Blacks should reflect on conservatism

n-Track Studio Discussion Forum
21
Quote (Ali bin Gali @ Nov. 08 2004,09:47)
Quote (TomS @ Nov. 08 2004,07:20)
I voted for Kerry in order to better secure the world's economic future, political stability, environmental health, and quality of life in general.



Bush's success is the result of the backing of several dangerous groups and tendencies: fundamentalist Christians who want to impose their values and religion on me (values that are anti-democratic in the same way that other religious extremists are), and the ultra wealthy -

Your views tend to be so absurd, they are laughable.
No doubt premised on the belief that if one does not agree with you they are extremist and dangerous.

Ali, do you know what a "straw man" fallacy is? It works like this:

1. Person A says X.
2. Person B attributes Y to A instead of X, where Y is something realted but easily refuted.
3. Person B refutes Y, and concludes that A is wrong.

Only a fool would believe that all others who disagree are extremists and dangerous. But - pay attention now! - I do say that putting our global future into the hands of people only interested in profits, or extremist religious leaders, is dangerous. I DO say that those people are extremists, not becasue they don't agree with me, but because they have extreme views.

Now, you are an interesting case. You pretend to be a Muslim, but you patently are not - that is a reprehensible bit of hate mongering there, isn't it? And you express extreme views which I suppose nearly 99% of the people here find abhorrent. So, you, my good friend, are one example of one kind of extremist that worries me.

BTW, no charge for the logic lesson. :)
22

Okay, let’s forget the race subject for a second.

<!–QuoteBegin>

Quote
I see a party of … smaller government


Can we all get a non-partisan chuckle from this line? :D
23
Quote (TomS @ Nov. 08 2004,09:57)
I DO say that those people are extremists, not becasue they don't agree with me, but because they have extreme views.

And you do not ??

Quote (TomS @ Nov. 08 2004,09:57)

Now, you are an interesting case. You pretend to be a Muslim, but you patently are not

Nothing gets past you !!!!

Quote (TomS @ Nov. 08 2004,09:57)

BTW, no charge for the logic lesson. :)


Well thank ya, ya got some real fancy book learnin' there ...

Oh, and nice dodge too !!!

-
24

What dodge, my friend? ??? :) :) :)

25

I just wanted to address a fact about Jesus, to which Tom alluded, that many people often ignore: he was an extremist. He claimed that he was God ("No one come to the father except through me). When he was on the earth just over 2000 years ago, he didn’t “come with a sword,” but he came to redeem the Jewish nation, and that redemtion was eventually passed onto Gentiles (like me :) ).

However, Jesus did say that the next time that he came he would come with a sword to judge the nations (the second coming). When he left the earth, after his resurrection, he gave this charge to his disciples: “Make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in my name . . .” Christianity is an evangelistic faith. To deny this part of one’s christianity is a denial of the faith. Obviously, people have the right to reject the ‘gospel,’ as it were, but I am charged with the task of getting the word out. Unfortunately, many people have let this go to their heads and have developed ‘elitist’ attitudes toward those who don’t subscribe to Christ’s teachings. Those people are in the wrong in God’s sight. Jesus never forced anyone to accept his message, nor did God in the past.

I’ve said all of that to say this: President Bush’s faith is inseperable from his person, if, of course, he is practicing biblical christianity. I can see that he has worked very hard not to force his faith down other people’s throats, but to tell him to separate his decistion making from his faith is absurd. It would be much the same to tell any Joe or Jane Schmoe to deny an integral part of his or her life (such as what one learns during childhood) in a decision.

<!–QuoteBegin>

Quote
fundamentalist Christians who want to impose their values and religion on me (values that are anti-democratic in the same way that other religious extremists are)

I would most certainly be offended if you directed this comment at me, Tom. I see my self as a fundamentalist Christian, though not in the terms that you are most likely addressing. I am a fundamentalist in the sense that I have core beliefs, centered on the Bible, to which I adhere.

I am beginning to see a pattern developing where christians are being blasted for their ‘fundamentalist’ beliefs and for being intolerant. There seems to be a general trend toward being tolerant of everyone but the intolerant (which is, of course, an inconsistency).
26

I don’t have any problems with Bush appealing to the fundamentalist Christian vote, or with Christian supporting him. I don’t have problems w/ fundamentalists trying to undo Roe vs. Wade - I hope they don’t succeed but it’s their right to try because they feel abortion is wrong. I do have problems if & when they try to re-write the Constitution, or to put up the 10 commandments on pulbic/government places. I do have concerns about Bush’s faith-based intiatives. I think they’re a nice idea but I worry about how they might be implemented. I just think it’s best if the government stays out of these matters.

And I don’t have any problems with the President drawing on this moral beliefs when leading the country. I do have problems if Bush thinks that God is talking to him directly or leading him in some way. He hasn’t come right out & said this but he’s implied this.

Any President needs to lead based on our Constitution PERIOD.

My concern about Bush is that he’ll appoint justices that do exactly the same things he’s complaining about “liberal” justices doing, i.e., interpreting the law through their conversative or religious views.

27

Have you read the post-election Newsweek? There are some very fascinating things in there about Kerry’s ideas about constitutionality.

Moot now, yes - but it is still worth understanding the nature of the man who was being held up as the great hope for freedom, liberty, prosperity, security and a return to constitutional government.

28
Moot now, yes - but it is still worth understanding the nature of the man who was being held up as the great hope for freedom, liberty, prosperity, security and a return to constitutional government.
Haven't seen it yet but I do think this list is overblown alittle bit - no-one man could do, or be all that.

For me, the thing I find the most disturbing, is that opposition doesn't seem to be tolerated. You can't oppose us at all. That's what I dislike about Bush most of all. Secondly, I don't really think that Bush reached out then & most likely won't reach out now. Why should he - he's got political capital now (and he's going to spend it :-) What bothers me about Bush is that I don't really trust him when I hear him speak - it's the smirk he has - just don't like it.
29
Quote (TomS @ Nov. 08 2004,11:38)
What dodge, my friend? ??? :) :) :)

Interesting ....
The more you dodge, the more smiley faces you use ...

Mmmm .... Could this be a sort of 'Pinocchio Effect' ?


Just wondering, you seem to have many problems,
but no solutions (?)
30

I remember some of your precious tolerence around here eh charlietoker

31
Interesting ....
The more you dodge, the more smiley faces you use ...

Mmmm .... Could this be a sort of 'Pinocchio Effect' ?


Just wondering, you seem to have many problems,
but no solutions (?)

If I may, I have just a bit of constructive criticism for you, Ali. You might want to be less vague in your posts. You run the risk of people becoming frustrated with, and losing respect for, you.

For instance: when you say "you seem to have many problems, but no solutions," I would personally read that as simply antagonizing, if it were directed at me. If someone disagrees with me, I want that person to tell me what 'problems' I have and what 'solutions' I don't have. It's frustrating when people are vague, especially on the internet

Do you see me point? :D
32
I remember some of your precious tolerence around here eh charlietoker
Doesn't this phrase sound like something Gollum would say in Lord of the Rings? My precioussssssss . . .

Anybody? . . . anyone at all? . . .

Sorry, do continue :)
33
Quote (Drummer @ Nov. 08 2004,13:01)
Do you see me point? :D

Yes, thank you.
Though I believe you have come in, "in the middle" as it were.




Quote (TomS @ Nov. 08 2004,07:20)
I voted for Kerry in order to better secure the world's economic future, political stability, environmental health, and quality of life in general.

'Exactly how' will you "better secure the world's economic future, political stability,
environmental health, and quality of life in general." ??



Quote (TomS @ Nov. 08 2004,07:20)

Bush's success is the result of the backing of several dangerous groups and tendencies: fundamentalist Christians who want to impose their values and religion on me (values that are anti-democratic in the same way that other religious extremists are), and the ultra wealthy

Exactly who are these dangerous groups ?
Do these extremists include pro- partial birth abortion supporters ?
Socialists ? Anarchists ?
Who decides who is extreme/dangerous ?
What should we do about them ?


Quote (TomS @ Nov. 08 2004,07:20)

and the ultra wealthy


By "ultra wealthy" are you refering to John Kerry, Teresa Heinz,
Ted Kennedy, George Soros, Micheal Moore, et al ?
By your voting these "dangerous ultra wealthy" people into power how does this solve the problem ?
( John and Teresa Kerry - enjoyed an effective tax rate of 14.76 per cent )


Quote (TomS @ Nov. 08 2004,07:20)

One wonders why the profit seekers at least are not rational enough, or don't love their kids enough


Who exactly are these people who don't love their kids enough ?
Do non-profit seekers love their children more ?
And what shall we do about this ?
Teresa Heinz Kerry only earned $5.1 million for 2003, does she love her children ?
Bill ? President Clinton earned $9.5 million from '02 speeches
Hill ? Simon & Schuster paid Mrs. Clinton an $8 million advance



Quote (TomS @ Nov. 08 2004,07:20)

Again, I cannot fathom how one gets from a message of love to a message of hatred.

What exactly 'is' this message of hate ?
Who are they who hate so much ?
And what shall we do about them ?



- Is this part of your "environmental health, and quality of life in general" model ?

Windstorm : Why Are 'Environmentalists' Opposing Windmills in Nantucket Sound? (Give me a break)
John Stossel 20/20 July 25, 2003
It's windy enough on Massachusetts' Nantucket Sound — the waters between Cape Cod, Nantucket and Martha's Vineyard — that it makes the Sound an ideal place for windmills that generate electricity.
Wind farms are popular in Europe and California, and environmentalists like them because they're a relatively clean way to produce electricity. It's a reason Jim Gordon proposes to install 130 wind turbines 6 ½ miles off the coast of Cape Cod.
But there's a problem.
Although the Natural Resources Defense Council, and its attorney, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., support wind power (Kennedy says he's "strongly in favor of wind-energy production at sea, but Kennedy doesn't want a wind farm on Nantucket Sound, where his family might see it from their elegant compound in Hyannis Port.
Veteran newsman Walter Cronkite doesn't want Gordon's wind farm here either. Cronkite likes to sail on Nantucket Sound. He did a commercial for a group that's fighting the wind farm. In it, he says, "Our natural treasures should be off limits to industrialization and Nantucket Sound is one of those treasures."
His ad was paid for by the Alliance to Protect the Sound, which also supports wind power, but not on Nantucket Sound



- What are your thoughts on Nuclear weapons ?? preemptive strikes ??
- Is this the "world's economic future, political stability, environmental health, and quality of life" you refered to ??

Documents: U.S. had plan to nuke N. Korea
Seoul, South Korea, Nov. 7 (UPI) -- Newly declassified documents revealed the United States planned as recently as 1998 to drop nuclear bombs on North Korea if the country attacked South Korea.
As part of "scenario 5027," 24 F15-E bombers flew simulation missions at Seymour Johnson Air Force Base in North Carolina to drop mock nuclear bombs on a firing range between January and June 1998, the Korea Times reported Sunday.
The revelation followed claims by a South Korean lawmaker that the U.S. drew up plans to launch preemptive strikes on key targets in North Korea in 1994.

- How would the 'Anti-War' Groups have viewed this ?
- Would they largely ignore it as they did Serbia ?
( NATO bombing campaign was a pre-emptive war in clear violation of international law - Kosovo was legally part of Serbia, which had attacked no other country). -- John R. MacArthur - 7.28.03



- Or this ... ? Does this fit the political stability, environmental health, and quality of life" model ?

Anthony Lake, who was President Clinton's national security adviser, now admits that the United States failed in Rwanda. "It was a failure of the international community, and we are the leaders of that community," he said

- Is this the same international community embroiled in the food for oil scandal ?
What did President Clinton's national security adviser (Anthony Lake) mean by "we are the leaders of that community" ?




- Is Clinton a part of those dangerous hate groups ?
- Is this the tolerance and diversity you speak of ?

Times/U.K. -
"Mr Clinton, correctly sensing that “values” would play a crucial role in voters’ minds, urged Mr Kerry
to back local ballot initiatives calling for a ban on gay marriage"

- Should Kerry have backed the ban on gay marriage as Clinton advised ??
- Is Clinton a hateful homophobe ??



..... just wondering ?
34
I remember some of your precious tolerence around here eh charlietoker
As I recall, you attacked me personally. I should have been more tolerant since you were already dead :laugh:
35
:p dead but not grateful :D
36
Quote (Drummer @ Nov. 08 2004,12:19)
fundamentalist Christians who want to impose their values and religion on me (values that are anti-democratic in the same way that other religious extremists are)

I would most certainly be offended if you directed this comment at me, Tom. I see my self as a fundamentalist Christian, though not in the terms that you are most likely addressing. I am a fundamentalist in the sense that I have core beliefs, centered on the Bible, to which I adhere.

I am beginning to see a pattern developing where christians are being blasted for their 'fundamentalist' beliefs and for being intolerant. There seems to be a general trend toward being tolerant of everyone but the intolerant (which is, of course, an inconsistency).
Not all Christains, Drummer, only that very small minorty that have come to be called "fundamentalist." Intolerance is built into the world view that says "it's my way or the highway" (or my favorite: it's Yahweh or the highway). It's the problem inherent in any religion that holds that some are chosen and some are not. Islam has the problem, Judaism has it, and fundamentalism in those has characteristics quite similar to Christian fundamentalism.

Ask yourself this: what does separation of church and state mean to you? Tolerance is first a foremost a political virtue - the virtue of a system that allows all forms of belief without preference. Fundamentalist Christians in the US are seeking to make their views official, though prayer in public schools to postings of the decalogue to the wholesale turning back of the consitutional clock.

Christianity is properly a total adn totalizing world view, as is Islam and Judaism, which why the incredibly fragile and rare idea that church and state ought to be toally separate is undervalued by fundamentalists of every stripe. But let's not forget the lessons of protestant -catholic conflicts that gave birth to our constitution. So to say that I don't want your values imposed on me is not intolerant, it is the very definition of tolerance. After all, I suspect you would not want your kids to be taught Wiccan religion in school, would you? :)

Ali, you are just too verbose for me right now, but I will respond to you later. :)
37
Intolerance is built into the world view that says "it's my way or the highway" (or my favorite: it's Yahweh or the highway). It's the problem inherent in any religion that holds that some are chosen and some are not. Islam has the problem, Judaism has it, and fundamentalism in those has characteristics quite similar to Christian fundamentalism.
I do not agree with this statement in its entirity. Christianity and Judaism are fundamentally different than Islam. Whereas Islam encourages jihad and violence to force others to accept a religious persuasion, christianity and judaism teach something much different. They teach that the one and only God, creator of the universe, desires a relationship with his creation (the created). A corollary of this teaching is that God has chosen to use those who have already come to know him to reach out to other people. The Bible does not teach that people are predestined to become believers. This is an underlying misunderstanding with which even christians must wrestle. Everyone is given the choice.

I can think of instances in christendom's history where people, claiming to be christians, have acted outside of what the bible teaches (one such example occured during the crusades). Again, I must emphasize that Jesus did not force his teaching upon people ("he who has ears let him hear . . ."). He simply laid it out and allowed those who heard to make a choice. He did not rain down fire and brimstone because the jews rejected him initially.

Those who forget their respective positions before God (they were forgiven and given an opportunity to believe) act outside of what God emphasizes over and over again in the bible. The choice to accept him or not is between God and upon whomever the decision rests.

After all, I suspect you would not want your kids to be taught Wiccan religion in school, would you?
I think that this is getting more at the heart of the matter. I wouldn't expect you to necessarily accept my religion, as it were, but I would expect a fair hearing-to get me ideas out. I would also allow you a fair hearing, to listen to what your beliefs are.

I hope that you can make some sense of this, Tom :)
38

One thing I would add to this, Drummer - nowhere does it say in the Qur’an or the Sunna that it’s OK to force people to accept Islam. “Jihad” means so many things, most of which have nothing to do with war. Sections 2.190 to 2.193 (that citation is from memory, I hope it’s correct) of the Qur’an say that it’s OK to fight in self defense, but unprovoked war for the faith is strictly forbidden. The vast majority of Muslims believe this and live by it. It is intrinsically a peaceful religion. We more often see images of the radical fringe of militant Muslims who seriously misread the texts. They are about as representative of the majority of Muslims as is Jim Baker of the majority of Chrisitans.

But the central question we face is still one of the proper role of religion in government. I say it has no place, for as soon as we say it has a place, well, how are we going to get pro-gay rights pagans and anti-gay rights fundamentalist Christians together?

Now, Ali golly, I’ve decided that you are beyond hope, so if you still think I’m dodging the question, some question, well, sorry. :)

39
Quote (TomS @ Nov. 08 2004,09:49)

Ali, you are just too verbose for me right now, but I will respond to you later.


Quote (TomS @ Nov. 09 2004,09:49)
Now, Ali golly, I've decided that you are beyond hope, so if you still think I'm dodging the question, some question, well, sorry. :)



Dodge ? Noooo ..... You just voted to respond to my questions, before you voted against it !


... and only one smiley face ? Now I'm really dissapointed !

Ali
40
It is intrinsically a peaceful religion
What led you to arrive at this conclusion?

This is what the Kuran encourages for those who would wage war against Allah.
[5.33] The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His apostle and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement
And another passage regarding the exclusivity of Islam:
[2.111] And they say: None shall enter the garden (or paradise) except he who is a Jew or a Christian. These are their vain desires. Say: Bring your proof if you are truthful. [2.112] Yes! whoever submits himself entirely to Allah and he is the doer of good (to others) he has his reward from his Lord, and there is no fear for him nor shall he grieve

I don't see a religion of peace here. I get the idea that anyone who does not hold the same beliefs, and causes a stir about it, gets into trouble, which is exactly what's happening in the middle-east today.