You're saying that Bush, on a hunch, decided to spend hundreds of billions of our dollars and get tens of thousands of people killed.
Evidently, you can't read. What I said was:
The director of intelligence told the Prez that Iraq is making weapons and Russian President Vladimir Putin says that after the 9/11 attacks Moscow warned Washington that Saddam Hussein was planning attacks on the US. Do you see "hunch" in there... Anywhere? So, you are either illiterate, didn't read my post or you have the reading comprehension of a 2-yr old (in other words, illiterate). In a world where everyone keeps hammering you because you saw a memo that said "Bin Laden to attack America" and 3000 people died because you failed to act, are you going to sit still when another memo crosses you desk saying "Saddam Hussein to attack America"? (This, btw, is the view of most conservatives.)
Here's a quick quiz. Can you tell me who Nero was and what he's famous for? Is that what you want out or president?
I find it ironic that you would call Bush a liar and then lay a whopper like that on me. Are you a mind reader or liar. Really, as a non-conservative, how can you claim to know what is going through most of our heads. Don't claim to know what my view is. Fact is, "most conservatives" feel as I do, that Bush honestly and truly felt that the nation was threatened and acted appropriately. You know, the way people like you say he should have acted when he got a memo saying that Bin Laden wanted to attack America.
You're saying that Bush, on a hunch, decided to spend hundreds of billions of our dollars and get tens of thousands of people killed.
Evidently, you can't read. What I said was:
The director of intelligence told the Prez that Iraq is making weapons and Russian President Vladimir Putin says that after the 9/11 attacks Moscow warned Washington that Saddam Hussein was planning attacks on the US.
Do you see "hunch" in there... Anywhere? So, you are either illiterate, didn't read my post or you have the reading comprehension of a 2-yr old (in other words, illiterate). In a world where everyone keeps hammering you because you saw a memo that said "Bin Laden to attack America" and 3000 people died, are you going to sit still when another memo crosses you desk saying "Saddam Hussein to attack America"?
Here's a quick quiz. Can you tell me who Nero was and what he's famous for? Is that what you want out or president?
(This is the view of most conservatives.)
I find it ironic that you would call Bush a liar and then lay a whopper like that on me. Are you a mind reader or liar. Really, as a non-conservative, how can you claim to know what is going through most of our heads. Don't claim to know what my view is. Fact is, "most conservatives" feel as I do, that Bush honestly and truly felt that the nation was threatened and acted appropriately. You know, the way people like you say he should have acted when he got a memo saying that Bin Laden wanted to attack America.
Fund a UN peace-keeping operation to take over and pull the US troops home. Unfortunately, you're the enemy there now.
That would be AWESOME! Too bad the UN won't do it. That's pretty much what we tried from the beginning.
Bush did lie. The director of intelligence told the Prez that Iraq is making weapons that will kill millions (HERE) and Russia, a country that doesn't want you going to war, told the Prez that Iraq is planning an attack (HERE). Here's a quote from the BBC:
Russian President Vladimir Putin says that after the 9/11 attacks Moscow warned Washington that Saddam Hussein was planning attacks on the US. So that kinda disproves your whole "Bush lied" thing, or at least proves that the Prez was acting in good faith. Although, the Putin thing is enough for me. Still, after 9-11, do you want a Prez that ignores obvious signs like "Bin Laden Planning to attack the US" or Putin saying, "Hussein planning to attack the US"? I don't, and I sincerely hope you don't.
Well, first, read my sig to get a better idea of where I stand, just in case there was any doubt.
Next let me say that I've been there. It was after the last gulf war, not this one, but the story doesn't really change. You have people over there. People like you and me who have families and jobs. All they want to do is get up, kiss their kids goodbye, go to work and come home for a nice dinner with the family before banging the wife after the kids go to bed. They want to watch American Sitcom TV and spend the weekends at the park playing ball with their kids.
But there is a problem. People want to turn them and their families into statistics so it will make the evening news. The more horrid the stories on the news, the better. Not because it makes them look bad, but because it makes the war look bad.
Of course these families see these people all the time. They know that down the street is a house where a bunch of bomb-makers hide out. The would tell the Americans troops that they see all the time, but they are afraid of what will happen. They want these terrorist bastards gone, but they know that as soon as the Americans leave, they will be killed, only after watching their kids tortured and wife raped, of course, if they tell. They really want to turn them in, but the Americans are already talking about bailing out any day now.
Now, of course, the American troops over there know this. They know that need the support of these guys if they are going to win this thing. They know that the less support they have in Iraq, the more dangerous their jobs become. Also, they've grown to know these people and like them. They remind them of people they know at home. They trade stories about their families and the occasional joke and smoke. They feel for these people.
At the end of their patrol, they get back to the mess-hall and sit down for chow. The TV is on and loud. It has CNN Worldwide as it is one of the few channels that everyone can agree on. On CNN is a smiling journalist talking about Democrats wanting to end quagmire in Iraq. They are trying to set a deadline to start withdrawing troops in less than six months. He sees Harry Reid on the TV saying that the war in Iraq is lost and that the whole thing is failure.
Now he understands why no one is willing to give up information. While he can give his word that he is dependable and cares about these people, he can't say the same for the people back home. He knows that as soon as he leaves, the people that have helped him out, the people that have told him what he needs to know, the kids who he gave candy to, are all going to die shortly after he leaves, and there is not a damn thing he can do about it.
Now, is there any wonder why our soldiers think that Democrats are heartless pieces of shit who don't give a damn about anyone beyond our own borders? I guess if they are not American families they don't matter. (Would it make the statement any different to replace the word "American" with "white"?) Yeah, Iraq is not a happy place. It must suck to know that no matter how hard you try, you have politicians who will fight harder for their own reelection than they will for lives of the people you've grown to know here.
Of course, you can say Bush lied or it's a war for oil or whatever bumper sticker logic you want to throw at it. Still, it doesn't change the facts on the ground over there. It no longer matters why we went to war. The fact right now, today, this second is that we are there. Now we have to decide if we want to take the easy way out, or the right way.
Of course, the quickest way to end a war is to lose it (also Orwell)
I've stopped donating money to the troops...they love Bush and his war so much, they can solicit donations once the funding runs out. So tired of this bullshit, so tired of being told I 'do not support the troops' beause I think they are being used in an amoral, unethical and illegal manner. Uh... Maybe I'm missing something, but it appears to me that you DON'T support the troops.
Is it just me or does this strike others as "lalalalalalalalalalalaI'mnotlisteninglalalalalala la!" Way to ignore the vast majority of solid information out there and try to put a rose on a pile of shit.
Unfortunately, it's not just you. Many people believe that all change must be bad because change, by definition, means things will be different. Some things will be better and some things worse, but all things will be different.
Different != Bad
That said, if I had to chose between between global warming vs global cooling, I'd take the warming 100% of the time! When the climate changes, it's going to go one way or the other.
I wonder if they would have gotten more viewers if the show were on a "major" network as opposed to the SciFi Channel. I guess the problem with a major network is that the show could not be as edgy as it is. I guess its best asset is that it flies under the radar. Unfortunately, it's also its downfall.
Your religion? That's what I said, wasn't it?
When you look at the world, and all the abuses which have been committed in the name of religion, it is always people such as yourself. Those who have little faith, who define themselves not by the word of God, but by the word of God's critics. Who are afraid that the critics might be right, such that they lash out and try to punish them.
I don't see any basis whereby you can claim it is your religion, considering how little faith you have. Did you read my post? I said that this guy should be free to criticize religion. Are you ignorant, illiterate or just blinded by your own bigotry? Why does saying that someone should be free to criticize religion somehow translate to "I define myself by my critics"?
Also, I have not killed anyone. I think you got the wrong religion. We are not all the same you know. You should research it. Knowledge is the cure for ignorance.
So, because I value YOUR freedom of speech so much that I think it includes YOUR right to violate MY religion... I'm a whiner? I said that I don't think this guy should go to jail for criticizing scientology. People criticize Christianity every day and don't go to jail, why should this guy?
My other point was to reveal the obvious double standard, which is the other side of the argument. People criticize Christianity as a sport, but saying something against Islam, or even scientology is taboo. Rosie O'Donnell went on TV and called Christianity a bigger threat than Islam. (Really? How many planes have Baptist Ministers hijacked lately?) She was applauded. If she had said that Islam was a bigger threat, she would have been sued to oblivion, much like the "5 Imams" are trying to sue to the passengers that refused to board a flight with 5 figity Muslim men screaming Alahu Akbar while boarding the plane.
So, I guess Martin Luther King was a whiner also. Rosa Parks would fit as well since she pointed out a double standard. Caesar Chavez... WHINER! (I'm not comparing myself to these great people. I am comparing YOU to the bigots that called them whiners and told them to shut up and take it)
But the portions of the bible that are historically accurate, don't make it any more or less valid as a religious text -- the portions that relate fantastic tales of sorcery and godhood are just as much a matter of faith as the tale of Xenu.
What you are trying to create here is a "Guilt by Association" fallacy. You are trying to say that Scientology is a religion. Christianity is a religion. Scientology is ridiculous. Therefore, Christianity is ridiculous.
And, rather than letting that fallacy fall on its own, I challenge the premise, which is wrong on my part.
I'm not trying to debate the logic behind faith because, by definition, there is none. However, even though you may see all religions as ridiculous, you have to admit that a religion based on a man that has proven to exist is a bit more plausible than one based off of, say, Battlestar Galactica, Star Wars or Flash Gordon.
Why would this thing, a Volkswagen, be the final straw that makes the story ridiculous?
To slightly modify a quote from the worst Star Trek movie, EVER!
Why would God need a Volksagen? As to the rest of it, the sick, the dead, bread, fish, water, wine and so on, it all existed in that day... compared to Scientology, that has Xenu blowing up "people" at the bases of volcanoes in Hawaii, Japan, The Philippines, the Himalayas and several other places 75 million years ago (did Hawaii exist 75 million years ago? Were the volcanoes in the Himalayas and Washington state active that long ago?), using human 1950's technology. I think that goes along with Jesus using Continental airlines as his primary mode of transportation. In other words, THE PLANES AND THE COMPANY DID NOT EXIST! I can't prove what Jesus did or didn't do in the 0030's, but I can honestly say that Xenu did not use a hydrogen bomb to blow up people he sent here on DC8's before sending their "souls" to theatres to give them the Clockwork Orange treatment in 75000000 BC. There is 0 evidence of anything in Dianetics happening. Quite to the contrary. We have fossil evidence of life on earth dating back over 3 billion years. Scientology claims that man walked the earth with thriving civilizations 75 million years ago. The earliest fossil evidence of primates (not even man) dates back 60 million years, much less DC8's!
Now, please, stop trying to claim that Scientology is anything more that a fraud based on a science fiction novel, and a very bad one at that, certainly not a religion.
Because the crucifix in the jar of urine was art, and the Koran in the toilet was torture. If you put a Koran in a toilet in the middle of a museum, it would be art, and therefore okay. Freedom of speech, the right to protest and freedom of religion are all guaranteed by the Constitution. Art, however, is not mentioned. So how is it that art trumps the Constitution?
I want to start an off topic discussion with you (seriously, I'm not trolling). Have you played Bible Fight at adultswim.com, and if so, what do you think? Grievous insult to the Christian faith? Over the top satire? Humorous satire? Not especially playable? I'm just curious. I've only seen it once, but IIRC, I found it offensive, yet funny. About the same as I would a Mel Brooks movie or Monte Python skit (big fan of all three BTW).
I don't believe I'm responding to this because it's such a F'ing joke, but here it goes:
L. Ron Hubbard really existed....and he died. No one is claiming that he has resurrected or performed any other miracles in life. There is no evidence of scientology existing before LRon dreamed it up.
DC-10 aircraft exist. According to Wikipedia, "The Douglas DC-8 is a four-engined jet airliner, manufactured between 1959 and 1972." I'm afraid DC-8's were not around in Xenu's time. If the Bible told of Jesus driving around in a Volkswagen, I'd consider it bullshit as well.
Hydrogen bombs and volcanoes exist. Volcanoes are hardly evidence of a religion, still, I'll grant the point. However, hydrogen bombs were not designed until 1951, still way before Xenu's time. Still, don't you think a civilization that traveled across the galaxy to populate earth would have something better than human 1950's tech?
But at one time, Christianity was freshly invented too. Fine, if scientology survives for 2000 years, I'll consider it a valid religion. Not my religion, but a valid one nonetheless.
The Democrats counted the votes enough times in 2000 to hold them over!
Speaking of 2000, what happened to all that "every vote must be counted" line they kept giving? I can't even say that they only want Democratic votes counted because it looks like they are the only ones being thrown out, and it's Democrats doing it!
his is, of course, part of the Democracy Reform Movement, popular in both major parties, which will culminate in all elections being 'nonbinding.' It's much tidier that way.
Don't drag Republicans into this. This is purely a Democratic party thing. The Republicans are counting their votes.
I only mention this because when Republicans do something bad, it's because they are evil. But when Democrats do something bad, both parties are evil. A single standard would be nice.
And Anne Rice writes in her books about actual places, etc. Does not make her books any less fiction though.
It makes it less fiction than the tales of Xenu and his interplanetary 747's! So even though I would also consider "Riceologism" ridiculous, it would still carry more weight than scientology.
so, yeah, if evidence is your hallmark of a valid religion, i think both camps are in trouble.
I think you are missing the point. I'm not here to say that everything in the Bible can be and has been proven as fact. I am saying that there is some fact in it. On the other hand, Dianetics is no more a religious text than The Hitchhikers Guide. The Bible at least deals with events accepted as historically accurate, even before they were "known" to be historical events.
What does it take to qualify as a religion under your definition?
I brought it up to show a double standard. Burning a flag that has Allah inscribed on it is a crime. Burning a Bible is not. Dropping a koran in a toilet is a "hate crime". Dropping a cross in urine is not. Giving muslem students a ham sandwich is a hate crime (reprehensible, sure. But a crime?), making a video game where the object is to kill as many "Jesuses" as possible is OK in the state of California, that has this law.
And the whole thing about zombie Jesus and his invisible sky daddy isn't just some made-up bullshit? Seriously, what's the difference?
Are you comparing Christianity to Scientology? Here are a few other difference you may not be aware of:
Christianity has a historical significance. Romans really did crucify people using crosses. King Herod really did exist. Other examples form HERE
The inscription on the Moabite Stone, for example, provides disinterested, nonbiblical confirmation that king Mesha of the Moabites, mentioned in 2 Kings 3:4-27, was probably an actual historical character. The Black Obelisk provides a record of the payment of tribute to the Assyrian king Shalmaneser III by Jehu, king of the Israelites (2 Kings 9-10; 2 Chron. 22:7-9). Likewise, the Babylonian Chronicle attests to the historicity of Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, and his conquest of Jerusalem as recorded in 2 Kings 25. Other examples could be cited, but these are sufficient to show that archaeology has corroborated some information in the Bible. Of course, there is really no scientific evidence of anything in the Bible, no more than say proof that George Washington was president? However, to compare the Bible with Dianetics is a bit of a joke. Is there any historical evidence of ancient, interplanetary 747's around? If not, then there is more archaeological and historic evidence backing the Bible than scientology.
If he had been criticizing Catholicism as vocally for instance, would the same have happened?
I'm going to take a guess NO.
LOS ANGELES, CA - On April 12, 2007 (12:00 - 9:00PM), Niche.LA Video Art presents "Christ Killa," featuring digital and video artist Eric Medine.
Described as the ultimate arbitration between politics and Christianity, "Christ Killa" is a video game linked to video projectors and television monitors. A first person shooter in which the player shoots hordes of homicidal Jesus Christs, the game landscape is filled with Googled images of Christian propaganda posters, religious shrines such as St. Peter's in Rome, and clichéd representations of Christ who constantly mumbles messages of tolerance and compassion.
The audience is invited to participate in the carnage by playing the video game and watching short videos of the game in action.
Slashdot Mirror
Evidently, you can't read. What I said was: The director of intelligence told the Prez that Iraq is making weapons
and
Russian President Vladimir Putin says that after the 9/11 attacks Moscow warned Washington that Saddam Hussein was planning attacks on the US. Do you see "hunch" in there... Anywhere? So, you are either illiterate, didn't read my post or you have the reading comprehension of a 2-yr old (in other words, illiterate).
In a world where everyone keeps hammering you because you saw a memo that said "Bin Laden to attack America" and 3000 people died because you failed to act, are you going to sit still when another memo crosses you desk saying "Saddam Hussein to attack America"? (This, btw, is the view of most conservatives.)
Here's a quick quiz. Can you tell me who Nero was and what he's famous for? Is that what you want out or president?
I find it ironic that you would call Bush a liar and then lay a whopper like that on me. Are you a mind reader or liar. Really, as a non-conservative, how can you claim to know what is going through most of our heads. Don't claim to know what my view is. Fact is, "most conservatives" feel as I do, that Bush honestly and truly felt that the nation was threatened and acted appropriately. You know, the way people like you say he should have acted when he got a memo saying that Bin Laden wanted to attack America.
Evidently, you can't read. What I said was: The director of intelligence told the Prez that Iraq is making weapons
and
Russian President Vladimir Putin says that after the 9/11 attacks Moscow warned Washington that Saddam Hussein was planning attacks on the US.
Do you see "hunch" in there... Anywhere? So, you are either illiterate, didn't read my post or you have the reading comprehension of a 2-yr old (in other words, illiterate).
In a world where everyone keeps hammering you because you saw a memo that said "Bin Laden to attack America" and 3000 people died, are you going to sit still when another memo crosses you desk saying "Saddam Hussein to attack America"?
Here's a quick quiz. Can you tell me who Nero was and what he's famous for? Is that what you want out or president?
(This is the view of most conservatives.)
I find it ironic that you would call Bush a liar and then lay a whopper like that on me. Are you a mind reader or liar. Really, as a non-conservative, how can you claim to know what is going through most of our heads. Don't claim to know what my view is. Fact is, "most conservatives" feel as I do, that Bush honestly and truly felt that the nation was threatened and acted appropriately. You know, the way people like you say he should have acted when he got a memo saying that Bin Laden wanted to attack America.
That would be AWESOME! Too bad the UN won't do it. That's pretty much what we tried from the beginning.
Bush did lie.
The director of intelligence told the Prez that Iraq is making weapons that will kill millions (HERE)
and Russia, a country that doesn't want you going to war, told the Prez that Iraq is planning an attack (HERE). Here's a quote from the BBC: Russian President Vladimir Putin says that after the 9/11 attacks Moscow warned Washington that Saddam Hussein was planning attacks on the US. So that kinda disproves your whole "Bush lied" thing, or at least proves that the Prez was acting in good faith. Although, the Putin thing is enough for me. Still, after 9-11, do you want a Prez that ignores obvious signs like "Bin Laden Planning to attack the US" or Putin saying, "Hussein planning to attack the US"? I don't, and I sincerely hope you don't.
Well, first, read my sig to get a better idea of where I stand, just in case there was any doubt.
Next let me say that I've been there. It was after the last gulf war, not this one, but the story doesn't really change. You have people over there. People like you and me who have families and jobs. All they want to do is get up, kiss their kids goodbye, go to work and come home for a nice dinner with the family before banging the wife after the kids go to bed. They want to watch American Sitcom TV and spend the weekends at the park playing ball with their kids.
But there is a problem. People want to turn them and their families into statistics so it will make the evening news. The more horrid the stories on the news, the better. Not because it makes them look bad, but because it makes the war look bad.
Of course these families see these people all the time. They know that down the street is a house where a bunch of bomb-makers hide out. The would tell the Americans troops that they see all the time, but they are afraid of what will happen. They want these terrorist bastards gone, but they know that as soon as the Americans leave, they will be killed, only after watching their kids tortured and wife raped, of course, if they tell. They really want to turn them in, but the Americans are already talking about bailing out any day now.
Now, of course, the American troops over there know this. They know that need the support of these guys if they are going to win this thing. They know that the less support they have in Iraq, the more dangerous their jobs become. Also, they've grown to know these people and like them. They remind them of people they know at home. They trade stories about their families and the occasional joke and smoke. They feel for these people.
At the end of their patrol, they get back to the mess-hall and sit down for chow. The TV is on and loud. It has CNN Worldwide as it is one of the few channels that everyone can agree on. On CNN is a smiling journalist talking about Democrats wanting to end quagmire in Iraq. They are trying to set a deadline to start withdrawing troops in less than six months. He sees Harry Reid on the TV saying that the war in Iraq is lost and that the whole thing is failure.
Now he understands why no one is willing to give up information. While he can give his word that he is dependable and cares about these people, he can't say the same for the people back home. He knows that as soon as he leaves, the people that have helped him out, the people that have told him what he needs to know, the kids who he gave candy to, are all going to die shortly after he leaves, and there is not a damn thing he can do about it.
Now, is there any wonder why our soldiers think that Democrats are heartless pieces of shit who don't give a damn about anyone beyond our own borders? I guess if they are not American families they don't matter. (Would it make the statement any different to replace the word "American" with "white"?) Yeah, Iraq is not a happy place. It must suck to know that no matter how hard you try, you have politicians who will fight harder for their own reelection than they will for lives of the people you've grown to know here.
Of course, you can say Bush lied or it's a war for oil or whatever bumper sticker logic you want to throw at it. Still, it doesn't change the facts on the ground over there. It no longer matters why we went to war. The fact right now, today, this second is that we are there. Now we have to decide if we want to take the easy way out, or the right way.
Of course, the quickest way to end a war is to lose it (also Orwell)
I sincerely hope that you're kidding around and not ignorant to the fact there's a state that's named the same...
Yes, it was a joke. I lived in Michigan (not ON Michigan) for about 4 years.
Is it just me or does this strike others as "lalalalalalalalalalalaI'mnotlisteninglalalalalala la!" Way to ignore the vast majority of solid information out there and try to put a rose on a pile of shit.
Unfortunately, it's not just you. Many people believe that all change must be bad because change, by definition, means things will be different. Some things will be better and some things worse, but all things will be different.
Different != Bad
That said, if I had to chose between between global warming vs global cooling, I'd take the warming 100% of the time! When the climate changes, it's going to go one way or the other.
"Florida, much of California, Michigan, and many East Coast states, including much or all of New York City completely under water"
Uh... Lake Michigan is already under water.
ST Voyager, DS9 and TNG all ran longer, were they somehow cheaper to produce? Voyager had 7 (!) seasons... and it kinda sucked through most of those!
Did more people actually watch Voyager and DS9 than BSG?
I wonder if they would have gotten more viewers if the show were on a "major" network as opposed to the SciFi Channel. I guess the problem with a major network is that the show could not be as edgy as it is. I guess its best asset is that it flies under the radar. Unfortunately, it's also its downfall.
I don't see any basis whereby you can claim it is your religion, considering how little faith you have. Did you read my post? I said that this guy should be free to criticize religion. Are you ignorant, illiterate or just blinded by your own bigotry? Why does saying that someone should be free to criticize religion somehow translate to "I define myself by my critics"?
Also, I have not killed anyone. I think you got the wrong religion. We are not all the same you know. You should research it. Knowledge is the cure for ignorance.
In the mean time, I'll pray for you.
I'd say your point is most simple.
you like to whine
So, because I value YOUR freedom of speech so much that I think it includes YOUR right to violate MY religion... I'm a whiner? I said that I don't think this guy should go to jail for criticizing scientology. People criticize Christianity every day and don't go to jail, why should this guy?
My other point was to reveal the obvious double standard, which is the other side of the argument. People criticize Christianity as a sport, but saying something against Islam, or even scientology is taboo. Rosie O'Donnell went on TV and called Christianity a bigger threat than Islam. (Really? How many planes have Baptist Ministers hijacked lately?) She was applauded. If she had said that Islam was a bigger threat, she would have been sued to oblivion, much like the "5 Imams" are trying to sue to the passengers that refused to board a flight with 5 figity Muslim men screaming Alahu Akbar while boarding the plane.
So, I guess Martin Luther King was a whiner also. Rosa Parks would fit as well since she pointed out a double standard. Caesar Chavez... WHINER!
(I'm not comparing myself to these great people. I am comparing YOU to the bigots that called them whiners and told them to shut up and take it)
But the portions of the bible that are historically accurate, don't make it any more or less valid as a religious text -- the portions that relate fantastic tales of sorcery and godhood are just as much a matter of faith as the tale of Xenu.
What you are trying to create here is a "Guilt by Association" fallacy. You are trying to say that Scientology is a religion. Christianity is a religion. Scientology is ridiculous. Therefore, Christianity is ridiculous.
And, rather than letting that fallacy fall on its own, I challenge the premise, which is wrong on my part.
I'm not trying to debate the logic behind faith because, by definition, there is none. However, even though you may see all religions as ridiculous, you have to admit that a religion based on a man that has proven to exist is a bit more plausible than one based off of, say, Battlestar Galactica, Star Wars or Flash Gordon.
To slightly modify a quote from the worst Star Trek movie, EVER! Why would God need a Volksagen? As to the rest of it, the sick, the dead, bread, fish, water, wine and so on, it all existed in that day... compared to Scientology, that has Xenu blowing up "people" at the bases of volcanoes in Hawaii, Japan, The Philippines, the Himalayas and several other places 75 million years ago (did Hawaii exist 75 million years ago? Were the volcanoes in the Himalayas and Washington state active that long ago?), using human 1950's technology. I think that goes along with Jesus using Continental airlines as his primary mode of transportation. In other words, THE PLANES AND THE COMPANY DID NOT EXIST! I can't prove what Jesus did or didn't do in the 0030's, but I can honestly say that Xenu did not use a hydrogen bomb to blow up people he sent here on DC8's before sending their "souls" to theatres to give them the Clockwork Orange treatment in 75000000 BC. There is 0 evidence of anything in Dianetics happening. Quite to the contrary. We have fossil evidence of life on earth dating back over 3 billion years. Scientology claims that man walked the earth with thriving civilizations 75 million years ago. The earliest fossil evidence of primates (not even man) dates back 60 million years, much less DC8's!
Now, please, stop trying to claim that Scientology is anything more that a fraud based on a science fiction novel, and a very bad one at that, certainly not a religion.
Because the crucifix in the jar of urine was art, and the Koran in the toilet was torture. If you put a Koran in a toilet in the middle of a museum, it would be art, and therefore okay.
Freedom of speech, the right to protest and freedom of religion are all guaranteed by the Constitution. Art, however, is not mentioned. So how is it that art trumps the Constitution?
I want to start an off topic discussion with you (seriously, I'm not trolling). Have you played Bible Fight at adultswim.com, and if so, what do you think? Grievous insult to the Christian faith? Over the top satire? Humorous satire? Not especially playable? I'm just curious.
I've only seen it once, but IIRC, I found it offensive, yet funny. About the same as I would a Mel Brooks movie or Monte Python skit (big fan of all three BTW).
I don't believe I'm responding to this because it's such a F'ing joke, but here it goes:
...and he died. No one is claiming that he has resurrected or performed any other miracles in life. There is no evidence of scientology existing before LRon dreamed it up.
L. Ron Hubbard really existed.
DC-10 aircraft exist.
According to Wikipedia, "The Douglas DC-8 is a four-engined jet airliner, manufactured between 1959 and 1972." I'm afraid DC-8's were not around in Xenu's time. If the Bible told of Jesus driving around in a Volkswagen, I'd consider it bullshit as well.
Hydrogen bombs and volcanoes exist.
Volcanoes are hardly evidence of a religion, still, I'll grant the point. However, hydrogen bombs were not designed until 1951, still way before Xenu's time. Still, don't you think a civilization that traveled across the galaxy to populate earth would have something better than human 1950's tech?
But at one time, Christianity was freshly invented too.
Fine, if scientology survives for 2000 years, I'll consider it a valid religion. Not my religion, but a valid one nonetheless.
Whether you perceive this place as liberal biased or conservative biased seems to depend primarily on what side of the fence you identify with.
I think the fact that my original comment was modded "overrated", even though it had not been rated by anyone else, kinda speaks for itself.
The Democrats counted the votes enough times in 2000 to hold them over!
Speaking of 2000, what happened to all that "every vote must be counted" line they kept giving? I can't even say that they only want Democratic votes counted because it looks like they are the only ones being thrown out, and it's Democrats doing it!
his is, of course, part of the Democracy Reform Movement, popular in both major parties, which will culminate in all elections being 'nonbinding.' It's much tidier that way.
Don't drag Republicans into this. This is purely a Democratic party thing. The Republicans are counting their votes.
I only mention this because when Republicans do something bad, it's because they are evil. But when Democrats do something bad, both parties are evil. A single standard would be nice.
And Anne Rice writes in her books about actual places, etc. Does not make her books any less fiction though.
It makes it less fiction than the tales of Xenu and his interplanetary 747's! So even though I would also consider "Riceologism" ridiculous, it would still carry more weight than scientology.
so, yeah, if evidence is your hallmark of a valid religion, i think both camps are in trouble.
I think you are missing the point. I'm not here to say that everything in the Bible can be and has been proven as fact. I am saying that there is some fact in it. On the other hand, Dianetics is no more a religious text than The Hitchhikers Guide. The Bible at least deals with events accepted as historically accurate, even before they were "known" to be historical events.
What does it take to qualify as a religion under your definition?
I brought it up to show a double standard. Burning a flag that has Allah inscribed on it is a crime. Burning a Bible is not. Dropping a koran in a toilet is a "hate crime". Dropping a cross in urine is not. Giving muslem students a ham sandwich is a hate crime (reprehensible, sure. But a crime?), making a video game where the object is to kill as many "Jesuses" as possible is OK in the state of California, that has this law.
See my point here?
Are you comparing Christianity to Scientology? Here are a few other difference you may not be aware of:
Christianity has a historical significance. Romans really did crucify people using crosses. King Herod really did exist. Other examples form HERE The inscription on the Moabite Stone, for example, provides disinterested, nonbiblical confirmation that king Mesha of the Moabites, mentioned in 2 Kings 3:4-27, was probably an actual historical character. The Black Obelisk provides a record of the payment of tribute to the Assyrian king Shalmaneser III by Jehu, king of the Israelites (2 Kings 9-10; 2 Chron. 22:7-9). Likewise, the Babylonian Chronicle attests to the historicity of Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, and his conquest of Jerusalem as recorded in 2 Kings 25. Other examples could be cited, but these are sufficient to show that archaeology has corroborated some information in the Bible. Of course, there is really no scientific evidence of anything in the Bible, no more than say proof that George Washington was president? However, to compare the Bible with Dianetics is a bit of a joke. Is there any historical evidence of ancient, interplanetary 747's around? If not, then there is more archaeological and historic evidence backing the Bible than scientology.
I'm going to take a guess NO. LOS ANGELES, CA - On April 12, 2007 (12:00 - 9:00PM), Niche.LA Video Art presents "Christ Killa," featuring digital and video artist Eric Medine.
Described as the ultimate arbitration between politics and Christianity, "Christ Killa" is a video game linked to video projectors and television monitors. A first person shooter in which the player shoots hordes of homicidal Jesus Christs, the game landscape is filled with Googled images of Christian propaganda posters, religious shrines such as St. Peter's in Rome, and clichéd representations of Christ who constantly mumbles messages of tolerance and compassion.
The audience is invited to participate in the carnage by playing the video game and watching short videos of the game in action.