World Forums
Football, Politics and More .......
U.S. politics
Moderators: Falc, Administration
by Eugene Berkovich on 12 Jan 2005, 12:02
So, instead of Michael Moore you choose dimwits like Bill o'Reilly? William Krystol? Karl Rove? Rush Limbaugh?
Dynamo is a religion
-
Eugene Berkovich - National Team
- Posts: 3562
- Joined: 07 Dec 2004, 14:54
- Location: Florida, USA
by Eugene Berkovich on 12 Jan 2005, 12:06
Felix
You see, I do find it dangerous to have a dominating religion. I find it quite nauseating when candidates for elected offices have to talk of their (true or otherwise) faith. Why should anyone care what their faith is. If the person is a satan worshipper, yet an effective administrator, strong on personal liberties, etc, I have no problem voting for that person. However, with all these religious symbols permeating every part of US reality, including the media where deeply religious people get to decide what is decent and what is not to be broadcast over the public airways, it has become almost a duty of a politician to extoll his/her religious beliefs.
You see, I do find it dangerous to have a dominating religion. I find it quite nauseating when candidates for elected offices have to talk of their (true or otherwise) faith. Why should anyone care what their faith is. If the person is a satan worshipper, yet an effective administrator, strong on personal liberties, etc, I have no problem voting for that person. However, with all these religious symbols permeating every part of US reality, including the media where deeply religious people get to decide what is decent and what is not to be broadcast over the public airways, it has become almost a duty of a politician to extoll his/her religious beliefs.
Dynamo is a religion
-
Eugene Berkovich - National Team
- Posts: 3562
- Joined: 07 Dec 2004, 14:54
- Location: Florida, USA
by Eugene Berkovich on 12 Jan 2005, 12:14
Excellent article on extrajudicial detaining of people in US.
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0110-33.htm
<snip>
Tuesday, January 10, 2005, is the third anniversary of the opening of America's first concentration camp since Japanese Americans were shamefully interred during WWII. Since the first Guantanamo camp was opened, the Bush administration has built additional concentration camps - the latest known as Camp Five - in Cuba, and is asking Congress for $29 million to build concentration Camp Six.
These concentration camps detain uncharged, untried, unconvicted individuals, who may be held for the rest of their lives because, as the UK's Guardian newspaper noted on January 5th of this year, the Bush administration "lacks proof" that they are either criminals or POWs.
This is one of the more visible parts of a much larger campaign the Bush administration has embarked on to reverse not only 229 years of the American rule of law regarding the rights of average citizens, but nearly eight centuries of human rights that go back to an epic moment in 1215 on a meadow by the River Thames.
The modern institution of civil and human rights, and particularly the writ of habeas corpus, began in June of 1215 when King John was forced by the feudal lords to sign the Magna Carta at Runnymede. Although that document mostly protected "freemen" - what were then known as feudal lords or barons, and today known as CEOs and millionaires - rather than the average person, it initiated a series of events that echo to this day.
Two of the most critical parts of the Magna Carta were articles 38 and 39, which established the foundation for what is now known as "habeas corpus" laws (literally, "produce the body" from the Latin - meaning, broadly, "let this person go free"), as well as the Fourth through Eighth Amendments of our Constitution and hundreds of other federal and state due process provisions.
Articles 38 and 39 of the Magna Carta said:
"38 In future no official shall place a man on trial upon his own unsupported statement, without producing credible witnesses to the truth of it.
"39 No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land."
<snip>
Ironically, the third George to govern the United States now says, 190 years later, that unlike England's George III, he does not need an act of Congress to detain people or exile them to camps on a distant island.
To facilitate this, our Third George, and his able counselor Judge Gonzales, have brought forth new "legal" terms - "enemy combatant" and "terrorist" - and invented a new set of law and rights (or non-laws and non-rights) for people they label as such.
It's a virtual repeat of Charles I's doctrine that a nation's ruler may do whatever he wants because he's the one in charge - "per speciale Mandatum Domini Regis."
Interestingly, the United States Constitution does provide for special exceptions to the involuntary detention of persons - it is legal to suspend habeas corpus. But the Constitution says it can only be done by Congress, not by the President.
Article I of the Constitution outlines the powers and limits of the Legislative Branch of government (Article 2 lays out the Executive Branch, and Article 3 defines the Judicial Branch). In Section 9, Clause 2 of Article I, the Constitution says of the Legislative branch's authority: "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."
Abraham Lincoln was well aware of this during the Civil War, and was the first president to successfully ask Congress (on March 3, 1863) to suspend habeas corpus so he could imprison those he considered a threat until the war was over. Congress invoked this power again during Reconstruction when President Grant requested The Ku Klux Klan Act in 1871 to put down a rebellion in South Carolina.
But President George W. Bush has not asked Congress for, and has not been granted, a suspension of habeas corpus for his so-called "war on terrorism," a "war" which he and his advisors have implied may last well beyond our lifetimes.
Nonetheless, our President, with consent of his Counsel Mr. Gonzales, has locked people up, "per speciale Mandatum Domini Regis." Some of their names are familiar to us - US citizens Jose Padilla and Yaser Hamdi, for example - but there are hundreds whose names we are not even allowed to know. Perhaps thousands. It's a state secret, after all. Per speciale Mandatum Domini Regis.
But how do we deal with people who want to kill us, to destroy our nation, to terrorize us?
Every president from George Washington to Bill Clinton has understood that there are two categories of people who can be incarcerated legally - Prisoners of War and criminals. The former have rights under both U.S. law and the Geneva Conventions, and the latter under the U.S. Constitution.
These two categories encompass every possible actual threat to a nation and its people, and have withstood the test of time from the days of King John to today.
For example, when Bill Clinton was confronted with a heinous act of terrorism within the United States - the bombing of the Federal Building in Oklahoma City - he didn't declare a "war" on whoever the terrorist may be, or suspend habeas corpus. Instead, he immediately defined the perpetrators as thugs and criminals, and brought the full weight of the American and international criminal justice system to bear, capturing Timothy McVeigh and using Interpol to search the world for possible McVeigh allies. Justice was served, the victims achieved closure, and our rights were left largely intact.
But, just as Hitler and his close advisors used the burning of the Reichstag building to declare a perpetual "war on terrorism," and then moved to suspend habeas corpus and other rights, so too have George W. Bush and Alberto Gonzales.
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0110-33.htm
<snip>
Tuesday, January 10, 2005, is the third anniversary of the opening of America's first concentration camp since Japanese Americans were shamefully interred during WWII. Since the first Guantanamo camp was opened, the Bush administration has built additional concentration camps - the latest known as Camp Five - in Cuba, and is asking Congress for $29 million to build concentration Camp Six.
These concentration camps detain uncharged, untried, unconvicted individuals, who may be held for the rest of their lives because, as the UK's Guardian newspaper noted on January 5th of this year, the Bush administration "lacks proof" that they are either criminals or POWs.
This is one of the more visible parts of a much larger campaign the Bush administration has embarked on to reverse not only 229 years of the American rule of law regarding the rights of average citizens, but nearly eight centuries of human rights that go back to an epic moment in 1215 on a meadow by the River Thames.
The modern institution of civil and human rights, and particularly the writ of habeas corpus, began in June of 1215 when King John was forced by the feudal lords to sign the Magna Carta at Runnymede. Although that document mostly protected "freemen" - what were then known as feudal lords or barons, and today known as CEOs and millionaires - rather than the average person, it initiated a series of events that echo to this day.
Two of the most critical parts of the Magna Carta were articles 38 and 39, which established the foundation for what is now known as "habeas corpus" laws (literally, "produce the body" from the Latin - meaning, broadly, "let this person go free"), as well as the Fourth through Eighth Amendments of our Constitution and hundreds of other federal and state due process provisions.
Articles 38 and 39 of the Magna Carta said:
"38 In future no official shall place a man on trial upon his own unsupported statement, without producing credible witnesses to the truth of it.
"39 No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land."
<snip>
Ironically, the third George to govern the United States now says, 190 years later, that unlike England's George III, he does not need an act of Congress to detain people or exile them to camps on a distant island.
To facilitate this, our Third George, and his able counselor Judge Gonzales, have brought forth new "legal" terms - "enemy combatant" and "terrorist" - and invented a new set of law and rights (or non-laws and non-rights) for people they label as such.
It's a virtual repeat of Charles I's doctrine that a nation's ruler may do whatever he wants because he's the one in charge - "per speciale Mandatum Domini Regis."
Interestingly, the United States Constitution does provide for special exceptions to the involuntary detention of persons - it is legal to suspend habeas corpus. But the Constitution says it can only be done by Congress, not by the President.
Article I of the Constitution outlines the powers and limits of the Legislative Branch of government (Article 2 lays out the Executive Branch, and Article 3 defines the Judicial Branch). In Section 9, Clause 2 of Article I, the Constitution says of the Legislative branch's authority: "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."
Abraham Lincoln was well aware of this during the Civil War, and was the first president to successfully ask Congress (on March 3, 1863) to suspend habeas corpus so he could imprison those he considered a threat until the war was over. Congress invoked this power again during Reconstruction when President Grant requested The Ku Klux Klan Act in 1871 to put down a rebellion in South Carolina.
But President George W. Bush has not asked Congress for, and has not been granted, a suspension of habeas corpus for his so-called "war on terrorism," a "war" which he and his advisors have implied may last well beyond our lifetimes.
Nonetheless, our President, with consent of his Counsel Mr. Gonzales, has locked people up, "per speciale Mandatum Domini Regis." Some of their names are familiar to us - US citizens Jose Padilla and Yaser Hamdi, for example - but there are hundreds whose names we are not even allowed to know. Perhaps thousands. It's a state secret, after all. Per speciale Mandatum Domini Regis.
But how do we deal with people who want to kill us, to destroy our nation, to terrorize us?
Every president from George Washington to Bill Clinton has understood that there are two categories of people who can be incarcerated legally - Prisoners of War and criminals. The former have rights under both U.S. law and the Geneva Conventions, and the latter under the U.S. Constitution.
These two categories encompass every possible actual threat to a nation and its people, and have withstood the test of time from the days of King John to today.
For example, when Bill Clinton was confronted with a heinous act of terrorism within the United States - the bombing of the Federal Building in Oklahoma City - he didn't declare a "war" on whoever the terrorist may be, or suspend habeas corpus. Instead, he immediately defined the perpetrators as thugs and criminals, and brought the full weight of the American and international criminal justice system to bear, capturing Timothy McVeigh and using Interpol to search the world for possible McVeigh allies. Justice was served, the victims achieved closure, and our rights were left largely intact.
But, just as Hitler and his close advisors used the burning of the Reichstag building to declare a perpetual "war on terrorism," and then moved to suspend habeas corpus and other rights, so too have George W. Bush and Alberto Gonzales.
Dynamo is a religion
-
Eugene Berkovich - National Team
- Posts: 3562
- Joined: 07 Dec 2004, 14:54
- Location: Florida, USA
by Eugene Berkovich on 12 Jan 2005, 12:22
Search for WMD in Iraq ended - Effort folded shortly before Christmas
by Dafna Linzer
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6814588
The hunt for biological, chemical and nuclear weapons in Iraq has come to an end nearly two years after President Bush ordered U.S. troops to disarm Saddam Hussein. The top CIA weapons hunter is home, and analysts are back at Langley.
In interviews, officials who served with the Iraq Survey Group (ISG) said the violence in Iraq, coupled with a lack of new information, led them to fold up the effort shortly before Christmas.
Four months after Charles A. Duelfer, who led the weapons hunt in 2004, submitted an interim report to Congress that contradicted nearly every prewar assertion about Iraq made by top Bush administration officials, a senior intelligence official said the findings will stand as the ISG's final conclusions and will be published this spring.
President Bush, Vice President Cheney and other top administration officials asserted before the U.S. invasion in March 2003 that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear weapons program, had chemical and biological weapons, and maintained links to al Qaeda affiliates to whom it might give such weapons to use against the United States.
Bush has expressed disappointment that no weapons or weapons programs were found, but the White House has been reluctant to call off the hunt, holding out the possibility that weapons were moved out of Iraq before the war or are well hidden somewhere inside the country. But the intelligence official said that possibility is very small.
Duelfer is back in Washington, finishing some addenda to his September report before it is reprinted.
'No particular news'
"There's no particular news in them, just some odds and ends," the intelligence official said. The Government Printing Office will publish it in book form, the official said.
The CIA declined to authorize any official involved in the weapons search to speak on the record for this story. The intelligence official offered an authoritative account of the status of the hunt on the condition of anonymity. The agency did confirm that Duelfer is wrapping up his work and will not be replaced in Baghdad.
The ISG, established to search for weapons but now enmeshed in counterinsurgency work, remains under Pentagon command and is being led by Marine Corps Brig. Gen. Joseph McMenamin.
Intelligence officials said there is little left for the ISG to investigate because Duelfer's last report answered as many outstanding questions as possible. The ISG has interviewed every person it could find connected to programs that ended more than 10 years ago, and every suspected site within Iraq has been fully searched, or stripped bare by insurgents and thieves, according to several people involved in the weapons hunt.
Satellite photos show that entire facilities have been dismantled, possibly by scrap dealers who sold off parts and equipment to buyers around the world.
"The September 30 report is really pretty much the picture," the intelligence official said.
"We've talked to so many people that someone would have said something. We received nothing that contradicts the picture we've put forward. It's possible there is a supply someplace, but what is much more likely is that [as time goes by] we will find a greater substantiation of the picture of that we've already put forward."
No accounting of expenditures
Congress allotted hundreds of millions of dollars for the weapons hunt, and there has been no public accounting of the funds. A spokesman for the Pentagon's Defense Intelligence Agency said the entire budget and the expenditures would remain classified.
Several hundred military translators and document experts will continue to sift through millions of pages of documents on paper and computer media sitting in a storeroom on a U.S. military base in Qatar.
But their work is focused on material that could support possible war crimes charges or shed light on the fate of Capt. Michael Scott Speicher, a Navy pilot who was shot down in an F/A-18 fighter over central Iraq on Jan. 17, 1991, the opening night of the Persian Gulf War. Although he was initially reported as killed in action, Speicher's status was changed to missing after evidence emerged that he had ejected alive from his aircraft.
The work on documents is not connected to weapons of mass destruction, officials said, and a small group of Iraqi scientists still in U.S. military custody are not being held in connection with weapons investigations, either.
Three people involved with the ISG said the weapons teams made several pleas to the Pentagon to release the scientists, who have been interviewed extensively. All three officials specifically mentioned Gen. Amir Saadi, who was a liaison between Hussein's government and U.N. inspectors; Rihab Taha, a biologist nicknamed "Dr. Germ" years ago by U.N. inspectors; her husband, Amir Rashid, the former oil minister; and Huda Amash, a biologist whose extensive dealings with U.N. inspectors earned her the nickname "Mrs. Anthrax."
None of the scientists has been involved in weapons programs since the 1991 Gulf War, the ISG determined more than a year ago, and all have cooperated with investigators despite nearly two years of jail time without charges. U.S. officials previously said they were being held because their denials of ongoing weapons programs were presumed to be lies; now, they say the scientists are being held in connection with the possible war crimes trials of Iraqis.
Iraqi 'brain drain'
It has been more than a year since any Iraqi scientist was arrested in connection with weapons of mass destruction. Many of those questioned and cleared have since left Iraq, one senior official said, acknowledging for the first time that "brain drain" that has long been feared "is well underway."
"A lot of it is because of the kidnapping industry" in Iraq, the official said. The State Department has been trying to implement programs designed to keep Iraqi scientists from seeking weapons-related work in neighboring countries, such as Syria and Iran.
Since March 2003, nearly a dozen people working for or with the weapons hunt have lost their lives to the insurgency. The most recent deaths came in November, when Duelfer's convoy was attacked during a routine mission around Baghdad and two of his bodyguards were killed.
by Dafna Linzer
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6814588
The hunt for biological, chemical and nuclear weapons in Iraq has come to an end nearly two years after President Bush ordered U.S. troops to disarm Saddam Hussein. The top CIA weapons hunter is home, and analysts are back at Langley.
In interviews, officials who served with the Iraq Survey Group (ISG) said the violence in Iraq, coupled with a lack of new information, led them to fold up the effort shortly before Christmas.
Four months after Charles A. Duelfer, who led the weapons hunt in 2004, submitted an interim report to Congress that contradicted nearly every prewar assertion about Iraq made by top Bush administration officials, a senior intelligence official said the findings will stand as the ISG's final conclusions and will be published this spring.
President Bush, Vice President Cheney and other top administration officials asserted before the U.S. invasion in March 2003 that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear weapons program, had chemical and biological weapons, and maintained links to al Qaeda affiliates to whom it might give such weapons to use against the United States.
Bush has expressed disappointment that no weapons or weapons programs were found, but the White House has been reluctant to call off the hunt, holding out the possibility that weapons were moved out of Iraq before the war or are well hidden somewhere inside the country. But the intelligence official said that possibility is very small.
Duelfer is back in Washington, finishing some addenda to his September report before it is reprinted.
'No particular news'
"There's no particular news in them, just some odds and ends," the intelligence official said. The Government Printing Office will publish it in book form, the official said.
The CIA declined to authorize any official involved in the weapons search to speak on the record for this story. The intelligence official offered an authoritative account of the status of the hunt on the condition of anonymity. The agency did confirm that Duelfer is wrapping up his work and will not be replaced in Baghdad.
The ISG, established to search for weapons but now enmeshed in counterinsurgency work, remains under Pentagon command and is being led by Marine Corps Brig. Gen. Joseph McMenamin.
Intelligence officials said there is little left for the ISG to investigate because Duelfer's last report answered as many outstanding questions as possible. The ISG has interviewed every person it could find connected to programs that ended more than 10 years ago, and every suspected site within Iraq has been fully searched, or stripped bare by insurgents and thieves, according to several people involved in the weapons hunt.
Satellite photos show that entire facilities have been dismantled, possibly by scrap dealers who sold off parts and equipment to buyers around the world.
"The September 30 report is really pretty much the picture," the intelligence official said.
"We've talked to so many people that someone would have said something. We received nothing that contradicts the picture we've put forward. It's possible there is a supply someplace, but what is much more likely is that [as time goes by] we will find a greater substantiation of the picture of that we've already put forward."
No accounting of expenditures
Congress allotted hundreds of millions of dollars for the weapons hunt, and there has been no public accounting of the funds. A spokesman for the Pentagon's Defense Intelligence Agency said the entire budget and the expenditures would remain classified.
Several hundred military translators and document experts will continue to sift through millions of pages of documents on paper and computer media sitting in a storeroom on a U.S. military base in Qatar.
But their work is focused on material that could support possible war crimes charges or shed light on the fate of Capt. Michael Scott Speicher, a Navy pilot who was shot down in an F/A-18 fighter over central Iraq on Jan. 17, 1991, the opening night of the Persian Gulf War. Although he was initially reported as killed in action, Speicher's status was changed to missing after evidence emerged that he had ejected alive from his aircraft.
The work on documents is not connected to weapons of mass destruction, officials said, and a small group of Iraqi scientists still in U.S. military custody are not being held in connection with weapons investigations, either.
Three people involved with the ISG said the weapons teams made several pleas to the Pentagon to release the scientists, who have been interviewed extensively. All three officials specifically mentioned Gen. Amir Saadi, who was a liaison between Hussein's government and U.N. inspectors; Rihab Taha, a biologist nicknamed "Dr. Germ" years ago by U.N. inspectors; her husband, Amir Rashid, the former oil minister; and Huda Amash, a biologist whose extensive dealings with U.N. inspectors earned her the nickname "Mrs. Anthrax."
None of the scientists has been involved in weapons programs since the 1991 Gulf War, the ISG determined more than a year ago, and all have cooperated with investigators despite nearly two years of jail time without charges. U.S. officials previously said they were being held because their denials of ongoing weapons programs were presumed to be lies; now, they say the scientists are being held in connection with the possible war crimes trials of Iraqis.
Iraqi 'brain drain'
It has been more than a year since any Iraqi scientist was arrested in connection with weapons of mass destruction. Many of those questioned and cleared have since left Iraq, one senior official said, acknowledging for the first time that "brain drain" that has long been feared "is well underway."
"A lot of it is because of the kidnapping industry" in Iraq, the official said. The State Department has been trying to implement programs designed to keep Iraqi scientists from seeking weapons-related work in neighboring countries, such as Syria and Iran.
Since March 2003, nearly a dozen people working for or with the weapons hunt have lost their lives to the insurgency. The most recent deaths came in November, when Duelfer's convoy was attacked during a routine mission around Baghdad and two of his bodyguards were killed.
Dynamo is a religion
-
Eugene Berkovich - National Team
- Posts: 3562
- Joined: 07 Dec 2004, 14:54
- Location: Florida, USA
by Felix K on 12 Jan 2005, 14:02
Wow! Six consecutive posts by the same poster. Should consolidate your position in the Top Ten posters list... 
As for your reply to my message, I'm busy right now, but I intend to reply tomorrow or on Friday.
As for your reply to my message, I'm busy right now, but I intend to reply tomorrow or on Friday.
-
Felix K - National Team
- Posts: 1096
- Joined: 08 Dec 2004, 04:49
- Location: Kaiserslautern, Germany
by surnami on 12 Jan 2005, 17:34
HERE YOU GO EUGENE,
Since you still can't get over it, why not boycot it
http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/nat-gen/2005/jan/11/011105503.html
Since you still can't get over it, why not boycot it
http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/nat-gen/2005/jan/11/011105503.html
-
surnami - Starting 11
- Posts: 676
- Joined: 10 Dec 2004, 18:49
by Felix K on 13 Jan 2005, 12:25
Eugene Berkovich wrote:Felix
You see, I do find it dangerous to have a dominating religion.
The religious right of America feels the same, only that the religion they are afraid of is not Christianity, but secular humanism.
I find it quite nauseating when candidates for elected offices have to talk of their (true or otherwise) faith.
I'm of the impression that this only applies when the candidate happens to be Christian...
I see nothing wrong with that. To express religious belief is a basic right, and it is not withdrawn from politicians AFAIK. Not even when speaking in public.
Everyone should have the right to decide to either reveal or disclose his personal beliefs, and this right is not restricted to private life.
Why should anyone care what their faith is.
Obviously people do care. Otherwise politicians wouldn't talk about their beliefs, plain and simple. Hey, and BTW, even you do care. Otherwise you'd find the talk not "nauseating" but simply boring and irrelevant.
If the person is a satan worshipper, yet an effective administrator, strong on personal liberties, etc, I have no problem voting for that person.
Not exactly sure what you mean by "strong on personal liberties", but I think you are just saying "if he is liberal enough for you". Right?
In any case, yes, for me, too, beliefs is not the main criterion to determine who I vote for. Although in general, I do think a Christian will be more likely to meet my criteria (although there do exist exceptions - I would, for example, never have voted for Bush), much like you with your mindset are very unlikely to ever vote for a Christian believer.
However, with all these religious symbols permeating every part of US reality,
It's a matter of fact that a majority of Americans are Christians. Are non-Christians suppressed by those symbols? And if so, are they suppressed more than a ban would suppress the Christians? In some cases I think yes. For example, a rule saying that a crucifix must be placed in every classroom would be violating religious equalty (There has been such a rule in Bavaria some ten years ago, and our Constitutional Court ruled just like I said it should). However, in the US, the fear of religious symbols is clearly a little over the top, with students being forbidden to pray. In one school, teachers were even forbidden to mention Christmas! What were they supposed to tell their students before the holidays? "I wish you a merry winter vacation!" or what!?
including the media where deeply religious people get to decide what is decent and what is not to be broadcast over the public airways,
Previously, you said you didn't want those people to talk about religion. If they followed your wish, you wouldn't even know how religious they are! Or, do I get you wrong, and in reality, religious and religious people are the problem? Well, in this case, what a pity for you as religious freedom is guaranteed by your constitution.
it has become almost a duty of a politician to extoll his/her religious beliefs.
And please note that this goes for both sides: Not only conservatives Christians, but also liberals and secular humanists like you! [/quote]
-
Felix K - National Team
- Posts: 1096
- Joined: 08 Dec 2004, 04:49
- Location: Kaiserslautern, Germany
by Zeus on 13 Jan 2005, 14:04
Felix
Secular humanism is not a religion.
Could actually be true in my case. But that's mostly because often it sounds fake. It often sounds like it's mentioned only to get votes. And since the US as well as Switzerland and Germany are christian countries. You're not going to gain many votes by claiming to be a devoted Muslim/Jew/Buddhist/Shintoist/Satan worshipper etc. So what puts people off is the perceived opportunism and "fakeness" of many of the Christian.
Well J. Kerry didn't claim to be a secular humanist, on the contrary. And claiming that he was wouldn't have helped him at all, so I think we really need to make a difference between Europe and the US. In the US I would say Eugene is right, while you are wrong. To be electable claiming to be an atheist sounds almost like political suicide. In Europe things are different. Being Christian is ok, as long as you don't push it, keep it silent and you won't have problems, as soon as you start advertising your faith, you'll be in trouble. (let's say Switzerland and Germany, probably very different in other countries.) So yes, a member of the SPS in Switzerland going around telling everybody about his faith would have very very small chances to be elected.
Secular humanism is not a religion.
I'm of the impression that this only applies when the candidate happens to be Christian...
Could actually be true in my case. But that's mostly because often it sounds fake. It often sounds like it's mentioned only to get votes. And since the US as well as Switzerland and Germany are christian countries. You're not going to gain many votes by claiming to be a devoted Muslim/Jew/Buddhist/Shintoist/Satan worshipper etc. So what puts people off is the perceived opportunism and "fakeness" of many of the Christian.
it has become almost a duty of a politician to extoll his/her religious beliefs.
And please note that this goes for both sides: Not only conservatives Christians, but also liberals and secular humanists like you
Well J. Kerry didn't claim to be a secular humanist, on the contrary. And claiming that he was wouldn't have helped him at all, so I think we really need to make a difference between Europe and the US. In the US I would say Eugene is right, while you are wrong. To be electable claiming to be an atheist sounds almost like political suicide. In Europe things are different. Being Christian is ok, as long as you don't push it, keep it silent and you won't have problems, as soon as you start advertising your faith, you'll be in trouble. (let's say Switzerland and Germany, probably very different in other countries.) So yes, a member of the SPS in Switzerland going around telling everybody about his faith would have very very small chances to be elected.
- Zeus
- Match Roster
- Posts: 344
- Joined: 07 Dec 2004, 10:01
- Location: Earth
by Eugene Berkovich on 13 Jan 2005, 15:17
Sur
Could you please point me to a post which suggests that I "have not gotten over it" (whatever the "it" is)?
Could you please point me to a post which suggests that I "have not gotten over it" (whatever the "it" is)?
Dynamo is a religion
-
Eugene Berkovich - National Team
- Posts: 3562
- Joined: 07 Dec 2004, 14:54
- Location: Florida, USA
by bineaz on 13 Jan 2005, 15:26
I enjoy the commentary you non-US citizens/NA residents have to say on the US.
Reflecting on some of this we are not a bad country, even today. Wouldn't want to live elsewhere except maybe Canada.
Thing is we're heading down a patch full throttle that can alter the essence of what is the greatest example of modern government--and yes the rest of the world is watching, along for the ride.
...It may be the white man's last stand...
"The world will little note nor long remember what we say here...."
-
bineaz - National Team
- Posts: 4319
- Joined: 10 Dec 2004, 13:05
- Location: My Kind of Town
by Eugene Berkovich on 13 Jan 2005, 15:31
Felix K wrote:I'm of the impression that this only applies when the candidate happens to be Christian...
That is a wrong impression, Felix. I was just as nauseated by Lieberman's prophesying his strong beliefs as a religious Jew.
I see nothing wrong with that. To express religious belief is a basic right, and it is not withdrawn from politicians AFAIK. Not even when speaking in public.
But do not expect to be voted into the office based on that.
Obviously people do care. Otherwise politicians wouldn't talk about their beliefs, plain and simple. Hey, and BTW, even you do care. Otherwise you'd find the talk not "nauseating" but simply boring and irrelevant.
There are many items that I find far more exciting than whatever religion the candidate adheres to and how committed that individual is. I hate seeing people advertising themselves as "good christians". Tells me that they really do not care who the non-christians would vote for or that they believe it is important to be a christian. (whatever the "good christian" is)
If the person is a satan worshipper, yet an effective administrator, strong on personal liberties, etc, I have no problem voting for that person.
Not exactly sure what you mean by "strong on personal liberties", but I think you are just saying "if he is liberal enough for you". Right?
Wrong. I am saying that if the person shows that the candidate is good for office, it should not matter what religion he/she belongs to.
In any case, yes, for me, too, beliefs is not the main criterion to determine who I vote for. Although in general, I do think a Christian will be more likely to meet my criteria (although there do exist exceptions - I would, for example, never have voted for Bush), much like you with your mindset are very unlikely to ever vote for a Christian believer.
Whoa! Slow down there, Felix. My whole voting life I have voted for Christians. I believe in voting for the "best man for the job". I try to disconnect myself from the (strength of) that person's beliefs
It's a matter of fact that a majority of Americans are Christians. Are non-Christians suppressed by those symbols?
Yes. One of the largest US state holidays is Christmas. A Federal Holiday!!!! Not Hanukah, not Qwanzaa, not the breaking of Ramadan fast. Thanksgiving is also full of religious symbolic (Christian symbolic, if you would like to know). I believe that Christmas should not even be a Federal Holiday. Why are we giving a federal holiday to people, fully knowing that to some it does not mean a thing (like me)?
And, no, do not even try to suggest I personally go to work on that day as I would face locked doors in my government office where my desk is.
And if so, are they suppressed more than a ban would suppress the Christians? In some cases I think yes. For example, a rule saying that a crucifix must be placed in every classroom would be violating religious equalty (There has been such a rule in Bavaria some ten years ago, and our Constitutional Court ruled just like I said it should). However, in the US, the fear of religious symbols is clearly a little over the top, with students being forbidden to pray. In one school, teachers were even forbidden to mention Christmas! What were they supposed to tell their students before the holidays? "I wish you a merry winter vacation!" or what!?
I believe that any sort of a mass prayer in any setting outside the temple is wrong. I believe I should not be subjected to having to choose to be in the "in" crowd or "out" crowd as concerns my religious beliefs (or, in my case, - lack thereof)
And, if any place, highschools are a hotbed of such prejudices.
including the media where deeply religious people get to decide what is decent and what is not to be broadcast over the public airways,
Previously, you said you didn't want those people to talk about religion. If they followed your wish, you wouldn't even know how religious they are! Or, do I get you wrong, and in reality, religious and religious people are the problem? Well, in this case, what a pity for you as religious freedom is guaranteed by your constitution.
No, Felix. I said nothing about talking about religions. I am talking things like limiting a broadcaster in what words he/she can and can not broadcast. You see, there is this "god" crowd that chooses what words one can utter and what one can not. It is apparently, ungodly to show Janet Jackson's breast (even though that suggy old breast should not be anywhere near my TV on the basis of its ugliness). Or that one can be fined $100,000 for saying "shit" during a broadcast!!!
{quote]And please note that this goes for both sides: Not only conservatives Christians, but also liberals and secular humanists like you! [/quote]
Wrong Felix. I am not trying to get elected based on the fact that I am an atheist. And I am not extolling my virtues upon everybody by claiming to be a "good atheist". I want to be liked (or hated) for what I have to say and what my political platform is, not whether or how strongly I believe in God.
Last edited by Eugene Berkovich on 13 Jan 2005, 15:37, edited 2 times in total.
Dynamo is a religion
-
Eugene Berkovich - National Team
- Posts: 3562
- Joined: 07 Dec 2004, 14:54
- Location: Florida, USA
by Eugene Berkovich on 13 Jan 2005, 15:33
bineaz wrote::D
I enjoy the commentary you non-US citizens/NA residents have to say on the US.
Reflecting on some of this we are not a bad country, even today. Wouldn't want to live elsewhere except maybe Canada.
Thing is we're heading down a patch full throttle that can alter the essence of what is the greatest example of modern government--and yes the rest of the world is watching, along for the ride.
...It may be the white man's last stand...
Felix, I believe, is the only non-US citizen in this conversation...
Dynamo is a religion
-
Eugene Berkovich - National Team
- Posts: 3562
- Joined: 07 Dec 2004, 14:54
- Location: Florida, USA
For Sur's reading pleasure
by Eugene Berkovich on 13 Jan 2005, 16:25
What Bush Said About Iraq's So-Called WMD
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/p ... 6026.shtml
Statements by the Bush administration before and after the invasion of Iraq in March 2003 on Saddam Hussein's weapons programs:
BEFORE THE WAR
"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us." - Vice President Dick Cheney, Aug. 26, 2002.
"The problem here is that there will always be some uncertainty about how quickly he can acquire nuclear weapons. But we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud." National security adviser Condoleezza Rice, Sept. 8, 2002.
"After 11 years during which we have tried containment, sanctions, inspections, even selected military action, the end result is that Saddam Hussein still has chemical and biological weapons and is increasing his capabilities to make more." - President Bush, Oct. 7, 2002.
"Saddam Hussein is a man who told the world he wouldn't have weapons of mass destruction, but he's got them." - Bush, Nov. 3, 2002.
"The gravity of this moment is matched by the gravity of the threat that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction pose to the world." - Secretary of State Colin Powell, Feb. 5, 2003.
---
AFTER THE WAR
"Although we have not found stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, we were right to go into Iraq. ... We removed a declared enemy of America who had the capability of producing weapons of mass murder." - Bush, July 12, 2004.
"We got it wrong. We have seen nothing to suggest that he had actual stockpiles." - Powell, Oct. 1, 2004.
"We were all unhappy that the intelligence was not as good as we had thought that it was. But the essential judgment was absolutely right. Saddam Hussein was a threat." - Rice, Oct. 3, 2004.
"It turns out that we have not found weapons of mass destruction. Why the intelligence proved wrong I'm not in a position to say, but the world is a lot better off with Saddam Hussein in jail." - Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, Oct. 4, 2004.
"He retained the knowledge, the materials, the means and the intent to produce weapons of mass destruction and he could have passed that knowledge on to our terrorist enemies." - Bush, Oct. 7, 2004.
"Based on what we know today, the president would have taken the same action because this is about protecting the American people." - White House press secretary Scott McClellan, on Wednesday.
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/p ... 6026.shtml
Statements by the Bush administration before and after the invasion of Iraq in March 2003 on Saddam Hussein's weapons programs:
BEFORE THE WAR
"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us." - Vice President Dick Cheney, Aug. 26, 2002.
"The problem here is that there will always be some uncertainty about how quickly he can acquire nuclear weapons. But we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud." National security adviser Condoleezza Rice, Sept. 8, 2002.
"After 11 years during which we have tried containment, sanctions, inspections, even selected military action, the end result is that Saddam Hussein still has chemical and biological weapons and is increasing his capabilities to make more." - President Bush, Oct. 7, 2002.
"Saddam Hussein is a man who told the world he wouldn't have weapons of mass destruction, but he's got them." - Bush, Nov. 3, 2002.
"The gravity of this moment is matched by the gravity of the threat that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction pose to the world." - Secretary of State Colin Powell, Feb. 5, 2003.
---
AFTER THE WAR
"Although we have not found stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, we were right to go into Iraq. ... We removed a declared enemy of America who had the capability of producing weapons of mass murder." - Bush, July 12, 2004.
"We got it wrong. We have seen nothing to suggest that he had actual stockpiles." - Powell, Oct. 1, 2004.
"We were all unhappy that the intelligence was not as good as we had thought that it was. But the essential judgment was absolutely right. Saddam Hussein was a threat." - Rice, Oct. 3, 2004.
"It turns out that we have not found weapons of mass destruction. Why the intelligence proved wrong I'm not in a position to say, but the world is a lot better off with Saddam Hussein in jail." - Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, Oct. 4, 2004.
"He retained the knowledge, the materials, the means and the intent to produce weapons of mass destruction and he could have passed that knowledge on to our terrorist enemies." - Bush, Oct. 7, 2004.
"Based on what we know today, the president would have taken the same action because this is about protecting the American people." - White House press secretary Scott McClellan, on Wednesday.
Dynamo is a religion
-
Eugene Berkovich - National Team
- Posts: 3562
- Joined: 07 Dec 2004, 14:54
- Location: Florida, USA
by bineaz on 13 Jan 2005, 16:50
Eugene Berkovich wrote:Felix, I believe, is the only non-US citizen in this conversation...
Gigi was in it too. Eugene. I don't take you for granted...but Christmas not a federal holiday (when would the Jews plan their winter breaks then). j/k
It's really not a matter for debate.
"The world will little note nor long remember what we say here...."
-
bineaz - National Team
- Posts: 4319
- Joined: 10 Dec 2004, 13:05
- Location: My Kind of Town
Federal sentencing guidelines
by Leonid on 13 Jan 2005, 19:51
I will put my breath into you and you shall live again.
EZEKIEL 37:14
EZEKIEL 37:14
-
Leonid - National Team
- Posts: 4493
- Joined: 06 Dec 2004, 21:54
by Felix K on 14 Jan 2005, 09:05
Zeus wrote:Felix
Secular humanism is not a religion.
At least in the USA, it oficially is, according to a Supreme Court decision.
In any case, what disqualifies Secular Humanism from being a religion, in your opinion?
I'm of the impression that this only applies when the candidate happens to be Christian...
Could actually be true in my case. But that's mostly because often it sounds fake. It often sounds like it's mentioned only to get votes. And since the US as well as Switzerland and Germany are christian countries. You're not going to gain many votes by claiming to be a devoted Muslim/Jew/Buddhist/Shintoist/Satan worshipper etc. So what puts people off is the perceived opportunism and "fakeness" of many of the Christian.
Well, at least in Germany, I rarely ever hear politicians talk about their faith. Few people in Germany care about whether someone is a devout Christian, so politicians don't talk about the subject, except perhaps when they give an interview to some Christian monthly. In this respect, Europe cannot be compared to the US at all. Here in Europe, being honest about his faith is more likely to be perceived in a negative than in a positive way. At least if you happen to be Christian, much less if you are an atheist like, for example, our minister of the environment, Jürgen Trittin. For an example, just take the case of Mr Buttiglione.
To be electable claiming to be an atheist sounds almost like political suicide. In Europe things are different. Being Christian is ok, as long as you don't push it, keep it silent and you won't have problems, as soon as you start advertising your faith, you'll be in trouble. (let's say Switzerland and Germany, probably very different in other countries.)
No, it's not very different in the rest of Europe. As already said, take the case of Mr Buttiglione. He didn't even advertise his faith. Just one honest answer in an interview and he was out.
-
Felix K - National Team
- Posts: 1096
- Joined: 08 Dec 2004, 04:49
- Location: Kaiserslautern, Germany
by Zeus on 14 Jan 2005, 11:20
Felix
Secular humanism: Lack of a god would do it for me. Ok, Buddhism poses a problem in that case... I'll head over to Wikipedia for more when I have time. But for the moment I'd say. No god, no supernatural being or state so no religion.
As for Europe, we seem mostly to agree. Talking about religion doesn't help.
Ok not so sure if we can generalize about all Europe. Poland? Ireland? I don't know just asking.
Secular humanism: Lack of a god would do it for me. Ok, Buddhism poses a problem in that case... I'll head over to Wikipedia for more when I have time. But for the moment I'd say. No god, no supernatural being or state so no religion.
As for Europe, we seem mostly to agree. Talking about religion doesn't help.
Ok not so sure if we can generalize about all Europe. Poland? Ireland? I don't know just asking.
- Zeus
- Match Roster
- Posts: 344
- Joined: 07 Dec 2004, 10:01
- Location: Earth
by Felix K on 14 Jan 2005, 11:41
Zeus
Interestingly, the fact that there do exist faith systems without gods, including Buddhism, was one of the reasons why the US SC decided that Secular Humanism is a religion.
It's not only a lack of belief, but actually a belief in the absence of a supernatural realm. So, secular humanism DOES make a statement on faith about the supernatural. The belief in an absence of such is just as unprovable and therefore unscientific as the belief that it does exist.
Ah, and BTW, one can even argue on whether or not they have a god. If by god (not written in caps) we mean something we worship, then secular humanists do have their gods: The universe, nature, mankind, science, their own minds etc. They wouldn't call them gods, but that doesn't change a thing.
don't know either. Perhaps things are different in Poland. I remember that the first draft for an EU constitution was slammed by Polish PM Alexander Kwazniewski for the "godless tone" - which is remarkable because Kwazniwski is an atheist!
Secular humanism: Lack of a god would do it for me. Ok, Buddhism poses a problem in that case...
Interestingly, the fact that there do exist faith systems without gods, including Buddhism, was one of the reasons why the US SC decided that Secular Humanism is a religion.
No god, no supernatural being or state so no religion.
It's not only a lack of belief, but actually a belief in the absence of a supernatural realm. So, secular humanism DOES make a statement on faith about the supernatural. The belief in an absence of such is just as unprovable and therefore unscientific as the belief that it does exist.
Ah, and BTW, one can even argue on whether or not they have a god. If by god (not written in caps) we mean something we worship, then secular humanists do have their gods: The universe, nature, mankind, science, their own minds etc. They wouldn't call them gods, but that doesn't change a thing.
Ok not so sure if we can generalize about all Europe. Poland? Ireland? I don't know just asking.
don't know either. Perhaps things are different in Poland. I remember that the first draft for an EU constitution was slammed by Polish PM Alexander Kwazniewski for the "godless tone" - which is remarkable because Kwazniwski is an atheist!
-
Felix K - National Team
- Posts: 1096
- Joined: 08 Dec 2004, 04:49
- Location: Kaiserslautern, Germany
by Felix K on 14 Jan 2005, 11:52
Leonid,
from merriam webster:
Humanism as of definitions (1) and (2) is not in conflict with Christianity or other religions at all. Nor is the kind of humanism according to those definition responsible for all those efforts attempting to throw Christianity out of public life. In contrast, an "attitude that usually rejects supernaturalism", secular humanism is a religion of itself.
Another Merriam Webster entry that rounds it up, although secular humanists typically deny that their worldview is indeed a religion:
from merriam webster:
Main Entry: hu·man·ism
Pronunciation: 'hyü-m&-"ni-z&m, 'yü-
Function: noun
1 a : devotion to the humanities : literary culture b : the revival of classical letters, individualistic and critical spirit, and emphasis on secular concerns characteristic of the Renaissance
2 : HUMANITARIANISM
3 : a doctrine, attitude, or way of life centered on human interests or values; especially : a philosophy that usually rejects supernaturalism and stresses an individual's dignity and worth and capacity for self-realization through reason
- hu·man·ist /-nist/ noun or adjective
- hu·man·is·tic /"hyü-m&-'nis-tik, "yü-/ adjective
- hu·man·is·ti·cal·ly /-ti-k(&-)lE/ adverb
Humanism as of definitions (1) and (2) is not in conflict with Christianity or other religions at all. Nor is the kind of humanism according to those definition responsible for all those efforts attempting to throw Christianity out of public life. In contrast, an "attitude that usually rejects supernaturalism", secular humanism is a religion of itself.
Another Merriam Webster entry that rounds it up, although secular humanists typically deny that their worldview is indeed a religion:
Main Entry: secular humanism
Function: noun
: HUMANISM 3; especially : humanistic philosophy viewed as a nontheistic religion antagonistic to traditional religion
- secular humanist noun or adjective
-
Felix K - National Team
- Posts: 1096
- Joined: 08 Dec 2004, 04:49
- Location: Kaiserslautern, Germany
by Felix K on 14 Jan 2005, 12:52
Eugene Berkovich wrote:Felix K wrote:I'm of the impression that this only applies when the candidate happens to be Christian...
That is a wrong impression, Felix. I was just as nauseated by Lieberman's prophesying his strong beliefs as a religious Jew.
I see. When you mean someone specific, you must say it. Things of that kind aren't usually very thoroughly discussed in Europe you know. If at all, people in Europe know that George W Bush is an evangelical Christian. But Europeans neither know or care very muchl abot the spiritual lives of any other US politician.
I see nothing wrong with that. To express religious belief is a basic right, and it is not withdrawn from politicians AFAIK. Not even when speaking in public.
But do not expect to be voted into the office based on that.
Like it or not (I don't), but for GWB it worked. A few million Evangelicals voted for Bush basically because they are convinced that he is a true Christian. And it was those people who mobilized the decisive votes.
Obviously people do care. Otherwise politicians wouldn't talk about their beliefs, plain and simple. Hey, and BTW, even you do care. Otherwise you'd find the talk not "nauseating" but simply boring and irrelevant.
There are many items that I find far more exciting than whatever religion the candidate adheres to and how committed that individual is. I hate seeing people advertising themselves as "good christians".
Anyone who labels himself a "good Christian" has failed to understand what Christianity is about.
Tells me that they really do not care who the non-christians would vote for or that they believe it is important to be a christian.
Come on. What it should tell you is that those candidates attempt to gain more votes from Christians. And I don't see how this is illegitimate, although this strategy bears the risk of being perceived as a hypocrite. For example, for a man who has been divorced three times, it would be a very foolish idea to play this card. Simply because those who would appreciate Christians just wouldn't buy it.
(whatever the "good christian" is)
In my book, a real Christian is one who believes that he is a sinner, that he therefore cannot be just before God, but that Jesus' sacrifice on the cross is a way out of the path of damnation, and who has decided to accept the gift of salvation.
Strictly speaking, the term "good Christian" is plain nonsense, because a Christian should know that he is in fact <i>never</i> good. Less strictly speaking, "good Christian" could mean next to everything, from someone who always goes to church to someone who always gives donations to someone who is just nice to people. I'd like people get rid of this less strict understanding as this is often a source of misunderstanding.
If the person is a satan worshipper, yet an effective administrator, strong on personal liberties, etc, I have no problem voting for that person.
Not exactly sure what you mean by "strong on personal liberties", but I think you are just saying "if he is liberal enough for you". Right?
Wrong. I am saying that if the person shows that the candidate is good for office, it should not matter what religion he/she belongs to.
Someone I would consider a real Christian would <i>never</i> meet your criteria for being "good for office". Trust me.
My whole voting life I have voted for Christians. I believe in voting for the "best man for the job". I try to disconnect myself from the (strength of) that person's beliefs
I suppose that in the majority of cases you voted for people who <i>professed to be Christians</i>, who went to church every Sunday or something like that. So, this is true only if you define as a Christian everyone who is a member of a church.
BTW, religious beliefs also determine political beliefs. For example, you'll hardly ever find a pro-choice Christian. One who professes to be Christian, maybe. But not one who really believes in Jesus. Your attempt to disconnect from that person's religious beliefs is therefore just an illusion.
It's a matter of fact that a majority of Americans are Christians. Are non-Christians suppressed by those symbols?
Yes. One of the largest US state holidays is Christmas. A Federal Holiday!!!! Not Hanukah, not Qwanzaa, not the breaking of Ramadan fast. Thanksgiving is also full of religious symbolic (Christian symbolic, if you would like to know). I believe that Christmas should not even be a Federal Holiday. Why are we giving a federal holiday to people, fully knowing that to some it does not mean a thing (like me)?
You feel oppressed by the fact that Christmas is a public holiday, but not religious observances of other religions? Here in Germany, Muslims or Jews would easily get vacation if they need it for their religion. That an observance of the majority is a public holiday, but the one of a minority is not, only makes sense IMO. Economically and otherwise.
BTW, but your statement reminds me of a scene from the "Grail quest" where one man says: Oh! Come and see the violence inherent in the system! Help! Help! I'm being repressed!
And, no, do not even try to suggest I personally go to work on that day as I would face locked doors in my government office where my desk is.
Bummer.
But here is a question I would like to ask: Did you have a Christmas tree in your house? Did you echange presents with your loved ones? From your above statements, I would gather that you didn't.I believe that any sort of a mass prayer in any setting outside the temple is wrong.
I don't think mass prayers should be a problem at all as long as it is not the state who organizes them. Why shouldn't churches be allowed to organize a "Jesus day" and walk through the city praying?
No, Felix. I said nothing about talking about religions. I am talking things like limiting a broadcaster in what words he/she can and can not broadcast. You see, there is this "god" crowd that chooses what words one can utter and what one can not. It is apparently, ungodly to show Janet Jackson's breast (even though that suggy old breast should not be anywhere near my TV on the basis of its ugliness). Or that one can be fined $100,000 for saying "shit" during a broadcast!!!
Well, I find that over the top as well. But do you find it fair to threaten a teacher to fire him for even mentioning Christmas?
I am not trying to get elected based on the fact that I am an atheist. And I am not extolling my virtues upon everybody by claiming to be a "good atheist". I want to be liked (or hated) for what I have to say and what my political platform is, not whether or how strongly I believe in God.
I understand your point, and I understand that an atheist can't possibly see it any differently. But from a Christian viewpoint it is different. There is a God, and God is almighty and good, and He guides all those who really trust in Him. That is what we believe. Now, a politician who is guided by God is more likely to do God's will than one who isn't (doesn't mean that every Christian is a better politician than every non-Christian). Since you don't believe that there even exists a god who guides anything, I know you, and most other people here, will find this to be plain nonsense, but for a Christian, it DOES make a difference whether or not a politician is a real Christian. You may insist that this is not the case for you, but the same people who I find to be real Christians will, in 99% of cases, hold positions that you will dislike, so the outcome is exactly the same in your case - whether you dislike the Christian politician for being a Christian or for his stance on Christian values doesn't really make a difference IMHO.
-
Felix K - National Team
- Posts: 1096
- Joined: 08 Dec 2004, 04:49
- Location: Kaiserslautern, Germany
by Leonid on 14 Jan 2005, 14:31
That's how it works...You pick a definition from the Webster, then put two words together. Bingo! You've got "secular humanism".
Which is nonsense, but a telling one, cause it tells you a lot about leftist idiots whose anti-religious zeal is worse than Loyola and Luther combined:)
Which is nonsense, but a telling one, cause it tells you a lot about leftist idiots whose anti-religious zeal is worse than Loyola and Luther combined:)
I will put my breath into you and you shall live again.
EZEKIEL 37:14
EZEKIEL 37:14
-
Leonid - National Team
- Posts: 4493
- Joined: 06 Dec 2004, 21:54
by Zeus on 17 Jan 2005, 03:17
Felix
How about no spirituality? No spiritual component = no religion.
Since you seem to be pretty informed about the supreme courts decision, can you tell me how they got that case?
Disagree. First of all: I don't believe in god. is not exactly the same as I believe in the non-existence of god. I would interpret "belief in the non-existence" as actively believing, somebody with that belief would build his worldview around this faith, or at least it would be a major part of his worldview, like I would guess your "belief in god" plays a major part in your worldview. Not believing in god IMO is just that. Not believing. There are hundreds of issues that play a more important part in my life than god, for example: In the train: Who is going to get up next, where can I sit? Or why did I get married so early, the world is still full of women worthy of consideration! (fortunately I'm married, so I don't get to figure out that 99,9% of those have absolutely no interest in me), what should I eat today?, what did my wife mean with "dishes, dirty, clean" this morning? etc. etc. Equating the 2 IMO is just an attempt to give "god" more importance than this idea deserves. As I already said on the old board once: If somebody has an idea with so little rational basis and would defend it as much as believers do their gods, he would be sent to the next mental institution. Usually we give ideas who lack any basis in reality very little credence, with one exception, religion. (It's not really meant in an insulting way, even if it probably comes over that way, it's more of an observation) By equating the belief and the rejection of the belief in the case of religion you are giving it too much importance, make the existence of god sound like a rational or logical thought. It isn't
2. Your proposition is the first one. Without you saying: There is a god, I can't deny his existence. So unless you have your belief I can't have mine. That's why the non-belief of a belief isn't a belief. (Hope you at least understand what I'm trying to say, even if you probably won't agree) I wouldn't call a belief that's only possible if there is another one a belief (second attempt to make myself clear seems even more confusing...)
But ok, even the "not believing in god" in the end is a belief you are right, if you are consequent and use it for all issues, not just religion. I don't. I use belief or faith as I maybe unsuccessfully explained above. You? For example Red's pink unicorn. Ah no, never really liked the pink unicorn. Ok, the monster under childrens beds, the one that wants to take you as soon as you get out of bed. (actually don't remember what the monster wanted to do with me then...) As a child I and many others (at least in Switzerland, don't know about other countries, maybe it's a swiss monster?) were occasionnally scared of that monster, having to wait in bed until the mother came to rescue me, or if that took to long, leave the bed with a big jump and then run to safety. I believed in that monster at the time. Nowadays I don't (it's been at least 2 weeks since I had a visit from the monster ) So would you describe that as a belief in the non-existence of the monster? Or my wife, she never had this monster, so she never believed in it, never even knew that it could exist until I told her. Had she been believing in the non-existence of the monster all that time incl. now, or did she simply not believe in the monster? If you want to call atheism a belief, you'll have to call this a belief too. And basically almost everything. I take the train to work on faith. I don't have any proof that the rails haven't been changed at night and that I'll actually get to my destination. It's a belief that the train will bring me there. As I said, if you are consequent in labeling something a belief, I'll agree, even if I'll continue using my own, different interpretation of "faith" and "belief"
Got to go, hope that my belief about the train proves right once again!
Secular humanism: Lack of a god would do it for me. Ok, Buddhism poses a problem in that case...
Interestingly, the fact that there do exist faith systems without gods, including Buddhism, was one of the reasons why the US SC decided that Secular Humanism is a religion.
How about no spirituality? No spiritual component = no religion.
Since you seem to be pretty informed about the supreme courts decision, can you tell me how they got that case?
It's not only a lack of belief, but actually a belief in the absence of a supernatural realm. So, secular humanism DOES make a statement on faith about the supernatural. The belief in an absence of such is just as unprovable and therefore unscientific as the belief that it does exist
Disagree. First of all: I don't believe in god. is not exactly the same as I believe in the non-existence of god. I would interpret "belief in the non-existence" as actively believing, somebody with that belief would build his worldview around this faith, or at least it would be a major part of his worldview, like I would guess your "belief in god" plays a major part in your worldview. Not believing in god IMO is just that. Not believing. There are hundreds of issues that play a more important part in my life than god, for example: In the train: Who is going to get up next, where can I sit? Or why did I get married so early, the world is still full of women worthy of consideration! (fortunately I'm married, so I don't get to figure out that 99,9% of those have absolutely no interest in me), what should I eat today?, what did my wife mean with "dishes, dirty, clean" this morning? etc. etc. Equating the 2 IMO is just an attempt to give "god" more importance than this idea deserves. As I already said on the old board once: If somebody has an idea with so little rational basis and would defend it as much as believers do their gods, he would be sent to the next mental institution. Usually we give ideas who lack any basis in reality very little credence, with one exception, religion. (It's not really meant in an insulting way, even if it probably comes over that way, it's more of an observation) By equating the belief and the rejection of the belief in the case of religion you are giving it too much importance, make the existence of god sound like a rational or logical thought. It isn't
2. Your proposition is the first one. Without you saying: There is a god, I can't deny his existence. So unless you have your belief I can't have mine. That's why the non-belief of a belief isn't a belief. (Hope you at least understand what I'm trying to say, even if you probably won't agree) I wouldn't call a belief that's only possible if there is another one a belief (second attempt to make myself clear seems even more confusing...)
But ok, even the "not believing in god" in the end is a belief you are right, if you are consequent and use it for all issues, not just religion. I don't. I use belief or faith as I maybe unsuccessfully explained above. You? For example Red's pink unicorn. Ah no, never really liked the pink unicorn. Ok, the monster under childrens beds, the one that wants to take you as soon as you get out of bed. (actually don't remember what the monster wanted to do with me then...) As a child I and many others (at least in Switzerland, don't know about other countries, maybe it's a swiss monster?) were occasionnally scared of that monster, having to wait in bed until the mother came to rescue me, or if that took to long, leave the bed with a big jump and then run to safety. I believed in that monster at the time. Nowadays I don't (it's been at least 2 weeks since I had a visit from the monster
) So would you describe that as a belief in the non-existence of the monster? Or my wife, she never had this monster, so she never believed in it, never even knew that it could exist until I told her. Had she been believing in the non-existence of the monster all that time incl. now, or did she simply not believe in the monster? If you want to call atheism a belief, you'll have to call this a belief too. And basically almost everything. I take the train to work on faith. I don't have any proof that the rails haven't been changed at night and that I'll actually get to my destination. It's a belief that the train will bring me there. As I said, if you are consequent in labeling something a belief, I'll agree, even if I'll continue using my own, different interpretation of "faith" and "belief"
Got to go, hope that my belief about the train proves right once again!
- Zeus
- Match Roster
- Posts: 344
- Joined: 07 Dec 2004, 10:01
- Location: Earth
by Felix K on 17 Jan 2005, 13:25
Zeus wrote:FelixSecular humanism: Lack of a god would do it for me. Ok, Buddhism poses a problem in that case...
Interestingly, the fact that there do exist faith systems without gods, including Buddhism, was one of the reasons why the US SC decided that Secular Humanism is a religion.
How about no spirituality? No spiritual component = no religion.
Come on. You can't re-define "religion" every time you find out that your presuppostions (Buddhism is a religion, Secular Humanism isn't) don't match your definition!
You may use a definition of "religion" that does not include secular humanism, but that doesn't change the fact that the belief system of secular humanism competes with Christianity and other religions. In the eyes of the law, secular humanism should not be considered better or worse than Christianity. Consequently, there is no logical reason to protect a secular humanist from Christian influence any more than to protect a Christian from secular humanist influence.
Since you seem to be pretty informed about the supreme courts decision, can you tell me how they got that case?
"Pretty informed" is a little overstated. It's just that this is not the first (or second) onlind discussion I have about the subject. Anyway, here's a summary of the case:http://members.aol.com/TestOath/Torcaso.htm
Take a special look at the following:
We repeat and again reaffirm that neither a State nor the Federal Government can constitutionally force a person "to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion." Neither can constitutionally pass laws or impose requirements which aid all religions as against non-believers,10 and neither can aid those religions based on a belief in the existence of God as against those religions founded on different beliefs.11
And this is footnote 11:
Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism and others.
So, we see
(1) a person must not by forced by the state to profess a belief in a religion.
(2) secular humanism is a religion
The inevitable consequence is that you cannot simply ask the state to interpret all the law in the light of secualr humanism. By doing so, the state would be violating religious freedom. Yet this is exactly what many secular humanists are attempting to do in America. It's exactly the same thing they accuse the Christians of, but in their own perception, their case looks very noble.
It's not only a lack of belief, but actually a belief in the absence of a supernatural realm. So, secular humanism DOES make a statement on faith about the supernatural. The belief in an absence of such is just as unprovable and therefore unscientific as the belief that it does exist
Disagree. First of all: I don't believe in god. is not exactly the same as I believe in the non-existence of god. I would interpret "belief in the non-existence" as actively believing, somebody with that belief would build his worldview around this faith, or at least it would be a major part of his worldview, like I would guess your "belief in god" plays a major part in your worldview. Not believing in god IMO is just that. Not believing.
One could argue about that, but in this case it's just not relevant. Secular humanists do actively believe that there exists no spiritual/supernatural realm. And, BTW, it doesn't really matter if they are 100% convinced of the absence of such, or just 99% or 95%. In any case, those people always start with the premise that, (1) as long as there is no evidence for God, there is no point in believing in Him and (2) there is no such evidence. Problem with point (2) is that they define "evidence" as according to science, which has long banned God from their way of thinking and that, as a result, with scientific results, you cannot possibly ever find God (or, more precise, you'll always find a means to discuss Him away). Effectively, those people place science if the place where other people place God. One could regard this as an active disbelief in God (or even as a belief in a different god - who is not explicitly called "god", but "science"), even if those people themselves regard their disbelief as passive lack of belief.
There are hundreds of issues that play a more important part in my life than god, for example: In the train: Who is going to get up next, where can I sit? Or why did I get married so early, the world is still full of women worthy of consideration! (fortunately I'm married, so I don't get to figure out that 99,9% of those have absolutely no interest in me), what should I eat today?, what did my wife mean with "dishes, dirty, clean" this morning? etc. etc. Equating the 2 IMO is just an attempt to give "god" more importance than this idea deserves.
You are presupposing that God is just an idea. But what if God suddenly decides that He gave you much more importance than you (=one of His ideas) deserve? And, at the risk of sounding like proselytizing, this question isn't even meant to be a joke.
As I already said on the old board once: If somebody has an idea with so little rational basis and would defend it as much as believers do their gods, he would be sent to the next mental institution. Usually we give ideas who lack any basis in reality very little credence, with one exception, religion. (It's not really meant in an insulting way, even if it probably comes over that way, it's more of an observation) By equating the belief and the rejection of the belief in the case of religion you are giving it too much importance, make the existence of god sound like a rational or logical thought. It isn't
And you keep telling me that you do NOT actively disbelieve God? Come on. You couldn't have stated any more clearly how much you reject the idea of God.
2. Your proposition is the first one. Without you saying: There is a god, I can't deny his existence. So unless you have your belief I can't have mine. That's why the non-belief of a belief isn't a belief. (Hope you at least understand what I'm trying to say, even if you probably won't agree) I wouldn't call a belief that's only possible if there is another one a belief (second attempt to make myself clear seem:shock: s even more confusing...)
Yes, indeed very