eyeball Posted December 31, 2015 Report Posted December 31, 2015 His personal spiritual belief was never the issue. Who said it was? A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
SRV Posted December 31, 2015 Report Posted December 31, 2015 (edited) I think both the Bible and the Koran can be diabolical books, depending on the agenda of whoever is quoting them. Those who believe in literal interpretations of what they accept as sacred texts are particularly vulnerable to being manipulated by those who invoke scripture. To disagree with the text is to disagree with Allah/God, and therefore the person quoting scripture is seen to be correct. Selective scripture passages can, have, and continue to be used to justify pretty much anything. For people who believe in the inerrancy of scripture only someone knowledgeable enough of scripture to present a scripture-based credible counterargument, can cast doubt on the assertions made in the original argument, There are those who use scripture genuinely and sincerely to seek divine inspiration; and there are those who seek to further their own agendas, greed and lust and don't hesitate to invoke scripture to do so. It is not always easy to tell them apart. Allow me to invoke Jesus, who said we could tell them apart by their fruits. Makes sense to me. Actions speak do speak louder than words. But now we have a new problem. If one fruit was good are all the other fruits on that same tree equally good? Or are we to evaluate the merits of each particular action regardless of the identity of the actor? We are often presented with false dichotomies: Christian or Muslim; secular or religious; liberal or conservative; capitalist or socialist . Etc. If you are not one you are assumed to be the other. In Iraq the coalition forces spoke of 'the bad guys', which I presume referred to anyone and everyone who resisted the invasion, and assumed themselves to be 'the good guys'. Real life is far more nuanced than that. Bad trees can bare good fruit, and good trees can bare bad fruit. Good guys can do bad things and bad guys can do good things. And it may be a good thing to welcome Syrian refugees despite a certain level of added risk. Edited December 31, 2015 by SRV
Guest Posted December 31, 2015 Report Posted December 31, 2015 And it may be a good thing to welcome Syrian refugees despite a certain level of added risk. I think it's a breakthrough just to acknowledge the added risk.
eyeball Posted December 31, 2015 Report Posted December 31, 2015 There's risk in everything, the issue is a question of probabilities. I guess I can see screening incoming people for lightning rods and metal plates in their heads and such but c'mon, at what point does the perceived risk become so negligible it's also laughable? A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
DogOnPorch Posted December 31, 2015 Report Posted December 31, 2015 I actually thought my adulthood would be this at one point... Crazy, eh? That was MY religion...shattered. Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
SRV Posted December 31, 2015 Report Posted December 31, 2015 (edited) I think it's a breakthrough just to acknowledge the added risk. Oh, I don't think there is much point in pretending that there is no risk whatsoever. Given the number of innocent Muslims killed in the GWOT since 9/11 in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Libia, Syria etc. It would be absolutely naive to think that none of them have any animosity towards the member-countries of the coalition in the GWOT after family members, neighbours, relatives and friends died as collateral damage or wrongfully suspected. There is undoubtedly some risk. There may also be some risk in continuing (?) to treat all Muslims as guilty until proven innocent, and denying large numbers safe haven. Our willingness to accept some risk and welcome refugees in the long run will probably do more to diminish the terrorist threat than refusing them entry. Besides that, it is the right and courageous think to do. (Courage isn't the denial of risk, it is doing the right thing despite our fears.) It may also be a good idea to refrain from bombing and killing more of newly -arrived refugees family members, neighbours, relatives and friends in their countries of origin. Some of them might become radicalized and conclude that despite rhetoric to the contrary a significant proportion of West are in favour of war on all of Islam. My greatest fear is that Canada will not be able to adequately manage the risk to newly arrived refugees posed by Canada's own Islamophobes. Ironically Canada's Islamophobes' attitude towards and treatment of Muslims may do more to radicalize newly-arrived refugees than ISIS has/will. . Edited December 31, 2015 by SRV
On Guard for Thee Posted December 31, 2015 Report Posted December 31, 2015 Oh, I don't think there is much point in pretending that there is no risk whatsoever. Given the number of innocent Muslims killed in the GWOT since 9/11 in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Libia, Syria etc. It would be absolutely naive to think that none of them have any animosity towards the member-countries of the coalition in the GWOT after family members, neighbours, relatives and friends died as collateral damage or wrongfully suspected. There is undoubtedly some risk. There may also be some risk in (continuing ?) to treat all Muslims as guilty until proven innocent, and denying large numbers safe haven. Our willingness to accept some risk and welcome refugees in the long run will probably do more to diminish the terrorist threat than refusing them entry. Besides that, it is the right and courageous think to do. (Courage isn't the denial of risk, it is doing the right thing despite our fears.) Well stated, especially the remark about accepting some relatively easily controlled risk now, diminishing larger risks down the road. I reckon this has been proven so many times by now, it's getting pretty hard for a bigot to find a panic station to try to use to scare anyone anymore. Other than their ilk of course.
eyeball Posted December 31, 2015 Report Posted December 31, 2015 I actually thought my adulthood would be this at one point... Crazy, eh? That was MY religion...shattered. I bought that ticket and missed that ride too. A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
SRV Posted December 31, 2015 Report Posted December 31, 2015 (edited) I actually thought my adulthood would be this at one point... Crazy, eh? That was MY religion...shattered. I bought that ticket and missed that ride too. Ah! The days when we were all riding a wave of unbridled euphoric optimism! Things were good and they could only get better! Scientific innovation would always prevent scarcity, and we would be mining other planets by now! And increases in productivity would allow our grand-kids to earn in an hour what we earned in a week, so they could easily pay off any deficit we ran up... Sorry about that grand-kids! Maybe you can learn from our mistakes1 If you survive the environmental deficit that is,,, Edited January 8, 2016 by Charles Anthony
DogOnPorch Posted December 31, 2015 Report Posted December 31, 2015 Ah! The days when we were all riding a wave of unbridled euphoric optimism! Yes...then the Saudis found the valve that turns off the oil. The 60s ended right about then...a few years late. Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
eyeball Posted December 31, 2015 Report Posted December 31, 2015 Crazy, eh? That was MY religion...shattered. Ah! The days when we were all riding a wave of unbridled euphoric optimism! Things were good and they could only get better! You don't recall the unbridled fear of communism?If we could have mimicked the advances that have been made peddling fear and loathing in our advance into space we'd probably be sending our first manned exploratory missions to Alpha Centuri. A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Argus Posted December 31, 2015 Report Posted December 31, 2015 (edited) Oh, I don't think there is much point in pretending that there is no risk whatsoever. Given the number of innocent Muslims killed in the GWOT since 9/11 in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Libia, Syria etc. It would be absolutely naive to think that none of them have any animosity towards the member-countries of the coalition in the GWOT after family members, neighbours, relatives and friends died as collateral damage or wrongfully suspected. There is undoubtedly some risk. You know, I can't think of a single terrorist attack which was launched by someone who lost people to the "GWOT". Did the guys who flew those airplanes into the WTC bemoan their relatives - in Saudi Arabia - who had been killed in air strikes? Did the people who set off bombs in Kenya protest against the injustice of their people being killed? Did those who blew a big hole in the USS Cole complain about a GWOT which hadn't even started yet? Your whinging is just the cliche'd liberal bigotry we've become so familiar with, which absolves 'brown people' of any responsibility for their actions because, well, they're just brown people! What can you expect!? They can't be held to the same standards as civilized white folks! No, no! Anything that they do bad is our fault because we were insensitive, or provoked them or were rude, or drew hostile cartoons or something like that! We should have known better than to provoke brown people! There may also be some risk in continuing (?) to treat all Muslims as guilty until proven innocent, and denying large numbers safe haven. Our willingness to accept some risk and welcome refugees in the long run will probably do more to diminish the terrorist threat than refusing them entry. That's drivel. In fact, the countries which have taken in the most Muslims are the ones who are having the most problems with Muslim violence. If you look at some of the polls taken of British Muslims, for example, substantial numbers of them support terrorism, including against Britain, and want to live in an Islamic state under Sharia law. My greatest fear is that Canada will not be able to adequately manage the risk to newly arrived refugees posed by Canada's own Islamophobes. Ironically Canada's Islamophobes' attitude towards and treatment of Muslims may do more to radicalize newly-arrived refugees than ISIS has/will. . That's another noxious cliche the progressives like to spew, despite there being not a single shred of evidence that home grown Muslim terrorists in Canada, in the US, in Britain or France, were provoked in any way by people who didn't like or were suspicious of Muslims. Not a single one of them has ever complained about that, including the recent pair from San Bernadino. As for attacks on Muslims, there have been no more than a handful, and most were verbal. I find it not surprising you would fear that, as opposed to the far more numerous hate crimes committed against Jews, since those progressive who are most stridently supportive of Islam rarely concern themselves with what happens to Jews. Edited December 31, 2015 by Argus "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted December 31, 2015 Report Posted December 31, 2015 Well stated, especially the remark about accepting some relatively easily controlled risk now, diminishing larger risks down the road. I reckon this has been proven so many times by now, Cite? "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
DogOnPorch Posted December 31, 2015 Report Posted December 31, 2015 You don't recall the unbridled fear of communism? If we could have mimicked the advances that have been made peddling fear and loathing in our advance into space we'd probably be sending our first manned exploratory missions to Alpha Centuri. Key words: 'our advance into space'...ie...Western Civilization. Not Islam which has only one use for a rocket. Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
Big Guy Posted December 31, 2015 Report Posted December 31, 2015 There is an organization called "Pegida" – Patriotic Europeans Against the Islamisation of the Occident centered in Germany. I suggest that the anti-Muslims posting here might look at their literature for re-enforcement. The group recently created an instrumental song Gemeinsam sind wir stark – German for “Together we are strong” – which was released over Christmas. Amazon was criticised for making money from sales of the song. http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/dec/31/amazon-to-donate-pegida-song-profits-to-refugee-charity Amazon has since decided to give any profits away. “Amazon’s profits from the sale of this song will go to a non-profit-making organisation supporting refugees,” the company said. Looks like the anti-Muslims just can't get a break! Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.
eyeball Posted December 31, 2015 Report Posted December 31, 2015 Key words: 'our advance into space'...ie...Western Civilization. I meant humanity's advance. You think too small. ]Not Islam which has only one use for a rocket.Yeah, making people crap their pants. Notice they only need a small handful to do that compared to the old Soviet Union who needed thousands to make us quiver in fear. A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
DogOnPorch Posted December 31, 2015 Report Posted December 31, 2015 (edited) I meant humanity's advance. You think too small. Yeah, making people crap their pants. Notice they only need a small handful to do that compared to the old Soviet Union who needed thousands to make us quiver in fear. Perhaps Iran's shooting of monkeys into space to test ICBM re-entry shrouds counts as a manned space program for Islam. They've already violated their supposed ban on ICBM tests. But, who cares? Edited December 31, 2015 by DogOnPorch Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
DogOnPorch Posted December 31, 2015 Report Posted December 31, 2015 And...of course...there's Pakistan which is just one 'Arab Spring' away from allowing high yield atomic weapons with intercontinental range into the hands of those who would use them. Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
eyeball Posted December 31, 2015 Report Posted December 31, 2015 Perhaps Iran's shooting of monkeys into space to test ICBM re-entry shrouds counts as a manned space program for Islam. They've already violated their supposed ban on ICBM tests. But, who cares? Not me, that's for sure. A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
eyeball Posted December 31, 2015 Report Posted December 31, 2015 And...of course...there's Pakistan which is just one 'Arab Spring' away from allowing high yield atomic weapons with intercontinental range into the hands of those who would use them. Meh. A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
DogOnPorch Posted December 31, 2015 Report Posted December 31, 2015 Not me, that's for sure. The 10-15kt weapons like Iran is shooting for are TINY next to a hydrogen bomb. Barely worth mentioning. See for yourself. http://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/ Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
DogOnPorch Posted December 31, 2015 Report Posted December 31, 2015 Meh. It was fishermen that got the worst dose re: Castle Bravo...and they weren't even aiming. Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
SRV Posted December 31, 2015 Report Posted December 31, 2015 You don't recall the unbridled fear of communism? If we could have mimicked the advances that have been made peddling fear and loathing in our advance into space we'd probably be sending our first manned exploratory missions to Alpha Centuri. I do recall our unbridled fear of communism and Reagan's failed attempt at "peddling fear and loathing in our advance into space" --dubbed the "Star Wars Defence System".
eyeball Posted December 31, 2015 Report Posted December 31, 2015 Fear sells, like hotcakes. A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
bush_cheney2004 Posted December 31, 2015 Report Posted December 31, 2015 I do recall our unbridled fear of communism and Reagan's failed attempt at "peddling fear and loathing in our advance into space" --dubbed the "Star Wars Defence System". Off topic....Reagan did not fail as he had physics and economics on his side. Reagan had problems with radical Islam too....not space. Economics trumps Virtue.
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts