Bush or Kerry: slam the US!

[bigben2k]

Originally Posted by pHaTtYaSs2x4

This is where i disagree, it's called separation of church and state. No church should indorse a political party, it is blasphemy. True christians love everyone, no matter what and don't shun away people. Church and state are a recipe for poison. ...

Thank you, and Amen to that!


Did anyone catch some of the European headlines?

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...onal_headlines

Among others:

How can 59,054,087 people be so DUMB?

Daily Mirror (UK)

Oops — they did it again

Tageszeitung newspaper (Germany)

Europe's Nightmare.

newsmagazine Facts (Switzerland)

Victory for the hothead: how far will he go?

L'Hebdo (Switzerland)

(Granted some of these publications are pretty liberal...)

[pHaestus]

Ben:
You forgot Poland! I bet they had good things to say

Otago is a decent university. I have a research grant that collaborates with a chemist there and my grad student said it was a pretty fun campus. I am going down to Taupo and Wellington for that project in Feb 05 I think for a few weeks.

[mastermind2004]

Originally Posted by pHaTtYaSs2x4

This is where i disagree, it's called separation of church and state. No church should indorse a political party, it is blasphemy. True christians love everyone, no matter what and don't shun away people. Church and state are a recipe for poison.

I'll just say we disagree on this, and leave it at that

This is just one Ever heard of google?

So, cracking down on what is defined to be indecent by a majority is censorship?

Obviously, you don't know what the "patriot act" is. They also have a "right" to view other peoples computer activities(RIAA) even though it's unconstitutional to invade MY privacy. Here's an example

They have the right, with the proper authorizations. They cannot just decide to search your computer. Your rights are not violated by them being able to do it.

That's not what i was getting at.

That's where Canada and America are different, not in control laws, but by other variables. Canada's press doesn't try to scare Canadians, they aren't led by fear.

If saying that churches deciding on our president is wrong, then i feel for you. This is why i want to move, because when people are upset and frusterated and voice their opinions, they're shutoff over a lack of "ideas". I've said what i wanted to say and i believe in an unpartisan nation, where everyone can decide for themselves and not be scared by evil churches that preach blasphemy to our people. A nation where i can turn on the news and have them give me NEWS, not their pompous rich-bitch opinions.

I agree something is wrong with the media, but they are better than nothing. I also disagree with your characterization of the church. Your church should be able to project their opinion, but you still ultimately have to decide. I would like to know where exactly you would move to, as to me, even with all the problems, America is the best place to live. There are many countries where we could not have a debate like this, but America gives that right.

[pHaTtYaSs2x4]

1st John 4:20

[BillA]

Originally Posted by pHaTtYaSs2x4

. . . . . and not be scared by evil churches that preach blasphemy to our people. . . . . .

this is pretty sick shit
who defines "evil"
who defines "blasphemy" ?
who is "our people" ?

yes, YOUR church is to be feared
this is crap even by geek bits standards

[superart]

Originally Posted by pHaTtYaSs2x4

That's where Canada and America are different, not in control laws, but by other variables. Canada's press doesn't try to scare Canadians, they aren't led by fear.

Geee, thats clever. Did you think of that all by yourself. It sounds vaugly farmiliar

[pHaTtYaSs2x4]

Originally Posted by superart

Geee, thats clever. Did you think of that all by yourself. It sounds vaugly farmiliar

LOL. Just because i bring up something that has been pointed out before doesn't make it invalid, is that all you could come up with?

Originally Posted by unregistered

this is pretty sick shit
who defines "evil"
who defines "blasphemy" ?
who is "our people" ?

yes, YOUR church is to be feared
this is crap even by geek bits standards

When a church indorses something, it is dangerous. Churches are for worshipping, not used for political gain. But thats how most of these crooks get away with things, hiding behind the christian name and people think it's ok.
PS: When a church contradicts what the bible has to say about loving and accepting EVERYONE, then I question that church and their true motives.

[BillA]

and I question fools and their 'good books'

[Lothar5150]

Originally Posted by pHaTtYaSs2x4

LOL. Just because i bring up something that has been pointed out before doesn't make it invalid, is that all you could come up with?

When a church indorses something, it is dangerous. Churches are for worshipping, not used for political gain. But thats how most of these crooks get away with things, hiding behind the christian name and people think it's ok.
PS: When a church contradicts what the bible has to say about loving and accepting EVERYONE, then I question that church and their true motives.

I think once you convince people that there is an old man who lives in the sky and he can see everything you do, you can convince people of practically anything.

-George Carlin

[BillA]

not just that, consider the concept of 'heaven', not to mention 72 waiting virgins, etc. etc.

[Joe]

not being a gambler I am hessitant to bet my life on some good thing in the afterlife... yet 72 virgins soulds like a a worthy gamble, I am just waiting for the WI Jihad to kick off

[Cathar]

Personally I just find there to be too many disturbing simililarities between some of the rhetoric coming out of these evangelical senators, and with the super-strict islamic states that the USA media points at as being harsh and extreme.

I feel that this is what upsets many other nations. Not that they accept super-strict religious based states, but that somehow they're now caught in the middle of a religious war.

Islamic militants are always there on TV saying how this is a Christian vs Islam issue when it comes to the USA. Not that many sane people outside of these militants actually believe it, but the increasing alignment between Christianity and the State in the USA certainly does add a lot more merit to the otherwise insane babble of the militants.

[bigben2k]

Exactly, thanks for making that point more clear Cathar.

[BillA]

Cathar
religion is the US is voluntary, and of the lunatic variety that one's superstition prefers
in those "harsh and extreme" states you refer to the religion is not voluntary at all

quite a difference thank you

[pHaTtYaSs2x4]

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

I think once you convince people that there is an old man who lives in the sky and he can see everything you do, you can convince people of practically anything.

-George Carlin

hehe, one of my favorite comedians. And a great statement.

[superart]

Originally Posted by pHaTtYaSs2x4

LOL. Just because i bring up something that has been pointed out before doesn't make it invalid, is that all you could come up with?

Just making an observation disguised as a witty comment. isss alll good.

[Cathar]

Originally Posted by unregistered

religion is the US is voluntary

What about in those parts of the country where "Evolution" is banned from the school curriculum, and Creationism is taught in its place.

Am not saying that the USA is like the Islamic states, but that there does appear to be a strong underlying desire by certain evangelical senators to turn the USA into one forcibly by enshrining their religious beliefs in State law.

[BillA]

no, not so
the separation of church and state is well established
you are listening to vote pandering (talking about things that cannot happen to elicit votes)

only, I believe (??), the 'bible schools' teach that anti-science shit; soul brothers of the islamic schools for sure

[pHaTtYaSs2x4]

Ran across this
Found it interesting.

[Jag]

Cathar: «...but the increasing alignment between Christianity and the State in the USA...»

Bill:«religion is the US is voluntary, and of the lunatic variety that one's superstition prefers».

To me it's not a question of exercising your religion freely, but questioning the role of religious beliefs in politics and it's use to justify and implement political actions.Ex. abortion.

Without discussing this subject per se, when you see Mr. Bush using as a justification for being anti-abortion his religious beliefs, one wonders...
Is it possible to give such a simple black and white answer to this subject based only on YOUR (his) belief?

Why even talk about values?
And the penal system - The Bible gives them an easy answer, if you're caught robbing someone cut their hand - it's so simple.

When you see a graduate officer saying that God spoke to him and steered his hand just moments before going into battle, you at least find it amusing.

If in the past one could say that certain qualities lacked in a certain head of state, and it could serve as a simple explanation for some strange options, now this ever increasing mixture of religion with politics and it's influence in how a country views it's domestic and foreign relations, managed to attract some bright minds to their side and thus establish an official criteria.
This is where the the two sides are converging (muslims and americans).

In the muslim case, the political leaders are also religious leaders but not iliterate, on the contrary the form a group of people with high knowledge among the rest and can impose a certain view of the ideal society and values.

Bill when you say «the separation of church and state is well established», does this also means that just for having democratic elections a democracy is established?

[BillA]

no, legal impediments exist to admixing organized religion and government
who defines 'democratic' ?

abortion is not a political action,
it is an individual action which others, not involved, wish to control
why any man thinks they should have a 'say' in the issue of abortion is quite beyond my understanding
and why some women would want to intervene in the most personal decisions of another woman is another mystery
- perhaps like the greens telling those living in the jungle that they are not allowed to cut the trees

[superart]

Originally Posted by unregistered

no, legal impediments exist to admixing organized religion and government
who defines 'democratic' ?

abortion is not a political action,
it is an individual action which others, not involved, wish to control
why any man thinks they should have a 'say' in the issue of abortion is quite beyond my understanding
and why some women would want to intervene in the most personal decisions of another woman is another mystery
- perhaps like the greens telling those living in the jungle that they are not allowed to cut the trees

I think the man should have a say in the decision. After all, he's the one who will have to pay for the kid if they decide to have it.

[Jag]

Bill:«who defines 'democratic' ?»

- Exactly
And who defines separation of church and state?

Abortion is a political action when you declare it illegal throughout an entire country, for example.
As on the contrary, if you aprove abortion it will have consequences in the medical procedures and in the health policy, costs, and on the lives of the citizens of any country.

[BillA]

he should have worked all that out beforehand, next time keep it in the pocket
your logic is bassackwards
if the father cannot convince the mother to go through with it, he certainally should not have the right to 'force' anything at all
6 Ps

[superart]

I'm not saying he should 'force' anything, but he should have a say in it.