The Politics of Christopher Gambino/America

ISAW · 09-06-2005 8:25pm

ItalianStallion wrote:

if liberals had working brains, then why whould they follow eachother's lead on college campus's like sheep?

i agree:

Brian: you are all individuals.

Crowd: Yes! We are all individuals!

man in Crowd: I'm not.

But you yourself will only be thinking for yourself when you decry things that the Republican Party says which disagree with your stated moral position. Don't you agree? If you do and you then claim that you decry nothing of the Republican party position then what is the difference (in terms of your abopve atatement) between you toeing the party line and a liberal who sheepishly follows other liberals?

Nietzschean · 09-06-2005 8:26pm

...go team ISAW!

Pet · 10-06-2005 12:14am

Darth Bobo wrote:

...go team ISAW!

Yeah..I don't know Gambino very well, so to pass any judgment would be wrong and unfair. I'm just gonna sit back and watch him 'n' Isaw argue, perhaps with popcorn..

ISAW · 10-06-2005 12:20am

Pet wrote:

Yeah..I don't know Gambino very well, so to pass any judgment would be wrong and unfair. I'm just gonna sit back and watch him 'n' Isaw argue, perhaps with popcorn..

ah ha! who just came from the pub?

ItalianStallion · 10-06-2005 12:36am

i was refering to the romanian ones. i help in the capture and deportation of two. they have lived for over a thousand years in europe by petty grifting. in your example of judges, you completely dropped my arguments of poverty and education. also, those are PROFESSIONS, not the culture in which one was raised (although judges and stock brokers generally come from good homes, whoich would naturally mean that they were less inclined to commit crimes). as for tinkers, have you ever been in an Irish jail!? its full of them or their decendents, although rural groups tend to commit (or at least get caught for) less crimes then their urban counter part. therefore, your point is moot at best on this one.

as for poverty and crime, i also listed education, which you seem to have dropped. anyway, the indigent populations have less but still want the same things as we do. in a culture that has a great many people supported by a welfare state like the US, the idea of 'easy money' is too much for many to resist and turn to crime as opposed to work. not all cultures are affected by this evenly. the highest salried group in the US is the east indian population. Mexicans also have a great work ethic, and are advancing very quickly.

i dont have three hand guns. i have a shotgun, an ak-47 and a pistol. gun clubs? what are those for? maybe competition, but i dont know many people in one. im a member of the NRA, but that is more of a second admendment advocay group.

the majority of rap is bought by middle class white kids, but the majority of its impact affects the black community. it reflects the cultural frusturations of that group. i dont see the point of the connection with the white promotors, they are just out to make a buck.

your question about the schivo case is unclear, but i support the presidents decision to protect the sanctity of her life.

as for black role models that are liberal. hmmm. well, i dont think that leaders who sow discontent such as jackson, sharpton, obama, etc should be looked up to. also, Thomas isnt republican, as justices are to be nutreal. no one should look up to liberals, they make horrible role models. Powel was the first black secetary of state and Rice was the first black female one. the closest a black woman got to power under clinton, was as his secetary and making him coffee.

the muslims who acted on 9/11 were simply following the teachings of muhammed. i dont feel like explaining that now, but will if you challenge my point.

as for the comparison with Jesus, it was a nessesary instrument for the fulfillment of the scriptures. somehow, i have a feeling you dont believe in those thoug, so untill you do, i would respectfully ask that you refrain from using them in your defence unless you are willing to accept the rest of their implications.

i only support the appointment of pro-life judges, as roe-vs. wade is unconstutional and is the greatest threat to life in this country.

as for the war, there are to many justifications to list. the UN has no moral athority. they are infact, irrelevent. i only need mention oil-for-food or kojo annan to prove my point. we reserve the right to attack hostile nations that threaten our interests (especially if there is an economic incentive, but especially if there is mass murder in those nations). check out www.protestwarrior.com . "saddam only killed his own people. IT WAS NONE OF OUR BUISNESS!" is what i hear you saying.

we protect Christian principals. we seek morality in our laws. if you want to argue economics, our poor gross more then your middle class. we want to erode the false idea of seperation of church and state, as it was NEVER mentioned in the constution. we are the party of family values and no serious person in this country doubts that, althou many liberals argue that 'family values' are repressive or wrong (im not one of those).

ItalianStallion · 10-06-2005 12:37am

John2 wrote:

Why do conservatives make sweeping generalisations?

"Those who arnt liberal at 18 have no heart, those who arnt conservative at 40 have no brain"

does anyone remember those words?

ItalianStallion · 10-06-2005 12:42am

ISAW wrote:

i agree:

Brian: you are all individuals.

Crowd: Yes! We are all individuals!

man in Crowd: I'm not.

But you yourself will only be thinking for yourself when you decry things that the Republican Party says which disagree with your stated moral position. Don't you agree? If you do and you then claim that you decry nothing of the Republican party position then what is the difference (in terms of your abopve atatement) between you toeing the party line and a liberal who sheepishly follows other liberals?

i do differ on some issues such as immegration. I want more mexicans as they really love this country and are willing to die to get here. they bring better family values then the majority here and i welcome them. my party wants to protect those already here, but i think thay are too short sighted in that regard.
im also mad about the end of talk of the 'nuclear option.'
i disagree with other polocies as well, and am not afraid of voicing my opinion.

Pet · 10-06-2005 1:14am

as for the comparison with Jesus, it was a nessesary instrument for the fulfillment of the scriptures. somehow, i have a feeling you dont believe in those thoug, so untill you do, i would respectfully ask that you refrain from using them in your defence unless you are willing to accept the rest of their implications.

Could you explain this further, as I don't understand what you mean, especially the boldened part..

we want to erode the false idea of seperation of church and state, as it was NEVER mentioned in the constution.

So what you're proposing is a theocracy then? A Judeo-Christian theocracy would be far from the worst thing to happen to a country and its citizens, but it's certainly not desirable or conducive to educational and social progress either. I like to think that Europe got it right - Christian values, secular state. What in your opinion is bad about that (if anything)?

Time Magazine · 10-06-2005 1:27am

ItalianStallion wrote:

"Those who arnt liberal at 18 have no heart, those who arnt conservative at 40 have no brain"

does anyone remember those words?

No, because they were "Anyone who isn't a Communist at 18 has not heart, anyone who's still a Communist at 30 has no brain".

And on a tangent, ain't it strange how conservative now tends to mean liberal?

ItalianStallion · 11-06-2005 6:07pm

Without the crusifiction, there would be no resurection. Jesus was the fulfilment of the scriptures as stated in the Creedo. Jesus was innocent, but almost all that we execute are not. Jesus never decried capital punishment among the sins, nor does anyone else in the new or old testaments. The Church recognizes the right of a legitimate state to execute in cannon law. while the Pope was against it personally, like the war in Iraq, he only gave a qualified "no", as opposed to an abosolute "no" in such instances as abortion, modernism and secularism.

on your second argument, im not calling for an out right theocracy. what i am calling for is an interpretation of the constution as it was written. "seperation of church and state" was not mentioned in it and only came about in 1940's usage. all it says is that the state wont establish a national church. that was ment to protect the churches from the state, not the state from the church. and freedom of religion doesnt mean freedom from religion either. religion has the constutional right to blurr the lines of secularism and clericalism. i love Bush's new faith based inatitives. this policy allows federal funds to go to the churches and synagouges, which since they are closer to the people, are better at distributing aid.
if you want a secualr socialist state, check out china, north korea and cuba. i think you will find many who agree there.
europe has lost its Christian values, and these have been replaced with those of secualr humanism. they are forcing those values on europe, but europeans are having difficulty discerning this at the moment. its sad to see once proud nations sell their freedom for the sake of the idea of economic stability. i partly think its jelouscy of the US as well.

ItalianStallion · 11-06-2005 6:11pm

Angry Banana wrote:

No, because they were "Anyone who isn't a Communist at 18 has not heart, anyone who's still a Communist at 30 has no brain".

And on a tangent, ain't it strange how conservative now tends to mean liberal?

fine, but you still get my point.

on your tangent, could you explain it better im curious.
conservatives in europe are still liberal by our standards. liberals in europe are socialists/communists by our standards (probably because they are members of the socialist/communist party)

ApeXaviour · 11-06-2005 7:09pm

ItalianStallion wrote:

europe has lost its Christian values, and these have been replaced with those of secualr humanism. they are forcing those values on europe, but europeans are having difficulty discerning this at the moment. its sad to see once proud nations sell their freedom for the sake of the idea of economic stability. i partly think its jelouscy of the US as well.

Wah?

Man that's distorted..

ItalianStallion · 11-06-2005 11:30pm

ApeXaviour wrote:

Wah?

Man that's distorted..

sorry, they didnt completely sell their freedom, it was also stolen by poloticians. look and Nice I & II.

Nietzschean · 11-06-2005 11:34pm

lmao, this is hilarious, american's critising european values.... and who's the most hated nation in the world.........

DrIndy · 11-06-2005 11:43pm

probably UK or france...... maybe russia - they are extremely unpopular....

Nietzschean · 11-06-2005 11:45pm

DrIndy wrote:

probably UK or france...... maybe russia - they are extremely unpopular....

you ever talk to someone in the middle east? , or most of europe these days, heck chinese don't love the american's either...hrmm...........

DrIndy · 11-06-2005 11:47pm

in part jealousy, in part fear, in part ignorance. People generally do not hate america in the current climate, they hate the Bush Administration specifically, not the USA in general which has and must be admitted been the single greatest force for stability in the 20th century.

Its easy to forget the past.......

Pet · 11-06-2005 11:56pm

Without the crusifiction, there would be no resurection. Jesus was the fulfilment of the scriptures as stated in the Creedo. Jesus was innocent, but almost all that we execute are not.

Almost all...(the death penalty is something I'm between two minds about so I'm not gonna argue that).
Anyways, ISAW wasn't talking about Jesus the dude from 2000 years ago, he was talking about a modern-day innocent Jesus who was also executed, to point out the irony..

i love Bush's new faith based inatitives. this policy allows federal funds to go to the churches and synagouges, which since they are closer to the people, are better at distributing aid.

How is that fair for atheists then? Should they be deprived of aid because they don't have the same beliefs as your president?

if you want a secualr socialist state, check out china, north korea and cuba. i think you will find many who agree there.

Firstly, they're communist states. And I never proposed a socialist state, I proposed a secular one.

europe has lost its Christian values, and these have been replaced with those of secualr humanism.

No it hasn't. If we lost Christian values, then polygamy, capital punishment, adultery and murder would all be completely acceptable.

its sad to see once proud nations sell their freedom for the sake of the idea of economic stability.

What freedom have we lost? The only nation lacking freedom is yours.
A country where there is uproar over the exposition of a nipple on tv is not "free".
A country where the lawmakers deny rights to sections of the population because it disagrees with their religion is not "free".

As far as I can see, religion only hinders social progress, and there's no better example of this than the US.

Nietzschean · 12-06-2005 12:19am

DrIndy wrote:

in part jealousy, in part fear, in part ignorance.

Right i get the jealousy, the fear is pretty damn obvious(and a damning thing on the american people), and ignorance?? where does that come from?

People generally do not hate america in the current climate, they hate the Bush Administration specifically, not the USA in general

That could be said previously, but not anymore, the american people voted that administration back into power, showing an agreement in its policies.

which has and must be admitted been the single greatest force for stability in the 20th century.

Erm? 'single greatest force for stability' ... uh huh..... actually lmfao.
We cold look at the cold war, granted it cold be argued either side started it, but they were a participant, and russia ended it.

Then we could look at vietnam, or how about america arming every lil group of people who opposed communism? The recent info that came to light of that argentinian bomber who was in the employ of the FIB iirc...

Your trying to make america sound like its the great big brother or something.... the Marshal plan being probally the jewl in the crown of your arguement....
Which as far as i'm concerned was more about making consumers for america's products than a desire to actually rebuild europe.

Its easy to forget the past.......

Yeah the invasion of afganistan was so long ago...and just because they didn't agree to an extradidion...god help ireland if we don't do what microsoft says.

snorlax · 12-06-2005 12:22am

DrIndy wrote:

in part jealousy, in part fear, in part ignorance. People generally do not hate america in the current climate, they hate the Bush Administration specifically, not the USA in general which has and must be admitted been the single greatest force for stability in the 20th century.

Its easy to forget the past.......

but what is stablity in this day in age? Baghdad?

you must bear in mind we are all human and therefore prone to imperfection when it comes dwon to it.

also how can any of use really say what is the best form of goverment if we are unaware of the exact social and cultural contexts of each, eg if we grow up in ireland it might be hard to say what form of government works best in China, eg bearing in mind history, social roles, economic climate.

what works best in one country mightnt work so well for another.

snorlax · 12-06-2005 12:23am

my god look at the time i should be in bed, all this debating so tiring!.....:(

ItalianStallion · 12-06-2005 2:21am

Darth Bobo wrote:

you ever talk to someone in the middle east? , or most of europe these days, heck chinese don't love the american's either...hrmm...........

i guess those 25 million iraqi's we freed dont count. Israel is the only democracy in the middle east (aside from the new iraq) and they love us and hate europe. you want middle easterners oppinions? fine. ask them what they think of secular governments in general. at least America tries to adhere to some religious principals. europe has divorsed its self from moralistic logic in regards to policy. its sad how bitter people in other countries hate us for doing the right thing. its partially out of envy and partially out ignorance.

ApeXaviour · 12-06-2005 2:31am

Pet wrote:

No it hasn't. If we lost Christian values, then polygamy, capital punishment, adultery and murder would all be completely acceptable.

I would disagree there Pet. Why would these values be inherently christian? I agree with Chris in this regard, europe for the most part has replaced its christian values with secular humanism. I personally see this as a good thing. Also a partial reason why capital punishment is so frowned upon here too imo.

Pet wrote:

As far as I can see, religion only hinders social progress, and there's no better example of this than the US.

Hmm.. I slightly disagree. Religion does have its place, but that place has no part in the governing of society imo. An objective example, because all of our conceptions of america are so solidified at this stage it would be difficult to look at it freshly. Take turkey (or the direction turkey is going) - secular, contrast it to any other theocratic islamic state.

Actually chris (I can call you chris right?), that's a good way of looking into our mindset in this regard. Imagine how turkey view saudi-arabia, this analogises how we view america.

ItalianStallion · 12-06-2005 2:46am

Pet wrote:

Almost all...(the death penalty is something I'm between two minds about so I'm not gonna argue that).
Anyways, ISAW wasn't talking about Jesus the dude from 2000 years ago, he was talking about a modern-day innocent Jesus who was also executed, to point out the irony..

How is that fair for atheists then? Should they be deprived of aid because they don't have the same beliefs as your president?

Firstly, they're communist states. And I never proposed a socialist state, I proposed a secular one.

No it hasn't. If we lost Christian values, then polygamy, capital punishment, adultery and murder would all be completely acceptable.

What freedom have we lost? The only nation lacking freedom is yours.
A country where there is uproar over the exposition of a nipple on tv is not "free".
A country where the lawmakers deny rights to sections of the population because it disagrees with their religion is not "free".

As far as I can see, religion only hinders social progress, and there's no better example of this than the US.

i dont follow the logic on the death penalty. We strive to be fair and accurate in our sentencing. europe would be more likely to punish the religious as they seem hell-bent on forgetting their noble Christian herritage. look at france. they banned religious symbols from public schools. that amounts to persecution. where is that useless group amnesty international now? probably out protesting to set terrorists free in guantananmo bay. Jesus would probably go to europe as they seem like a decadent and hedonistic place.
atheists are morons. they shouldent have much of a say anyway. our system is generally protected by the great american value system that would never elect an atheist. they want secular humanism. this philosophy seems to be winning in europe and they are forcing it on all of the believers of all faith. atheism is still a philosophy with its own goals. just remember that.
in europe, adultury is acceptable. look at the president of ireland and the french pm. we would never tollerate that. and if a bill to punish adulters was passed, i bet you'd be in the street protesting. i sincerly doubt that europe dropped capital punishment out of a commitment to christian principals! they are willing to kill the innocent unborn, but not the worst offenders. right.
we are upset over a nipple on tv because we seek to raise our children with decency. you make your accusation after the paragraph where you speak of europe's "christian principals." ah, hippocracy at its best!
"A country where the lawmakers deny rights to sections of the population because it disagrees with their religion is not "free"." are you for real? which nation is this? which religion is denied rights? this is a christian country, but we allow for freedom of religion. it is europe that has states which cant even make their own national policy thanks to the eu. they sold out, plain and simple.

the only thing religion hinders is that feeling to do bad inside of us. it is what tells us that God loves us and has a special plan for his greatest creation, humankind. if religio, our resopnce to this, tells us that somthing is wrong, it usually comes from a deep reflection on the law that is written in our hearts, natural law. we might disagree with muslims as to howmany wives we should have, but no one (aside from secualr humanists) believes that we should be able to go and have anyone we want. this hints at a greater code that we must follow.
when you speak of "progress" what you really mean is laws that protect hedonism. you want stemcell research because you want to live longer and suffer less (pleasure), not because you think its ok because a feotus is not alive. you want gay marrige because you want to allow others to justify horrible choices (pleasure), you want to legalize drugs for recreation (pleasure) not because they have medecinal applications. the list goes on.
aside from this, you go to prove my point that you dont know what you are really talking about. you defend europes commitment to values of the christian religion, then you decry religion as preventing progress. hmmm, have your cake and eat it too?

ApeXaviour · 12-06-2005 2:48am

ItalianStallion wrote:

i guess those 25 million iraqi's we freed dont count. Israel is the only democracy in the middle east (aside from the new iraq) and they love us and hate europe.

I'm not getting into Iraq, it'll take forever.
Ireland played israel recently in soccer, the irish fans had almost more palestinian flags than tricolours! I think we can agree that there is no-correlation between being anti-israel and anti-semitic firstly. If I could sum up the view on israel: we see it as having a (well funded btw) policy of institutionalised terrorism w.r.t. palestine. Far worse than a few fundamental nutjobs with dynamite. Europe frowns on this, hence why they dislike us. America funds this, hence why they like them..

ItalianStallion wrote:

you want middle easterners oppinions? fine. ask them what they think of secular governments in general.

A good point.. not to be simplistic but the middle east generally needs to grow up.

ItalianStallion wrote:

at least America tries to adhere to some religious principals. europe has divorsed its self from moralistic logic in regards to policy.

I disagree.. merely our morality differs. And our opinion of the facts differ considerably also. One or both of us has some crazy tinted goggles on..

DrIndy · 12-06-2005 2:50am

I rest my case, you have complemented my arguments by only referring to very recent events.

The USA were the deciding factor in the allied victory of world war one and two - but it is easy to selectively omit this when considering the US. The USA also were the deciding block which opposed the rise of communism during the cold war and yes it was a threat, I grew up under its shadow unlike in ireland which was sheltered.

The issue is that people are tarring the USA unfairly. The Bush administration leaves much to be desired, but only ignorant, narrow minded people would use that as an excuse to slate a great and effective nation - indeed the greatest world economic and military force in existence!

Pet · 12-06-2005 2:50am

I would disagree there Pet. Why would these values be inherently christian? I agree with Chris in this regard, europe for the most part has replaced its christian values with secular humanism. I personally see this as a good thing. Also a partial reason why capital punishment is so frowned upon here too imo.

Woops. That was kind of a ploy on my part, I was waiting for Chris to take me up on it..I wanted to point out that all the important "rules" and codes aren't necessarily religious, and a "godless" society would not be the nightmare that some people believe..

Religion does have its place, but that place has no part in the governing of society imo.

That's exactly what I meant, sorry I was unclear.

ItalianStallion · 12-06-2005 2:51am

Darth Bobo wrote:

Right i get the jealousy, the fear is pretty damn obvious(and a damning thing on the american people), and ignorance?? where does that come from?

That could be said previously, but not anymore, the american people voted that administration back into power, showing an agreement in its policies.

Erm? 'single greatest force for stability' ... uh huh..... actually lmfao.
We cold look at the cold war, granted it cold be argued either side started it, but they were a participant, and russia ended it.

Then we could look at vietnam, or how about america arming every lil group of people who opposed communism? The recent info that came to light of that argentinian bomber who was in the employ of the FIB iirc...

Your trying to make america sound like its the great big brother or something.... the Marshal plan being probally the jewl in the crown of your arguement....
Which as far as i'm concerned was more about making consumers for america's products than a desire to actually rebuild europe.

Yeah the invasion of afganistan was so long ago...and just because they didn't agree to an extradidion...god help ireland if we don't do what microsoft says.

cold war- russia ended it as much as germany ended WWII! by your logic, the loser is always the one who ends wars. the war ended with the collapse of the greatest threat to humanity the world has ever seen. does that make you sad?
veitnam-a friendly nation asked us for help as they were stuckby a ruthless communist insurgency. we had a humanitarian obligation to help.
as for your other arguments, ha.

ItalianStallion · 12-06-2005 2:58am

ApeXaviour wrote:

I would disagree there Pet. Why would these values be inherently christian? I agree with Chris in this regard, europe for the most part has replaced its christian values with secular humanism. I personally see this as a good thing. Also a partial reason why capital punishment is so frowned upon here too imo.

Hmm.. I slightly disagree. Religion does have its place, but that place has no part in the governing of society imo. An objective example, because all of our conceptions of america are so solidified at this stage it would be difficult to look at it freshly. Take turkey (or the direction turkey is going) - secular, contrast it to any other theocratic islamic state.

Actually chris (I can call you chris right?), that's a good way of looking into our mindset in this regard. Imagine how turkey view saudi-arabia, this analogises how we view america.

thank you for your honesty. i really respect that. its "Christopher" though.
i disagree about secualr humanism, but we'll hash that argument out later. to look at history though, it has been our strong faith that brought us to this continent in the first place. that is so imbued in the American phsyce and you must understand that. our love of Church and state has contributed so much to making us the greatest nation on the earth. we have heart. we dont care what y'all think is popular, because right or wrong (we have faith that its right) we will not be hindered by nations hostile to our interests.

Pet · 12-06-2005 3:43am

they banned religious symbols from public schools. that amounts to persecution.

I think that was a brilliant decision. It's just an extension of uniform policy basically. Everyone, regardless of colour or religious belief, is there to learn as an equal. I admire France so much for that decision, you can't even imagine.

atheists are morons. they shouldent have much of a say anyway. our system is generally protected by the great american value system that would never elect an atheist. they want secular humanism. this philosophy seems to be winning in europe and they are forcing it on all of the believers of all faith.

Oh wow. This board is mainly comprised of Hamilton-end students, so I'll let some of them take you up on that first bit..
But wrt secular humanism being forced on all faiths - what's the alternative? Forcing a Christian belief on the atheists or those not of the Christian faith is unfair. And besides, we see religion as a private matter. I know in American evangelising is quite commonplace, but here we look down on it. You don't push your beliefs onto others, period.

and if a bill to punish adulters was passed, i bet you'd be in the street protesting.

There already are laws, are there not? Divorce laws and such take into account adultery when settling afaik..but you're the law student so educate me.

we are upset over a nipple on tv because we seek to raise our children with decency.

Oh wow. So being prudish about the human body is "decent"? You'd probably let your children fire your guns, but you wouldn't let them see a nipple. That's just great.

which religion is denied rights? this is a christian country, but we allow for freedom of religion.

Hmm..well abortion is a thorny issue, and not something I agree with, so I can't really argue that in good faith. But what about gay marriage? The objection to that is mainly religious. Sure, there are some people who campaign "family values", but it's the same thing really.

the only thing religion hinders is that feeling to do bad inside of us. it is what tells us that God loves us and has a special plan for his greatest creation, humankind.

it usually comes from a deep reflection on the law that is written in our hearts, natural law.

You just contradicted YOURSELF, and all in the same paragraph. On one hand, you're saying that religion is what keeps us all in line, and on the other you're saying it's natural human law. Which is it? I'd go for the latter as I explained earlier. Religion doesn't keep people from doing wrong, it just gives them a different reason not to.

And really, more worryingly, it just keeps them from thinking for themselves. Instead of saying, "I shouldn't murder this guy because it's morally wrong", they think "Oooh, I shouldn't murder this guy because God will be angry and send me to hell, as described in a 2000-year-old book". And that's a pretty big problem.

you want stemcell research because you want to live longer and suffer less (pleasure), not because you think its ok because a feotus is not alive.

I don't necessarily agree with stemcell research. And, there are types of stemcell research that don't involve cloning, you know..

you want gay marrige because you want to allow others to justify horrible choices (pleasure),

So being gay and/or seeking pleasure is horrible? Please explain further, your logic intrigues me.

you want to legalize drugs for recreation (pleasure) not because they have medecinal applications.

We already have legalised recreational drugs, and they're the most dangerous drugs there are. If you're talking about marijuana, mushrooms etc, the reason they've been banned is also mainly religious. They were used culturally as entheogens, and the Christian religion forbade them..hence why you think they're so wrong.

ApeXaviour · 12-06-2005 4:06am

ItalianStallion wrote:

thank you for your honesty. i really respect that. its "Christopher" though.

Okay christopher, I'm dec by the way.

I have to say the same about your honesty and openness to constructive discussion rather than petty squabbling, admirable to say the very least, refreshing from the usual sectarian drivel that arises from a difference in politics.

ItallionStallion wrote:

in europe, adultury is acceptable. look at the president of ireland

Mary Mcaleese is an adulterer? Never heard that. I know our taoiseach is/was legally separated and had a girlfriend. Hardly adultery except in the strictest legal sense, but remember divorce is only recently legal in ireland.
I strongly and with great vigor disagree however that in europe adultery is in any way acceptable socially. I would even go as far as saying it is less accepted than in the US. We do in general however hold the opinion that what ever a politician (person in general?) does in their personal life as long as it does not interfere/corrupt their work (within reason of course) then it is none of our business really. Hence our sympathy for Bill w.r.t. impeachment proceedings for "raping whitehouse interns" -Ann Coulter on Fox News :rolleyes:

ItallionStallion wrote:

the only thing religion hinders is that feeling to do bad inside of us.

Tell that to fundamental religious people will you? Rev fred phelps for one. That man and his possé are evil incarnate imo. Religion is fine in my books, but like any belief system it has its extremes. Extremes are usually no good..
I'm not an atheist (I'm agnostic) but I have no need of a religion or belief to tell me what is right and wrong, neither will my kids. I had a heavy god-fearing catholic upbringing and had to de-brainwash myself of all that during adolescence..

As you said, I can see how how religion has its place in your history with the pilgrims escaping persecution in europe etc. However up until a point we had a similarly christian past. America in the first half of the last century was (afaik) in general less religious than europe (of this I am not 100% sure but it was certainly a hell of a lot less religious than it is now). It was between the late 40's to late 60's during the cold war that america experienced a sharp upsurge in church attendance etc. This, according to some, is at least partially due to america seeing themselves as the antitheses of the godless communists. I would be of this opinion.

ItallionStallion wrote:

when you speak of "progress" what you really mean is laws that protect hedonism.

heheh

I like that spin you put on it. I guess we should never have legalised condoms then.

I think a better way to put it is that we progress in legalising things that we haven't been conditioned into thinking are fundamentally wrong without due cause. e.g. homosexuality and other victimless crimes. imo abortion is not a victimless crime, so I'm with you there if nowhere else.

Pet wrote:

I admire France so much for that decision, you can't even imagine.

I agree with most of what you said pet except this. I consider this a conservative intrusion onto these kids' beliefs. It is a censorship of sorts. I hate this beaurocratic crap about school uniform. We are not robots, we can decide to bend rules in obvious circumstances. This is one trait I will give america, they are more accomodating to differences in their own country. I guess its inevitable considering the are THE cultural melting pot. This extends to other things too.. every see fly away home? A bunch of geese and 2 canadian kite-planes land illegally (from canada) in a US air-force base and cause their planes to scramble. Once the CO heard their excuse (they were teaching them migrating routes) he said sod the rules (they should have gone to jail) and accomodated them as best he could.

Shadowlands · 12-06-2005 7:00am

because right or wrong (we have faith that its right) we will not be hindered by nations hostile to our interests.

you sound like an islamic extremist. ever think that you and your cronies are just the same thing?

btw, how can you support the death penalty and be pro-life without the slightest feckin irony?

cuckoo · 12-06-2005 9:39am

Pet wrote:

I think that was a brilliant decision. It's just an extension of uniform policy basically. Everyone, regardless of colour or religious belief, is there to learn as an equal. I admire France so much for that decision, you can't even imagine.

Preventing state funded schools displaying religious symbols is one thing, but banning students imo infringes on the students personal rights of religious freedom.

And as to the general spirit of the thread, why is it so easy to dislike America? It's the liberal pet hate of the week. I don't like a lot of their foreign policy, and the death penalty disgusts me, but no country is perfect. Ireland is a bit crap on environmental stuff, and out police force is a bit suspect at the moment as well.

Nietzschean · 12-06-2005 11:12am

ItalianStallion wrote:

cold war- russia ended it as much as germany ended WWII! by your logic, the loser is always the one who ends wars. the war ended with the collapse of the greatest threat to humanity the world has ever seen. does that make you sad?

'the greatest threat to humanity' - how??????
And russia didn't lose per say, they chose a different more peacefull path, they could easily have kept going with the cold war against american and quite possibly never have lost. -- typical american attitude to assume some sort of victory when the other side it doesn't like to fight anymore (O in that case we win)

veitnam-a friendly nation asked us for help as they were stuckby a ruthless communist insurgency. we had a humanitarian obligation to help.
as for your other arguments, ha.

Haha, it was their war their business, you interfered, and as a result the russian's did too, and well you went off back home with ur tail between ur legs.

And was this 'insurgency' any more ruthless than the american's 'help' agent orange didn't too much for the local populace............

Nietzschean · 12-06-2005 11:27am

cuckoo wrote:

Preventing state funded schools displaying religious symbols is one thing, but banning students imo infringes on the students personal rights of religious freedom.

Well it does, but the level of integration you'd cause by such a banning is worth it imo.

And as to the general spirit of the thread, why is it so easy to dislike America? It's the liberal pet hate of the week. I don't like a lot of their foreign policy, and the death penalty disgusts me, but no country is perfect. Ireland is a bit crap on environmental stuff, and out police force is a bit suspect at the moment as well.

Why its easy to hate america. Because its their assumption that they are the greatest at everything and there desire to let us all know about it.

I never said we were great, but we can admit to our faults, i never heard us telling people our demoracy is better than theirs. American's have a perception that theirs is the greatest place on earth, re-enforced by their media , which to say is slightly impartial would be laffable. We could look at the reporting on the war in iraq, i actually started laughing when i saw the abc and fox news reports, it was just plain entertaining.

We could take another look at their arrogance....
If we look at enviromental issues, lay american's are starting to assume they are leading the way on the enviroment with hybrid cars. And yet having a quick glance at the 'Ford Escape' this new SUV has a fuel effiency of 33mpg ... which is just crap car i drive gets 47mpg. But if u read any media overthere you'll hear how great it is and what not. Yeah super your still only 20 years behind the rest of the world cutting back emmissions. And this leads us onto kyoto, worldest biggest polluter(USA) is the only industrialised country not to join.

And as for 'only' disliking them over their foreign policy, well not being in their country that seems like a pretty valid reason to me. They turned what was a pretty stable area into mayhem, no one even knows the casualty figures because america won't record them. And what about this axis of evil thing eh? thats just plain insane, lets encorage North Korea to give up their nuclear program...and then at the same time call them evil people that shouldn't be in power. One of the axis has already fallen, iran is awaiting attack(by devloping nuclear weapons) , korea is building more nukes for itself... O yeah thats something to love.

cuckoo · 12-06-2005 1:26pm

Darth Bobo wrote:

Well it does, but the level of integration you'd cause by such a banning is worth it imo.

I never said we were great, but we can admit to our faults, i never heard us telling people our demoracy is better than theirs. American's have a perception that theirs is the greatest place on earth, re-enforced by their media , which to say is slightly impartial would be laffable.

I think banning religious symbols such as the head scarf will reduce integration in schools, very conservative muslim parents might completely pull their daughters out of state schools and send them to privately run muslim ones where they may not receive the same standard of education, and certainly won't be exposed to different ideas and options for life. If i were a 13 year old girl, raised to wear the hajib i'd probably go along with it, or may chose to due to my own strength of belief, but if i was just going along with it exposure to other teenage girls would allow me to understand that there were other options open to me.

America, well, a lot of the classic 'america centric' attitude comes in part from their education system - from their first day in school american children salute and pledge allegiance to the flag. However, remember, they're still a baby of a country and have a lot of growing up to do - Trinity College has been around longer than the concept of American statehood.

Boston · 12-06-2005 1:51pm

Well very conservative muslims don't send there children to non-muslim schools.

Pet · 12-06-2005 2:19pm

I hate this beaurocratic crap about school uniform.

I got suspended more times than I care to remember for not wearing my full uniform..I hated it so much at the time (didn't help that it was scratchy and uncomfortable and completely ginga), but I realised there was a purpose to it. Alright, they didn't have to be such Nazis about it, and the piercings thing really ****ed me off, but it created an environment and broke down a lot of barriers.

And as to the general spirit of the thread, why is it so easy to dislike America? It's the liberal pet hate of the week. I don't like a lot of their foreign policy, and the death penalty disgusts me, but no country is perfect. Ireland is a bit crap on environmental stuff, and out police force is a bit suspect at the moment as well.

I don't hate America; and as easy as it is to stereotype, 49% of the population voted for Kerry, and the fact that they'd go to such lengths to avoid Bush speaks volumes. There never used to be a problem with the US before the last 5 or 6 years. It's probably Bush and his abrasiveness, coupled with an upsurge in blind patriotism after September 11th. Despite all that, it's a fairly advanced country; it just happens to have some terrible policies and practices. Criticism is partly constructive, it's like "Shame on you, you should know better!" as much as anything else.

I think banning religious symbols such as the head scarf will reduce integration in schools, very conservative muslim parents might completely pull their daughters out of state schools and send them to privately run muslim ones where they may not receive the same standard of education, and certainly won't be exposed to different ideas and options for life. If i were a 13 year old girl, raised to wear the hajib i'd probably go along with it, or may chose to due to my own strength of belief, but if i was just going along with it exposure to other teenage girls would allow me to understand that there were other options open to me.

As Liouville said, the really conservative ones wouldn't let their daughters into a public school (or even a mixed one methinks)..But as far as I'm aware, the headscarf is more a cultural symbol than a religious one, so that's a really good point. And I don't think the French accounted for that in their decision. But I still think it was a brave move; it flew in the face of the excessive political correctness that seems to abound lately.

Shadowlands · 12-06-2005 6:14pm

I don't hate America; and as easy as it is to stereotype, 49% of the population voted for Kerry, and the fact that they'd go to such lengths to avoid Bush speaks volumes. There never used to be a problem with the US before the last 5 or 6 years. It's probably Bush and his abrasiveness, coupled with an upsurge in blind patriotism after September 11th. Despite all that, it's a fairly advanced country; it just happens to have some terrible policies and practices. Criticism is partly constructive, it's like "Shame on you, you should know better!" as much as anything else.

Thanks for pointing out that all us Americans don't approve of what the U.S government is doing now, and has done in the past. I'm acutally going to Trinity to avoid the "four more years" of madness that Bush has promised us. I just hate the man, and breaks my heart to see how he has turned the world against us, as well make all Americans look like ignorant gun-toting war mongering blinkered animals.

Pet · 12-06-2005 8:32pm

Shadowlands wrote:

I don't hate America; and as easy as it is to stereotype, 49% of the population voted for Kerry, and the fact that they'd go to such lengths to avoid Bush speaks volumes. There never used to be a problem with the US before the last 5 or 6 years. It's probably Bush and his abrasiveness, coupled with an upsurge in blind patriotism after September 11th. Despite all that, it's a fairly advanced country; it just happens to have some terrible policies and practices. Criticism is partly constructive, it's like "Shame on you, you should know better!" as much as anything else.

Thanks for pointing out that all us Americans don't approve of what the U.S government is doing now, and has done in the past. I'm acutally going to Trinity to avoid the "four more years" of madness that Bush has promised us. I just hate the man, and breaks my heart to see how he has turned the world against us, as well make all Americans look like ignorant gun-toting war mongering blinkered animals.

It's a bit **** for you 49% alright I'd imagine..I've visited the US plenty of times in the past and only ever had brilliant experiences with the people I've met..okay the midwest was totally lacking in culture, but the cities more than compensated for that (I

San Francisco).
It just seems to me that Bush has mobilised a small but very loud section of the population to stand up and declare their opinions in an obnoxious fashion; people who would otherwise be sitting out getting a nice shade of crimson on their necks..

Oh, and just in case you're apprehensive; I've never witnessed any anti-American comments being made to Americans on campus; you'll get the typical jokes and windups, but I'd be quite surprised if anyone gave you abuse. There's quite a few of them around and they get on great..

ISAW · 12-06-2005 8:35pm

ItalianStallion wrote:

i was refering to the romanian ones.

You refer here to gypsies. Yopu originally asked why irish gaols have so many Gypsies and Nigerians? I would ask you to check out your facts. Romany gypsies constitute maybe three per cent of the "traveller" population. The level of petty crime among them is I would venture far less than among the itenerant population. Furthermore when it comes to embeslement, fanancial fraud, offshore laundering etc. the level of crime is probably far less than the general population.

they have lived for over a thousand years in europe by petty grifting.

are you now going to campaign for the removal of the Jim Rose tour from the US?

in your example of judges, you completely dropped my arguments of poverty and education.

Actually my point was that judges dont come from a background of poverty and lack of education. Furthermore, poverty actually is the biggest correlation factor affecting lack of education.

also, those are PROFESSIONS, not the culture in which one was raised (although judges and stock brokers generally come from good homes, whoich would naturally mean that they were less inclined to commit crimes).

"good homes" ? don't poor people have "good homes"? Or does your God not like poor people as much? You miss the point. Poor people are less likely to become professionals. Now why do you think that is? Is it because god loves them less? Is it because they are less capable? Or is it maybe because because they dont have the same chances and opportunities primaraily because of their poverty?

as for tinkers, have you ever been in an Irish jail!? its full of them or their decendents, although rural groups tend to commit (or at least get caught for) less crimes then their urban counter part. therefore, your point is moot at best on this one.

Yes in petty crime the travellers have a higher rate. They are also very Roman Catholic so I dont think you will criticise all the things they excell at will you? The majority (about 80 per cent ) of Mountjoy Prison come from five particular areas of Dublin not from caravan parks! I will let you guess if any of these areas are middle or upper class. Poor areas produce more of the type we put in gaol. Furthermore poor areas dont have the same access to "getting off". My question still stands. does God love the poor and the meek less? Was Jesus lying in the Sermon on the mount?

as for poverty and crime, i also listed education, which you seem to have dropped.

I didnt drop it. It correlates. But you do not commit to poverty nor commit education.

anyway, the indigent populations have less but still want the same things as we do. in a culture that has a great many people supported by a welfare state like the US, the idea of 'easy money' is too much for many to resist and turn to crime as opposed to work. not all cultures are affected by this evenly. the highest salried group in the US is the east indian population. Mexicans also have a great work ethic, and are advancing very quickly.

I accept people choose to commit crime. But please justify how rich people have an easier choice and tend to commit the sort of crime that does more monetary damage but they do less time in gaol.

the majority of rap is bought by middle class white kids, but the majority of its impact affects the black community. it reflects the cultural frusturations of that group. i dont see the point of the connection with the white promotors, they are just out to make a buck.

Making a buch from the talent of disenfranchised balcks. Ah well. NBothing new there. They did it before with Elvis.

your question about the schivo case is unclear, but i support the presidents decision to protect the sanctity of her life.

had she been convicted of a capital crime you would support her being executed! So what would have changed. In her vegitative state if found guilty of a capital crime having a death penalty how would she have become different to the "santified" person?

My point about natural universal law was that Bush claims to ascribe to this but at the same time claims international war crimes can only apply to other armies and not to the US army.

as for black role models that are liberal. hmmm. well, i dont think that leaders who sow discontent such as jackson, sharpton, obama, etc should be looked up to.

discontent with what? If they were discontented with a democrat administration you would praise them.

Thomas isnt republican, as justices are to be nutreal. no one should look up to liberals, they make horrible role models. Powel was the first black secetary of state and Rice was the first black female one. the closest a black woman got to power under clinton, was as his secetary and making him coffee.

Powell on Fox News 6/8/2003 wrote:

I would put before you Exhibit A, the mobile biological labs that we have found. People are saying, "Well, are they truly mobile biological labs?" Yes, they are. And the DCI, George Tenet, Director of Central Intelligence, stands behind that assessment.

No they weren't!

Rice on CNN Late Edition 9/8/2002 wrote:

We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud

There was smoke and mirrors but no gun!

the muslims who acted on 9/11 were simply following the teachings of muhammed. i dont feel like explaining that now, but will if you challenge my point.

I challenge it! they were not being good Muslims just as fundamentalist christians who kill innocent people are not good christians.

as for the comparison with Jesus, it was a nessesary instrument for the fulfillment of the scriptures. somehow, i have a feeling you dont believe in those thoug, so untill you do, i would respectfully ask that you refrain from using them in your defence unless you are willing to accept the rest of their implications.

And you want to be a lawyer? first, I could be a Satanist Muslim or athiest and hate the Us legal syatem (which I dont) but still that system would have to operate by it's rulea and i could use those rules to defend myself.
Second I am not making a defence here. you are! The point is not whether or not I believe in god but whether your god loves rich people better than poor ones? If he does not then why are the US prisons filled with poor people?

I only support the appointment of pro-life judges, as roe-vs. wade is unconstutional and is the greatest threat to life in this country.

But above you claimed that judges should be above party politics?

...we reserve the right to attack hostile nations that threaten our interests (especially if there is an economic incentive, but especially if there is mass murder in those nations).

when did Iraq threaten the US? The WMD thing has been shown to be invented! And if you are defending people from mass murder why did you not act in Africa, the Phillipnes, Central America. Actually why did the US act in support of mass murdering dictators?

check out www.protestwarrior.com . "saddam only killed his own people. IT WAS NONE OF OUR BUISNESS!" is what i hear you saying.

check out http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat7.htm
http://www.zmag.org/CrisesCurEvts/interventions.htm
http://costofwar.com/

we protect Christian principals.

Prove it! the vast majotity of military actions above are economic in interest.

we seek morality in our laws.

If you believe in a universal morality then why not support universal war crimes as you did in the case of the Nazi's?

many liberals argue that 'family values' are repressive or wrong (im not one of those).

nor am I so I wont argue about that.

ISAW · 12-06-2005 9:05pm

ItalianStallion wrote:

i guess those 25 million iraqi's we freed dont count.

[i.e dont as people in the middle east supporting the US]

Indded they DO count! But it is not much help to say to dead women and childred "you are free! You are also dead but you are free!" And when they have a constitution and a government that decides to tell the Us tto pull out will you then say they don't count?

Israel is the only democracy in the middle east (aside from the new iraq) and they love us and hate europe.

This just isnt true! I recently listened to a Republlican politiican on US TV refer to Lebanon as a "democracy of a sort". I wrote something about it then and looked up the CIA fact book. I seem to remember at least five. Yemen (which was an old imperial colony), is Jordan constitutional? I note the Us are fond of praising the Kewait parliament as pals but I wouldnt regard them or the other personal pals of Bush the Saudis as democracies. Egypt I believe?

Israel just is NOT the only democracy in the Middle East. But your premise that the US are about supporting democracy is silly. they have supported dictatorships under the Republicans and Democrats for decades! As have the Brits French and Germans! WMD were first used in Iraq under Churchills orders!It is no wonder if they dont like the French who carved the place up with the Brits when the Germans and Turks couldnt because they lost the War! the US were busy consolidating South and Central America and the Pacific at the time.

you want middle easterners oppinions? fine. ask them what they think of secular governments in general. at least America tries to adhere to some religious principals.

But not the principle of natural law? That principle states that right and wroing were done before any law was written. That there are universally wrong actions! But the Us will not accept (in spite of committing tham) that these actions can be tried in International courts. At the same time they claim that there are Universal Human rights but deny prisioners in Guantanamo Bay due process.

europe has divorsed its self from moralistic logic in regards to policy. its sad how bitter people in other countries hate us for doing the right thing. its partially out of envy and partially out ignorance.

But I just pointed out that the "right thing" for the US is defined by the US and not by any universal moral code.

ISAW · 12-06-2005 10:04pm

ItalianStallion i relation to Iraq as a 911 response wrote:

we reserve the right to attack hostile nations that threaten our interests (especially if there is an economic incentive, but especially if there is mass murder in those nations)

I really should ask:

What had 911 and muslim fundamentalism to do with Iraq?
Where were their any WMD in Iraq?
Didn't Bush and his people claim there were WMD?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607_1,00.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/12/AR2005051201857.html

British intell which Bush knew of wrote:

"Saddam was not threatening his neighbours and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran."

Hmmm. wonder why you didn't "defend" yourselves from the regimes of Libya Iran or North Korea? Don't they kill their people? And they are not pally with the US like Saddam was! the mind boggles.

Shadowlands · 12-06-2005 10:13pm

It's a bit **** for you 49% alright I'd imagine..I've visited the US plenty of times in the past and only ever had brilliant experiences with the people I've met..okay the midwest was totally lacking in culture, but the cities more than compensated for that (I San Francisco).
It just seems to me that Bush has mobilised a small but very loud section of the population to stand up and declare their opinions in an obnoxious fashion; people who would otherwise be sitting out getting a nice shade of crimson on their necks..

Oh, and just in case you're apprehensive; I've never witnessed any anti-American comments being made to Americans on campus; you'll get the typical jokes and windups, but I'd be quite surprised if anyone gave you abuse. There's quite a few of them around and they get on great..

That's good to know. I'm from NYC, so half of the city isn't even from America, and we all love to complain, so I do understand where people are coming from. Still, I'm glad to hear that I won't be a complete social outcast because of my birth-place.

ItalianStallion · 13-06-2005 2:41pm

ApeXaviour wrote:

I'm not getting into Iraq, it'll take forever.
Ireland played israel recently in soccer, the irish fans had almost more palestinian flags than tricolours! I think we can agree that there is no-correlation between being anti-israel and anti-semitic firstly. If I could sum up the view on israel: we see it as having a (well funded btw) policy of institutionalised terrorism w.r.t. palestine. Far worse than a few fundamental nutjobs with dynamite. Europe frowns on this, hence why they dislike us. America funds this, hence why they like them..

A good point.. not to be simplistic but the middle east generally needs to grow up.

I disagree.. merely our morality differs. And our opinion of the facts differ considerably also. One or both of us has some crazy tinted goggles on..

anti-semitism and anti-Israel are not always coorelated, but you will find that all who hate the Jews also hate Israel so they have a well forged connection to many. Israel is the ONLY democracy in the region (aside from Iraq). They are not terroristic, but have to act strongly at times, because they have a hostile population in their midst ready to kill themselves just to hurt a few kindergarners and old ladies. you cant compare the two. europe is limp wristed so they naturally hate strong action, especially in regards to national defence. look at how loud france has opposed Israel! france doesnt want Israel to protect Israel, because France cant protect France! (a little joke)
in regards to our tinted glasses, you have an interesting point. i enjoy responding to your posts too.

Time Magazine · 13-06-2005 3:45pm

Okay, Christopher's views on moral absolutism and history need a right bollicking, but I've joined this thread very late so I'll get to him later. But first, Pet needs a bollicking.

Pet wrote:

I think that was a brilliant decision. It's just an extension of uniform policy basically. Everyone, regardless of colour or religious belief, is there to learn as an equal. I admire France so much for that decision, you can't even imagine.

How can you POSSIBLY think that was a brilliant decision?! Can you imagine the international outcry that would ensue if George Bush brought in such a law? What would your views be on that if, just like in France, it really only affected Muslims? It's one thing enforcing a uniform to curb Nike's influence, and forbidding ear-piercings etc because of health and safety and atmosphere - but the banning of religious wear is not a liberal move, it's as draconian and as conservative as anything that has made international news in the last decade!

But wrt secular humanism being forced on all faiths - what's the alternative?

Pluralism, as Ireland have. And as America have. Secularism, just like the head-scarf ban, is completely unfair on those with religious views (and we're talking 68% of our population at the last estimate) and favours purely atheistic views (<10% of the population).

Forcing a Christian belief on the atheists or those not of the Christian faith is unfair. And besides, we see religion as a private matter. I know in American evangelising is quite commonplace, but here we look down on it. You don't push your beliefs onto others, period.

I agree forcing Christian beliefs on anyone is unfair (but technically you can't do that because Christianity cannot be forced onto anyone, it must be accepted) and indoctrination is not acceptable, but evangelising is a totally different thing. In the first instance, 68% of adults in this country attend a Christian/Catholic service at least once a year - but in the second instance the exertion of influence is not avoidable. Be it through media or social constructs, people are always trying to sway your views on private matters. Why is religion so different? As an absolute extremist democrat I consider one's vote to be perfectly private, but I still canvass. And one's sexual preferences are private, but are subject to such influence by popular culture. What's the difference between trying to get somebody to convert to your religion? I think that evangelising is frowned upon because it's annoying, not because it's ethically wrong. And I think that we can all agree with this generic statement, that religion is (potentially) most important issue in the entire universe. But yet there should be no swaying? Pfft, politics is (potentially) nothing on religion.

Oh wow. So being prudish about the human body is "decent"? You'd probably let your children fire your guns, but you wouldn't let them see a nipple. That's just great.

If I was a parent of an eight year old I would not be happy with him seeing the Janet Jackson thing. Now I agree that the incident was completely blown out of proportion when one considers how readily accessible the top shelf of your local Centra is - but it seems to me that your argument is essentially "You're not strict enough by your own standards".

Hmm..well abortion is a thorny issue, and not something I agree with, so I can't really argue that in good faith. But what about gay marriage? The objection to that is mainly religious. Sure, there are some people who campaign "family values", but it's the same thing really.

We're getting on moral relativism here. Personally I think that acts of a homosexual nature are morally wrong, as set down by God. But I do not think that homosexuals should be oppressed or criminalised. I see lying as morally wrong, and I lie. I draw the line of state intervention on where the act could/does impinge on others. For example, if you and Kealy agree to have a fight in private that's fine. But in public no, because some ole' one could be frightened and that's unfair to public order. And if you require a state hospital bed afterwards you have to pay, or else you'll be using others' taxes. The same logic applies to abortion, you are/could be killing someone. It may be morally wrong to agree to fight (I dunno, probably not) but it's not within the realm of the State to intervene, because although the State should seek perfect morality, it will never achieve it because of its morally corrupt state itself.

And really, more worryingly, it just keeps them from thinking for themselves. Instead of saying, "I shouldn't murder this guy because it's morally wrong", they think "Oooh, I shouldn't murder this guy because God will be angry and send me to hell, as described in a 2000-year-old book". And that's a pretty big problem.

That's as ignorant as Christopher's "Atheists are morons". Of course religion stops some people from thinking from themselves, but so does advertising. It does not exclusively stop people from thinking from themselves. And I'm of the opinion that my form of Christianity (read ~Catholosism) states that you need to agree with it yourself in the first place. And this is includes that is something is morally wrong it is set by God. And the 2000 year-old book is not 2000 years old. It was first written 5000 years ago - but if it is actually the word of God (shock shock horror horror!) it does not matter when it was written because it's - wait for it - eternal.

So being gay and/or seeking pleasure is horrible? Please explain further, your logic intrigues me.

I have absolutely nothing against gay people. They tend to be far nicer than straight people on average, and I think their preferences are natural not nurtural. However, I believe that their sexual acts are sins/morally wrong. There's no flawed logic there. I think the main problem with Christopher's logic is that the State will never be able to eradicate all immorality anyway simply because of the existence of sin, and therefore they should seek to reach a maximum point - differenciate the moral equation and ignore the integer at the end, if you will.

We already have legalised recreational drugs

No we haven't.

and they're the most dangerous drugs there are.

No, they're not.

If you're talking about marijuana, mushrooms etc, the reason they've been banned is also mainly religious.

Also wrong. Health reasons.

They were used culturally as entheogens, and the Christian religion forbade them..hence why you think they're so wrong.

Wrong again. Not least because there is no one Christian religion

. Did you forget about the small little split there that happened a while back? Christians (exclusive of Catholics) dictate that what is wrong is set not by man but by God as portrayed in the Bible. I'm sure some religion (Catholosism) came out against it, but afaik there's nothing in the Bible about it - and papal infallability only came about in the 1800's, which dictates that the Pontiff becomes so united with God in his decision through ages and ages of prayer that his dictats cannot be wrong. Even still, the point is that it's from God - so if a Christian religion dictates something, say eating fish on a Friday, it's not necessarily wrong.

Time Magazine · 13-06-2005 3:53pm

Pet wrote:

It's a bit **** for you 49% alright I'd imagine..I've visited the US plenty of times in the past and only ever had brilliant experiences with the people I've met..okay the midwest was totally lacking in culture, but the cities more than compensated for that (I San Francisco).
It just seems to me that Bush has mobilised a small but very loud section of the population to stand up and declare their opinions in an obnoxious fashion; people who would otherwise be sitting out getting a nice shade of crimson on their necks..

Oh, and just in case you're apprehensive; I've never witnessed any anti-American comments being made to Americans on campus; you'll get the typical jokes and windups, but I'd be quite surprised if anyone gave you abuse. There's quite a few of them around and they get on great..

You fail to note that while 49% voted for Kerry, 51% voted for Bush. Not the election result I would have liked to have seen, but we must respect the democratic majority. And a +1% majority when it comes to a Boolean-esque election is the same as a +10%. Democracy is the worst form of Government, except for all the others.

Agree with the minority thing, but it's only an exagerrated case of the reality of democracy. FF have about 45% of the seats in the Dáil, but out of the people you know, how many would openly say FF are their main party? They just have a very strong core that is good at influencing the population as a whole. Ditto Bush.

Kevin_rc_ie · 13-06-2005 4:43pm

Angry Banana wrote:

....Some well said intelligent stuff ....

Well done AB, finally somebody brings some proper articulation and rational to these arguments.

ItalianStallion · 13-06-2005 6:41pm

Pet wrote:

I think that was a brilliant decision. It's just an extension of uniform policy basically. Everyone, regardless of colour or religious belief, is there to learn as an equal. I admire France so much for that decision, you can't even imagine.

Oh wow. This board is mainly comprised of Hamilton-end students, so I'll let some of them take you up on that first bit..
But wrt secular humanism being forced on all faiths - what's the alternative? Forcing a Christian belief on the atheists or those not of the Christian faith is unfair. And besides, we see religion as a private matter. I know in American evangelising is quite commonplace, but here we look down on it. You don't push your beliefs onto others, period.

There already are laws, are there not? Divorce laws and such take into account adultery when settling afaik..but you're the law student so educate me.

Oh wow. So being prudish about the human body is "decent"? You'd probably let your children fire your guns, but you wouldn't let them see a nipple. That's just great.

Hmm..well abortion is a thorny issue, and not something I agree with, so I can't really argue that in good faith. But what about gay marriage? The objection to that is mainly religious. Sure, there are some people who campaign "family values", but it's the same thing really.

You just contradicted YOURSELF, and all in the same paragraph. On one hand, you're saying that religion is what keeps us all in line, and on the other you're saying it's natural human law. Which is it? I'd go for the latter as I explained earlier. Religion doesn't keep people from doing wrong, it just gives them a different reason not to.

And really, more worryingly, it just keeps them from thinking for themselves. Instead of saying, "I shouldn't murder this guy because it's morally wrong", they think "Oooh, I shouldn't murder this guy because God will be angry and send me to hell, as described in a 2000-year-old book". And that's a pretty big problem.

I don't necessarily agree with stemcell research. And, there are types of stemcell research that don't involve cloning, you know..

So being gay and/or seeking pleasure is horrible? Please explain further, your logic intrigues me.

We already have legalised recreational drugs, and they're the most dangerous drugs there are. If you're talking about marijuana, mushrooms etc, the reason they've been banned is also mainly religious. They were used culturally as entheogens, and the Christian religion forbade them..hence why you think they're so wrong.

the very act of banning symbols is imposing the quasi-religion of secular humanism. you are infrenging on other freedom of expression. sort of hypocrytical to me. but anyone who admires france doesnt have any credibility anyway. this is not an attack of you, but really, france? come on!
forcing secular humanism denies the rights of all faiths as you deny atheists rights could be denied. athiests are wrong, somthing all religions can agree on. their godless philosophy (sorry budhists) is a great danger to humanity. it seeks "progression" by any means, even if is destructive to our families, our bodies and our human dignity.
your wong about adultury. it is legal. im sure some one like you would not like marrige as you probably see it as the oppression of women, but it is the oldest instution we have. it should be protected. in regards to divorse, it is a factor as infidelity is grounds, not a legalistic infringement. but then someone who's an alleged "intellectual" like your self probably knew that and wanted to play the devils advocate (im giving you the benefit of the doubt).
as for the nipple argument, you cant excape from your own hipocracy. the paragraph in reference came just after a previous one where you defended europe's commitment to Christian morality. showing semi-pornographic matereal is not Christian and not decent. i would let my children play with guns to protect their future but as i wouldnt let them look at pornography as that would endanger and corrupt it.
as for gay marrige, yes it is a religious issue. since the VAST majority of Americans are Christian, our values arereflected in the law. the constution doesnt deny that, and protecting it protects our right to put Christian inspired policy into action.
did you honestly not compherend what i said about religion? it comes from our response to God's revelation. part of that was written in our hearts, which we call NATURAL LAW. its really not that difficult to understand. religion (reaction to God) is our response. it is nessesary and those who profess not to have it cant be trusted because they dont believe in morality (atheistic morals are called 'ethics'.).

if you think all of the Christian religion is based on the bible, then you are incorrect. The Church puts Tradition over scripture, and this 'Tradition' is continual revelation. we seek goodness because it is what is right, not because we are afraid of hell. it is out of free will, not coersion. Jesus even said that thinking adultury is commiting it. i will cross apply this to your argument about murder. the athiest would only refrain out of fear of legal consequences. not a great restraint, especially with police as "proficient" as the Garda in solving crimes.
stem cell research is generallly ok if it uses adult stem sells.
being a hedonist is very wrong. seeking pleasure for the sake of pleasure is a corrupting, matrealist spiral that only serves to take away one's dignity. self denial and restraint are the only way to live a fulfilling and happy life. i speak from expirence (not the gay kind).
you seem to be defending drug use. its not out of religious spite that they are banned, its because they are gateway drugs. they open the door to alot of bad behavior and make the user lazy and stupid. althoug many of these can apply to alcohol, i implore you to ask yourself, would you rather you children have the odd drink, or somke the odd joint? marijuana is a filthy drug that glorifies excapism. somehow, i have a feeling that you smoke alot of it though.

ISAW · 13-06-2005 8:19pm

ItalianStallion wrote:

anti-semitism and anti-Israel are not always coorelated, but you will find that all who hate the Jews also hate Israel so they have a well forged connection to many.

I suggest you look up semetic. Palestineans are semetic as well!

Israel is the ONLY democracy in the region (aside from Iraq).

this is just quite plainly incorrect. I already told you this was wrong. Check the CIA factbook and then make the claim again. I know if you do you will not come back here and lie because I know you to be honest.

Jordan - constitutional monarchy - just like the UK

Yemen - republic - just like Ireland

Egypt, Turkey,
georgia- oops they might not be to hot on the Us or on russia.

then there are others like the recently ejected ambassador in Tashkent Uzbeckistan Craig Murray, who has been an outspoken critic of the regime's human rights record. He was dumped from his job not because he pointed to the fact that they actually boiled people in oil among other tortures but because he claimed MI6 and the CIA used this for information thereby giving it tacid approval! Do the US support democracies and despise dictators in the region? Well I suggest you look at the facts before you make the claims.

europe is limp wristed so they naturally hate strong action, especially in regards to national defence. look at how loud france has opposed Israel! france doesnt want Israel to protect Israel, because France cant protect France!

First I would remind you of your comments on gypsies. Gypsies are people who travel around and dont claim to own any plot. the land is for everyone. This land is your land this land is my land sort of thing. Now the original inhabitants of america thought the same way. Europeans came and enforced their enclosure and land ownership mentality. They killed off the natives and fenced off the land even against their own people. Thats called cattle baron mentality. Oil barons replaced the cattle men. But the mentality is the same. The Mc donalds mentality is where the cattle men thinking resides now.

Second the European Imperialist mentality didn't come to the fore in france until Napoleon Bonepart. that was after the English had begun Empire building and after their American colonies got independance. the mindset of the ruling classes was (and stillis) European. the British tried much the same in Ireland beginning seven centuries before that. Indeed the Us has more in common with the British empire than the Irish rebel. Many of them currently hark back to the ritual and pomp which was part of the Anglican culture. Indeed parts of this are left over in Trinity. And I have nothing against ritual if it is not enforcing a tradition.

The Politics of Christopher Gambino/America

Comments