Christian right looks to rebound

[Achilles]

I didn't answer that because I assumed it was rhetorical irony/sarcasm and didn't require a response. If you're actually being serious, then no, there isn't a rule, unless Niner came up with something while the forum was down.

Nope, it was actually a serious question. The reason I asked because if the answer was no, then I really wanted to know your intentions behind posts #2 and #4.

 

With examples such as Nietzshe and Dawkins and even O'Hair being dogmatically anti-theistic, can you blame them if they don't want to budge on their ground, either?

Pretty sure all of these examples came around after the creation of the three abrahamic religions. But in the interest of not getting caught up in the whole "who started what when" thing, I guess I would say: yes, I can.

 

They aren't benefiting mankind. They aren't furthering our general knowledge. It doesn't take long to realize who is being truly dogmatic and who is simply percieved as such.

 

Both you and they would have to find some common ground and work on it from there.

Dogma: a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds.

Faith: firm belief in something for which there is no proof.

 

I'm not sure how one finds common ground with a school of though that accepts conclusions first and asks questions later (and rejects answers that don't match the conclusions formed in step 1).

 

How many times have contributors in this forum tried to simply start off with what's observable only to be met with opposition? It seems to me, Jae, that both sides have to be willing to have a dialog. And if one side has already decided that they will never change their mind, no matter what (because that kind of thinking is rewarded in that culture), then I don't know how any progress can ever be made.

 

It would require someone who can move comfortably in both theistic and atheistic circles, understands both groups, and has respect for and from both groups, and there are precious few people who meet those criteria.

It would seem that atheists understand theists remarkably well, considering that many of them were formerly theists themselves.

 

It comes down to trust, and I would guess most atheists don't trust the average fundamentalist, and I know most fundamentalists don't trust the average atheist. In addition, how do you bridge a gap when the groups are diametrically opposed on some issues? Is bridging that gap even possible?

I think that was my question. I guess we can both agree that it's probably not possible.

 

Welcoming the sex-offender into church and removing membership of those who've broken Biblical/church rules....

For those who've broken the Biblical rules in our church--if they're sorry for what they've done and agree to not commit the act again (e.g. adultery) then our church doesn't remove them from membership. If they're defiant about their 'sin', and refuse to stop, then our church takes steps according to what's laid out in the New Testament for such situations. That involves 1 or 2 elders going privately to talk with that person, than a small group, then removal as a very last resort after all other options have been exhausted. There's a fine balance between welcoming sinners (which we all are) and allowing someone to openly flaunt their unrepentant involvement with sin.

Sounds pretty consistent with most shame-based punishment systems. Once part of a group, acceptance/rejection is a powerful motivator.

 

I believe the guy when he says he needs a church family. I'm just wondering if there's another outlet that would meet his spiritual needs without putting kids in danger and him in a tempting situation. I know there's prison fellowship ministry, but I don't know if ex-cons have access to that ministry after they leave jail, though I believe they do in some way.

This is the question I was trying to raise earlier with the analogy to AA. Seems to me that there has to be some sort of program that would cater to ex-cons, although I imagine that he wouldn't find much solace there either.

[Rogue Warrior]

The extremism that is exhibited by those in the religious debate is a cancer that must be cut out.

[Darth InSidious]

The extremism that is exhibited by those in the religious debate is a cancer that must be cut out.

ROFLMFAO!

[Tysyacha]

I guess I wonder what crimes would prohibit one from being permitted to go to church. Where do congregations draw the line? If I were a thief, would a church let me in? What about a prostitute? Or a drunk driver? I agree that the man is a convicted pedophile and should not be allowed too close to children, but in my opinion, that's no reason to completely deny him support and spiritual guidance/fulfillment if he wants it.

 

As for the Religious Right, I am very concerned and worried about their imposing a particular brand of faith upon other people through legislation, such as the "intelligent design" bit. Fanaticism in any religion scares me, even if the religion is Christianity. It makes me agree with Kreia in a metaphorical sense, as the Avellone interview states:

 

"Kreia was the personification of that frustration – the fact that some arbitrary force would feel the need to “correct’ the human species at times with mass slaughter in Episodes 1 through 3, and the hypocrisy of the Jedi that took place in IV and V. I’ve never really forgiven Ben Kenobi for his lies in Episodes IV and V, and Kreia definitely echoes that.

 

"Her one redeeming feature is that for a (former) Sith Lord, she loves the player and what he/she represents. She sees in the player a chance to turn away from predestination and destroy that which binds all things, giving the galaxy back its freedom."

 

Note: I am not an atheist, but neither am I a fully faithful theist, either. I believe that God exists, but I am nowhere near 100% sure that He does. It's a matter of faith for me, and I have no right to force my own beliefs down other people's throats. If they want to talk to me about it, I'll be glad to explain myself, but I'm not on a conversion mission. Freedom and personal privacy are important to me, as is understanding.

[Samuel Dravis]

Rogue, you seem to suggest that "extremism" is all bad. However, what if one extreme is actually true? It doesn't seem to make much sense that the people advocating this idea compromise on it if they're interested in the truth, don't you agree?

 

Here is an example (from here)

 

A month ago, a tree in Bill's yard was damaged in a storm. His neighbor, Joe, asked him to have the tree cut down so it would not fall on Joes new shed. Bill refused to do this. Two days ago another storm blew the tree onto Joe's new shed. Joe demanded that Joe pay the cost of repairs, which was $250. Bill said that he wasn't going to pay a cent. Obviously, the best solution is to reach a compromise between the two extremes, so Bill should pay Joe $125 dollars.

 

Is this reasonable? No, of course not. I think that the same applies to the arguments to which you refer.

[SilentScope001]

Rogue, you seem to suggest that "extremism" is all bad. However, what if one extreme is actually true? It doesn't seem to make much sense that the people advocating this idea compromise on it if they're interested in the truth, don't you agree?

 

Here is an example (from here)

 

A month ago, a tree in Bill's yard was damaged in a storm. His neighbor, Joe, asked him to have the tree cut down so it would not fall on Joes new shed. Bill refused to do this. Two days ago another storm blew the tree onto Joe's new shed. Joe demanded that Joe pay the cost of repairs, which was $250. Bill said that he wasn't going to pay a cent. Obviously, the best solution is to reach a compromise between the two extremes, so Bill should pay Joe $125 dollars.

 

Is this reasonable? No, of course not. I think that the same applies to the arguments to which you refer.

 

That being said, well, it makes the most sense and is the great way to end the conflict. Joe won't have to sue Bill at all, and no legal battle, political battle, or military battle have to be fought. Bill still have to pay money, which makes him upset, but at least he doesn't have to pay as much as Joe demanded. Joe doesn't get all the money, but at least he get some compesnation. In the end, I think compromise is reasonable, as it makes both Bill and Joe equally happy (or unhappy) with the result.

 

It is one very sane method of how to end wars and conflicts and struggles. Reward/Punish both sides. I think this is a really good example.

 

If however, you don't want such compromise, then prepare for a war, but if you do want peace, then compromise should be supported.

 

(Yes, I will message you later on the ethical relativism topic. Forgive me for that.)

[Jae Onasi]

Nope, it was actually a serious question. The reason I asked because if the answer was no, then I really wanted to know your intentions behind posts #2 and #4.

My intentions were to find out what your intentions were with the initial post.

Pretty sure all of these examples came around after the creation of the three abrahamic religions..

What does the timing of the creation of these religions or the lives of these atheists have to do with the atheists and fundamentalists trying to find common ground?

They aren't benefiting mankind. They aren't furthering our general knowledge.

That's an incredible generalization, entirely fallacious. There are fundamentalists who have contributed to knowledge in the medical field alone, and thus benefited mankind.

 

How many times have contributors in this forum tried to simply start off with what's observable only to be met with opposition?

How many times have you posted anything religious-related as just something that's 'observable' rather than something you think should be ridiculed? Your anti-religious--and I daresay anti-Christian since you don't apply the same intense dislike to other religions--bias is blatantly obvious. Expecting people not to be opposed to that anti-theistic view is unrealistic.

 

It seems to me, Jae, that both sides have to be willing to have a dialog. And if one side has already decided that they will never change their mind, no matter what (because that kind of thinking is rewarded in that culture), then I don't know how any progress can ever be made.

If you're saying that the sole 'correct' view is yours and that they must be the ones to change, then no, no progress will ever be made. Both sides have to make some changes to find consensus.

 

It would seem that atheists understand theists remarkably well, considering that many of them were formerly theists themselves.

Theists perhaps, not often fundamentalists.

 

I think that was my question. I guess we can both agree that it's probably not possible.

Probably was your question initially. I read through the flurry of posts and didn't reference back--sorry.

It's not impossible, but it is unlikely.

Sounds pretty consistent with most shame-based punishment systems. Once part of a group, acceptance/rejection is a powerful motivator.

Sounds like any kind of organization that has developed a set of rules and regulations and wants its members to follow them. If someone breaks a rule in the SCA (a non-religious history group for those who don't know) and won't change their behavior, they get kicked out of the organization. If someone's a member of the Audubon Society, NOW, American Atheists, or Secular Coalition for America, and that member breaks the rules set down by those organizations and refuses to comply with the regulations, they get removed from the organization. Churches are no different, unless you're saying that the Secular Coalition is now an organization that believes in shame-based punishment, which I doubt.

This is the question I was trying to raise earlier with the analogy to AA. Seems to me that there has to be some sort of program that would cater to ex-cons, although I imagine that he wouldn't find much solace there either.

Prison Fellowship has a mentoring program for ex-cons, and there are likely other organizations that do. However, I think those are few and far between on both the religious and secular side. Trying to wade through the thousands of links on child abuse in the church when trying to search for church ministries to pedophiles (and assorted other terms) is a challenge....

I think the sex-abuse scandals in a number of churches and the proliferation of child porn on the net have highlighted a deep need we never realized before, or more likely, refused to acknowledge due to extreme discomfort. Most people don't want to talk about how they've been molested, and most molesters are keenly aware of what could happen to them if they got caught molesting a child, even if they somehow stopped doing that activity. The church is struggling to learn how to handle this just as much as anyone. Finding a way to show compassion to a pedophile in a way that puts children at zero risk (because anything above zero risk is unacceptable) is going to be extremely difficult. However, molesters have great spiritual needs, too. It will likely require the church to think outside the box on ways to meet their needs and allow pedophiles to contribute back to the community in safe ways. There's no question that accepting a pedophile unrestricted into a church poses a danger to the children of that congregation, since the recidivism rate for pedophilia is so very high. Starting a public church for pedophiles/sex-offenders might also post a danger to them (target-rich environment....). It's likely that a different approach like small group/home churches/formation of some kind of AA group as you suggested/one-on-one mentoring are going to be required.

[Achilles]

My intentions were to find out what your intentions were with the initial post.

By first insinuating that I wanted to censor them and then insinuating that I wanted to stage some action against them? Next time, just ask please. Thanks.

 

What does the timing of the creation of these religions or the lives of these atheists have to do with the atheists and fundamentalists trying to find common ground?

Your stance seems to be that theists are merely trying to defend themselves from athiests (or anti-theists as you call them). Since theism was around first, it would seem to be more accurate to state the atheists are defending themselves against theists.

 

That's an incredible generalization,

Indeed it is. Would you like to argue that it's not applicable?

 

entirely fallacious.

Sure. Which one?

 

There are fundamentalists who have contributed to knowledge in the medical field alone, and thus benefited mankind.

Via their religious beliefs or via their practice of medicine? I would tend to suspect that it's the latter and not the former. Would you like to present an argument for how these contributions are only possible due to religious belief? It seems that if I am guilty of fallacious thinking, I'm at least doing it in good company.

 

How many times have you posted anything religious-related as just something that's 'observable' rather than something you think should be ridiculed?

27?

FWIW, I think you're confusing "ridiculed" with "questioned".

 

Your anti-religious--and I daresay anti-Christian since you don't apply the same intense dislike to other religions--bias is blatantly obvious.

I think you might not be paying attention then. I think I'm pretty good about using terms such as "theism" and "abrahamic religions", etc. As far as I can tell, I only discuss christianity specifically when the topic is specifically christian or the counter-arguments presented are specifically christian. I would ask you to consider that you perception is biased because you yourself are christian and are therefore more sensitive to criticism against christianity.

 

Expecting people not to be opposed to that anti-theistic view is unrealistic.

That's one way to frame the argument. Another might be, "Expecting people not to be opposed to that rationalist view is unrealistic". I think my point all along is that people being opposed to rational thought is a cause for concern.

 

If you're saying that the sole 'correct' view is yours and that they must be the ones to change, then no, no progress will ever be made. Both sides have to make some changes to find consensus.

It seems that sentiment can be found on both sides don't you think? Do you think that muslims, jews, and christians will ever reach a point where they will be ok with gay marriage, abortion rights, etc, or do you think they will continue to force their conflicting flavors of religious "morality" on the masses forever?

 

I do not believe that compromise is possible, because "compromise" looks a lot like what we have right now and that obviously isn't working.

 

Theists perhaps, not often fundamentalists.

Fundies too. "Often" is not something I would want to try to qualify.

 

Probably was your question initially. I read through the flurry of posts and didn't reference back--sorry.

No apology necessary. I just thought it was funny.

 

Sounds like any kind of organization that has developed a set of rules and regulations and wants its members to follow them. If someone breaks a rule in the SCA (a non-religious history group for those who don't know) and won't change their behavior, they get kicked out of the organization. If someone's a member of the Audubon Society, NOW, American Atheists, or Secular Coalition for America, and that member breaks the rules set down by those organizations and refuses to comply with the regulations, they get removed from the organization. Churches are no different, unless you're saying that the Secular Coalition is now an organization that believes in shame-based punishment, which I doubt.

I think you read into that more than you should have.

[Totenkopf]

Since theism was around first, it would seem to be more accurate to state the atheists are defending themselves against theists.

Odd claim, given your position that atheism is the "natural state" (if we're natural born atheists.......atheism was "first"....and apparently found lacking. )

[Rogue Warrior]

The house example is not extreme, but common sense. Censoring, or worse, someone with different thoughts and beliefs to you, that is extremism.

[Samuel Dravis]

Rogue, I wasn't terribly concerned about what would be the most expedient option, merely the one that should be chosen given the responsibilities of the parties involved. The neighbor gave Bill plenty of warning, yet Bill still allowed (and it could be said he intended) the destruction of Joe's property. Simply because Bill doesn't want to pay for the full repair doesn't mean that he should not, as the fault was his. I wouldn't say it was extreme to make Bill pay for all of it.

 

As far as I know, if the two arguers are really going at it, I doubt they are being censored at the time. Otherwise, they'd have nothing to argue about.

[SilentScope001]

Rogue, I wasn't terribly concerned about what would be the most expedient option, merely the one that should be chosen given the responsibilities of the parties involved. The neighbor gave Bill plenty of warning, yet Bill still allowed (and it could be said he intended) the destruction of Joe's property. Simply because Bill doesn't want to pay for the full repair doesn't mean that he should not, as the fault was his. I wouldn't say it was extreme to make Bill pay for all of it.

 

Bill's Lawyer: "But it is NOT my client's fault. The nearby neighbor told my client to cut down the tree, and my client claims not to. Why should my client be forced to go and cut down a tree just because? In fact, my client was already preparing to file an "adverse possession", stating that he has a RIGHT for that tree to pass over his house.

 

However, it must be noted that if Joe hated that tree so much, he has the right to cut down that tree itself, to ensure that tree doesn't harm him. As we have not filed the adverse claim yet, and since that tree was enroaching on his property, he could contested his claim by CUTTING DOWN THE TREE. If he claimed that tree would have caused chaos, HE should have done something about it. He had all legal right to. The fact that he didn't do ANYTHING to stop it, even when he has the legal right to, showcased that the blame lay solely on him. He should pay it all."

 

Source: An entire year of "Real Estate" School.

 

Conclusions: Attmepts to use arguments by analogy doesn't exactly work. Even here, we got some problem in that we have two competiting views of what happened, Bill's view and Joe's view. The moderate position at least guarrantes that you are at least half-way right.

[Corinthian]

Wow. So now you're using real estate to argue against a metaphor. Here's a better metaphor.

 

John goes into a store and buys $100 worth of...whatever. Liquor. Sandwiches. Spam. He goes to the counter, and the cashier asks for the payment. But Joe doesn't wanna pay. He doesn't think he should have to pay, because he's a communist or something.

 

Now, obvious solution is that John should have to pay $50, right?

[SilentScope001]

Wow. So now you're using real estate to argue against a metaphor.

 

No, I am merely trying to explore the validity of an argument. We are moving far away from the purpose of the metaphor and begining to arguing over Joe/Bill's responsiblity. Don't bring in another metaphor, for Bill and Joe's personal struggle is far more important than "the Chrisitan right looking to rebound".

 

Fact is, just because it is a "metaphor" (really, just an "argument from ridicule"/strawman argument by extragratting the positions of your enemy and protraying it in a stupid fashion) doesn't mean it's not open to criticism. And in the end, why not? He claims that Bill has no valid point that argues that he should avoid paying. I counter by providing said valid point. Also, this post was direct to Samuel Dravis, so I would rather that Samuel Dravis comments.

[Samuel Dravis]

Conclusions: Attmepts to use arguments by analogy doesn't exactly work. Even here, we got some problem in that we have two competiting views of what happened, Bill's view and Joe's view. The moderate position at least guarrantes that you are at least half-way right.

Silent, You seem to have been thinking too much about my specific example. My point was that it is reasonable for Joe to make Bill pay for the damages. Similarly, it would be reasonable to argue for one side in religious arguments, particularly if the options allow no real middle-road view. If someone said a (pure) rock was made out of granite, and another said it was made out of limestone, would it be correct to say that it is a grimestone rock? Somehow, I don't think so. The rock is either limestone or granite. God either exists or it doesn't. What people say doesn't necessarily correspond to reality. I don't think it's extremist to pick one side to argue for.

[SilentScope001]

Silent, You seem to have been thinking too much about my specific example. My point was that it is reasonable for Joe to make Bill pay for the damages. Similarly, it would be reasonable to argue for one side in religious arguments, particularly if the options allow no real middle-road view. If someone said a (pure) rock was made out of granite, and another said it was made out of limestone, would it be correct to say that it is a grimestone rock? Somehow, I don't think so. The rock is either limestone or granite. God either exists or it doesn't. What people say doesn't necessarily correspond to reality. I don't think it's extremist to pick one side to argue for.

 

Neither do I believe that it is extermist to align yourself with one side or another, but there is also no evidence that the two answers are in fact correct (that God exist or that God does not exist). It is possible that both people are wrong, that the rock is neither limestone nor granite, but rather alien rock or something else enteirly. After all, how smart are those people? Are they really intelligent enough to decide what the rock is? Or it is possible that both people who claim God exist and God does not exist are wrong: God may exist but is so weak that he supposed to be laughed upon.

 

There is no logical reason why it has to either be "x" or "y". Presenting a false delimma is itself a logical fallacy. That doesn't mean that a combination of x and y must be right, it is probraly stupid to think that way. But it could. Or prehaps z might be correct.

 

Since I might was well throw links, here's a webcomic series that illustrates this point. The main guy, "TQ" is a person who comes up with ideas that showcase that the two prevailing choices aren't the only choices. He's not for "moderatism" at all, in fact his choices are pretty radical.

 

The phrase "tertium quid" (or "third option" in Latin) refers to something that exposes a dichotomy as false. A tertium quid is not somewhere between the two options (grey is not a tertium quid to the dichotomy of black vs. white), but rather something entirely new, something that escapes the one-dimensional line between two options.

 

Due to the fact that the site doesn't collect all the TQ in one easy place, please forgive me for spamming direct links, but eh.

 

Intro

Poverty

Global Warming

Abortion

In a car I

In a car II

Gay Marriage

Unemployment

Nader

[Samuel Dravis]

Neither do I believe that it is extermist to align yourself with one side or another, but there is also no evidence that the two answers are in fact correct (that God exist or that God does not exist). It is possible that both people are wrong, that the rock is neither limestone nor granite, but rather alien rock or something else enteirly. After all, how smart are those people? Are they really intelligent enough to decide what the rock is? Or it is possible that both people who claim God exist and God does not exist are wrong: God may exist but is so weak that he supposed to be laughed upon.

 

There is no logical reason why it has to either be "x" or "y". Presenting a false delimma is itself a logical fallacy. That doesn't mean that a combination of x and y must be right, it is probraly stupid to think that way. But it could. Or prehaps z might be correct.

The definitions of the words we are using don't change during an argument, however. If a rock fits the definition of limestone, then it is limestone. If it doesn't, then it's simply not limestone. The definition of god is more interesting because monotheists generally regard a definition of him as including such terms as "omnipotent, omniscient" etc. If the entity being talked about did not fit these definitions, then it would not be God, whatever its other attributes may be. An entity that is so weak to be laughed at simply is not God, because that would contradict the definition. Were any theists to compromise on the matter and say that God isn't omnipotent - just VERY powerful - then they just wouldn't be talking about the same God anymore (and they'd have to start the argument over again). So yes, I would say that God either exists as it is defined - typically as that of the Christian god - or it does not, and to pick one side of this argument is still not extremism, nor is it a false dilemma.

 

I liked those TQ links, SS. Thanks.

[Rogue Warrior]

When I say extremism I refer to condemning others for their views rather than making the paper for new Star Wars novels.

[SilentScope001]

The definitions of the words we are using don't change during an argument, however. If a rock fits the definition of limestone, then it is limestone. If it doesn't, then it's simply not limestone. The definition of god is more interesting because monotheists generally regard a definition of him as including such terms as "omnipotent, omniscient" etc. If the entity being talked about did not fit these definitions, then it would not be God, whatever its other attributes may be. An entity that is so weak to be laughed at simply is not God, because that would contradict the definition. Were any theists to compromise on the matter and say that God isn't omnipotent - just VERY powerful - then they just wouldn't be talking about the same God anymore (and they'd have to start the argument over again). So yes, I would say that God either exists as it is defined - typically as that of the Christian god - or it does not, and to pick one side of this argument is still not extremism, nor is it a false dilemma.

 

Gotcha. So the question at hand is: "Does the Chrisitan God exist?" I know agnoists could just say: "I don't really know, maybe?", but that is due to a belief that they don't have all the facts to make a final choice, and they aren't really pushing for others to believe.

 

Alright, I can accept that definition. You win the argument yet again.

 

When I say extremism I refer to condemning others for their views rather than making the paper for new Star Wars novels.

 

Sad to say, I think you need to condemn others for their views. Otherwise, how else can you force them to change their views...or at the very least, inform indepedents that the view is wrong and that you have to believe in the correct view? Views affect world views, views affect what people do, views can affect world government. If you believe that one view is wrong, then if they continue down that view, they could do incredibly stupid things. Condemnation, hatred is necessary to make sure the people see the "truth". "Extermism", or, more correctly, "intolerance", is popular presically because it works.

[John Galt]

I think that ideas, no matter how extreme, should never be condemned for their own sake. The primary hallmark of true intelligence, in my opinion, is the ability to entertain ideas contrary to your own without necessarily accepting them.

 

Acting on extremist, especially violent extremist, ideals and carrying out physical violence against other people or repressing ideas contrary to the worldview you espouse, IS morally wrong.

[SilentScope001]

Acting on extremist, especially violent extremist, ideals and carrying out physical violence against other people or repressing ideas contrary to the worldview you espouse, IS morally wrong.

 

So you are claiming that the US Army, fighting to promote democracy in Iraq, is morally wrong?

 

I think it's not morally wrong to kill for your cause, but only morally gray. What decides if the killing is okay is if the cause you are killing for is morally right or wrong. That, well, we can't really decide.

[John Galt]

YES. Even though I have a tremendous amount of respect for the US military(moreso than the rest of the government) and love democracy, I think that if we went to war with Iraq JUST to overthrow Saddam and set up a Democratic government, it was morally wrong. Now that we have found no weapons of mass destruction and Saddam is out of power (which were the first and fallback reasons for being there, respectively), I think we have absolutely no reason to be there and the American people are seeing that and have largely stopped supporting the war now that "victory," whatever the administration chooses to define it as now, in Iraq will no longer have any tangible benefits for the American people, other than soldiers no longer serving in combat and being able to come home, which would happen anyway if we were to pull most of our forces out of Iraq and withdraw the rest to the north of the country to protect Kurdestan.

[SilentScope001]

YES. Even though I have a tremendous amount of respect for the US military(moreso than the rest of the government) and love democracy, I think that if we went to war with Iraq JUST to overthrow Saddam and set up a Democratic government, it was morally wrong.

 

Huh. Understood. I guess I'm okay with violence, only because it's the only thing that has worked for us in the past, and animals use violence as well. We are still living due to the slaughters and the murders that previous generations of the human race has pulled off, after all. Since the hands of all nations in existance or in the past are, well, pretty bloody...I would be very uncomfortable calling every one of them immoral. Still, I see your point. To each their own.

 

Still, following your logic, I would be a bit iffy about even having the US military protect Kurdistan. It will make Turkey, another ally of US, and a democracy, pretty angry about us protecting the Kurds, and many members of the Kurds are sympathetic to the PKK, a terrorist organization that occasianlly pull off car bombs and terror attacks in both Iran and Turkey. And what about the Kurdistan's claim over Kirkuk and all its precious oil? The Kurds are willing to relocate the Arabs who live there, because they "were there first". And if the Arabs don't want to leave, then the Kurds will just move in anyway and force the Arabs to sell. If I follow your logic, if the Kurds are pulling off immoral stuff, should we even help them?

[RobQel-Droma]

I really don't want to get into this, but I want to just ask....

 

Why are you dead-set against "Conservative Christians" doing what is perfectly ok for them to do? You keep coming back very antagonistic/sarcastic when someone says something like this, but I'm just wondering why the heck do you take 10 minutes of your time to complain if you don't intend to do anything about it. I may not agree with what they are doing, but its not like everyone else does the same thing. Liberals, Conservatives, Republicans, Christian Conservatives, Anarchists (well ok, I don't know about them), everyone. Who cares?

 

They aren't benefiting mankind. They aren't furthering our general knowledge. It doesn't take long to realize who is being truly dogmatic and who is simply percieved as such.

 

Neither are you by posting this, last time I checked. Neither am I by responding. In fact, a whole host of things fall in that category. Doesn't mean a thing.

 

Faith: firm belief in something for which there is no proof.

 

Not trying to split hairs, but that is *Blind* Faith.

 

The biggest one on the Christian agenda is abortion (which I happen to agree with them about, but I not willing to force my beliefs onto someone that has a different opinion). Another example is their attempt to circumvent the Constitution by disguising creationism as “intelligent design.”

 

Ahem. Wasn't the Constitution written by men who were Christians? Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you, but....

 

YES. Even though I have a tremendous amount of respect for the US military(moreso than the rest of the government) and love democracy, I think that if we went to war with Iraq JUST to overthrow Saddam and set up a Democratic government, it was morally wrong. Now that we have found no weapons of mass destruction and Saddam is out of power (which were the first and fallback reasons for being there, respectively), I think we have absolutely no reason to be there and the American people are seeing that and have largely stopped supporting the war now that "victory," whatever the administration chooses to define it as now, in Iraq will no longer have any tangible benefits for the American people, other than soldiers no longer serving in combat and being able to come home, which would happen anyway if we were to pull most of our forces out of Iraq and withdraw the rest to the north of the country to protect Kurdestan.

 

And here you totally ignore the horrors and brutality that innocent people endured that occured under Saddam's reign. You also seem to forget that Saddam was in close contact and was even helping the people that killed thousands of our people on 9/11. Also, I think your viewpoint is selfish - you say that since it has no tangible benefit for us, we should leave. What about the people over in the Middle East that are being murdered by these crazy Iraqi terrorists?

[Achilles]

I really don't want to get into this, but I want to just ask....

 

Why are you dead-set against "Conservative Christians" doing what is perfectly ok for them to do?

Is this for me? I'm not "dead set" against their right to their opinions. I find it disturbing (there I go with that word again), that they feel justified in opposing the rights of others based on their beliefs. I thought I made that clear earlier in the thread, but my apologies if that's not the case.

 

You keep coming back very antagonistic/sarcastic when someone says something like this, but I'm just wondering why the heck do you take 10 minutes of your time to complain if you don't intend to do anything about it.

Perhaps I consider bringing the matter to the forefront of discussion (if only for a while in this limited forum) "doing something". It takes less time than writing a strong letter to my congressman and generates more awareness. But perhaps you'd rather I burn a church down or something.

 

I may not agree with what they are doing, but its not like everyone else does the same thing. Liberals, Conservatives, Republicans, Christian Conservatives, Anarchists (well ok, I don't know about them), everyone. Who cares?

Obviously, I do. If you don't that's your business and you're welcome to it. If you truly don't care though, why are you wasting your time in this thread? Seems a bit hypocritical, no?

 

Neither are you by posting this, last time I checked. Neither am I by responding.

Perhaps not. Then again, perhaps I am.

 

In fact, a whole host of things fall in that category. Doesn't mean a thing.

I don't find your apathy persuasive if that was your intent.

 

Not trying to split hairs, but that is *Blind* Faith.

Whatever adjective makes you happy. Please feel free to address your letter to Merriam-Webster.

 

Out of curiosity, what does "sighted" faith look like? Also, how is it related to religion? Looking forward to your response.

 

Ahem. Wasn't the Constitution written by men who were Christians? Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you, but....

Please show me where the Constitution makes any reference to god? Also, many of the Framers were deists.

Here is a link you might find beneficial.

 

And here you totally ignore the horrors and brutality that innocent people endured that occured under Saddam's reign. You also seem to forget that Saddam was in close contact and was even helping the people that killed thousands of our people on 9/11.

Says the man that accuses me of watching too much news.

 

 

Also, I think your viewpoint is selfish - you say that since it has no tangible benefit for us, we should leave. What about the people over in the Middle East that are being murdered by these crazy Iraqi terrorists?

You mean the Iraqi civil war?