Florida Pastor May Reconsider Cancellation of Quran Burning

[darth los]

Check this development out.


http://www.aolnews.com/nation/article/florida-pastor-terry-jones-cancels-plans-to-burn-quran/19627836?icid=main%7Chp-laptop%7Cdl1%7Csec1_lnk1%7C169549

:cool:

[LouCipherr]

http://i79.photobucket.com/albums/j145/Jvchequer/facepalmimplied.jpg

[DjfunkmasterG]

This guy is a press whore, but not int he good sense. he is a loose screw that needs tightening.

[Danny]

"Our thought was the American people do not as a whole want the mosque at ground zero. If they were willing to cancel the mosque at the ground zero location or if they were willing to move that location, we would consider that a sign from God,"

WHAT DOES THIS STATEMENT MEAN?

Thats asinine. This mosque seems to be drawing to kinds of ignorance out of the woodwork 1: because there was a tragedy committed by terrorists that were extremists of a single religious group, that religion is evil. 2: if i hide my bigoted opinion behind the christian religion i cannot be wrong.

It's offensive, demeaning, and bigtory to muslims, christians and americans in general.

This man has had the good sense to call off his bookburning, one of the most despicable nonviolent acts people in a cultural 1st world country can commit, but this mosque built blocks away from the site of the world trade center towers -and honestly hat isnt a few blocks away from something on that side of manhattan?, is just bring the worst out of people, it started with people saying its a touching issue, then it had racist white folks riding around on a goddamn missile in a turban, where is this going to end? and this isnt even the stereotype of americas deep south, this is people from the supposed 'more progressive' north going down a steep slope from debate and disagreement to out and out "dont trust those darkys that dont believe in a christian god".

Everything we see on the worldwide news outside america about this is undoing any reparation that was done to american christians to repair there reputation as more than backwards, racist bigots that stopped progressing with the rest of society in the 1500's, and i'm not even american or a christian and thats so damn infuriating that these offensive acts are getting more facetime than any good deed done by people in the same standing in that faith.

I mean honestly, how do they"defend" against these "muslim invaders" they only think so about due to bigoted propaganda? By doing things like riding astride a missile in a turban like some perverse guy fawkes and wanting to burn qourans, which in turn is the kind of thing al quaeda must be thinking "jack-pot!" about in terms of what they can use in turn to turn people against americans.

At best this situation should have been a sit down discussion over an uncomfortable issue. Instead is the ever perpetuating cycle of religion and racial profiling going hand in hand.

[darth los]

This guy is a press whore, but not int he good sense. he is a loose screw that needs tightening.

And what's more people follow nuts like this. People need to be more responsible when speaking like he does.

Yes there's freedom of speech but freedom comes with a price: responsibilty.

There's bound to be someone who takes what this guy is espousing too far and it might be a tipping point. Muslims behead people for even depicting their prophet in a bad light. Americans are not ready for that type of next level shit.

You wanna fight islam? Enlist in the military.

They'll give you all you want.

And that's not all. Even patreus is saying this would put our troops in danger and be used as propaganda by those who want us dead much like the photos of Abu Gharib were, don't they realize that?

:cool:

[JDFP]

Burning any books can seem offensive (well, maybe I can make an exception for Michael Moore -- but that's more juvenile drivel than books anyway)... but...

At the same time...

IT'S A BOOK!

We had a visiting priest who celebrated mass at our parish a few years back who intentionally picked up the Book of Scriptures and dropped it on the ground unceremoniously. There was a collective shudder as he looked up and said:

"It's a book people! Just paper and binding and some leather. What matters is what we take from it and what we do from what we take from it."

And he's right. I'd find the burning of the Qu'ran to be distasteful just like I would the burning of the Torah, Holy Bible, Book of Mormon, or Vedas. But offensive? We take offense from something like this because we put some intrinsic value in what the words represent to us and to our lives. They have meaning to us outside of just the ink and paper. By desecrating the work -- it's desecrating the value of the meaning that people can take from these works. I can understand that. At the same time I disagree with the people that become so offended by it. Some do it (burn such books) because they are attempting to hit someone where it hurts on an emotional level -- and people are hurt by it on this emotional level as opposed to a level of intellect or thought.

I say it's silly to worry about burning a book (even if distasteful). As a Catholic I would say that the Scripture of Christ is not in a book but in our hearts and in the actions of our hands. A book is just a book.

I wouldn't advocate burning any books (even Michael Moore) -- but I'd not participate and would turn my head in disgust at seeing it happen. Yet, it wouldn't bother me so much as just make me shake my head in sadness at seeing someone steep to this type of emotional level of attempting to manipulate others.

Of course, I feel differently about burning the American flag... but that's an argument for another day (Do I contradict myself? Very well, I contradict myself. I am large, I contain vast quantities -- even if the vastness of most of that quantity is self-possessed bullshit).

j.p.

[Danny]

Burning any books can seem offensive (well, maybe I can make an exception for Michael Moore -- but that's more juvenile drivel than books anyway)... but...

At the same time...

IT'S A BOOK!

We had a visiting priest who celebrated mass at our parish a few years back who intentionally picked up the Book of Scriptures and dropped it on the ground unceremoniously. There was a collective shudder as he looked up and said:

"It's a book people! Just paper and binding and some leather. What matters is what we take from it and what we do from what we take from it."

And he's right. I'd find the burning of the Qu'ran to be distasteful just like I would the burning of the Torah, Holy Bible, Book of Mormon, or Vedas. But offensive? We take offense from something like this because we put some intrinsic value in what the words represent to us and to our lives. They have meaning to us outside of just the ink and paper. By desecrating the work -- it's desecrating the value of the meaning that people can take from these works. I can understand that. At the same time I disagree with the people that become so offended by it. Some do it (burn such books) because they are attempting to hit someone where it hurts on an emotional level -- and people are hurt by it on this emotional level as opposed to a level of intellect or thought.

I say it's silly to worry about burning a book (even if distasteful). As a Catholic I would say that the Scripture of Christ is not in a book but in our hearts and in the actions of our hands. A book is just a book.

I wouldn't advocate burning any books (even Michael Moore) -- but I'd not participate and would turn my head in disgust at seeing it happen. Yet, it wouldn't bother me so much as just make me shake my head in sadness at seeing someone steep to this type of emotional level of attempting to manipulate others.

Of course, I feel differently about burning the American flag... but that's an argument for another day (Do I contradict myself? Very well, I contradict myself. I am large, I contain vast quantities -- even if the vastness of most of that quantity is self-possessed bullshit).

j.p.

it's not the loss of the book thats abominable, its what it represents- That the people destroying the words, whatever they may be, feel they are just and correct in making the statement that the words have no right to exist and should be forgotten. In terms of symbolisms thats exactly the same as burning your flag or your bible. People dont destroy it to go "Ha!, no more book or flag for you!, what you gonna do the next time you want to read or wave a flag!" they are destroying it because they dont think it should exist.

Now imagine these guys wanting to burn your flag, or your bible, sure there will be copies remade, but thats not why they are doing it now is it?

[SRP76]

"Press whore"? Um, I think not. I LIVE here, people. It was very, very local. Someone else got all pissy, and made a big deal out of it, and then every fucknut in existence starting crying "Oh shit, we can't have them doing that!" and blew it way up. He didn't go out searching for the whole fucking planet to start jumping on it, the over-sensitive "it offends me" types and the media did.

And it cracks me the fuck up. Oh, can't offend the fucking Muslims. Please. If they were going to burn a human being, it would only get national coverage for fuck's sake. If they were burning the country's flag, it would barely make the back page of the newspaper. But because it's a fucking religious book, the whole world gets up in arms. Suck. My. Left. Nut. There are a billion copies of the fucking thing, if he burns some, there are plenty more left for you to read. Get a fucking grip on reality.

Sorry if this came off as a rant, but this religious flipping out over a BOOK just drives me crazy.

[MoonSylver]

"Our thought was the American people do not as a whole want the mosque at ground zero. If they were willing to cancel the mosque at the ground zero location or if they were willing to move that location, we would consider that a sign from God,".

Huh...that almost sounds like...a ransom demand...a TERRORIST THREAT if you will:

"Cancel your mosque at ground zero, or the Quran gets it!"

:rolleyes: :whatever:

[Publius]

This guy's 10 minutes of fame are way up.

[Neil]

On the one hand we have a prize numpty threating to burn some pieces of paper...

But what we have to realise, is this has then brought out of the woodwork millions of other prize numpties who get upset over some paper being burned, and even threaten action/violence/murder over it? And governments have to get involved too?

It's beyond balmy! But hey! religion is involved and to often that means mad...


At what point do some sheets of paper take on this magical power? If I threated to burn 100 blank pages, I assume no religious nuts would mind. But if I put half the Koran on this paper? Is it then magical? If so, which half? The first half, the second half, or each alternate word? What if I just type one page of the Koran?

It's pathetic, and basically frustrating once again this story has basically highlighted how pig ignorant and retarded some cultures are.


And what's even more annoying is how everyone seems happy to overlook it. Consider this:-


The planned mass burning of copies of the Koran in Florida on Sept. 11 would be "an outrageous and grave gesture," the Vatican's Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue said Wednesday.

Why isn't it MORE outrageous that certain cultures/religions are so intolerant and backward they have to threaten violence and death over this matter? Isn't that the bigger more important issue? Why aren't some Islamic leaders trying to put this matter into context with their followers, "it's just a numpty burning pieces of paper! Grow up and get over it!"

[blind2d]

Enlist in the military.


Okay.
Yeah, it really is just a book. It's what it represents that has people in a tizzy. I agree with all y'all. That said... I actually partially burned a book of Mormon... I feel bad about that now.

[Neil]

What is represents is just that, a notion and a whim... Nothing more... People are now dying over bits of paper which they didn't know existed, have never scene, and never will!

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/5/20100910/twl-protesters-shot-dead-in-koran-burnin-3fd0ae9.html

[bassman]

People are now dying over bits of paper which they didn't know existed

I called it yesterday. And these won't be the last.

All because of an arrogant, handle bar mustache wearing asshole that feels the need to push his beliefs on others....

It's dickwads like him that make me not want to participate in service every week...

[JDFP]

For some reason I'm not surprised...

You start burning books and people start dying soon after. It seems to be a common consistency throughout all of history.

j.p.

[soulsyfn]

The guy has a congregation of only 50 followers... how is he the representative of the entire religion or of Americans?

The Islamic population is saying, "Don't judge us based on a handful of radicals."

And yet they are judging us because of a smaller handful of radicals?

Pot meet kettle.

And, how dare they say Death to Christians and Americans if this one guy and his small group of followers burn the Quran. Sure its their belief in the words and what the book represents. What about the protests in Afghanistan where they are burning the American flag in response to this? Link to article. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100909/ap_on_re_as/quran_burning_reaction)

That is acceptable? Burn our book we kill people who had nothing to do with it... sounds fair to me.

Kettle meet pot.

Lets blame who really should be blamed... the freaking media for blowing this so completely out of the water that it is now an international incident. I guarantee that quaran's will burn somewhere (there are fucking stupid people out there) and that people will die because of it (yes there are fucking stupid people everywhere).

You are both black ... freaking idiots!

[Wyldwraith]

I'm SICK of the damned hypocrisy!
We watch, almost completely desensitized by now due to it happening so often, as MUSLIM crowds dance in the streets when American civilians who were kidnapped get beheaded, that CHEERED by the millions the "Blow against the Great Shaitan" (to quote multiple Imam's, Ie: their euphemism for the 9/11 attacks), we watch crowds burn the American flag and have street parties when attacks by non-uniformed cowards kill American soldiers, but then AMERICANS are the bigots if we choose to behave in like manner?

Bullshit! The Muslim extremists went too far with this damned Mosque (and don't even dare correct me about it not being a mosque because they call it an Interfaith Community Center that "happens" to have a Islam-centric "prayer room") near Ground Zero. Their logic about it being a gesture of reconciliation with Americans is an INSULT TO OUR INTELLIGENCE. It's meant to do exactly what the original Cordoba was meant to do. Serve as a memorial and testament to a Muslim victory over their enemies.

I'm tired of Muslims who butcher us in cowardly ways wrapping themselves in the 1st Amendment and everyone rushing to defend them, but if anti-Islam factions here at home attempt to avail themselves of the SAME FREEDOM, they're exposed to 100x the negative outcry that the Muslims are.

Most of all, I'm tired of a culture that contains literally MILLIONS of individuals taking concrete and vicious actions to further their stated goal of wiping America out, or at best conquering and forcibly converting us being tiptoed around and afforded every courtesy, while those exercising the exact same freedoms the Muslims are lauded for exercising are quickly condemned as whackos.

Oh, and btw, as a resident of Florida I'm going to go with my local newspaper, as its located 35 minutes south of the Gainesville Pastor in question, when this morning's paper announced the itinerary is back to scheduling the burning of "10 to 20 Qurans".

Edit: Realized I left something important out. That is: It's about time someone burned a bunch of the Unholy Books that gave rise to such an extremist element in what was once an advanced and cosmopolitan culture.

[soulsyfn]

I'm SICK of the damned hypocrisy!...Edit: Realized I left something important out. That is: It's about time someone burned a bunch of the Unholy Books that gave rise to such an extremist element in what was once an advanced and cosmopolitan culture.

Grabs popcorn... waits for the flame war to begin...

[darth los]

I called it yesterday. And these won't be the last.

All because of an arrogant, handle bar mustache wearing asshole that feels the need to push his beliefs on others....

It's dickwads like him that make me not want to participate in service every week...

Cut him some slack.

Do you have any idea how hard it is to get laid in a handlebar moustache?

:cool:

[LouCipherr]

Cut him some slack.

Do you have any idea how hard it is to get laid in a handlebar moustache?

:lol:

That's almost sig worthy right there. :D


Grabs popcorn... waits for the flame war to begin...

Wait for it.. waaaaait for it.........

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e104/LouCipherr/Forum%20Pics1/ScarJo_popcorn.gif

What REALLY concerns me is not what he's doing, but how much attention this dick is getting. He's got 50 followers, WGAF what he does?!

Sensationalized by the media, and everyone piles on. Greaaaaaat.

[soulsyfn]

The anticipation is killing me... i hope it will last...

[darth los]

:lol:

That's almost sig worthy right there. :D



Wait for it.. waaaaait for it.........

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e104/LouCipherr/Forum%20Pics1/ScarJo_popcorn.gif

What REALLY concerns me is not what he's doing, but how much attention this dick is getting. He's got 50 followers, WGAF what he does?!

Sensationalized by the media, and everyone piles on. Greaaaaaat.

I swear, i was waiting for you to post that! LMAO!:lol:

That is one smoking hot chick.

And almost sig worthy!?!

Just ask those barbershop quartet guys. They had it rough man. You'd think that they'd be getting pussy thrown at them left and right. Not the case.



I guess it's back to the lab. :(

:cool:

[JDFP]

Edit: Realized I left something important out. That is: It's about time someone burned a bunch of the Unholy Books that gave rise to such an extremist element in what was once an advanced and cosmopolitan culture.

While I do understand your anger/frustration towards extremists (and I'm certain you would say in every religion as opposed to just Islamic fundies as you're always been level-headed, Wyld) I'd have to argue that no book is "holy" unto itself (even the "Holy Bible" as I call it just out of habit as opposed to believing there's anything intrinsicially 'holy' about it) but is only made manifest in the actions of believers. There's nothing more special about the Qu'ran than the Bible or the Bible as opposed to the book "The Vampire Lestat" by Anne Rice within itself alone. They are all just books with words in them -- although we place more emphasis on the Bible as Christians because we (in our faith and, as Catholics, as part of our Sacred Tradition) find the stories/parables/etc. to be inspired in our relationship with God/Christ. It's the inspired meaning within such works that make them "holy" to us as people.

Now, I'll stand back and wait for fundamentalist Christians to attempt to throw things at me for making this comment as they consider Scripture to be absolutely 100% literal and basically penned by God.

The Qu'ran is no more "Unholy" as a book than the Book of Mormon, writings of Michael Moore, or "The Satanic Bible" by Anton LeVay -- even if I could find some of the messages to be disturbing in these works it doesn't mean it's anything more than what it is -- a book and a book alone.

j.p.

[LouCipherr]

I swear, i was waiting for you to post that! LMAO!:lol:

:o


And almost sig worthy!?!

Well, I posted that, then I thought better and said "screw it" and put it in my sig. :D

[darth los]

I can now sleep easy and have a good weekend. :D

:cool:

[shootemindehead]

Grabs popcorn... waits for the flame war to begin...

I'll get the beers in...

[blind2d]

I'm getting a little impatient for this flame war to get started... Do I have to? 'Cause I will! ...As long as everyone's okay with that... are you? Everyone? Whatever, pass the popcorn.

[Danny]

I don't think we have enough regular members anymore for a flame war.

[rongravy]

Ehhhh, I don't believe in all that religion hogwash. It's just a book, who cares if they burn a few?
This is just showing another way they are trying to squeeze our nuts with that crap. I don't agree with the guy burning that wretched book, but it's his right. No matter for what fucked up reasoning he puts behind it...

[blind2d]

I just heard that he decided not to do it after all... I could be wrong.

[JDFP]

Ehhhh, I don't believe in all that religion hogwash. It's just a book, who cares if they burn a few?
This is just showing another way they are trying to squeeze our nuts with that crap. I don't agree with the guy burning that wretched book, but it's his right. No matter for what fucked up reasoning he puts behind it...

You're absolutely right. I consider myself a fairly ardent supporter of my faith and I agree with you wholeheartedly. It is just a book.

Religious "hogwash" or enlightenment has nothing to do with the matter save for fundamentalist leanings.

Who cares? Well, fundamentalists from any religion are the ones who will raise the biggest bloat about it. It's not "just a book" to them but the literal words of God. From my background I'd argue that Tradition is far more important than anything written down as Tradition is living and evolving -- as opposed to a book in which the words always remain the same (give or take contemporary vernacular interpretations).

And I agree that burning any book is distasteful, but no one specific book is any more important than any other book except for our own prescribed attachments to the emotions and all that "touchy/feely" stuff we ascribe to certain books over others.

Honestly, I'd think I'd rather be more offended in a society where it's amoral to burn what you desire as opposed to expressing your ideology (even if I find the ideology misguided) -- or having to fear arrest over openly singing certain songs or expressing your own opinions no matter how unpopular they may be.

j.p.

[EvilNed]

This thread holds dozens of perfect examples of why Religion and Patriotism must be completely eradicated from the face of the earth if we're ever going to advance further in our morals. But people would rather just fight and be bigots. And that goes for fucking everyone.

"How dare you build a Mosque so close to ground zero!?" - Well, there are mosques everywhere. Just shut up about it and do something worthwile with your time! Idiots!

"I'm gonna burn this religious text!" - Whyyyy!? Whyyyy!? You fucking retard, drop dead and spare us the misery.

"We're gonna kill you for burning that religious text!" - Is some stupid religious text really worth someones life? Murder and death is something people just don't seem to GET. It's a pretty serious fucking thing and it never changes anything, you fuuuucking idiiiiooooot.

People are so fucking retarded. Start acting like it's the 2000's for fuck sake.

[Publius]

EvilNed, you remind me of Tom Lehrer in the intro to his song "National Brotherhood Week": "I'm sure we all agree that we ought to love one another, and I know there are people in the world who do not love their fellow human beings, and I hate people like that!" ;-)

[SymphonicX]

I've scanned a few posts in this thread and it seems people don't like the idea or support this guy - however to be compeltely honest, I sighed when I read the thread title and am apprehensive to read on...

Not because I think anyone here are bigotted or whatever, I just feel this kind of thread has potential - but not very good potential....the kind that can devolve into arguing and whatnot - although I'm sure this hasn't happened in this thread yet :)

I'll just say I don't agree with the Pastor and I think in retrospect the mosque isn't that offensive in New York - what's more offensive is the assosciation of Islam with terrorism but that's a chicken and egg argument for another time.

I just hope no one gets killed from this (I heard some protestors were killed somewhere though?) and the situation can rest without deteriorating into a repeat of the dutch cartoonist episode...

[Publius]

(I heard some protestors were killed somewhere though?)

In India (Kashmir province). A bunch of people started rioting and attacking a Christian church and school or something. Last I heard, police had killed 18 people in trying to put down the riot.

[soulsyfn]

All over something that didnt happen...

[bassman]

All over something that didnt happen...

You could say the same for every war started in the name of religion.

Thank you, thank you. I'll be here all week.

[darth los]

You could say the same for every war started in the name of religion.

Thank you, thank you. I'll be here all week.

Exactly. :lol:

Come for the zombies, stay for the biting satirism!

:cool:

[blind2d]

Yep, this is why I love it here... you guys just make it so special.

[Wyldwraith]

That's an awesome Advertisement for Islam,

"Islam, getting people killed worldwide daily, over things that haven't happened and aren't important."

And Ned, stop throwing stones while you're advocating the elimination of Religion and Patriotism. By doing so you're advocating the mass-murder of more individuals than have been killed in all religious or nationalist-related conflicts throughout history. You can't kill ideas without destroying the brains that contain them. C'mon, your heroes Marx, Lenin, Stalin and Mao Zedong should've taught you that much.

Oh and BTW, for a pro-Communist, you're awful Fascist.

[JDFP]

That's an awesome Advertisement for Islam,

"Islam, getting people killed worldwide daily, over things that haven't happened and aren't important."

And Ned, stop throwing stones while you're advocating the elimination of Religion and Patriotism. By doing so you're advocating the mass-murder of more individuals than have been killed in all religious or nationalist-related conflicts throughout history. You can't kill ideas without destroying the brains that contain them. C'mon, your heroes Marx, Lenin, Stalin and Mao Zedong should've taught you that much.

Oh and BTW, for a pro-Communist, you're awful Fascist.

I've always found it almost laughable those who prefer Communism over religion being that Communism has been responsible for the destruction and murder of over 100 million people which makes all the terrible conflicts created by religion pale in comparison.

Talk about sheer hypocracy there. Embracing Communism over religion is like a jump from a frying pan into a fire.

j.p.

[Wyldwraith]

I've always found it almost laughable those who prefer Communism over religion being that Communism has been responsible for the destruction and murder of over 100 million people which makes all the terrible conflicts created by religion pale in comparison.

Talk about sheer hypocracy there. Embracing Communism over religion is like a jump from a frying pan into a fire.

j.p.

Couldn't have said it better myself :)
What's really hysterical though is that EVERY long-term pro-Communist nation is ALSO rabidly nationalistic. Russia, Cuba, China, you name it. All of those nations governments rely on the people's pride "In the greatness of their country" to get them to ignore all the horrors inherent in the very governments ruling the nation(s) they're so proud of.

What always amazes me is how Ned can ignore that EVERY TIME Communism takes hold in a nation, the tiny minority which claim and hold power quickly become world-class Despots, whose first task is the complete subjagation of their own people. I mean, in a sick way you have to admire the work ethic and stamina it takes to build a society where your neighbors will Inform on you/Thus Sentance you to long imprisonment or death for an extra loaf of bread or roll of toilet paper. Where children are warped so much that they can genuinely believe with beatific smiles on their faces that they're "Telling on Mommy and Daddy for their own good, to save them from themselves."

Because make no mistake, THAT is what Communism has devolved into EVERY SINGLE TIME it's been allowed to spread like a disease. Gulags, show trials, thought police, mass executions for things as simple as expressing yourself or worshipping the Deity you believe in.

What I DON'T GET is how EvilNed can ignore this historical Constant?

[MikePizzoff]

You could say the same for every war started in the name of religion.

Thank you, thank you. I'll be here all week.

http://www.x-entertainment.com/halloween/2007/arsenio/1.jpg

Choice.

[bassman]

:lol:

Just the other day we were watching Aladdin with my daughter when the Genie(Robin Williams) did an Arseno impression. We were both wondering if people even remember that show. I guess you just answered that question...

[AcesandEights]

What I DON'T GET is how EvilNed can ignore this historical Constant?

Faith, man. Faith.

Evil Ned is not a deist or an eternalist, he holds out strict hope, some might even say faith, in the ability of mankind to use our ingenuity to maneuver ourselves out of the muck and mire of not only our base physical problems, but also our conflicting natures. He sees in Communism a great possibility to do this, if only man can be rationale enough to adhere to its doctrines <insert witty cynicism here>. Just like anyone else who holds onto their own views on what would make the world a better place, in spite of some of the glitches the general ism in question might suffer, or have suffered, from.

That's where I think he's coming from, anyway. *Shrug*

This is also the internet and every forum needs a resident communist to hoist the red banner of revolution. He's also a cool dude, in my book.

[darth los]

:lol:

Just the other day we were watching Aladdin with my daughter when the Genie(Robin Williams) did an Arseno impression. We were both wondering if people even remember that show. I guess you just answered that question...

I was an official member of the dog pound dude.

Remember that barking fad he created. The woo-woo-woo while pumping your arm? :lol:

A shame how he got blacklisted for standing behind farakhan.

:cool:

[EvilNed]

For those who accuse me of being communist, and not "getting" it. Try looking at world history. When was communism ever applied succesfully? Never. Noone ever really tried giving it a shot, either. Lenin, while being an awesome visionary, wasn't perfect. A true revolution would rely on someone who would reject everything he denies others. Luxuaries, comforts and so forth. Lenin did not. In fact, as long as you have one strong leader, you don't have a communist state. A true communist state has never, ever been attempted anywhere. And a true communist state wouldn't work in a world of 7 billion humans, unless some certain emotions were eliminated, such as greed. And let's assume we'll never eliminate those emotions. Then no, communism won't work.

But a heavy form of socialism could.

I'm not suggesting we eliminate religion and patriotism by force. But that we, through education, slowly but surely steer humanity towards the course of enlightenment. Both religion and patriotism are two factors that, almost by definition (in todays world) generate conflict. That's a very, very bad thing for those of you who don't get it.

Is banning it the right way? No. Banning is never the answer. But showing people what is wrong and how it is wrong. Remember when that character Jesus came along 2000 years ago? He didn't ban anything, he didn't kill anyone. He just showed what was right and what was wrong and what consequences they could lead too. This is what we need today. But today the enemies are religion and patriotism. These two mentalities go hand-in-hand in creating 95% of the worlds conflicts today.

People say that money is the root to all evil. It isn't. Nationalism is. The urge to supply my nation with the best of the best, damn the rest. Money is but a player in this devilish scheme.

I do not advocate violence, infact I am against it. And therefore I am by definition, against these two mentalities.

[Publius]

For those who accuse me of being communist, and not "getting" it. Try looking at world history. When was communism ever applied succesfully? Never. Noone ever really tried giving it a shot, either. Lenin, while being an awesome visionary, wasn't perfect. A true revolution would rely on someone who would reject everything he denies others. Luxuaries, comforts and so forth. Lenin did not. In fact, as long as you have one strong leader, you don't have a communist state. A true communist state has never, ever been attempted anywhere.

Distinguish against those who would rebut your claims about religious violence by distinguishing that from "true religion."

[EvilNed]

Distinguish against those who would rebut your claims about religious violence by distinguishing that from "true religion."

Good point, but I've already pointed out that communism would never work on a global scale. It could work in smaller societies. But only as long as you know everyone's name. Otherwise, you'd be sharing things with strangers, and people wouldn't want that.

[Wyldwraith]

First,
Want to say that I have no problem with you personally Ned. Notta. We seem to find ourselves disagreeing quite often, and are both men of strong opinions, prone to a deep sense of conviction in what we believe. Sometimes I totally can't envision where you're coming from, but I'm sure the same can be said about me from your PoV.

Second, I do NOT believe in Religion. I believe in Faith. Religion is man's attempt to connect with God, while Faith is God's attempt to connect with Humanity. Religion, Ie: The organizations, institutions and both the theological and secular traditions are collectively what Religion's composition is made up of.

The key to what (**I** believe) is wrong with Religion as a created construct of humanity is simple. The same desire to control others, to gain at the expense of others, to deceive others to further one's agenda....all these and many more are the same drives responsible for tainting almost all of Man's other endeavors as well.

Faith, on the other hand, is the product of humanity's noblest effort. The genuine seeking-after and discovering of real Truth. Without Truth, no action, endeavor, institution, social convention or governmental action contains any Good. Truth and what is Good are inextricably linked, and this is inarguable, whatever your worldview/belief system.

At its most basic, Faith is simply sincere belief that something is Good and True, despite sometimes lacking any evidence which could foster belief in the unproven. The modern world has, in my sincere opinion, become FAR too entangled in the Falsehood that Proof = Fact = Truth. While it is true that many things one can prove to be fact are *also* True, and that while it is true that Compelling Evidence may indeed = Fact. Facts do NOT = Truth.

Put more simply, or more basically. All real Facts are True, but NOT ALL TRUTHS ARE FACTS.

This is where, again IMO, the disconnect occurs between the rational and the spiritual. The developed world-views of many people include those people having become accustomed to reliance on the rational connection between Facts and Truth, to the point that they (wrongly) conclude that in the absence of Fact, Truth must also be absent, or at least Unknown.

That's where Faith comes in. We call it a "leap of Faith", at least in part because Faith bridges the gap between Us and those Truths that exist independent of Facts and the Evidence that identifies a Fact as a Fact.

If we as a species could find an effective means of overcoming this disconnect between the "rational" and the Truth/spiritual, we would cure MANY of the ills that plague the human mind, heart and yes, Soul.

[Mr. Clean]

Let him burn it so someone else can burn a bible and then I can laugh because mankind really isn't that bright.

[SymphonicX]

For those who accuse me of being communist, and not "getting" it. Try looking at world history. When was communism ever applied succesfully? Never. Noone ever really tried giving it a shot, either. Lenin, while being an awesome visionary, wasn't perfect. A true revolution would rely on someone who would reject everything he denies others. Luxuaries, comforts and so forth. Lenin did not. In fact, as long as you have one strong leader, you don't have a communist state. A true communist state has never, ever been attempted anywhere. And a true communist state wouldn't work in a world of 7 billion humans, unless some certain emotions were eliminated, such as greed. And let's assume we'll never eliminate those emotions. Then no, communism won't work.

But a heavy form of socialism could.

I'm not suggesting we eliminate religion and patriotism by force. But that we, through education, slowly but surely steer humanity towards the course of enlightenment. Both religion and patriotism are two factors that, almost by definition (in todays world) generate conflict. That's a very, very bad thing for those of you who don't get it.

Is banning it the right way? No. Banning is never the answer. But showing people what is wrong and how it is wrong. Remember when that character Jesus came along 2000 years ago? He didn't ban anything, he didn't kill anyone. He just showed what was right and what was wrong and what consequences they could lead too. This is what we need today. But today the enemies are religion and patriotism. These two mentalities go hand-in-hand in creating 95% of the worlds conflicts today.

People say that money is the root to all evil. It isn't. Nationalism is. The urge to supply my nation with the best of the best, damn the rest. Money is but a player in this devilish scheme.

I do not advocate violence, infact I am against it. And therefore I am by definition, against these two mentalities.


Yeah I pretty much share 100% of your views here..

[SymphonicX]

while Faith is God's attempt to connect with Humanity.

can you exlain how you believe faith to be a God created concept rather than a man-made one? Faith is just blind acceptance at the end of the day, no?

[Danny]

can you exlain how you believe faith to be a God created concept rather than a man-made one? Faith is just blind acceptance at the end of the day, no?

yeah this is kind of confusing, if a god like the christian god exists it has no need of faith, according to those beliefs it made us y'know? at most maybe some trust in us to act certain ways and do certain things but when you have supposedly created something, and lets not forget, are sold as an omniscient, infallible being you dont need faith in anything because you already know everything that can was and ever will be.

I think people humanize there gods too much, particularly the christian one, if it was half as human as many make out it would have gone mad with crippling loneliness as the only one of its kind to ever exist ever before what we conceive of as time even began.

-though i guess that would explain the whole "made in his image" thing i suppose.

[Publius]

can you exlain how you believe faith to be a God created concept rather than a man-made one? Faith is just blind acceptance at the end of the day, no?

Not necessarily. Faith goes hand in hand with evidence. People may disagree on how much evidence should reasonably be required to believe in a given proposition, but some degree of faith is necessary to believe anything that can't be proven true with absolute certainty. And almost nothing can. Even if you're the kind of person who only believes what he can see with his own eyes, that requires faith that your senses are a reliable indicator of reality.


yeah this is kind of confusing, if a god like the christian god exists it has no need of faith, according to those beliefs it made us y'know? at most maybe some trust in us to act certain ways and do certain things but when you have supposedly created something, and lets not forget, are sold as an omniscient, infallible being you dont need faith in anything because you already know everything that can was and ever will be.

I don't think anybody said God needs faith. Like you said, God is omniscient. Faith is a tool that God gave to humans.

[SymphonicX]

Right, third time deleting and re-writing.

Here's the crux of the issue for me:

You, me and everyone else in this planet cannot, and will never, ever, understand the truth.

If there is a God, it is out of your remit as a human being to understand it.

The four dimensions we live in - left/right, up/down, backwards/forwards and TIME are all we understand and all we will ever understand.

There is no way in this life for any one of us to understand or fathom the truth - any idea, concept, idealogy, belief, faith or whatever you want to call it is man-made - the idea comes from within our dimensions, even if in this idea those dimensions have attempted to be explained.

It's simply impossible. All we have are theories. With this in mind I say ditch the idea of religion and keep in mind that the best way for you to live a good and fruitful life is to be part of a progressive society that helps it's fellow man regardless of creed or religion. If you do that, and God turns out to be real, then you're a winner! If not, well you still lived a great life and can live out your last moments happy that you never killed anyone. It's pretty simple really.

Looking upwards as some sort of control over the things which you cannot control is distracting from actually being a good person in most cases. Trying to please the big yellow circle in the sky is bizarre and pointless when the real changes and real tangiable results don't lie in where you sit your backside on a Sunday but what you're actually doing in this world to further and progress it in your own way.

What I'm saying is God is irrelevant, the message of God is important. So believe in what you want but at the end of the day if you've let it distract you to the point where you've contributed NOTHING to the world, then you'd deserve hell anyway. That definitely includes the pastor in this discussion and anyone who's waged war in the name of religion.

[SymphonicX]

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01217/ATHEIST-BUS-2_1217539c.jpg

[EvilNed]

Personally, I fail to see the relevance of faith to anything except the faith I hold in others. The only faith that is relevant is my faith that humanity can (and hopefully will) pull together and better themselves. Collectively.

I do not need any other faith. I have never had a faith in any superior being, and I most likely never will. I have never had any faith in any supernatural powers, and I most likely never will. I have faith in me and my peers, and humanity as a whole.

Do I lack proof of this, or am I basing this on wild assumptions? Of course I have proof! I am myself part of humanity, and I know many others that are. If there are more like me out there, who simply want to live in peace and harmony with other people and just have a kick-ass time at it, then that's proof enough for me to base my faith on.

Does that make it true? No. But at least I have proof to back up my faith.

[BillyRay]

Hmmmm...

I've felt for a long time that any being that could remotely qualify as "God" is so vast and alien that any attempt to quantify that "God wants this, God hates that" is only vanity on the part of Man. Certainly a Supreme Being would be interested in it's own self-preservation (however something at that level of existance would describe it's "self"), and us being "part of God" would translate to the usual "help each other, build not destroy" message that perneates all of the major religions.

Y'know, try to avoid being a Cancer upon Creation.

I won't knock faith, tho'. I've seen a lot of good results from faith. I'm even a little envious of those who can stay faithful without constant questioning. faith is tha litle light when all else is dark. It's only when faith is turned against others that it becomes something ugly.

Either way, I suppose I'm a militant Agnostic: I can't prove that God exists, and neither can you...

[AcesandEights]

Do I lack proof of this, or am I basing this on wild assumptions? Of course I have proof! I am myself part of humanity, and I know many others that are. If there are more like me out there, who simply want to live in peace and harmony with other people and just have a kick-ass time at it, then that's proof enough for me to base my faith on.

Does that make it true? No. But at least I have proof to back up my faith.

Did you just posit: "I am awesome, therefore I am"? :)

[blind2d]

Faith has no meaning if it isn't called into question now and again. It's never bad to become shaky in your faith, that is just a test. My semi-Christian upbringing is surfacing here, but you know... the problem isn't what you believe, it's how you interact with people who believe something different from you. Me, I'm accepting of any faith out there, as long as it doesn't involve killing people to get a better spiritual connection. That just doesn't seem right to me.

[SymphonicX]

Faith has no meaning if it isn't called into question now and again. It's never bad to become shaky in your faith, that is just a test. My semi-Christian upbringing is surfacing here, but you know... the problem isn't what you believe, it's how you interact with people who believe something different from you. Me, I'm accepting of any faith out there, as long as it doesn't involve killing people to get a better spiritual connection. That just doesn't seem right to me.

very true, peaceful practise of religion is a human right.
It gets hairy when you look at bizarre tribal customs such as cannibalism etc...but there you go maybe that's another debate. I agree wholeheartedly though.

[darth los]

very true, peaceful practise of religion is a human right.


That's good in theory but in practice, throughout recorded history, exactly the opposite is true.

Although most civilized nations don't behead you for not practicing the ssanctioned religion of that state, they still want to force you to live the way they do.

For example, The insistence of christians and the candidates they back to actually force others not to have abortions and for gays not to be able to legally marry, all based on their religious morality.

If your not homosexual you have every right in the world not to marry someone of the same gender. If you're against abortions you also have every right not to have one.

But why is it that they insist on infringing on the constitutional rights of others simply because they don't agree with it?

Many religious folk don't seem to know where the line is drwn between their business and yours.

Between pesonal decisions and things they should be getting involved in.

:cool:

[SymphonicX]

But why is it that they insist on infringing on the constitutional rights of others simply because they don't agree with it?



That's not peaceful practise in my opinion - live and let live falls under peaceful practise - but to actually outwardly try to impose your views on others is just one step below violence, it's certainly not peaceful just because violence may not be involved at that stage....

that kind of behaviour is deliberately rocking other peoples boats - I believe in peaceful debate and peaceful discussion but it ends there, the moment people start protesting abortionists by blocking their entrance to a clinic is the moment it becomes non-peaceful.

Debate is healthy though and when it has a religious context that's OK - as long as it starts and ends with debate and ultimately decisions aren't won out based purely on superstition. When a majority agree, a motion can be carried, but ultimately debating peacefully is fine but IMPOSING views on others with your hands over your eyes and ears isn't peaceful, it's passive aggressive nastyness, ignorance etc..

[JDFP]

But why is it that they insist on infringing on the constitutional rights of others simply because they don't agree with it?



You're forgetting a fundamental difference here, Los. All indivudals have the inalienable right to life. Murder is wrong and is recognized by the law. Abortions are murder because they are killing unborn children (From my perspective and the perspective of millions of Americans throughout the country) -- thus, it is a constituional infringement on the life of unborn children by murdering them. Any law that attempts to protect murder is thus unconstitutional and should be attempted to be fought against on every level.

It's not a "white/black" discussion, Los, because the playing field is not level. It comes down to a fundamental value of either seeing abortion or murder or not murder. Those who see it as murder consider it as being "pro-life" as protecting the life from being destroyed as opposed to "pro-choice" people who see an attack on women to have reproductive rights over their bodies to do as with as they wish with their fetus. There is no common ground in this discussion -- as you're not starting with the same foundation with the argument at all.

Pro-'choice' indivudals never seem to understand that the issue with those of us who are pro-life isn't an attack on anyone -- rather it is an attempt to save human lives from being murdered. Your definition and my definition of what constitues life may vary -- but to us it is a life in our defininition of it and, thus, is murder we are attempting to stop.

No, I don't agree with murdering unborn children -- so I don't really give a damn if it is a "legal right" for abortion or not as it's a null and void law by the nature of something greater than the State (the sanctity of life) -- I'm going to be vocal in my anger towards it because of my definition of what constitutes life. I don't think the State has the right to condemn any human to death (whether unborn or not).

My biggest beef with some pro-life individuals is the issue with capital punishment. It seems many of the people who claim to be pro-life are pro-life until the person is born and then are perfectly fine with capital punishment. Whereas, I see this as sheer hypocracy. Being pro-life shouldn't stop at birth but should be a commitment to protect life in all facets from the will-power of the State (whether through abortion or capital punishment -- of course, these are only my personal ruminations and I don't attempt to speak for others).

j.p.

[darth los]

Pro-'choice' indivudals never seem to understand that the issue with those of us who are pro-life isn't an attack on anyone.
j.p.

Tell that to Dr. George Tiller


But again you are trying to impose what you believe on everyone else.

Trying to impose one's indvidual beliefs on whats immoral and what's not on others is not what this country is about yet that's what the pro life movement is about.

I don't believe it's murder and as you so eloquently stated there are millions of other like minded individuals like me.

So we both have miilions of people fervently on each side of the issue so where do we go from there?

The Supreme court has already decided this issue and despite the political talking points from the right that's never going to be overturned. Sort of like Social Security.

So we are left with that it's a fundemental right for a woman to decide that for herself.

During the civil rights movement, again, there were milions upon millions of Americans who were fervently against giving blacks and minorities equal rights. However, it is the law of the land and they had to comply even if it was under national gaurd supervsion.

Now if one doesn't like the law, change it, don't blow clinics up.

But this is a seperate issue from gay marriage. There no one is being hurt or killed and it affects only the 2 individuals forming the union yet oppossision to that is through the roof as well. Any insight into what's the excuse there?

I'm sorry i couldn't write more in answering you're well thought out post. I'm at work and there's just no time. Just summed up my thoughts.

:cool:

[Publius]

Do I lack proof of this, or am I basing this on wild assumptions? Of course I have proof! I am myself part of humanity, and I know many others that are. If there are more like me out there, who simply want to live in peace and harmony with other people and just have a kick-ass time at it, then that's proof enough for me to base my faith on.

Does that make it true? No. But at least I have proof to back up my faith.

Proof? How do you know that you and the many others that you know are more representative of humanity as a whole than thousands of years of history of wars, murder, oppression, etc.? It may be true (and hopefully is), but still sounds like a leap of faith to me. Personally, I'm more inclined to the position of Alexander Hamilton, who wrote (in Federalist #34):

"To judge from the history of mankind, we shall be compelled to conclude that the fiery and destructive passions of war reign in the human breast with much more powerful sway than the mild and beneficent sentiments of peace; and that to model our political systems upon speculations of lasting tranquillity, is to calculate on the weaker springs of the human character."


I've felt for a long time that any being that could remotely qualify as "God" is so vast and alien that any attempt to quantify that "God wants this, God hates that" is only vanity on the part of Man.

You're right, it would not be possible for man to reach up and decide to know God. It's certainly possible to imagine an unknowable God who has no interest in a relationship with mankind. There's little a priori reason to believe that just because there is a God, he wants a relationship with mankind or has certain expectations of mankind, except perhaps you could infer a little bit of that from the fact that man has the capacity to reason. But for the most part, God would have to choose to reach down and make himself known to us. It's not possible for humans to figure out the nature of God on their own, God would have to reveal himself to us. So there's little point in believing specific claims about the nature of God or what he wants us to do unless you also accept that those claims are contained in a message that comes from God (e.g., via some kind of scripture, the Bible, Koran, Torah, whatever).


But again you are trying to impose what you believe on everyone else.

Right, just like we impose on the beliefs of others by outlawing slavery (despite the fact that millions believed that slavery was right and was justified by the supposed inherent inferiority of blacks) and setting an age of consent for sexual activity (despite the fact that some, like NAMBLA, believe that pederasty is a noble and time-honored relationship and that it is their right to enter into such a relationship). Or take capital punishment, as JDFP mentioned. You can either have it, and violate the beliefs of millions who hold it to be wrong to execute a murderer, or you can not have it, and violate the beliefs of millions who hold it to be wrong to never execute a murderer.

My point: It's not possible to make a broad categorical distinction between law and morality. The two merge all the time. You have to take each issue on its own merits, and there will always be some whose view of morality wins out, and others whose view of morality loses.

[darth los]

Right, just like we impose on the beliefs of others by outlawing slavery (despite the fact that millions believed that slavery was right and was justified by the supposed inherent inferiority of blacks) and setting an age of consent for sexual activity (despite the fact that some, like NAMBLA, believe that pederasty is a noble and time-honored relationship and that it is their right to enter into such a relationship). Or take capital punishment, as JDFP mentioned. You can either have it, and violate the beliefs of millions who hold it to be wrong to execute a murderer, or you can not have it, and violate the beliefs of millions who hold it to be wrong to never execute a murderer.

My point: It's not possible to make a broad categorical distinction between law and morality. The two merge all the time. You have to take each issue on its own merits, and there will always be some whose view of morality wins out, and others whose view of morality loses.


You really want to play the slavery card? That's akin to playing the hitler card. It's a lazy argument.

Not to mention a bad example. Are you saying that Forcing millions to stop the slavery and genocide of blacks was a bad thing? In that instance we were stopping one group of people who enjoy all the rights and priviledges of the constitution from not only denying them to another group of people in the U.S. but treat them worse than animals.

"Pro lifers" want to tell a woman what to do with her body which is none of their business. In the more extreme viewpoints you have 5 Tea party candidates running for the U.S. Senate who are not only against abortion but they also would not allow exceptions in cases of rape or incest. You heard that right, they want the federal gov't to force women and girls to carry their rapists and reltive babies to term. Now which is the more extreme viewpoint again?

Notice the difference? Personal decision that's no ones business vs. actions that are brutally oppressing an entire race.

And pedophelia? Again, you have a group of people forcing (if you are underage you cannot legally give consent to sex, thus statutory rape) themselves on another group of people. You have some doing things that psysically and tangibly affects the live of others. Conversely, as in the gay marriage and abortion debates those choices aren't affecting anyone but the individuals making those choices. It's an apples and oranges argument you guys are making.

It's funny how the party of little gov't who don't want the feds interfering in there lives have no problem with the feds intervening in personal family decisions when it adheres to their beliefs.

:cool:

[Publius]

You really want to play the slavery card? That's akin to playing the hitler card. It's a lazy argument.

Not so fast, grasshopper. You must learn to refute the argument before you can ridicule it!


Not to mention a bad example. Are you saying that Forcing millions to stop the slavery and genocide of blacks was a bad thing?

Certainly not! Lest we forget, I am on the pro-legislating-morality side of this analogy.


In that instance we were stopping one group of people who enjoy all the rights and priviledges of the constitution from not only denying them to another group of people in the U.S. but treat them worse than animals.

Worse than animals? Treating them as though they were, say, nothing more than a clump of cells or lump of tissue?


"Pro lifers" want to tell a woman what to do with her body which is none of their business.

Whether it is any of their business is precisely the question to be answered. You are assuming your conclusion.


In the more extreme viewpoints you have 5 Tea party candidates running for the U.S. Senate who are not only against abortion but they also would not allow exceptions in cases of rape or incest. You heard that right, they want the federal gov't to force women and girls to carry their rapists and reltive babies to term. Now which is the more extreme viewpoint again?

It depends on your perspective. One might argue that if a horrible crime results in two victims, it is unjust to allow one victim to punish the other rather than punishing the perpetrator of the offense.


Notice the difference? Personal decision that's no ones business vs. actions that are brutally oppressing an entire race.

Notice the difference? Practical infanticide and a perversion that defiles the most fundamental of human relationships (that between mother and child) vs. private property matters that are no one's business.


Again, you have a group of people forcing (if you are underage you cannot legally give consent to sex, thus statutory rape) themselves on another group of people.

Who's more underage (and incapable of giving consent to a waiver of their rights) than an unborn child?


You have some doing things that psysically and tangibly affects the live of others.

What more physically and tangibly affects the life of another than killing them?


Conversely, as in the gay marriage and abortion debates those choices aren't affecting anyone but the individuals making those choices.

If you ignore the effect on the one being aborted. Again, you are assuming your conclusions rather than reasoning to them.


It's funny how the party of little gov't who don't want the feds interfering in there lives have no problem with the feds intervening in personal family decisions when it adheres to their beliefs.

It's not so funny how the party that defended slavery now defends the claimed right to treat another class of persons as property.

Again, my point is that you can't draw a bright line between law and morality without undermining the arguments that led to the end of slavery, and similarly undermining the basis of many other well-established laws. The abolitionist movement was a moral crusade, no two ways about it.

[EvilNed]

Proof? How do you know that you and the many others that you know are more representative of humanity as a whole than thousands of years of history of wars, murder, oppression, etc.? It may be true (and hopefully is), but still sounds like a leap of faith to me. Personally, I'm more inclined to the position of Alexander Hamilton, who wrote (in Federalist #34):


Yeeaaah... That was exactly what it was. A leap of faith. Which I make quite clear (at least I thought I did)...

[JDFP]

"Pro lifers" want to tell a woman what to do with her body which is none of their business.l

I'm going to have to argue with you on this (c'mon face it, Los, we feed like tribbles off of arguing with each other -- even if we equally respect each other because I certainly respect your well presented opinions as I hope you feel the same towards mine).

This goes back to the foundation of the argument. People who see abortion as Pro-'choice' would come back to a Pro-life individual with this argument. But, it's invalid, to a pro-life person. Because those of us who believe that life begins before birth see it as a life don't fall into this attempt of pro-'choice' rationalization at all. And I'll attempt to explain my drunk ass rambling as to why.

A woman's right to choose is to choose whether she wants to work or not. A woman's right to choose is whether or not she wants to be subjected to traditional interpretations of marriage or not. A woman's right to choose is to decide how she lives her life in so much that it doesn't impact the lives and inalienable rights of others. None of these choices impact another human's life except for the individual woman's life. That's fine. I agree with that. Every individual should choose how to live their life so far as it doesn't trample on the inalienable rights of another person. The difference is when how someone lives their life impacts another person's life. Taking a human life and destroying that life by murder and classifying it as "choice" is not a choice at all. It's impacting another life. I agree that we should live our lives as we choose to live our lives -- but when it infringes on the life of another individual (namely a baby who has no say so in the matter) then it's not a "choice" to the individual who is impacted by the decision.

Stating that abortion is a "woman's right to choose" (to a pro-life individual like me) is like arguing that a sniper should not be stopped in his/her activity because they are constitutionally expressing their freedom of expression by only shooting at certain people. Stating that a woman has a right to murder her unborn child is like stating that it's okay to kill certain people in society because they are "undesirables". Taking the life of another person, for whatever motive or purpose, is not a "choice" -- it's killing. Murder is never right. No matter how you attempt to rationalize it -- it's still taking the life of another person.

It's not about telling a woman what to do with her body. It's about protecting the body of the individual in her who has no "choice" in the matter at all. How does that baby feel about being killed before experiencing life outside of his/her mother's womb? What 'choice' in the matter did that person have at all?

This is where we go back to the fundamental argument about what defines "life" -- those who define life as only being (a la Heidegger) after born see it as a "choice" to destroy a fetus or not. Those of us who consider life as something more sacred than leaving a mother's womb see it as something else. Like I've argued before, it's a fundamental difference of opinion and perspective -- and this is why the issue of "abortion" is so intense -- one side sees it as "infringing on a woman's right to choose" while the other side sees it as "murdering a human being who has no choice in the matter at all".

My main point is -- pro-'choice' individuals arguments cannot work against pro-life individuals anymore than the arguments of pro-life people can impact on pro-'choice' individuals because of the fundamental distinction of how we define life.

j.p.

[slickwilly13]

Men arrested over Quan burning.

http://www.aolnews.com/world/article/six-british-men-arrested-after-youtube-quran-burning/19645884

[AcesandEights]

Against the law, eh? :|

[MoonSylver]

***WE INTERRUPT THIS THREAD FOR AN IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT...Since no one has used the Marquee tags or the following smiley yet, allow me...:deadhorse:***...WE NOW RETURN YOU TO YOUR REGULARLY SCHEDULED DEBATE, ALREADY IN PROGRESS***

:lol: :nana: :moon: :fin: