Post by: JimH on March 03, 2002, 11:33:38 pm
I'm taking a few days off to find out what's really going on, and this is where it has led so far.
Jim
Imagine this. The next time you pull a few coins out of your pocket or purse, you find that they have the words “In Allah We Trust” written upon them.
That’s how American coins feel to someone who has a non-Christian belief or is a non-believer altogether. That’s how they feel to me.
Does it matter? It does if we want to preserve our freedoms. And it does if we believe in our Constitution.
We are now being asked to give up a few of our civil liberties in the fight against terrorism. Fine if the period has a definite end; not good if there is no end in sight.
You might ask, “How are religious freedom and terrorism connected?”
Terrorism is rooted in religious differences. If we do not address this fundamental fact, and recognize that the problem exists within American society, then we will see a very long period of terrorism and of “reduced civil liberties”.
Here is an example of the subtlety involved.
If you see a man with a turban or a woman with a scarf as you walk down the street, do you assume sub-consciously that they are second class citizens because they do not believe as the majority does? You may not, but many do.
No citizen should be expected to adhere to the religious beliefs of the majority in order to be something other than “second class”.
The United States is a country in which religious differences have no role in governments, or so the Constitution says. But governments have a way of drifting away from principle and toward the satisfaction of individual greed. Power can shift from “the people” to “those people”. The U.S. has shifted and it will continue to shift unless we act.
This change came about because television brought the ability to buy political power through advertising. Perhaps the Internet may help restore power through communication.
Campaign finance reform may help if it means that less money will be spent to win a seat. Reducing the power of money to influence public opinion will enhance the value of careful discussion and consideration of issues.
We must consider these issues if we expect to have a chance for peaceful resolution of our differences.
Post by: Scronch on March 04, 2002, 12:09:17 am
>>That’s how American coins feel to someone who has a non-Christian belief
>>or is a non-believer altogether. That’s how they feel to me.
Then use credit cards. The path you're going down will have every street sign printed in 17 languages. The original concept of this country was for people to immigrate here, learn the language, work hard, and thrive. It is evolving into: "Come to the United States, milk the government for everything it's worth, and maintain your loyalty to your home country first, even though you have U.S. citizenship."
>>Terrorism is rooted in religious differences
That's crap. Religious differences are the facade the terrorists hide behind. The biographies of terrorists that I have seen speak to greed, power and anti-western sentiment, not specifically anti-Christian sentiment.
>>The United States is a country in which religious differences have
>>no role in governments, or so the Constitution says
No, our Constitution does not say that. We've been through this before in this forum. If you are going to reference the document, you really ought to read it first. Like it or not, our government and laws are firmly entrenched in Christianity. Every session of Congress opens with a prayer. Those that equate this with "second class citizenship" are simply weak-minded. Shall we outlaw stupidity?
>>The U.S. has shifted and it will continue to shift unless we act.
I agree. Except that it has shifted strongly left over the last 4 decades. We do need to act to correct that. Clinton's policies, especially, have put us at substantial risk.
Personally, I am tired of the cry for multi-culturalism and multi-nationalism and tolerance for social and sexual deviance. The 60's revolution has led to sniveling and whining as our way of life. One good change that came out of that period, acceptance of other races, emerged almost as an aside; those "experiencing" the revolution were more interested in mind expansion and "me, me, me" than racial equity.
I must say that the undercurrents that appear in your post surprise me, given that you own and run a company in this country. That's not a criticism; different can be good. I just think you are way off base on this one.
An example: Many have been critical of the way the terrorist "detainees" have been treated while in captivity. Fine, then those are critical can go take care of these guys. Sitting on the sideline and complaining is easy. It appears that whining is "in".
Scronch
Post by: JollyJim on March 04, 2002, 01:09:12 am
A few weeks ago, a 70 year old man was jailed for refusing to put British on his census form. He wanted to put English but it was'nt allowed. He could have put Scottish or Welsh or Irish or Martian but he could'nt put English.
The world has gone mad.
So there
Have a good few days off - Jim
Post by: KingSparta on March 04, 2002, 01:38:44 am
Been around for along time and gives leaders an excuse to kill another, Be it Allah or God
>>That’s how American coins feel to someone who has a non-Christian belief or is a non-believer altogether.
I am a Non-Believer and I don't care what they put on the US coin as long as it says "LEGAL TENDER"
>>do you assume sub-consciously that they are second class citizens because they do not believe as the majority does?
No, I Don't care if they want to worship roots as long as they do not push it on me Or "BLOW ME UP"
Post by: sekim on March 04, 2002, 03:29:01 am
That is crap. Americans should be just that, Americans. No different and all equal. Believe in whatever you want as long as you don't try to force it upon me. If you don't like it, go back to wherever you had it oh so good before.
I'm sure someone is gonna label me now-whatever. I am not racist, just sick of having to make exceptions for everyone else when no one is making an exception for me.
Somehow I thought this country was supposed to be a 'Melting Pot'. Maybe the fire needs to be stoked.
Post by: tWEAKER on March 04, 2002, 03:52:51 am
Imagine there's no heaven,
It's easy if you try,
No hell below us,
Above us only sky,
Imagine all the people
living for today...
Imagine there's no countries,
It isnt hard to do,
Nothing to kill or die for,
No religion too,
Imagine all the people
living life in peace...
Imagine no possesions,
I wonder if you can,
No need for greed or hunger,
A brotherhood of man,
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world...
You may say Im a dreamer,
but Im not the only one,
I hope some day you'll join us,
And the world will live as one.
Enough said!
Post by: IQ10 on March 04, 2002, 04:35:45 am
http://www.age-of-the-sage.org/psychology/skinner.html#Beyond_Freedom_Dignity
http://www.age-of-the-sage.org/psychology/skinner.html#Skinner
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aso/databank/entries/bhskin.html
Frankly I like the first URL reference best, because it allows you to change the color of the background for reading, with a single mouse click! That could not be done, just a short time ago. It illustrates that technology may be the only thing that changes.
The title Beyond Freedom and Dignity is interesting. To me, it tries to frame discussions like this one, in terms that are less driven by emotion, fervor, religion, or 'principles'. Skinner's point was that the ultimate value was SURVIVAL. Not so much an individual's, but I guess the species. Skinner pointed out, that if a rock had consciousness, it might feel that its journey, when falling to the ground, could be characterized by terms like freedom or dignity. There might be important rules promulgated by different groups, as to how the rock should be treated, during its journey, to promote values like freedom and dignity of flight. But of course, the rock's flight is really determined by causes. Kinematics. In the behavioral world, Skinner felt the causes could be understood by operant conditioning. For instance, which posts here are edited, which are deleted, what kind of peer review do they receive. My understanding, is that for Skinner, the 'feelings' of 'freedom' and 'dignity', are no more or less, than the effects of an appropriate operant conditioning system. Not that this is 'bad'. In fact, blaming things on an 'operant conditioning system' is as much tautology as a solution. However such a framework, does lead to the opportunity to get 'Beyond Freedom and Dignity' and use technology to change our lives.
Two extreme example of the use of technology: One was a proposed solution to the horrific expense called assured mutual destruction (MAD) during the 'Cold War' error. To avoid the cost of expensive delivery systems (missiles), there was a proposal that we would allow the Russians to bury 100 H-bombs in the U.S. and they would do likewise. Another example is at birth, everyone receives not only ankle bracelets, but a lethal encapsulated and trackable bullet. Get on a plane, and threaten to destroy its occupants, and puff you are dead. Remove the capsule, and you will find it very difficult to travel anywhere. I present these examples, only to make my point that perhaps only technology has and can change where and how we live.
How technology can or will be used is another question. Here, I hoped the concept of open source and education would find an economic way to be embraced, because of my feelings that only technology really changes. Hopefully to create and share abundance.
[former member]
Post by: JimH on March 04, 2002, 04:59:13 am
Please create a new forum for political discussions...
dwex 03-04-2002 08:30:00 A.M.
JimH, please don't take this as a flame, because it's not in any way intended as such.
I realize this is your bboard, and you can put whatever you want wherever you want. But please consider creating a second forum for non-MJ-specific discussions. FWIW, I tend to agree with the vast majority of your politics. But I find it disconcerting to see political topics thrown in the middle of technical discussions. I think it detracts from the professionalism of the product and organization, and it honestly makes me feel uncomfortable. With the way things are presented in this forum, I feel like I have to take a political position to decide whether or not to use a great piece of software.
Anyhow, just MHO...
--dwex
HOST/IP: 152.163.190.1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[former member] 03-04-2002 08:49:22 A.M.
Modify | Remove
Dwex wrote> "But I find it disconcerting to see political topics thrown in the middle of technical discussions"
There you go! Pehaps without realizing it, Dwex is asking that we focus on the essential operant ingrediant in Beyond Freedom and Dignity
Thanks, Dwex.
[former member]
Post by: JimH on March 04, 2002, 05:16:18 am
Scronch, you win the .50 inch TV for making Clinton responsible for the World Trade Center.
Post by: zevele1 on March 04, 2002, 05:23:10 am
Religion is the root of most of terrorisms.Including the one who kill doctors making absortion in your country.But most of the time the leaders use"empty stomac people" as a tool ,and very often "empty head people" as well
I live in a country where security was and is the first priority.But i will say that it is ONLY security in the game.When they type my name on the computer at Ben Gourion airport,there is not a "second screen' with"may smoke dope,do not pay taxes in time,was 6 months in jail for dangerous driving and so on" when they check me at London airport on my way back,they do not care if i have much more cds than the amount i can have free of taxes,they do not call customs in Israel.They are just about security.They do not want a bomb in the plane,ONLY THIS
I do not know if you understand that i try to say
I cannot speak about USA,but in France,you feel that the new secutity mesures are a tool to police to annoy even more people[if such a thing possible]
Here,because of the way secuty is done,there is a 100% cooperation from people
For a start,secutity is a special force here.Police is police,army is army security is security .They are looking for a bomb,not for an under-age beer or grass cigarette.If they see it,they just do not care,they want people to trust them and to be cooperative
Now,why not to think of terrorist as a acceptable new part of any war?Why still keep the hypocrite difference between soldiers and civils?
Most of the countrys who are targets of terrorism are democratics countrys.Not matter which
president,head of army,politics,there is a common ground that all citizens share.Clinton was not Mao,Bush is not Franco.From a common idea of your country,values,you voice differences,but you still share the same global view.Let say some want wallpaper,other paint on the walls of the house.But none want to burn down the house.The house is exactly what terrorists want to destroy.It is logic to say that in this case there is not soldiers and civils
A whole concept is the enemy.If you keep this reasoning,better to kill 20 kids than 100 soldiers,thousands people in a tower than a group of GI'S
And this is very hard to swallow, even more if you want to stand to your civilised values AND WE HAVE TO
Most racism and intolerance is a form of fear.Thy won big on this side.Fear is everywhere now,and fear needs scarecrows,of the same color or not of the same religion or not
JimH
Can i call you a men of quality?
Post by: Severian on March 04, 2002, 06:48:01 am
You can split hairs about 'Allah' meaning the same thing, but I think the truth is that when you use that word in an English sentence, you're not using it generically. You're using it to mean the Dude but approached specifically through one religion's tenets and its associated culture. You might as well write 'in Isis we trust' or any other specifically named deity, and all the baggage associated with it.
As far as Clinton being responsible, I only partially agree to the extent that some of our actions or lack thereof during his tenure may have been contributing factors, and it's silly to try and pin the whole mess on one guy or event. There's some interesting stuff in 'Black Hawk Down' (book, not movie) that can certainly lead you to believe that when al-Qaida saw us pull out after a bloody nose, that was a major inspiration to them to keep going. In order to talk softly, you've got to swing the big stick occasionally so that you'll be heard the rest of the time. Sad, but so.
--Severian
Post by: Badger on March 04, 2002, 07:53:30 am
If these are the thoughts that go through your head on your days off....please go back to work.
>>
eaceful resolution of our differencesWhat, with the Terrorists?.....NOT A CHANCE.
>>Terrorism is rooted in religious differences......
So what?.......personally, I think terrorism is rooted in the minds of the dumbest people on the face of the earth. Religion is only ancillary to their thinking. We had some people in San Diego a few years ago that thought they could catch a ride on the tail of the Hail Bop Comet if they ate cianide-laced pudding while wearing black Nike tennis shoes. These people only killed themselves, but they were just as religeous and just as stupid as our terrorists.
Mind you, I'm not saying religous people are stupid, I'm saying religeon is here to stay and "resolving our differences" will never happen. Right now, it doesn't matter where terrorism is rooted. THE TERRORISTS WANT TO KILL US. There's no time to sit around and think about religious differences.....COME ON!!!
We're talking survival here and if profiling Arabs in airports is necessary for my survival (and I think it may be)...it must be done.
The entire tone of your post suggests America brought this on. My feelings about the people of this country are completely the opposite of yours. Maybe you're just trying to stir things up?
Post by: KingSparta on March 04, 2002, 07:58:41 am
THERE SHOULD BE MORE PEOPLE WHO THINK LIKE THEY DID
that way there will be more room for people who are not dumb
Post by: IQ10 on March 04, 2002, 08:02:43 am
I agree.
[former member]
Post by: MHorton on March 04, 2002, 08:07:56 am
What created trouble from the outset, was that the USA was a country of devout Christian provincial farmers operating under a governmental system created by people vastly different than themselves--cosmopolitan, intellectual elites who were NOT Christians, but deists. Anyone with at least a freshman level survey course in US history, or who has read anything on US history not published by the Christian Right, American neo-Nazis or paramilitary militias would know this. The "fathers" of our country, the framers of the Constitution knew their target audience, and what it would take to reach their goal, but they were even more acutely aware of the dangers of religious intolerance, and they set out to create a system that would protect the minority from the fanaticism of the majority. You do not have to be a history major to pick up any book on world civ and see how a nation-state's majority imposing its religious beliefs on the minority can tear a state apart just as easily as any outside threat. A small group of worldly, educated philosophers created a system that was designed to ensure the existence of what they had all worked so hard to create, by protecting the people from themselves.
I think that the success of the country has led us to believe that we have somehow become so powerful that we are no longer bound by the forces of our collective history. That is why the Chinese tend not to take us too seriously--looking from their perspective of 4000|PLS| years of civilization, they believe that in our hubris, we will go the way of Persia, Rome and Great Britain before us. Personally, I always thought that, ultimately, we would prove them mistaken about us. However, based upon the actions and attitudes of my fellow countrymen since 9-11, I am losing hope.
A decade and a half ago, I wrote a short essay comparing the situation of the United States to a family, successful in their business and personal lives. In a nutshell: These four family members had the same goal--maintain the level of success that they've worked so hard to achieve. The problem--they are divided in how to achieve their goal. Dad and older sister say, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." They point to how doing what they have always done has gotten them to where they are and that these activities, since proven effective, should not be changed. Mom and younger brother say, "Anything that is not growing, is dieing." They point out that, they became successful in the first place by thinking differently, by looking forward--by not being manacled by the mental chains that that had tied down their parents, but now, rather than continuing that successful outlook, they are making the mistake of saying that their future is chained to the successful activities of the past.
In my essay, there were lots of examples, analogies, demonstrations, elaborations and the like, of course. Skipping all that for now, let me just say that I see our country as being divided along similar lines--those that cling to the past vs. those who look to the future. The first group tends to point to some make-believe, mythological point in the past when everything was perfect, and after which, everything went to pot. The second group looks to some hypothetical, idealized point in the future, achievalbe by discarding the chains of the past and by striving toward an as yet unrealized perfection. To me, there is nothing quite as obviously black and white in political discessions as this division. This past presidential election, polls on many hot topics that show Americans evenly divided, and in all liklihood, this thread--should it continue for any length of time--all point to this seemingly irreconcilable division within America. This, in my opinion, is the greatest danger to our country. Not the "new Americans" bringing their differing ways and religions. Not terrorists. Not even environmental degradation. But the division over whether we should turn around and go back, or whether we should keep driving.
It's OK, go ahead--I have my flak jacket on . . .
Post by: MHorton on March 04, 2002, 08:11:10 am
think Boxer Rebellion and the Russo-Japanese War combined, I think
Post by: zevele1 on March 04, 2002, 08:21:50 am
This time is not a time only for guns and bombs.You need guns and bombs but ,at the same time you need people sitting and thinking.The mix of this 2 things has a name CIVILISATION
There is a logic to profiling arabs in airport.As far as i know if the terrorist had been 1,80 meter tall ,blond hair,blue eyes with Peter,Christiansen,holg as names; any airport will profile people from Scandinavia ,rigth now
I know that America strongly believes that force only can cure anything.You did this mistake many times before,to no good to yourself.If you do again the same mistake,you will loose,big i mean
I do not stand that much on Jim side.To put "in our God we trust" on money is a rigth for a nation.To want anyone ,everywhere to use this money lead to......
Post by: Severian on March 04, 2002, 08:23:05 am
Post by: Badger on March 04, 2002, 08:38:44 am
I believe we agree. This is without question A TIME FOR GUNS AND BOMBS. And I think you would agree that America's diplomacy in world events (without guns and bombs) is without precedent. I was just saying that sitting back and trying to analyze the source of our enemy's actions, (except as to where we drop the bombs and shoot the guns), is dangerous to me, my family, my friends and my country.
Post by: MHorton on March 04, 2002, 08:46:09 am
The Japanese really whipped the pants off the Russians on the land and on the sea. So? Major turning point in modern world history--the first time in modern history that a non-white country had beaten any the imperialistic European nations in open warfare. What we (Europe) thought, yea, so what, it was the Russians--look at their state of readniess for warfare at that time. What they (non-western world) thought: they are not invincible! Encouraged many revolts against the West throughout Asia and the Middle East.
Best of my memory anyway--it's been many years since I studied it. Others can elaborate
Boxers . . .
Post by: zevele1 on March 04, 2002, 09:07:29 am
You need people using bombs and guns,you need people ,million people to sustain[?]endure[?]-sorry about my english- the first ones,but you do need some people sitting and thinking
There is something you have to realise,even terrorists have thinkers at they head.they maybe evil thinkers,fanatics thinkers,but they start from an intellectual view all they acts.
There is a war going on,this time a big hammer is not enought,there is a need for a scapel to be use at the same time.You know how to use the big harmmer,i hope you will learn how to use the scapel.And not only for your best,for my best as well,and the best of millions others
By "sustain-endure" i meam to give support,to give moral support
Of cause,if one day you have more people sitting and thinking that people acting,BIG PROBLEM
Post by: mphorton on March 04, 2002, 09:11:09 am
Something about Chinese patriots circa 1900, disliking Western domination, and rebelling, and the avoidance of a massacre of western forces achieved by setting arrogance and compositeness briefly aside, and achieving an unusual level of cooperation among the forces of Germany, France, Britain, US (what the US and UN forces didn't do in the Black Hawk down story).
Sorry, an old alias somehow slipped in--MHorton)
Post by: Michael Horton on March 04, 2002, 09:22:24 am
Yes, but "competitiveness" isn't a real word. See what happens when you let those silly spell-checkers run wild?
OK, I get you now.
Alright
(and add to Russo-Japanese War comment above--Japan kept that victory against the West in mind, as well as the effect of its initial surprise attack on Port Arthur, but the West forgot, so the West had a little problem with Japan again few years later, and with the effect of its initial surprise attack on Pearl Harbor.)
Post by: hvy duty on March 04, 2002, 09:55:22 am
Post by: Michael Horton on March 04, 2002, 10:10:32 am
Sacco & Vanzetti
Woodrow Wilson and vera Cruz
Pancho Villa and Pershing's punitive expedition
Cheliabinsk-Vladivostok Invasion (1918-19)
The Red Scare (1919-20)
Bruno Richard Hauptmann Trial (1935-36)
A. Mitchell Palmer (Ashcroft's Hero)
Japanese-Americans in WWII
McCarthyism
(all these have tie-ins to today's situation)
Nothing ever changes.
Post by: KingSparta on March 04, 2002, 10:13:37 am
all this garbage (killing) will stop when we humans destroy the world.
given time i am sure we will, before the earth is pulled into the sun
Post by: zevele1 on March 04, 2002, 10:23:51 am
Now there is an other problem,in many white christans countrys on the old continent many many many people dislike us.Nukes?Problem,for the first time in my life i have to think
Post by: zevele1 on March 04, 2002, 10:23:59 am
Now there is an other problem,in many white christans countrys on the old continent many many many people dislike us.Nukes?Problem,for the first time in my life i have to think
Post by: Michael Horton on March 04, 2002, 10:25:35 am
Dinosaurs and Ice Age mammals. Countless mass extinctions prior to those. We, however, are unique. Ours may be the first ever that the participants didn't play a passive role in the event.
Post by: Michael Horton on March 04, 2002, 10:34:40 am
Lithuanians really bug me. Can we nuke them first? It's a small country--won't take many missiles or much time. We can use the excuse that we needed a place to work on our accuracy. Just make sure not to bother the Estonians. They're the ones that like us, right? Or is it the other way around? Oh hell, who cares? They're all too poor to buy much from us. Nuke 'em all.
Post by: zevele1 on March 04, 2002, 10:48:58 am
you know there is a great sadeness in all american forums about this subject.Most are only "kill them" posts and very few are"why" post.And if you do not ask why?,you will lose
I feel that i am reading again Texas from Michener
Can the greatest boxer of all the times wearing his gloves win a "milk a cow the faster" contest?
Post by: KingSparta on March 04, 2002, 10:53:08 am
that sounds easy but, when you use the word "NUKE" it is not very diplomatic. i think any country who uses the first Nuke now days will feel the wrath of the rest of the world.
I was in the Small Combat Nuke Bussness when in the artilliry you have some very uptight people you need to deal with (to say the least).
Sometimes i feel the same way, blow them all up and no problem, move on and fly a kite with your kids the next day.
what would be better if all people could just get along with each other, and stop this senceless killing no matter where it is.
Post by: Michael Horton on March 04, 2002, 10:57:08 am
sorry, my tongue was planty firmly in my cheek, but you were unable to see that due to our distance apart
parody--imitating the characteristic style of some other work, but treating a serious subject in a nonsensical manner, as in ridicule (caricature--is that a French word?) Tartuffe. Commentary on the world being nothing more than consumers for capitalists (too poor to buy, too unskilled to be valuable workers, who need's 'em), the ability to nuke anyone without having an affect on nearby friendlies (hit Lithuania without having an impact on Estonia?), and on the reasons someone would choose to use nukes in the first place(those people are inconvenient in some way, and to the point that the general environment must suffer as a result for next few thousand years--to hell with the world that our kids will live in).
Post by: hvy duty on March 04, 2002, 11:04:37 am
Post by: zevele1 on March 04, 2002, 11:05:24 am
And i know many other countrys who dont give a dam to the wrath of the rest of the world
Post by: hvy duty on March 04, 2002, 11:09:04 am
I don't think Japan has been hurt as far as I know it is in good shape I think better than us.
Post by: hvy duty on March 04, 2002, 11:09:07 am
I don't think Japan has been hurt as far as I know it is in good shape I think better than us.
Post by: sekim on March 04, 2002, 11:13:23 am
Do you live in same said country? I can only imagine the tension that must be in the air where you reside. Something most of us, living here, will never have to face first hand.
Post by: zevele1 on March 04, 2002, 11:30:24 am
What is the point to kill 30,300,3000,30000,even more terrorists and at the same to oblige the poorest farmers on earth to use the american " sterile seeds".The one you cannot take some from the harvest for the next year,they just do not grow. They have to buy new seeds each year TO AN AMERICAN CORPORATE.And they are more poor and this is the bed for the comming generations of terrorist.You may say such things are fine ,it is just capitalist,why not,but in this case you have to go to the end of the logique,september was a kind of capitalist as well
You do not realise that million are ready to take they own life to destroy you and that MILLIONS stand,in one way or another ,on they side
It is not guns you need,it is brains,thinking,self critic.And a large part of you have more guns that the others things
Post by: Michael Horton on March 04, 2002, 11:38:29 am
I'm sorry, but did you say Japan hasn't been hurt? That's debatable, but that's not my point. Deciding whether dropping nuclear bombs on Japan was right/wrong is now a matter of hindsight. Given the circumstances: military--the impending loss of American lives that would result from an invasion of the Japanese mainland; political--the impending occupation of Japanese held territory by the Soviet Union; and scientific--what was known about atomic energy and its affects, I agree with the decision made at THAT time. But now we're talking about using a little foresight. Again, we do not have to be manacled to an activity that led to success in the past. That was then. The circumstances are not anywhere close to be as dire as then. We have options that weren't available then. We know much, much more about the effect of radiation than we knew then. The radiation from all those tests accumulates. When it comes to using nukes, we now know that it's not a case of cutting off a diseased toe to save the foot, but instead it's a case of cutting off the leg to save the foot. Progress implies moving ahead.
Post by: tullio on March 04, 2002, 11:55:10 am
From Roger Williams, patriarch of the Baptist faith:
"It is the will and command of God that, since the coming of His Son, the Lord Jesus, a permission of the most Paganish, Jewish, Turkish or anti-Christian consciences be granted to all men...God requireth not an uniformity of religion to be enacted and enforced in any civil state...An enforced uniformity of religion throughout a nation or civil state confounds the civil and religious, denies the principles of Christianity and civility, and that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh."
From Thomas Jefferson (in a lletter to William Short):
"But the greatest of all reformers of the depraved religion of his own country, was Jesus of Nazareth. Abstracting what is really his own from the rubbish in which it is buried, easily distinguished by its lustre from the dross of his biographers, and as separable from that as the diamond from the dunghill, we have the outlines of a system of the most sublime morality which has ever fallen from the lips of man."
In a footnote appended to this letter, Jefferson identified that to which he referred to as rubbish thus:
"The immaculate conception of Jesus, his deification, the creation of the world by him, his miraculous powers, his resurrection and visible ascension, his corporeal presence in the Eucharist, the Trinity, original sin, atonement, regeneration, election, orders of the Hierarchy, etc."
From Benjamin Franklin (when pressed about his religious convictions):
"You desire to know something of my Religion. It is the first time I have been questioned upon it. But I cannot take your curiosity amiss, and shall endeavor in a few Words to gratify it. Here is my creed. I believe in one God, Creator of the Universe. That he governs it by his Providence. That he ought to be worshipped. That the most acceptable Service we render to him is doing good to his other Children. That the soul of Man is immortal, and will be treated with justice in another Life respecting its Conduct in this. These I take to be the fundamental Principles of all sound Religion, and I regard them as you do in whatever Sect I meet with them."
Now we come to Franklin's thoughts about Jesus.
"As to Jesus of Nazareth, my Opinion of whom you particularly desire. I think the System of Morals and his Religion, as he left them to us, the best the World ever saw or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupting Changes, and I have, with most of the present dissenters in England some Doubts as to his Divinity; tho' it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an Opportunity of knowing the Truth with less Trouble. I see no harm, however, in its being believed, if that Belief has the good Consequence, as probably it has, of making his Doctrines respected and better observed; especially as I do not perceive, that the Supreme takes it amiss, by distinguishing the Unbelievers in his Government of the World with any peculiar marks of displeasure."
Prayerat the Constitutional Convention:
"It is perhaps symbolic of the difference in the relationship of state and religion between the Continental Congress and the new government established by the Constitutional Convention of 1787, that whereas the Continental Congress instituted the practice of daily prayers immediately on first convening, the Convention met for four months without any recitation of prayers. After the Convention had been in session for a month, the octogenarian Franklin, who in earlier years had been pretty much of a Deist, moved 'that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the Clergy of this City be requested to officiate in that service.' The motion was received politely though not without embarrassment. According to the records of the Convention, 'After several unsuccessful attempts for silently postponing the matter by adjourning, the adjournment was at length carried, without any vote on the motion!".
No formal prayers were ever recited at the Constitutional Convention.
What’s in the Constitution? Most people are familiar with the so-called “freedom of religion” statement in the Bill of Rights. Fewer are familiar with Article VI, Section III, which specifically prohits any religious test as a condition for holding public office.
The elimination of religious tests for public office by the Constitutional Convention of 1787 represented a major achievement for the future course of American church-state relations. Article VI not only removed the basis for any preferential treatment of one religion over another for holding public office, but also denied the right of any preferential status of religion over nonreligion in matters of one's political participation in the life of the Republic. William Lee Miller appropriately noted in his recent historical review of religion and the Constitution, The First Liberty: Religion and the American Republic, that "in the framing of Article VI ...the new nation was electing to be nonreligious in its civil life." On the subject of religion, Miller finds "more striking than what the Federal Constitution did include is what it did not." Unlike other legal documents of the period and throughout history, there art no references in the Constitution to the Deity, to God, to "Providence." or even to the Creator, as in the case of the Declaration of Independence, which, unlike the Constitution, was not a formal legal document.
Shortly after its founding the US became embroiled with the state of Tripoli over the issue of piracy. The conflict was resloved in 1796, and the treaty bringing it to a close contains the following passage:
Article 11 read, "As the govemment of the United States of America is not founded in any sense on the Christian religion - as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen [Muslims] - and as the said states have never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."
In the Senate, the treaty barely caused a ripple. According to The Journal of the Executive Proceedings of the United States Senate, the treaty was read aloud on the floor of the Senate and copies were printed for the senators. No discussion or argument about the document was recorded, and the vote in favor was unanimous. It was also reprinted widely in newspapers, and there is no record of public objection to its wording.
Post by: Michael Horton on March 04, 2002, 11:58:02 am
I understand what you're saying about the Green Revolution and the failure of American methods for the people of northern Africa. Bad soil can't be replaced by fertilizer if you can’t afford fertilizer. Genetically engineered seeds won't grow without fertilizer and require irrigation. Irrigation requires a water supply and money--of which the North Africans had neither. Our motivation was to help; our method was to arrogantly come in, take over and say you have to do it our way to succeed. But when they try, and it fails, and they now have no seed from last year’s crops to sow, so there is increased starvation, what did we do. Give them food. More food=more babies=more land needed for the population=deforestation for expansion=environmental degradation=more starvation. Then we scratch our head and say, why do they hate us? Perhaps we should have just said "let 'em starve" from the outset? Or, could we simply have applied reason unmitigated by our arrogance, seasoned with an application of our knowledge of history and science and possibly have foreseen the outcome of our efforts? And some understanding and appreciation that we're not perfect from the other side wouldn't hurt either.
Post by: hvy duty on March 04, 2002, 12:01:16 pm
Sorry they get up every morning and are taught to hate Americans. You tell me how to change that and I will agree with you but in the meantime I want a little protection for my family and everybody else.
Post by: zevele1 on March 04, 2002, 12:03:08 pm
As you can see on my profile,i am in Tel-Aviv.I hope that this will help to understand that i do not try to be a psycho anti american.Yes we are on the front line.If your country attacks Irak ,i will have to put nylon on all windows of one room,to keep bottle water,to put my gaz mask at each alert,and to have my injections ready in case they tell us to inject it.Something none of you will have to do.Anyway,we did it once in 91,so next time will be a kind of"routine".We cannot nuke palestiniens,but kill most of them,this we can.And what?To give them some respect,a way to live with job,food can be a better way to try to solve the problem.We have a lot of"nuke them"here,since ever but to not result
I am a 50 years old jew living in Israel.But today as a 18 years old palestinien i will kill israeliens and have a Bin Laden poster in my room
It is what i try to say,you have to try to understand why if you want to succes.To understand is not to approve.You just give yourself more power and strenght.Bomb and bomb if you want,you maybe you need more than one Vietnam to start to understand,but it will be to late
Post by: tullio on March 04, 2002, 12:11:32 pm
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all TREATIES made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." (emphasis mine)
(Article VI, Section II, United States Constitution)
Never having been voided or modified, the language of the Tripoli Treaty has had the force of law since 1797. The US is officially NOT a Christian nation.
Post by: Michael Horton on March 04, 2002, 12:22:17 pm
Your points were well taken and I think well applied. Be careful, though, when you use quotes from our "forefathers." They were politicians, and business and politics, not personal revelation was typically at the head of their agenda. They spoke to their "audience." For every statement that I could locate indicating that they were not "Christians" in the traditional sense, someone else could find one indicating that they were. For most pro-Christian utterances that someone were to fiund, someone else could find a source indicating that the statement was fabricated at some later time in order for the fabricator to make their own point. Yours, I think, are good. I have a book the topic of which is the accuracy of quotes attributed to our founding fathers. Interesting read. Published though, by a skeptic society. Best to trust original sources, and then with a mind as to the setting of the document.
Post by: JimH on March 04, 2002, 12:23:29 pm
> Sometimes i feel the same way, blow them all up and no problem, move on and fly a kite with your kids the next day.
> what would be better if all people could just get along with each other, and stop this senseless killing no matter where it is.
and zevele when he said:
I am a 50 years old jew living in Israel.But today as a 18 years old palestinien i will kill israeliens and have a Bin Laden poster in my room. It is what i try to say, you have to try to understand why if you want to succes.To understand is not to approve.You just give yourself more power and strenght. Bomb and bomb if you want,you maybe you need more than one Vietnam to start to understand,but it will be tos late.
and MHorton and many others.
There are too many people who hate the U.S. and some of their reasons may be valid. But we can't find a way to understand each other with bombs or guns. Sooner or later, we need to talk.
The reason I think religion is at the root of the problem is the hatred between Palestinians and Israelis is based in part on religious differences. It's more than that, of course. Land, wealth, culture, history. But there is a deep animosity that is religious in nature.
Post by: hvy duty on March 04, 2002, 12:26:45 pm
You done good If I had started this thread I would have left town too.
Post by: Michael Horton on March 04, 2002, 12:30:08 pm
Personal opinion: its really the other reasons that you have listed. But, it looks better to say "my God insists that I kill you if you don't join up and bring your riches, so don't blame me" than to say "I want what you have and can't think of any other way to get other than to kill for it," or "our ancestors have fought for millennia for one reason or another, so no reason to stop now."
Post by: zevele1 on March 04, 2002, 12:35:49 pm
The mistakes you spoke about are not only american mistakes.The same can be say about most europeens country.
I spoke about this seeds because,not long ago in India,farmers just killed the americans of this corporate.In this case they have water and so on.It is just that this corporate imposed,by one way or an other, they seeds.You will tell me it was an american corporate,not America the country,the people ,you did such a thing.And you may be right.
But ,here is a problem you have:for many people America is this "seed corporate",MacDo,Microsoft,all the Hollywood S##.They do not know about Faulkner,Jim Harrisson,the great american thinkers.For them a typical american is or all this corporates or the likeable idiot in Forrest Gum[?]You have a problem with your image.It is your main problem in not "war of religion" countrys
I stand on your side,but you are not "white as snow" in all this drama
Better the pain of peace than the long death throes of war
Man created god,the other way has still to be prove
Post by: hvy duty on March 04, 2002, 12:51:30 pm
Your posts are well taken but as I asked in another post what is your solution you are on the front line you see everyday what we seen once. I try to understand what people think about us and I don't think money will buy respect it would be nice if every one could get along but that is not going to happen in a dictatorship people have no say in what goes on. I have to agree on corporate greed but we won't be able to get rid of that
Post by: Scronch on March 04, 2002, 12:52:04 pm
Jim, you have misquoted our Constitution twice now, and now you misquote me. Here are my exact words:
Those policies led directly to the lack of intelligence that allowed 9/11. The Clinton legacy is [removed] in the oval office and 3,000 dead in NYC.
There is a large difference between allowing something to be done and being responsible for it.
Like it our not, our's is a government of policies. Policies are put in place by administrations. The Clinton administration put in place policies that halved our military in less than 8 years and decimated our intelligence agencies. If you see no cause and effect here, then all I can say is I'm glad Matt and company are doing your coding.
Scronch
P.S. - You feel you have to remove the "bj" oral sex word from my commentary, when that is this president's lasting legacy. He was getting one while on the phone with a congressman, discussing national policy. You defend this guy, but you feel you have to remove descriptions of his activities from your forum. Think about that for a while.
Post by: Michael Horton on March 04, 2002, 12:54:38 pm
some religious fundamentalists may disagree, but . . .
human beings have been animals (in the biological, not toilet-humor sense) much, much longer than they have been civilized. Reason has made progress, but not replaced instinct. Like other "social" animals, we naturally have an "us vs. them" instinct that's hard to shake free from. The only thing that ever seems to vary, is the criteria in distinguishing us from them. As the world seems to grow ever smaller, we should keep in mind that the broader that we can define the "us," the less likely it is that the nukes will fly. Silly, maybe. But ponder the idea some.
Post by: hvy duty on March 04, 2002, 01:05:17 pm
By your post Bush cleaned everything up in 9 month's otherwise with a depleted military we couldn't have done so good. What we here now is if Bush blows his nose don't criticize we are in a war.
Post by: zevele1 on March 04, 2002, 01:08:28 pm
Concerning here,i would like to think that it is ,at least concerning palestiniens and us,more a land problem than a religious one.But i am very afraid to be wrong
The only way to know is to try to understand,to speak.But with the gun loaded,in case
As Marx said"religion is the opium of people" Seems that it is not good for most of the planet to be stoned
Post by: zevele1 on March 04, 2002, 01:08:37 pm
Concerning here,i would like to think that it is ,at least concerning palestiniens and us,more a land problem than a religious one.But i am very afraid to be wrong
The only way to know is to try to understand,to speak.But with the gun loaded,in case
As Marx said"religion is the opium of people" Seems that it is not good for most of the planet to be stoned
Post by: Scronch on March 04, 2002, 01:15:45 pm
Post by: hvyduty on March 04, 2002, 01:23:25 pm
Post by: JGourd on March 04, 2002, 01:27:20 pm
Personally, I think the rate at which the humans as a whole rape the earth of its life sustaining resources, the world would be a better place a with a few hundred billion less people.
Post by: tullio on March 04, 2002, 01:33:51 pm
If you'll go to http://www.afa.org/magazine/april2000/0400def_print.html/ you'll find data on the rise and fall of defense spending since WWII. You'll see that, on average, spending over the 8 Clinton years remained just about level with where it was at the end of the reign of Bush I. The biggest dips took place under George I. This is not surprising since this is the immediate post-cold war adjustment. If you factor out the additional funds being requested for home security and hunting terrorists, the current proposal is only slightly higher than Clinton's final budget.
The figures were assembled by the Air Force Association.
Post by: KingSparta on March 04, 2002, 01:40:19 pm
> Arab people hate the name Bush (think about)
That was Funny but i think un-true
Post by: hvy duty on March 04, 2002, 01:43:41 pm
Nice link but as you know people only see what they want to see. My last post PROMISE
Post by: tullio on March 04, 2002, 01:46:46 pm
Your caution is well taken, especially in the case of Jefferson, who tended to be erratic in his public statements. However, quotes culled from private letters are more reliable expressions of genuinely held positions.
Back in 1984 Bernard Katz did exactly what you suggest, used quotes from the framers (out of context) to demonstrate their commitment to a Christian America ("On Our Founding Fathers," American Rationalist, March/April 1984). In subsequent issues of the same publication, Robert Nordlander effectively decimated Katz's argument.
A good "mainline" reference is The Godless Constitution, The Case Against Religious Correctness. By Isaac Kramnick and R. Laurence Moore. W. W. Norton & Company New York/London.(1996).
Post by: zevele1 on March 04, 2002, 02:01:52 pm
We are "in a better situation" than you
They hate something concrete: me at this very time in from of my computer,on this piece of land.I can beleive that if i move my computer to France,they will not hate me anymore.If you tell me you are not sure of it,you may be rigth........
The hate of America is much more less rational.You are "the great satan" for this people.Only this,"great satan" ,says a lot about the fantasy of the thing.Do not forget the word "jihad"=sacred war.You are,more than any other country,"the country of Jesus "for them
Why they hate you? For a part it is so easy to have a "great satan' than to give food to people.If Arafat signs any kind of peace agrement,he will have to "sell it to his people",to stop to send kids in the streets,to stop to send suicide bombers.He will have to say now we have to built roads,hospitals,to form teachers and so on.They have NOTHING,no health systems.no roads,no electicity,no water system.And it is not the fault of Israel.They got from Europe MILLIONS dollars and they built nothing.In one word he will have to deal with real life,and this is much harder than what he is doing now
solutions?Do you think i have one?I have a very provocative one,but a true one.Stop to help Israel,let say help to destroy Israel,you will be very popular to most of this people
Concerning the hardcore part of islamic terrorism i do not see any solution,not from you,not from anyone.For the other part ,money is one of the solution.But not money "given from a plane'Money not given to States,but to small projects.I will say to try to give one meal to each once a day,but not McDo hamburgers.To find a solution needs to think a lot,to speak a lot,to try a lot.And not only USA has to do it.And ,also,to bomb
Many,many times i fell like KingSparta said,and i will act according to it if i was allow to do so.And i understand the trauma to be hated for the only raison to be part of the people of a country
If i can ,let me say that i am more that surprise by Bush.I mean in a positive way
Post by: zevele1 on March 04, 2002, 02:11:36 pm
Scronch
tanks,planes,soldiers are not enougth.This is not second worldwar,not Vietnam.This is a new kind of war
To have more than 10 people speaking arabic at the CIA is also part of the defense forces
Post by: hvy duty on March 04, 2002, 02:40:09 pm
Your points are well taken I agree if you feed and clothe and help them be self sufficient I totally agree but we have tried that it don't seem to work. As to Israel they do have a problem but I stand with them. (I'm not Jewish, French-Irish) the Arabs don't want them to exist. Ok I will probably pee you off but France they are so wishy washy it should be an embrassment to all frenchmen. The Saudi's another one they take our oil money and pump up the bin laden's
Post by: KingSparta on March 04, 2002, 02:56:26 pm
"Patterns Of Force", Star Date 2534.0
Enterprise threatened by 23rd Century Nazis!
A Federation Advisor's experiment in the efficient Nazi government that has gotten out of control, and war routed in racial haterd is being waged against a peaceful neighboring planet.
and as we speak braking news on fox news channel more people have died in Israel, for what?
Post by: zevele1 on March 04, 2002, 03:00:24 pm
I undestand that you have french/irish blood.I have some droops of irish blood.But this is a long story.......
I agree with you ,you can stand on Israel side and have a lot to say at the same time.
France is an ambarassement TO ALL-period
You are rigth about Saoudi.I was thinking about it ,in others things,when i said "you are not white as snow"The game you play since so long with them is not healthy.Now they feel you a little stiff since september.So they have "a new peace deal",rubish,they just you to be a good friend again,and still to send money to hamas,jihad islamic,Bin Laden,as allways it was
Post by: hvy duty on March 04, 2002, 03:05:04 pm
You just said it better than I could.
Post by: zevele1 on March 04, 2002, 03:11:44 pm
...,for what?Just to have a place on they own,to have a country in the place from where they come from
FOR NOT HAVING ANYONE PUTTING THEM IN TRAINS TO AUSWITCH again
Post by: KingSparta on March 04, 2002, 03:14:27 pm
And why are they killing Jewish people?
thats what I don't understand, regardless of the reason
Post by: hvy duty on March 04, 2002, 03:21:50 pm
don't want to get into with you but the simple reason is they hate them. Dogs hates Cats same thing I guess it it just bred into you
Post by: KingSparta on March 04, 2002, 03:27:28 pm
i know
What you say reminds me of simple racism where your mom and dad may hate a race you grow up that way and you also hate that race or religion.
I just don't understand things like that, makes no sence, and is non-productive.
Post by: zevele1 on March 04, 2002, 03:33:50 pm
If you mean now.They just want to throw away any jews from here.They do not want us.It is a blaspheme to have jews on Allah soil.NOT ALL palestiniens think like this,but a large part.And if no more jews,they will start to kill the few christians and to pull down all churchs
I do not know if you get arabic newspapers translated in us newspapers.But,in many arabs country ,the newspapers said that Israel was behind september attack.And that no jew was kill in the towers,because they got warning from the mossad
Dring,dring,,Hello,mister Moshe KingSparta? Don't go to work tomorrow,we blow out the tower where you work.................................
Ho yes but i have my computer with 70 000 mp3 on it there.
So, let do it,call all your jewish colleagues,tell them to take they computers,mugs,candies and we will blow away the tower the day after
Better to joke about such garbage
Post by: Harry The Hipster on March 04, 2002, 03:49:01 pm
I think it was John Stuart Mill who said that his freedom ended where the other fellow's nose begins. Well worth remembering. No-one in his/her right mind has tried to tell the devout in the USA that they are not free to practice their religion as they see fit (short perhaps of human sacrifice, genital mutilation and the like). The real debate is over the public space - what some perceive as the insistence by believers on appropriating those spaces to their own purposes, so that the non-believers who venture there do so if you will at the sufferance of those who have appropriated it.
Oddly, none of that bothers me very much. I grew up in a Jewish family living in an isolated NE town and went to a traditional NE school where religious observance (not mine, I can guarantee you) was the party line - Vespers once a week, Sunday morning services, etc., all compulsory. Right out of A Separate Peace. I could daydream through it. Probably gross insensitivity, but water off a duck's back.
In fairness, however, other people care a lot. This is a polyglot society, and its becoming more so. We better learn how to tolerate one another, and make our way day to day without arm-wrestling over whose version of Divine Truth hangs in our courthouses, or we'll wind up in a dark and lonely place.
On terrorism, of two minds (they have a lovely time talking to one another at 3 AM).
- Left brain: "Well, as horrendous as their behavior is, we need to understand what breeds this sort of behavior, besides sheer psychosis."
- Right brain: "Screw you, mushhead, line them up against the wall, let them say their prayers at warp sped, then fire."
Not necessarily inconsistent, unless you believe that all people outside the Judaeo-Christian culture are inherently evil. Zevele accurately points out that the dispossessed have a distressing tendency to breed much faster than those in the First World, and sooner or later, numbers take their toll. That's particularly so when their road to Nirvana is paved with bombs and self-immolation, which is not exactly a shared value for most of us.
Remember relative deprivation? Favorite theory of the early 60s - uneducated Afro day laborer sitting in a bar in Harlem, watching a TV show with a happy middle class white family in a suburban home with comforts he can't imagine. He might not be starving, but he's pissed. If that was a factor with TV in its early primitive stage, its exponential in an age of instant communications and globalized American culture, and doesn't get better when the viewer is starving as well as uneducated.
So all philosophical issues aside, it is in our enlightened self-interest to create a climate in which they can focus on their own well-being instead of killing the infidels. Ultimately, defusing their anger is a whole lot more effective than killing them - at least for the 80%|PLS|/- who are not truly nuts.
The other 20%? Take over, Mr. Right Brain. They're bad dudes. Don't fall into Mme de Stael's trap: "To understand everything is to forgive everything." Yes, its important to understand, because (Zevele again) knowledge is power, and in the long term is probably more effective than guns alone, but old Mr. Right Brain, the hairy ape, has a legitimate claim here too. If we don't finish off the truly whacked out ones who present an immediate threat, we'll deserve what we get. Doing this won't make it any easier to convert the rest of them, but being rational doesn't mean you have to be heedless, and I'm enough of a neo-Marxist to believe that economics eventually will control over just about every other societal driver. That includes for most of us religion, too.
In essence, a two-track process.
HTH
Post by: hvy duty on March 04, 2002, 03:49:37 pm
That is what I tried to say King I didn't say it was right but I would like to know how to change things. We started in the 60's we are not there yet but this country does try to change I know it's slow but some credit is due it would be nice if everybody got a long but that is not going to happen in the real world(Alan Jackson Here in the real world, I know you are not in to country) but anyway If sombody finds a way we can all get along he will win the prize can't think of it now but the dynamite expert HAS IT once a year help me out its a big prize.
CHEERS
Post by: Severian on March 04, 2002, 03:50:34 pm
Post by: KingSparta on March 04, 2002, 04:03:04 pm
shoot don't remember them all off hand, but i was in germany the same time you were i was in the 3rd Inf div at the time
one was FSO Of 1\506 Inf 1\4 FA now deactivated
is this close?
I went to flight school shortly after, OH-58 A\C
http://www.hoskinson.net/gulfwar/storm82.html
paladin:
Post by: zevele1 on March 04, 2002, 04:04:09 pm
How can it be 3 am for you also?Here is 3AM,well almost 4.Tuesday March o5-4am
King
If you want to understand even less
you-if you are white-,me and arafat are from the same race=white
Me and arafat are from the same branch of the white race=semite our ancestor is Sem
more to do with religion,than race
Post by: zevele1 on March 04, 2002, 04:07:17 pm
Post by: hvy duty on March 04, 2002, 04:09:03 pm
Post by: KingSparta on March 04, 2002, 04:09:24 pm
yes, many
they don't call them bases however, that is more of a Air force thing
Post by: Michael Horton on March 04, 2002, 04:20:20 pm
>>>>>>France is an ambarassement TO ALL
no, it isn't. For a start, where would our constitution be without Montaigne? And the philosophes'. Locke too, but he's not French. The French naval blockades of the British during our Revolution. But anyway, I just didn't like that "France is an ambarassement" statement. Now, I suppose, I'm obligated to kill you.
top10 list tomorrow
good night
Post by: zevele1 on March 04, 2002, 04:32:57 pm
Before you kill me
The voice of France today in the political world is ambarassement
I was raise on Montaigne,Rousseau and many others.At school but also at home.
On the intelectual side[if i have any] i am 99,99% french.And very happy of such a gift
Post by: Severian on March 04, 2002, 04:36:34 pm
SFC Wright was there the whole time I was there, though. Funny to see his face again. Nice shot of the A6. Can imagine four of those would go a long way in Eastern Afghanistan. Don't know if I'd have known anybody who was in your area at that time. Maybe Derek Pierson, he was an FSO in a light battalion over there, don't remember which one. Most people who were at Hood with me went over to Germany after I got out.
I think Hell On Wheels is gone, hvy. I suppose you knew that, but they reflagged to 4ID right as I was leaving in '96. Bunch of guys walking around with this blank triangle over their left chest pocket.
Post by: Charlemagne 8 on March 04, 2002, 05:12:31 pm
I do have to say this. The bombs dropped at Hiroshima and Nagasaki were primitive and relativley weak compared to the planet-busters that were developed during the Cold War.
You "nuke" somebody, anybody, we ALL die. Some now some later but everybody and everything on Earth (except rats and cockroaches) will die if any of those bombs are deployed.
CVIII
Post by: Michael Horton on March 04, 2002, 07:41:16 pm
planet-busters? someone failed elementary double-speak
Oh, and I forgot about a signature that I used to use here many moons ago:
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Benjamin Franklin, Motto of the Historical Review of Pennsylvania
Post by: JimH on March 04, 2002, 10:41:07 pm
From Thomas Jefferson (in a lletter to William Short):
"But the greatest of all reformers of the depraved religion of his own country, was Jesus of Nazareth. Abstracting what is really his own from the rubbish in which it is buried, easily distinguished by its lustre from the dross of his biographers, and as separable from that as the diamond from the dunghill, we have the outlines of a system of the most sublime morality which has ever fallen from the lips of man."
In a footnote appended to this letter, Jefferson identified that to which he referred to as rubbish thus:
"The immaculate conception of Jesus, his deification, the creation of the world by him, his miraculous powers, his resurrection and visible ascension, his corporeal presence in the Eucharist, the Trinity, original sin, atonement, regeneration, election, orders of the Hierarchy, etc."
JGourd on "it would be nice to have a few hundred billion fewer people" (from memory).
It's 6 billion now, going up by 1 million every five days. 33% (2 billion) live in serious poverty). And the growth is rooted in both poverty and religion.
Scronch,
If you "allow" something, are you not also "responsible" for it? Interesting question, subject to debate, but I would say yes. If your religion allows practices that result in the murder of doctors from abortion clinics, I would say you are responsible.
Amazing thread. You must understand by now that the main purpose was to take some attention off the bugs so the team could get some of them fixed!
Tomorrow, we'll really take the gloves off and talk football.
Post by: Cmagic on March 04, 2002, 11:16:19 pm
JimH, Zev, hvy duty, Mhorton and all the others you all have good points.
But who am I to distribute good points ?
Who am I to say that this is the truth and this is not ?
I'm just a man, an ordinary man, like millions of them on planet earth.
A man with weaknesses and stengths,
a man with dirt in one hand and gold in the other,
a man with dreams and nightmares, just an ordinary guy.
We're all the same, regardless of our physical and ideological differences,
we're just ordinary folks.
Hoping for our dreams to come true... one day.
- Les Hommes se distinguent par ce qu'ils montrent et se ressemblent par ce qu'il cachent -
(Paul Valery)
Post by: zevele1 on March 05, 2002, 01:52:02 am
The meaning of all of this was not so much to give good or bad marks.It was to deal with fear
Physical or intellectual or philisophical fear
A very bad translation of Valery,can be
" people are different by what they show,they are similar by what they hide "
Many of us did not hyde that much on all this posts.If of any help for some it was worth a lot
I may be the only one fearless.Because i choosed where i am,what i want
bonne journee
Post by: Cmagic on March 05, 2002, 03:09:28 am
I did not mean that this thread was about giving good or bad points.
My post just expressed (very badly indeed) my feeling at the moment, kinda of
bluesy feeling about some important matters discussed here.
>> Many of us did not hyde that much on all this posts.
I Know, that's what I like in this forum.
Bonne journée à toi Zev
Post by: sekim on March 05, 2002, 03:22:08 am
I've got one of those on the front of my truck-BUG DEFLECTOR.
Post by: tullio on March 05, 2002, 04:05:47 am
JimH – if you liked the Jefferson quote, you would probably enjoy seeing where it led him. With meticulous care he edited out all the “rubbish” from the New Testament, and produced his own version. It’s been reissued recently with an excellent introduction by Forrest Church. TJ’s version runs about 90 pages. “The Jefferson Bible: The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth,” Beacon Press, 1989.
MHorton – I’d add the Haymarket Riot to your excellent list and also point out that during the 19th and early 20th centuries terrorists were known as anarchists and/or bolsheviks and were widely feared. In fact fear of bolshevik terrorism was a significant factor in Hitler’s rise to power. But I would argue that things have changed. Today’s terrorists have access to a far wider range of more powerful weapons, and in the case of al-Qaida financial support such as bolsheviks could never even imagine. And while the basis for terrorist attacks is still substantially political, the undeniable addition of religious zealotry and racism has changed the nature of both the attacks and the response to them.
I’m also reminded of Marshall McLuhan’s observation that contemporary education is like driving a high powered car with your foot pressed heavily on the accelerator and your eyes fixed firmly on the rear view mirror.
Scronch – You twice upbraided JimH for misrepresenting the Constitutional position on church-state. I’m genuinely curious as to what you believe he misrepresented. Here is ALL of what the Constitution has to say about religion:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof (First Amendment)
. . . no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public trust under the United States. (Article VI, Sec III)
What did JimH say that was inconsistent with either of these?
Zevele 10 (and others) -- I travel a great deal, and, in fact, spent the second half of September and all of October in your part of the world (not Israel, but Rhodes, Cyprus, Turkey, and a few other places). The vast majority of Americans simply don’t understand how much this country is hated, because they see themselves as a generous, freedom-loving, beneficent nation intent on spreading good in the world. They don’t grasp that much of the rest of the world looks at our social (health care, unemployment, welfare) and foreign (my way or the highway, what have you done for me lately, support of oppressive regimes) policies and sees us as arrogant, selfish, and hypocritical. We’ve come a long way since WWII and the Marshall Plan.
Apropos of nothing – James Madison (known as the Father of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights) vetoed the first faith-based welfare bill on February 21, 1811.
Post by: zevele1 on March 05, 2002, 04:43:58 am
Any kind of things allows any kind of meanings
To be a christian do not means you agree with any killing-doctors or others-A christian may be the most feroce opponent to such people.Of cause we can say that the very roots of it are in the christian religion in this very case
But there is much more to ask to "the State" as an entity.Why a democratic state allows some of his people to think that divine law -in all of this cases,THEY divine law- over run the law of the State? And ,in most of the cases ,let them apply "they law"?
The State allows it in many way.Not to care about it,having sympathy for the ideology,not taking seriously this people.But first of all ,by not having the political,philosophical,moral
enlighten view of the State.Not easy to have when you are a old bad actor of bad zone b movies,or only money makes you the winner-this is for you
Not easy to have when only the fact to had be a good soldier makes you the winner-this is for me.You lost some doctors,we lost a prime minister because of it
And this is a much bigger threat to our societys than a gonzo from outside playing the "i hate you-BOUM" game
Listening to Electric Prune-Mass in fa
Post by: zevele1 on March 05, 2002, 05:21:24 am
I do not put Rodhes,Cyprus,Turkey in the "we hate you"camp.But in places where many,many ,many people dislike America.Or dislike a certain America,let say AmeriKa.There is a long list:Spain,Germany,Belgium,Italy,France,Portugal,Holland,greece,much less in northen Europe.This people will not lead any violent or terrorist actions against USA.-ok they do burn down MacDo from time to time-And you will be the most welcome friend in houses of all this people.But the dislike reach all parts of the society,from students to university teatchers,from trade-workers to lawyers.Maybe, you want do good and you do it the wrong way
But it is not the raison for Europe feeling
Anarchist &bolsheviks had the goal to change they own societys using also violent tools.Not really the case for islamic terrorism
if not for the ricains,we will be all in Germany,to wave to who knows,speaking i do not know which language
french song -ricains
opular,non pejorative for americans
Post by: Doof on March 05, 2002, 05:23:21 am
Post by: Severian on March 05, 2002, 06:15:07 am
Post by: Michael Horton on March 05, 2002, 07:26:42 am
thanks. you should host a salon.
JimH
>>>>>>You must understand by now that the main purpose was to take some attention off the bugs so the team could get some of them fixed!
I can see a coulple of good reason's to continue this practice periodically.
Post by: tullio on March 05, 2002, 09:01:05 am
I'm afraid that at my age I can no longer do hair.
In the room the women come and go
Talking of Michalangelo
Post by: tullio on March 05, 2002, 09:26:31 am
Post by: hvy duty on March 05, 2002, 09:51:39 am
MHorton:
Sorry I have to take issue with that. They are worse now. Then we new who the enemy was now it might be the guy next door.
Post by: Doof on March 05, 2002, 10:04:31 am
Post by: hvy duty on March 05, 2002, 10:33:11 am
Doof:
You have created a monster here. For what it is worth I'm for anything that would give you a few more years to live. You think that way when you get older.
Post by: Severian on March 05, 2002, 10:36:35 am
"Mr. Jones: Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the terrorist party?"
Post by: hvy duty on March 05, 2002, 11:13:09 am
I stick by my post I didn't say we needed to start a witchhunt only you don't know the enemy. Those people that got on the plane was somebody's next door neighbor (Think About It)
Post by: hvy duty on March 05, 2002, 11:17:15 am
Post by: Michael Horton on March 05, 2002, 11:19:11 am
MHorton:
Sorry I have to take issue with that. They are worse now. Then we new who the enemy was now it might be the guy next door.
I understand how you could feel that way. I just don't agree. Had the axis powers won the war, where would our country have been then? Where would we have sold our lawn mowers and refridgerators? But now, were facing terrorists. They're inconvenient. I don't like seeing ANY Americans killed by bombs, buch less by the thousands on our soil. But other countries, Isreal, Greece, Spain, etc., have managed to live for a long time with terrorists, and their worlds have not come to an end.
Tullio
funny
but I think that Mme de Grafigny actually had to give up doing hair to act as host of her salon, so maybe exceptions can be made
Post by: hvy duty on March 05, 2002, 11:26:52 am
Tell that to the seven family's loved ones that was brought off the plane in Germany today I don't really think they would agree with you
Post by: Michael Horton on March 05, 2002, 11:29:33 am
>>>>>>I don't really think they would agree with you
Understood. and "inconvenient" was a very poor word choice on my part. But, it it's too much to ask to want everyone to agree with you. (one is asking too much if they are seeking that everyone agree with them.)
Post by: zevele1 on March 05, 2002, 11:44:37 am
Hello!
I understand how you feel,and what you want to say.But try to sit a little and to calm down
If you let the fear to lead you, you give them a victory
I am sorry for the 7 soldiers,but this is risk of they job.The same day,truck drivers,ppeople on building sites met they end.Risks of they jobs,the same
la peur n evite pas le danger-french saying
more or less : fear do not spare danger
Post by: hvy duty on March 05, 2002, 11:49:55 am
We usually agree on 90% of the topics and your input is valuable and well taken. I think JimH started this thread to get the best from all of us. I agree with some,don't talk about religion or politics I ask why not you cannot hit someone with a computer maybe send him a virus but you get a lot of input of how people feel better than the pol's they show now. We have people from all over the world posting to this forum so you get many opinions, speech is a great asset to anybody and everybody should use it whether we agree with them or not.
Post by: hvy duty on March 05, 2002, 11:59:10 am
I just wish I could find some bugs in MJ I only use it as a player and burner haven't figured out all the fancy stuff yet. Since I can't find bugs maybe we go with Doof and start the thread Stemcell research
Post by: NY40Male on March 05, 2002, 12:30:25 pm
i didnt read too many of the 109 responses..but at least MY NAME is
included
lol
Post by: Michael Horton on March 05, 2002, 12:49:52 pm
Post by: hvy duty on March 05, 2002, 12:55:47 pm
>Had the axis powers won the war Where would we have sold our lawn mowers and refridgerators?
You would not have to worry if you were not blonde and blue eyed you would not have been around.
Post by: zevele1 on March 05, 2002, 01:07:33 pm
Post by: hvy duty on March 05, 2002, 01:16:07 pm
Post by: tullio on March 05, 2002, 01:58:32 pm
You have ALWAYS been more in danger from your next door neighbor than from an unknown enemy. Any actuary will tell you that your chances of being killed by someone you know are far, far greater than of being killed by a stranger. And also, unless you're a young black male, your chances of being killed by anybody at all are miniscule. It's your next door neighbor who one day picks up an AK47 and butchers his co-workers. It's your next door neighbor who goes to work at the local hospital and systematically poisons patients. It's your next door neighbor who hijacks a bus and drives it and all its passengers over a cliff. And it's your next door neighbor who one day in a fit of unfocused rage picks up a garden shovel and beats you to death for no reason at all.
I can understand the horror, the anger, the revulsion, the shock, even the patriotic fervor that followed the Sept. 11 attack. But I remain totally mystified by the irrational fear that followed in its wake. For the typical American the increase in personal risk has been almost zero. Certainly, it was wise, and long overdue, to increase airport security. And sending troops to Afghanistan to destroy the training camps and capture the leaders was an appropriate response, as was increasing our cooperation with other governments worldwide to clamp down on terrorist activities (again long overdue). But to inflame the fears of a frightened and confused public with alarmist rhetoric about the dangers they face is nothing but self-serving political charlatanism. It's one thing to metaphorically declare war on terrorism as a way of showing our national resolve and unity. It's quite another to put the nation on a wartime footing and suspend personal liberties. There is simply no justification for either action. Nor for the overwhelming majority of Americans is there any justification for this lingering sense of imminent danger. The average American is in far greater danger from the emergence of a deadly flu virus than from terrorist attack..
But if we must have these fears, how much better to minimize the perceived danger by enlisting the aid of our Islamic-American population than by raising the specter of a shadowy Axis of Evil. Instead of pointing fingers at regimes thousands of miles from our shores, we should be reaching out to those among us who best know and understand the anger and motivation of these prospective terrorists. Instead of looking with suspicion on every dark complexion and accent, we should be making a concerted effort, as individuals and as a government, to let Islamic-Americans know that we value their presence in this country, that we trust them as we trust all other Americans, and that we know that these extremists bent on terror no more represent Islam than the Ku Klux Klan represents Christianity. For when these fanatics come to this country intent on doing us harm, they will not be your neighbors or mine. They will be theirs.
Post by: Callithumpian on March 05, 2002, 02:14:06 pm
This is largely true because America is such a strong, dominating influence upon culture and and across the financial and social sprectra. Other cultures, those upon whom the American sun does not shine, feel suffocated, threatened.
In this way are the influences that feed ill-will and fester into terrorism engendered.
My solution - undermine those root causes.
Don't allow US corporations and government instumentalities to run toughshod(sic) over cultures and societies which, for whatever reason, seem "foreign" to American ideals.
A good start:-
Remove US troops from Saudi Arabia. This is a essentialy a puppet regime ala Shah of Iran - and that ended in tears.
Devote an investment, in time, money and benevolence, to establishing and maintaining a Palestinian State equal to the investment expended on establishing and maintaining the state of Israel - no more - just an equal amount.
Continued terrorism from the Arab World would have no foundation.
It would cost a lot less money, a lot less American lives, both armed and civilian and would enable Americans to correctly see themselves as the "generous, freedom-loving, beneficent nation intent on spreading good in the world" that is America's potential and highest aspiration.
Post by: Michael Horton on March 05, 2002, 02:17:40 pm
Post by: hvy duty on March 05, 2002, 03:00:13 pm
Tullio:
I think 80% of Americans would agree but OIL,OIL,OIL.
Post by: sekim on March 05, 2002, 03:18:05 pm
Post by: Callithumpian on March 05, 2002, 03:33:36 pm
Now we come to the nub of the matter.
To properly fulfil its potential (and self view) as the benevolent World Leader, America will have to lead the way by placing ethics, humanity and global cultural equity ahead of corporate profit.
This would be unprecedented since the invention of personal wealth in Renaisance times, but I believe that only along this road lies genuine human Evolution.
Post by: tullio on March 05, 2002, 04:01:41 pm
Saudi Arabia – 17%
Canada – 16%
Mexico – 15%
Venezuala – 13%
Iraq – 8%
Nigeria – 6%
Columbia – 5%
Norway – 4%
Britain – 2%
Angola – 2%
This list accounts for about 90% of our imports. The remainder comes from a variety of sources, including Russia.
The most surprising figure is the 8% from Irag. But I suppose Evil Axis oil burns as well as any other.
Angola reminds me that Jonas Savimbi, thie strongman, was killed recently. Here was a man who was responsible for the deaths of about 500,000 of his countrymen and who personally beat to death the wife and children of one of his rivals, but who was not only supported but honored by the US. Do some Angolans hate us? You bet.
Post by: KingSparta on March 05, 2002, 04:07:16 pm
>> but who was not only supported but honored by the US.
I don't remember me or anyone I know who shares that belief
Post by: Charlemagne 8 on March 05, 2002, 04:24:08 pm
tullio 03-05-2002 05:58:32 P.M.
It's your next door neighbor who one day picks up an AK47 and butchers his co-workers. It's your next door neighbor who goes to work at the local hospital and systematically poisons patients. It's your next door neighbor who hijacks a bus and drives it and all its passengers over a cliff. And it's your next door neighbor who one day in a fit of unfocused rage picks up a garden shovel and beats you to death for no reason at all.
You've met my next-door neighbor, apparently.
MHorton,
I will not idly stand by while someone accuses me of being "polite company." Your country is now on my list. And just where are you located again?
planet-busters? someone failed elementary double-speak
What did I say? BTW, I'm in Tennessee and my profile can be found on MJ's home page.
CVIII
Post by: Michael Horton on March 05, 2002, 05:02:26 pm
>>>>>>>What did I say?
Apparently, I'm very, very bad at this tongue-in-cheek stuff. To be expected, I suppose, as I practice it little outside this forum. "I will not idly stand by while someone accuses me of being 'polite company.'" Commentary on the "new paranoia" perhaps. Or, what what is that famous saying by Marx? Something like: I wouldn't be a member of any group that would have me as a member.
Re the planet-busters: sorry, but that name is far too accurate, and therefore inflamatory. If you want to coin a term for the new powerful nukes, you'll have to come up with something ala "daisey cutters." I'm going to shut-up, as previously promised. Red Skelton once said something along the lines of "If you have to explain the joke, then . . .." Well, you get the idea.
Post by: Callithumpian on March 05, 2002, 05:13:43 pm
But in democratic society you, yes you personally, agree to be represented by your elected government, and its policies.
[enter hazy teritory]
Was it Thomas Jefferson who said that the only thing necessary for evil to flourish was that good men do nothing?
Bart Simpson-like "I didn't doit" only gets you so far.
Post by: Harry|PLS|The|PLS|Hipster on March 05, 2002, 05:54:40 pm
I was going to write a longer response, but for a variety of reasons decided not to.
I accept much of what you say. However, different bottom line: is this a justification for behavior that is bestial in any acceptable ethical system? How do you find a moral (not political) justification for deliberate targeting of non-combatants?
I am willing to consider - dispassionately - the circumstances that lead to blind rage. I am willing to support long-term policies that ameliorate that rage; in fact, I consider them crucial, one of many reaasons I reject the Axis of Evil nonsense emanating from DC. However, I am not prepared to stand by like a eunuch while my friends and family succumb to mortal danger. And please, don't tell me how small the actuarial risk is. If it moves from 1/10,000,000 to 1/3,000,000, and I (or someone I care about) draws the short straw, it isn't going to make a difference in how I feel after the fact.
In brief, I'm not prepared to play Mahatma Gandhi or MLK to this bunch. I'll continue to work diligently (and have in fact done so in the past) to correct the errors and arrogance that breed these problems, but at the same time, I'm going to address the short-term crisis. This is not zero sum analysis. The two critical paths are not mutually exclusive. Railing at our mistakes and misdeeds is a powerful purgative, but resolves nothing.
Determinism is a powerful analytical tool. Your observations are important. But they're not a solution in dealing with folks who are committed to killing me and people like me. Time enough for that later.
HTH
Post by: Michael Horton on March 05, 2002, 06:53:45 pm
>>>>>>>>>I'm not prepared to play Mahatma Gandhi or MLK to this bunch
I didn't read that in Tullio' statements, directly or by implication. It's very likely that I just overlooked it. Could you, if you have time, point me in the right direction.
This is what I saw: "Certainly, it was wise, and long overdue, to increase airport security. And sending troops to Afghanistan to destroy the training camps and capture the leaders was an appropriate response, as was increasing our cooperation with other governments worldwide to clamp down on terrorist activities (again long overdue)." Is he a pacifist simply because he doesn't want to nuke 'em?
Post by: Harry The Hipster on March 06, 2002, 12:46:53 am
How did I get there? Reading the subtext as well as the text.
Tullio's major premise, running through several threads, is that the US is largely responsible for the poisonous environment in which it now finds itself, and that we're misguided in responding with an emphasis on security:
"The vast majority of Americans simply don’t understand how much this country is hated, because they see themselves as a generous, freedom-loving, beneficent nation intent on spreading good in the world. They don’t grasp that much of the rest of the world looks at our social (health care, unemployment, welfare) and foreign (my way or the highway, what have you done for me lately, support of oppressive regimes) policies and sees us as arrogant, selfish, and hypocritical. We’ve come a long way since WWII and the Marshall Plan."
and:
"You have ALWAYS been more in danger from your next door neighbor than from an unknown enemy. Any actuary will tell you that your chances of being killed by someone you know are far, far greater than of being killed by a stranger. And also, unless you're a young black male, your chances of being killed by anybody at all are miniscule. It's your next door neighbor who one day picks up an AK47 and butchers his co-workers. It's your next door neighbor who goes to work at the local hospital and systematically poisons patients. It's your next door neighbor who hijacks a bus and drives it and all its passengers over a cliff. And it's your next door neighbor who one day in a fit of unfocused rage picks up a garden shovel and beats you to death for no reason at all."
Articulate and well-reasoned, and there's much in there (to repeat) I agree with. But not the suggestion that seems to flow from it that we're focused entirely on the wrong thing with heightened emphasis on airport security, immigration, control of access to public places, etc. while neglecting what's really essential.
I accept the second part of that equation, but not what I perceive as the first. The point I've tried to make - apparently unsuccessfully - is that the two are not mutually exclusive. We're fools when we neglect the long-term considerations for a paranoid concern with security measures at courthouses, but we'd be imprudent fools if we prioritize the long-term strategy to the complete exclusion of legitimate concern about personal safety. It's not either/or.
Ask Zevele. He lives in a country where ordinary civilians walk around feeling they have targets on their backs. There's lots to argue about in Israel's foreign policy and its mishandling of the crisis with the Palestinians, but in any rational universe that does not justify bombs in shopping malls as a deliberate not incidental strategy. Even the most committed Israeli dove isn't about to propose dismantling of major checkpoints and similar national security measures.
Well, what about the civil liberties issues? That is where JimH began eons ago. I'm troubled too, not the least because I don't trust the basic instincts of those responsible for steering us through this passage. Some of the suggestions are outlandish: secret military tribunals, indiscriminate targeting of citizens of Middle Eastern extraction, official curtailment of First Amendment rights, etc. We need to resist unreasonable encroachments at every turn. But again, why is this inconsistent with a legitimate concern about people whose sole motive for wanting to kill us is because of who we are? And why is this inconsistent with taking appropriate and Constitutional steps to mitigate that risk?
Tullio's threads are subtly reasoned and well-articulated. If I've misread them, I'm sure I'll hear about it. But I don't accept the premise that if I ignore one critical concern in pursuit of a second, doing so somehow undercuts the legitimacy of the second concern. It just doesn't follow.
HTH
Post by: IQ10 on March 06, 2002, 02:44:52 am
ost this. Thanks. [former member]---------------
Scronch wrote> "P.S. - You feel you have to remove the "blowjob" oral sex word from my commentary, when that is this president's lasting legacy. He was getting one while on the phone with a congressman, discussing national policy. You defend this guy, but you feel you have to remove descriptions of his activities from your forum. Think about that for a while."
Mahatma Gandhi wrote> "I have not conceived my mission to be that of a knight-errant wandering everywhere to deliver people from difficult situations. My humble occupation has been to show people how to solve their own difficulties ... my work will be finished if I succeed in carrying the conviction to the human family that every man or woman, however weak in body, is the guardian of his or her self-respect and liberty.” [Gandhi quote from Raghavan Iyer’s, The Moral and Political Thought of Mahatma Gandhi, Oxford University Press, New York, 1973, p. 373.]
Voltaire’s Candide wrote> "Cela est bien dit, répondit Candide; mais il faut cultiver notre jardin."
[English translation: 'That’s well said,” answered Candide, “but we must cultivate our garden.']
Post by: zevele1 on March 06, 2002, 03:49:44 am
It is really difficult for me to try to write a proper text.So,just few sentences
IRAN-when you had tea with the Sha,France had tea with Komeny,in his house close to Paris.I feel that today France is not that far to US on they top 10 hate list
NEIGHBOUR there not us- arab neighour involve as far as i know
was thousand arab-us neighours translators volunters, this i know
You need to do some 'mea-culpa'. But keep in mind that,on the map,close to mea-culpa,there is "systematic auto--culpability',auto self -depreciate.Do not make the same mistake than Europe few years ago'all is my fault,cause i am white and have food-i have to pay for the wrong doings of my ancestors'.This do no good to anyone
You are not the only ones to give hand to dictator and massacres.But the anglo culture is more cynic and less hypocrite than other cultures.Kind of "well .he is a dictator,but i need oil-iron-to have air base here".Others countrys do the same but" in name of the strong links between our people" And,easy game for them to say"unlike the cynical US".
Tell me about France and the massacres in Rwanda.................
There is a lot of things who are not your fault,but many want you to pay the full bill
-it is not your fault if part of Europe was imperialism using guns and christian cross
_it is not your fault if arabs kids in Maroco,Algeria,Tunisia had to learn"our ancestors the gaulois-our king Louis the ..' and got beaten when speaking arabic in school
it is not your fault,but one or more from this countrys are involve in september
-it is not your fault if you are the only super-power in the world right now
but you are even more visible,an even easyier scarecrow to point at.
and there is no filter anymore.Hard to imagine september in times of cold war
i do not think that your welfare system,and things like this have something to do with the way people see you
you positions at environnemental,economical,trade world mettings . This has to do,and BIG
There is a very stong stream in Europe against death penalty in USA.Your answer?
mind your own problems,this is interference.
ok,but in this case can you mind ONLY your own problems ,and not interfere with any of us,dear friends
You want the world to buy you corporates,no take prisonner profit view.ok,but why ,from next week ,you put a 30% taxes on iron imported? Your rules are good for them,not for you?can you free yourself from the rules you want to oblige on everyone?
once i had a long talk with my father about september.he is kind of humanist,very tolerant
intelectual old man
at the end he said"anyway was less killed than with they f## mess in Chili.And now they know how it looks'. very provocative this one.I said many times,it is not my goal.Just to show you how deep is your problem with your "public image"
The Chili episode is "history" for you.Not in Europe,as you saw with the Pinchet saga not long ago
anyway,next steep in March in Monterey-Mexique.it seems you are full of good,generous ideas.
and even full of sincerity.Let se if,at the end just again"let'us fead them with hammburgers'
or something new,for the best of all
I see the greatest treat to you inside yourself,not in islamics militants.But no more strenght to speak about it
I much prefer to walk in the streets of Israel,despite all the dangers,than to be a loyal arab citizen of USA
my task is more easy ,and less unfair
shalom-salem-peace
Post by: Harry the Hipster on March 06, 2002, 04:20:49 am
HTH
Post by: tullio on March 06, 2002, 04:34:12 am
Despite what you, and other people of good sense, might have thought of Savimbi,
Jeane Kirkpatrick toasted him as "one of the few authentic heroes of our time," and President Reagan described him as Angola's Abraham Lincoln. I expect they both knew better, but this is exactly the type of empty Cold War rhetoric that made us so many enemies among the oppressed.
Harry
You did misinterpret what I said, but the problem is not your reading but my writing. I seldom participate in forums like this, and I'm always afraid I'm breeching etiquette by writing too much. Apparently, in my attempt to address several different issues in the same message, I created some serious misimpressions.
The destruction of the World Trade Center and the slaughter of 3000 innocent people was a heinous atrocity, one of the worst in our nation's history. There was never any question that we had to make every effort to capture and punish those responsible. I believe the administration's response--sending troops to Afghanistan to destroy the terrorist havens and capture its leaders--was sound and appropriate. And it was equally sound and appropriate for us to (belatedly) lend our wholehearted support to combating organized terrorism worldwide. These are evil, fanatical people, and we've got to do our best to root them out and stop them. Harry, I grew up in and around New York. I still have friends and relatives there. This attack hit me hard personally, and I have no compassion for, or illusions about, those responsible.
Here's what I object to.
1. The declaration of war that goes beyond the symbolic and is indeterminate and indiscriminate in its scope. With whom are we at war? Al-Qaida? Fine. Let's go get them. Hamas? Islamic Jihad? The IRA? The 12 year old kid being "educated" in a distorted version of Islam in a Saudi school? The Basques? Anybody we don't like or who doesn't like us? In the old days, we would have sent an expeditionary force to catch and punish the bad guys. Instead, this administration is playing to our worst instincts and fears and opening the door to blind hatred. It scares me.
2. The use of this declaration of war to suspend individual liberties and throw a veil of secrecy over all the administration's actions. It scares me.
3. (different topic) Someone suggested that this "war" is different from previous engagements because the enemy might be out next door neighbor. I'm afraid I responded to this more passionately than necessary. Harry, I've gathered from some statements you've made that you've blown out more than a few birthday candles. So have I. And I've lived through a wide variety of "enemies among us." Back in the 1930s. as a kid growing up in an east coast Little Italy, I knew we were considered to be "different" and not quite American. When the war broke out, I quickly realized how distrusted we were. And I saw the people in Germantown being treated the same way. And we're all aware of what we did to the Japanese Americans on the West Coast. Then there were saboteurs among us (maybe our next door neighbor). After the war it was the communists who were living among us, etc., etc.
4. (another topic). I think this is where I really misled you. I let my annoyance with the "enemy within" attitude slide into my greater annoyance with the obsessive fear of danger that seems to have gripped the American public. We seem to have become terrified of everything, from household germs to divergent opinions. We seem to be constantly running scared from shadows. But by pointing out that our risk of personal injury from terrorists is tiny, I did not mean to imply (as you apparently think I did) that we should ignore them. Because as individuals, we have little to fear from them does not mean that we shouldn't do whatever we can to find them and stop them. But I'm annoyed when I pull into a motel and am greeted by a sign that thanks me for traveling, as if I've done something brave. And I'm annoyed by people who are afraid to step on an airplane. As zevele 10 will confirm, people who live with a real threat of terrorists know that if they bomb the market on Monday, you had better be there with your shopping bag on Tuesday. There is no point in sending troops to capture them if we are going to cringe in fear from them in the meantime. They've already won.
5. (another topic) In response to several messages about anti-American sentiments throughout the world, I tried to confirm that I have seen such sentiments first hand and that they are not always unjustified. Here I think my attempt to be brief did me in.
I've seen two distinct types of anti-Americanism. One I'll call envious resentment. This is common in Europe. It was directed at the British in the glory days of their Empire, at the French when they ruled the roost, at the Turks during the Ottoman years. It's a resentment born of objection to the political, cultural, and economic influence a strong nation has on the life of a weaker one. Europeans are very familiar with it. They've lived through many variants over the centuries. In the case of the US, however, the resentment is accompanied by an increasing sense of betrayal. In the eyes of Europeans, especially since WWII, we were supposed to be better than the rest, and we're turning out to be a major disappointment. These people don't really hate us. But they are angry and disappointed at the way we've turned out.
On the other hand, our myopic support of oppressive regimes and tyrants during and after the Cold War has bought us real hatred among those who were oppressed, and in recent years this hatred has been spread to other oppressed people by those, like Bin Laden, who hate us for their own reasons. I see this as a really serious problem in the fight against terrorism. The numbers are large, and growing. There are tens of millions, perhaps hundreds of millions, of uneducated, poor, and desperate people out there who have come to see us as their enemy, and they constitute a huge pool of potential recruits for terrorist groups. The question is do we extend our "war" to include these people, or do we try to win them back? We seem to have opted for the former course. and I think it could be a disastrous mistake.
Does that help?
Post by: zevele1 on March 06, 2002, 04:53:36 am
there is a hudge pipe-line to be built other there
not so long ago,a poor country under talibans rules was kind of a stable country to choose as the main road for this pipe-line,at least according to another country
under talibans rule was Afghanistan,the other country was US.......................................
Post by: JimH on March 06, 2002, 04:59:21 am
Thanks to everyone for the wide-ranging but intelligent discussion.
Jim Hillegass
P.S. The real reason I'm closing it is that I'm on a 28K connection.