It is told that King Louis XIV of France once asked Blaise Pascal, the renowned 17th century mathematician and philosopher, to give him proof of the supernatural. Pascal answered: “Why, the Jews, your Majesty – the Jews.” -- The Miracle of Jewish Survival
--------
"The Egyptian, the Babylonian and the Persian rose, filled the planet with sound and splendor, then faded to dream-stuff and passed away; the Greek and the Roman followed, and made a vast noise, and they are gone; other people have sprung up and held their torch high for a time, but it burned out and they sit in twilight now, or have vanished.
The Jew saw them all, beat them all, and is now what he always was, exhibiting no decadence, no infirmities of age, no weakening of his parts, no slowing of his energies, no dulling of his alert and aggressive mind. All things are mortal but the Jew; all other forces pass, but he remains. What is the secret of his immortality?" -- Mark Twain
--------
We have already quoted the judgment of a sociologist that “by every sociological law the Jews should have perished long ago”; to which we may now add that of a noted philosopher, Nicholas Berdyaev: “The continued existence of Jewry down the centuries is rationally inexplicable.” -- Huston Smith, The Religions of Man
They are quote quotes, not scare quotes. Few people make the silly comparison of religion to penises. You are an outlier.
Now a question to you. Is amicusNYCL a reference to a legal brief associated with a New York institution, or is it a sly joke that you have something you consider friendly in your shorts (briefs)? Or is it something else?
Sorry A., but no. The Soviet Union and Russia have long been interested in any country adjacent to their territory that wasn't under Soviet / Russian control. They make the same sort of runs against Finland, Norway, and other countries now, just like they either threatened or invaded their neighbors in the past. Examples: Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Ukraine, etc., etc.
I would think you've been around long enough to realize that not everything is about us. It is often about them, whether them is Russia or the Islamists. They have their own goals independent of our actions.
It would be very easy to say "No" if they had wanted to, if it wasn't in their interests. But perhaps you haven't noticed that Sweden has security challenges of its own?
You're also a bit confused regarding the "biggest guns and millions of murders" part. The US helped Sweden keep them out. Just a taste. .
Instead of an Islamic caliphate, we're up to our waist in an authoritarian plutocracy. If that is victory, one more such might undo us.
The US form of government hasn't changed, isn't authoritarian, and isn't particularly a plutocracy. Your imagination is more likely to be your undoing.
Not really impressive. Marriage predates the 1300s. It still comes down to man and woman, even for at least the last three to four thousand years. Since we can be reasonably sure that two men can't produce offspring with each other I think we can safely push back the mating of men and women much further back in history.
Atheists seldom seem to lack tracts, pamphlets or other writings that they use to publicize their beliefs when they aren't relying on Marx or Lenin. Behind the various Iron or Bamboo curtains they turned to sticks, batons, and jail cells to punish religious belief. Surely this can't be the first time you've heard of such a thing? You aren't exactly a spring chicken by my reckoning, and there are many examples.
Really? Do tell how promoting non-belief in god(s) was such a great scourge.
Atheism has long been a basic component of Marxist-Leninist communism. Communism managed to kill 100,000,000 people in the last century. Religious oppression was a basic part of that pattern of murder and oppression, and included such components as the League of Militant Atheists. If you are either old enough or well read enough you may have encountered the phrase, "atheistic communism."
Chesterton was a good writer. Shame that his views on religion were so childish.
The real shame is that he is outdone by many of his critics in that regard. Case in point.
We aren't talking "relationships," or just sex, we're talking marriage. If we only wanted "relationships" we could throw in the Pashtun and their old saying & practice: A woman for children, a goat for relief, a boy for pleasure. But that isn't what we're looking for.
Sterile women can't get pregnant under normal circumstances. And neither can women older than 50.
So you were saying?
I think what we can say is that marriage has been between a man and a woman for thousands of years. Society is built upon that relationship and has been for a very long time. Children fare best when they have two parents in a stable home. In the 1970s gay activists were openly hostile towards marriage and sought to destroy it. It has only been the last few years that it has been a positive goal, and we have yet to see how it will play out. If the experience of Europe is any indication it will have little positive effect, but will offer American gays and lesbians a chance to participate in the expense, pain, and acrimony of divorce. Indeed, that is already occurring. We can also safely say that pointing out any of this is and will remain immensely unpopular in some circles. "Political correctness" all too often trumps and is used as the basis to punish factual correctness.
There is more than one sort of "Thumper," and the atheist "thumpers" were one of the great scourges of human life in the last 100 years.
You may want to keep this in mind: “Atheism is indeed the most daring of all dogmas . . . for it is the assertion of a universal negative.” - G. K. Chesterton
I'm not so sure about that. Forcing religious groups to follow the same set of laws that this country has always followed is certainly not a step back.
It's not about "really wanting them to change their mind", it's more about "forcing them to respect the law." I don't care how they think as long as they aren't shoving their religion in everyones' face.
But that is the question, isn't it? Has the country always followed a particular set of practices and laws? It takes very little legal scholarship to realize that the treatment of religion in society in terms of the law has been evolving, and not necessarily for the better. Due to many mistaken notions about what the "separation of church and state" means (a phase not found in the Constitution) there have been many instances of government overreach, and occasionally outright repression. As a result the there has been more than one instance of the executive branch having to issue guidelines to schools to prevent discrimination.
Students may pray when not engaged in school activities or instruction, subject to the same rules designed to prevent material disruption of the educational program that are applied to other privately initiated expressive activities. Among other things, students may read their Bibles or other scriptures, say grace before meals, and pray or study religious materials with fellow students during recess, the lunch hour, or other noninstructional time to the same extent that they may engage in nonreligious activities. While school authorities may impose rules of order and pedagogical restrictions on student activities, they may not discriminate against student prayer or religious speech in applying such rules and restrictions.
--------
Remember: religions are like penises. It's ok to have one, and it's even ok to be proud of it. But don't take it out and wave it around in public
If you think that religion is like a "penis," you probably don't have a well developed notion of their respective uses. Religion is not like a penis. Religion is often seen in public places, and rightfully so, and has had a prominent place in the public discourse on various matters on many occasions during the existence of the Republic. Your personal discomfort with that fact isn't necessarily relevant to that, nor does it change history.
They are both PoWs of an organization that doesn't fight in accordance with the Geneva Conventions, thereby losing their privileges, and war criminals. In many cases they have committed other offenses as well and could be tried.
So no, we aren't reduced to their level as things stand. The fact that they haven't been beheaded, as is their custom for many of their prisoners, should server as just one of many hints there.
You've gone wrong on a couple of points there. First, al Qaida and company do indeed want the entire world under Islamic rule. It is their goal. The Middle East is just closer to it since it has a majority of Muslims, a number of the countries already implement Sharia in some form, even if imperfectly. Indonesia, Pakistan, and Afghanistan are also high on the list. You may have noticed that they are subject to various troubles as well, not to mention India.
As to the US, there is no such thing as "Christian" rule. The US is a secular democracy. It is a nation of primarily Christians (of various flavors and piety) living in a democracy. There is no theocracy, there is no meaningful movement towards theocracy, and it is unclear what one would even look like since there doesn't seem to be a biblical model for it this side of Christ's return. So your post on that is nonsense.
Christian missionaries have been greatly beneficial to many lands. This is only one example.
If you look into the history of the last 100 years, you will see that officially atheist regimes were one of the great scourges of the planet. In their communist form they killed 100,000,000 people and brutalized and oppressed many more.
Jesus lived his life as an observant Jew, is recorded to have fulfilled many prophecies associated with being the Messiah, and made statements declaring himself to be God. Many of his followers preferred to die painful deaths rather than denounce him.
Slashdot Mirror
It is told that King Louis XIV of France once asked Blaise Pascal, the renowned 17th century mathematician and philosopher, to give him proof of the supernatural. Pascal answered: “Why, the Jews, your Majesty – the Jews.” -- The Miracle of Jewish Survival
--------
"The Egyptian, the Babylonian and the Persian rose, filled the planet with sound and splendor, then faded to dream-stuff and passed away; the Greek and the Roman followed, and made a vast noise, and they are gone; other people have sprung up and held their torch high for a time, but it burned out and they sit in twilight now, or have vanished.
The Jew saw them all, beat them all, and is now what he always was, exhibiting no decadence, no infirmities of age, no weakening of his parts, no slowing of his energies, no dulling of his alert and aggressive mind. All things are mortal but the Jew; all other forces pass, but he remains. What is the secret of his immortality?" -- Mark Twain
--------
We have already quoted the judgment of a sociologist that “by every sociological law the Jews should have perished long ago”; to which we may now add that of a noted philosopher, Nicholas Berdyaev: “The continued existence of Jewry down the centuries is rationally inexplicable.” -- Huston Smith, The Religions of Man
They are quote quotes, not scare quotes. Few people make the silly comparison of religion to penises. You are an outlier.
Now a question to you. Is amicusNYCL a reference to a legal brief associated with a New York institution, or is it a sly joke that you have something you consider friendly in your shorts (briefs)? Or is it something else?
You could try China, North Korea, Vietnam, and Cuba. I believe they are all officially atheistic, and generally suppress religion, sometimes brutally.
You may not like the trade-offs.
Sorry A., but no. The Soviet Union and Russia have long been interested in any country adjacent to their territory that wasn't under Soviet / Russian control. They make the same sort of runs against Finland, Norway, and other countries now, just like they either threatened or invaded their neighbors in the past. Examples: Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Ukraine, etc., etc.
I would think you've been around long enough to realize that not everything is about us. It is often about them, whether them is Russia or the Islamists. They have their own goals independent of our actions.
I suppose like many things in life it will remain a mystery.
Russia Simulated A Large-Scale Aerial Night Attack On Sweden
Canadian jets repel Russian bombers
Canadian navy officer sentenced to 20 years for being Russian spy
Canadian Police Arrest Man on Trying to Spy for China
Bombs from thwarted B.C. terror plot planted among crowd of 40,000 Canada Day revelers
It would be very easy to say "No" if they had wanted to, if it wasn't in their interests. But perhaps you haven't noticed that Sweden has security challenges of its own?
You're also a bit confused regarding the "biggest guns and millions of murders" part. The US helped Sweden keep them out. Just a taste. .
Atheists believe there is no god, and many of them wish to spread that belief. It certainly isn't knowledge.
Terror isn't the goal, but the means. Their goal is to convert the world to Islam. Look back to the age of Muslim conquest for a better understanding.
Instead of an Islamic caliphate, we're up to our waist in an authoritarian plutocracy. If that is victory, one more such might undo us.
The US form of government hasn't changed, isn't authoritarian, and isn't particularly a plutocracy. Your imagination is more likely to be your undoing.
Not really impressive. Marriage predates the 1300s. It still comes down to man and woman, even for at least the last three to four thousand years. Since we can be reasonably sure that two men can't produce offspring with each other I think we can safely push back the mating of men and women much further back in history.
The 100,000,000 people were killed, so your post doesn't make much sense in that regard.
The Communist wouldn't have oppressed the churches if they were either tolerant or believers themselves.
You score 0 for 2.
Atheists seldom seem to lack tracts, pamphlets or other writings that they use to publicize their beliefs when they aren't relying on Marx or Lenin. Behind the various Iron or Bamboo curtains they turned to sticks, batons, and jail cells to punish religious belief. Surely this can't be the first time you've heard of such a thing? You aren't exactly a spring chicken by my reckoning, and there are many examples.
Tortured for Christ
Really? Do tell how promoting non-belief in god(s) was such a great scourge.
Atheism has long been a basic component of Marxist-Leninist communism. Communism managed to kill 100,000,000 people in the last century. Religious oppression was a basic part of that pattern of murder and oppression, and included such components as the League of Militant Atheists. If you are either old enough or well read enough you may have encountered the phrase, "atheistic communism."
Chesterton was a good writer. Shame that his views on religion were so childish.
The real shame is that he is outdone by many of his critics in that regard. Case in point.
We aren't talking "relationships," or just sex, we're talking marriage. If we only wanted "relationships" we could throw in the Pashtun and their old saying & practice: A woman for children, a goat for relief, a boy for pleasure. But that isn't what we're looking for.
Sounds like the Yazidis of Iraq who are also thought to worship Satan by others in the region due to coincidental naming.
Much of the variance has been the social trappings and guiding rules more than the joining of men and women. If you disagree, please elaborate.
I think you're going to have a pretty hard time suggesting men weren't paired with women.
And what are those "other ways" besides a man and a woman? There may be some limited examples of polygamy in the West, but what do you have?
Sterile women can't get pregnant under normal circumstances. And neither can women older than 50.
So you were saying?
I think what we can say is that marriage has been between a man and a woman for thousands of years. Society is built upon that relationship and has been for a very long time. Children fare best when they have two parents in a stable home. In the 1970s gay activists were openly hostile towards marriage and sought to destroy it. It has only been the last few years that it has been a positive goal, and we have yet to see how it will play out. If the experience of Europe is any indication it will have little positive effect, but will offer American gays and lesbians a chance to participate in the expense, pain, and acrimony of divorce. Indeed, that is already occurring. We can also safely say that pointing out any of this is and will remain immensely unpopular in some circles. "Political correctness" all too often trumps and is used as the basis to punish factual correctness.
There is more than one sort of "Thumper," and the atheist "thumpers" were one of the great scourges of human life in the last 100 years.
You may want to keep this in mind: “Atheism is indeed the most daring of all dogmas . . . for it is the assertion of a universal negative.” - G. K. Chesterton
Progress in what sense? Perhaps you will want to look into some history there? The very point of "progressive" these days is to not be obvious.
I'm not so sure about that. Forcing religious groups to follow the same set of laws that this country has always followed is certainly not a step back.
It's not about "really wanting them to change their mind", it's more about "forcing them to respect the law." I don't care how they think as long as they aren't shoving their religion in everyones' face.
But that is the question, isn't it? Has the country always followed a particular set of practices and laws? It takes very little legal scholarship to realize that the treatment of religion in society in terms of the law has been evolving, and not necessarily for the better. Due to many mistaken notions about what the "separation of church and state" means (a phase not found in the Constitution) there have been many instances of government overreach, and occasionally outright repression. As a result the there has been more than one instance of the executive branch having to issue guidelines to schools to prevent discrimination.
Prayer During Noninstructional Time
Students may pray when not engaged in school activities or instruction, subject to the same rules designed to prevent material disruption of the educational program that are applied to other privately initiated expressive activities. Among other things, students may read their Bibles or other scriptures, say grace before meals, and pray or study religious materials with fellow students during recess, the lunch hour, or other noninstructional time to the same extent that they may engage in nonreligious activities. While school authorities may impose rules of order and pedagogical restrictions on student activities, they may not discriminate against student prayer or religious speech in applying such rules and restrictions.
--------
Remember: religions are like penises. It's ok to have one, and it's even ok to be proud of it. But don't take it out and wave it around in public
If you think that religion is like a "penis," you probably don't have a well developed notion of their respective uses. Religion is not like a penis. Religion is often seen in public places, and rightfully so, and has had a prominent place in the public discourse on various matters on many occasions during the existence of the Republic. Your personal discomfort with that fact isn't necessarily relevant to that, nor does it change history.
They are both PoWs of an organization that doesn't fight in accordance with the Geneva Conventions, thereby losing their privileges, and war criminals. In many cases they have committed other offenses as well and could be tried.
So no, we aren't reduced to their level as things stand. The fact that they haven't been beheaded, as is their custom for many of their prisoners, should server as just one of many hints there.
You've gone wrong on a couple of points there. First, al Qaida and company do indeed want the entire world under Islamic rule. It is their goal. The Middle East is just closer to it since it has a majority of Muslims, a number of the countries already implement Sharia in some form, even if imperfectly. Indonesia, Pakistan, and Afghanistan are also high on the list. You may have noticed that they are subject to various troubles as well, not to mention India.
The Future of Terrorism: What al-Qaida Really Wants
They plan to take back lands formerly controlled by Muslims. Just one example: Spain
Alarm in Spain over al-Qaeda call for its "reconquest"
HAMAS Targets Spain
As to the US, there is no such thing as "Christian" rule. The US is a secular democracy. It is a nation of primarily Christians (of various flavors and piety) living in a democracy. There is no theocracy, there is no meaningful movement towards theocracy, and it is unclear what one would even look like since there doesn't seem to be a biblical model for it this side of Christ's return. So your post on that is nonsense.
Christian missionaries have been greatly beneficial to many lands. This is only one example.
Matthew Parris: As an atheist, I truly believe Africa needs God
If you look into the history of the last 100 years, you will see that officially atheist regimes were one of the great scourges of the planet. In their communist form they killed 100,000,000 people and brutalized and oppressed many more.
Jesus lived his life as an observant Jew, is recorded to have fulfilled many prophecies associated with being the Messiah, and made statements declaring himself to be God. Many of his followers preferred to die painful deaths rather than denounce him.
I get the impression that "Chaotic - Neutral" would often seem to be a fair approximation.
The church of Satan IS atheist.
The church of Satan does not encompass all Satanists.