NOT FOR THE FAINT HEARTED!
Via Jawa Report, "Horror: Taliban Behead Pakistani Troops in Swat Video:"
A video which claims to show Taliban troops in Pakistan's Swat valley murdering men accused of being "spies" for the government and the U.S. has emerged. It's really horrible and the only people who should watch it are Taliban sympathizers.And as I've asked before: This is the religion of peace?
You'd think I'd be immune to the effects of these kind of snuff videos by now, but I'm not. The horror of Islamists beheading their victims in accordance with Islamic law for alleged "crimes" never really goes away.
So, if you think the Taliban are just a bunch of freedom fighters, watch this video.
If you think Islamic law is some kind of noble endeavor, watch this video.
Or, if you just need to be reminded of how brutal our enemies are, watch this video.
The truth is that bad things happen in war. Even our own troops sometimes make tragic mistakes and on rare occasions the occasional bad apple does something horrible.
But for Taliban apologists let me remind you of two key differences.
First, we do not produce these kinds of videos as badges of honor. You do. We are embarrassed and horrified when we learn that any of our soldiers ever operate outside the rules of war. Remember Abu Ghraib? As a nation, we were ashamed.
Second, we prosecute soldiers who murder prisoners while you celebrate them.
Like the Nazis and Communists before you, you are a bunch of barbarians. The sooner you are all dead, the sooner the world can rest.
Now, let me say something about the video. The video is new to me (I think). It shows a gang slowly sawing off the heads of several bound victims on a road. The second half is old footage of a young boy murdering a man as his Taliban mentors egg him on.
What is odd about the video is that during the opening credits the symbol of the al-Shabaab terrorist organization is shown. The al-Shabaab are in Somalia, not Pakistan or Afghanistan, and those doing the murdering in the video are clearly not from Africa. So, why the al-Shabaab symbol? It makes zero sense to me.
See also my post, "Religion of Victory: Understanding Islam."
Related: Long War Journal, "Taliban Advance Eastward, Threaten Islamabad," via Memeorandum. Also, Allahpundit, "Time to Start Freaking Out About Pakistan."
**********
UPDATE: Jawa Report now linked at Memeorandum. See also, Kenneth G. Davenport, "Peril in Pakistan."
43 comments:
DD-
Typical of the masked murdering cowards. Normally they bleed or drug victims into a comatose state before they commence to bravely cut off heads. Victims are bound and outnumbered. How heroic!
These are animals, not people.
Thanks James!
and these animals say God wants them to do this? that's not my God...sickening...
These are our enemies, Libby!
For years I've raged against the politically correct crowd that spews "Islam is a religion of peace and love and respect." For years I've said no it's a religion of hate and rage and murder.
For my stance I'm labeled a racist and fear monger. I make a collection of these videos so as to not forget exactly what we fight. I don't have to watch them, I merely look on my myspace page where I keep them and see how many there are as a wakeup call when I feel like backing down.
Islam is a demon spawned religion. Period. End of statement. No apologies, ever.
Thanks Greywolfe!
Yeah, its that "peaceful" religion of Islam thingy, yet again.
-Dave
Greywolfe: I would never defend this either, and it's a bit offensive that Donald would send me the link implying that these are my allies. (In what world, Donald? I've shot my mouth off here before that if the Taliban disappeared tomorrow, I would cheer.) Islam is a horrible religion in that it allows interpretation to get to this point of extremism.
I am not the logical extension of religious extremism. Quite the opposite, in fact. This is the type of stuff people who believe in a mythical, grandfatherly sky god believe in. Call it the god of Abraham, Allah, whatever. To me, and other peaceful atheists, it's all B.S. (I'll give some leeway to Buddhists as I don't think many wars have been waged in the name of Buddha. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.)
I cannot bring myself to watch these videos. I don't need to be reminded that Islamic fundamentalism is the scourge of the planet. And Hillary Clinton said as much today when she warned of extremism in Pakistan.
Now, that said, I'm not stupid enough to judge an entire race and religion based purely on their extremists. There are also peaceful Muslims who get a different interpretation out of the Koran. Like President Obama. He seems to be a good Muslim.
I kid.
Thanks for the link Doc but I won't watch it. I saw one before and it was horrific. Meanwhile, the pantywaist liberals are crying because we get mass murderers wet.
rbosque: Why don't you say the same thing to John McCain? Or is he on your side in this issue?
If you seek to define our actions by being on the same despicable level of our enemies, how does that make us any better?
Tim, have you ever read the Koran? It's the perfect liberal book, in that it tries to confuse the reader by not going in order. Also, it's extremely redundant.
The thing is this, it is very clear that Jews in particular are to be killed. Other infadels are to be converted "by word or sword".
Those two items are not open to interpretation. Are there apostates in the Muslim faith? Undoubtedly. Just as there are in the Christian faith. (And don't kid yourself, atheism is a religion too. It's based on belief and a faith in no god.)
And as for our doing to Islamics what they do, and therefore lowering ourselves to their level? Are you completely daft?
Read this and tell me that we "tortured" anyone. Please.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38509
When you can show me any proof that what we did comes close to what these people do to christians or americans when they get ahold of us, I'll give your argument some credit.
I would assume that Greywolfe is confused by most books and pretty much all of the longer words in them, so take that with a grain of salt. Oh, he's also a racist and a fear monger(er) for jerking off to his "video collection".
These people are crazy Don because they believe that an invisible magical guy told them a long time ago to kill other people for no damn good reason. Yeah, they want to kill the Jews but pretty much all of you Christians believe that the Jews will burn in a lake of fire just like the Islamists do because they aren't buddy-buddy with Jesus. Afterlife's where it counts, right? We're all just killing time until the big dance, ya?
And John McCain is a pantywaist who let himself be captured and "tortured" by the North Vietnamese so that he could run for president someday, everyone knows that. Just kidding. I'm playing the "let's demonize the guy who beat our guy in the presidential race last year" game you guys on the right are having such a good time with lately.
Oh, and he's also a secret white Muslim; they're the hardest to spot. Think about it. Yeah.
That's just the response I've come to expect from you JBW. No refutations or logical arguments, just bile.
Brings a smug smile to my face and proves that liberals are, indeed, angry, pompous, self-absorbed, self-deluded, and more than anything else, mentally unhinged.
And like most liberal arguments that you and tim make, completely ignores the facts placed before you.
Yes, Greywolfe. Facts like "Islam is a demon spawned religion. Period. End of statement. No apologies, ever." Extraordinarily factual.
I'm wondering: what exactly was the scientific process you used to divine the act of "demon spawning"? And how exactly did you determine in your infinite wisdom that your assertion needed no refutation? Ever?
I'm also curious: what is the "logical argument" that you would accept that the book supposedly written by your god is nothing more than a collection of heavily edited fables used more for political gain than divine revelation?
Actually, I'm presupposing that the word "logical" and you never actually wind up on the same page. It seems that magic that supposedly backs up your prejudiced beliefs without requiring a shred of scientific proof is so much more convenient, ya?
And even if I was the illogical and bile-filled liberal you suppose me to be, how exactly does that "prove that liberals are, indeed, angry, pompous, self-absorbed, self-deluded, and more than anything else, mentally unhinged"? Do I represent all liberals, everywhere? If so, fuck yeah! I want them all wearing t-shirts with my pretty face on them tomorrow.
Or perhaps you are in desperate need of meeting my friend, the scientific method; you'd have a lot to talk about (well, actually, he'd have a lot to say whilest you would probably just yell about how your god made everything just like you believe he did and that thus, there is no argument. Oh, and that anyone who disagrees with you is a stupid doody-head).
And the only "facts" I see are that a redneck in a funny hat collects videos of violent Islamic killings as part of his "research" on the subject. As I've said before, whatever gets you off gets you off. I just wouldn't admit it with my picture quite so adjacent.
PS: I have plenty more bile under my nuts if you're looking for more, blossom. Do you still have that smug smile on your face? I hope so.
This is okay to liberals--they didn't waterboard him or use harsh interrogation techniques.
Has anyone noticed how Iraq is doing lately. Terrorists have killed more than 100 innocent people the past two days? But make sure no one gets waterboarded to prevent these acceptable-to-liberal events.
When Dennis reads this post, I want him to remember the comment of mine he thought was "very well stated" the other day, and to read it again in light of some of the commentary in and at this one.
Judging any group by the weakest, most foolish, or most offensive members never makes sense... There's a word for those who would tar everyone in a given group with the most unappealing traits of a small number of that group's members...When so many around the world practice Islam, and so few (relatively) commit such violent acts (or any violent acts, at all), how can anyone blame the whole religion, rather than the bad actors? It's like accusing all priests, or Catholicism itself, for abusing alter boys, or blaming Christianity for those who bomb abortion clinics or shoot doctors in His name.
Whether we're talking about Christian clinic bombers, those who behead their enemies according to "Islamic law," or Catholic pedophiles, they are fringe actors misusing and defiling the religion they claim to be representing. They should never be used to judge everyone who practices the religion in question.
As to Greywolfe's WND article, I would only respond that America should never judge our actions by comparing them against those of our enemies (Isn't that moral relativism?), but to our own moral and spiritual ideals. We know what is and isn't torture. We have for over 100 years, at least, and we've prosecuted those who've committed such acts against others, both foreign-born and American, for at least that long. Saying "nothing we do can be torture because our enemies do worse" just doesn't do America justice... We're a far better country and a better people than that.
Holy crap, these are some of moderate Taliban, maybe our president should have a dialog with them.
Hi: Dave. I'm still trying to figure out the "religion of peace" angle.
Tim:
"Islam is a horrible religion in that it allows interpretation to get to this point of extremism."
But you've also said:
"[Christianity] is a horrible religion in that it allows interpretation to get to this point of extremism."
Leftists want to destroy the U.S., and so does Radical Islam. I do think you have something in common.
" ... how can anyone blame the whole religion ..."
Repac's classic nihilist relativism.
This is the face of aggressive militant Islam, you idiot. I'm sure the 9/11 families would love to hear your argument about "how can anyone blame the whole religion..."
God, you're a freak.
Used.
Repsac3,
Do not let the fact that I thought that one out of a thousand statements was well stated. Though here I wish people would make a clear definition between "radical" Islam, or any religion et al, and the large numbers of individuals who practice their faith with no desire to cause harm to others.
If you and your fellow leftists would apply the same standards to those who disagree with you then we might have a frame of reference to solve many of the problems we face today. One only has to read JBW, Tim, et all to see a demonstration of that which you attempt to accuse others. Tim has been beat up so bad intellectually on other sites that I rarely see any of his drivel and dissembling any more.
Remember you can only call others names for so long before they begin to respond in kind. It does not make for a dialogue where the best of ideas from both sides can be debated and common ground sought.
Donald is right about your "classic nihilist relativism."
This is terrible and should be condemned by you and those on the left, but it seems past you to do it for it would lead to an admittance that maybe, just maybe, you are wrong about the enemies of this country and this country as well.
I ignore Tim, JBW, et al, but you could join the market place of ideas if you just extrapolated that which you believe and subject those ideas to serious evaluation.
I had a friend, who died not too long ago, who was a liberal. We argued about almost everything, but we never called each other names. Over a long period of time we began to realize we wanted the same things. The difference was in how to accomplish it. I miss him for he was a decent person. I wish i could say that for much of what passes for the left today.
Well, at least they didn't waterboard their victims; that would have been so wrong!
Donald: I get your righteous indignation with these people. We all do. But to start implying or asserting that somehow liberals are condoning this or support this is a bit unhinged. Pretty much everyone here commenting has a valid point, some just stray off message. Greywolfe, I don't buy into the idea that somehow the Koran is now another idea hatched and/or supported by Liberals. That is kinda funny, though. I would submit that to Rush Limbaugh so he can start that meme going.
The bottom line is that no Americans, true Americans, would buy into this B.S. either. This is why we fight, and we all know it. As I've said before, I'm not against all wars. Others have said here that Afghanistan, where the Taliban is taking over once more, is not the main target and shouldn't be treated as such. So, I would venture that they don't know what they are talking about.
No JBW, facts such as these.
1. any verse in the Qu'ran that states a point of view is superceded by any verse that follows, whether it conflicts or not. This is a basic tenet of Islamic belief in the Qu'ran. This is called Abrogation. See below.
2. There are two distinct and very different sets of teachings in the Qu'ran. The early, and peaceful teachings were in the early days when Muhammed had to walk small because of a lack of numbers in his fledgling religion. During this time, he shows a great deal of respect of the Monotheistic religions of Christianity and Judeism. In fact, the Allah of the Qu'ran claimed to be the same God worshipped by Jews and Christians, who now revealed himself to the Arab people through his chosen messenger, Muhammad.
Then there comes a time after he gains military power and leaves Mecca for Medina that when the narative changes and that transformed Islam from a relatively benign form of monotheism into an expansionary, military-political ideology that we know today.
The reason Westerners don't get it is because of what I refered to above as abrogation or al-naskh wa al-mansukh (the abrogating and the abrogated).
In order to find out what the Quran says on a given topic, it is necessary to examine the other Islamic sources that give clues as to when in Muhammad's lifetime the revelations occurred. Upon such examination, one discovers that the Meccan suras, revealed at a time when the Muslims were vulnerable, are generally benign; the later Medinan suras, revealed after Muhammad had made himself the head of an army, are bellicose.
These are the facts that I spoke of. Unless you are willing to do your homework spew somewhere else.
Based on what the Islamics have done that can be FACTUALLY proven, I stand by my OPINION that it is a murderous, hateful, DEMON-SPAWNED religion.
"Greywolfe, I don't buy into the idea that somehow the Koran is now another idea hatched and/or supported by Liberals."
I'm looking at my past comments and I don't see anywhere that I said the Koran was hatched by liberals... I've said exactly what JBW, confirmed: Liberals call me racist for my logical objections to a religion that calls for the death of me, you, and everyone else that reads these words (including JBW).
Greywolfe: Thanks for the history lesson. The one thing I feel compelled to point out, though, is that Islam is man-spawned. Completely and utterly human made. Like the thousands of other religions.
Now, if you Christians could just agree on your own religion, you might be on to something.
"It's the perfect liberal book, in that it tries to confuse the reader by not going in order. Also, it's extremely redundant."
Like the bible?
"This is why we fight, and we all know it."
Now you sound like a neocon, Tim. Can you also please denounce the gay marriage agenda while you're at it. They love the Muzzie terrorists...
About two years ago, World Public Opinion conducted a survey in four Islamic countries. It was somewhere between 11 and 15% of Muslims believed it was "completely justified" to kill infidels as al-Qaeda and the Taliban do. That's a larger number than the Gallup poll which stated 7%. Also, the poll indicated that between 56 and 76% thought it was "somewhat justified" to kill infidels. Can one be somewhat for these heinous acts? Can a woman be somewhat pregnant. No, either you think it's justified or not justified--there are no shades of gray here.
IMHO, part of the problem is people are not allowed to criticize Mohammed or the Qur'an. Why not? It's just another man-made document that attempts to dominate and control unsuspecting people. And from the terror incidents we witness in the world these days, it's about time that Muslims began a critical examination of the Qur'an.
Judaism and Christianity have modernized their belief systems, and moved them into the modern age. Why not Islam?
If you do not work to actively deter terrorism, you support it via neglect.
Kitty Genovese was allowed to be repeatedly stabbed until she died. Her neighbors neglected to help her.
"Detectives investigating Genovese's murder discovered that no fewer than 38 of her neighbors had witnessed at least one of her killer's three attacks but had neither come to her aid nor called the police. The one call made to the police came after Genovese was already dead."
"Assistant Chief Insp. Frederick Lussen, commander of Queens detectives, said that nothing in his 25 years of police work had shocked him so much as the apathy encountered on the Genovese murder. ``As we have reconstructed the crime, the assailant had three chances to kill this woman during a 35-minute period,'' Lussen said. ``If we had been called when he first attacked, this woman might not be dead now.''"
< http://www.newsday.com/community/guide/lihistory/ny-history-hs818a,0,7944135.story >
This is no different than not doing everything within your power to stop terrorists from killing innocent people. Failure to act allows terrorism to continue. Failure to aids and abets terrorism.
DD: Don't chop up what I said to make it fit your meme, Donald... Argue against the whole sentence, (or preferably, the whole comment) or don't bother arguing at all...
"When so many around the world practice Islam, and so few (relatively) commit such violent acts (or any violent acts, at all), how can anyone blame the whole religion, rather than the bad actors?"
This is the face of aggressive militant Islam, you idiot.Yes, it is... I never said otherwise, and I have often denounced militant islam, too... What is your point? (And what's with the friggin' namecalling? Does it really serve any useful purpose, or does it just make you feel like more of a man?)
I'm sure the 9/11 families would love to hear your argument about "how can anyone blame the whole religion..."You forget how many 911 families have spoken out against those who would blame all muslims for what happened to their loved ones... You forget how many have opposed aspects (if not the whole) "war on terror." Some of 'em even went overseas to visit with muslim families who lost loved ones in this war.
Like any other group, 911 families are not some monolithic group who all think and act in lockstep... And that, once again, is my point.
There are muslims and 911 families who agree with you. There are muslims and 911 families who agree with me And Donald, there are muslims and 911 families who don't agree with either one of us. Treating everyone in a group as though they're all the same is stupid, no matter what group we're talking about.---
Dennis: Though here I wish people would make a clear definition between "radical" Islam, or any religion et al, and the large numbers of individuals who practice their faith with no desire to cause harm to others.Me, too...
If you and your fellow leftists would apply the same standards to those who disagree with you then we might have a frame of reference to solve many of the problems we face today.We're not all the same, either... If you have an issue with something I say, fine, but unless I slap Tim or JBW on the back and say I agree with 'em, you've no cause to associate me with their comments, as though *I* made them. (Same goes the other way 'round, of course... Blaming Tim for my words would be just as foolish.)
Remember you can only call others names for so long before they begin to respond in kind. It does not make for a dialogue where the best of ideas from both sides can be debated and common ground sought.Again, I'm with ya... See how far back you have to search before you find me slingin' names at anyone, unprovoked... (Even provoked, I'm not likely to take the bait... If you look hard enough, you will eventually find me replying in kind, but provoked or not, it ain't common.)
Donald is right about your "classic nihilist relativism."Please explain.
This is terrible and should be condemned by you and those on the left, but it seems past you to do it for it would lead to an admittance that maybe, just maybe, you are wrong about the enemies of this country and this country as well.No American should have to condemn beheadings to prove their loyalty or their outrage against such acts. (Not even muslims, by the way...) It should be obvious, and go without saying, that beheading anyone, for any reason, is an awful act that cannot be defended.
But whether one feels obligated or obliged to condemn every brutal, terrorist act or not, not even terrorist acts performed by muslim extremists make it ok to generalize about all muslims. (Or for that matter, all liberals, all conservatives, or all of any other group.) Just because I wasn't making your point, doesn't mean I wasn't making any point.
Look, muslim extremists are bad. But I don't believe that muslim extremists are so much worse than any other enemy we've ever faced that we need to redefine torture or give the government more power to investigate us and lock suspects up than we ever have before.
Over a long period of time we began to realize we wanted the same things. The difference was in how to accomplish it.I still believe that of most of us Americans, including the former President, as well as our host here. While I do believe that certain individual Republicans &/or conservatives are absolute assholes (just like some Democrats &/or liberals), for the most part, I think you folks love America just as much as anybody on my side of the aisle does, but are just mistaken as to how to reach the peace and prosperity we all want.
If you read what I write and judge for yourself, I think you may find that I really don't fit the picture professor Douglas chooses to paint of me. Other conservatives have said as much...
Dennis, I don't know you or what you're about (I gather that you're a conservative) but neither do you know me. I come here occasionally for rousing debate and never stoop to calling people names unless they cross that line with me first (then I totally do; I'm not as classy or reserved as repsac3).
Case in point: the redneck in a funny hat on this comment thread just the other day called me a "maggot infested liberal". I apply the same standards to everyone here and I give respect as well as I receive it.
Greywolfe (hey, I was just talking about you!), I called you a racist and a fear monger(er) because you were bitching about people doing so. It was messing with you, son. Just as on another thread when someone wrote about Prejean "I'm just waiting for someone to compare her to Sarah Palin", I responded "She's just like Sarah Palin". I'm blatantly making jokes tongue in cheek and you blithely quote me anyway.
Now, if the point that you're trying to make is that nobody should believe the things written in an old book written centuries ago by humans but attributed to an all-seeing and all-knowing god who seems to go through a marked personality change halfway through the tome, then I agree with you.
Religion makes people do and believe many crazy things and you've chosen to focus on some of the craziest in only one religion. If Mohammad has a problem with me he can kiss my sweet ass, and your god can do the same for all I care because I give them both the exact same odds of existing: extraordinarily minuscule.
One last thing: I love how you declare after laying out your facts (notice the lack of quotation marks there? I won't dispute them because I know that religious texts say a lot of stupid things) that Islam is DEMON-SPAWNED. I have an uncle who breeds wild demons out in Montana, they're good eatin'. Let me know when you've scientifically proven Santa Claus' existence too.
JBW and repsac: Nice going. [Group hug.]
Donald: For the record, I condemn every act of brutality ever committed in the history of the world.
Are we good?
Tim, the "brutality" that Donald denounces is highly selective.
The brutality inflicted by kfir jets and stealth fighters and their laser guided missiles is mear "collateral damage". Besides, those middle-aged white men in suits (cough....prick cheney, cough, Rumsfeld......cough -Dick perle etc etc etc....)......well its perfectly reasonable for these cowards to indirectly call for actions that have resulted in the slaughter of thousands of civilians.
And, the indirect brutality of deaths inflicted by the billions of dollars in arms sold by WEstern powers (including Israel), is mearly capitalism at its very best.
Jesus would have approved.
As you can see, Donald is a principled reasoned man of integrity that calls a spade a spade, when it suits his agenda.
JBW,
Come on dude, dont you masturbate to beheading videos? I was thinking Greywolfe is doing as the masses do.
thomas, JBW, and Tim,
This is the last I'll say to you here or elsewhere, please try very hard to understand where I'm coming from on this. No hostility or sarcasm is intended.
For liberals such as yourselves, this is merely a game of let's piss off the Conservatives. For many of us that have a sense of history, we see the death of a great republic in the offing. Everything that you and yours stand for (or at least the little you guys do say in stance, when not just attacking people on a shallow basis)has been tried and failed in other "great" societies.
We blog and post on blogs in order to share ideals or inform each other of happenings that others that we know have like minds, might not be aware of.
It's a method of communication. What you do is not communication, it serves no purpose, it offers no point of reference. There are liberals that I converse with respectfully.
Incidentally, JBW, I've gone back through my emails and done a search for previous conversations between you and I and the earliest I can find you responding to anything I said was to open up with a slam on my hat.
Just saying, the rock was thrown from your court first. (I think I just heard my dead mother threaten to ground us both for acting like brats.)
At any rate, incivility serves no one. So for one and all, I apologize for my side of the hostility.
That being said, I will still fight for those ideals that I find it necessary to defend. I don't think I can, in good conscience engage in a coversation with people that refuse to look at anything in modern politics or even current events with any sort of moral or historical perspective. We simply see the world from points of view that are too dissimilar.
Greywolfe: With all due respect, I respect your opinions and beliefs. They just are not mine. And what it comes down to is really about a belief system. You say that ours is discredited. Which I don't believe for a second, but will acknowledge weaknesses. Your belief system is no more creditable, and that is where we find the crossroads.
My own personal beliefs --which I stand by -- are ones in which I feel are more in line with what the creators of the idea of government, the founding fathers, and even Jesus H. Christ believe in. As a group of people, we have to come together for all of us, not just the lucky few who possess the capitalism gene. We simply are not all built the way you are, or Donald. Our ideas about government reflect that idea...that we are all created equal in the eyes of the law and justice, but we are not all created equal when it comes to things like staying healthy or earning money or even worshipping for that matter.
One thing the founding fathers did, in their amazing infinite wisdom, is that they said look, our government has to be OF the people, BY the people, and FOR the people. That is you and me. And if you don't like what they do, you vote them out.
We get that on our side. We accept that.
The founding fathers were wary of two great things that proved to be the perennial albatross around the necks of failed governments or empires: Getting involved in endless foreign entanglements, and religion playing ANY part of government. The lessons were learned, and they made accommodations for that.
The problem today, from where we liberals sit, is that your side simply does not get any of that.
I am not here to "piss off conservatives." If you look back, you will find that I have been called all sorts of ridiculous names, when all I've been guilty of is calling Donald, and other posters out on their ridiculous hypocrisy and/or inconsistencies.
Donald loves to call me a nihilist or hypocrite. But he rarely backs it up with anything.
I get under his skin, because he was once as liberal as I am now. If not more. And he knows that truth can hurt.
I simply don't play the game and go looking for deranged left wing bloggers elsewhere, or right wing bloggers. (Although Donald, I've clicked through a few of your links and found some pretty hateful people you support.)
Pot, kettle...you're both black.
Tim, as a discussion of beliefs and in the interest of actually exhanging ideas, where in the world do you get that our founders didn't want religion in ANY part of government?
There are only two places in the history of this nation, that the words "wall of seperation of church and state" ever appear. The first was in a letter to the Danbury Baptists from President Jefferson where he assured them that there would never be a time when government would limit or control the free exercise of religion. I've got the exact quote from the letter if you like.
The only other place was in an ill-begotten case from 1947 in which the supreme court obliterated the true meaning intended by the 1st amendment. In fact, if you consider that reference to God was made no less than 4 times in the Declaration of Independance, and the fact that from the beginning of the original continental congress there was a minister that opened and closed the meetings in prayer, it is safe to say with certainty that they knew that religion and government must go hand in hand. They didn't, however, want a theocracy. That they were adamant about.
If you like I can send you links to all of the founders writings and speeches that further the point. If, that is, you are willing to listen and accept truth.
I don't see the point to using the "Founding fathers.....said this" argument to debate secularism.
Besides, didn't some of the founding fathers acknowledge slavery and even approve of its use?
Does that mean we should do as they did and still be abusing slaves?
Greywolfe, would yah like a slave or two?
hmmmmmm.
The point is, that we should not be making an argument based on the history of 300 years ago. We should be using history as a learning tool to improve our basic laws and values.
I am not sure what it is with some of you pseudo-conservatives and your obsessions with taking literal meanings of words from certain influential people of the past (ie the founding fathers, and that certain someone named Jesus....) and compulsively and erroneously applying them to modern problems.
Learning and improving on history is not the same as repeating it.
thomas, your point of view is that of a nihilist, and as such has no credibility with me. Hense I've no response to your assinine points. As for the preceding conversation, I believe I was addressing Tim and a point he made, that I took an exception to.
Greywolfe,
ON a side note.
If you see a black man, do you take off running?
Just a thought.
Tim, if after this amount of time you are having problems with research, I'll give you a little bit of help. If you go to my website I have listed our founders arguments regarding the Christian religion and it's place in American life. Look for a blog post called "Founding Principles 101" and another called "America The Christian Nation -The Argument". Neither of these is an extrapolation of my own beliefs. Rather they are observations of history as recorded.
Tim, your problem and many on the left is that you have been taught a liberals re-invention of our founding history. The Founding Fathers were not demi-gods or other supernatural individuals. They were men. With human foibles and a basic sinful nature, just like the rest of us. But they were well educated, wise in the ways of the evils of government and forward thinking. The successes of the first 174 years (I use that date because of the Supreme Court decision of 1947) is a testiment to their wisdom and planning of this nation.
Tomas, I originally thought to just blow you off and ignore your comments concerning the Founders and slavery. However, as it was pointed out to me, to ignore a stupid, uneducated point such as this, concedes the point. so instead, I decided to try to educate you.
The act and practice of slavery in the original 13 colonies was over 200 years old when our founders took freedoms reigns into their own hands. And there is reason, and I will back these up with direct quotes from the Founders themselves, to believe that the founders found the practice Abhorant.
To keep from taking the comments section of this worthy post and redirecting it in directions not in the original post I invite you and tim to come and see what I post on this topic tonight. Repsac3, of course you are welcome as we've had other discussions and they've remained civil.
Understand the rules of my site, I do not tolerate incivility or name calling. Adding to the discussion is lauded, attempts at baiting for it's own sake will never see the light of day on my site, ask ducky.
These are illiterate cowards that make me sick to my stomach....
I really wish these barbarians would disappear
Post a Comment