those blacks

[Gearbox]

Originally posted by Xuric
the 9/11 tragedy... It's merely been used to fuel 'patriotism' which in turn has been used to fuel a liberal agenda to increase security.

I assume you meant to say a "conservative agenda". Unless you consider John Ashcroft (a man who thinks dancing is a sin) a liberal.

[BoomDoom]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Blue Cat


BoomDoom, the ruling said that the inclusion of "god" in the pledge of allegiance made it unconstitutional to force children to say it in a public school. And the ruling was correct.

Lets be clear. The ninth circuit court is comprised completely of crazy people. Its one thing to be a lefty, its another thing to be completely insane. The ninth circuit court leads the league in overturned decisions and is an all around laughing stock.

It was a very unpopular decision, especially with more right-leaning folks, but that doesn't make it a wrong decision. Unfortuantely, I'm sure it'll be overturned, and popular opinion will prevail... rather than the constitution.

It was unpopular nearly everywhere. Most sane people realize that there is nothing wrong with the pledge and its reference to God. It doesn't insist that everyone follow the same God, or that one God is right and another is wrong, or anything along those lines. It really renders no opinion on God either. In the Senate and in the House there was basically nobody that stood up for the ninth circuit court and supported their decision. There was nearly universal codemnation of the court by politicians, legal scholars, and academics not living in Berkley California.

It was and is a terrible decision.

[BoomDoom]

Originally posted by Blue Cat


I assume you meant to say a "conservative agenda". Unless you consider John Ashcroft (a man who thinks dancing is a sin) a liberal.

Its mostly liberals who are going crazy with the internal defense part of the war on terror. and conservatives that are running wild with the external part. Remember, for months nearly every word out of Daschel's mouth had to do with homeland security and the anthrax attack aimed at him. This isn't to say that conservatives are not concerned about homeland security or that all liberals are not concerned with the external war. But the two certainly do have their focuses.

[Gearbox]

Lets be clear. The ninth circuit court is comprised completely of crazy people. Its one thing to be a lefty, its another thing to be completely insane. The ninth circuit court leads the league in overturned decisions and is an all around laughing stock.

The ninth circuit is often overturned, yes. But I don't see what that has to do with this ruling. As for it being composed if "lefties"... well... that's ridiculous. The judge in question is actually a conservative. He was appointed by Nixon, if memory serves.

It was unpopular nearly everywhere. Most sane people realize that there is nothing wrong with the pledge and its reference to God.

I assume you're defining "sane" as "right-leaning", considering you just equated "left" with "insane".

But BoomDoom- it isn't a question of what most people believe. Most people might think it would be nice to kill everyone with green eyes on Thursday. But it would still be illegal. This is why we have a judicial system, it's why we have a constitution. We're under the rule of law, not the rule of the majority.

It doesn't insist that everyone follow the same God, or that one God is right and another is wrong, or anything along those lines. It really renders no opinion on God either.

But it DOES render an opinion on god. By acknowleging the existence of a god, it is rendering an opinion on god. And what's more- not all religions would refer to a god in that way. Hindu's, for instance.

In the Senate and in the House there was basically nobody that stood up for the ninth circuit court and supported their decision. There was nearly universal codemnation of the court by politicians, legal scholars, and academics not living in Berkley California.

Senators' are politicians. They'll play to their constituents. And their opinion on a legal ruling is worth exactly squat, for precisely that reason.

As for legal scholars, you're just wrong. I've read several peieces by legal scholars who recognize the legitimacy of the decision, speaking from a strict interpretation of the Constitution.

***edited because I totally screwed up the quote tags***

[Gearbox]

Originally posted by BoomDoom


Its mostly liberals who are going crazy with the internal defense part of the war on terror. and conservatives that are running wild with the external part. Remember, for months nearly every word out of Daschel's mouth had to do with homeland security and the anthrax attack aimed at him. This isn't to say that conservatives are not concerned about homeland security or that all liberals are not concerned with the external war. But the two certainly do have their focuses.

The House Judiciary Committee threatened to subpoena Ashcroft over use of anti-terrorism powers granted under the Patriot Act.

I'm sorry, but that is not a liberal agenda.

[BoomDoom]

Originally posted by Blue Cat


The House Judiciary Committee threatened to subpoena Ashcroft over use of anti-terrorism powers granted under the Patriot Act.

I'm sorry, but that is not a liberal agenda.

Its not COMPLETELY a liberal agenda, as in they are not the only ones that work on it. But, as the esteemed senate majority leader has made very clear, the democrats focus for much of the year and for the midterm elections is what is being done at home and why are the republicans spending so much time and effort overseas when there is work that needs to be done at home. They are also pandering to their special interest groups (not to say that republicans are not to some extent as well) when it comes to how home defense money should be spent, take the battle in the senate over whether home defense employees should be unionized. The democrats are campaigning on the issue of homeland defense, how can you say its not their agenda?

[Gearbox]

Meh, I have to be honest with you BoomDoom. Both brands of politicians make me ill.

It seems they've essentially got the same agenda when you get down to it. Get reelected.

[BoomDoom]

Read my link down below. We have articles up about nearly everything you and i just talked about, except for the court decision, it was so well covered we just didn't feel like talking about it.

[BoomDoom]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Blue Cat

The ninth circuit is often overturned, yes. But I don't see what that has to do with this ruling. As for it being composed if "lefties"... well... that's ridiculous. The judge in question is actually a conservative. He was appointed by Nixon, if memory serves.

What it has to do with the ruling is simple. Their decisions are often and consitantly out of the mainstream of legal thought. Now, they think they're on the cutting edge and ahead of everyone else, and maybe in 100 years we'll all learn they were right. But, in the mean time their idiots. And i honestly don't remember when he was appointed but he is not a conservative by any definition that i am aware of.

I assume you're defining "sane" as "right-leaning", considering you just equated "left" with "insane".

No, i consider all people that are on the complete fringes to be out of their minds. Someone that thinks immigration should be more controlled is fine, and i have no problem with that. Anyone that thinks we should kill all illegal immigrants within our borders is clearly insane. Both spectrums have crazy people at the ends.

As for legal scholars, you're just wrong. I've read several peieces by legal scholars who recognize the legitimacy of the decision, speaking from a strict interpretation of the Constitution.

I did say nearly universal opinion. There are always some people that disagree. I think we can agree that there is near consent that women should be allowed to hold jobs and participate in the economy, but that doesn't mean you can't find an "expert" that disagrees.

[BoomDoom]

The chief judge of the 9th circuit court is Mary Schroeder, originally apoointed to the bench by Jimmy Carter.

By no means a bastion of conservative thought.

[Gearbox]

As soon as I finish this pile of work I have to do, I plan to read that site thoroughly. It's always good t find people with opinions who are willing to argue them. Even if they don't agree with me. Especially if they don't agree with me... come to think of it.

[______________hobbes]

Ntrox,

In reading your reply two points struck me:

1) You seemed think I ascribe to a religion. No, I am agnostic. From prior post:

"It seems that those who believe, and those who deny, both must rely on faith. I prefer to hope there is something, treat others with dignity and respect, and enjoy my life, as I'm not expecting anything."



2) You seemed to think my point was the critize Atheism. From the previously linked thread:

" I think the term "Atheism" carries a negative connotation, one who will deny the existence of Noah and the Ark, just a vehemently as another will attest to it. Agnosticism carries a more neutral connotation- "Haven't got things figured out, but I have sense of what is right and wrong and intend to live my life that way until I figure things out. If I die in the meantime, I am sure any reasonable diety with credit me for my integrity".

In summary, I disagree with your defintion of Atheism, but that is MY INTERPRETATION of the definiton. I look at it this way, for every belief there is a mirror opposite. Athesim is the mirror opposite of Fundamentalism. Each as passionate about their beliefs as the other, both without any proof whatsoever. "


My point was that many people who refer to themselves as Athiests are actually Agnostic.

Originally posted by Ntrox


I do not believe in any Deity, nor would I acknowledge one if He came down in that golden chariot. Sure, He would exist, proof being in the "being", but I would not follow that Deity or swear allegience.

To quote your post: "How can one deny (to declare untrue) the existence of God without proof?"

How can anyone worship something that is not proven to exist? It works both ways. If I create an idol and worship it, you would laugh at me. However, how can you be sure my Deity is not real? You sure as hell cannot prove yours is

Personally I think I am more realistic in not worshiping and believing in something intangible.

I think we may be tripping over misunderstanding in definition. As above, religious zealots and Athiests must rely upon faith (believe without proof). No true Athiest would admit to the possibity that any God could come down on his chariot. Atheists have faith that no God exists.

If he does come down in the chariot, this Agnostic is convinced and plans to get on board, I'll try to save you a seat.

Why would you not get on, this seems to get back to the negativism I mentioned about Atheism. What purpose, just to shock people with your defiance. It is a totally self-defeating agenda.

So, I think you may use the term "Athiest" for its shock value when you want to stir things up, but your mindset is actually that of an Agnostic.

[_____________Hisokai]

Originally posted by hobbes
So what is our point?


Freedom is the ultimate perk.

Hobbes

and thinking like that is why we lose our freedoms daily.

freedom is not a perk or a gift it is above all a right and responsibility.

and your whole idea of people on tv pissing and moaning be patriotic...well ill have lil faith in the patriotism that occurs after a tragic event as most of these "patriots" will be back to their daily lives in no time at all and not even begin to look at the reasons of why stuff like 9/11,corporate shenanigans,and other crap happens while the true patriots are actually working to change things and better our country.

and as for not being able to cherish your heritage? i really think you should look into scotlands history (i dont know much about) and im sure you will find stuff that will have you being proud about it and realising why other people are proud of theirs.(go finland home of trees lake vodka and linux)

sorry if this came off as a flame but im just sick of how everyone is thinking there so patriotic after 9/11. and yet they cant even be bothered to learn the real issues.

[_____________Hisokai]

heh finished reading the other posts

How can one deny (to declare untrue) the existence of God without proof?

well...How can one assert the existence of God without proof?

as a atheist/anti-deist/former christian my feelings is that if their is god like in the bible(im assuming thats your reference point as you used capitol G) then id rather burn in hell then serve him. and a corrolary to that is that if he is actually omni-*** then he made me and knows everything i know and would see where im coming from.

but then again hes been on vacation for 2000 years so ill probably just end up rotting in the ground like everyone else.

by the way could some explain to me how god is all knowing but people have freedom of choice? if god knows everything then he knows what your gonna do so if you did something else then he wouldnt be all knowing and as being all knowing is (usually) one of the prereqeusits(sp) of being a god then he would vanish in a puff of logic just like the babelfish incident

[______________hobbes]

Hisokai,

Post 1:

"and thinking like that is why we lose our freedoms daily."

Your statement is a platitude. You have taken a comment that has rather extensive context behind it and isolated it as a stand alone entity.

/me shakes my head in disappointment.


"and your whole idea of people on tv pissing and moaning be patriotic..."

Clarification needed, no clue what you are talking about. Or more precisely how it related to me. If you really read the thread you will see my stance on patriotism. My posts are not about demonstrative displays of patriotism, I only need to look out my window to see tattered flags hanging from balconys and on car antennas to see how transient this flash of patriotism was. Shame on all of you who are guilty of this! Either get a new flag or just take the old one down! My posts are about the unification of a group of people under a common philosophy and not a common color or heritage.

"and as for not being able to cherish your heritage? i really think you should look into scotlands history (i dont know much about) and im sure you will find stuff that will have you being proud about it and realising why other people are proud of theirs.(go finland home of trees lake vodka and linux)"

My point has nothing to do with being proud of ones heritage or not. I was using examples to illustrate a unique cultural/ hertitage ambiquity that American blacks have. You are stumbling with the words and missing the points.

I am sorry if my post is a flame, but I take pride in creating concise and articulate posts and it is really frustrating when someone picks through them like litter, tossing back at you isolated lines and comments while missing the big picture.

[______________hobbes]

Post 2:

Originally posted by Hisokai
heh finished reading the other posts

How can one deny (to declare untrue) the existence of God without proof?

well...How can one assert the existence of God without proof?

Seriously, you have just reiterated the point I have made over and over again.

Deity based religions and Atheism both rely on faith- belief without proof. That is why I am agnostic. This is the whole crux of my discussion. You've added your line after quoting me as if you just gave us some insight.

If you are going to post, read the thread, check out the links, then add your new insight.

Yes, I am ranting now, but it reminds me of why I posted on this thread http://forums.anarchy-online.com/sho...threadid=22561 (near the bottom of the page).

And again, like was pointing out to Ntrox, you are an agnostic, who due to anger issues has decided to call himself an Atheist. You cannot be anti-deity and an Atheist, as the Atheist knows that there are no Gods.

You sound like a person who has had an embittered break-up with his former religion and in an effort to "get back at" it for all the baggage (guilt, sin, etc) it has emburdened you with, you now claim you are an Atheist. You're just one pissed off Agnostic.

Anyway, I will apologize in advance because my goal in the forum is not to flame, but, darn it, sometimes I just get irritated.

[_____________Hisokai]

You sound like a person who has had an embittered break-up with his former religion and in an effort to "get back at" it for all the baggage (guilt, sin, etc) it has emburdened you with, you now claim you are an Atheist. You're just one pissed off Agnostic.

hey ill agree i had a break up with my old religion tho it was more of just a drifting away after reading the foundation of that religion not really a embittered break up.

and as for atheism/anti-deist

Atheism is because i truly deny the existance of god and the possibly of god

anti-deist because I am against the ideas that most religions create their deity with and believe that everyone would do much better if they looked to the good in themselves for inspiration then to a made up idol

...heh..realised i posted after pretty much reading the first post so some(all) of it is probably rendered a lil redundant

by the way

"Yes, I am ranting now, but it reminds me of why I posted on this thread http://forums.anarchy-online.com/sh...?threadid=22561 (near the bottom of the page). "

so im just an annoying idiot/brat? well thats your opinion so not much i can due about. and honestly that justs an insult which doesnt bother me much(hey could called me worse things and i agree with your posty there alot anyways)

"You've added your line after quoting me as if you just gave us some insight"

well im not claiming to be the giving out insight i was just trying to show something that mostof the people that use that question fail to see. and also as i feel that anything that is true has proof i was jsut wording it in a way that makes sense to me. reminds me of what some one told me about how its scientifically impossible to disprove something even tho its obvious that its false (havent checked to see if its completely true)


"Freedom is the ultimate perk."

Im sorry but i still feel that statements like that do under mine the fact that our freedom is a right and resposibility and you say it has extensive context but i guess im just slow because i fail to see how the comment itself has extensive context or how the discussion lends extensive context to that comment(feel free to point out the obvious if i am just being dense).i will never believe that freedom is a perk as a perk is given to you and usually of trivial value.

as for the other 2 coments i realise i actually do agree with you after reading down the thread more (i admit i didnt read the whole thread so you have my apologies on those points and permission to whack me with a cluebat)

and like i said before none of this is meant as a flame and i think im gonna kick back on posting before finishing a thread (ma bad i know)

well this is turning out to be much longer than i hoped but oh well

the partially corrected and embaressed
Hisokai

/edit some spelling+ some more later prolly

[______________hobbes]

Just a short response.

On what evidence did you rely when you declared that no God exists. Seems to me that you would have to rely on faith to do this, just as a Christian would rely on faith to follow his religion. Who is right? I don't know. I understand your other point about being anti-deity. You deny the existence of God and you are outspoken against religions who proclaim a God and how that God dictates that you act.

The context I referred to was the exchange between myself and Rogoff. We had enjoyed the luxury of constructive debate and my final post was to extend a conciliatory hand of resolution and respect.

So the comment, based on the context of the prior posts, was an intentional understatement (meaning that it is understood that freedom is the most valuble thing we have). Like a sly wink between friends, not to be taken at face value.

In regard to kids, I just find that they don't take the time to really analyze concepts, they just find a sentence or paragraph they don't like and fire off, rather than try to understand how that sentence fits into the context of the thread.

Overall, you have 2 points in your favor:
1) You question what you have been told to believe.
2) You do not argue just to argue, ignoring the facts and arguments presented. For entertainment you should read the exchanges between myself and MrBunny on the "AO for kids" thread.

[_____________Hisokai]

"On what evidence did you rely when you declared that no God exists"

eh well its not so much evdence as lack of evidence that would make me believe in a god

"Who is right? I don't know" me neither. and thats what make discussion enertainig i guess. on to new topics tho i think.

"So the comment, based on the context of the prior posts, was an intentional understatement (meaning that it is understood that freedom is the most valuble thing we have). Like a sly wink between friends, not to be taken at face value."

doh! well let me introduce my self my name is dense and I am sorry for misunderstanding your comment.

"For entertainment you should read the exchanges between myself and MrBunny on the "AO for kids" thread."

actually i read it on my first time around on ao (i took a extended break and just renewed a few days ago) actually found that thread pretty entertaining even tho i read the poll wrong and voted for the level my character was(i swear im retarded sometimes heck even had a thread about it for awhile)

/edit spelling and punctuation as usual

[lilnymph]

personally I both believe in God, and believe strongly in science (two things most people seem to view as incompatable for some reason). I was brought up a Roman Catholic, so it is quite possible, I am willing to admit, that my belief in God is nothing more than a product of that up bringing. I respect most peoples views on religion, however there are two groups I dont understand. Firstly is th group that claim god definatly doesn't exist, and then claim they are much more "scientific" and "correct" because they aren't believing in something supernatural just because of faith. I disagree with this completely, and say they are just as "silly" and "unscientific" as people who believe in God. There reasons go that they have seen nothing that proves god exists, and there this no evidence he (he, in the english language should be used when gender is unknown or irrelevent) exists. This is completly untrue. There is evidence he exists, the bible, and the other religious texts of other religions (I am afraid I dont know how to spell them properly and didn't want to upset anyone by miss spelling them). I will agree this is biased evidence, however it is still evidence and it has shifted the burden of proof onto people who claim god doesnt exist. Now, the common argument back is that the bible is made up, and that they could make up a text that proves god doesnt exist. I say that it is up to you to PROVE the bible is made up, before you can dismiss it like that, if you wish to be scientific about it. I have no problem with the point of view of agnostics, thought I do think you are fence sitters and should choose one side or the other .

Now, the other main group I have an even bigger problem with, is religious nuts. This includes muslim terrorists, but not mainly, as they are mostly using religion as an excuse for what they do, rather than it being the reason for what they do (I am talking about the leaders, not the actual people who blow themselves up, and truely believe it is for god). No, I mainly mean those people who believe the bible is 100% fact, and nothing in it hasn't happened. Please, that is one of the most stupid (In my opinion) I have heard. At the time the bible was written, it was common practise to explain hard concepts in stories, Jesus himself did this with his parables. So why do you believe that the bible is anything other than this? It is an instruction manual of how to live, yes. But not a direct one. You must read and UNDERSTAND it, find the meaning underneath the actual words and story.

Anyway, I have talked enough, and really should get some work done.

hugs

lilnymph