Danes feel Obama is greater than Jesus

[Occhidiangela]

Nope, but I've heard of christians owning slaves, and its their holy book too.

In what century, wise fool?
The current year is 2010. Slavery is alive and well on this planet, but oddly enough, not among Christians.

Occhi

[ShadowHM]

Why should I pay for your abortion, unless it is retroactive?

Because it is cheaper than paying later for prison costs for the unwanted child who grows up untended?
Why do you post non-sequiturs?

[Occhidiangela]

Hi,
Pretty much so. On the other hand, his debates, written and in person, have been principally with Christian authorities. Also, as a geneticist, he focuses almost entirely on the evolutionary questions, and these are mostly expressed by the Western, Christian, societies.
I've often wondered what there is to teach in Creationism or Intelligent Design. Seems that, once you say "God did it all." there's nothing left to say. Makes the rest of the course pretty dull, but the final exam should be easy. :whistling:

And yes, there is no shortage of blinders, or fools, or attention whores. And a disproportionately large number of the intersection of those sets ends up in the media, in politics, or both.

BTW, what's the use of living in Texas if it's colder than Washington? :P

--Pete

Golf all year round, when I can get off of work. But I don't actually golf much. The meat is good, the BBQ is good, and the Tequila is good. I have just gone on a diet that avoids breakfast tacos, and I miss them more than I miss cigarettes.

Been smoke free for sixteen months now. What this Rogue needs is a good cigar.

Occhi

[Occhidiangela]

Because it is cheaper than paying later for prison costs for the unwanted child who grows up untended?
Why do you post non-sequiturs?

I don't think you grokked my point on retroactive abortion.:P Remember, I lost my sense of humor a while back, as one of the Lost Boys lost his marbles when Pan ruled Neverland. It only surfaces in RB games.;)

Occhi

[Occhidiangela]

So you're estimating that roughly 160 million Muslims round the world do condone terrorist violence?
Speaking of which:

May I recommend that you read up on the following terms:

Enabling Behaviour
Apologetics

Cheers, and happy reading.

Occhi

[Occhidiangela]

I see. It all depends on your opinion on who is a fool or not. Isn't that what bigotry is about?

Anyway, I find little need to continue the current discussion about Dawkins being a bigot or not. This one much better supplied with facts (don't forget to read the comments);)

No.

It is not opinion that the world is mostly covered by water.
It is not opinion that clouds tend to be higher than ground, except when they become fog.
It is not opinion that deserts are dry.
It is not opinion that you have your head up your arse.

Occhi

[Occhidiangela]

I, Jester, hereby declare that all my opinions on this topic emanate entirely from my deep reservoir of anti-Christian bigotry, and no other source. My opponents may consider this written permission to ignore my arguments entirely, and attack me personally, as I so richly deserve.

/sarcasm off

-Jester

What is tragic is that your confession is a lie, and yet it is true, all at the same time. Not every agrument a bigot makes is wrong, just some of them.

Think about that. Hard.

Real hard. You may have a revelation.

Occhi

[Occhidiangela]

Would you ever support or condone any bombing that kills civilians?

Yes, I did. We were trying to kill Zarqawi.

What's it to ya?

No, it has not cost me a wink of sleep.

Occhi

[ShadowHM]

I don't think you grokked my point on retroactive abortion.:P Remember, I lost my sense of humor a while back, as one of the Lost Boys lost his marbles when Pan ruled Neverland. It only surfaces in RB games.;)

Occhi

And my sense of humour on certain topics died a long time ago. <_< Should you actually want an answer to your question, pose it (more politely) in a new thread and I will try to convey my response politely as well.

In the meantime, come back to RB games and share some jokes, please. We could shoot bandits in the head and share smart-ass remarks about questing for dirty mags... B)

BTW....
Congrats on the tobacco free status! :w00t:

[kandrathe]

Yes, I did. We were trying to kill Zarqawi. What's it to ya? No, it has not cost me a wink of sleep.

Occhi

The question was rhetorical, but I'm glad you shot at that murderous jerk on my behalf. I felt the same about the bunker busters that were going after Saddam. The collateral damage to civilians was unfortunate, but in a war, soldiers kill things and not always just the ones they were aiming at.

[eppie]

In what century, wise fool?
The current year is 2010. Slavery is alive and well on this planet, but oddly enough, not among Christians.

Occhi

Christians don't need slaves because they have far stronger tools than just force nowadays. Economic forces have enabled the christian west to obtain most of their living neccecities from low (or incredible low) wage countries.
Officialy it is not slavery indeed, you are right again.

[eppie]

Why should I pay for your abortion, unless it is retroactive?

let's just lay of the hot button issues.
Post removed.

[Jester]

One article in Harpers doesn't really amount to any statistical basis in thinking that our military has become a Crusader army. It works well for the spin-meisters who hope to see Western interests fail in Iraq and Afghanistan.

First, I think I made it clear, in the very sentence you quoted, that this is not something that applies to every soldier, or to the military as a whole. This is a problem with pockets of fundamentalism, and with a string of disturbing incidents, including this one. There are plenty more if you go look for them. My point is that the individuals exist, and that they cause problems for reading Christianity in wholly peaceful terms, not that they are about to take over.

Second, are you really playing the "people who disagree with me are traitors" card? Because it sure sounds like it.

Many soldiers carry their "holy book" into battle. So what? Mountain... meet molehill.

Soldiers can carry whatever they like, as their *personal* possessions. They are as free as anyone else to practice their *personal* religion. What they are issued for combat purposes is another matter entirely.

No, this is how its treated...<blockquote>The establishment clause has generally been interpreted to prohibit 1) the establishment of a national religion by Congress, or 2) the preference of one religion over another or the support of a religious idea with no identifiable secular purpose. The first approach is called the "separationist" or "no aid" interpretation, while the second approach is called the "non-preferentialist" or "accommodationist" interpretation. The accommodationist interpretation prohibits Congress from preferring one religion over another, but does not prohibit the government's entry into religious domain to make accommodations in order to achieve the purposes of the Free Exercise Clause.--wiki</blockquote>Particularly note the last sentence.

How about noting the rest of it? It lists two approaches - one of which is clearly supported by the writings of Madison. That would be my position, that the government should simply separate itself entirely from religion. The courts do not typically go that far, but they certainly draw the line long before you do. The other interpretation might be fine on the face of it, but used as a convenient way of getting around the amendment entirely, almost always to the benefit of one religion: Christianity.

First of all, technically, soldiers actually have no Constitutional rights. They give them up for the uniform code of military justice, while they are in the service.

Red herring. Nobody is claiming the soldiers' rights are violated. (Indeed, the initial argument wasn't even about constitutionality, it was about Christians who see it as part of their religion to blow the hell out of their enemies. Hasn't that point already been demonstrated?)

If you read their website (like the about section) its pretty clear who you are dealing with.

Yeah. They're a manufacturer of gun sights, guided by biblical standards. Christians who see their religion as part of their nationalism - isn't this kind of my whole point? Violence for Jesus?

Why not? Can the US government buy Bibles? They do. Can they buy copies of the Koran? They do. The government can do whatever it needs to do to cater to the needs of the people it serves.

How about soldiers taking bibles and trying to give them to Afghanis? Obviously the military squashed this one, but that's not my point - my point is that there are Christians in the military very eager to do just this, crusade out into the world, spreading the good word and blowing up the infidel. This is not the policy of the military, but for the purposes of my argument, it doesn't have to be.

If a government employee exercises their free exercise, it is not trumped by establishment.

If what they are doing is personal, then no, it isn't. If what they are doing is a function of their government power, then yes, it is.

I choose to believe the military bought the sights because they were good in spite of the little extra stamps in the serial number, rather than because of them.

And you're probably right. But surely the US military, given the size of their purchasing power, is capable of getting a run of them that don't have this particular issue? Besides, this is veering off topic - I'm not saying the military is Christian. I'm actually definitively *not* saying that. I'm saying that some Christians, including the manufacturers of these scopes, and many of the soldiers who thought the serial number was awesome, mix their religion and warfare in a way somewhat similar to radical Islam - blow 'em up in the name of god.

I know that is how you read it. But, that is not how it is written. You have the right to express your religiousness or lack of it (even if you work for the government (except soldiers as noted above)), and to be free from having the government thrust any religion or lack of it upon you, and the government when making laws should remain neutral with respect to favoring any or none.

As Pete pointed out, this is a logical hash. Not taking a position is not the same as supporting a null position. And you continue, over and over and over, to act as if there is no distinction between what someone does personally, and what they do as a public servant. This is the *key* distinction. A public employee can go to church, say prayers, read the bible, sacrifice goats, whatever turns them on. But they cannot, when wearing the public mantle, support any religious belief, or discriminate amongst beliefs. The easiest way by far to do this is to simply not mention the issue at all.

However, the United States Constitution also creates negative space for government. (...)

When the government is faced with a big problem, it tends to ignore the Constitution and do what it wants. I always thought it was one of the admirable tenets of libertarianism that it opposes such arbitrary power grabs. I guess not.

If we apply the Lemon test, my read is that I don't think the military has much to worry about in violating the establishment clause, or any other part of the Constitution.

I think, assuming the military did not purchase the scopes knowing about the marking, they were not in violation of Lemon. However, I think they should, as soon as possible, either change suppliers, or order a run that does not have the markings. Surely, a buyer the size of the US army can swing that? Continuing to knowingly buy religiously branded material strikes me as "excessive entanglement."

However, this is all tangental to the original point, which was not about the establishment clause, but about the opinions of (some) Christians.

Now that ABC has made a spectacle of a 20 year old product, we probably have violated the sensabilities of the Arab street. Yup, hope ABC got some good ratings for that one.

Yes, this is all ABC's fault. Much better to just stay silent - after all, a silent media makes for good government! Solid libertarian principles.

-Jester

[Zenda]

Might I suggest not editing posts that are already over 24 hours old and have fallen off the last page? I almost missed this addition.

But in light of what actually happened in America in 2008, your example is ludicrous.

I didn't say ALL, or MOST, or even ALOT. Just like you. See how provoking that can be?

[Zenda]

I'm glad you shot at that murderous jerk on my behalf.

I wonder, would a True Christian need redemption after making such remarks?

The collateral damage to civilians was unfortunate

That's what terrorists claim, too. Because they believe that the goal justifies the means.

[kandrathe]

First, I think I made it clear, in the very sentence you quoted, that this is not something that applies to every soldier, or to the military as a whole. This is a problem with pockets of fundamentalism, and with a string of disturbing incidents, including this one. There are plenty more if you go look for them. My point is that the individuals exist, and that they cause problems for reading Christianity in wholly peaceful terms, not that they are about to take over.

There are Tim McVeigh's and John Allen Muhammad's. I would guess when you are dealing with groups of 18 to 23 year old mostly men, you'd have cadre's that think they are supermen or on some holy mission. It's the job of their leadership to stamp out the nonsense, keep them professional and keep them grounded in reality.

Second, are you really playing the "people who disagree with me are traitors" card? Because it sure sounds like it.

No. I'm pointing out that the only people who profit from this type of *news* are the radical elements who will now (have already made) make propaganda hay of it.

... Yes, this is all ABC's fault. Much better to just stay silent - after all, a silent media makes for good government! Solid libertarian principles.

If we are fighting a war, the rules are different. Unfortunately, libertarian or not I'd have to side with not "aiding and abetting the enemy" over idyllic principles of the press freedom. I think the press needs to do a better job in thinking through what the outcome of their stories will be, since in this case and others it results in the loss of life on the battlefield and radicalizing more young terrorists who will go detonate themselves in the middle of a crowded Baghdad (or London, or Detroit) marketplace. So, in my opinion akin to shouting fire in a crowded theater resulting in the loss of life. I wouldn't make that a legal stand, just a moral one.

Soldiers can carry whatever they like, as their *personal* possessions. They are as free as anyone else to practice their *personal* religion.

Actually, no. The regs allow some things, but really not much. For example, you might wear a pendant no larger than your dog tags as long as it is not visible. My statement was meant as a caveat.

... it was about Christians who see it as part of their religion to blow the hell out of their enemies. Hasn't that point already been demonstrated?)... Violence for Jesus? ... However, this is all tangential to the original point, which was not about the establishment clause, but about the opinions of (some) Christians.

In my experience, you will find in companies and the employees that supply items to the military heightened to excessive attitudes of nationalism, patriotism, religiousness, sports fans, and yes, religiousness. The people that choose to found, operate, and work at a company that supplies gear and munitions are also pretty passionate when it comes to mom, apple pie, flag waving and baseball. Trijicon is like that. The statements I'd read on their web site indicate their concern is for the safety of the soldier. I didn't find anything indicating their blood lust for killing terrorists, however, I'm sure some of the people who work there would personally express their support for winning the current conflicts we are involved in. Are they zealots? No. When Christians begin strapping explosives to themselves and walking into crowds, I'll begin worrying about neo-crusaders. Until then, they are a pretty disorganized minority crackpot fringe that emerge once in a while... esp. in state militias.

As Pete pointed out, this is a logical hash. Not taking a position is not the same as supporting a null position. And you continue, over and over and over, to act as if there is no distinction between what someone does personally, and what they do as a public servant. This is the *key* distinction. A public employee can go to church, say prayers, read the bible, sacrifice goats, whatever turns them on. But they cannot, when wearing the public mantle, support any religious belief, or discriminate amongst beliefs. The easiest way by far to do this is to simply not mention the issue at all.

But, this is not your position. You want to never see or hear anything religious be expressed at all. If it is done in public in any way by anyone however loosely connected to any government entity you unleash the wrath of the ACLU upon it declaring that the wall of seperation has been violated. I believe often that violates the free exercise clause, when that speech has no sovereign authority. I don't see anything in the Constitution indicating a wall, it's more like a hedge where some things pass through both ways as long as there is not an expression of support or favoritism by the government.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/const...endment01/

[Jester]

In what century, wise fool?
The current year is 2010. Slavery is alive and well on this planet, but oddly enough, not among Christians.

What, they aren't Christian in Haiti?

-Jester

[kandrathe]

I wonder, would a True Christian need redemption after making such remarks?

I would guess, yes.

That's what terrorists claim, too. Because they believe that the goal justifies the means.

May the one with the superior firepower win.

[kandrathe]

See how provoking that can be?

It provoked laughter. Was that your intention? Your example is still ludicrous, and shows how far you need to dig to manufacture a point.

[Delc]

In what century, wise fool?
The current year is 2010. Slavery is alive and well on this planet, but oddly enough, not among Christians.

Occhi

Good point. Maybe that leads us to a solution for some more current problems. The south should rise again so we can smack some more stupid out of them, and get some things done while they can't vote.