I love the 1911, and prefer it to the Gold-cup. There may be good reasons for the 9mm, but the old Colts are a sentimental favorite. Reliable and effective.
Man, get you white guys talkin' about guns - Hog Heaven!
Tres
As you know, christianity comes in many flavors. It's just a matter of deep misfortune that America has been blessed by the evangelical/pentacostal variety which, one observes, has managed to gather into its flock many of the stupidest people on the continent, then made them stupider. The growth in numbers and power of this crowd is not a positive omen for the future of separation, nor for freedom of religion, what with Catholicism being a kind of fancy shmancy Satan worship and Judaism simply handy for facilitating armagaeddon. A Buddhist president... fageddaboutit. Muslims...shoot em quick!
Tartarin
Actually, I rather like little David though I commonly disagree with him. He's a witty fellow and it's not unusual for him to pick the right targets (for example, referring to Whitman's appointment to the Interior as 'keeping the wilderness safe for steeplechase'). In his PBS news appearances with Shields and Lehrer, he is quite often eloquent (if a touch reluctantly and not often enough) on administration dumbnesses. He's distinct from that whole platoon of carbon copy idiots who don't appear on TV without first calling up Rove's office to get their 'talking points'.
blatham wrote:As you know, christianity comes in many flavors. It's just a matter of deep misfortune that America has been blessed by the evangelical/pentacostal variety which, one observes, has managed to gather into its flock many of the stupidest people on the continent, then made them stupider. The growth in numbers and power of this crowd is not a positive omen for the future of separation, nor for freedom of religion...
As I was reading this I found myself wondering whether you couldn't make a similar argument by replacing
evangelical/pentecostal Christian with
Moslem, and being sure that if you did make that replacement, you would never have written such a thing.
No, Trespassers. Substitute "fundamentalist Moslem" for "fundamentalist Christian" and I don't think there would be an argument. Fundamentalism goes hand in hand with suppression of intelligence and independence. There are no fundamentalists without leaders, the latter being the cockroaches of organized religion.
Tartarin - The term used was not "fundamentalist", nor is that germane to the point I was making, and have made repeatedly in these discussions: it seems some people think it acceptable to malign Christianity, Christians, and Christian denominations in ways that they would not openly attack other religions. I think this double-standard is wrong. Bigotry is bigotry, and such comments should either be inappropriate across the board, or all religions should be fair game.
Trespassers -- I think we're at cross-purposes and I'll leave it at that!
i am not prejudiced, i dislike all religions equally but i do disfavor more the ones that prefer to shove their mania's down my throat.
Thank you, Dyslexia -- well said!
Quote:Separation of Church and State
100% for it - Bush's actions are unconstitutional in the extreme. Next, there will be a national religion!
WE'VE GOT ONE, BILL! Its symbol: $.
tres
I don't know your specific house of worship. If I've offended, you have my personal apolgy as I rather like you. However, I do consider all faiths fair game, that is, all which involve themselves in the general polity. A fellow who, for example, just heads for a cave to remain silent for a period of time and who does not seek to prescribe or alter community policy and values is the only species of faith which I deem outside of the 'fair game' principle. I see faith membership as no different than political party membership given policy activism.
Some faiths (generally speaking, as always) are presently very active politically. The American/Canadian evangelical communities are one. Certain Muslim communities are another, as are various Hindu and even Buddhist sects.
And, I will add one further comment. Where both the Catholic and Anglican traditions have deep and sophisticated philosophical histories, the North American evangelical community does not. You can count on one hand the religious philosophers of any merit (Plantinga and Hicks are two, and there aren't many more). This is an unfortunate consequence of a deeply anti-intellectual history here in most of the Protestant community.
If there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively
calls for attachment than any other, it is the principle of free thought
... not free thought only for those who agree with us, but freedom
for the thought we hate. Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.
blatham wrote:I do consider all faiths fair game, that is, all which involve themselves in the general polity. A fellow who, for example, just heads for a cave to remain silent for a period of time and who does not seek to prescribe or alter community policy and values is the only species of faith which I deem outside of the 'fair game' principle. I see faith membership as no different than political party membership given policy activism.
Then I misjudged you. I'm actually fine with your criticism of a religion, if you would honestly criticize any and all religions equally. I do find a double standard in our culture that applauds attacks on Christianity and decries any criticism of other religions, and that I find hard to stomach.
And I likes you too, Hoss.
"I do consider all faiths fair game, that is, all which involve themselves in the general polity." That's the key of course, Blatham and Trespassers. Thanks for stating it so clearly.
Tres
It's bound to be the case that Christianity will get more instances of criticism in the Western world simply due to the fact that that's the faith most common (and it is increasingly active politically). In Indian political discourse, it will be the faiths represented there that will be taken to task (validly, if politically active).
The states religion will get hacked by the ones who want separation!
blatham wrote:It's bound to be the case that Christianity will get more instances of criticism in the Western world simply due to the fact that that's the faith most common (and it is increasingly active politically). In Indian political discourse, it will be the faiths represented there that will be taken to task (validly, if politically active).
That's a good point, and one I hadn't considered. Thanks.
If I may draw you out on a tangent for a moment, how do you feel about unequal treatment of various religious groups by our government? After 9/11, NY City public schools put in place a policy setting aside classrooms during Ramadan specifically for Muslim students to use for prayer.
Read that twice and let it soak in. What are your thoughts on that policy?
Tres
Well, I don't see it as different from allocating a room for any faith group to congregate, or different from Christmas celebrations in a school.
The question of what faith presence ought to be permitted/disallowed in a school setting is a complicated one. My foundational principles (that no single faith ought to receive special dispensation or priviledge or placement; and that no ritual or ceremony ought to be enforced; and that education is different from and undermined by indoctrination/socialization) are the grounding from which I would address any specific dilemma.
So I don't find that case bothersome. I would not were it to involve Christians or Dervishes or any faith group. If one adds in some element of proselytizing, that would be quite different.
blatham wrote:So I don't find that case bothersome. I would not were it to involve Christians or Dervishes or any faith group. If one adds in some element of proselytizing, that would be quite different.
Then please show me any public school system that has set aside classroom space for the express purpose of Christian or Jewish prayer during the school day. (Just one will do.)
