Is this for me? I'm not "dead set" against their right to their opinions. I find it disturbing (there I go with that word again), that they feel justified in opposing the rights of others based on their beliefs. I thought I made that clear earlier in the thread, but my apologies if that's not the case.

It just seems a bit.... Oh, forget it. To each his own, I guess. I can condemn you for making a thread about it.

But perhaps you'd rather I burn a church down or something.

Again, the sarcasm. And exaggeration.

Obviously, I do. If you don't that's your business and you're welcome to it. If you truly don't care though, why are you wasting your time in this thread? Seems a bit hypocritical, no?

True. But in answer to your question, I was trying to figure out why you cared.

Perhaps not. Then again, perhaps I am.

OK.......

?

Using the same lack of rational, I could say that these Conservative Christians are too.

I don't find your apathy persuasive if that was your intent.

Apathy? It's fact. There are always things like this. And believe, everything affects the world in different ways. But why don't we just disband LucasArts. It hasn't seemed to do anything that are the likes of what you said, right?

Whatever adjective makes you happy. Please feel free to address your letter to Merriam-Webster.

Out of curiosity, what does "sighted" faith look like? Also, how is it related to religion? Looking forward to your response.

Oh please. You're turning this into something its not. Blind faith is faith in something that you cannot see or know is true, but have faith in it because of your belief. Faith other than that is faith in something that has evidence to which it can be true. I don't understand how you seem to find what I said hard to understand, its what it means. Maybe you might want to brush up on some vocab there, buddy.

Please show me where the Constitution makes any reference to god? Also, many of the Framers were deists.

I concede your point, but all people who are theists/deists belive in God, and Creation. Show me a religion like that that doesn't. That was my point.

Says the man that accuses me of watching too much news.

Bush admits that Iraq Had Nothing To Do With 9/11

No, just believing in it too much.

Besides, what I say isn't just based on armchair theorizing and watching CNN or anything, trust me. And as for Bush, well, I don't support Bush. I think he was a big dissapointment. So what he says I don't necessarily believe in. True, that may not have been his intent when he went into Iraq, but I do believe that it was all interconnected, and that we should have gone in (perhaps differently). Oh, and just was his intent? Hmm? Would it possibly have some kind of connection back to terrorism anyways?

You mean the Iraqi civil war?

What?

Ermmm.... I'm guessing that you don't think Saddam was a problem before we went to war?

Ahem. Wasn't the Constitution written by men who were Christians? Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you, but.... But what? I’m a Christian too. I was answering Achilles request for my frame of reference for my comment: I have the same problem with these people that I have with other groups that try to force their belief structure on to others through legislation and the courts.In Edwards vs. Aguilera the United States Supreme Court ruled in a 7-2 decision affirmed the lower courts decision that a Louisiana law requiring if evolution was taught in public school then creationism also must be taught. Therefore, they were saying that the law was unconstitutional. I see “intelligent design” as an attempt by antievolutionist to get creationism taught in schools.

I have no problem if someone teaches their children creationism; I do have a problem when they want to force ALL children to learn creationism.

You are correct most if not all the men were Christians, but they were also learned men and they did not want to force a national religion down the masses throats. I still believe keeping religion out of the governments’ hands guarantees everyone’s religious freedoms.

True. But in answer to your question, I was trying to figure out why you cared. Because I have a big heart.

Also, something about an adage about those that don't stand up when one group's rights are infringed find themselves standing all alone when their rights are at stake. Self-preservation through empathy.

Using the same lack of rational, I could say that these Conservative Christians are too. Indeed, I would say that they are. Get it now?

Apathy? It's fact. There are always things like this. And believe, everything affects the world in different ways. But why don't we just disband LucasArts. It hasn't seemed to do anything that are the likes of what you said, right? We all find our spheres of influence where they are, I guess.

Oh please. You're turning this into something its not. Blind faith is faith in something that you cannot see or know is true, but have faith in it because of your belief. Sure. The dictionary just refers to that as "faith" by the way.

Faith other than that is faith in something that has evidence to which it can be true. Hmmm...that sounds like "belief":

conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence

I don't understand how you seem to find what I said hard to understand, its what it means. Maybe you might want to brush up on some vocab there, buddy. Says the man that want's to redefine "belief" as "faith". Thanks for the pointers, though.

I concede your point, but all people who are theists/deists belive in God, and Creation. Show me a religion like that that doesn't. That was my point. Deist belief is very different from christian belief. That was mine.

No, just believing in it too much. Twice in one day I've been lucky enough to participate in a pot calling the kettle black exchange. Hooray for me!

Besides, what I say isn't just based on armchair theorizing and watching CNN or anything, trust me. Ok, I will. Hey...you aren't actually George Bush are you?

And as for Bush, well, I don't support Bush. I think he was a big dissapointment. You just happen to swallow his rhetoric hook, line, and sinker. Gotcha.

So what he says I don't necessarily believe in. I, literally, never would have guessed.

True, that may not have been his intent when he went into Iraq, but I do believe that it was all interconnected, and that we should have gone in (perhaps differently). Oh, and just was his intent? Hmm? Would it possibly have some kind of connection back to terrorism anyways? It's possible but he's had 5 years to prove his case and so far, nothing.

What?

Ermmm.... I'm guessing that you don't think Saddam was a problem before we went to war?Ethnic tensions in Iraq go back much further than Saddam, my friend.

People are right to fear those who take an extreme view. Remember the police who had to tazer a protester? The same ire directed at that incident is also prevalent in those who seek censorship of views other than their own.

I really don't have time to write a long post right now, but I'll sum up what I was going to say and elaborate later.

1. Yes, my viewpoint is extremely selfish. After all, the American people are the ones who foot the bill interventions like the Iraqi conflict, I just think that the people of America and her allies are the only ones that the US military is beholden to.

2. To sum up my position, I think intervention itself is immoral, unless there is very, very strong evidence that an attack on the US or her interests is about to take place, and even that's something of a stretch. Defensive wars, or if we get declared war on by another nation, the US government and military are morally obligated to carry out.

The staff has received a reported post on the tone used in some of the recent posts. Keep it civil, please.

In a ideal world, we could all sit down to talk and reason this out, but ideology tends to make such interactions difficult. Dogmatic ideologies make them impossible. Is there some way I can cause them to abandon their dogmatic ideologies?
Oh, I get it. They have no right to disagree with you. They must be forced to abandon their beliefs because those beliefs disturb your sensibilities.

Just so long as no one gets any funny ideas about screwing with turkey-day.
Hey, I seem to recall an official name for that holiday...Now, what was it? Oh yeah, I believe it is called Thanksgiving Day. Who are we giving thanks to, anyway?

Oh, I get it. They have no right to disagree with you. They must be forced to abandon their beliefs because those beliefs disturb your sensibilities. That's an interesting conclusion to jump to. I think Jae tried to accuse me of seeking to censor them in an earlier post. Is this a familial thing?

No, Jimbo, they are welcome to whatever beliefs they would have. However, if they were to take action, they would be guilty of doing exactly what you and Jae (and others) have attempted to lambaste me for here. Which makes me wonder if your convictions would still be as strong.

Hey, I seem to recall an official name for that holiday...Now, what was it? Oh yeah, I believe it is called Thanksgiving Day. Who are we giving thanks to, anyway?IIRC, (American) Thanksgiving is holiday held to celebrate the end of the harvest season. According to wikipedia, the "who" is a native american named Squanto (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squanto). Perhaps you had someone else in mind?

We're giving thanks to Squanto? :lol:

I don't buy revisionist history. :)
Yes, we should be grateful for the help he (and Samoset) provided the Pilgrims, but that's not why we have the holiday.

Try a primary historical source instead of wiki, like the 2 (and only 2 for the first Thanksgiving) primary sources from the first Thanksgiving. (http://www.pilgrimhall.org/1stthnks.htm)
Here's another discussion based on the primary documents (http://www.mayflowerhistory.com/History/thanksgiving.php). The first Thanksgiving they had a feast but they also gave thanks to God.

Also, try this site (http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/firsts/thanksgiving/)

This historic proclamation was issued by George Washington during his first year as President. It sets aside Thursday, November 26 as "A Day of Publick Thanksgiving anf Prayer."

Signed by Washington on October 3, 1789 and entitled "General Thanksgiving," the decree appointed the day "to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God."

Here's an article (http://gwpapers.virginia.edu/documents/thanksgiving/intro.html) from the George Washington Papers held at the University of Virginia. Here's a transcription of his proclamation (http://gwpapers.virginia.edu/documents/thanksgiving/transcript.html) and a copy of the original handwritten document (http://gwpapers.virginia.edu/documents/thanksgiving/facsimile_2.html). Washington acknowledges that it's a day where one should give thanks to God.

Lincoln also made a proclamation (http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/source/sb2/sb2w.htm) setting Thanksgiving day as a holiday, and also specifically mentioned it was to give thanks to God.

Not once is there mention of the day being set aside to give thanks to Squanto. They were giving thanks to God for the harvest.

~snip~

It seems that you missed the point nonetheless (as I assumed that either you or Jimbo would). Thanksgiving is a traditional observance, not a religious holiday. If it makes you feel better to give thanks to god, then knock yourself out. In the mean time, I'll be reflecting on family, friends, and the real things in life that matter.

~snip~

History was one of my undergrad majors, and I knew exactly what I was looking for with that--I knew which sources existed, I just needed to find them on the web for the citation. The more technical/medical studies take longer to search for and evaluate just because there's so much material out there.

You're the one who said this in answer to whom we give thanks (emphasis mine):

IIRC, (American) Thanksgiving is holiday held to celebrate the end of the harvest season. According to wikipedia, the "who" is a native american named Squanto.

I was correcting your historical inaccuracy about Thanksgiving being a holiday to give thanks to Squanto, and that was all. I was not making a value statement on what we should give thanks for, nor was I arguing whether or not it's a religious vs. secular holiday. Now, you can try to deflect that with these comments you've made above or go off on a tangent to the purpose of Thanksgiving, but it doesn't change the historical facts.

~snip~
You're the one who said this in answer to whom we give thanks (emphasis mine): Indeed I did say that. Your husband was playing cutesy with me and I was playing in kind.

I was correcting your historical inaccuracy about Thanksgiving being a holiday to give thanks to Squanto, and that was all. So the pilgrims were not thankful to Squanto for his assistance? Gotcha.
~snip~

Thanks for your post.

The purpose of my mentioning Thanksgiving Day was to point out that there is something inherently contradictory in celebrating a day set aside for giving thanks to God while denying His existence.

The Pilgrims were thankful to Squanto, Samoset, and the others, but Thanksgiving Day was meant, and still is meant, for giving thanks to God for providing for our needs.

The purpose of my mentioning Thanksgiving Day was to point out that there is something inherently contradictory in celebrating a day set aside for giving thanks to God while denying His existence. Unless, of course, you're not giving thanks to god. Then there isn't anything contradictory at all.

The Pilgrims were thankful to Squanto, Samoset, and the others, but Thanksgiving Day was meant, and still is meant, for giving thanks to God for providing for our needs.Perhaps in your household.

Thanksgiving is but one harvest festival among many. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Harvest_Festivals)


Also, the first recorded thanksgiving in North America was celebrated on May 23rd in 1541 by Vбsquez de Coronado and the tribe of the Tejas somewhere around where now Texas is. Another one was on September 8th 1565 in St. Augustine, Florida, Pedro Menйndez de Avilйs and his henchmen where celebrating their landing. Don Juan de Onate celebrated one on April 30th 1598 around El Paso, together with the Manso Indians.

The first anglophone thanksgiving happened 1578 on Newfoundland, celebrated by Martin Frobisher who thought he found the north west passage between Europe and Asia.

In 1620 a group of pilgrims lost orientation and stranded at Plymouth Rock, Massachusetts. They wouldn't have survived the winter without the help of the Wampanoag Indians whom they where thanking the following autumn with a three day thanksgiving festival.

However, besides those, there is another *story*, which tells that in 1623 a drought hit some pilgrims and the harvest was about to be destroyed, so they decided to have a day to "seek the lord through humble and heartfelt prayer and He decided to give them answer", to thank god they set a holiday for thanksgiving, which US-Americans and Canadians obviously base their Thanksgiving Day on.

:¬:

You just happen to swallow his rhetoric hook, line, and sinker. Gotcha.

Another nice snide remark. You're pretty good at that.

But, hmmmm, didn't I just say the exact opposite thing?

Ethnic tensions in Iraq go back much further than Saddam, my friend.

Nice sidestep.

But my question was: did you think that Saddam (or, Ok, that region, to make you happy) was as problem before we went in?

But, hmmmm, didn't I just say the exact opposite thing? You sure did. My comment was meant to convey that I don't believe that to be true based on the things that you say. I would say that actions speak louder than words, however in this case, I think it would be more accurate to say that these paragraphs speak louder than this contradictory sentence.


But my question was: did you think that Saddam (or, Ok, that region, to make you happy) was as problem before we went in? I'm assuming that you meant "as big a problem". Not trying to call out the typo, just want to make sure that I'm addressing the correct question.

No, the evidence would seem to indicate that things are much worse now. That doesn't mean that I don't think we should have taken him out (or put him power in the first place). If it was our job to take him out for what he did to the kurds and shia, then Bush Sr. could have done so back in the early 90's before he left office. Being a "brutal dictator" just happened to be a convenient back up excuse after we didn't find WMDs and could no longer lie to ourselves that Hussein had anything to do with al qaeda.

Do you think maybe, to quote RobQel-Droma, snide remarks and the like undermine your attempts to portray religion, America, ect as the great evil you see it as?