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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jttmab who wrote (148210)	10/19/2004 4:48:10 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

No law which is derived from dogmatic religious sources can be enacted. But if it can be argued in terms of consensual morality, those broad terms which we share in having a stake in society and its well- being, it is fair to propose. Why people may support it is beyond the scrutiny of the courts. Thus, not only do the religious have the right to practice their religion, including promoting it in the culture, but they have a right to participate in the political process to support those things which are not dogmatically derived, but congenial to them according to their beliefs. Of course, one is also free to impede the success of the religious, either by cultural means, or through the law if one disagrees with a particular proposal.

To: jttmab who wrote (148210)	10/20/2004 3:20:04 AM
From: Michael Watkins	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Speaking of religious groups imposing their points of view on society, was that Pat Robertson I just spotted on CNN, announcing that he believes that George W has the blessing of God? Oh my. They are really pulling out all the stops. I have a general rule of thumb - anyone who claims to be fulfilling the will of God, I must assume is fulfilling their own will, not God's.

To: jttmab who wrote (148210)	10/20/2004 3:53:51 AM
From: Michael Watkins	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Its worse than it appears... Pat Robertson was indeed on CNN Paula Zahn show Tuesday. I caught all of 60 seconds - should have watched the whole thing. Robertson, an ardent Bush supporter, said he had that conversation with the president in Nashville, Tennessee, before the March 2003 invasion. "'And I warned him about this war. I had deep misgivings about this war, deep misgivings. And I was trying to say, Mr. President, you had better prepare the American people for casualties.' Robertson said the president then told him, 'Oh, no, we're not going to have any casualties.'" Is the picture of a delusional president coming through here, stronger than ever? Military Death and Casualty Toll: - The U.S. military death toll almost doubled in the same six months, standing at 1,102 as of yesterday, by the Pentagon's count. On April 2 it stood at 598. - The number of U.S. troops wounded in Iraq since military operations began in March 2003 has topped the 8,000 mark, according to figures released by the Pentagon yesterday. And the president, so self assured, assumed zero, none, nada, pas du tout, nyet casualties? Iraq Body Count - Civilians, tracked by iraqbodycount.net Min 13278 Max 15357 "Even if he stumbles and messes up -- and he's had his share of stumbles and gaffes -- I just think God's blessing is on him," Robertson said. It just gets stranger and stranger, doesn't it? Bush talks like a stark raving lunatic and Robertson says "yer mah boy". Just another fact to make it easy to come to conclusions -- about both of them. Source: Salon: Most bizarre endorsement of the race salon.com (No doubt official CNN transcripts of the unbelievable parts are coming soon)

To: jttmab who wrote (148210)	10/20/2004 7:16:25 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 281500

OT In the US, it's not that a state sponsored religion is imminent. It's the attempt by religious groups to impose their religious points of view on society. What does "impose their religious points of view on society" mean. Are you opposed to someone saying X should be illegal because they think God tells them X is wrong, but not to an atheist campaigning to make X illegal? I deliberately use a variable because I don't want to get caught up in arguing the specifics. My question is more general then any specific issue, I'm not debating abortion, affirmative action, gay marriage or whatever, I'm trying to find what general rule you would apply to any subject that you could plug in for X. If you only mean that you are opposed to forced worship, or government funding of worship services, or theology directly being incorporated in to law, or rule by religious figures or a religious hierarchy, then I agree with you 100%, but I don't think that is what you are talking about, and if these things are what you are talking about I don't think they are a realistic threat. Tim