CaptainHaplo : Wherein have I implied that I have a problem with the existence of Israel? I have a problem with Israels militarily occupying non-Israeli land indefinitely, or if as you suggest they take that land as the spoils of war, then they need to extend the same civilian rights to the people living in these places as people living inside the original borders, like voting etc... that would be OK IMHO too. In regard to any single nation acting globally, yes I do think that is wrong, global actions need to undertaken globally by a union of nations, or it is simply megalomania whichever way you try to push it.

Look if Iran decided (after getting nuclear weapons) to bomb Israel, or any of its neighbors, that would be the end of the entire country of Iran in a sense that no human being has ever truly witnessed save a few lucky Japanese survivors. Israel and their US buddies would absolutely guarantee it. I think even Iranian dictators can understand that. This is the political mess that is nuclear proliferation (which is OK for Israel and us and the US etc...) I personally have less faith than you in our leaders virtuous natures. What you lot are condoning is offensive, aggressive and exactly what you (however correctly) accuse Iran of being. I would certainly hope that things can be solved without those kind of actions, maybe they can't, fine but as I have stated multiple times and none here has been able to grasp this yet - I just think it's ironic. So sue me, I state a simple opinion and get bombarded by all this crap from an extreme right wing fascist, get accused of being anti Israel, anti American, I have Neville Chamberlain syndrome, I don't look the facts regardless that most of the 'facts' you guys are on about come to you through the media which to me means propaganda and I wasn't even arguing with you ? what gives ? Oh yeah, I also said I think bombing nuclear facilities is highly irresponsible and I stand by that, again though that is an opinion, and it's fine if you do not share it.

I'll let you in on a little secret - I'm anti religious, which may make me seem anti Israel and anti American, but there is a difference. I look admiringly on the US constitution as a secular document of laws and rights etc. your founding fathers had their heads screwed on tight I think, and it's a real shame you guys don't live by that any more. I'm anti corporatocracy vainly clinging to a dilapidated disguise of democracy, and I fully understand the power of the world media to manipulate peoples opinions and sensibilities on a truly global scale. Don't buy into it. Any of it. I am pro people, you know, the regular types who just want to live in a bit of peace and quiet, who are (I am certain) the largest majority of folks on the planet of all nations, myself included. Trouble is we are not extreme, nor militant, nor very vocal, and therefore are constantly being kicked in the teeth by people with a more feral nature. I also very much doubt if civilians care too much whether they got hit intentionally or by accident, seeing as the results are indistinguishable from each other.

@MH that's an interesting article, maybe you'd share your opinion on it's meaning, it's bias and it's intent? I think he says that no matter what external pressures Iran will continue its nuclear program [gaining nuclear weapons in the process] which it will use as a deterrent to possible future attacks by any of its neighbors or Israel and/or the rest of the West. Which to me is just as reasonable as any nation explaining why they should have them.

There is nothing wrong with healthy debate and people sharing opinions etc.

Can we all ensure we don't fall into the category of personal attacks and insults please.

Thanks in anticipation of your co-operation.

To my understanding Iran will continue its program at all coasts to be able to spread its influence.
The purpose of nukes its not necessarily to directly use them against Israel or European countries.
Its more a umbrella to allow Iran spread its influence in the region without the western ability for direct intervention...hence self defence against west.
This will allow Iranian regime to be more direct in meddling in neighboring oil reach countries to gain control over oil prices and maybe even aspects western economy.
When Iran achieves the above goals it can deal with Israel...and not necessarily by nukes....see...its just rational thinking to achieve regional goals.
So...they need those weapons for self defence and have good reason for it.

Again...with religious nuts you never know what else may happen.....
Why do think Saudis and Turks fear of nuclear Iran-is it islamophobia?

The creation of the US is based on christian principles. In the Declaration of Independence, God is referenced three times.

The first amendment only prohibits congress from establishing a national religion.

The framers were all God fearing men, if you look at writings by them about the constitution you will see that they reference the divine. So, if you do not believe that the framers were not influenced by Christianity than not sure what will change your mind. It's on our currency and in the pledge of allegiance.

No, it's not. The phrase "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" was a common Enlightenment term and was specifically used to make sure it was non-denominational. "Creator" was used in a like manner. Jefferson firmly believed that Jesus was a great moral teacher, but vehemently denied any divine connection. The founding documents were all specifically designed to avoid any connection with a particular belief. Were they Christians? A lot of them, yes, but the biggies were mostly not.

And its point was to keep any religion from controlling the government to the detriment of others.

But "the divine" is not necessarily "Christian", and while many of the professed Christ, or at least gave lip service, many others did not, most notably Adams, Franklin and Jefferson.

'Influenced', yes, as anyone raised around any group of believers will tend to be influenced by the prevalent belief system.

First appeared on coins in 1864 and paper money in 1957. Nothing to do with the founders.

Written in 1892, and not adopted by Congress until 1942. "Under God" not added until 1954, as part of the right-wing anti-communist surge. Again, nothing to do with the founders.

That is two fantastic jokes within just seconds! I goaded you. Yes, sure, I made you overstepping the line when you called me

By your reasoning, the Israelis make terrorists firing rockets into civilian areas in an attenmpt to commit civilian mass murder, and Germany made the RAF terrorists kidnapping and murdering their victims, and the West made terrorist hijacking planes and blowing them up. It'S all our own fault. We make them do these things. Why don't we play their ballgame, eh? Ideology justifies terrorism, right? Or just any offence, eh?

I'm glad that you do not feel bad about misbehaving yourself. However, I am also glad, since I am not obligated to waste my time with an infantile fool ignoring reality even if it is laid out before his eyes, and who mistakes loud calling with argument and offending with historic fact, and lives by the bliss of having an extremely opportunistic, selective memory that simply ignores anything that does not fit into his scheme.

Welcome to the club then.


http://img690.imageshack.us/img690/9181/fsscr000m.png

This is where you overstepped the line with me as you put it - you just called me (or implied that I am) an ignorant, arrogant and suicidal idiot. For what reason? Because I find it ironic that nuclear armed nations feel they have any right whatsoever to demand that other nations (not only but including Iran) may not develop their own nuclear weapons? Because I think it irresponsible to risk dispersing large amounts of highly radioactive materials into the environment without concern, no matter who or what or where?

And just now you write -

So I called you - extreme because to me your views seem extreme - right wing because they also seem to me to be right wing - and fascist because you demonstrate an ability to verbally subhumanise with great ease and justify it with rhetoric and logical fallacy, all of which are adjective terms which you may find offensive, but I never used purely derogatory terms such as 'fool' or 'idiot' or 'infantile'. I am as guilty as you for goading - I admit it, but being from the UK I am reminded of the phrase "They don't like it up 'em" If you're prepared to dish it out, you should be prepared to take it as well.

So now I'm on your ignore list? Should I celebrate? I hope this will mean an end to bickering matches like this but somehow I can't shake this sneaking feeling, that you won't let it lie. From my end however, I'm sorry for any offense caused to anyone but this will be the last from me on this matter or in this thread.

Sincerely,
Sam.

Yet by his own admission on his anti muslim fetish he protests with neo nazis and joined groups filled wth neo nazis.
So Sammi didn't overstep anything, if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and hangs out with other ducks doing the duck things other ducks are doing it is either a duck or a very very good immitation of a duck.

It is funny though Sky writes.....
lives by the bliss of having an extremely opportunistic, selective memory that simply ignores anything that does not fit into his scheme.
Yet repeats the same lies to fit his views again and again no matter how many people take them thoroughy apart and laughingly calls the "fact".

Celebrate it, Skys ignorance is great.:yeah:
It makes it easy to demonstrate his opportunistic selective memory.

Sammi - I didn't "attack" you. Yes, I said you showed Chamberlain syndrome. Your arguments bear that out in the light of facts. My hope was that calling your attention to it would help you re-evaluate /re-examine the data.

Now - you said you have a problem with Israel occupying land that it "conquered" - because they won't give voting rights to the people in that area. That is a wonderful, idealistic view. However, how can a government and nation extend voting rights to an area inhabited by a group of people that act, or condone, violence against the state that control it? To do so is suicidal. Note I said "idealistic" - because not only is it an unworkable option (for self-preservation reasons), the idea indicates that your reticence to accept the situation would be solved by suffrage rights. Ok, maybe YOUR objections would, but do you truly expect that the anti-Israeli sentiment and actions in the Middle East (or just in the "occupied territories") would suddenly cease if Israel extended such rights? If not, then your objection is a sham, if so - then there is nothing I can do to help you grasp the foundational hate that the Arab world - fed by Islamic teachings - has for any Jewish state or people.

Global actions need global support? Again - in an ideal world that would happen. But we don't live in an ideal world. In such a world, we could all accept different religions because different religious would accept and tolerate each other. There would be no greed - heck communism would actually be a working system - instead of a great idea on paper that will always be a failure in reality. You can't always get people on the same page - and self preservation requires a person, or in the context of what we are discussing - a nation - to act on its own.

To show you how global thinking cannot the only standard - look at how many nations have been ok with attacking / destroying Israel, it should be allowed to happen?

No one is in a position to threaten Iran regionally - they are only "threatened" because their acts of overt and clandestine violence (and support of such) against their neighbors threaten the regional and global stability. The bully on the field is mad because the rest of the world notices and some are not willing to just sit by. So everything from diplomacy to sanctions has been tried. Its failed - and the bully will whine when it gets its nose bloody because its trying to become more of a bully.

Well the Declaration of Independence is not a legally binding document. So how about we do look at a legally binding document -- a treaty.

Specifically the Treaty of Tripoli or to be more accurate "reaty of peace and friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli, of Barbary. It was signed by President Adams (the drafting of the treaty started with President Washington.

The US Senate approved this treaty on 7 June 1797 and it was ratified by the Senate and signed by President Adams on 10 June 1797. Let's look at Article 11 of that treaty.

Seems pretty clear and one can't get any more official than a ratified treaty.

Well the Declaration of Independence is not a legally binding document. So how about we do look at a legally binding document -- a treaty.

Specifically the Treaty of Tripoli or to be more accurate "reaty of peace and friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli, of Barbary. It was signed by President Adams (the drafting of the treaty started with President Washington.

The US Senate approved this treaty on 7 June 1797 and it was ratified by the Senate and signed by President Adams on 10 June 1797. Let's look at Article 11 of that treaty.

Seems pretty clear and one can't get any more official than a ratified treaty.

SS, is this the same Jefferson who talked out of both sides of his mouth ie, being vehemently opposed to the slave trade, yet who owned over 100 of them?

Is this the same Jefferson who penned this enlightened thought?

"The blacks, whether originally a distinct race, or made distant by time and circumstances, are inferior to the whites in the endowments of both body and mind"

or this gem about interracial coupling:

"Their amalgamation with the other color produces a degradation to which no lover of his country, no lover of excellence in the human character can innocently consent."

Had Jefferson been a bit more "christian", who knows how things may have turned out ;) Though I would love to check out a few of his psalms in his version of the bible.

Love debating you since you provoke thought.

Though the very basis of the Declaration is grounded in the fact that man is endowed by his Creator, to be alive, to be free and to pursue happiness.

Christianity was the only show in town once it came to revolutionary America. Therefore, when one speaks about God back then it is grounded in the christian faith.

I will leave you with this little nugget.

Justice Josiah Brewer wrote on February 29, 1892, “Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise; and in this sense and to this extent our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian.” [Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, 143 U.S. 457-458, 465-471, 36 L ed 226. (1892).]

Actually I just accidentally posted a counterpoint to your argument. ^

You are absolutely right that Declaration of Independence is not a binding document, but we based our constitution on the principals it set forth. I am not making a leap in logic, just climbing up that slippery slope.

The same Jefferson who felt his slaves had no chance at all of surviving if freed, yet tried on more than one ocassion to get Virginia to outlaw slavery.

Early in his career, yes. On the other hand, Jefferson's letter to mathematician Benjamin Banneker shows that he was capable of modifying his position. But I was commenting on your claim that the founders were all Christian, and you seem to be trying to change the subject.

Further, Benjamin Franklin refers to the Creator, yet absolutely denied Christ.

As for owning slaves, so did Washington and Madison.

Not even closely true. The grounding of the Declaration is an explanation of why we were currently at war with our Mother Country, and seeking separation. I've already explained the use of the word "Creator" in its proper context. Also you call it "the fact", when it is only opinion. A fact is something that can be shown as evidence. Not necessarily explained or understood, but shown. Therefore "his Creator" is not fact at all, just a belief. Also those words were composed by the same Jefferson you attempted to discredit. Are his words to be taken as proof of belief on the one hand, but dismissed as worthless on the other, at your convenience? My point is that the founders were not all Christians, or even mostly Christians, and you have yet to approach that. And I showed that the use of certain terms were common among Deistic followers of the Enlightenment.

This is true, but the question remains of whether the authors of the founding documents were adherents to that faith, or merely using terminology that would be acceptable to their fellows. And as to whether those fellows, like their modern counterparts, were actually followers or merely following what they grew up with as accepted practice.

Nice, but was Brewer an impartial judge or was he a devout Christian trying to prove a point with what was really only his opinion? Until you can show his lack of bias, his claims are as suspect as those of any modern Christian apologist, and his writings were more than 100 years after the fact.

Actually you didn't. John Adams not only signed the treaty, but wholly endorsed it. Adams was a regular churchgoer, but it was a Unitarian church and Adams himself claimed a belief in God, but denied that Jesus was divine. So Adams too was no Christian.

Actually both are firmly rooted in the writings of John Locke, the father of the enlightenment, and the writings of Greek and Roman philosophers and of more recent French adherents of Locke. There is nothing in either document that can be linked even indirectly to the teachings of the Bible.

Rebellion against kings, leaders and others placed in authority does seem to be a christian principle or excuse. However it is NOT a biblical one.

The proof that I pointed out was for Platapus, sorry.

The point I was trying to make is that people are influenced by what they are taught, their experiences and the like. My question therefore is why did they mention God if they were attempting a completely secular movement?

John Adams:

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”


John Adams belonged to the Unitarian church. Unitarianism is a, Christian theological movement, therefore Christian.

An aside: reason I picked out flaws in TJ is that you originally brought him up. He was very contradictory in his thoughts.

When you speak of context of "Creator" here we have Jefferson's original version of that line:

Adams original version:

Somewhere somehow it got changed to "their Creator."

Thousands of theories abound about why.

Franklin:

It cannot hold that Franklin was a Deist, it sounds that would have come from a christian.

I would bring up the other two but my eyes are dead tired.

Maccabean Revolt

The Revolt of the Ten Tribes

Sorry about the emphasis.

Maccabean Revolt had much to do with Gentiles being in a place they had no business being in and attempting to make Jews worship strange gods. So the Gentile was rightfiuly shown the door by force.

The so called lost ten tribes revolted but they in essence revolted against God Himself. Big No No so they were eventually defeated and dispersed by the Assyrians. But in the end there is good news for some of them Then said God, Call his name Lo-ammi: for ye are not my people, and I will not be your God. Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured nor numbered; and it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people, there it shall be said unto them, Ye are the sons of the living God.

The above verses describes many of those in the ten tribes coming home again.

Anyways I guess what I really want to say is just because rebellion is recorded in the Bible. It shouldn't be automatically assumed to be permissible for any and everyone. Usually those that do rebel end up paying a heavy price for it.

You bring up a fabulous point. It boils down to having faith or a belief in what you are doing is morally right. One is an example of what one might consider righteousness and the other hubris.