NationStates Jolt Archive

God Is Under Attack in America

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,508929,00.html

Glenn Beck has nothing but topical, intelligent and relevant points to add to what is obviously a critical issue that for some reason isn't on everyone's radar. Read and agree.

I'll go back and finish it, but after the first four paragraphs, I'm already about to scream at my computer. As the kids are sleeping, I will have to read this in small doses.

If the rest follows the same pattern, then...

http://www.boomspeed.com/looonatic/bsflag.gif



Edit: Yep. It did.

God Is Under Attack in America

No, I'm not!

lolwut

As we move toward socialism, our government is also moving from a renter of our rights to an outright owner of them. That is causing us to lose sight of who the real owner is: our creator.

When making a claim, provide no evidence.

A new poll says that 15 percent of us now have no religious belief — a number that has nearly doubled since 1990.

...and this is a bad thing why?

So what's the solution? How do we stop this surge in people putting their elected leaders above their creator?

I'm not sure what's sadder, the fact that Beck asserts that people actually do this, or the fact that he's probably serious.

I actually watch FOX over the weekends, it's the masochist in me but I also feel I should try to at least hear the point of view.

Glenn Beck is extraordinary in making me actually think that Bill O'Reilly isn't that bad, maybe he's mellowed in age, maybe the interviews with Barack Obama caused him to at least look as though he's trying to be partisan but I think it's just that Glenn Beck is such a parody of bigoted stupidity that the comparison works to O'Reilly's favour.

I feel the need for a more thorough rebuttal. Unfortunately, I hesitate to engage in battles of wits with unarmed foes like Glenn Beck.

So I'll let my hero George Carlin do it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHgYrK7B4-w

:D

*Twitch... twitch... twitch...* I want the few minutes I just wasted on that piece of drivel back.

why even publish this ?

I feel the need for a more thorough rebuttal. Unfortunately, I hesitate to engage in battles of wits with unarmed foes like Glenn Beck.

So I'll let my hero George Carlin do it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHgYrK7B4-w

:D

:hail: George Carlin.

Of course another thought comes to mind - if God exists, it is possible that he/she can take care of him/herself and doesn't need our help at all.

I'm surprised he didn't declare that Allah and Yahweh were both plotting against God.

:D

I liked the Ben Franklin quote and how it said that you should be good to others, and I like how the last paragraph admits that Bible-thumpers are all talk when it comes to morality.

Also, huzzah George Carlin.

I feel the need for a more thorough rebuttal. Unfortunately, I hesitate to engage in battles of wits with unarmed foes like Glenn Beck.

So I'll let my hero George Carlin do it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHgYrK7B4-w

:D

*wishes he had sound at work*

...I'll throw a quote out, since I feel like it.

The most preposterous notion that H. sapiens has ever dreamed up is that the Lord God of Creation, Shaper and Ruler of all the Universes, wants the saccharine adoration of His creatures, can be swayed by their prayers, and becomes petulant if He does not receive this flattery. Yet this absurd fantasy, without a shred of evidence to bolster it, pays all the expenses of the oldest, largest, and least productive industry in all history.

*wishes he had sound at work*

...I'll throw a quote out, since I feel like it.

I like that. :)

*wishes he had sound at work*

...I'll throw a quote out, since I feel like it.

God supports prostitution!? Oh, wait, Heinlein said non-productive... . Prostitutes actually do sell a product.

Look, IT IS YOU who must fence in weasels!!! YOU who must teach them of the one true God! and YOU who must continue to spread the message of our principles under God to destroy Weasels!

I like that. :)

Me too. :tongue:

I had to check the date on this just to make sure it hadn't been posted three years ago. Sad that he can think this is something new and insightful he's bringing to the three people not on NSG that read it.

I had to check the date on this just to make sure it hadn't been posted three years ago. Sad that he can think this is something new and insightful he's bringing to the three people not on NSG that read it.

Could it be Alzheimer's? If so, he won't be a bother for long.

oh those silly fanatics. "god" is NOT "under attack" anywhere. the only thing "under attack" is that people are MAYBE waking up to the reality that the self deceptions they've been coercing each other to pretend to know about it, are simply that.

i wasn't born into a universe of masters and servants. i was born into a universe, statistical in nature, totally impersonal, and limitlessly, wonderously, gratifyingly diverse.

a universe that does not exclude something big, friendly and invisible, that is close enough for government work to the god of every monotheistic belief, but also a very big universe in which infallability is both highly improbable and absolutely not required.

and certainly not one, in which one peculiar life form, on one tiney dust mote, among a near infinity of other such tiney dust motes, can make any remotely rational claim, to being the center of.

i'm sure what is being bitched about, the nature of vested corporate media, with pretentions of religeosity, being what it is, has to do with nothing more nor less, then the collective ego of one faction of one system of belief, and the arbitraryness of emotional attatchment to it.

2 things:
As we move toward socialism, our government is also moving from a renter of our rights to an outright owner of them. That is causing us to lose sight of who the real owner is: our creator.
Well, Glen if you had read the bible you would know Heaven is not a democracy either. God rules superme unmatched with His son, although this one time someone tried but failed to claim His throne, and souls still remain servents. So, it's not a socialist system; it is more of a feudal system.


I worry about Glen. He does seem to be showing signs of a syphilitic mind.
So what's the solution? How do we stop this surge in people putting their elected leaders above their creator?
It's actually quite simple: "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you."

Principle No. 2 says not only that you believe in God, but that he is the center of your life. So prove it not by telling everyone else what principles and values to have, but by living them out yourself.

Only then can our country survive the attack on God

...I don't know what he is going for here.

I'm just going to point out one little thing no one else seems to have noticed:

THIS IS FROM FOX NEWS

I'm just going to point out one little thing no one else seems to have noticed:

THIS IS FROM FOX NEWSActually, the only one who hasn't noticed is greed and death:why even publish this ?Because they're FOX, g&d. It's what they do.

I'm just going to point out one little thing no one else seems to have noticed:

THIS IS FROM FOX NEWS

You should hear him on the Radio, Fox News makes him out to be Downright Sane in comparison...


And thats saying something, lol...That Weasel comment was a speech of his, lol...

Seriously though... Fox is probably the most fascist and corrupt of all the news networks. Why the hell they are still in business is beyond me. But on second reading, a bible thumper finally says something intelligent about their beliefs:
"So prove it not by telling everyone else what principles and values to have, but by living them out yourself."
Finally.

Seriously though... Why the hell they are still in business is beyond me...

They (Rupert Murdoch) owns such shows like The Simpsons, Family Guy, and various other media news outlets. Which sells crap and fixes our eyes to the screen... No offense ment to Simpsons and Family Guy.

No, I'm not!

I'll defend Thee from Glenn Beck and his ilk, my LORD!

Seriously though... Fox is probably the most fascist and corrupt of all the news networks.

Nah. Close seconds to... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediaset

...and this is a bad thing why?
Come on, it's clear: atheists = commies! AIEEE!!! COMMIES!!!

God Is Under Attack in America

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,508929,00.html

Glenn Beck has nothing but topical, intelligent and relevant points to add to what is obviously a critical issue that for some reason isn't on everyone's radar. Read and agree.

Can't Fox hit him with the Banhammer for below par trolling?

The stupid started burning by the third paragraph and just got worse. What gets me isn't that people write this shit, it's that people read it and actually take it seriously.

See! This is why I am incapable of being nice to Americans!

If 'God' is under attack, he can always defend himself. He doesn't need ignorant little prats to be his mouth piece. Whatever happened to the hands on the approach of fire and brimstone?

IfWhatever happened to the hands on the approach of fire and brimstone?
It's them new environmental laws. By the time God gets the impact studies done and has the open forum for public comment... well... He has gotten bored with waiting and forgets about it. Not even He has that kind of patience.

I actually watch FOX over the weekends, it's the masochist in me but I also feel I should try to at least hear the point of view.

Glenn Beck is extraordinary in making me actually think that Bill O'Reilly isn't that bad, maybe he's mellowed in age, maybe the interviews with Barack Obama caused him to at least look as though he's trying to be partisan but I think it's just that Glenn Beck is such a parody of bigoted stupidity that the comparison works to O'Reilly's favour.
do you think that fox put him on so that "normal" people would watch him and rant? is he some kind of joke? can there possible be enough people in the world who agree with him to justify giving him a show?

do you think that fox put him on so that "normal" people would watch him and rant? is he some kind of joke? can there possible be enough people in the world who agree with him to justify giving him a show?

I mean, I just watched the Jon Stewart mauling of Jim Cramer and the simple fact is that, on some level, Glenn Beck is just entertainment, that's what it is, that's what news has become.

It's entertainment, it's controversial, it's forceful, whatever it is, it isn't news. It would be funny if it wasn't so damned serious. People justify their own bigotry because of that shit, shit based on lies, lies that are knowingly told.

The Jim Cramer stuff, woah, but you know, why aren't news channels being put in court for not only not doing their job but actually making up complete lies. There's a good book called Flat Earth News by Nick Davies, it's simply clear that the media puts the 'story' in front of the facts, even worse, entertainment before the story.

And again, it's all our fault, we watch the news eh?

The phrase that rolls and rolls around my head is that we're 'sleepwalking through history', assuming someone, somewhere knows what s/he's talking about.

Christ, I feel I could go into an essay post right now, the problem is that money protects money, manipulating markets, buying the law, owning the media and generally screwing over everyone else.

I still believe that the majority of people are good people, but the fact that they're good places them at a disadvantage.

It's depressing.

I'm depressed.

Beck isn't the only rightwing nutter mouthing off. Ari Fleischer was on Hardball this week actually insisting, after all this time and all that has happened between then and now, that Saddam Hussein was the person who attacked the US on 9/11. AND that we have to make sure he can never attack us again. From beyond the grave, I guess. :headbang: When is someone just going to throw a net over all these loons running around loose?

Also, thank (a) god for George Carlin and that Heinlein quote. ;)

I'll defend Thee from Glenn Beck and his ilk, my LORD!

Okay, have fun.

If 'God' is under attack, he can always defend himself. He doesn't need ignorant little prats to be his mouth piece. Whatever happened to the hands on the approach of fire and brimstone?

*Sighs*

Y'know, you make ONE silly teenage show-off display, and two thousand years later people are asking for an encore.

Oh My Me!

I mean, I just watched the Jon Stewart mauling of Jim Cramer and the simple fact is that, on some level, Glenn Beck is just entertainment, that's what it is, that's what news has become.

It's entertainment, it's controversial, it's forceful, whatever it is, it isn't news. It would be funny if it wasn't so damned serious. People justify their own bigotry because of that shit, shit based on lies, lies that are knowingly told.

The Jim Cramer stuff, woah, but you know, why aren't news channels being put in court for not only not doing their job but actually making up complete lies. There's a good book called Flat Earth News by Nick Davies, it's simply clear that the media puts the 'story' in front of the facts, even worse, entertainment before the story.

And again, it's all our fault, we watch the news eh?

The phrase that rolls and rolls around my head is that we're 'sleepwalking through history', assuming someone, somewhere knows what s/he's talking about.

Christ, I feel I could go into an essay post right now, the problem is that money protects money, manipulating markets, buying the law, owning the media and generally screwing over everyone else.

I still believe that the majority of people are good people, but the fact that they're good places them at a disadvantage.

It's depressing.

I'm depressed.
oh start a thread on the stewart/cramer thing. its worth discussing.

i wondered if mr cramer had to go to the hospital after the interview to get a transfusion after being cut up so badly by stewart.

or if there was a point where he broke down and cried like a baby.

Beck isn't the only rightwing nutter mouthing off. Ari Fleischer was on Hardball this week actually insisting, after all this time and all that has happened between then and now, that Saddam Hussein was the person who attacked the US on 9/11. AND that we have to make sure he can never attack us again. From beyond the grave, I guess. :headbang: When is someone just going to throw a net over all these loons running around loose?

Also, thank (a) god for George Carlin and that Heinlein quote. ;)
fleischer was so fucking self righteous with chris matthews having the NERVE to suggest that fleischer was rewriting history.

someone has to stop these bushies. if it has to be chris matthews then at least someone has the balls to disagree with fools.

I think is a sort of Good Luck message and for the most part it is harmless. I am not sure why it is an issue at all.

If 'God' is under attack, he can always defend himself. He doesn't need ignorant little prats to be his mouth piece. Whatever happened to the hands on the approach of fire and brimstone?
God is a very elderly gentleman and sometimes he has difficulty getting out of his house. You'll understand what he feels like when you're ∞+1 years old.

oh start a thread on the stewart/cramer thing. its worth discussing.

i wondered if mr cramer had to go to the hospital after the interview to get a transfusion after being cut up so badly by stewart.

or if there was a point where he broke down and cried like a baby.

I'm sure there already was one, I did search but couldn't find it.

I might, I'd have think about what my OP was, so many angles.

It's like the first half of an article. It keeps building and building to a point and oh wait, there's the end.

I'm sure there already was one, I did search but couldn't find it.

I might, I'd have think about what my OP was, so many angles.
i was surprised and pleased that stewart brought out that old interview where cramer talked about manipulating the market.

i was surprised and pleased that stewart brought out that old interview where cramer talked about manipulating the market.

I just.., I'm watching it again, they're still in denial these people, Stewart could have, should have really just crushed him. He said himself he felt uncomfortable.

I can picture how clever they all thought they were, how they manipulated these bozos, and the media were utterly complicit in this.

..and it's not about people who took out mortgages they couldn't afford, it's ordinary people who put money into the system that was then treated as monopoly money.

It's downright criminal, it really is, and the government has not asked proper questions, it hasn't been reported enough, the simple fact that people were taking our money, placed in good faith, and just used it to play their game.

I have friends in banking and I suppose I knew it all the time, I half-heard the way they talked about markets, the bigging-up they did, how clever they were, how they fooled this and that, it just wasn't interesting to me at the time, I didn't really listen or consider the full ramifications of what they were talking about.

As I say, it's depressing.

..and this idea on FOX that it's all over-blown, that it was a blip in the market and it's being overblown to implement some socialist agenda.

People have lost jobs, houses, livelihoods and it's still all just a game, just an angle to attack, that we should all just put our money back in the markets and accept a 'sorry'.

I almost can't believe there's not more anger, why aren't people in court?

I'm not asking for mob justice, just any justice at all would do.

*Sighs*

Y'know, you make ONE silly teenage show-off display, and two thousand years later people are asking for an encore.

Oh My Me!

What do you expect when all you serve is fish, bread and whine? What, no cheese? Of course people are going to cry for more. The first round was lacking. If it had been better, there would have been more converts. That's what happens when you half-ass it.

God is a very elderly gentleman and sometimes he has difficulty getting out of his house. You'll understand what he feels like when you're ∞+1 years old.

I wasn't aware that God had to go outside to rain the fires of heaven onto us puny mortals. Seems he's always been able to do it from the comfort of his home. If he can't any more, he ought to surrender to the spry and deviously youthful Zeus.

..and this idea on FOX that it's all over-blown, that it was a blip in the market and it's being overblown to implement some socialist agenda.

People have lost jobs, houses, livelihoods and it's still all just a game, just an angle to attack, that we should all just put our money back in the markets and accept a 'sorry'.

I almost can't believe there's not more anger, why aren't people in court?

I'm not asking for mob justice, just any justice at all would do.
fox is trying to turn the natural anger of the public against the president. it works for some people but only if you engage in some pretty severe lies.

the justice department is investigating the big boys of finance. they have.....i dont remember the number but it was over 30....open investigations of companies that they said that if they named names that everyone would recognize who they were.

the crash has been so swift and the government reaction so fast that it seems like the FBI has had forever to work on this. but it hasnt been but 6 months since its been obvious that criminal activity has (helped to) caused this. building a complicated criminal case against hundreds of people takes more time than this.

we were taken for a ride by unscrupulous people who gave us the impression that if we just went along with them we would all have a chance to get rich. the bush administration didnt believe in regulation in the worst of circumstances and didnt hire people who were competent to their jobs in regulatory agencies anyway.

yeah. people need to go to jail for this.

fox is trying to turn the natural anger of the public against the president. it works for some people but only if you engage in some pretty severe lies.

the justice department is investigating the big boys of finance. they have.....i dont remember the number but it was over 30....open investigations of companies that they said that if they named names that everyone would recognize who they were.

the crash has been so swift and the government reaction so fast that it seems like the FBI has had forever to work on this. but it hasnt been but 6 months since its been obvious that criminal activity has (helped to) caused this. building a complicated criminal case against hundreds of people takes more time than this.

we were taken for a ride by unscrupulous people who gave us the impression that if we just went along with them we would all have a chance to get rich. the bush administration didnt believe in regulation in the worst of circumstances and didnt hire people who were competent to their jobs in regulatory agencies anyway.

yeah. people need to go to jail for this.

..coming back to the OP, the media needs to look at itself as well, ultimately one might hope we all do.

I feel that the Cramer interview should be shown in schools across the world, certainly America, certainly the UK, anyone over 15.

I hope he lives up to his deal.

I mean, the problem is that the world is so complicated now and we trust people to be regulating, it's clearly not possible, it's probably a better world than minority class hierarchy but it's not perfect.

Evolution is so damn slow.

..coming back to the OP, the media needs to look at itself as well, ultimately one might hope we all do.

I feel that the Cramer interview should be shown in schools across the world, certainly America, certainly the UK, anyone over 15.

I hope he lives up to his deal.

I mean, the problem is that the world is so complicated now and we trust people to be regulating, it's clearly not possible, it's probably a better world than minority class hierarchy but it's not perfect.

Evolution is so damn slow.
well he cant have a show touting stocks that tank the next day. or recommending buying stocks in companies that have already tanked and may go into bankruptcy shortly after you buy them.

so doing a muckraking show would be a terrific change for him. not that cnbc seems inclined to do shows that might make corporate bigwigs angry.

What do you expect when all you serve is fish, bread and whine? What, no cheese? Of course people are going to cry for more. The first round was lacking. If it had been better, there would have been more converts. That's what happens when you half-ass it.

HEY!

Capitalize My pronouns, will ya? :p

I like that. :)

RAH had lots of fun stuff to say (http://atheism.about.com/library/quotes/bl_q_RHeinlein.htm) RE religion. ;)

My personal fave:

'God split himself into a myriad parts that he might have friends.' This may not be true, but it sounds good - and is no sillier than any other theology.

We're attacking God and we're winning? Awesome. America is super strong!

well he cant have a show touting stocks that tank the next day. or recommending buying stocks in companies that have already tanked and may go into bankruptcy shortly after you buy them.

so doing a muckraking show would be a terrific change for him. not that cnbc seems inclined to do shows that might make corporate bigwigs angry.

I think a lot of people are in shock, in denial about the actual ramifications of what occurred, from banking to media to government and more, to some extent myself included.

If I read back my posts on the subject since October, I understood the situation but, until now, I didn't feel it, I was dispassionately commenting. To be fair it mostly doesn't affect me, yet.

I don't think it's the end of the world, I do think it requires a serious look in the mirror, about the kind of world we want to live in.

It doesn't even touch on the utter criminality of something like the arms trade, inequality, dictator states.

It's the prisoner pact, or whatever the term is, that we benignly accept our place, accept the way of the world.

I'll go to work on Monday as usual I guess.

We're attacking God and we're winning? Awesome. America is super strong!

No you're not, no you're not, and no you're not. o_o

Trust Me, if people were attacking Me, I would know.

I think a lot of people are in shock, in denial about the actual ramifications of what occurred, from banking to media to government and more, to some extent myself included.

If I read back my posts on the subject since October, I understood the situation but, until now, I didn't feel it, I was dispassionately commenting. To be fair it mostly doesn't affect me, yet.

I don't think it's the end of the world, I do think it requires a serious look in the mirror, about the kind of world we want to live in.

It doesn't even touch on the utter criminality of something like the arms trade, inequality, dictator states.

It's the prisoner pact, or whatever the term is, that we benignly accept our place, accept the way of the world.

I'll go to work on Monday as usual I guess.
what else can you do?

the little guy put his money where the "experts" told him to. mutual fund retirement accounts that spread out his risk.

we werent told "the truth" that the financial guys were knowingly playing hot potato with our money hoping that they would be able to get (themselves) out before the crash came. knowing that the crash would come because they were working a bubble.

how were we to know how much of this money was an illusion because it was based on worthless assets--bets rather than products?

i feel LUCKY that while our retirement accounts have lost between 50 and 60% of their value my husband hasnt retired yet so we dont need to live off of that reduced sum and it can have some chance to rebound over time. LUCKY that im not in the situation of my neice's inlaws who are semi-retired and have lost 75% of their retirement nest egg. my sister feels LUCKY that she didnt have a retirement account that could be destroyed by these rich fucks who thought only of their own potential fortunes.

so all you can do is be grateful that you have a job to go to and that they havent taken that from you too.

No you're not, no you're not, and no you're not. o_o

Trust Me, if people were attacking Me, I would know.

Can I have a pony?

Can I have a pony?

*Turns Desperate Measures into Lisa Simpson*

*Turns Desperate Measures into Lisa Simpson*

Now, I'm boring and nothing is funny. Goddamn it!

i feel LUCKY that while our retirement accounts have lost between 50 and 60% of their value my husband hasnt retired yet so we dont need to live off of that reduced sum and it can have some chance to rebound over time. LUCKY that im not in the situation of my neice's inlaws who are semi-retired and have lost 75% of their retirement nest egg.

I mean, that's it right there. Those are horrendous figures and you're right, compared to some people, you are lucky.

:(

I wasn't aware that God had to go outside to rain the fires of heaven onto us puny mortals. Seems he's always been able to do it from the comfort of his home. If he can't any more, he ought to surrender to the spry and deviously youthful Zeus.
Zeus? Zeus is a snot-nosed nobody. A perverted 12 year-old who somehow ended up at the top of a very short ladder.
Ra, now there's a diety with some style, some class, some history, and the head of a bird (which is always helpful). Ra has staying power; Ra has sun power; Ra can even join with other gods for short periods of time in order to become Atum-Ra, Amun-Ra, Ra-Horakhty or Voltron-Ra (though the last one was only a one off cross-over and isn't considered canon in either continuity).

No, I'm not!
I dare say the religious right would attempt to have your balls if you went to America.
why even publish this ?
It gets Glenn hard.
Can't Fox hit him with the Banhammer for below par trolling?
Their standards are really falling.
If 'God' is under attack, he can always defend himself. He doesn't need ignorant little prats to be his mouth piece. Whatever happened to the hands on the approach of fire and brimstone?
In these tough economic times God can only afford to rain fire on the very worst sinners. Me.
We're attacking God and we're winning? Awesome. America is super strong!

AMERICA! FUCK YEAH!

I love Glenn Beck. He is passionate about his beliefs, ardent about his research, and plain spoken to the people.

That he asserts his right to believe as he chooses, does not hide his beliefs, and supports them on his program; only makes me like him more.

I don't care what anyone else's religon is, so long as they don't preach death to non-believers that is....

I just want someone to stand up for what they believe, support it intelligently and passionately, and be willing to take the slings and arrrows that come.

Glenn Beck may seem crazy in these time we live in, but I believe he is one of the most sane. He isn't attacking the "left" or the "right"...he is exposing ALL of their (politicians) faults for US to see. He is waging a "war" against a government gone CRAZY.

I support him and his efforts. Mock all you want, ignore his warnings, this Nation (the United States) is in fact in trouble; MOST of the trouble is created by politicians; on both sides of the fence...and riding it too.

TP

I love Glenn Beck. He is passionate about his beliefs, ardent about his research.

He doesn't do research. There are many mistakes in that article.

He doesn't do research. There are many mistakes in that article.

Ok, post them; and post your evidence as to why they are mistakes....anyone can type anything...doesn't make it so.

(also...I should restate...I believe Glenn Beck does research AND has staff that also conducts research) just to be clear.

That he asserts his right to believe as he chooses, does not hide his beliefs, and supports them on his program; only makes me like him more.


Yep, he has the right to believe as he chooses that he has the right to make us believe as he chooses.

...wait, what? :confused:

Yep, he has the right to believe as he chooses that he has the right to make us believe as he chooses.

...wait, what? :confused:


Where did I say you had to believe the way he wants you too? Or that I want you to believe the way I do? I didn't, he may have. He may WANT you to belive as he does, but he isn't forcing anyone to do so. You don't even HAVE to read his stuff or watch/listen to his program. Imagine that!

Where did I say you had to believe the way he wants you too? Or that I want you to believe the way I do? I didn't, he may have. He may WANT you to belive as he does, but he isn't forcing anyone to do so. You don't even HAVE to read his stuff or watch/listen to his program. Imagine that!

You know, I might be okay with Pat Robertson or Pope Palpatine or even that nut with the crazy hair on the street corner telling me what he does and doesn't want me to believe and in that sense, you're right. I don't have to listen.

But Glen Beck works for a news network. Sure, he's a 'commentator' which is a fancy way of saying 'spin doctor', but I certainly don't find it a sign of his character. I find it a sign of his arrogance and a sign of his news company's lack of credibility.

My faith in Christ isn't dependent on the beliefs of any other and the way I live my life is my message.

Goddamn it!

No, I won't.

I dare say the religious right would attempt to have your balls if you went to America.

I quite enjoyed My trip to New York last January, and nobody seemed to want My balls.

No matter how much I offered them. :(

You know, I might be okay with Pat Robertson or Pope Palpatine or even that nut with the crazy hair on the street corner telling me what he does and doesn't want me to believe and in that sense, you're right. I don't have to listen.

But Glen Beck works for a news network. Sure, he's a 'commentator' which is a fancy way of saying 'spin doctor', but I certainly don't find it a sign of his character. I find it a sign of his arrogance and a sign of his news company's lack of credibility.

My faith in Christ isn't dependent on the beliefs of any other and the way I live my life is my message.

He isn't a news man. He has a commentary show, an opinion show, and the piece listed here is just that...opinion.

For the record, I fully support your last two lines of text.

Ok, post them; and post your evidence as to why they are mistakes....anyone can type anything...doesn't make it so.

(also...I should restate...I believe Glenn Beck does research AND has staff that also conducts research) just to be clear.

All right.

"endowed by their creator" is not a reference to the Christian God. It would be "the Creator"

"Whether our founders believed in organized religion or not, each of them abided by the laws of morality and nature's God"

nature's God is rather nebulous and is not a direct reference to the Christian God. Never mind the fact that the writings of Jefferson who Glenn left out shows that though he thought the teachings of Jesus were good; he reviled Religion. That is why he was a Deist.

Quoting Franklin was a cheap dodge. He sort of forgot to mention that Madison and Jefferson and their views of the seperation of church and state. Franklin said many things and did many things there were very un Christian. One I have liked was:

Behold the rain which descends from heaven upon our vineyards, there it enters the roots of the vines, to be changed into wine, a constant proof that God loves us, and loves to see us happy.

He clearly doesn't understand the establishment clause. It gives us the right to have freedom of religion and freedom from religion.

I support him and his efforts.

His efforts to what? Turn America into a theocracy?

I am God. That's not what I want, and I won't allow it.

He isn't a news man. He has a commentary show, an opinion show, and the piece listed here is just that...opinion.

For the record, I fully support your last two lines of text.

His commentary show is on a 'news' network. :tongue:

God is a very elderly gentleman and sometimes he has difficulty getting out of his house. You'll understand what he feels like when you're ∞+1 years old.

Remember when He used to say "Let There Be Light" and lo, there was light? Now, God has to use The Clapper to get around in His House.

All right.

"endowed by their creator" is not a reference to the Christian God. It would be "the Creator"

"Whether our founders believed in organized religion or not, each of them abided by the laws of morality and nature's God"

nature's God is rather nebulous and is not a direct reference to the Christian God. Never mind the fact that the writings of Jefferson who Glenn left out shows that though he thought the teachings of Jesus were good; he reviled Religion. That is why he was a Deist.

Quoting Franklin was a cheap dodge. He sort of forgot to mention that Madison and Jefferson and their views of the seperation of church and state. Franklin said many things and did many things there were very un Christian. One I have liked was:

Behold the rain which descends from heaven upon our vineyards, there it enters the roots of the vines, to be changed into wine, a constant proof that God loves us, and loves to see us happy.

He clearly doesn't understand the establishment clause. It gives us the right to have freedom of religion and freedom from religion.


Natures God was nebulous on purpose...the whole freedom to choose one's own religon thing...see? Glenn Beck used those words because that is how they appeared in the Constitution...

A lot of religous people revile "religon" per se...happens all the time.

Yes of course freedom from religon is our right as well, however; freedom from morality...that is a different ball game. Re-read the article; you may see that (I believe) it is more about the morality fundamental to the founding of our nation than the "religousness" of it.

Many of our finest most "moral" leaders had flaws, and many of the great flaws. Example: Lincoln owned slaves. Dosen't get much more despicable than that...and yet...how is Lincoln viewed today?

His efforts to what? Turn America into a theocracy?

I am God. That's not what I want, and I won't allow it.

You're just as bad as the rest of them Heikoku, for you it's all about you, and your schtick is nothing more than self-aggrandizement, you don't actually think about what you're saying, you have your angle and base yourself around it.

You're not unintelligent, I don't think Glenn Beck is either, you just have your angle and seek clap yourself on the back about how 'clever' you are.

You profess to support a president who wants a serious conversation about things yet damage him with your approach.

There's no resolution in your method, fine, enjoy it.

Natures God was nebulous on purpose...the whole freedom to choose one's own religon thing...see? Glenn Beck used those words because that is how they appeared in the Constitution...

A lot of religous people revile "religon" per se...happens all the time.

Yes of course freedom from religon is our right as well, however; freedom from morality...that is a different ball game. Re-read the article; you may see that (I believe) it is more about the morality fundamental to the founding of our nation than the "religousness" of it.

Many of our finest most "moral" leaders had flaws, and many of the great flaws. Example: Lincoln owned slaves. Dosen't get much more despicable than that...and yet...how is Lincoln viewed today?

Glenn Beck has an angle, it gets him ratings and makes him rich, I doubt he believes in anything but that.

You're just as bad as the rest of them Heikoku, for you it's all about you, and your schtick is nothing more than self-aggrandizement, you don't actually think about what you're saying, you have your angle and base yourself around it.

You're not unintelligent, I don't think Glenn Beck is either, you just have your angle and seek clap yourself on the back about how 'clever' you are.

You profess to support a president who wants a serious conversation about things yet damage him with your approach.

There's no resolution in your method, fine, enjoy it.

Okay, then let me give you the short version:

The reason why I claim to be God in these threads is quite simple: I intend to show that anyone can make that same claim.

The reason why I support Obama is he's not a Republican. Plain and simple.

And the time for serious conversation passed about six and a half years ago. Now it's about preventing the Republicans from doing more damage while we wait for them to fade into a well-deserved obscurity.

The reason why I support Obama is he's not a Republican. Plain and simple.

Your bile towards Hillary disproves this.

You're often little better than a partisan hack, seems such a waste of talent.

Your bile towards Hillary disproves this.

After her bile towards Obama and her supporters' bile towards me.

I would, however, still have supported her against McCain.

After her bile towards Obama and her supporters' bile towards me.

I would, however, still have supported her against McCain.

Really

Yes, it's all about you, and you showed no bile yourself.

Point is you're incredibly partisan, entirely contrary to what Barack Obama hopes to achieve, and you call yourself a supporter.

We digress, I simply call out the pot for insulting the kettle.

I think is a sort of Good Luck message and for the most part it is harmless. I am not sure why it is an issue at all.

Um. Because it is pack of outright lies, deliberate distortions, non sequiturs, loaded phrases, and twisted half-truths designed to cause confusion and misplaced outrage.

Here's the one thing: We are no longer "one nation under God" because God is under attack in America.

1. The U.S. has never really been "one nation under God." That phrase's primary use is of recent vintage. The evidence is ample that we were not created as a Christian nation.

See, e.g., http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/summer97/secular.html; http://www.nobeliefs.com/Tripoli.htm; http://ffrf.org/nontracts/xian.php

2. God is not under attack. Beck is unclear as to what he considers this attack, but separation of Church and State is neither hostile towards "God" or religion nor is it new. It is a basic principle even upheld by the Puritans and central to our Constitution.

See, e.g., http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14485690&postcount=1; http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14572952&postcount=70

Even if you're not a religious person, I need you to understand why this is so important and it all goes back to our country's founding.

Before that, most people only believed in the divine right of kings; the idea that God only gave power to kings and those kings were accountable to no one.

Um. Divine right of kings was a medieval idea (about 800 AD) that had lost it's steam by the 1600s. See, e.g., the Glorious Revolution of 1688-89, Thomas Hobbes, John Locke.

But what made America unique was that it was founded on divine providence.

Remember the term "endowed by their creator" in the Declaration of Independence? That was a revolutionary concept at the time and it means that God actually had a hand in the world's greatest experiment in democracy.

Again, this "unique[ness]" and "revoluntionary concept" is being vastly overstated. The Founders relied on the works of the Ancient Greeks, Hobbes, Locke, and other ideas.

More importantly, as already noted, the Founders deliberately did not found a religious establishment. The purposefully separated Church and State.

Whether our founders believed in organized religion or not, each of them abided by the laws of morality and nature's God, which is why they put that term in the very first line of the declaration.

If you still doubt the founders' views on religion, then just listen to how Ben Franklin described the religion of America:

"I believe in one God, the creator of the universe. That he governs it by his providence. That he ought to be worshipped. That the most acceptable service we render to him is in doing good to his other children. That the soul of man is immortal and will be treated with justice in another life respecting its conduct in this."

Simply mistates the record.

See, e.g., http://www.postfun.com/pfp/worbois.html; http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/summer97/secular.html; http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12334202&postcount=55

Like them, I believe that the true secret to our country's success is the belief that our rights are given to us by God and lent to our government only so they can protect our rights to life and liberty while we pursue happiness.

As noted, this warps the views of the Founders to some degree.

Unfortunately, we're moving in the opposite direction.

We are? Bullshit. Utter bullshit. It was the Bush Administration's fear-based governing that posed a massive threat to our natural rights. We are finally headed back in the right direction.

As we move toward socialism, our government is also moving from a renter of our rights to an outright owner of them. That is causing us to lose sight of who the real owner is: our creator.

1. We are not moving towards socialism (except perhaps in the sense that any move that is not in the direction of unfettered and unregulated anarcho-capitalism is a "move toward socialism."

2. Complete lack of connection between "move toward socialism" and "lose sight" of natural rights.

3. Assumes that the only basis for natural rights is Christianity.

A new poll says that 15 percent of us now have no religious belief — a number that has nearly doubled since 1990.

So?

Also, this does not mean quite what Beck implies it means. It is a move from organized religion, but not necessarily from belief. Compare the current 15% not belonging to an organized religion to the founding of this nation when "[n]o more than 10 percent-- probably less-- of Americans in 1800 were members of congregations."

So what's the solution? How do we stop this surge in people putting their elected leaders above their creator?

Complete non sequitur. A decrease in organized religion =/= "people putting their elected leaders above their creator."

Moreover, should people put their religious faith above their belief in the Constitution and democratic values?

Only then can our country survive the attack on God.

There is no attack on God. Our nation faces real challenges and does not need Chicken Little complaining about imaginary ones.

EDIT: I'd like to add the immortal lyrics of John Prine's Fish and Whistle (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HdzdEQOHL_I):

Father forgive us for what we must do
You forgive us we'll forgive you
We'll forgive each other till we both turn blue
Then we'll whistle and go fishing in heaven.

I'm surprised he didn't declare that Allah and Yahweh were both plotting against God.

:D

Why point out the obvious? ;)

(joking)

Seriously though... Fox is probably the most fascist and corrupt of all the news networks. Why the hell they are still in business is beyond me. But on second reading, a bible thumper finally says something intelligent about their beliefs:
"So prove it not by telling everyone else what principles and values to have, but by living them out yourself."
Finally.

They are still "in business" for the same reason the Reichsministerium für Volksaufklärung und Propaganda was "in business" from 1933 until its demise in 1945.

;)

We're attacking God and we're winning? Awesome. America is super strong!

Your posts always crack me up, DM. :p

I quite enjoyed My trip to New York last January, and nobody seemed to want My balls.

No matter how much I offered them. :(

You never offered them to me! :mad:

*grumbles*

j/k

*snip*

We've danced this dance before and I won't re-tread old ground, but your inflammatory rhetoric and name-calling don't help your cause and is directly contrary to what President Obama stands for.

An occasional use of "Bible Spice" is one thing, but the constant barrage of insults, pettiness, and hate-speech is another. (Not to mention the repeated whiffs of misogyny.)

Not to mention the repeated whiffs of misogyny.

Ah, you couldn't resist this shit, could you?

The "misogyny" was towards ONE person what has shown quite a bit of misandry.

So, my whiffs aren't of misogyny, no matter how much you'd like to make it so (case in point, name ONE woman I insulted like that besides Hillary and, maybe, Bible Spice). It's more of a case of misHillary.

You never offered them to me! :mad:

*grumbles*

j/k

Well...

Do you want my balls?

My wife is back from the airport with my Step-daughter and her hubby in tow...will try to get back to this thread later. Sorry.

TP

Ah, you couldn't resist this shit, could you?

The "misogyny" was towards ONE person what has shown quite a bit of misandry.

So, my whiffs aren't of misogyny, no matter how much you'd like to make it so (case in point, name ONE woman I insulted like that besides Hillary and, maybe, Bible Spice). It's more of a case of misHillary.

Let's not hijack this thread, but your record is rather clear (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14220752&postcount=243).

Well...

Do you want my balls?

If I'm ever in need of an extra pair, maybe. :p

Let's not hijack this thread, but your record is rather clear (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14220752&postcount=243).

Yes. My record regarding those and only those two women is pretty clear. Which is why I asked you to provide examples involving women that did NOT try to use their own sexes as props, like both Hillary and Palin did.

Ok, post them; and post your evidence as to why they are mistakes....anyone can type anything...doesn't make it so.

(also...I should restate...I believe Glenn Beck does research AND has staff that also conducts research) just to be clear.
Despite what your money and Glenn Beck say, the US isn't, never was, and in all likelihood never will be one nation under God.

Incidentally, you really should have stuck with E pluribus unum.
I quite enjoyed My trip to New York last January, and nobody seemed to want My balls.

No matter how much I offered them. :(
They must not have recognised you.
His commentary show is on a 'news' network. :tongue:

I thought he was on FOX? :confused:

I thought he was on FOX? :confused:

Zing. ;)

So what's the solution? How do we stop this surge in people putting their elected leaders above their creator?

Yeah that's all well in good if I put either of them above myself. Which I don't.

Zing. ;)

Thank you, thank you, I'm here all week. Try the salmon!

Thank you, thank you, I'm here all week. Try the salmon!

*tries it* Not bad at all. :)

I don't care what anyone else's religon is, so long as they don't preach death to non-believers that is...
Glen beck doesn't seem to hold the same view:

"Like them, I believe that the true secret to our country's success is the belief that our rights are given to us by God and lent to our government only so they can protect our rights to life and liberty while we pursue happiness.

Unfortunately, we're moving in the opposite direction.

As we move toward socialism, our government is also moving from a renter of our rights to an outright owner of them. That is causing us to lose sight of who the real owner is: our creator."
The above quote from the OP's article seems to be a clear indication that the Christian faith (and, presumably, Glenn Beck's LDS faith) should inform and guide US political policy.

This is far more than tolerantly living besides those of all faiths and none.

My cousin was on Glen Beck's show.

They actually had an intellegent discussion.

I didnt know Glen Beck was capable of having intellegent discussions.

I love Glenn Beck. He is passionate about his beliefs, ardent about his research, and plain spoken to the people.

That he asserts his right to believe as he chooses, does not hide his beliefs, and supports them on his program; only makes me like him more.

I don't care what anyone else's religon is, so long as they don't preach death to non-believers that is....

I just want someone to stand up for what they believe, support it intelligently and passionately, and be willing to take the slings and arrrows that come.

Glenn Beck may seem crazy in these time we live in, but I believe he is one of the most sane. He isn't attacking the "left" or the "right"...he is exposing ALL of their (politicians) faults for US to see. He is waging a "war" against a government gone CRAZY.

I support him and his efforts. Mock all you want, ignore his warnings, this Nation (the United States) is in fact in trouble; MOST of the trouble is created by politicians; on both sides of the fence...and riding it too.

TP
the only thing that i love about glenn beck is that he is so batshit crazy that he makes an easy yet hilarious mark for stephen colbert.

Somebody may have said this already, but:

"God under attack"? I would think He could take of Herself ;)

I say this as a Christian....

I want my country back. Get the hell back in the pulpit and stop trying to turn this nation into a theocracy -- because that's worked SO well in the past (theocracies, that is).

I say this as a Christian....

I want my country back. Get the hell back in the pulpit and stop trying to turn this nation into a theocracy -- because that's worked SO well in the past (theocracies, that is).

What? It has! I mean, surely you can see how well it worked in places like Afghani... *ahem* Saudi A... Mmm... Spain during the Inqui... Erm... The states in the Cru... Mmm...

Look, the point is... mmm...

LOOK BEHIND YOU!

*Runs*

I say this as a Christian....

I want my country back. Get the hell back in the pulpit and stop trying to turn this nation into a theocracy -- because that's worked SO well in the past (theocracies, that is).

Silly Christians, Theocracies are for Ebil Mozlemz.

Silly Christians, Theocracies are for Ebil Mozlemz.

Not if the Republicans have anything to say about it ;)

Wait, did you just realized this?

God has been under attack, in every single nation who professes an Abramhaic religion for as long as the world is world.

God has been under attack, in every single nation who professes an Abramhaic religion for as long as the world is world.I followed you until I read that part. ...Huh?

I followed you until I read that part. ...Huh?

I think they may have a similar expression in Spanish as the one in Portuguese: "desde que o mundo é mundo" - it means literally "since the world is a world". A figure-of-speech translation would render it "since the dawn of time".

A new poll says that 15 percent of us now have no religious belief — a number that has nearly doubled since 1990.

Hopefully that figure will reach 100% by 2020.

Beck isn't the only rightwing nutter mouthing off. Ari Fleischer was on Hardball this week actually insisting, after all this time and all that has happened between then and now, that Saddam Hussein was the person who attacked the US on 9/11. AND that we have to make sure he can never attack us again. From beyond the grave, I guess. :headbang: When is someone just going to throw a net over all these loons running around loose?

Also, thank (a) god for George Carlin and that Heinlein quote. ;)

*takes out a gun*

Link. Now.

I think they may have a similar expression in Spanish as the one in Portuguese: "desde que o mundo é mundo" - it means literally "since the world is a world". A figure-of-speech translation would render it "since the dawn of time".Ah, alrighty. Thanks for the free translation help. :D

*takes out a gun*

Link. Now.*provides steampunk automatic shotgun with feeder belt from a rather large box*

I share similiar concerns with those of the above quoted poster, and thus am likewise interested in a link to the aforementioned interview to confirm that, indeed, people really are that stupid.

*provides steampunk automatic shotgun with feeder belt from a rather large box*

I share similiar concerns with those of the above quoted poster, and thus am likewise interested in a link to the aforementioned interview to confirm that, indeed, people really are that stupid.

Spoonfeeding..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04sLOdF6MWA

20 years of the Internet and people are still getting to grips with it :)

He doesn't exactly link Hussein to 9/11, it's not a great interview overall really, Chris Matthews should focus on one subject and hammer it in.

Spoonfeeding..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04sLOdF6MWA

20 years of the Internet and people are still getting to grips with it :)

He doesn't exactly link Hussein to 9/11, it's not a great interview overall really, Chris Matthews should focus on one subject and hammer it in.It's not that I haven't come to grips with how to use the internet, it's just that I'm wary of near-blind searches. I mean, just Google tenta-

*observes link*

So this is why I never paid attention to Matthews before, he sounds like my mother. Mirkana, kindly dispose of both of them... Along with whoever did Ari's lighting and/or makeup. The moons under his eyes were irritating.

Link. Now.

ARI FLEISCHER, FORMER BUSH WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: ... and I believe this still today. And of course, you and I disagree with it. But after September 11, having been hit once, how could we take a chance that Saddam might not strike again? And that‘s the threat that has been removed, and I think we‘re all safer with that threat being removed.

MATTHEWS: OK. And I am glad-

FLEISCHER: And I‘m proud to take that argument.

MATTHEWS: ... that we no longer have an administration that uses that kind of argument. Thank you very much, Ari Fleischer.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

MATTHEWS: “We could not take the chance that Saddam Hussein might strike again.”

Well, the problem with that statement is that Saddam Hussein didn‘t attack the United States on 9/11. A lot of people were led to believe he did by statements coming directly from President Bush and Vice President Cheney and that made the case for them, got them to back the war, a kind of “Remember Pearl Harbor” kind of thing.

And in fact, in addition to all that talk about nuclear threat from Saddam and all that mushroom cloud talk, this was the gut deal maker, the big, nasty, powerful untruth that led so many middle-of-the road Americans to buy the Bush case for war, that Saddam Hussein had attacked us on 9/11 and we had to stop him from attacking us again. Three quarters of the American people bought that untruth.

Ari told me this afternoon that this is not what he meant last night on HARDBALL. He didn‘t mean that Saddam Hussein attacked us on 9/11 but instead that Saddam had attacked other countries before and could attack us.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29676659/

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29676659/

Ah, thanks for that, I couldn't really hear everything over the shouting,

See! This is why I am incapable of being nice to Americans!
Even those who think it's a steaming pile?

Hopefully that figure will reach 100% by 2020.
Good Lord. Why do you want all of us gone? I agree that the bothersome Bible-thumpers need to be told that not everyone wants to be a Christian and needn't be forced to act like one, but there are plenty of us who lead a Christian life and don't feel the need to impose it on everyone else.

Even those who think it's a steaming pile?


Good Lord. Why do you want all of us gone? I agree that the bothersome Bible-thumpers need to be told that not everyone wants to be a Christian and needn't be forced to act like one, but there are plenty of us who lead a Christian life and don't feel the need to impose it on everyone else.

*raises hand*

I'm a christian.

Hopefully that figure will reach 100% by 2020.

Why? It's easier to argue somebody's ethics and feel smug about it if they're religious.

Atheists and agnostics don't have a pre-defined set of ethics and responsibilities that are outside of the legal system.

*takes out a gun*

Link. Now.

*provides steampunk automatic shotgun with feeder belt from a rather large box*

I share similiar concerns with those of the above quoted poster, and thus am likewise interested in a link to the aforementioned interview to confirm that, indeed, people really are that stupid.
Thank you to the posters who took care of this while I was offline. The reason I didn't link it in the first place was that it happened less than 24 hours before I posted about it, and I couldn't find transcripts or youtubes yet.

But what made America unique was that it was founded on divine providence.

lol.

The US was built on lies and a retarded constitution

Hopefully that figure will reach 100% by 2020.

What? You really think that the US would be better with a load of religious nuts running about telling people what they can and can't do?

God Is Under Attack in America

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,508929,00.html

Glenn Beck has nothing but topical, intelligent and relevant points to add to what is obviously a critical issue that for some reason isn't on everyone's radar. Read and agree.

Dude, honestly, it's not just that I disagree with him. It's that he doesn't actually follow a train of thought in that whole argument. For example, what does he mean that people have made our elected leaders the keepers of our rights? He doesn't explain. How does not believing in God make you essentially believe that rights belong to the government and are given to us by them? He doesn't explain.

He just makes statement after statement all just barely related but none building on the other.

Glenn Beck is welcome to disagree with me, but can someone please teach him how to apply reason and provide a convincing argument? It would be much more fun.

Glenn Beck is welcome to disagree with me, but can someone please teach him how to apply reason and provide a convincing argument? It would be much more fun.

Jocabia, you're a military person, so I'm sure you'll understand this metaphor: We don't give the enemy our weapons and ammo. :p

Jocabia, you're a military person, so I'm sure you'll understand this metaphor: We don't give the enemy our weapons and ammo. :p

Itd actually be less painful, however, if Glenny boy knew how to reason.

Ok, post them; and post your evidence as to why they are mistakes....anyone can type anything...doesn't make it so.

(also...I should restate...I believe Glenn Beck does research AND has staff that also conducts research) just to be clear.

I see, so when someone says he's wrong they have to prove it, but Glenn Beck just gets to "type anything". As you say, Glenn Beck can type anything, it doesn't make it so.

I see, so when someone says he's wrong they have to prove it, but Glenn Beck just gets to "type anything". As you say, Glenn Beck can type anything, it doesn't make it so.

Well he is on TV so it must be true!

I think they may have a similar expression in Spanish as the one in Portuguese: "desde que o mundo é mundo" - it means literally "since the world is a world". A figure-of-speech translation would render it "since the dawn of time".

Muito brigado per esso, amigo. :p

Muito brigado per esso, amigo. :p

De nada. ^_^

Why? It's easier to argue somebody's ethics and feel smug about it if they're religious.

Atheists and agnostics don't have a pre-defined set of ethics and responsibilities that are outside of the legal system.

I would have to disagree with you. As an agnostic, I do have a set of values that has nothing to do with the legal system (I mean, really, does jay-walking have moral or ethical context?). Humanism is a perfectly valid basis for morals and ethics.

Why? It's easier to argue somebody's ethics and feel smug about it if they're religious.

What was that quote?

Religions are like farts.Yours is good but everyone else's stinks"

Atheists and agnostics don't have a pre-defined set of ethics and responsibilities that are outside of the legal system.

Wrong.

Everybody has a set of ethics. Religion did not create them.

The difference between God and Obama: at least Obama tries to repair the world.

The US was built on lies and a retarded constitution

So true. Just look at the Preamble to the Constitution.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

How can something be "more perfect?" The U.S. was founded on a (literary) mistake.

lol.

The US was built on lies and a retarded constitution

Wow? Don't you worry about wasting time and effort on typing that?

How can something be "more perfect?" The U.S. was founded on a (literary) mistake....Articles of Confederation, anyone?

So true. Just look at the Preamble to the Constitution.



How can something be "more perfect?" The U.S. was founded on a (literary) mistake.
Perhaps he meant it as "closer to perfect." Like, "more perfect" than the fucked up thing they had before.

Atheists and agnostics don't have a pre-defined set of ethics and responsibilities that are outside of the legal system.
Nonsense.

There's reams of ethical systems which make no room for deities.

Also, it's really hard trying to equate legal with ethical.

If 'God' is under attack, he can always defend himself. He doesn't need ignorant little prats to be his mouth piece. Whatever happened to the hands on the approach of fire and brimstone?

He's planning Katrina 2, of course.:tongue:

Nonsense.

There's reams of ethical systems which make no room for deities.

Also, it's really hard trying to equate legal with ethical.It's hard to try to do anything with ethics once lawyers get involved.[/lamejoke]

You're just as bad as the rest of them Heikoku, for you it's all about you, and your schtick is nothing more than self-aggrandizement, you don't actually think about what you're saying, you have your angle and base yourself around it.

Hey! You're attacking my religion and my LORD - at least, He's my LORD in threads where he's the first to declare Himself as such.

You intolerant zealot!

;)

Silly Christians, Theocracies are for Ebil Mozlemz.

http://www.indicius.it/religioni/images_religioni/heil_papa.jpg

Actually this guys is currently the absolute leader of a christian theocracy.

The only thing under attack is baseless assumptions made by fascists with severe mental failings.

Atheists and agnostics don't have a pre-defined set of ethics and responsibilities that are outside of the legal system.

Meh.

As atheist, I can say that this isn't entirely correct. My ethics isn't based on law alone - and I would be bloody scared by a country whose laws would cover ALL possible issues of ethics.
examples:
I choose to help other people even if the law doesn't require me to do so.
I choose not to cheat on my fiancee, and the law doesn't require me to do so.

I agree that my ethical standards aren't "pre-defined" by some other (assumed) authority, eventually through threats of future punishments (aka, sinners go to hell). I define them by myself through reasoning and empathy.

I don't need a deity giving me a law or threatening me with eternal damnation to know that killing other people is (generally speaking) wrong, or that cheating on my partner is wrong.

Actually this guys is currently the absolute leader of a christian theocracy.

If that's the pope all his citizens are voluntary. Don't know of anyone born and forced to remain in Vatican city. Also i am pretty certain if someone commits a crime the Swiss guard just turn them over to the Italian authorities.

http://www.indicius.it/religioni/images_religioni/heil_papa.jpg

Actually this guys is currently the absolute leader of a christian theocracy.

Is it just me or are his ears disturbingly pointed.

Is it just me or are his ears disturbingly pointed.

That's the least disturbing thing about him.

God Is Under Attack in America

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,508929,00.html

Glenn Beck has nothing but topical, intelligent and relevant points to add to what is obviously a critical issue that for some reason isn't on everyone's radar. Read and agree.

http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff287/johnnybmetal/sense.jpg
This makes more sense than that.

Hopefully that figure will reach 100% by 2020.

Why? What do you care what other people believe? As long as no one's trying to force it down your throat, what's the problem?

lol.

The US was built on lies and a retarded constitution

I agree with the bolded part.

http://www.indicius.it/religioni/images_religioni/heil_papa.jpg

Actually this guys is currently the absolute leader of a christian theocracy.

Macaulay Culkin? :D

macaulay culkin? :d

rofl

I agree with the bolded part.

Hmmm for some reason I doubt you have even read it.

But what the heck. I will play. So what is retarded about it?

Hmmm for some reason I doubt you have even read it.

Hmmm for some reason you are mistaken.

But what the heck. I will play. So what is retarded about it?

For starters, it's a complete joke when it comes to keeping the government in check. "Checks and balances" is an unfunny joke.

Parts of it are worded extremely vaguely, so vaguely that they can be interpreted to justify virtually anything the government does. Examples: "General welfare" clause, "necessary and proper" clause, "commerce" clause, the Ninth Amendment, etc.

The fact that certain parts of the Constitution are interpreted completely differently by some people further attests to how vague it is. The cynic in me says that it was deliberately made vague so that the government could "interpret" it however it wants.

IMO, the Constitution should be replaced by one that is virtually impossible to misinterpret. Why should a Constitution need "interpretation" anyway?

\IMO, the Constitution should be replaced by one that is virtually impossible to misinterpret. Why should a Constitution need "interpretation" anyway?

Do you realize what you're advocating? The reason our Constitution hasn't changed, and the genius of it in the first place, is that it is vague enough to allow for multiple interpretations! The founders knew that over time, we change culturally (and therefore, morally, legally, ethically, etc), and any worthwhile document would have to stand up to these changes. What you're advocating is that we become like Italy and their four hundred different Constitutions.

Checks and balances were a governmental revolution.

Do you realize what you're advocating? The reason our Constitution hasn't changed, and the genius of it in the first place, is that it is vague enough to allow for multiple interpretations!

Which is completely stupid, because a bad government can abuse that easily.

The founders knew that over time, we change culturally (and therefore, morally, legally, ethically, etc), and any worthwhile document would have to stand up to these changes. What you're advocating is that we become like Italy and their four hundred different Constitutions.

No, I advocate we adopt a Constitution with no ambiguity whatsoever, but that is also almost impossible to amend.

Checks and balances were a governmental revolution.

Checks and balances exist only on paper.

Hmmm for some reason you are mistaken.



For starters, it's a complete joke when it comes to keeping the government in check. "Checks and balances" is an unfunny joke.

Parts of it are worded extremely vaguely, so vaguely that they can be interpreted to justify virtually anything the government does. Examples: "General welfare" clause, "necessary and proper" clause, "commerce" clause, the Ninth Amendment, etc.

The fact that certain parts of the Constitution are interpreted completely differently by some people further attests to how vague it is. The cynic in me says that it was deliberately made vague so that the government could "interpret" it however it wants.

IMO, the Constitution should be replaced by one that is virtually impossible to misinterpret. Why should a Constitution need "interpretation" anyway?

The problem with rigidly defined rules and standards that are incapable of being changed is that they will eventually grow dated and obsolete. Take a look at religious scripts and just how dated they become when fundamentalists refuse to reinterpret them for modern times and changing circumstances. At best you look antiquated, at worst you're a bastion of backwards and rather unpleasant beliefs and practices. The same applies with the rule of law. If the Constitution wasn't inherently flexible and adaptable, it would have been scrapped in favor of something more flexible not far into its creation.

And again, don't blame human faults and ulterior motives for the lack of Checks and Balances being carried out properly. In fact it actually worked in the case of Watergate, otherwise we'd have had an Imperial Presidency long before Darth Cheney threatened us with it.

Which is completely stupid, because a bad government can abuse that easily.

No, I advocate we adopt a Constitution with no ambiguity whatsoever, but that is also almost impossible to amend.

Checks and balances exist only on paper.

First of all, there is no such thing as "no ambiguity". The English language being what it is, there will always be different interpretations of words, no matter how focused on the minutiae your new Constitution would be. What the founding fathers realized, and what you fail to take into account, is that a document striving towards no ambiguity is an irrelevant document. If we put down on paper "murder shall be x, y, and z" our definition of murder will no doubt change very quickly (it always does, things like these are socially constructed and if you don't believe me read up on sociology), but our document by your doing would not be able to. Thus, we would scrap the Constitution and write a new one, saying "murder shall be a, b, and c". And so on, for every new definition of murder we accept. The Constitution is supposed to be a perpetually relevant document, because it is the supreme law of the land.

To accomplish this, intentional ambiguity is necessary. The founders set out to create a document that would stand the test of time, so to speak, and did so under the proper assumption that the "test of time" involved changing values and beliefs about what the Constitution would need to entail.

Checks and balances are very real and very relevant. It baffles me how you can believe that they aren't. Could you please explain in greater detail your opinions?

Hmmm for some reason you are mistaken.

For starters, it's a complete joke when it comes to keeping the government in check. "Checks and balances" is an unfunny joke.

Do you understand what checks and balances is about? It's not about keeping the goverment honest. It's an attempt to keep the power distributed instead of all in one branch.

Now if there is a problem where power shifts to one branch(as in the last 8 years), who is to blame? The Constitution or the people?

Parts of it are worded extremely vaguely, so vaguely that they can be interpreted to justify virtually anything the government does. Examples: "General welfare" clause, "necessary and proper" clause, "commerce" clause, the Ninth Amendment, etc.

President Madison understood things change. President Jefferson understood things change. The English Language changes all the time and never mind the fact there are two branches of it(tangent: Talk about lighting a fag in the US and you will get a strange look). Absolutes would have caused great problems.

The fact that certain parts of the Constitution are interpreted completely differently by some people further attests to how vague it is.

That is the beauty of it. Different interpretations lead to arguments which in time lead to clarity. When it comes to government people should be arguing all the time.

The cynic in me says that it was deliberately made vague so that the government could "interpret" it however it wants.

That maybe so but again "Government by the people; for the people" If we are too lazy to do something about the actions of the government, a document with absolutes will not accomplish much as the government can ignore them as well.

IMO, the Constitution should be replaced by one that is virtually impossible to misinterpret. Why should a Constitution need "interpretation" anyway?

Again clarity of purpose to the desired result. I like the idea of interpretation fights.


Now if I had to suggest a flaw? Hmmm? I would probably say the situations where one party owns all three branches. Things tend to get rubberstamped.....

Now if there is a problem where power shifts to one branch(as in the last 8 years), who is to blame? The Constitution or the people?

It's the Constitution's fault. Why did it allow itself to be used as toilet paper and coke straw during the past 8 years?

:D

Do you understand what checks and balances is about? It's not about keeping the goverment honest. It's an attempt to keep the power distributed instead of all in one branch.

I'm aware, and it has failed miserably in that regard.

Now if there is a problem where power shifts to one branch(as in the last 8 years), who is to blame? The Constitution or the people?

President Madison understood things change. President Jefferson understood things change. The English Language changes all the time and never mind the fact there are two branches of it(tangent: Talk about lighting a fag in the US and you will get a strange look). Absolutes would have caused great problems.

Point conceded.

That is the beauty of it. Different interpretations lead to arguments which in time lead to clarity. When it comes to government people should be arguing all the time.

Perhaps, but it can also lead to a bad government deliberately misinterpreting it.

That maybe so but again "Government by the people; for the people" If we are too lazy to do something about the actions of the government, a document with absolutes will not accomplish much as the government can ignore them as well.

Sad but true.

Now if I had to suggest a flaw? Hmmm? I would probably say the situations where one party owns all three branches. Things tend to get rubberstamped.....

Amen to that.

Which is completely stupid, because a bad government can abuse that easily.

A bad government can abuse anything easily especially if the people are complacent.

No, I advocate we adopt a Constitution with no ambiguity whatsoever, but that is also almost impossible to amend.

First off, why do you think the Constitution is easy to amend?

Secondly, I am sure the slaves, women, and the later African Americans would value the near impossibility to amend.

Checks and balances exist only on paper.

As do most laws yet for the most part, they did work......

It's the Constitution's fault. Why did it allow itself to be used as toilet paper and coke straw during the past 8 years?

:D

I didn't say it was the Constitution's fault per se, only that it is useless at reining in abusive government.

Now if I had to suggest a flaw? Hmmm? I would probably say the situations where one party owns all three branches. Things tend to get rubberstamped.....
Even though the Constitution and current election law tend towards a two-party system, it is not Constitutionally mandated that it be as such, so you can't call the two-party system a flaw in the Constitution.

A bad government can abuse anything easily especially if the people are complacent.

True, but if it does so without a semblance of legality, the people are far more likely to do something about it. If the government can convince the people what it's doing is legal, far fewer of them will complain.

First off, why do you think the Constitution is easy to amend?

It's not, but it's easier than I'd like it to be.

Secondly, I am sure the slaves, women, and the later African Americans would value the near impossibility to amend.

It's thankful those amendments were passed, and the only downside is that they weren't passed a lot sooner. But, better late than never...

It's not, but it's easier than I'd like it to be.
I'm curious what other safeguards you would put into place?

Why? What do you care what other people believe? As long as no one's trying to force it down your throat, what's the problem?

Originally Posted by Ring of Isengard
lol.

The US was built on lies and a retarded constitution
I agree with the bolded part.
Asked and answered.

No, I'm not making an exact analogy. I'm suggesting that if you would like to change the US Constitution in the way you describe in this thread, then you would be shoving your beliefs down my throat, and thus I should care what your beliefs are. That concern applies to any beliefs that affect the laws I live under, regardless of whether the beliefs in question are religious or secular ones.

I didn't say it was the Constitution's fault per se, only that it is useless at reining in abusive government.
There is no law or system that will rein in an abusive government. One of the defining hallmarks of abusive government is that they do not follow the rules, nor do they wait for loopholes to open up in the lawful system for them to slip through. They just do whatever they want and fuck laws, constitutions, etc. Your dreamed-of constitution of absolutes would have no more effect on an abusive government than any other kind of constitution.

I agree with the bolded part.

Which is completely stupid, because a bad government can abuse that easily.

No, I advocate we adopt a Constitution with no ambiguity whatsoever, but that is also almost impossible to amend.

Checks and balances exist only on paper.

Hmmm for some reason you are mistaken.

For starters, it's a complete joke when it comes to keeping the government in check. "Checks and balances" is an unfunny joke.

Parts of it are worded extremely vaguely, so vaguely that they can be interpreted to justify virtually anything the government does. Examples: "General welfare" clause, "necessary and proper" clause, "commerce" clause, the Ninth Amendment, etc.

The fact that certain parts of the Constitution are interpreted completely differently by some people further attests to how vague it is. The cynic in me says that it was deliberately made vague so that the government could "interpret" it however it wants.

IMO, the Constitution should be replaced by one that is virtually impossible to misinterpret. Why should a Constitution need "interpretation" anyway?

*sigh*

Grow up, actually read the U.S. Constitution (http://www.findlaw.com/casecode/constitution/), and, if you are still unconvinced, read The Federalist Papers (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/fed.asp). When you have a clue what you are talking about, get back to us.

For example, read the following from Federalist No. 51 (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed51.asp):

But the great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department, consists in giving to those who administer each department the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachments of the others. The provision for defense must in this, as in all other cases, be made commensurate to the danger of attack. Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.

I'm curious what other safeguards you would put into place?

I'd make the Bill of Rights much, much longer. I'd make it where Senators were once again appointed by State legislatures, and where States could recall their Senators at any time. I'd also make it where members of the House could be recalled by their constituencies. I'd make the Supreme Court directly elected, and justices would be limited to one ten or fifteen year term.

*sigh*

Grow up, actually read the U.S. Constitution (http://www.findlaw.com/casecode/constitution/), and, if you are still unconvinced, read The Federalist Papers (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/fed.asp). When you have a clue what you are talking about, get back to us.

A) What does disliking the Constitution have to do with "growing up?"
B) I have read it.
C) I do have a clue what I am "on about."

Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I'm clueless or haven't read it.

I'd make the Bill of Rights much, much longer. I'd make it where Senators were once again appointed by State legislatures, and where States could recall their Senators at any time. I'd also make it where members of the House could be recalled by their constituencies. I'd make the Supreme Court directly elected, and justices would be limited to one ten or fifteen year term.

With the possible exception of adding to the BoR, all bad ideas that have been rejected historically for good reasons.

As to the BoR, it and the 14th Amendmdent protect more than is enumerated. Adding to its express provisions always runs the risk of bolstering the arguments of those that would limit it to those express provisions.

A) What does disliking the Constitution have to do with "growing up?"
B) I have read it.
C) I do have a clue what I am "on about."

Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I'm clueless or haven't read it.

With the exception of you last post, your objection to the Constitution was vague and seemed uninformed or childish.

And of course disagreeing with me means you are ignorant or clueless. :eek::wink:

Yes. My record regarding those and only those two women is pretty clear. Which is why I asked you to provide examples involving women that did NOT try to use their own sexes as props, like both Hillary and Palin did.

You dance around it as much as you want, but your behavior was absolutely reprehensible. What's worse is that you act so repugnant while claiming to morally superior to those you attack. The truth is that you're just as they are.



It's not, but it's easier than I'd like it to be.



It's thankful those amendments were passed, and the only downside is that they weren't passed a lot sooner. But, better late than never...

So you think it took too long to get those amendments passed and yet you'd add more restrictions which would make it even harder to pass them?

I'd make the Bill of Rights much, much longer. I'd make it where Senators were once again appointed by State legislatures, and where States could recall their Senators at any time. I'd also make it where members of the House could be recalled by their constituencies. I'd make the Supreme Court directly elected, and justices would be limited to one ten or fifteen year term.

I'm not sure what could be added to the Bill of Rights to make it a stronger document, without becoming specific, which once again defeats the purpose.

1. Senators aren't appointed by the state legislatures because we try and eliminate the oligarchical elements of our government. You-scratch-my-back-I'll-scratch-yours seems to carry a lot less weight with the populous than popular election.
2. I suppose I could engage you in a debate of substantive over descriptive representation, but what's the point.
3. See above.
4. The Supreme Court was created specifically to have insulation from the general public.
5. I don't disagree with limiting the terms of Justices.

I'm not sure what could be added to the Bill of Rights to make it a stronger document, without becoming specific, which once again defeats the purpose.

1. Senators aren't appointed by the state legislatures because we try and eliminate the oligarchical elements of our government. You-scratch-my-back-I'll-scratch-yours seems to carry a lot less weight with the populous than popular election.
2. I suppose I could engage you in a debate of substantive over descriptive representation, but what's the point.
3. See above.
4. The Supreme Court was created specifically to have insulation from the general public.
5. I don't disagree with limiting the terms of Justices.

Specifically, four is very important. If we allowed Justices to be elected it would create tyranny of the majority. The justices are there to protect us from violations the Constitution, the most important of which is the violation of our rights by the majority. If it were up to the majority there would be no freedom of religion.

"Under God" was a late addition to the Pledge, designed to distinguish us from the "godless" commies of Russia.

Since the USSR went kaput we basically don't need it.

God is doing fine in the US, much more popular here than anywhere in Europe.

You dance around it as much as you want, but your behavior was absolutely reprehensible.

Assuming so:

Enough for people to be on my ass about it months later? Holy shit!

Edit: And I AM morally superior to those I attack: I don't advocate useless wars, reduction of rights or theocracies. That alone makes me morally superior to them.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HeroicSociopath

Edit: And I AM morally superior to those I attack: I don't advocate useless wars, reduction of rights or theocracies. That alone makes me morally superior to them.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HeroicSociopath

And what if it was Bush and his neocon kin that were the targets of a war, or a reduction of rights, or oppressed by a theocracy? Would you defend them? I don't think so.

If you can honestly tell me that I'm mistaken, I'll retract what I've said.

God Is Under Attack in America

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,508929,00.html

Glenn Beck has nothing but topical, intelligent and relevant points to add to what is obviously a critical issue that for some reason isn't on everyone's radar. Read and agree.Like any good challenge, it's only newsworthy if there's a real concern of victory for "God"'s "opponents".

This, laughably, is an instance of "Knowing is half the battle ..."

Tell ya what, i offer iron chariots in this war on "God". I'm sure "he'll" get back to me on that, like always.
http://www.thebricktestament.com/judges/iron_chariots/jg01_19a.html
http://www.thebricktestament.com/judges/iron_chariots/jg01_19b.html
http://www.thebricktestament.com/judges/iron_chariots/jg01_19c.html

christianity isn't god. christianity doesn't own god. christianity doesn't have bugger all to do with god, other then its pretending to, and neither does islam or anything else, not in the sense that christianity and islam claims to anyway.

and refusing to deny that pretending to know what is neither known nor knowable is self deception is NOT an attack on ANYTHING, god or anything else!

(the god i believe in doesn't endorse capitolism, nor take sides in economic disputes between nations and their pretentions of idiology, and america is NOT 'god's kingdom on earth'. those who try to claim and pretend that it is, need very much to get over it. the god i believe in loves those who love a world in which ALL can find gratification and none have to suffer to enable the means of others finding it.

it may have chosen to cause organized beliefs to come into existence, but i seriously doubt it would endorse what in popular perception very nearly the whole of western monothiesm has devolved into)

(i also see absolutely no conflict between the existence of something big, friendly and invisible that gives great hugs, a lot of little friendly and invisible somethings that do to, and a universe, statistical in nature, totally impersonal, and gratifyingly limitlessly diverse)

Hmmm for some reason I doubt you have even read it.

But what the heck. I will play. So what is retarded about it?
Most things. it is written badly and is way to general.
Do you realize what you're advocating? The reason our Constitution hasn't changed, and the genius of it in the first place, is that it is vague enough to allow for multiple interpretations! The founders knew that over time, we change culturally (and therefore, morally, legally, ethically, etc), and any worthwhile document would have to stand up to these changes. What you're advocating is that we become like Italy and their four hundred different Constitutions.

Italy only have 1 constitution - which has been amended 13 times.


No, I advocate we adopt a Constitution with no ambiguity whatsoever, but that is also almost impossible to amend.


You should either do this or you should scrap the thing altogether and have none like us.

And what if it was Bush and his neocon kin that were the targets of a war, or a reduction of rights, or oppressed by a theocracy? Would you defend them? I don't think so.

If you can honestly tell me that I'm mistaken, I'll retract what I've said.

If it was before they did those same things, I would be wanting to rip off the spines of whoever attacked them like this.

If it was after they did those same things, I would be laughing my ass off at the karma and enjoying the view, because that's what they deserve. But I wouldn't push for it, and, indeed, never did.

I don't know if you consider this as your being mistaken or not. But my two points stand: People are giving me shit as "sexist" months after the election ended (and this discounting the fact that I was pretty polite about Clinton before I got the "ZOMG SEXIST!" treatment by two of her supporters), and I am one of the good guys by virtue of not being hoping for a genocide, a theocracy and reduction of rights.

(For that matter, yes, I believe that if Hillary had stolen and whined her way to the nomination, McCain would have picked someone other than the stage prop he got as a VP, and we'd be seeing the fossil in the White House right now, comparing his critics to his Hanoi Hilton hosts.)

Two examples of well-written Constitutions: Brazil's (http://www.v-brazil.com/government/laws/constitution.html) and Portugal's (http://app.parlamento.pt/site_antigo/ingles/cons_leg/Constitution_VII_revisao_definitive.pdf). While they give the governments of their respective countries way too much power, at least they're unambiguous.

...and I am one of the good guys by virtue of not being hoping for a genocide, a theocracy and reduction of rights.
You and Bush (http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/george-w-bush-there-can-be-no-compromise-between-good-and-evil-in-this-world-1419300.html) have a lot in common.

You and Bush (http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/george-w-bush-there-can-be-no-compromise-between-good-and-evil-in-this-world-1419300.html) have a lot in common.

Except for being polar opposites, that is.

You and Bush (http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/george-w-bush-there-can-be-no-compromise-between-good-and-evil-in-this-world-1419300.html) have a lot in common.

Again, not really. Bush DOES wish for a genocide, a theocracy and a reduction of rights.

Again, not really. Bush DOES wish for a genocide, a theocracy and a reduction of rights.

Well, he accomplished #3 and came close to #1 (and #2, to a lesser extent).

Except for being polar opposites, that is.

Again, not really. Bush DOES wish for a genocide, a theocracy and a reduction of rights.
Both see the world in black and white, it seems.

Good guys vs. bad guys.

Both see the world in black and white, it seems.

Oh, that.

Not so much. Bush doesn't believe in neutral people. I do, and I'm perfectly comfortable with the notion that somewhere, someone doesn't give a shit about Bush OR about the Democrats OR about the Arab States, and don't call them my enemy.

Again, not really. Bush DOES wish for a genocide, a theocracy and a reduction of rights.

You would be hard pressed to say that Bush wishes for a genocide. On who, exactly? I don't think he wants a theocracy, either, but that's a personal opinion based on what I know of the man. As for a reduction of rights, that is merely a difference between the former President and yourself on what rights are the most important when weighed against security.

The Constitution of one country can't be compared to Constitutions of other countries and judged "better" or "worst". Constitutions function as an element of a single country, specific to that country, and would not function in another country. The cultural differences necessitate that Constitutions be country-specific.

Two examples of well-written Constitutions: Brazil's (http://www.v-brazil.com/government/laws/constitution.html) and Portugal's (http://app.parlamento.pt/site_antigo/ingles/cons_leg/Constitution_VII_revisao_definitive.pdf). While they give the governments of their respective countries way too much power, at least they're unambiguous.

Setting aside substantive content, let's judge the "unambigu[ity]" of these constitutions. Let me first say I fully admit to a great deal of ignorance concerning these constitutions.

As to the Brazilian Constitution, it is only 21 years old, as it was adopted in 1988. It has been amended 57 times in that 21 years. Also, the Brazilian Constitution is still subject to interpretation by the judicial branch. Finally, I could give copious examples of ambiguous language.

The Portugese Constitution is a massive 136-pages and is about 33 years old, as it was adopted in 1976. It underwent major revision, however, in 1982 and 1989. Having admittedly only skimmed the massive document, it seems to me it uses plenty of ambiguous phrases.

As to the Brazilian Constitution, it is only 21 years old, as it was adopted in 1988. It has been amended 57 times in that 21 years. Also, the Brazilian Constitution is still subject to interpretation by the judicial branch. Finally, I could give copious examples of ambiguous language.

Though our "bill of rights" (Mostly article 5, with its MANY paragraphs) is very extensive and does clarify some things.

However, yes, our STF (Supremo Tribunal Federal, our Supreme Court) is the court responsible for interpreting the Constitution, and is called upon to do so quite a bit.

Bush doesn't believe in neutral people. I do, and I'm perfectly comfortable with the notion that somewhere, someone doesn't give a shit about Bush OR about the Democrats OR about the Arab States, and don't call them my enemy.
So you believe in Goodies, Baddies and Neutrals?

Or is it more, those in the right, those in the wrong and those with no position?

Or is it more, those in the right, those in the wrong and those with no position?

This.

This.

People who are "right" agree with you, people who are "wrong" disagree with you, and people who have no position you don't care about.

There are no rights or wrongs. You and Bush are both incorrect on this account.

Most things. it is written badly and is way to general.


You will have to do better then that.

What for example is "way to general"

People who are "right" agree with you, people who are "wrong" disagree with you, and people who have no position you don't care about.

There are no rights or wrongs. You and Bush are both incorrect on this account.

There are right and wrongs, Heikoku 2 is always right.

Haven't you learnt this by now?

There are right and wrongs, Heikoku 2 is always right.

Haven't you learnt this by now?

This is written badly and is way to general.

God Is Under Attack in America

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,508929,00.html

Glenn Beck has nothing but topical, intelligent and relevant points to add to what is obviously a critical issue that for some reason isn't on everyone's radar. Read and agree.One other thing ... there was a special little Moment of Zen on The Daily Show tonight ... Beck, and the Faux "News" follow-up. Magnificent.

What you're advocating is that we become like Italy and their four hundred different Constitutions.


Excuse me?

You know jack shit about Italy and its Constitution.
We have a Constitution since 1948, and it's the only one we ever had, and, though it has been partially amended (about powers of the Regions, ban on death penalty, term of the Senate come to my mind) it's still the very same.

If that's the pope all his citizens are voluntary. Don't know of anyone born and forced to remain in Vatican city. Also i am pretty certain if someone commits a crime the Swiss guard just turn them over to the Italian authorities.

Exactly.
Most criminal matters within the Vatican are trusted to the Italian authorities (police + judiciary).

I've said that it's an absolute theocracy because it's leader has absolute power (he can even revoke the State's fundamental law), and it's a theocracy because he's a priest and "chosen by the Holy Ghost" as they say.

This doesn't imply that it's an evil dictatorship.

Is it just me or are his ears disturbingly pointed.

Nazi elves!

One other thing ... there was a special little Moment of Zen on The Daily Show tonight ... Beck, and the Faux "News" follow-up. Magnificent.
I think that, as Fox News goes, Shep Smith is a pretty reasonable news man.

People who are "right" agree with you, people who are "wrong" disagree with you, and people who have no position you don't care about.

There are no rights or wrongs. You and Bush are both incorrect on this account.
No rights and no wrongs? Really? You really think that nobody is ever in the wrong about something?

No rights and no wrongs? Really? You really think that nobody is ever in the wrong about something?

Everything is socially constructed and there are no absolutes when it comes to natural law or morality. So while I might think someone is in the wrong about something, another person wouldn't. Its not my opinion that matters, but the collective opinion, and since there's absolutely nothing which that particular opinion agrees on, no, no body is ever "in the wrong".

Our country was founded with christian beliefs in mind, but I guess our past dosent matter. Screw the founding fathers! We are REAL Americans! We eat spikes and crap out gold!

Our country was founded with christian beliefs in mind

Why? What leads you to believe this?

Everything is socially constructed and there are no absolutes when it comes to natural law or morality. So while I might think someone is in the wrong about something, another person wouldn't. Its not my opinion that matters, but the collective opinion, and since there's absolutely nothing which that particular opinion agrees on, no, no body is ever "in the wrong".

I want you to know that every cell in my body wants to Godwin. I'm not letting myself, but it's tempting.

I want you to know that every cell in my body wants to Godwin. I'm not letting myself, but it's tempting.

I don't know what you're referring to. Honestly, I wish I did.

On an entirely different topic, in reply to LG: people agreed with him intensely. And they still do - some people honestly believe that what he did was right. I obviously don't myself, but the disagreement in it of itself means that he wasn't universally wrong.

Everything is socially constructed and there are no absolutes when it comes to natural law or morality. So while I might think someone is in the wrong about something, another person wouldn't. Its not my opinion that matters, but the collective opinion, and since there's absolutely nothing which that particular opinion agrees on, no, no body is ever "in the wrong".
So...are you saying that, if you were on a jury trying, oh, say, a rapist-murderer. And the evidence was overwhelming against him, but the majority of your fellow jurors and public opinion felt the victim had it coming to her because she dressed sexily, that you would vote "not guilty" just because that was what most other people wanted to do? Regardless of the evidence? Regardless of your own beliefs? Regardless of whether the majority will change their minds in 24 hours? Regardless of whether the majority of another jury would vote the opposite way? Whichever way the wind is blowing at the moment is the way you go? And you accept the "rightness" of anything anyone else tells you at any given moment, no matter how it might change?

How about if the majority of a society decided it was the right thing to do to jump off the Brooklyn Bridge -- would you do that, too?

And yes, that last one was a snarky question to express my opinion that your "viewpoint" is nothing but a weaseling avoidance of personal responsibility.

EDIT: Provided you really think that way at all, of course.

So...are you saying that, if you were on a jury trying, oh, say, a rapist-murderer. And the evidence was overwhelming against him, but the majority of your fellow jurors and public opinion felt the victim had it coming to her because she dressed sexily, that you would vote "not guilty" just because that was what most other people wanted to do?

That's how peer pressure works Muravyets. When you get right down to it, a huge majority of the human populace consists of sheep who will think and act in accordance to how society dictates they do.

That's how peer pressure works Muravyets. When you get right down to it, a huge majority of the human populace consists of sheep who will think and act in accordance to how society dictates they do.
Sheep were genetically engineered by human beings solely to be sheared and butchered. I do not consider them something to emulate, as VC seems to. I say "seems" because I really think he is just using such impulses as an excuse for his own intellectual laziness. In that, he is not much different from other people, but that does not make them sheep. It makes them something else that is not admirable.

But I am not really questioning "peer pressure." I am questioning VC's actual belief in what he posted, i.e. that "nobody is in the wrong" about anything.

(Also, peer pressure is something I have never understood, possibly because I look down on most people and do not consider them my peers in any way.)

Sheep were genetically engineered by human beings solely to be sheared and butchered.


And humans are born and bred to fill in the cogs of the societal machine that exists. Sometimes something happens that causes the rules of the machine to change, but the next generation will always be born and bred to be the cogs of the same machine. Even the so-called rebellious stage of pre-adulthood is just another cog in the societal machine, fulfilling expectations and norms. Not very different from sheep really.


I do not consider them something to emulate, as VC seems to. I say "seems" because I really think he is just using such impulses as an excuse for his own intellectual laziness. In that, he is not much different from other people, but that does not make them sheep. It makes them something else that is not admirable.

Why not? One goes "bah" they all go "bah", even though some of them might be thinking "moo" instead.


But I am not really questioning "peer pressure." I am questioning VC's actual belief in what he posted, i.e. that "nobody is in the wrong" about anything.


I can sort of see where he's arguing from, given that right and wrong are subjective ideas formed by a collective standard of "I wouldn't want that to happen to me". But since there is a collective standard, malleable as it is, there is still someone in the wrong, for a given value of what is wrong.


(Also, peer pressure is something I have never understood, possibly because I look down on most people and do not consider them my peers in any way.)

It may stem from a need to find something to emulate and provide direction in an environment where the person does not know what to do, so the surroundings, or peers in this case, provide the cues.

That's how peer pressure works Muravyets. When you get right down to it, a huge majority of the human populace consists of sheep who will think and act in accordance to how society dictates they do.

Indeed, no one is a true individual. We may be different on our own but if you put someone in a room full of people with different ideas the person would soon come round. Mob mentality. It is the same with riots, when one starts the rest follow. It is something to do with being in a pack (instinct).

Indeed, no one is a true individual. We may be different on our own but if you put someone in a room full of people with different ideas the person would soon come round. Mob mentality. It is the same with riots, when one starts the rest follow. It is something to do with being in a pack (instinct).

Rubbish what complete rot!

Rubbish what complete rot!

Read up.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_behavior

blah blah blah why do I listen anymore anyways

No, that is patently not what I am saying. What I am saying is that there are no universal wrongs or rights since there is no agreement on what they would be. My personal opinions have absolutely nothing to do with the universality of morals, since I am not everyone. Understand? No need to actually respond.

And humans are born and bred to fill in the cogs of the societal machine that exists.
That is a philosophical outlook you have expressed before in other contexts. I have a different philosophical outlook. Little point in us shouting at each other from the tops of different hills, imo.

I can sort of see where he's arguing from, given that right and wrong are subjective ideas formed by a collective standard of "I wouldn't want that to happen to me". But since there is a collective standard, malleable as it is, there is still someone in the wrong, for a given value of what is wrong.
I also understood perfectly well what he was saying.

It may stem from a need to find something to emulate and provide direction in an environment where the person does not know what to do, so the surroundings, or peers in this case, provide the cues.
If you say so.

Indeed, no one is a true individual. We may be different on our own but if you put someone in a room full of people with different ideas the person would soon come round. Mob mentality. It is the same with riots, when one starts the rest follow. It is something to do with being in a pack (instinct).
Speak for yourself, pal.

No, that is patently not what I am saying. What I am saying is that there are no universal wrongs or rights since there is no agreement on what they would be. My personal opinions have absolutely nothing to do with the universality of morals, since I am not everyone. Understand? No need to actually respond.
Yes, I know that is what you are saying. And I am calling BS on it on the grounds, as NAS pointed out that, however malleable it may be (and I don't think it's all that malleable or variable in fact), the expectations and beliefs of the majority of a society establish that universality that you claim does not exist. Further, so does self-interest, because there are relatively few people who enjoy being treated unfairly, so regardless of whether any three people would agree that it is wrong to treat someone else unfairly, all of them would say, "I think it is wrong that I am treated unfairly," and on that basis everyone has at least one minimum standard for establishing a wrong.

Furthermore, I am doubting that you are expressing a real belief of your own, as opposed to just trotting out an abstract notion for internet chit-chat. I doubt it because it is an unworkable standard for practical life, and I do not believe that anyone actually operates on the assumption that there are no universal rights and wrongs that people agree on. Even in the case where disagreement exists, people tend to assume that it will exist, rather than the opposite.

And I respond to things if I feel like it.

Furthermore, I am doubting that you are expressing a real belief of your own, as opposed to just trotting out an abstract notion for internet chit-chat. I doubt it because it is an unworkable standard for practical life, and I do not believe that anyone actually operates on the assumption that there are no universal rights and wrongs that people agree on.
You've got me pegged. Its a lot more fun this way. Plus, its a great way to study for applying PSCI442 History of Political Thought to situations in class.

Speak for yourself, pal.

I will. And if we were all in a group then someone else would speak out and the whole thing would escalate. You see?

You've got me pegged. Its a lot more fun this way. Plus, its a great way to study for applying PSCI442 History of Political Thought to situations in class.
Political Science -- you get a BS for that, right? :p

The problem with arguing abstract ideas that one (a) has no reason to argue in particular and (b) one does not believe in is that one often does a poor job of arguing them.

Political Science -- you get a BS for that, right? :p

A BS in BS?

I will. And if we were all in a group then someone else would speak out and the whole thing would escalate. You see?
No.

No.

Dont question is obviously superior understanding of the human condition!:p

Political Science -- you get a BS for that, right? :p

The problem with arguing abstract ideas that one (a) has no reason to argue in particular and (b) one does not believe in is that one often does a poor job of arguing them.

That's not a bad department t-shirt... "Get a BA in BS"

Well strictly speaking I don't think any of us have a "reason to argue" since we're not changing anyone's mind. And while my arguments aren't always wonderful, I think as it goes I do a relatively good job of sticking to my guns. Again, no one is perfect! Its fun for me, which is my ultimate goal, and mostly people go right along with it.

I remember a little while ago I was arguing with someone that the coming religious wars in America necessitated an absolute sovereign who would decide American morality, and no matter what he decided we would all have to go along with it. Care to guess who that is? Hobbes! The religious wars he argued against were pre-Enlightenment! And this guy just kept on telling me that I was way off base. I guess its a testament to the crazies in our world that he believed I might be serious.

I remember a little while ago I was arguing with someone that the coming religious wars in America necessitated an absolute sovereign who would decide American morality, and no matter what he decided we would all have to go along with it. Care to guess who that is? Hobbes!
To be fair on ol' Tommy H, he doesn't argue that the Leviathan can do anything, or that we must obey the sovereign in all instances.

According to Hobbes, you can't legitimately, nor indeed rationality, give up your right to life.

To be fair on ol' Tommy H, he doesn't argue that the Leviathan can do anything, or that we must obey the sovereign in all instances.

According to Hobbes, you can't legitimately, nor indeed rationality, give up your right to life.

I would never argue otherwise. What I was arguing is that our American morality would be decided for us. I think we were talking about gay marriage, and I said it didn't matter what stance the sovereign took, as long as everyone followed it without question, because otherwise America would devolve into civil war. Since a few people changing their morality in favor of no civil war preserves the right to self-preservation, I think it fit.

I would never argue otherwise. What I was arguing is that our American morality would be decided for us. I think we were talking about gay marriage, and I said it didn't matter what stance the sovereign took, as long as everyone followed it without question, because otherwise America would devolve into civil war. Since a few people changing their morality in favor of no civil war preserves the right to self-preservation, I think it fit.

Okay, just for laughs, WHY were you saying that?

Are you just guessing at what you think Hobbes might have said about how public opinion is formed, or works, or doesn't work, or something?

Or were you under the impression that a majority of a society, or societal norms or traditions, somehow equate to a "sovereign"?

And what bizarre reality do you live in where all Americans march in lockstep with a "sovereign" of some kind, or else devolve into civil war? By what standard do you consider American opinion to be united on gay marriage...or on anything for that matter? And if it is not currently united, do you contend that we are at this time in a civil war?

Also, kindly explain how we will descend into civil war if "a few people" DON'T change their morality to...um...something. Kindly explain, for example, how the nation suffered a civil war as a result of the refusal of the Freedom Marchers to stop agitating for civil rights in the 1960s. Also explain how the racists who opposed the civil rights movement changed their morality, rather than just subordinated it to the law. In fact, explain how they even subordinated it to the law all that much, considering the continuing fight against racism for decades after the federal government mandated desegregation.

Because seriously, your comments so far are so far from reality that I cannot tell if you are woefully misinformed about how things work in the US, or if you are just wasting everyone's time on purpose.

Okay, just for laughs, WHY were you saying that?
I was arguing from Hobbes' point of view.

Are you just guessing at what you think Hobbes might have said about how public opinion is formed, or works, or doesn't work, or something?

Or were you under the impression that a majority of a society, or societal norms or traditions, somehow equate to a "sovereign"?
Hobbes wrote his main work on political theory, The Leviathan, in response to the religious wars/civil wars of the pre-Enlightenment Era. What he argued was that in a state of nature the only natural right afforded to man is that of self-preservation. So, when he looked around himself and saw so many people's rights being violated because of religion, he strove to find a solution to that problem. What he came up with is a "Leviathan", or an absolute sovereign. The Leviathan would be one person in charge of deciding morality for a nation. Since morality had previously been decided by religion, and the disputes arose out of a difference of morality, this would eliminate the religious wars and protect the people's right to self-preservation.

Hobbes also believed in several other rights that he thought should be afforded to people, and he believed that the Leviathan should try his best to protect these rights (he was a radical Enlightenment thinker, after all), but if it came down to a choice between protecting these rights and causing civil war or not, self-preservation was always his #1 right, so these rights fell by the wayside out of necessity. After all, rights don't mean much if you're dead. And for clarification, the sovereign is a single person.

Obviously the US won't dissolve into civil war because of moral disagreements. That's why it was funny that I argued the way I did.

Its also worth noting that for Hobbes, the "state of nature" was a purely theoretical place. This differentiates him from such political theorists of the time such as Locke and Rousseau, who believed that the state of nature had or did actually exist.

I cannot tell if you are woefully misinformed about how things work in the US, or if you are just wasting everyone's time on purpose.
The later. For my own amusement. I am pretty knowledgeable about how things work in the US, or at least ought to be since my specialization is American Government. I wish my school offered more than two classes on the history of political philosophy though, since I absolutely eat that stuff up.

Okay, just for laughs, WHY were you saying that?

Because, just like he did with the whole realism thing, hes clearly just finished an introduction to political theory class and is just showing off what he thinks he learned, no matter how irrelevent it is.

I was arguing from Hobbes' point of view.
Well, you need to get your crystal ball polished, Creskin, because you are not speaking in the voice of the dead very convincingly.

Hobbes wrote his main work on political theory, The Leviathan, in response to <yadda yadda yadda snip>
Chumblywumbly already addressed your errors in understanding Hobbes, and I notice that you have ignored his objections and instead just keep repeating your erroneous version of something you apparently read a digest of recently.

Obviously the US won't dissolve into civil war because of moral disagreements. That's why it was funny that I argued the way I did.
Except of course that it is not funny.

Its also worth noting that for Hobbes, the "state of nature" was a purely theoretical place. This differentiates him from such political theorists of the time such as Locke and Rousseau, who believed that the state of nature had or did actually exist.
Just like your argument is only an argument in theory, as opposed to arguments that are based in something that actually exists?

The later. For my own amusement. I am pretty knowledgeable about how things work in the US, or at least ought to be since my specialization is American Government. I wish my school offered more than two classes on the history of political philosophy though, since I absolutely eat that stuff up.
Okay, YOU may find it amusing, but I find it boring and annoying to waste my time on someone who really has nothing of substance to add to a topic, nor any deep understanding of what he is talking about, but rather just likes to play little tricks with ideas and enjoys seeing his words up on a computer screen. So...'bye. *VC ceases to exist*

Because, just like he did with the whole realism thing, hes clearly just finished an introduction to political theory class and is just showing off what he thinks he learned, no matter how irrelevent it is.
I hate precocious kids. :p

Chumblywumbly already addressed your errors in understanding Hobbes, and I notice that you have ignored his objections and instead just keep repeating your erroneous version of something you apparently read a digest of recently.
VirginiaCooper may have been attributing a (slightly) more authoritarian stance to Hobbes than he actually gives, but his reading of Hobbes' attitude towards the sovereign 'deciding' morality for the rest of the commonwealth seems accurate.

Hobbes writes:

But whatsoever is the object of any man's appetite or desire; that is it, which he for his part calleth good: and the object of his hate, and aversion, evil; and of his contempt, vile and inconsiderable. For these words of good, evil and contemptible, are ever used with relation to the person that useth them: there being nothing simply and absolutely so; nor any common rule of good and evil, to be taken from the nature of the objects themselves; but from the person of the man (where there is no commonwealth,) or, (in a commonwealth,) from the person that representeth it; or from an arbitrator or judge, whom men disagreeing shall consent set up, and make his sentence the rule thereof.
Leviathan, ch.7, v.6. (Oxford World's Classics ed.)

This seems to chime well with VirginiaCooper's take.

Whether Hobbes is saying that morality is subjective, or whether he is saying that folks are want to see what they perceive as good as also 'morally good', yet morality is objective, is another question however. I'm inclined to lean to the former conclusion, but it's not something I've studied in-depth.

Bye Muravyets! I'll sure miss your complete lack of understanding of what I say. And your arguments based on ignorance.

I remember a little while ago I was arguing with someone that the coming religious wars in America necessitated an absolute sovereign who would decide American morality.

If we didn't have some common authority capable of adjudicating our serious moral disagreements, we might well have a civil war.

VirginiaCooper may have been attributing a (slightly) more authoritarian stance to Hobbes than he actually gives, but his reading of Hobbes' attitude towards the sovereign 'deciding' morality for the rest of the commonwealth seems accurate.

Hobbes writes:

But whatsoever is the object of any man's appetite or desire; that is it, which he for his part calleth good: and the object of his hate, and aversion, evil; and of his contempt, vile and inconsiderable. For these words of good, evil and contemptible, are ever used with relation to the person that useth them: there being nothing simply and absolutely so; nor any common rule of good and evil, to be taken from the nature of the objects themselves; but from the person of the man (where there is no commonwealth,) or, (in a commonwealth,) from the person that representeth it; or from an arbitrator or judge, whom men disagreeing shall consent set up, and make his sentence the rule thereof.
Leviathan, ch.7, v.6. (Oxford World's Classics ed.)

This seems to chime well with VirginiaCooper's take.

Whether Hobbes is saying that morality is subjective, or whether he is saying that folks are want to see what they perceive as good as also 'morally good', yet morality is objective, is another question however. I'm inclined to lean to the former conclusion, but it's not something I've studied in-depth.
I disagree. I think you are being too generous to VC. From his statements, I would say that he was attempting to tailor Hobbes to fit a point about the US he wanted to make. But his point about the US was erroneous to the point of meaninglessness, and thus his retrofit of Hobbes did not work. He had to treat Hobbes superficially and too cavalierly to just slap a "Leviathan" label onto whatever it was he wanted to talk about.

But maybe I'm just prejudiced against him because he's just another one of those posters who descends into personal insults when he can't get someone to play his little games with him. To me, that speaks of a poor intellect, more given to cheats than real thought.

EDIT: By the way, I think the passage you quoted chimes better with what I said earlier in this thread, to the effect that, although no three individuals may reach common agreement that it is wrong to abuse someone else, every individual will likely think that it is wrong for them, the individual, to be abused, and that on that very limited basis of self-interest, there is nevertheless a grounds for identifying a concept of unversal good and bad, right and wrong -- meaning a thing that all human beings will universally identify as a good or an evil.

If it is true that all every human being would consider it wrong for them to be abused by you, then that is a universally held standard of good/bad, and therefore VC's assertion that no universal standard exists is false.

I think that, as Fox News goes, Shep Smith is a pretty reasonable news man.Two reasons might be I hadn't heard of him -
One, I can't handle that network's form of "news", so i don't watch or listen to it (although a local installment at 9pm has this hot newscaster that my namesake has had a woody for for some time now, and i'll occasionally watch her)
Two, he's not popular enough on the network for *not* being one of their typical psycho-sycophantic putriphiles.
Either way, i'll check him out some time.

No.Somewhat reminiscient of a Python sketch, iirc .. but perhaps this'll do.

http://www.michaelshermer.com/2007/07/god-is-only-a-theory/