Are Islamists too sensitive?

[TheNoNamedOne]

Salman Rushdie is getting knighted by the Queen of England, and Iran and other Muslims are not happy about it since many of his works they consider to be insulting to Islam. They want the decision to knight him to be reversed out of respect for their religion. It reminds me of the uproar and sissy fit they had when a newspaper in the Netherlands ran comics of the Prophet Muhammed and much property damage and lives were taken over it by the tantrums of Muslims.

Iran summoned UK ambassador Geoffrey Adams to protest against the knighthood.

"This insulting, suspicious and improper act by the British government is an obvious example of fighting against Islam," Iran's Foreign Ministry Director for Europe, Ebrahim Rahimpour, was quoted as saying by the state-run Irna news agency.

"It has seriously wounded the beliefs of 1.5 billion Muslims and followers of other religions."

Mr Rahimpour added that Iran held the British government and Queen Elizabeth II "responsible for the circumstance of this provocation".

BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6769671.stm)

Out of respect for free speech, should governments, or anyone for that matter, consider the sensitivities of special interest groups in forming their words and criticisms? Rushdie in many of his works holds back no punches directed at Islam and is brutally honest. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then why shouldn't we be free, or even compelled to, call it a duck?

Good for the UK in not backing down to the temper tantrum throwing religionists!

[dk]

How do you wound a belief?

[TheNoNamedOne]

How do you wound a belief?

With a better belief -- or at least a more appealing one.

[dk]

I'm going to have to read more about Salman Rushdie before I'll be able to give a decent response to this.

[Tempestuous]

You know fictional books with "statements" are written all the time.
Against Jews, Christians, America, Catholics, Government etc and you don't see any of them calling for the death of the author.

They may grumble and complain, there may be some semi-organized anti-(author's name) groups. Perhaps some extreme people may burn his books (but most of us realized, you have to purchase the books in order to burn them so you are still supporting the author). But I don't recall right off a case where we demanded the author be executed.

If this were the typical reaction 3rdeye, Prosecutor, xxzjxx, (just to start the list, many more could fit in as well) would be on the hit list from some of their own writings, as it could be deemed blasphemous to some peoples standards.

I just think it is a ridiculous reaction. What does spewing hatred and death accomplish? What does burning a countries flag do for your "cause"? Just bizarre actions that my brain has a hard time understanding the productiveness of.

From what I have read though, the claim is that the Brits didn't do this with an agenda in mind. They too live in Temp's bubble of optimism, I suppose. :)

[Boost]

I would hardly just blame being too sensitive on Islamist. Yes, in the case of the news article you posted, they are being too sensitive. But so is just about every other religious, non-religious, atheist, insert what ever other group you like here, are too sensitive about anything that goes against their beliefs. I would say your recent topic about Christians trying to "legislate God into our lives" was just you being overly sensitive. It's a fine line between just being a whiner/overly sensitive and having a legitimate complaint, and usually which side of that line you are is in the eye of the beholder.

[TheNoNamedOne]

What do you mean a fine line? The line is as thick as it can get!

Where have Christians in recent years rioted world wide and killed over a cartoon? Where have atheists done the same? Where have modern Christian leaders issued an edict for the followers of their religion for the murder of someone merely for insulting their religion? Where have atheists tried to stifle the right to publish what you believe in?

The line is not so fine and the degrees of difference are immense.

[Boost]

What do you mean a fine line? The line is as thick as it can get!

Where have Christians in recent years rioted world wide and killed over a cartoon? Where have atheists done the same? Where have modern Christian leaders issued an edict for the followers of their religion for the murder of someone merely for insulting their religion? Where have atheists tried to stifle the right to publish what you believe in?

The line is not so fine and the degrees of difference are immense.

Well geez, when you put it like that! :) No you are right, that line is huge when applied to this situation. That was more my philosohpy when it comes to typical people with a complaint...or whine depending on how you look at it.

[themadscientist]

As long as people keep their personal beliefs to their person we will have no problems. Militant anybody; muslim, christian, athiest, none are getting a free pass from me. Want to try to kill me because I don't subscribe to what you beleive? Come try, I'll help you meet those virgins sooner than you planned. You stay on your side of the street and don't cause any trouble to everyone else we cool.

[DougP]

Even the most tamed ARist seems to get a little too sensitive when someone eats a hamburger or clubs a baby seal. There are sensitive people in every circle.:D

[Asshat]

No one is too sensitive. Or everyone is too sensitive. Hey, sit down in the stall next to Brownback and accidently drop the roll of paper eh?

Tell a Christian you don't believe in the Bible, call someone a fag. Spill hot coffee on your lap and become an instant millionaire.

Oh...you said "Islamist." Yet another term for the ignorant Western to use to describe those we don't understand, or perhaps an example of neo-doublespeak we use to foment....aggression to rid countries of despots, or despots of oil?

Or perhaps that term used to describe our True Friends of Al Saud as they barter their oil for our cash so they can teach future generations of Islamists?

[DougP]

No one is too sensitive. Or everyone is too sensitive. Hey, sit down in the stall next to Brownback and accidently drop the roll of paper eh?

Tell a Christian you don't believe in the Bible, call someone a fag. Spill hot coffee on your lap and become an instant millionaire.

Oh...you said "Islamist." Yet another term for the ignorant Western to use to describe those we don't understand, or perhaps an example of neo-doublespeak we use to foment....aggression to rid countries of despots, or despots of oil?

Or perhaps that term used to describe our True Friends of Al Saud as they barter their oil for our cash so they can teach future generations of Islamists?

and perhaps you should order decaf next time j/k:D

[Bones]

Posted by TP:

Where have atheists tried to stifle the right to publish what you believe in?.

How about, America?

That's right T.P.

How about taking that one line that I quoted you on, back to the "Good Old U.S.A." ????

It seems to me that "the atheists", are heavily involved at attacking our basic rights. Just take a look at the many lawsuits currently in progress, that want to delete any mention of "God" on our currency, to the "Pledge of Allegiance", that many of us out their recited while going through school, countless other examples...

Same goes to your other rantings about animal rights, or about everything else that seems to be important to you.

The same thing applies to you, or the rants of the people like yourself, who can't seem to stop complaining about this, or that.

Please feel free to call:1-800-WHAA!!!!

NBTP

Edited, only to remove some rant of my own, that didn't seem to apply to your thread.

Bones

[themadscientist]

Posted by TP:

.

How about, America?

That's right T.P.

How about taking that one line that I quoted you on, back to the "Good Old U.S.A." ????

It seems to me that "the atheists", are heavily involved at attacking our basic rights. Just take a look at the many lawsuits currently in progress, that want to delete any mention of "God" on our currency, to the "Pledge of Allegiance", that many of us out their recited while going through school, countless other examples...

Same goes to your other rantings about animal rights, or about everything else that seems to be important to you.

The same thing applies to you, or the rants of the people like yourself, who can't seem to stop complaining about this, or that.

Please feel free to call:1-800-WHAA!!!!

NBTP

Edited, only to remove some rant of my own, that didn't seem to apply to your thread.

Bones

So let me see if I am reading this correctly. You are saying you have the right to have "in god we trust" printed on our money? Please note my underlining for emphasis. You said "our" rights but that was incorrect because in order to qualify to use that word I would have to agree. I don't. It is not your right to have any such thing written on the money. I however have the right to have money free of government endosed religious speech on it. Do I lose sleep over the christian rhetoric on my money? no, I have better things to worry about. It is however not protected from attack from those who chose to argue it's presence and those people are on solid ground to do so. The United States is not a theocracy and there is separation of church and state. Religious speech has no place on the money.
Religious speech also has no place in school unless it is a private catholic school or something equivalent for another religion. The fact that we may have recited it in school back then doesn't somehow gradfather it and make it free from being revisited and changed. I am sure the fundamentalist theocratical governments have nice little mantras their school kid recite too.

[DougP]

I've heard the phrase "This country was founded on Christian principles." quite often. But keep in mind those founding principles whether truly Christian or not were the same principles that allowed slavery and mass genocide of native American tribes across the nation. I think that the moment religion joins forces with politics in our nation we've taken the first step in the wrong direction. Religion has no place what so ever in a modern government. I believe in the separation of church and state and believe that it hasn't quite been separated far enough.

The First Amendment to the Constitution says that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." I certainly believe we should not have an official state sponsored religion. People are free to practice their religion but the second half of that First Amendment is never mentioned when people are usually discuss this kind of topic.

The fact that we have politicians that run a faith based campaign really troubles me. Any government-funded social programs incorporating religious beliefs into their framework are detrimental to a truly free thinking modern society in my opinion.

[ja_Patriot]

themadscientist,

Thanks for your opinion.

You're damn right we Americans have the right to have "God" in our money, our schools and our government.

Let's be clear. There is no constitutional amendment specifically declaring the "separation of church and state", is there?

The "establishment clause" is a liberal interpretation which goes against the underlying intentions of our Judeo-Christian founders. The Roberts court should handle some of the absurdities.

As for "state sponsored religion" another favorite catch phrase of the left, give me one single federal or state law which "establishes" a religion. Just one.

We practice freedom of religion, but that doesn't mean that the vast majority should have to kowtow to a few eccentrics and demented leftists. Apart from Satanism, every one in America is free to choose a Deity or non-deity.

Freedom of religion. You may choose not to pray or believe in religion. Or say your 5 daily prayers kneeling towards Mecca or whatever hits your fancy. But leave our Ten Commandments in our court houses and government buildings. Leave our money and our pledge of allegiance alone.

When I was growing up, we started morning classes with a prayer and the pledge of allegiance. Teachers and elders were well respected them.

When did this change?

Was it when the far left ACLU, their few but rabid supporters and activists in the judicial branch began to have their way to take the fear of God and respect for teachers and elders out of the classroom and public places? It just makes you wonder.

America, a country with no consequences for bad behavior and indecency. You depict the Virgin Mary or the Christ covered in feces, a despicable act which goes against the religious sensibilities of the vast majority of Americans, but for the left and the p.c. nutheads, it's called freedom of speech.

Along the same lines, a nuthead burns the American flag, - again freedom of speech. To many real Americans, that's like spitting in our face. You try that stunt anywhere else, you get lynched by the crowd.

Let me stop here. But you get the drift.

That's my opinion.


#

[themadscientist]

themadscientist,

Thanks for your opinion.

You're damn right we Americans have the right to have "God" in our money, our schools and our government.

Let's be clear. There is no constitutional amendment specifically declaring the "separation of church and state", is there?

The "establishment clause" is a liberal interpretation which goes against the underlying intentions of our Judeo-Christian founders. The Roberts court should handle some of the absurdities.

As for "state sponsored religion" another favorite catch phrase of the left, give me one single federal or state law which "establishes" a religion. Just one.

We practice freedom of religion, but that doesn't mean that the vast majority should have to kowtow to a few eccentrics and demented leftists. Apart from Satanism, every one in America is free to choose a Deity or non-deity.

Freedom of religion. You may choose not to pray or believe in religion. Or say your 5 daily prayers kneeling towards Mecca or whatever hits your fancy. But leave our Ten Commandment in our court houses and government buildings. Leave our money and our pledge of allegiance alone.

When I was going up, we started morning classes with a prayer and the pledge of allegiance. Teachers and elders were well respected them.

When did this change?

Was it when the far left ACLU, their few but rabid supporters and activists in the judicial branch began to have their way to take the fear of God and respect for teachers and elders out of the classroom and public places? It just makes you wonder.

America, a country with no consequences for bad behavior and indecency. You depict the Virgin Mary or the Christ covered in feces, a despicable act which goes against the religious sensitivities of the vast majority of Americans, but for the left and the p.c. nutheads, it's called freedom of speech.

Along the same lines, a nuthead burns the American flag, - again freedom of speech. To many real Americans, that's like spitting in our face. You try that stunt anywhere else, you get lynched by the crowd.

Let me stop here. But you get the drift.

That's my opinion.


#

No, you don't have a right to god in OUR money, The awarding of that right to you cancels out my right to not have it. It is nothing short of state endorsement of religion to put it on something as basic and vital to public life as money.

How do you know what the founding fathers intended? I love it when people on both sides of the argument begin to theorize what men hundreds of years ago meant to say, that's preatty absurd. If they intended to have Christianity to be the law of the land why didn't they make it that way? Hmmm?

Freedom of religion does not mean you get to dismiss me as an eccentric and trample on my rights not to follow some deity regardless of majority or minority. By doing so you contradict yourself.

So you started class with a prayer, fine. You speak of a lack of it as if those who do not wish to do so are somehow devolved. Teachers and elders were well respected then because back then parents did their jobs of showing kids what was right and wrong and how one should behave not because of prayer.

The deterioration of America is not due to some lack of a god wagging his finger at people. It is rather the logical progression of personal freedom. Over time values erode and the people become scum. Look at any great civilization in history over time they fester and rot.

The fecal thing and burning the flag is simply bad taste. I do not agree with someone who would burn the flag but guess what, they can. Freedom of speech. Just because you, even a million people don't like it is irrelavent. TV is polluted with reality TV, I detest it, nobody cares.

This is not mob rules freind, it is a nation of laws. Think of them like commandments. As long as you don't break one, no matter how dumb your actions are you are pretty much ok.

I think the tipping point here is private and public. What you practice in private and inside the confines of the institutions that congregate like-minded people is your business. You have the right to that, I have the right to that.
What You do not get to do is force your religious beleifs in the form of organized prayer, sayings on money etc, anything that is public domain. That is state endorsement (there, like that word better?) of religion. Dance around it all you want but it is what it is.

[DougP]

by putting god on your money, in your courts and in your schools you are in fact creating a state sponsored religion and thus oppressing other religions practiced in this country. The separation can be best described in two parts/clauses. The establishment clause, generally interpreted as preventing the government from establishing a national religion, providing tax money in support of religion, or otherwise favoring any single religion or religion generally, and the free exercise clause, ensuring that private religious practices not be restricted by the government. The effect of prohibiting direct connections between religious and governmental institutions while protecting private religious freedom and autonomy has been termed the "separation of church and state."

A letter from Thomas Jefferson to a group called the Danbury Baptists.

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."

What place does any religious markings have on our money? You don't have to have a law establishing a state sponsored religion in order to take notice that many members of our government are saying America is a Christian founded nation and still is a Christian nation today. Now what does that sound like to you? When I hear officials say that it makes it sound like the government is "sponsoring" a religion to me. When I see it printed on money it makes it appear as though this country has only one religion and is a religiously ran country.

In 1962, the Supreme Court extended this analysis to the issue of prayer and religious readings in public schools. In Engel v. Vitale 370 U.S. 421 (1962), the Court determined it unconstitutional by a vote of 6-1 for state officials to compose an official school prayer and require its recitation in public schools, even when it is non-denominational and students may excuse themselves from participation. As such, any teacher, faculty, or student can pray in school, in accordance with their own religion. However, they may not lead such prayers in class, or in other "official" school settings such as assemblies or programs, including even "non-sectarian" teacher-led prayers, e.g. "Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers, and our country," which was part of the prayer required by the New York State Board of Regents prior to the Court's decision. As the Court stated:

The petitioners contend, among other things, that the state laws requiring or permitting use of the Regents' prayer must be struck down as a violation of the Establishment Clause because that prayer was composed by governmental officials as a part of a governmental program to further religious beliefs. For this reason, petitioners argue, the State's use of the Regents' prayer in its public school system breaches the constitutional wall of separation between Church and State. We agree with that contention, since we think that the constitutional prohibition against laws respecting an establishment of religion must at least mean that, in this country, it is no part of the business of government to compose official prayers for any group of the American people to recite as a part of a religious program carried on by government.

The court noted that it "is a matter of history that this very practice of establishing governmentally composed prayers for religious services was one of the reasons which caused many of our early colonists to leave England and seek religious freedom in America."

[DougP]

Furthermore I would like to add that if Christians have the right to have "In God we trust" printed on our money than we better save some room on the coin. Because then ever other religion in America should have the same right to have a phrase representing their beliefs to be printed on the money as well.

[DocTurtle]

Just wanted to state that I don't think they are knighting the guy as a sole purpose to slap them in the face. I'm sure they didn't even play a part of him being knighted? Probably didn't thing, "hmm if we knight him, who will get pissed off," or "I heard they don't like this guy so lets honor him."
Seems silly, no?

[dk]

Furthermore I would like to add that if Christians have the right to have "In God we trust" printed on our money than we better save some room on the coin. Because then ever other religion in America should have the same right to have a phrase representing their beliefs to be printed on the money as well.
Better yet, allow each religion to use a specific bill or coin. I'd really love to see what Scientology would print on their coin.

This sounds like a fair plan to me. I'm sure the Christians wouldn't be for this type of fairness though.

I'm all for the teachings of morality, but the bible isn't the only source for good morals. The ten commandments isn't the only way to live your life.

[Bones]

Being a naturalized citizen, I had to earn the privilege by going through the naturalization process. I have paid my dues, by joining the military for 20 some years.

And I'm telling all of you out there, nobody has ever come to my door wanting to arrest me for my religious beliefs.

This whole thing is a stupid argument, brought forth by people with too much time on their hands. Really don't care what is on the currency that I'm using, as long as it provides for basic needs.

You want to save tax dollars? Stop complaining about this silly sort of stuff.

Grow up, and get on with your lives.

NBTP

[DougP]

Your right we should also stop waisting our time with other small problems like education, health care, immigration, etc... Why because they are no where near as bad as it can be in other countries. Please.:rolleyes: That's the point of arguing topics like this and fighting for what's right. Just because you're comfortable now doesn't mean that there are issues out there that deserve attention.

Having religion step one foot closer to politics is a step in the wrong direction.
They should be as far apart as a child and a pedophile. Whether the church is conducting witch hunts and raids now is besides the point. Although they were at the beginning of our country. So really one doesn't have to look to far back to see that religion governing a country is not a very good thing. Take radical Islam for example. Take a look at what you get with a state sponsored religious empire like Iran.

[ja_Patriot]

Topic: Are Islamists Too Sensitive. Political Correctness & Diversity.


Merry Christmas. In God We Trust. One Nation under God.

Are those words so offensive they’re against the so-called separation of church and state if used in public domain?

Should we live in fear that those words would lead to a "religious empire like Iran"?

Fact:
90% of American adults believe in God including 93% of women, 96% of African-Americans and 93% of Republicans but only 86% of men, 85% of those with postgraduate degrees, and 87% of political independents.
-----

Mob rule, some say. How about the Tyranny of the Minority. A fascinating American absurdity. Google it.

How is it that a small minority think that they can dictate terms to the vast majority in the name of "diversity"?

This has nothing to do with freedom of religion, as guaranteed by the Constitution.

No, these people are free to practice any religion or non-religion. But they think that they have a “right” not to be offended by anything remotely Judeo-Christian in American public places.

Perhaps we should start with the renaming of “Saint Francis” or of the “City of Angels”, California? Or Corpus Christi? Or how about Ithaca? Isn’t that Greek? We wouldn’t want to continue offending the right of some folks now, do we?

Sorry but that “right” does not exist anywhere in the Constitution, just as the “right to privacy” is an absurd argument for legalizing the killing of 40 million unborn or partially born children.

Yes, the Supreme Court ruled for this or that bad decision. And the ACLU does hold a sword of Damocles over the rest of society to “protect” American civil liberties, diversity and political correctness.

Liberal activists wearing robes. This is why “stare decisis et non quieta movere” is a very important and almost the only consideration for Democrats in the senate judiciary committee. The libs don’t want a review of decisions on abortion and church & state.

Too bad for them but good for most Americans, the Roberts Court is leaning towards “Originalism”.

No liberal interpretation required. The Constitution stands as originally written.

We want our Christmas, our money and our pledge of allegiance just the way it is, thank you very much.

All this political correctness simply has to stop soon enough.

http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=359


#

[Bones]

As posted by DougP:

Your right we should also stop waisting our time with other small problems like education, health care, immigration, etc... Why because they are no where near as bad as it can be in other countries. Please.:cool:

Nice try DougP, who is to blame for the educational level of our kids?

You could try to place the blame elsewhere, but who is ultimately to blame?

Having religion step one foot closer to politics is a step in the wrong direction.
They should be as far apart as a child and a pedophile. Whether the church is conducting witch hunts and raids now is besides the point. Although they were at the beginning of our country. So really one doesn't have to look to far back to see that religion governing a country is not a very good thing. Take radical Islam for example. Take a look at what you get with a state sponsored religious empire like Iran.

Again, nice try. But you can not provide any of our readers out there, with evidence that the U.S. Government, is forcing you to change your religious beliefs.

I guess that your next ploy, would be in regards to privacy on the net. Pretty much non-existent if you failed to read the "EULA", and clicked "Install".

BTW: "I didn't know", probably won't carry much weight when facing a judge.

Just a thought.

NBTP

[DougP]

Ok you missed my point entirely it was directed at
This whole thing is a stupid argument, brought forth by people with too much time on their hands.

Whole point being there are a lot of arguments out there that may seem stupid to some but important to others.

Second part of my post was in reference to the fact that religion has no place what so ever in politics. It shouldn't be a factor what so ever even if its not to the point where religion is being forced on you. When I was being forced to pray in school when I was younger however, that is a different story. I'm glad prayer is out of school and I don't want the pendulum to swing back to where it might be allowed again. So from what I have seen Islam is no more sensitive than Christians. I guess it may be ok for some to keep god in the schools and in the court houses but I sure as hell am not ok with it. By having it there it is forcing it on me.

Fact:
90% of American adults believe in God including 93% of women, 96% of African-Americans and 93% of Republicans but only 86% of men, 85% of those with postgraduate degrees, and 87% of political independents.

The American Religious Identification Survey, put out by the City University of New York (CUNY), found some evidence that the number of non religious people could be rising. With 7 percent of respondents marking "non-religion" as their affiliation in 1990 and 14.5 percent checking that box in 2001.

Those identifying themselves as Christian still form the vast majority, according to the poll, but experienced a dip from 86 percent to 77 percent not 90% during the same time period.

A 2002 USA Today/Gallup poll found that 50 percent of adults consider themselves religious, 33 percent say they're "spiritual but not religious" and 10 percent say they are neither spiritual nor religious.

[DougP]

Let my say again what my point is here and if you disagree feel free to argue:

Keep religion where it belongs. In your heart, the churches( places of worship) and in your homes. Say a prayer in public if you must but don't bring it into where it doesn't belong. Court houses, public schools, any government buildings. Again not saying don't pray or follow your beliefs. But just like a bad thought that might be on you minds and offensive to others don't broadcast it to where its affecting others who don't follow your beliefs.

Its that simple.

[ryukyuboi]

http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=707

Forty-two percent of Americans adults are not absolutely certain there is a God, according to Harris.

The "fact" quoted above from ja10240 is taken from a Harris poll.

[Asshat]

Should we live in fear that those words would lead to a "religious empire like Iran"?

I do. After all, weren't there a bunch of Christian nutcases all banded together trying to urge the government to pre-emptively strike Iran? You know...so the biblical future of the Jews turning to Jesus can happen and the ensuing rapture?

[themadscientist]

So I am a liberal because I don't think god belongs in government settings? You so don't know me.

Any time a religion, any religion is endorsed in any fashion by the government that tramples on freedom of religion, period. You can't see that because the little phrase on the money happens to refer to your chosen spooky diety rather than someone else's. Money is a vital tool in daily life, produced by the federal government for use by all Americans. It should be neutral. I don't want "in god we trust", "allah akbar", or "praise L Ron Hubbard" on it. That is endorsement of one religion over another. If such a simple concept is escaping you perhaps you should put foam on all the sharp edges in your house because your faculties are sub standard.

Whatever people choose to beleive, or not beleive in their heart and their places of worship is their business and I would fight to protect their right to do that as long as it did not infringe on another person's right to do as they feel. Bringing religion, any religion into official government activities crosses that line. There is no argument to the contrary which will hold up to objective scrutity. You will never get this because you are not objective :w00t:
I am, so it's crystal clear to me. I don't care if you beleive in god, good for you, whatever gets you through the day. I don't care if your next door neighbor rubs a crystal on his head and chants "mechaleccahi-meccahiniho", that's his thing. My disbelief in any "intelligence" running this moshpit of painful anachy called life is my choice. I won't demand "god is a lie" be put on the money, that should not be there either, not the place for OPINIONS. :thumbdown:

[ja_Patriot]

DougP,

And my point of view is that we practice our American traditions in government and in our daily lives. And not one federal or state “…law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise..” have been promulgated in America. You are free to exercise any religion. No rights are being trampled by our traditions, including imaginary ones.

As they say, never the twain shall meet.

For certain issues, all we can do is share our points of view. ;-)


#

[ja_Patriot]

themadscientist,

“…If such a simple concept is escaping you perhaps you should put foam on all the sharp edges in your house because your faculties are sub standard….”

Foam on sharp edges? My faculties are sub-standard? Huh..?

You attack me?

You feel brave behind anonymity?

You stick with the points of view you outlined, fine with me.

But there is no need for attacks(comment edited out). Are you an adolescent? How old are you?

You are free to practice whatever it is your kind practices as a religion and go sulk in your little corner. Tough luck if you don’t celebrate Christmas.

Look at yourself. You can't be offended by a few plain religious words. You’re missing a few screws and looking to blame someone or something else for whatever it is you have failed in life to do.

Take your forum id - “madscientist”? That sounds so demented, doesn’t it.

BTW, just so you know, it’s very noticeable all of your other posts in this forum are so acerbic you probably think it’s cool. (Comment edited out).


#

--------------------------------------------
ja10340, ease up on the name calling. You can discuss your points and get them across without resorting to name calling. -- TheProsecutor

[Asshat]

I know we can all change the channel any time we want to. But the Christian coalition has stated their is a war on, and they're fighting it. Their purpose is to convert or change every aspect of American culture to one of Christianity.

And those are not my "traditions" at all. Yeah, that bothers me. Any religious zealot out there telling me how to live bothers the shit out of me. Almost as much as FAT people telling me I should quit smoking. :)

[themadscientist]

themadscientist,

“…If such a simple concept is escaping you perhaps you should put foam on all the sharp edges in your house because your faculties are sub standard….”

Foam on sharp edges? My faculties are sub-standard? Huh..?

You attack me?

You feel brave behind anonymity?

You stick with the points of view you outlined, fine with me.

But there is no need for attacks, (Comment edited out). Are you an adolescent? How old are you?

You are free to practice whatever it is your kind practices as a religion and go sulk in your little corner. Tough luck if you don’t celebrate Christmas.

Look at yourself. You can't be offended by a few plain religious words. You’re missing a few screws and looking to blame someone or something else for whatever it is you have failed in life to do.

Take your forum id - “madscientist”? That sounds so demented, doesn’t it.

BTW, just so you know, it’s very noticeable all of your other posts in this forum are so acerbic you probably think it’s cool. (Comment edited out).


#
35

the name comes from my automotive creations

Stuck up, that's a new one I must say. Not stuck up I just don't take something for truth because somebody says so. Must be why I don't follow your superstition. Pray for me won't you?

Having to explain such a simple concept to you leads me to beleive you are not as swift as you tell yourself you are. Thusly for your own protection foam.
My kind? ah there it is. Please look on me with pity oh holy religious person. Save me from the hell of your design and your beleif.

I personally am not offended by the religious crap on the money. The presence doesn't offend me but I do beleive it does not belong there and I can appreciate that some may be offended. I am only interested in making "your kind" understand you really don't have the right to superimpose your particular beleif on everyone.

It is your dismissive comments that raise my ire. The way people like you (since we are generalizing, christians versus the rest of us "lost souls") think they are somehow above consideration of alternate views because they happen to beleive a book found in hotels.

worship your god in private, leave it out of the public domain. It's a simple concept.

P.S. "acerbic", nice word! No sarcasm, I am pretty verbose and wordy but I did have to look that one up and perfect choice!:)

[ja_Patriot]

Well, as I said earlier, never the twain shall meet.

For certain issues, all we can do is share our points of view. I have nothing more to add to this topic, which is out of thread anyway.


#

[TheNoNamedOne]

Cease the name calling.

[ja_Patriot]

...If such a simple concept is escaping you perhaps you should put foam on all the sharp edges in your house because your faculties are sub standard....


TP, read through the whole thread before you become so self-righteous. I usually post stand-up and am respectful. This was a heated subject which required heated responses. The one referenced above was a personal attack and was responded in kind.

I hope you do recognize one when you see one.

The only other time was when I called you a sad-sxxk & nincomxxxp was after you insulted me by calling me naive and ...laughing at you...(your words) and you used the idixt word because you thought you could have it your way in here in the way manner you responded insultingly to others (Fonze, Muku, etc...) in the heat of the moment.

And going back through the threads, you did have a knack of insulting posters here, although you've simmered down lately.

So, yes, we'll follow the golden rule. Just want to set things straight here.


#

[TheNoNamedOne]

I have read through this whole thread. There was no reason for the name calling you directed at TheMadScientist. Cease the name calling.

IF you have further problems with my action in this thread, then take it to the forum feedback section. Do not discuss moderated action in the threads they were moderated in. See the rules of the forum if you are not aware of that rule.

[ja_Patriot]

The last exchange between madscientist & myself was cordial enough and settled like adults.

The thread stands as is and the issue is set straight. As was mentioned in the other thread, sometimes you do act like you're in kindergarten.


#

[dk]

TP was assisting me by asking you to cease the name-calling. There is no "he started it"... This is not kindergarten. Directly insulting someone is against the rules. Aside from that, we have no problem.

For clarification (again), here are the boundaries. Feel free to straddle the line carefully if that is your thing.

Against the rules: You are an idiot.
A OK: That was an idiotic thing to say.

[ja_Patriot]

dk,

Forum rule 2. Do not engage in a personal attack. Insults do occasionally happen in heated discussion. Avoid stooping to that level. However, there is a definite line between an insult and a personal attack. DO NOT cross that line.


I do not cross that line as a matter of principle, but now I see the semantics.

Ok to be told "...your faculties are sub standard...." and reply with "...but there is no need for attacks, were you born with a prematurely lame brain?"

It is a fine line and we're obviously not in kindergarten. But I do recognize a personal insult when I see one.

The problem is that if you condone one side to insult then you discourage a heated debate on a heated issue.

I don't think that was your intention and that was what I thought needed to be set straight.

Otherwise, the inclination would be to stay away from those issues.

Thanks for the kool-aid.


#

[dk]

Touche <extra characters>

I'll review all of this tomorrow. I'm way too sleepy for all of this right now.

[themadscientist]

I think there was provocation but I do beleive I escalated it which is not right. I should know better than that. Religious discussions, politics etc are always charged subjects and I will turn my filter up a notch in the future. :)

[Boost]

Religious discussions, politics etc are always charged subjects and I will turn my filter up a notch in the future. :)

I think it takes entering into a discussion with a general respect for another persons opinions, even if you do not agree with them, to keep things in a civil manor. But these topics tend to stir up passion in people, so it's easy for the discussion to get out of hand really quick without realizing it!

[ja_Patriot]

madscientist, boost,
Thanks for your additional comments. I think we’re quite capable of sharing each others views and maintaining our own convictions in the various issues. Life’s too short to be less than pragmatic in the tolerance of opposing views.

dk,
For future ref perhaps, if within your budget, the forum could do much better with a more balanced mod, rather than one whose views and actions clearly teeter on the fringe left.


#