Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: George Coyne who wrote (182372)	9/16/2001 3:31:06 PM
From: E	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Even questions some decide to define as 'irrelevant' have answers. And the questions I asked, coming out of the unusual proposition that it is others, not oneself, who decides what religion one is, or even whether one is religious or not, are, in fact, highly relevant, unless an unusual definition of 'irrelevant' is proposed. (Such as that 'irrelevant' means 'I don't want to discuss that.') I see that haqi has decided that the fundamentalist Christians who bomb abortion clinics are 'secular.' In reassigning, as haqi does, the abortion clinic bombers' religious affiliation to 'secular,' which would surely boggle their fervid minds, haqi made clear that he would not answer the further questions I asked in the same post. (Understandable.) Maybe you will be braver, though. About the abortion clinic bombers, whom haqi brought up as a logical parallel (a good one, I think) to the WTC bombers (parallel in that they are both spoiled apples in the barrel of their religions) would you be willing to answer these questions? Are the abortion bombers (in haqi's example) 'not religious'? Do they not believe in God? Do they have no faith? What religion are they? Are they atheists? Are they secular? (I'll give you my opinion. I think they're rotten apples. When I pick up an apple that's been overlooked in the fruit bowl for too long, I declare it to be an apple with a rotten spot, not to be a peach. To abandon the apple metaphor: The bombers are misguided religious-extremist zealots, not secularists. For heaven's sake.)

To: George Coyne who wrote (182372)	9/16/2001 3:57:19 PM
From: E	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

P.S. Would your position be that unless a woman, say, chooses a formal religion and sticks by the mainline interpretation of its scriptures, that woman is, whatever she feels in her heart and mind and soul about the very real presence of God in her life, not religious? I ask that question because is relevant to a definition of the word 'religious.' Is one not 'religious,' in other words, if one isn't approved by or associated with or in agreement with, mainline interpretations of a major religious group?

To: George Coyne who wrote (182372)	9/18/2001 11:53:34 AM
From: E	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

This is an excerpt from a piece in yesterday's Financial Times. I post it because of its relevance to haqi's position that the extremist Muslim terrorists are secular, and your implied one that they aren't really Muslims. (The latter is the reigning PC position, btw.) <<In Jordan, the Islamic Action Front, a mainstream Islamist opposition group, issued a fatwa, or religious ruling forbidding Muslims from participating in any action that targets their co-religionists.>> The co-religionist to whom this mainstream group refers is, of course, Osama bin Laden and his followers and supporters. globalarchive.ft.com