem to care at all about the pastor, wonder why the media even covers this, and don't seem to have an positive or negative opinion on Islam as a whole one way or the other. I wonder how many people (like JiMGa) really want nuclear war and how many think the mass media is a big joke? (This isn't just friends who would be like-minded but work collegues, people at football tailgates, and friends of friends) |
Quote:
|
"let the free market work" is a joke. How's the free market worked so far with healthcare costs?
LOL I'm not saying the free market doesn't work in every instance, but there's clearly cases where free market is harmful. |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:20 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin Version 3.6.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.