12-01-2006, 06:37 PM | #61 | |
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Markham, Ontario, Canada!
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
|
Quote:
|
|
|
12-01-2006, 06:46 PM | #62 | |
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: The Midtown Express
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
|
Quote:
|
|
|
12-01-2006, 06:53 PM | #63 |
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: New Jersey, USA!
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
|
I find it extremely amusing how the Boy Scouts are mentioned, then people just start talking about (mostly criticizing or bashing it) when it was only there for a small minute comparison. Now let's not let this get too far off topic, as the last few posts have been.
|
|
12-01-2006, 06:55 PM | #64 |
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Markham, Ontario, Canada!
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
|
|
|
12-01-2006, 07:35 PM | #65 |
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
|
We digress...
To say the Boy Scouts of America are not principled on moral and religious values would be ignoring the facts. Their oath, after all, is "On my honor, I will do my best to do my duty to God and my country and to obey the Scout Law; to help other people at all times; to keep myself physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight." It's a private organization that is founded on the betterment and welfare of America. It does not practice bigotry. It teaches outdoorsmanship, citizenship, self-respect, adventurism, and leadership. |
|
12-01-2006, 07:53 PM | #66 |
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: The Midtown Express
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
|
Yeah, let's stick to the topic of Sharia Law...if there's additional discussion left on it?
|
|
12-01-2006, 08:49 PM | #67 | |
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Markham, Ontario, Canada!
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
|
Quote:
|
|
|
12-01-2006, 09:14 PM | #68 | |
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
|
It's non-profit.
Also: Quote:
|
|
|
12-01-2006, 11:12 PM | #69 | |
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Buffalo, NY
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
|
The BSA's tax free status and political support in luau of its inherent discrimination against atheists or gays is what is called into question, no less than similar practice at churches, even though they are obviously not for ALL americans, unless you happened to consider gays or atheists non-american at which point we have a different problem. Considering the recent statistics gathered around the Nov 7th elections, aprox 17% of americans are atheist... the lowest percentage of any 1st world country. While that is shameful to start with, the bigger issue is that 17% of americans and their children will not be allowed into the BSA, and we're not talking gays or closet cases yet here...
back on topic: Quote:
We might not be able to condemn every arab or muslim, but we can condemtn is their governments for doing nothing in terms of legality to stem the hate they use themselves to control their populace. No messages to quell the violence came during the protests and rallys from any middle eastern country, not even during the burning of the embacies, some only way after. The quiet calls of muslim leaders from within europe to stop the protests were only aired after the majority of the violence was over with and they were concerned with the images being published of these organized mobs rallying for death and destruction and calling for religious legislation under threat of bombings and beheadings. The only reason they called it off is because it was making them look bad, for being as intollerant as they are. Your american free thinkers from the Islamist Thinkers Society, did this in celebration of a Tel-Aviv bombing. Heres another rally held again in NY: here These arent some disorganized mob, they are lead by muslim leaders, intellectuals, and scholars. I suggest you read over their rhetoric. I, for one, know, that none of them would support the free speech granted to them, for other minorities, as evidenced in what they call for, and their own homeland's policies. The muslim intelligencia of every nation is easily moved to critisize its host and any anti-arabic/muslim news, stories, or facts. It is true that they critisize arab governments, but never the theo-centric ideology of the politics that govern them. To them, a theocracy is ideal, and inseprable from nationalism. And yes, I know about the Ratzinger's days in the hitler youth and then stationing of anti-air defences. He is now old, and an anti-semitic idealist he's not, he has renounced his youthful arrogance and serves to bridge gaps between catholicism and its neighbors / victims on an ideological level, if not on a political one, in an appeal to stability rather than the denouncing of practices under 'heretical' terms, as no doubt his religion tells him to think as such of the jews and muslims. One hell of a run-on sentence, but you get the point. Your judgement on my canonnical knowledge is unfounded, and neither is the presumption that I would make judgements solely on theological documents... because whats on paper is almost never in practice. My judgements are based on observation of national events and the ideologies behind them... the realities of arab leaders using quaranic literature and voice for tyranical purposes does not escape me... the real disgust is in arabic acceptance of such practice without questioning its motivation, or origins, when the clergy uses it to propagate violence and intollerance of the worst kind under the guise of the rest of the world bein un-islamic. And the disgust within the realisation that that is *all* that they need to say. Akin to calls in the US of things being un-patriotic or un-christian, except with no reason or regulation, and obsene governmental support. |
|
|
12-01-2006, 11:18 PM | #70 |
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: The Midtown Express
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
|
ugh... Russian...can't you condense your comments into something that is brief and gets your point across?
|
|
12-02-2006, 12:17 AM | #71 | |||||
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by o_uber; 12-02-2006 at 12:23 AM. |
|||||
|
12-02-2006, 12:18 AM | #72 |
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Buffalo, NY
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
|
actualy, that is a condensation, I was citing more stories in my first post with more descriptions, but I thought just two would get the point across.
|
|
12-02-2006, 01:15 AM | #73 | |||
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Buffalo, NY
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
|
Quote:
Perhaps then you'd like to see a video on the correlation between religiosity and intelligence itself, right here Both of which were produced before America dropped to #20 on the international corruption and transparency report, with france beating us by a whole 2 slots for first time in history. I'll let you guess what scandanavian countries were the leaders in transparency. I call tax relief to these non-for-profits as taxation without representation... I do not want someone who excludes me on a permanent and unjustifiable basis to benefit from my taxation. Turn off their water, power, fire department support, police support, and any road cleared towards the place of practice / worship. Because my taxation paid for that, under the guise it would represent the good for ALL. I'm not here to give charity to those who dont want anything to do with me based on some moral high-road presumption that they are better than me. Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by o_the russian; 12-02-2006 at 01:47 AM. |
|||
|
12-02-2006, 04:26 AM | #74 | ||||
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
|
Quote:
Quote:
Lets see, "religiously conservative students are, in general, relatively inferior in intellectual ability." Hmm, wasn't that the same thing they were saying about blacks during the same time? Hmm indeed. Too bad, though, that I couldn't find any source to this study, which I'm sure was misconstrued by the video's author, if ever made at all. But lets go on. Lets focus on those quotes he was trying to deceive us with. Shall we? "In summary, then, Jefferson was a deist because he believed in one God, in divine providence, in the divine moral law, and in rewards and punishments after death; but did not believe in supernatural revelation. He was a Christian deist because he saw Christianity as the highest expression of natural religion and Jesus as an incomparably great moral teacher. He was not an orthodox Christian because he rejected, among other things, the doctrines that Jesus was the promised Messiah and the incarnate Son of God. Jefferson's religion is fairly typical of the American form of deism in his day." (Dulles) Or, from the man himself: "[The Jefferson Bible] is a document in proof that I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus . . ." (Jefferson) What about Thomas Paine, though? "The religion that approaches the nearest of all others to true deism, in the moral and benign part thereof, is that professed by the Quakers … though I revere their philanthropy, I cannot help smiling at [their] conceit; … if the taste of a Quaker [had] been consulted at the Creation, what a silent and drab-colored Creation it would have been! Not a flower would have blossomed its gaieties, nor a bird been permitted to sing." (Paine) "How different is [Christianity] to the pure and simple profession of Deism! The true Deist has but one Deity, and his religion consists in contemplating the power, wisdom, and benignity of the Deity in his works, and in endeavoring to imitate him in everything moral, scientifical, and mechanical." (Paine) Albert Einstein? "I do not think that it is necessarily the case that science and religion are natural opposites. In fact, I think that there is a very close connection between the two. Further, I think that science without religion is lame and, conversely, that religion without science is blind. Both are important and should work hand-in-hand" (Einstein) or "You will hardly find one among the profounder sort of scientific minds without a peculiar religious feeling of his own. But it is different from the religion of the naive man. For the latter God is a being from whose care one hopes to benefit and whose punishment one fears; a sublimation of a feeling similar to that of a child for its father, a being to whom one stands to some extent in a personal relation, however deeply it may be tinged with awe. But the scientist is possessed by the sense of universal causation. The future, to him, is every whit as necessary and determined as the past. There is nothing divine about morality, it is a purely human affair. His religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection." (Einstein) Surely Bertrand Russell! "I remember the precise moment, one day in 1894, as I was walking along Trinity Lane, when I saw in a flash (or thought I saw) that the ontological argument is valid. I had gone out to buy a tin of tobacco; on my way back, I suddenly threw it up in the air, and exclaimed as I caught it: "Great Scott, the ontological argument is sound!" (Russell) [Ontological argument is an argument that proves the existence of God. No doubt, though, Russell struggled with his beliefs.] Ah, Leo Tolstoy. [He found his answers in teachings of Jesus Christ and the Gospels. Read more about it in his "A Confession," "My Religion," "The Kingdom of God is Within You," and "The Gospels in Brief."] So, what about John Adams? "The Christian religion is, above all the religions that ever prevailed or existed in ancient or modern times, the religion of wisdom, virtue, equity and humanity, let the Blackguard Paine say what he will." (Adams) and "I have examined all [religions]...and the result is that the Bible is the best Book in the world. It contains more philosophy than all the libraries I have seen." (Adams) He was a Unitarian. So you see, one can pull a clever quote and deceive the reader in to thinking that person is atheist and surely not religious. Wrong. Again. All these people I quoted above were, in fact, God fearing men. Good work Russian. Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by o_uber; 12-02-2006 at 04:36 AM. |
||||
|
12-02-2006, 05:09 AM | #75 | ||||
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Buffalo, NY
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
|
Quote:
The poll was conducted where else?... the voting booths 2004! ... usualy an indicative sample, atleast of people involved enough to give a rats ass if we do teach evolution or not. Perhaps it would be more properly worded that only 13% of americans give a rats ass about having evolution as the primary curriculum over creationism. The guy who posted that video did his research, as I've read those stats on numerous other sites. Alrighty, moving on... the intellegence problem. The research that video maker did was also quite well founded, heres a lot more facts to support him that he ommited... silly him. Here is the wiki on a good ammount of studies conducted with many different intelligence identifying tests. Let me quote: Quote:
And: Quote:
Movin on... one can find enumerable quotes from people who contradict themselves on a daily basis, even the leaders. I'll give you that, but sadly the facts support the earlier assertions and premises that the world presents to us, no matter who put what form of media up on what form of mass communication. You may feel free to attack the type of media, my grammar, my spelling, even call me names... considering its my 2nd language I think I do pretty well...but for as long as you cant address the facts, it means jack. And your avoidance of doing so only shows desperation. Quote:
Last edited by o_the russian; 12-02-2006 at 05:16 AM. |
||||
|
12-02-2006, 11:55 AM | #76 |
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Europe, Front Yard
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
|
I've seldom heard something as inane as "your study doesn't count, it's too old plus also because people were RACIST at that time" a study isn't invalidated by time but by another study, and saying that is a pretty close call to the godwin point.
Youtube is as good a source as anything else, it's the content that matters. If the link was to a blog post containing the video would have it felt better for you to click on it ? I think so. You also seem to construct your ideas on the principle that you are right, not that you are trying to reach a conclusion that approaches truth. Just saying.. Please ignore this post if enclined to do so but honestly.. |
|
12-02-2006, 12:59 PM | #77 |
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Your Mamas House
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
|
This is the most rewarding part of derailing topics. Watching people make stupid arguments about each other's 8 paragraph holy-shit-i-don't-want-to-read-all-of-that post.
Uh oh , there goes my cover. |
|
12-02-2006, 06:42 PM | #78 | |
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: The Peoples Republic of Harmfull Free Radicals
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
|
Quote:
That's about the most intelligent thing I've got left to say. |
|
|
12-02-2006, 07:03 PM | #79 |
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: The Midtown Express
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
|
Russian, go sit with Tu. You're peas of the same pod so the sooner you get acquainted the better. To say that a low percentage of Atheists in the US is shameful ranks among the worst things you've said.
|
|
12-02-2006, 07:15 PM | #80 |
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Carlisle, UK
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
|
Back to the original post, I'm in the UK and havn't seen any of this on any news channel.
|
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|