fun post -- who's really gonna win

[A_Wanderer]

Yeah because the Kenya Tanzania bombings were just a nuicance, as was the first Trade Centre Bombing and the USS Cole.

 

[hiphop]

If you believe that Osama bin Laden is the key figure in this War on Islamofascism then you have bought the government BS. In any case OBL is probably a stain on the bottom of 1000 tonnes of rock at Tora Bora.

Hey, could you stop using the term Islamofascism? Yeah, I know you explained somewhere what your definition and opinion were, but you know, some might feel offended by it.

I always thought the key factor was to get rid of Bin Laden, being one of the main terrorist targets, who´s been said to be responsible for 9/11. After all, that´s what started all the terrorist shit in homeland security America big time.

But maybe you say Islamism was a thorn in the eye of Bush from Day 1, even before of 9/11, because he´s a religious nut, and that´s why his soldiers are dying for him.

Well, that´s an interesting theory.

Don´t waste time on explaining how right your use of terms is, please. Just stop using the term in the interest of any person who believes in the Koran, might want to join the discussions on FYM, doesn´t know what the shit you´re talking about, and feels just as offened as one of us would feel if we were called KKK-Christians.

Thank you.

 

[iota]

You will love to hear I´m not a democrat. I´m not bringing Osama up either, I´m just speculating on logical questions.

Besides, why should Clinton have gone hunting for Osama? I know, we all like to hunt down terrorists from time to time, but the real big thing was 9/11, that´s when the U.S. had a really, really definite reason to go looking for him, no? From what I´ve heard, Clinton was also busy dealing with the Israel, like all U.S. Presidents before and after him.

Nah, say what you want, it was Bush´s fucking duty to get rid of this bastard. And he didn´t.

Well you may or may not be democrat, green party, we the people party or maybe your own one-person party, but you obviously share their anti-Bush sentiment, so I'll just lump you in with them for the sake of my own convenience.

Clinton didn't have to hunt. He was offered bin Laden once and didn't take him. And he was told of bin Laden's whereabouts and contemplated bombing, but decided that getting his intern to give him a blow job was a more pressing matter of national security. This guy is the one who should be tarred and feathered. They knew he was responsible for the FIRST bombing on the world trade center, so we DID have a legitimate reason to get him. Clinton had no interest. Yet you lambast Bush because he had faulty intelligence, but at least DID something according to the information we had then. The fact that his political opponents gleefully jumped on what the bad intelligence yeilded and dragged him through the mud, is a smokescreen to cover up that when THEY were in power they had TWO seperate occasions to get Osama who HAD previously attacked us but didn't. This is why Bush is ahead in this regard and the people who share your sentiment are a joke.

The other reason is this missing weapons thing now in Iraq, which has proved to be a hoax perpetrated by the New York Times in conjunction with the Kerry campagn who had a suspiciously-quick ad on TV the next day. There is no date given to when the weapons dissappeared and for all we know Saddam moved them, because they were gone when we got there, and if he moved THESE weapons...what else might he have moved out of the country prior to our invasion? Any way you look at it this hurt's Kerry's credibility. For him to admit that these explosives are DANGEROUS makes it look like we were justified in going into Iraq, since we have collected over 400,000 tons of this stuff that Saddam had stockpiled. That alone is reason to go in. And now that we know the 101st airborn didn't find any of this on their arrival suggests they might have been moved before we invaded, and if they were, any number of things might have been too...i.e. WMD's. So this hurts no one but Kerry, but he won't let go of it, even now that everyone knows it's a hoax.

So Bush wins definitively.

 

[hiphop]

Yeah because the Kenya Tanzania bombings were just a nuicance, as was the first Trade Centre Bombing and the USS Cole.

I have never said that was a nuisance. I talked about the "real big thing". I could ask you why Bush didn´t go hunting for Osama before of 9/11, when he was already in office.

Apart from that, you are putting words into my mouth. Please change your way of argumentation. Otherwise, I will just disrespect you.

 

[iota]

I have never said that was a nuisance. I talked about the "real big thing". I could ask you why Bush didn´t go hunting for Osama before of 9/11, when he was already in office.

Following that logic Clinton should have too, and Clinton was the one with 2 real opportunities.

 

[hiphop]

Well you may or may not be democrat, green party, we the people party or maybe your own one-person party, but you obviously share their anti-Bush sentiment, so I'll just lump you in with them for the sake of my own convenience.

Thanks, that says it all. I didn´t read the rest of your post.

If you can´t control your emotions enough to argue with a certain minimal level of respect, I have absolutely no reason to waste my time with you.

 

[iota]

Thanks, that says it all. I didn´t read the rest of your post.

If you can´t control your emotions enough to argue with a certain minimal level of respect, I have absolutely no reason to waste my time with you.

Poor thing.

Having listened to the way you talk about Bush in here lately I figured you had no problem with vicious personal attacks. But I guess that double standard comes in handy when you have no facts to come back with to my arguments, just hurt feelings. Go cry in your pillow now, and let the grown ups argue.

 

[iota]

(Kerry fumbling yards away from the political endzone)

 

[LoveTown]

My boss told me about a month ago that last spring he predicted the Red Sox winning the World Series - and Kerry winning the Presidency. Two weeks ago, after the 3rd Yankee win - I thought his predictions were going to prove wrong.

ooooh lets hope so! We are halfway to the prediction being right. WOOOOHOOOO SOX!!!!!!! *does the dance of joy*

 

[A_Wanderer]

You said that the "real big thing" was 9/11 and that was when the US had a definite reason to go after him. I then alluded to John Kerry saying (a single sentence in a long and interesting interview) that getting terrorism to the back of peoples minds was the long term goal, making it more of a nuicance than a critical issue - which was pretty much the way the US dealt with terrorism.

I am not putting words in your mouth, I am making the point that Bin Laden was considered a very dangerous man who they tried to kill before 9/11 on numerous occasions but unfortunately didn't deal with the Sudanese when they were offering to turn him over, now this is all quite moot but he was a big threat before 9.11 and miscalculating how big a threat was a mistake - nobody was to blame.

Now I do not think that Bush was significantly aware of the danger prior to 9/11, I do not think that too many people were. The point of the matter is that since then he is one of the few world leaders who has twinged to the magnitude of the threat, this administration has made mistakes through the course of this war, but overall they know what is at stake and will go all out. The theofascist groups epitomised by Al Qaeda have declared total war and we are all potential combatants whether we like it or not. We need to have solid leadership on all fronts, Bush is not necessarily an FDR or Truman in this respect but he does understand the threat better than John Kerry and his cadre of Clintonistas.

This is not a question of us declaring a holy war with Bush being motivated out of a fundamentalist Christian desire to convert the Pagan Muslims, it is a question about where the world is heading - the old versus the modern, religious loathing against free and secular societies.

Fine, theofascist will do fine, I got called a Nazi because I used the more neutral and vague terminology in relation to the school of thought that Al Qaeda stems from and people got rather mixed up so I may as I said then I may as well go to the fullest extent as to distinguish between religion and a politically opressive system.

Now if you can show me those Christians (of which I have met before and do not like one bit) that believe that Arabs should be blown up because they are non-Believers then I will be more than happy to call them KKK-Christians. Differentiating between regular people who believe in love and peace and people of faith who wish to visit destruction upon non-believers is important. Playing games about being engaged in a "War on Terrorism" when we don't give a flying fuck about the non-Apocalyptic Doomsday terrorists is dishonest.

P.S. You seem to be snarky and Iota is acting like a dick.

 

[sharky]

back on topic [this was supposed to be fun!], the Red Sox won therefore Kerry will win because Kerry is from Boston.

ok, back to the hijack.

 

[deep]

(Kerry fumbling yards away from the political endzone)

Is this how Bush supporters reach out to women voters?

 

[sharky]

I hope not. Sorry to say but that's one ugly woman.

 

[A_Wanderer]

It actually looks like his sister

 

[iota]

That's actually kind of funny. I got the original image from an avatar on another message board that looked like it was taken the split second Kerry was passed a football and his face is all contorted...and now...um...looks like the guy changed his avatar...

oops.

 

[iota]

Originally posted by A_Wanderer This is not a question of us declaring a holy war with Bush being motivated out of a fundamentalist Christian desire to convert the Pagan Muslims, it is a question about where the world is heading - the old versus the modern, religious loathing against free and secular societies.
Fine, theofascist will do fine, I got called a Nazi because I used the more neutral and vague terminology in relation to the school of thought that Al Qaeda stems from and people got rather mixed up so I may as I said then I may as well go to the fullest extent as to distinguish between religion and a politically opressive system.[/B]

America itself was actually founded on Judeo-Christian principals. It certainly wasn't based on survival of the fittest, which is what Hitler actually based his regime on. Jews turned out not to be the fittest. Here, our founding idea is that all men are created equal, which goes directly against Darwin's creation myth of macroevolution that Hitler and Stalin liked so much. And since all men are "created" by a higher power we are ultimately responsible to, people are "endowed" with certain rights. "Endowed" suggests someone who endows. Although you certainly are free to not to believe in God in this society, that very right was brought about by people who, even if they did not believe in either the Jewish or Christian worldviews, respected their ideologies enough to base a free society on them. Look to the oppressive communist regimes if you wish to see completely secular societies.

P.S. You seem to be snarky and Iota is acting like a dick. [/B]

For someone who has no belief in an objective standard that would dictate whether or not certain behavior is "dick-like" then you have no grounds to say that my behavior exibits any dickishness whatsoever. You may merely say that you don't particularly prefer my behavior over another person's and leave it at that. And I am free not to care.

 

[deep]

Here, our founding idea is that all men are created equal



America itself was actually founded on Judeo-Christian principals.

but that is just empty words or flat out lies that school children learn and repeat without giving any thought


explain the part about slavery and murder and stealing from the American Indians being Christian principles


it is high time you do some independent thinking

 

[nbcrusader]

but that is just empty words or flat out lies that school children learn and repeat without giving any thought


explain the part about slavery and murder and stealing from the American Indians being Christian principles


it is high time you do some independent thinking

It wasn't intended as a perfect theocracy.

You seem to have joined the post-modern revisionist thinking uncomfortable with Biblical precepts.

It is part of the new teaching that is repeated without giving any thought to out history.

I believe Dreadsox had an excellent couple of posts than clearly refuted Melon's identical allegations.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Indeed Iota, but Social Darwinism - the poor are poor because they are meant to be is a total crock and has little to do with evolution - it has to do with despotism.

Now about America - secular does not define a country without religion, it means that the church and state are seperate, now this is critical because it ensures that the government can be held to account by men because it is not a holy institution, it also aids to prevent consolidated power etc.

Now take a country like SA, Iran or Afghanistan (when under the Taliban) and you can see the difference between secular societies where one if free to worship as they please (as long as it doesn't hurt anybody) and theocracies that with to impose a despotic system upon all people. There is a distinction between the two which is important - America would be a very bad country if it became a religious ideal for true believers.

 

[anitram]

It wasn't intended as a perfect theocracy.

Christianity is NOT a theocracy, it never was, no matter how much the fundamentalists would like you to believe that or how much the Vatican tried to interfere in the middle ages.

Now Judaism IS and ever shall be a theocracy.

 

[nbcrusader]

Christianity is NOT a theocracy, it never was, no matter how much the fundamentalists would like you to believe that or how much the Vatican tried to interfere in the middle ages.

Now Judaism IS and ever shall be a theocracy.

I agree with the former. Historically, however, there were attempts to create and maintain Christian theocracies (before the US).

The later, however, I must disagree with. Judaism thrives without a theocracy and Israel, on the other hand, is not a theocracy.

 

[anitram]

It is irrelevant what Israel thrives on. I agree with you that it is not a theocratic state.

Judaism, as a religion is historically a theocracy, although the term is etymologically imprecise. The reason it was a theocracy is that the ruling priesthood (in the absence of a King of Israel) was accepted to be undertaking God's purposes. Therefore, religion (Judaism) was pervasive and permeated the entire social fabric. When the rabbinic movement formed, they directed their attention to religious life, and in an effort to reconstitute the Jewish society, they articulated a legal rationale for the covenant with God, thus establishing a theocratic basis for the enforcement of the covenant, the articulation of the national heritage and progression of the ancient culture of Hebrews.

Since the Judaism we know today is founded almost exclusively on the Judaism practiced by the early rabbinical movement in late antiquity, it remains a theocracy.

 

[pax]

I'm (genuinely) confused...theocracy is a term referring to a government, not a religion. Christianity certainly is a theocracy, in that God is ultimately in charge. Just like Judaism, Islam, and other faiths that recognize a higher power or powers.

How is Christianity not a theocracy?

And since Judaism is not a political system but rather a faith, how is it a theocracy?

Oh, yeah, and to be a mod for a sec...let's everyone chill out a bit. I thought this was supposed to be a fun thread.

 

[ILuvLarryMullen]

as per paxetaurora's request....



some of my friends livejournal icons

 

[sharky]

oh, do you have links for those? they're awesome!

 

[anitram]

I'm (genuinely) confused...theocracy is a term referring to a government, not a religion. Christianity certainly is a theocracy, in that God is ultimately in charge. Just like Judaism, Islam, and other faiths that recognize a higher power or powers.

How is Christianity not a theocracy?

And since Judaism is not a political system but rather a faith, how is it a theocracy?

Hence I said the term is etymologically imprecise. Basically, you are referring to a theocratic religion, not a theocratic state.

I'll try to be brief.

Early Christians were essentially Christian Jews - they were Jews who happened to believe that Jesus was the promised Messiah. The vast majority of Jews (remember only about 5% of the ENTIRE Roman Empire had converted to Christianity by the time of Diocletian) did not consider him to be the Messiah. For a period of time following Jesus' death, the two groups coexisted, although uneasily, but they did not yet undergo a major split into two distinct, yet congruous religions. However, near the end of the 1st century, the Jews of present-day Israel wanted to mount another major revolt against the Romans.

Here is where Judaism is a theocracy - it is a strict monotheism where God is seen to be ruling through the priesthood or the eventual rabbinical movement by proxy. That is, Orthodox Jews believe that all the laws, cultural issues and social framework are to be conducted in the religious sphere. The ruling priesthood was eventually overtaken by the Rabbinical movement in Antiquity, and they essentially dictated laws based on religious beliefs. That is, their one God permeated the entire social fabric, affecting everything from dietary laws, marriage laws, inheritance, religious observances in the public spectrum and so on.

Now to get back to the 1st century - the split between Christianity and Judaism essentially occurred because the early Christians (who still considered themselves Jews at the time) made a conscious decision not to join the Jews in the revolt against the Romans. Their thinking was along these lines: Jesus has died and Jesus has risen and Jesus will come again, not in a thousand years, but any moment now. They believed Christ would return "like a thief in the night", unexpectedly, but shortly. As such, they believed that their primary duty in life was to prepare their hearts for the arrival of the kingdom of God. Because they felt that the return of the Messiah and the kingdom of heaven were at hand, they felt it would be counterproductive and unimportant to fight with the Romans. "Give what is Caesar's to Caesar, and what is God's to God" is an often quoted passage for the early promotion of the separation of Church and State.

The Jews revolted, and the revolt was crushed, and the temple was destroyed. At that point, the Jews became more and more scattered throughout Europe and the Middle East, and lost their sense of presence in what we today know as Israel.

The Christians went ahead converting gentiles, and they essentially came to believe that they could exist within the parameters of a pagan or non-Christian State, because they were entirely concerned with the afterlife and a reunification with Christ, rather than earthly affairs. Contrast that with the Jews, who believed (a belief they actually share with the Muslims) that the polytheist must be defeated wherever he exists. The Christians continued to exist as a minority, in a non-Christian state, through persecution and after it without a need for the State to be implicitly Christian, nor any need for the State to pass religious laws.

It gets muddled in the Middle Ages where you get the Vatican acting as both a religious body and a head of state, but this is mainly a matter of power struggle and greed rather than correct religiosity.

In the recent past, you have had fundamentalist factions of Christianity try and impose their views on the various states where they live. Historically, they are way off base, and practicing a form of religion that the early Christians actively rejected. The Jews believed that the Messiah would usher in a golden age of peace and that since nothing changed with Jesus, he was not the Messiah. The early Christians argued that you must look at the golden age in another context - that the peace is to be ushered in our hearts and in our souls and that by accepting Jesus, we have ushered in the golden age in our souls. That the change is not in the world, but in ourselves, and that we must live honourable lives so that when Jesus returns, we have prepared our hearts for his arrival.

 

[hiphop]

Brilliant post, Martina. Respect.

 

[nbcrusader]

Contrast that with the Jews, who believed (a belief they actually share with the Muslims) that the polytheist must be defeated wherever he exists.

Jews have peacefully co-existed with other cultures for centuries with no explicit or implicit desire to eliminate the "infidel" (unless you are referring to God’s direction for the Hebrews to conquer Canaan, something they failed to fully obey). I'm quite surprised by your comment on this point.

In the recent past, you have had fundamentalist factions of Christianity try and impose their views on the various states where they live. Historically, they are way off base, and practicing a form of religion that the early Christians actively rejected.

The early Church was largely persecuted and not in a position to seek "imposition" of their views.

Your quoting of Matthew 22:21/ Mark 12:17/Luke 20:25, in context, refers to a Christian’s obligation to live subject to government, not independent of government.

Christianity, on the other hand, has no express prohibition on involvement with government. I would think it a stretch to suggest that a desire to pass certain laws based on Judeo-Christian principles is the equivalent of trying to create a theocracy.

 

[anitram]

nbc, this was the underlying reason behind the revolt against the Romans around 70 CE - among other things, Jews of the time did not believe in living in a polytheistic state. You are correct that since then, they have existed (and undergone immense persecution) in non- Jewish and even non-monotheistic states.

As for fundamentalist Christians, I will speak out against some of their actions, because I find it extremely troubling that we are so ready to point out the speck in other fundamentalists' eye, yet ignore that which simmers in our own backyards.

 

[sue4u2]

Sorry I didn't read all of this thread. I have this nerve over my left eye that is jumping like crazy.
I think it's my last one.

So I'm hijacking this back to the topic: fun thread
*not that all this wasn't totally enlightening* but
You know we just had a lunar eclipse, right...

1999 July 28 - partial lunar eclipse
2000 January 21 - total lunar eclipse
Were all the votes counted by the 21st.

Make of that what you will...

http://aa.usno.navy.mil/data/docs/UpcomingEclipses.html