Unfortunately, stupidity is not just limited to Americans.  If it were, the solution to all my problems would be to move somewhere else.  Alas, stupidity seems to be a world-wide epidemic.  But I do agree, it seems that religious fundamentalists of all kinds are leading the charge for idiocy.

sleeper wrote: I cant belive how stupid Americans are (present company excepted of coars). Ive just seen on the news that some bloke in Kansas, I think, is starting a museum that is suposed to prove that dinosaures lived in the garden of eden alongside people, that they were all herbivours and got on together (yes even T-rex) and that this happend only 6000 years ago. Hes actually trying to present it as scientific evidence that is completely opposed to the theory of evolution and every other scientific fact about our history. The funniest thing about this is that a priest with a degree in biology is actually against this and is saying that the bible is wrong and teaching this at his church .

Hey, it was all you fundamentalist English puritians that came over here and started all this crap. Don't forget, most fundamenatlist America Christians trace their ancestry right up to your musty, smallish, coal-dust covered English doorstep.

bluetailfly wrote: sleeper wrote: I cant belive how stupid Americans are (present company excepted of coars). Ive just seen on the news that some bloke in Kansas, I think, is starting a museum that is suposed to prove that dinosaures lived in the garden of eden alongside people, that they were all herbivours and got on together (yes even T-rex) and that this happend only 6000 years ago. Hes actually trying to present it as scientific evidence that is completely opposed to the theory of evolution and every other scientific fact about our history. The funniest thing about this is that a priest with a degree in biology is actually against this and is saying that the bible is wrong and teaching this at his church .   Hey, it was all you fundamentalist English puritians that came over here and started all this crap. Don't forget, most fundamenatlist America Christians trace their ancestry right up to your musty, smallish, coal-dust covered English doorstep.

Yes I know, like i said, im well awar that European history is almost certainly filled with other examples of religously instegated stupidaty. At least Americans dont take a vilant aproach to proving their hard line stance, unlike some.

sleeper wrote: bluetailfly wrote: sleeper wrote: I cant belive how stupid Americans are (present company excepted of coars). Ive just seen on the news that some bloke in Kansas, I think, is starting a museum that is suposed to prove that dinosaures lived in the garden of eden alongside people, that they were all herbivours and got on together (yes even T-rex) and that this happend only 6000 years ago. Hes actually trying to present it as scientific evidence that is completely opposed to the theory of evolution and every other scientific fact about our history. The funniest thing about this is that a priest with a degree in biology is actually against this and is saying that the bible is wrong and teaching this at his church .   Hey, it was all you fundamentalist English puritians that came over here and started all this crap. Don't forget, most fundamenatlist America Christians trace their ancestry right up to your musty, smallish, coal-dust covered English doorstep. Yes I know, like i said, im well awar that European history is almost certainly filled with other examples of religously instegated stupidaty. At least Americans dont take a vilant aproach to proving their hard line stance, unlike some.

Actually, some do, but let's not go there...

there IS stupidity in religion in every place in the world. Seing it happen in Irak or other poor countries is one thing. But to see such thing going on in the so called ''power'' of the world is completely ridiculous. That Jesus Belt (south USA) is really a scary place . People arguing about how sick child pornography is, while their own damn local priests are apart of it sickens me. People are so closed minded down there. At least North USA is more open minded

bluetailfly wrote: sleeper wrote: bluetailfly wrote: sleeper wrote: I cant belive how stupid Americans are (present company excepted of coars). Ive just seen on the news that some bloke in Kansas, I think, is starting a museum that is suposed to prove that dinosaures lived in the garden of eden alongside people, that they were all herbivours and got on together (yes even T-rex) and that this happend only 6000 years ago. Hes actually trying to present it as scientific evidence that is completely opposed to the theory of evolution and every other scientific fact about our history. The funniest thing about this is that a priest with a degree in biology is actually against this and is saying that the bible is wrong and teaching this at his church .   Hey, it was all you fundamentalist English puritians that came over here and started all this crap. Don't forget, most fundamenatlist America Christians trace their ancestry right up to your musty, smallish, coal-dust covered English doorstep. Yes I know, like i said, im well awar that European history is almost certainly filled with other examples of religously instegated stupidaty. At least Americans dont take a vilant aproach to proving their hard line stance, unlike some. Actually, some do, but let's not go there...

Really? its not something that makes the news on this side of the atlantic.

sleeper wrote: bluetailfly wrote: sleeper wrote: bluetailfly wrote: sleeper wrote: I cant belive how stupid Americans are (present company excepted of coars). Ive just seen on the news that some bloke in Kansas, I think, is starting a museum that is suposed to prove that dinosaures lived in the garden of eden alongside people, that they were all herbivours and got on together (yes even T-rex) and that this happend only 6000 years ago. Hes actually trying to present it as scientific evidence that is completely opposed to the theory of evolution and every other scientific fact about our history. The funniest thing about this is that a priest with a degree in biology is actually against this and is saying that the bible is wrong and teaching this at his church .   Hey, it was all you fundamentalist English puritians that came over here and started all this crap. Don't forget, most fundamenatlist America Christians trace their ancestry right up to your musty, smallish, coal-dust covered English doorstep. Yes I know, like i said, im well awar that European history is almost certainly filled with other examples of religously instegated stupidaty. At least Americans dont take a vilant aproach to proving their hard line stance, unlike some. Actually, some do, but let's not go there... Really? its not something that makes the news on this side of the atlantic.

You dont see the right news....

Tony R wrote: sleeper wrote: bluetailfly wrote: sleeper wrote: bluetailfly wrote: sleeper wrote: I cant belive how stupid Americans are (present company excepted of coars). Ive just seen on the news that some bloke in Kansas, I think, is starting a museum that is suposed to prove that dinosaures lived in the garden of eden alongside people, that they were all herbivours and got on together (yes even T-rex) and that this happend only 6000 years ago. Hes actually trying to present it as scientific evidence that is completely opposed to the theory of evolution and every other scientific fact about our history. The funniest thing about this is that a priest with a degree in biology is actually against this and is saying that the bible is wrong and teaching this at his church .   Hey, it was all you fundamentalist English puritians that came over here and started all this crap. Don't forget, most fundamenatlist America Christians trace their ancestry right up to your musty, smallish, coal-dust covered English doorstep. Yes I know, like i said, im well awar that European history is almost certainly filled with other examples of religously instegated stupidaty. At least Americans dont take a vilant aproach to proving their hard line stance, unlike some. Actually, some do, but let's not go there... Really? its not something that makes the news on this side of the atlantic. You dont see the right news....

What would be the right news then?

erik neuteboom wrote: For many centuries Christians have conquered, raped, plundered and explored continents like Asia, Africa and America. And now a certain mr. Bush is warning the 'civilised part of this world' that the Islam is a danger.. what a projection! I'm glad that I'm not an American but this reborn Christian hypocrite, who represents the very rich and mighty Texan oil-clan, will turn out to be more a threat to the world peace than all cells from El Queda together! I respect all religions but the reality is that most religous people (like in the USA) are often abused for the wrong purposes... ..!

Look, I'm no Bush supporter, but Bush has made it clear that Islam is not the danger. So that's a bogus statement.

I believe the danger is people who simplify reality so that they can hate. If one truly understands the complexity of the world's problems, you cannot hate, and that's a problem for some people. Some people have just got to hate, and they have to find a target for their hate.

Note: And by some people, I mean liberals as well as conservatives. A lot of liberals love to hate. It's part of the fun of being a liberal for some. And conservatives, well, you get my point... .

An old fart wrote: Letting alone how Christianity (or any religion) is and has been abused for an excuse of misuse of power, the problem in the original topic - the denying of evolution - is trying to prove that Bible is also a valid biologic and/or historic book. I would be fine with any religious views, even the ones that fundamentalists have, if religious thinking would not try to dominate other areas of life as well, such as politics (foreign and domestic, including legislation), history, biology. Religious feelings - or the lack of them - should be a humble, private thing and not something that is tried to be pushed down other people's throat.

But that's precisely the problem -- Christianity and Islam are both evangelical religions -- it's part of their purpose to convert the unconverted.  The fundamentalist wings of each religion will inevitably use this evangelical purpose to justify violence towards non-believers. This is why Christians and Islamists are almost always at involved as aggressors in the history of the world's holy wars.  The idea that religion should be private and humble is a post-industrial phenomenon for western nations; the religions themselves were not founded or perpetuated on such beliefs.  Christianity has, for the most part, adapted to this way of thinking in western Europe (to whatever extent Christianity still has a presence in western Europe   .  It has not proven so flexible in the US.  I attribute this partially to the very large size of the US and the ease with which like-minded people have been able to sequester themselves into little corners of the country and live without much ethnic or religous or idealistic diversity.  Europe is too crowded to allow for this.     

You see what I mean yargh ... "degenerate Asians", "stupid Americans' ...

IMO, that's not the way to start off a thread ... it's not about being sensitive, I just think a more polite attitude will benefit these (occasionally) intriguing discussions ...

This guy from Kansas is ill. He needs help, not mocking.

The rational majority ignores religous psychosis and fundamenatlism at its peril.

By this we are all sustained: a belief in human nature
and in justice and parity...all we have is the faith to carry on.
        
Imperceptible the change as our votes become mere gestures
and our lords and masters determine to cast us
in the roles of serfs and slaves
in the new empire's name.
        
Yes and every bloody emperor claims that freedom is his cause
as he buffs up on his common touch as a get-out clause.
        
Unto nations nations speak in the language of the gutter;
trading primetime insults the imperial impulse
extends across the screen.
Truth's been beaten to its knees; the lies embed ad infinitum
till their repetition becomes a dictum
we're traitors to disbelieve.
With what impotence we grieve for the democratic process
as our glorious leaders conspire to feed us
the last dregs of imperious disdain
in the new empire's name.
        
Yes and every bloody emperor's got his hands up history's skirt
as he poses for posterity over the fresh-dug dirt.
Yes and every bloody emperor with his sickly rictus grin
talks his way out of nearly anything but the lie within
because every bloody emperor thinks his right to rule divine
so he'll go spinning and spinning and spinning into his own decline.
        
Imperceptible the change as one by one our voices falter
and the double standards of propaganda
still all our righteous rage.
        
By this we are all sustained: our belief in human nature.
But our faith diminishes - close to the finish,
we're only serfs and slaves
as the empire decays.

(P.H. Every Bloody Emperor)

erik neuteboom wrote: Sorry, Bluetailfly was right, I used the wrong word: I said that Bush has warned that the Islam is a danger but I had to say that Bush has warned that terrorism is a danger. That's projection from him because this arrogant and narrow-minded re-born Christian is both undermining and endangering his own country as the whole world with his politics for the very rich. He and his clan of oil and weapon sellers are terrorising us and they abuse the fact that so many Americans are very religious, in order to push religious discussions to the limits while true important issues are ignored. I respect every religion but the situation in the USA is very dangerous because of Mr. Bush Junior his hypocrite re-born Christian behaviour!

It is difficult to know exactly what Bush thinks personally about the Islamic religion.  His careful use of words after World Trade Center attacks was motiviated, in large part, to not offend the Islamic nations that are -- on paper -- friendly towards the U.S., as he began his military campaigns against Afghanistan and Iraq.  Additionally, he did not want to offend any of his Saudi oil friends, with whom he and his familiy have partnered to make many millions of dollars.  There is also the long-standing principle of American society against religious persecution that Bush did not want to run afoul of while he planned potentially divisive policy decisions. That said, let's call Bush's "War on Terror" what it is:  it's a war on Islamic fundamentalism.  There are "terrorists" all over the globe, but I'm fairly certain that there isn't a lot of money or human resources being spent to arrest, say, IRA members.    

yargh wrote: erik neuteboom wrote: Sorry, Bluetailfly was right, I used the wrong word: I said that Bush has warned that the Islam is a danger but I had to say that Bush has warned that terrorism is a danger. That's projection from him because this arrogant and narrow-minded re-born Christian is both undermining and endangering his own country as the whole world with his politics for the very rich. He and his clan of oil and weapon sellers are terrorising us and they abuse the fact that so many Americans are very religious, in order to push religious discussions to the limits while true important issues are ignored. I respect every religion but the situation in the USA is very dangerous because of Mr. Bush Junior his hypocrite re-born Christian behaviour! It is difficult to know exactly what Bush thinks personally about the Islamic religion.  His careful use of words after World Trade Center attacks was motiviated, in large part, to not offend the Islamic nations that are -- on paper -- friendly towards the U.S., as he began his military campaigns against Afghanistan and Iraq.  Additionally, he did not want to offend any of his Saudi oil friends, with whom he and his familiy have partnered to make many millions of dollars.  There is also the long-standing principle of American society against religious persecution that Bush did not want to run afoul of while he planned potentially divisive policy decisions. That said, let's call Bush's "War on Terror" what it is:  it's a war on Islamic fundamentalism.  There are "terrorists" all over the globe, but I'm fairly certain that there isn't a lot of money or human resources being spent to arrest, say, IRA members.

Hits the nail firmly on the head and why he finds it impossible to get full support from the United Nations.If the USA/United Nations targeted all homicidal dictators regardless of creed/economic desirability/colour then we could probably stand back and applaud.Of course the dilemma then would be to define "dictator". It would similarly be difficult to separate "freedom fighters" from "terrorists".

Tony R wrote: yargh wrote: erik neuteboom wrote: Sorry, Bluetailfly was right, I used the wrong word: I said that Bush has warned that the Islam is a danger but I had to say that Bush has warned that terrorism is a danger. That's projection from him because this arrogant and narrow-minded re-born Christian is both undermining and endangering his own country as the whole world with his politics for the very rich. He and his clan of oil and weapon sellers are terrorising us and they abuse the fact that so many Americans are very religious, in order to push religious discussions to the limits while true important issues are ignored. I respect every religion but the situation in the USA is very dangerous because of Mr. Bush Junior his hypocrite re-born Christian behaviour! It is difficult to know exactly what Bush thinks personally about the Islamic religion.  His careful use of words after World Trade Center attacks was motiviated, in large part, to not offend the Islamic nations that are -- on paper -- friendly towards the U.S., as he began his military campaigns against Afghanistan and Iraq.  Additionally, he did not want to offend any of his Saudi oil friends, with whom he and his familiy have partnered to make many millions of dollars.  There is also the long-standing principle of American society against religious persecution that Bush did not want to run afoul of while he planned potentially divisive policy decisions. That said, let's call Bush's "War on Terror" what it is:  it's a war on Islamic fundamentalism.  There are "terrorists" all over the globe, but I'm fairly certain that there isn't a lot of money or human resources being spent to arrest, say, IRA members.     Hits the nail firmly on the head and why he finds it impossible to get full support from the United Nations.If the USA/United Nations targeted all homicidal dictators regardless of creed/economic desirability/colour then we could probably stand back and applaud.Of course the dilemma then would be to define "dictator". It would similarly be difficult to separate "freedom fighters" from "terrorists".

People have tried to get rid of Islamic fundamentalists by killing them for hundreds of years.  Obviously, this method hasn't worked.  The best policy for the U.S. is to respond quickly and accurately to attacks on U.S. soil, but not to engage in the folly of trying to re-make the Middle-Eastern region in its image.  Meanwhile, make the invention/discovery of an alternate energy source a paramount goal.  If the global importance of the middle east is reduced to what it was before the discovery of oil, no more money flows into the region (these nations offer very little that anybody in the world wants, except for oil) and the nations will have to grow their own economies to prevent complete global irrelevance.  At this point, there perhaps will be populist stirrings for governments that embrace the principles of democracy, capitalism and human rights.  Only when enough people want these things, can they happen and last. 

Tony R wrote: yargh wrote: erik neuteboom wrote: Sorry, Bluetailfly was right, I used the wrong word: I said that Bush has warned that the Islam is a danger but I had to say that Bush has warned that terrorism is a danger. That's projection from him because this arrogant and narrow-minded re-born Christian is both undermining and endangering his own country as the whole world with his politics for the very rich. He and his clan of oil and weapon sellers are terrorising us and they abuse the fact that so many Americans are very religious, in order to push religious discussions to the limits while true important issues are ignored. I respect every religion but the situation in the USA is very dangerous because of Mr. Bush Junior his hypocrite re-born Christian behaviour! It is difficult to know exactly what Bush thinks personally about the Islamic religion.  His careful use of words after World Trade Center attacks was motiviated, in large part, to not offend the Islamic nations that are -- on paper -- friendly towards the U.S., as he began his military campaigns against Afghanistan and Iraq.  Additionally, he did not want to offend any of his Saudi oil friends, with whom he and his familiy have partnered to make many millions of dollars.  There is also the long-standing principle of American society against religious persecution that Bush did not want to run afoul of while he planned potentially divisive policy decisions. That said, let's call Bush's "War on Terror" what it is:  it's a war on Islamic fundamentalism.  There are "terrorists" all over the globe, but I'm fairly certain that there isn't a lot of money or human resources being spent to arrest, say, IRA members.     Hits the nail firmly on the head and why he finds it impossible to get full support from the United Nations.If the USA/United Nations targeted all homicidal dictators regardless of creed/economic desirability/colour then we could probably stand back and applaud.Of course the dilemma then would be to define "dictator". It would similarly be difficult to separate "freedom fighters" from "terrorists".

The boundaries should be clear:

A dictator is someone who has put themselves in power, and has not been elected by their people. Is this always a bad thing? Thats another issue. The vast majority of his/her population may approve of him, but he is still technically a dictator. Do we take issue with him/her just because he hasn't signed up to our idea of democracy.

A freedom fighter, to my mind is someone who resists acts of violence or oppression against them, that break international law. Resisting illegal occupation of their land for example. Even if they, themselves break law in that resistance.

A terrorist is an arsehole, who is always part of a minority, who targets innocent people, in an attempt to make governments sign up to their personal agenda. They always ultimately fail, and they are never representative of the majority of their fellow countrymen, followers of the same religion or whatever...

Blacksword wrote: The boundaries should be clear: A terrorist is an arsehole, who is always part of a minority, who targets innocent people, in an attempt to make governments sign up to their personal agenda. They always ultimately fail, and they are never representative of the majority of their fellow countrymen, followers of the same religion or whatever...

But surely it is often depends on which side of the fence you are on.It seems obvious to me that if a "freedom fight" is carried on long enough it will inevitably come to be seen as terrorism. Once the oppressive occupying power becomes legitimate by dint of being there long enough any aggressive internal or external acts automatically become terrorism. Ireland is one example among many of the way the oppressor becomes the oppressed in the eyes of the world because of political expediency and the blurring affect of time.

Tony R wrote: Blacksword wrote: The boundaries should be clear: A terrorist is an arsehole, who is always part of a minority, who targets innocent people, in an attempt to make governments sign up to their personal agenda. They always ultimately fail, and they are never representative of the majority of their fellow countrymen, followers of the same religion or whatever... But surely it is often depends on which side of the fence you are on.It seems obvious to me that if a "freedom fight" is carried on long enough it will inevitably come to be seen as terrorism. Once the oppressive occupying power becomes legitimate by dint of being there long enough any aggressive internal or external acts automatically become terrorism. Ireland is one example among many of the way the oppressor becomes the oppressed in the eyes of the world because of political expediency and the blurring affect of time.

One mans freedom fighter is another's terrorist, but thats down to an individuals perception of the situation. What should ultimately count is what is written in stone; what international law decrees. As far as I'm aware the UN is trying to come up with a 'definition' of a terrorist, and the problem here is exactly what we are discussing. It's a difficult definition to arrive at, especially if one uses the criteria of 'targetting' civillians. That would make us terrorists, for operations in Iraq which we now know struck many civillian targets, for the bombing of Dresden in WWII, for Hiroshima and Nagasaki. All civillian targets, and all incurring greater civillian loss than any act of terror ever known. I understand the thinking behind the attacks on Japan, but the aims of military opertions are a seperate discussion. Terrorists and 'freedom fighters' have aims which they believe to be equally valid..

The example of Ireland is a little different because half the population of the province wants to be governed from London. The IRA are terrorists NOT freedom fighters, by my definition, because they dont represent the will of the entire population. Indeed, they are not even representative of the entire Catholic population. Although, in principle I support the idea of an united Ireland...

Terror and freedom fighting can not be selective, depending on whether the likes of us and America approve of it, or gain from it. If a clear and fair definition could be achieved the world would be a better place, but my cynicism leads me to think this wont happen because it doesn't fit in with our agenda.

Just my opinions..

Blacksword wrote: Tony R wrote: Blacksword wrote: The boundaries should be clear: A terrorist is an arsehole, who is always part of a minority, who targets innocent people, in an attempt to make governments sign up to their personal agenda. They always ultimately fail, and they are never representative of the majority of their fellow countrymen, followers of the same religion or whatever... But surely it is often depends on which side of the fence you are on.It seems obvious to me that if a "freedom fight" is carried on long enough it will inevitably come to be seen as terrorism. Once the oppressive occupying power becomes legitimate by dint of being there long enough any aggressive internal or external acts automatically become terrorism. Ireland is one example among many of the way the oppressor becomes the oppressed in the eyes of the world because of political expediency and the blurring affect of time.   The example of Ireland is a little different because half the population of the province wants to be governed from London. The IRA are terrorists NOT freedom fighters, by my definition, because they dont represent the will of the entire population. Indeed, they are not even representative of the entire Catholic population. Although, in principle I support the idea of an united Ireland... Just my opinions..

Well your observation about N.Ireland is faulty at best.Prior to the creation of N.Ireland, 3/4 of Ireland's population wanted nothing to do with the UK whatsoever.This is what I mean about time (history) blurring reality.

MMMMMMMmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And I thought the forum was being a bit boring lately!!!!!

Nothing like a few political/religious threads to spark up the livelyness!!!!!!!!!!

Just to be clear.

It goes without saying that Tony R. is participating in this thread in a personal capacity.

I'll be keeping an eye on it and "moderating" it if and when required (it's been fine so far) to allow him to continue to make his points without feeling he has to hold back. He and all the moderators are subject to the rules like everyone else though.

I don't tend to get too involved in the DNRTM threads, especially the political/religious ones. If I did though, Tony or Bryan would do the same for me. 

(Just seemed like a good time to say that, no specific reason).

Easy Livin wrote: Just to be clear. It goes without saying that Tony R. is participating in this thread in a personal capacity. I'll be keeping an eye on it and "moderating" it if and when required (it's been fine so far) to allow him to continue to make his points without feeling he has to hold back. He and all the moderators are subject to the rules like everyone else though. I don't tend to get too involved in the DNRTM threads, especially the political/religious ones. If I did though, Tony or Bryan would do the same for me.  (Just seemed like a good time to say that, no specific reason).

Always good to know that the moderaters are being moderated.