[Penelope_Grey]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Welcome to the club - I am atheist, too. Which does not mean that I am not religious.

When I looked up the word atheist, it said it was a word to describe a person who denies or does not believe in the existence of supreme or godly beings. So how can you be an atheist and religious?

Originally Posted by Skybird

It means that without conflict the Nazis still would be there, and me and my parents would have spend all our lives in a Nazi society that now would be many decades old - what could easily have led me to become a member of the SS - and being convinced that I am right and just in my Nazi beliefs - i would never have known anything else than Nazism.

Well, you say without conflict the Nazis would still be here, the german people voted in an extreme right wing party with strong military tendancies and then they were surprised when Hitler went to war? No disrespects for any German past or present, but had they not voted in Hitler and his Nazi buddies in the first place, then quite possibly things would have been fine. We will never know for sure.

I understand full well that sometimes conflict is unavoidable and often people are forced into it. But the crux of the matter is Chamberlain did his best to prevent an outbreak of hostilities, Avon Lady snarls at him for that, but I personally think at the time he was doing the right thing. Nobody wanted another all out war especially after the Great War, he was trying to find a peaceful solution. Not only that Britain was not in a position to fight the Third Reich, lots say had Hitler waited a while longer before the war started it would have turned out better for him, my real question is why didn't America do something? Or better still, Germany's next door neighbour, the French? America was not interested in the least, and France had their own agenda with the Germans. It was left in the British Lap. To sort out, and despite the Empire and such forth, the British were just not ready. That appeasement bought the UK valuable time to prepare.

As Antony Hopkins in Mask of Zorro said, "you would have fought very bravely, and died very quickly" Had Germany beaten the UK, then what? They would have been unstoppable.

Originally Posted by Skybird

Neither do I. the only reason making me do so is their ideology, and when that ideology is expaning and tries to rule my own home. Nazis. Scientologists. Islam. Note that for example I do not attack Hindus, although there are a lot of bad things to remark about hinduism: widow burning. Apes under the protection of religion - helping to spread desease and being a problem in villages were they steal food - people die of starvation becaue of this. A highly injust and inhuman caste system. Point is, they do stay were they are and do not try to expand over all the world, submitting and ruling others and make them like they are themselves. I must not like their system, but I also must not try to see my thoughts through in other parts of the world were i am not welcomed, and whereI am not at home. - Ideologies that I use to attack are not that self-restrictive, and they do not care if they are welcomed by the locals or not: they try to enforce their presence against their will. And this is where I stop debating, get my sword ready, draw a line and tell them: not one step further.

I don't agree with postive discrimination any more than I do negative discrimination. In the UK Sikhs are exempt from wearing a crash helment due to their religious requirements to wear a turban. That kind of thing is unfair. I don't agree with it, EVERYBODY should wear a helmet. I can't say I hate the muslim religion or anything, I do understand they have a war doctrine and such, but I remember that its only a handful that use their religion as a shield to carry out criminal acts. Therefore I avoid trying to tar them all with the same brush.

Originally Posted by Skybird

"Those without swords can still die upon them." Not seeking battle in the first to push one's own agenda is one thing, and noble. Defending against someone who does - is another. You sound like having a good heart. There is nothing wrong in that, but vulnerability is no virtue, but simply vulenrability - not more. You can have a good heart and not like to fight - and learn fighting nevertheless:_ to defend yourself, or to protect the weak and those in need of help. Ever red about the king Arthur mythology? I love the old sagas, Arthur, Percivale, Dietrich of Bern, the Nibelungen. Much truth and insight about humans included in them.

The simple truth of it all is, I am a coward. I admit that. Freely. I am afraid of my own shadow. Which is why I approve fully of non-violent solutions to problems in as many areas as is possible. I don't criticise them that fight, they do what I am afraid to do, simple as that.

Originally Posted by Skybird

Be careful when dealing with people who are totally different from you. That you are disgusted by conflict, does not mean that others share your attitude. For them conflict to overcome you may very well be a legitimate tool. What do you do then? Turn the other cheek? Maybe they want your head.

I wouldn't know. I would hope that people wouldn't want to do such things to me. Maybe its wrong for me to hope. But it really makes me sad to think that so many people would just walk all over me with no regard for me to get what they want. I cannot be aggressive and nasty, its just not who I am.

Originally Posted by Skybird

Even if people like you and me eventually would find themselves on opposing sides, then. In that case I still could respect you more even when opposing me when I can see you have understandable reasons to think the way you do, than if you just parrot other's words and do not know what you are talking. An opponent with priciples I like better than an opponent who has none.

So, do you see me as a parrot and not knwoing what I am on about or are you saying that generally?