magekillr

Coming from the person who posts that all feminists are the equivalent of a Nazi. I'll try not to take offense. Like Goddess said, those are some pretty large allegations based on opinion. The author you essentially plagiarized is ignorant, insensitive, and an [wagon], so I don't know why you'd quote him. Until then, I suggest you Google the differences between testosterone and estrogen before calling me a sexist. Very shrewd, well done. http://www.vivalafeminista.com/2008/10/ ... forum.html Unfortunately, a lot of men feel this way. It's the inability to understand structural and historical barriers, the need to lump sensitivity in with political correctness, and desire to blind oneself to truth in favor of self-preservation. "Omg, it's not OUR fault!"

Are you seriously using a word that Rush Limbaugh invented, and attacking women that strive for equality? Really? Why do you make this seem like it's a war of women against men? I'm a feminist, and I'm very vocal about it, but I am by no means a woman lol. I'll address the bulk of your post when I have the energy. I just got back from teaching a merit badge all day, so I'm tired.

I enjoy religion bashing as much as the next guy, but not when it's intellectually dishonest and unwarranted. First, the lot of you may be inaccurately conflating 'Islam' with the political, cultural, and financial machinations of its component cultures. There were a lot of things done in the name of Islam which really had a lot more to do with politics than faith - and rather a lot more in which faith and politics were both components to some degree. Furthermore, it's a mistake to imply that some sort of unitary 'Islam' even exists, because there are so many variants on that theme that generalising is virtually impossible. It's like 'Christendom' or 'The Orient' - a convenient general designation for people perceiving what they believe to be a series of related phenomena from without, or seeking to identify disparate phenomena as a cohesive whole from within. The point I'm trying to make is that talking about 'Islam as a force in history' is meaningless except in the broadest possible sense. Generalizing is utterly impossible, but we're so accustomed to thinking in terms of units and easily-quantifiable forces that we're tempted to try - and therein lies the downfall of the mind. So 'Islam' provides a unifying thread, but it's a thread that changed colour, texture, and material as it winds across cultures and down through the years. Really the most egregious are the entire Western characterizations of 'Islam' during the First to the Third Crusade - everything about them, just everything. I'd point you all to Amin Maalouf's stupendous book "The Crusades through Arab Eyes" (Schocken, 1989) if you're interested in educating yourselves. I'm not a Muslim, in case anyone is wondering.

Yep, I saw that. It definitely will shake things up in the Palestinians' heads, but unfortunately for them, many of the IDF attacks have already turned the people against Israel the state, and Hamas' popularity will probably remain the same/go up. The attacks were more of a gain for Hamas' popularity than Hamas blocking shipments of aid. I'm sure they'll spread false lying propaganda to their people that Israel's checkpoints were the cause for delay, or something. Fatah, you need to end your corruption, and you need to do it now.

I completely agree with you. I also don't understand certain atheists' obsession with changing their label. I understand that atheism might have a negative connotation, but some of the claims to change it are outright ridiculous. This is why I see labels as ultimately pointless. Saying you're an atheist doesn't do your beliefs justice, but neither does saying that you're a Christian. You have a simplistic and basic label not for something to identify with, but so people get a taste until you delve into your true beliefs through conversation. Labels, religious labels, sexual identity labels, whether you be homosexual, straight, bisexual, it's all a silly attempt at trying to say that you're different than other people, when you should be celebrating your innate characteristics as human beings. That's not to say we shouldn't recognize differences, in that a completely monotone society would be abhorrent, but people try and identify with labels far too much.

http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/534646.aspx I think this is a fantastic idea. The far left is going to be pissed off at this, but I think it's a great way to open up dialogue towards the RR and get them to get away from issues like banning homosexuality, and focus more on poverty and disease. It could also result in interfaith chatter, so maybe they understand each other more. I don't suppose the irreligious will be included, will they? I'd support it if it got the point of view of the non believers, too. Ultimately though, policy should be down to pragmatism and common ideals rather than any one religious stance. warri0r, I think you'll be pleasantly surprised: A notable repetitionnot just once, rote, but twice, to let you know he means it. As for that second passage, did Mr Obama just endorse a name for the group struggling to name itself? Some don't like "atheist" or "nonbeliever" because they are definitionally negative. The coinage of "Brights" has failed to catch on for the obvious reasons. But "humanist" has a nice, positive feeling, and a history. Mr Obama went on to announce a White House of Faith-Based and Neighbourhood Partnerships. A Bushian thing to do? No, he continued: Interesting. I'm not sure if Mr Obama isn't trying a little too hard to please everyone here, but the fact that he is trying to please everyoneand remember that a major presidential candidate said not long ago that "freedom requires religion"is striking. Now that he is not doing backflips for Rick Warren, citing his favourite Bible verse in a "faith debate" or dodging conspiracies that he is a Muslim, Mr Obama is also free to say things like: A few years ago, Daniel Dennett, an atheist philosopher, wrote: "Politicians don't think they even have to pay us lip service, and leaders who wouldn't be caught dead making religious or ethnic slurs don't hesitate to disparage the "godless" among us. From the White House down, bright-bashing is seen as a low-risk vote-getter." Not this White House. http://www.economist.com/blogs/democrac ... tinued.cfm

http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/534646.aspx I think this is a fantastic idea. The far left is going to be pissed off at this, but I think it's a great way to open up dialogue towards the RR and get them to get away from issues like banning homosexuality, and focus more on poverty and disease. It could also result in interfaith chatter, so maybe they understand each other more. I don't suppose the irreligious will be included, will they? I'd support it if it got the point of view of the non believers, too. Ultimately though, policy should be down to pragmatism and common ideals rather than any one religious stance. I'm not sure. I mean, someone's going to be left out somewhere. I'm not necessarily counting on him to include the Church of Latter Day Saints, or Scientology. He did include "non-believers" in his inauguration speech, however, so I wouldn't count atheists/agnostics out just yet.

I'll ask my questions via PM, Bari. In the meantime: http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/534646.aspx I think this is a fantastic idea. The far left is going to be pissed off at this, but I think it's a great way to open up dialogue towards the RR and get them to get away from issues like banning homosexuality, and focus more on poverty and disease. It could also result in interfaith chatter, so maybe they understand each other more.

I'm more versed on this subject than you are, I'm sure. I'm not going, "Poor Hamas", I'm going, "Poor civilians". "Siding with the media". What media? The American media? PLEASE! The American media sucks Israel's [bleep] just as much as our politicians. I couldn't believe 60 minutes did a special on it. And as much as I hate to say it, Obama's got a lot of work to do when it comes to his rhetoric and his actions with foreign policy. This is a good outline, although I'm not entirely convinced letting the Taliban have 100% full fledged control over the region of Afghanistan is the right course of action: http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2009/02/t ... -report-4/ edit: I should say that even though this is an extremely idealistic, simplistic, and anti-American way of putting things, the man does have some points. I think some of the demands being made are ridiculous, but others hold merit.

Bari, how open about your personal faith are you willing to go? It's a personal thing, and some people are shy about questions when it comes to their own "personal" belief system. They have that right, and I respect that right. This is why I ask, because if you don't mind, I have a few questions? We can go to PM if you'd like.

I mean this not to be provocative, Im just curious to know your view point. You know that some religious fundamentalist are so deluded that they actually believe they are in a battle between good and evil. Religion is what motivates people to blow themselves up, because they believe they will be met by virgins in heaven (spare a thought for them!) Unfortunately, religion is motivating people to do terrible things. Certainly it could be said that there are terrorists who are not motivated by religious morals, sadly it is so, that the majority are. Sure, I'll tell you why there are terrorists. Before I do, let me reiterate: religion does have some impact, but only because of their leaders, and if the other problems that cause terrorism were solved, their leaders couldn't use religion at all. First, I'll address Muslim terrorism in what seems to be a "War on Jews". If you study Arabia during the time that Islam was spreading, you might have a better understanding of the origins of Islam, and what it is actually about, and at the most important timetime of its revelation, its purest form. Looking at radical Islam today (which is essentially a bastardization of the religion), and tying it to the religion of Islam is mistaking the driver for the car. Its trying to understand a holy book from the 7th Century, by taking the word of strict constructionists who have nothing in common with the religions values or teachings, and also reading the context of when it was written to apply to modern situations and political problems. The pre-Islamic period in Arabia was known as jahiliyyah (translated as time of ignorance or time of irascibility) which refers to the need of Arabians to retaliate and violence against enemies and non-enemies alike. This was ingrained in their culture, even new converts to Islam could not shed this psyche immediately. It is probably for this reason that the Quran emphasizes the concept of hilmto remain calm in the most difficult of circumstances, to not hit back when suffering injury, etc. This virtue also inspired the newly converted Muslims to take positive action: feed the hungry, liberate slaves, look after each other, etc. The point of all this is to understand that the psyche of Muslims was to counter-act the type of aggressive and violent practices that were present in pre-Islamic Arabia, not to promote them. With respect to specific verses in the Quran, that at first glance, may seem anti-Semitic, one has to do three things, have a good translation, and understand the context and the great implications of the specific passage, and most importantly understand that in order to be a Muslim, it is imperative that you revere Moses and Jesus and have a pluralistic understanding of all 3 Abrahamic messengers. First, a good translation is necessary because the Quran is not a text that can be read one verse at a time, translated literally, with the expectation that the translation will give a rigid law that must be followed (just like the you cant do with the Bible). It is like a poem, and literally means recitation and was meant to be recited aloud, so the symbolism and allegory could be appreciated. This is often lost in translation. Second, context is important because revealed passages often referred to events taking place in a very unstable Arabia, with tribes fighting wars against each other. Context is also important because in the verses where the Quran is speaking about the Jews, it is referring not to the Jewish faith, or Jews forever on Earth, but tribes of Jews who had gone against the word of God, and who were not even true their own faith, or as people of the Book, because of political and tribal strife. Also, the Quran criticizes the Jews who specifically attacked Muslims in Arabia, mocked their faith, and were spiteful and abusive to new Muslims. Thus, criticism was directed against a specific group of people for their specific actions. Also, you should also note that criticism of Jews is also frequent in the Bible, for similar reasons. The causes of terrorism: Its true that terrorism is a problem in extremist wings of Islam and its true that the cause of terrorism are not due simply to poverty, but it is a leading cause of recruiting young people to the cause, people who have nothing. There are 3 main causes of terrorism, though these are not the only causes. The first is the warped ideology itself. It is a misinterpretation of the religion of Islam by those who use Islam as a justification for their evil acts. The second, is economic poverty of a country leading to the lack of educational opportunities for children, who are often the most vulnerable to religious extremism. The third cause is the lack of civil liberties and political rights in these nations (note: just because the first reason is the warped view of the religion does not mean it is the religion that's at fault. If you solve problems 2 and 3, there will be less and less recruitment until terrorists are nothing more than organizations like the KKK). Extremism and violence in the name of Islam is a generally new phenomenon, a phenomenon of the late 20th and 21st centuries. It has been spearheaded by rigid, and many would argue, incorrect, interpretations of Islamic law. It is true that Muslims need to take back their hijacked religion, and this is an internal struggle in Islam that is far removed from our political solutions. But, what we can do as Americans is to build bridges with the many peaceful Muslims who live in our country today. American Muslims are a testament to and an example to Muslims all over the world that America is a country that treats all its citizens equally and allows its citizens to practice their faith without the fear of persecution. There is no conflict between being both an American and a Muslim. We must back this up by upholding the civil liberties enshrined in our Constitution. These are values shared by both the American legacy of civil liberties, and true Islamic values that preach tolerance and respect for all human beings. If we infringe on these rights ourselves, our case to the world is weakened, and provides more justifications for the terrorists who take youngsters under their wings. Poverty and lack of education create desperation, but in some areas of the world they also create terrorists, an alternative lifestyle for those who have nothing to lose and everything to gain. These young boys receive food and water, a place to sleep, and a purpose in their life when they are offered an educated at religious schools that teach an extremist and militant interpretation of Islam. The purpose is not a good one, but it is a purpose that gives them something to fight for. The world community needs to help these young men by giving them another alternative. We must not only invest in programs that promote well-balanced education, and that provide equal opportunities to both men and women in countries like Afghanistan and Pakistan, but we must make sure that we follow through to see that the money gets to where it is needed most and see that the intended results come to fruition. In Afghanistan today, there are stories of teachers who have not received their salaries for years, but continue to teach children in crumbled school houses. The teachers wonder if the United States, who freed them from the clutches of the Taliban, has forgotten them. They still wait for the aid money, but it is being redirected to building runways in bases for the Iraq occupation or for other war time costs. The children wonder if they will have to stop sharing one book among an entire class so that they can learn science or math. Forgetting the needs of these children of war and the promises that we made to the people of Afghanistan might prove disastrous and has probably made us more unsafe than before September 11th. We must get not abandon these children if we are to prevent them from being drawn into the clutches of extremist ideologies that teach hate and violence. We must not forget them a second time. Finally, some may argue that if lack of education, poverty and despair are the causes of terrorism, then why do we often see terrorists who are highly educated and come from relatively well-off families? What motivates them? Terrorist groups must make their bases in impoverished nations where political rights and civil liberties are non-existent. And recruitment of even the well educated and financially stable citizens from countries that lack these basic rights follows quite easily. This is so because smothering protests, the right to assembly, and freedoms of expression gives rise to fanatic views. It is clear that when a voice is suppressed, communication through violent and illegal means may be the only way to make ones grievances heard. It is our responsibility to understand the complex causes of terrorism. Fighting this problem throughout the world effectively will not be the result of military might, but the result of understanding what causes it, and how to remedy it for the long term. As a nation, we cant just vow to help a nation like Afghanistan and then completely abandon it. If it was a hotbed of terrorism then, it will become a base for terrorism now, because of our failure to follow through with our promises. This is imperative for our national security, and for the security of our allies. It is also something we should do as responsible Americans, and it sure doesnt cost as much as funding a full fledged military solution. edit: Oh, and btw...I fully expect people like Tryto and people like Richard Dawkins to do their homework with regard to religion like they do with science. This goes to the lot of you that criticize religion without any intellectual honesty, as well.

Couldn't tell you if it's been an "overall" helping hand, but now that it's here I certainly do NOT want it to go away. There's a reason churches are tax exempt...they do a lot of charity work, they're great for community organizing, etc. Besides, if not religion, it'd be another form of "us vs. them" mentality when it comes to war. People do that with illegal immigrants all of the time currently. The problem isn't religion, it's how people extend the religion. edit: You people blaming terrorism on religion SERIOUSLY need to know WHY there is terrorism in the world. While it's "true"? that "terrorism" has been around for a while, what we know as "terrorism" today is fairly recent. Religion might help with recruitment, but it's certainly not the cause, or even the main method for recruitment.

So... Before I put this out here, let me just lol my [wagon] off at you Israeli sympathizers. Second, let me just say that I was right in saying that Israel is led by terrorists, as is Palestine, and they work hand in hand to deaths of their own citizens. However, I didn't know it went THIS deep: http://www.israeltoday.co.il/default.as ... &nid=16447 edit: Oh, and I don't know why this wasn't brought up before, but it was fairly well known that Israel backed Hamas back in the day when they were at odds with the PLO/Fatah: Not really that much of a surprise now that I think about it.

I could argue "its a baby" at almost any stage of pregnancy, so unless you can prove an empirical time where it becomes a baby that has no merit. No one can prove at any empirical time when it becomes a baby until it is born, that's what my point is.

No, thats why they need to maintain or create medical exeptions for severe medical problems. Yeah, and the partial birth abortion bans don't do that, but the FOCA does. They don't take into account the health of the mother. Even John McCain ridicules women's health like it doesn't matter: First of all, like 2% of all abortions are partial birth abortions (Or something like that), so ignoring the other 98% is rather disingenuous. Oh, and I said this earlier, but virtually no one is stating a woman gives birth if it's going to kill her or if she was raped. So, therefore, FOCA is useless in that regard. The other 98% take place before it can be argued it "is a baby". What difference does it make if she was raped? Be consistent, Sly. "life is life", put up or shut up.

No, thats why they need to maintain or create medical exeptions for severe medical problems. Yeah, and the partial birth abortion bans don't do that, but the FOCA does. They don't take into account the health of the mother. Even John McCain ridicules women's health like it doesn't matter:

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/magazi ... _abortion/ This is why intact dilation and extraction ("partial birth abortion") needs to be legal, and why the FOCA needs to be passed.

Everyone that isn't an idiot thinks Iraq was a bad mistake. That is of course after they saw the repricussions. You probably supported it in the beginning, just like the majority of Americans. I've seen your responses in the Gaza thread, and they differ from this completely. You blindly support Israel, claiming that they have the right to defend themselves in order to effectively achieve peace. So you support government intervention? That opposes many of your political beliefs, no? mmmcannibalism, your post fits my generalization perfectly.

The same people that want to make abortion illegal are the same ones that don't care for the health of women, they more than likely support wars/invasions/War in Iraq, they want to bomb people for being terrorists, they support the death penalty, they support guns, and they certainly hate social programs to help single mothers raise their child. You twisted people aren't pro-life, you're pro-birth. You only seek to make abortion illegal, you don't seek how we prevent it, and you care nothing for the mothers or children once the child is birthed. If any party cares about abortion, they care about prevention. We do that with comprehensive sexual education and contraceptives; two things of which the pro-life people cannot stand. Don't tell us we don't care about "infanticide" because we are after the care of people currently alive with their own health, seek to make abortion as rare as possible, and support programs for mothers that happen to keep their child, while you plug away with your Godwin's Law violation shtick.

What can it learn from it with regard to politics? That we should ban biracial marriage because God separated people by land masses? That we should continuously ban gays from being married? That people will feud over land masses in the Middle East?

Is it wrong that I think Cheney looks like Mr Potter from "It's a Wonderful Life" in all the pictures of this event? It's quite fitting though. I don't believe for a second that Cheney was injured. When I saw him come out in his wheelchair, the first thing I thought was, "Wow, [bleep]y doesn't think anyone will criticize a man in a wheelchair, what a slime ball." No millionaire on Earth, let alone a millionaire as old as he is with as many cancerous medical problems as he has would ever "pick up boxes" while moving. They pay people. He wanted sympathy, and didn't want to be booed at the inaugural ceremonies. The lows that this man will go to have no ends. Yeah...and? What's your point? The public has been like this for years, this is what the "moderates" will look like. They won't support all of his policies, but they'll support some. What's wrong with voting for an antithesis when we're ruled by a two-party system, which is inherently binded in our Constitution as the majority rules. Just about as easy as Bush abused his. Bush was never a popular president. Only until immediately after 9/11 was he popular, yet he still was able to abuse his authority while breaking law upon law upon law during times of unpopularity. It's easy for any President to abuse their power. Frankly, the executive branch is given far too much power in my opinion just because they can execute Executive Orders. His popularity won't make this that much easier than it already is. You're fringing on conspiracy theorist. You act like no candidate has ever made promises that they cannot keep. If anything, you're treating him like he's a God more than anyone else by putting him above other politicians. Other politicians have made promises that they couldn't execute, does that necessarily mean we'll revert back to 8 years of Republican insanity? Maybe, maybe not. Obama being there certainly doesn't make it so. While I agree, I only agree on the basis that he's not as lefty as I am. When it comes to intellect and political prowess, he is a demi-God, and anyone that underestimates this will be burned. He is making Bill Clinton look like a toddler, and Clinton was a master politician. 1. Call on people to listen to their better angels and put aside petty fights. 2. Extend an olive branch and make a "concession" that's not really as big as it seems. 3. Allow himself to be slapped by the other side who thinks they've got a pushover on their hands. 4. Wait for the other side to overextend themselves. 5. Chide the other side for being childish and then proceed to do what he always meant to do anyway. He did it to Hillary (most notably when dealing with the issue of delegate counts in Michigan and Florida), he did it to McCain (the debate rules), and now he's doing it to the Republicans in Congress.

Well there is an atheist Congressman from California, publicly atheist. I don't think he was publicly when he first ran, but he has since: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pete_Stark

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2Kh-xzerjE /thread.

Disingenuous. They're not "unborn babies", that's like the RR calling Intact dilation and extraction "partial birth abortion". It is a moral question for everyone, and it's not a choice made without second thought among 99% of the population. Trying to demonize pro-choice people by calling people "baby killers" for killing "unborn babies" is just hurting your cause, mate. Almost all pro-choice people don't want to see abortions taking place, but in a free society people should have the right in this regard when it comes to their own bodies. The way we do that is giving people access to contraceptives, and educating the masses. If I may quote warri0r:

100% agree here as well. I think the most important thing when it comes to child rearing is that the parent WANTS you. How depressing would it be to find out that your mother didn't want you, and she was forced to have you? I'd be really depressed, I doubt suicidal, but it would hit me very hard.