deep
Blue Crack Addict
AmenLPU2 said:I grew up an evangelical and nothing scares me more than the political power of the evangelical church.
AmenLPU2 said:I grew up an evangelical and nothing scares me more than the political power of the evangelical church.
80sU2isBest said:It's not just what I believe. These are credible accusations. Watch the movie "Stolen Honor" sometime.
http://www.stolenhonor.com/
80sU2isBest said:And this translates into a call for violence HOW? You are making the same logical stretch Ted made. Has it ever occurred to you that he was talking about divine justice?
80sU2isBest said:
Irvine, for someone who preaches tolerance, you are one of the least tolerant people in these forums. And you're rude, also. Have I ever made any personal insults against you?
As I stated in my own post, Irvine. "Influence" is one thing, but what Hilary suggests goes beyond "influence".
And this translates into a call for violence HOW? You are making the same logical stretch Ted made. Has it ever occurred to you that he was talking about divine justice?
It's not just what I believe. These are credible accusations. Watch the movie "Stolen Honor" sometime.
http://www.stolenhonor.com/
Irvine511 said:i'm not going to respond to much, because Melon has already made the points i would have.
i apologize for the "nutty" comment -- i should have made the distinction that the commetns/beliefs i find "nutty," not the individual person. i can see how you found that rude, and i apologize.
i also think you misunderstand the notion of tolerance. no, i don't tolerate ideas i find abhorent. i argue them, debate them, and do my best to change minds. that's my responsibility as a wide awake citizen. what i do tolerate, and would fight to the death for, is your right to hold any and all of these, imho "nutty," positions. i don't understand how some people -- on the left and on the right -- will make a claim without any credible evidence and then when the are challenged whine about how people aren't tolerating their poorly reasoned views. i don't respect arguments that don't make sense, but i respect the right of everyone to hold them and to express them. for example, one of the posters i respect the most is also one of the most conservative out there. but his arguments, while i don't agree with them, are soundly argued. that, i respect. your rational for labling the said Democratic senators were not well argued, and as such, i am going to challenge them, because that's always been my understanding as to what FYM is supposed to be about.
no, i don't preach tolerance. i don't want tolerance. i don't even want acceptance/understanding. what i want is to be treated like a full citizen. i don't give a damn what anyone thinks about what i do behind closed doors, what i do object to is 1) the labeling of such as objectively "sinfu" and that it's somehow against God's plan (as if a human could know such a thing), and 2) legislation passed on the basis of the above narrow worldview.
i'm much more of a libertarian than a liberal, when it comes to social issues. i dont' need tolerance, i need the right wing to stop using government to regulate my personal life.
oh run, it's the commies! communism isn't necessarily a bad thing. the capitalist system benefits the rich, whereas communism we are all equal and provided for.Irvine511 said:(Kerry is a 100% legit vietnam war hero who saw the folly of the US government and did the right thing -- to come back hom and do what he could to get our troops out of there ... communist sympathizer? please, please -- point to a shred of evidence to support such a piece of nonsense rather than this fact-free "i believe" refrain.)
Tell that to all the people jailed and executed under communist rule for speaking against the government or for practicing their religion. Probably 80% of the people on the Interference forums would be dead or incarcerated by now under Communist rule, including me.earthshell said:whereas communism we are all equal and provided for.
RIGHT-WING JIHADISTS CHIP AWAY AT AMERICANS' LIBERTY
Sat Apr 23, 7:58 PM ET
By Cynthia Tucker
It would be comforting -- but naive -- to dismiss House Majority Leader Tom DeLay as a harmless, charmless churl who appeals only to a tiny, ineffectual group inhabiting the far religious right. In fact, the DeLay wing of the Republican Party is on the rise, and its antediluvian agenda represents a serious threat to American democracy.
That's no exaggeration.
If the DeLay wing gets its way, the entire nation will live according to the rigid rules of a handful of self-righteous folks who distrust modernity. They would dictate the way we worship, live, work, have sex and even die.
While five years' worth of political analysis has made much of the nation's cultural divide -- a bitter disagreement over social issues that cleaves the nation roughly in half -- the fact is that the entire country is being manipulated by a much smaller group. (Only 13 percent of Americans approved of Congress' intervention in the painful Terri Schiavo case.)
After President Bush's re-election, the news media swooned over vaguely worded polls showing "moral values" were the most important consideration for 22 percent of voters. But we don't really know what voters had in mind: Did they mean opposition to gay marriage, or did they mean support for programs for the poor?
Nevertheless, the generals among the religious extremists -- men such as James Dobson of Focus on the Family -- have used those polls to exaggerate their influence and browbeat less reactionary Republicans into supporting their agenda. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, who has presidential ambitions, is the latest to bow before them.
Don't be fooled into believing that the DeLay-Dobson axis represents the beliefs of most ordinary, God-fearing Americans, Christian or otherwise. It doesn't. Consider just two issues that represent the extremists' views -- the chorus of complaint against federal judges, as well as an increasingly vocal opposition to contraception.
After judges refused to ignore the law in the Schiavo case, religious extremists stepped up their attacks, suggesting that the federal judiciary is dominated by liberals out to ruin a moral America. In fact, more than half of the 821 active federal judges (445, or 54 percent) were appointed by Republicans, according to the Federal Judges Biographical Database.
Florida Judge George Greer, the main judge in the Schiavo case, was elected to the circuit court after a stint as a Republican on the Pinellas County Commission. He has been described as a conservative Christian. But Greer, who has weathered death threats, is apparently not conservative enough to satisfy the DeLay faction.
In one of his recent harangues, DeLay claimed Congress should have stopped the courts' expansion of individual liberties long ago. "The reason we had a right to privacy is because Congress didn't stop them," he said, according to The Washington Times.
Perhaps most Americans associate the phrase "right to privacy" with the Supreme Court's 1973 ruling legalizing abortion. But the high court supported a constitutional right to privacy in its 1965 ruling in Griswold v. Connecticut, when it struck down a state law that made birth control illegal. Writing for the majority, Justice William O. Douglas said, "We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights ..."
According to recent polls, 94 percent of Americans find contraception morally acceptable, and 78 percent of Americans believe pharmacists have no right to refuse to fill the prescriptions. Yet there is an increasingly vocal group of extremists who want to deny adults the right to contraception.
Across the country, women are complaining of ultraconservative pharmacists who refuse to fill prescriptions, sometimes quizzing women on their marital status before making a decision. The next thing you know, they'll be barging into your bedroom to make sure you're wearing your flannel nightgown.
These extremists have much in common with the jihadist wing of Islam. While Christian extremists usually don't practice violence, but merely threaten it (see Greer, above), they share with extremist Muslims the belief that all people should be forced to live according to their views. That's about as un-American as it gets.
Let me try to prove you wrong...80sU2isBest said:Sorry deep, but it's hard for me to imagine that an article that starts off with the 3 words "right-wing jihadists" would be objective at all.
Macfistowannabe said:Let me try to prove you wrong...
A har har har, Deep.deep said:
it looks like they are "in bed" together
Nothing quite like fair and balanced journalism...RIGHT-WING JIHADISTS CHIP AWAY AT AMERICANS' LIBERTY
Sat Apr 23, 7:58 PM ET
By Cynthia Tucker
Macfistowannabe said:A har har har, Deep.
Customary in Saudi Arabia.
I am well aware of the fact that Saudi men took advantage of our good relations with their country in order to get into our country. Ironically enough, the reason we are NOT attacking them is because they are the largest nation of oil supplies. Kind of contradicting with the mindless theory that we attacked Iraq for the oil.deep said:are you unaware that the Saudis are the major source of funding for BinLaden and most others that you call Jihadists?
Macfistowannabe said:Kind of contradicting with the mindless theory that we attacked Iraq for the oil.
deep said:
Asked why a nuclear power such as North Korea was being treated differently from Iraq, where hardly any weapons of mass destruction had been found, the deputy defence minister said: "Let's look at it simply. The most important difference between North Korea and Iraq is that economically, we just had no choice in Iraq. The country swims on a sea of oil."
deep 04-26-2005 09:26 PM - it is an op-ed 80s said:
I don't consider myself a fundamentalist, but prisons are not crowded by the crimes committed by fundamentalists. There are more important things to worry about than those who live their life for what they believe to be the teachings of the Son of God. Even if they express that through the ballot.deep said:
i posted it was an op-ed
Opinion - Editorial piece.
I think there are SOME valid comparisons.
"Fundamentalists" want their beliefs codified in law. They are very comfortable blurring line between religion (theirs) and state.
And are they trying to force you to convert by law?deep said:
i posted it was an op-ed
Opinion - Editorial piece.
I think there are SOME valid comparisons.
"Fundamentalists" want their beliefs codified in law. They are very comfortable blurring line between religion (theirs) and state.
Macfistowannabe said:And are they trying to force you to convert by law?