http://www.postchronicle.com/news/original/article_212318818.shtml

And yet, "Islam is a violent religion,"  According to Dove world Outreach Center Pastor Terry Jones.  

Goethe said "Societies that burn books will eventually burn people."  Indeed, hundreds of years after Goethe's death, the Germans started burning Marx and following a lunatic fringed called "The Nazi Party" lead by the Hitler guy who wasn't rich enough to afford art school!  That was 1933.  What did we discover in the liberation 12 years later?

The other argument is the Muslims can't handle anything competing with their faith.  I'd like to think Christianity could deal with it, but then the would be no Christian Right.  So Muslims are quick to anger and overreact when their faith is besmirched.  What are you thinking burning Qurans in the middle of Florida.  I know the town refused your permit, but you'll do it anyway.  The paddy wagon always brings over more cameras, right?  That's what your group of ragtag fascists wants doesn't it?  You and other misanthropes (bibliothropes) who would burn another faith's holy book feel like some kind of international ethnic conspiracy is ruining your life.  Right?

This is too me the most distasteful and despicable act to hit the news media in ages.  Book burners are not looked upon in a favorable light.  I don't know how they look under the light of a book bonfire!

Anyway, this is inhumane hatred against a major world religion.  How would we like it if the Iranians burned a million Bibles?  

I'm a first amendment proponent.  I see let the show go on.  I just won't watch.  I'd get sick to my stomach.  

Don't these Dovebar ministers know Jesus figures into Islam ahead of Mohamed.  Jesus is a prophet of highest significance in the Muslim faith.  

BUT

If it wasn't religion, it would be something else.  How did our oil get under their sand!  If the they incinerate the Qurans, they are trying to promote fanatical Muslims to terrorism. If I was in Congress, I would file a grievance under the USAPATRIOT Act saying the destruction of Muslim holy books in a public display provokes terrorism; therefore, those who are caught publicly defacing or destroying holy Muslim articles should be treated as terrorists themselves.  

Maybe the city will get to shut the whole thing down because the group has no license to burn.  Maybe public pressure will force them to call it off.  

The fact remains, there are idiots in charge of megachurches who think it's a good idea to burn Qurans.  Those idiots have a disproportionate voice in the national discourse.  It's been that way since Carter.

What's next?  Witch hunting?
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/07/peace.gif

Although I couldn't muster up an ounce of sympathy for those terrorists in Guantanamo who were whining that their books got wet, I agree with you this time.

While this pastor has every right to do this, it is in poor taste, and I hope he is convinced not to do it.

I feel the same about the Mosque.  Yes, freedom of religion.. doesn't mean it has to be right there, where it is sure to lead to bad relations.

There are always going to be people who think that just because they have the right to do something, it must be the right thing to do.  It's sad, really. 

Jesus, I didn't proofread my first post!  Oh well.  I'll leave it as-is.  It's more amusing that way!
:-\\

This is going end up really bad, I bad feeling about this.

::)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Drkh0YLF8rI

This is going end up really bad, I bad feeling about this.

::)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Drkh0YLF8rI


http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/14/sign10.gif

That's a great one.  That's a dandy!  Wow!  That's just what I've been getting from this issue, a really bad feeling about this!  Don't laugh at America!  We'll go quietly.  Just give us another generation to settle down a bit.  It's like the Tea Party Movement.  We are free to pay off the banks's debts so the banks can continue to hassle us about our debts to them.  They call that business?  Ben Franklin spins in his grave!  This Islamophobia is a total bunch of racist ethnocentric narrow-minded hobnailed led-astray dick-brained, I dunno, the most bamboozling scumpaganda I've ever heard!  Well, at least in American discourse.  Polite discourse since the seventies.  Just remember "III"  the Roman numeral for three is the Republican platform:  Islam Illegal Immigrants.  
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/11/confused2.gif

BTW, Not as bad as is the new standard for O.K. in our book.  So Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity will say, "Well, it's not as bad as when Jesse Jackson called New York City 'Hymietown"!  The debate mysteriously ends there.

"When" doesn't really factor into its staying power, I deicided.  
:D

That happened in 1984!  Doesn't matter, as long as he's around, he's fair game.  The Kennedy-haters hounded the late Senator Edward M. Kennedy to his grave over the Chappaquiddick accident in 1969 in which Mary Jo Kepechne, age 28, drowned after the car Teddy was driving went off a bridge. The case went to court and the judge sentenced him to two months--suspended.  If he was Joe Jones from Roxbury...well, he would have had a hell of a time on Martha's Vineyard in 1963.  If Joe Jones from Roxbury was charged with the same crime, he'd get at least 15 years!  But, hey, that's the way greaseball American politics works!  

Doc Favor: One thing you'll notice about white people -- they stick together!
John Russell: They better!

--Paraphrased from "Hombre" (1967).

http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/14/sign10.gif

That's a great one.  That's a dandy!  Wow!  That's just what I've been getting from this issue, a really bad feeling about this!  Don't laugh at America!  We'll go quietly.  Just give us another generation to settle down a bit.  It's like the Tea Party Movement.  We are free to pay off the banks's debts so the banks can continue to hassle us about our debts to them.  They call that business?  Ben Franklin spins in his grave!  This Islamophobia is a total bunch of racist ethnocentric narrow-minded hobnailed led-astray dick-brained, I dunno, the most bamboozling scumpaganda I've ever heard!  Well, at least in American discourse.  Polite discourse since the seventies.  Just remember "III"  the Roman numeral for three is the Republican platform:  Islam Illegal Immigrants.  
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/11/confused2.gif

BTW, Not as bad as is the new standard for O.K. in our book.  So Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity will say, "Well, it's not as bad as when Jesse Jackson called New York City 'Hymietown"!  The debate mysteriously ends there.

"When" doesn't really factor into its staying power, I deicided. 
:D

That happened in 1984!  Doesn't matter, as long as he's around, he's fair game.  The Kennedy-haters hounded the late Senator Edward M. Kennedy to his grave over the Chappaquiddick accident in 1969 in which Mary Jo Kepechne, age 28, drowned after the car Teddy was driving went off a bridge. The case went to court and the judge sentenced him to two months--suspended.  If he was Joe Jones from Roxbury...well, he would have had a hell of a time on Martha's Vineyard in 1963.  If Joe Jones from Roxbury was charged with the same crime, he get at least 15 years!  But, hey, that's the way greaseball American politics works!  

Doc Favor: One thing you'll notice about white people -- they stick together!
John Russell: They better!

--Paraphrased from "Hombre" (1967).




I couldn't have put it better, myself!

I was going to go the cheap-and-easy route with a demotivational poster of "The First Amendment:  You're Doing It Wrong."  (Because they're doing it.  And like the hamster fighting machine, they're doing it wrong.  Very, very, wrong.)

But upon refleciton, we're talking about a potential fight between Muslim homicide bombers and Christian bookburners, predicated on an event that's localized in time and space, and has been widely publicized in advance.  

Given those circumstances, it's likely that collateral damage will be minimal.  Anyone with two brains to rub together will either be ignoring it or staying away from it.

So on a pure body count basis, I'm OK with this.  It's the opposite of Alien vs. Predator: whoever loses, humanity wins.

But upon refleciton, we're talking about a potential fight between Muslim homicide bombers and Christian bookburners, predicated on an event that's localized in time and space, and has been widely publicized in advance. 

Given those circumstances, it's likely that collateral damage will be minimal.  Anyone with two brains to rub together will either be ignoring it or staying away from it.

So on a pure body count basis, I'm OK with this.  It's the opposite of Alien vs. Predator: whoever loses, humanity wins.

:)

...unless there are police there getting caught in the middle.  It's difficult to put into words quite how gobsmackingly, mind-numbingly stupid and pointless the whole charade is.

I think I'm gonna take out a second mortgage on my home, get the money to buy thousands...no... hundreds of thousand of Qu"rans so that I can participate in all of this. The Qu'ran's sales will go sky high! Good for the US economy. People will buy books so that they can burn them!    :D

Not very smart...It's only gonna cause more hatred towards Islam


I was going to go the cheap-and-easy route with a demotivational poster of "The First Amendment:  You're Doing It Wrong."  (Because they're doing it.  And like the hamster fighting machine, they're doing it wrong.  Very, very, wrong.)

Anyone with two brains to rub together will either be ignoring it or staying away from it.


Hope you are right, but sadly, many people don't have two brains to rub together.

I think that is going to lead to something worse, much much worse. 

So, what books are they going to burn next?

::)

I think that is going to lead to something worse, much much worse.  

So, what books are they going to burn next?

::)


I agree.

It was bad enough when those funny-mentalists were burning J.K. Rowling books because Harry Potter is a "warlock."  Now they want to make a show out of burning another faith's holy testament.  That makes me heartsick.  It really does.  
>:(

BTW, my topic title is hyperbolic,of course.  I doubt they could gather anything approaching a million copies.  If they do decide to go through with the abominable act, they might get a thousand Korans at best, which they will supplement with old newspapers and rags soaked in kerosene.  

...unless there are police there getting caught in the middle.  It's difficult to put into words quite how gobsmackingly, mind-numbingly stupid and pointless the whole charade is.


OK, so now it's fundies vs. fundies vs. cops. 

The cops outgun the other two gangs put together.  It doesn't matter whether they open fire before or after they're threatened, the world ends up down a whole buncha fundies, so I still stand by "Whoever loses, the world wins" :)

OK, so now it's fundies vs. fundies vs. cops. 

The cops outgun the other two gangs put together.  It doesn't matter whether they open fire before or after they're threatened, the world ends up down a whole buncha fundies, so I still stand by "Whoever loses, the world wins" :)


A lot of those funny-mentalists have their priorities out of whack.  You just get your own soul right with the Lord, don't try and convert the heathens on the other side of the hill. 

That's why I want the zealots out of the U.S. government.  I don't care if you're an Evangelical Christian, a Wahhabi Muslim, an Orthodox Jew, or whatever.  If you cannot sort out your religious beliefs from your work, I don't want you in public office.  My Christian friends object to my sentiment.  I'm not anti-religious.  Quite the contrary.  I encourage spirituality.  However, I value the First Amendment right above that.  There shall be no religious test for holding public office.  And yet...we find today popular sentiment would never tolerate an atheist candidate for federal office.  It wouldn't matter how qualified, knowledgeable, or talented you might be -- if you don't declare you believe in the Abrahamic God, you don't stand a chance.  I don't think that's fair. 

I can tell you one thing:  Muslims would not burn our Bible and they praise Jesus' name more often than most Christians, so let's quit bitching. 

That's why I want the zealots out of the U.S. government.  I don't care if you're an Evangelical Christian, a Wahhabi Muslim, an Orthodox Jew, or whatever.  If you cannot sort out your religious beliefs from your work, I don't want you in public office.
+1


My Christian friends object to my sentiment.  I'm not anti-religious.  Quite the contrary.  I encourage spirituality.  However, I value the First Amendment right above that.  There shall be no religious test for holding public office.  And yet...we find today popular sentiment would never tolerate an atheist candidate for federal office.  It wouldn't matter how qualified, knowledgeable, or talented you might be -- if you don't declare you believe in the Abrahamic God, you don't stand a chance.  I don't think that's fair. 
The more I get into these sorts of arguments, the more anti-religious I become: doing things (such as running a country) one particular way because your faith tells you to do things that way basically means ignoring evidence of what good practice/bad practice happens to be - if what you believe in contradicts the evidence, then you'll go with what you believe in every time.

It's not just that it's not fair, it's outright stupid, especially as people never seem to realize that other people's religion leads them to believe completely different things are right - the range of "Christian" beliefs is pretty much as broad as all the way from out-and-out communism to the most free-for-all of free markets.  Why sticking such a fundamentally meaningless label on is an electoral necessity beats me - it's not as if Christians have shown themselves to be more resistant to corruption or the odd extramarital fling than the rest. 

+1
The more I get into these sorts of arguments, the more anti-religious I become: doing things (such as running a country) one particular way because your faith tells you to do things that way basically means ignoring evidence of what good practice/bad practice happens to be - if what you believe in contradicts the evidence, then you'll go with what you believe in every time.

It's not just that it's not fair, it's outright stupid, especially as people never seem to realize that other people's religion leads them to believe completely different things are right - the range of "Christian" beliefs is pretty much as broad as all the way from out-and-out communism to the most free-for-all of free markets.  Why sticking such a fundamentally meaningless label on is an electoral necessity beats me - it's not as if Christians have shown themselves to be more resistant to corruption or the odd extramarital fling than the rest.  





The dirty shame in America is the declaration in the First Amendment -- There shall be no religious test for holding public office -- does not jibe with the constant infusion of religiosity in the political process.  It's provincial religious intolerance on a nation-wide scale.  It is true Congress cannot pass a law saying only Christians are allowed to seek public office.  However, political campaigns have nooooo problem exalting the candidate's "good Christian values."  I say as a Christian I resent politicians for thinking I ought to support them because they're Christian.  While political marketing of Christianity does not violate the letter of the First Amendment, it violates the spirit.  

No other religion can get away with this, BTW.  Our first and only Muslim in Congress, Keith Ellison (D-MN) was born Roman Catholic and converted to Islam when he was 19.  When when Ellison was campaigning, his message could not be "vote for me because I'm a Muslim," it had to be "don't worry, I'm a good Muslim."

We have a fair number of Jews in Congress.  Perhaps they can play up their Judaism among their Jewish constituents, but they still can't go national with the message "vote for me, I'm Jewish."  

I'd rather vote for a Muslim, Jew, Buddhist, Hindu, Sufi, Jain, or atheist whose platform emphasizes social justice than for a Christian who is all about free trade and tax cuts for the rich.  The politicians who do go shoving their Christianity in everybody's face are the ones whose interests are most disparate with the teachings of Jesus.  
::)

When I heard the name Terry Jones and Pastor in the same sentence...I had this thought....

hDpHvks-SQg

(You'll have to watch this vid on Youtube....) >:(

It is funny how most of these authority figures from the church would probably tell the sermon to love your enemies but do stuff like this.  I guess passive-agressive behavior is their way of showing expression.

It is funny how most of these authority figures from the church would probably tell the sermon to love your enemies but do stuff like this.  I guess passive-agressive behavior is their way of showing expression.


Yeah love they neighbor, and his wife, and young sons-the younger the better.

Essentially it would be a reenactment of Fahrenheit 451.

::)

Essentially it would be a reenactment of Fahrenheit 911.

::)


"Fahrenheit 451," Ray Bradbury's novel. 

Bradbury's dystopian vision also tells of endless police chases and true crime shows on TV!  Sound familiar?
:o

"Fahrenheit 451," Ray Bradbury's novel. 

Bradbury's dystopian vision also tells of endless police chases and true crime shows on TV!  Sound familiar?
:o



It was an accidental typo.

;D

It was an accidental typo.

;D


A typo is ipso facto accidental.
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/10/znaika.gif

A typo is ipso facto accidental.
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/10/znaika.gif


Point made.

;D

More often than not, religion in general is a study of varying degrees of violence.

I won't shed a tear over burning a million Qurans, but I wouldn't over a million burned Bibles either.

The more people rely on ethics based on invisible, unprovable beings and afterlifes, the less logical they become.

"Science flies you to the moon...  religion flies you into buildings..."

More often than not, religion in general is a study of varying degrees of violence.

I won't shed a tear over burning a million Qurans, but I wouldn't over a million burned Bibles either.

The more people rely on ethics based on invisible, unprovable beings and afterlifes, the less logical they become.

"Science flies you to the moon...  religion flies you into buildings..."


Terrorism, not religion, flies you into buildings.  Terrorism or just crummy navigation!

If those with faith could prove the existence of God, it wouldn't be faith anymore then would it?

Would you shed a tear over the burning of a million biology textbooks?  That's what's next for the funny-mentalists down in Gainesville!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/14/read2.gif

Terrorism, not religion, flies you into buildings.  Terrorism or just crummy navigation!

..or being really pissed off with the tax office?


If those with faith could prove the existence of God, it wouldn't be faith anymore then would it?

..then you wouldn't have God anymore?


Would you shed a tear over the burning of a million biology textbooks?  That's what's next for the funny-mentalists down in Gainesville!

Sounds like a good idea to me: biology textbooks go out of date after a few years (there were quite a few howlers in my school texts, and my brand new biochemistry textbook was no longer usable by the time I finished university).  After all, genetics has shown the whole taxonomy of plants to be fundamentally wrong (many examples of convergent evolution that mean that things that look superficially the same aren't even closely related).. not sure if there's a definitive textbook, but I'm sure if some dopey bunch of creationists want to create a market the book'll get written.

..or being really pissed off with the tax office?
..then you wouldn't have God anymore?
Sounds like a good idea to me: biology textbooks go out of date after a few years (there were quite a few howlers in my school texts, and my brand new biochemistry textbook was no longer usable by the time I finished university).  After all, genetics has shown the whole taxonomy of plants to be fundamentally wrong (many examples of convergent evolution that mean that things that look superficially the same aren't even closely related).. not sure if there's a definitive textbook, but I'm sure if some dopey bunch of creationists want to create a market the book'll get written.


Good point on the first.  On the second, you're making a cheap Douglas Adams reference. 

If I could scientifically demonstrate God as a fact, I would obviate the need for faith.  First of all, fate does not auger well for those who try to do that. 

Which is to say, I am not interested in scientifically proving faith nor am interested settling for only the mundane because the mundane is all that is objectively present on the plane.  We might well be the only animal capable of spirituality.  Perhaps the whales and dolphins do, but it remains on proven. 

Ain't no such thing as a "cheap" Douglas Adams reference :)

Idiotic. 

.

Which is to say, I am not interested in scientifically proving faith nor am interested settling for only the mundane because the mundane is all that is objectively present on the plane.  We might well be the only animal capable of spirituality.  Perhaps the whales and dolphins do, but it remains on proven. 


But is "God", in the traditional sense, necessary for spirituality?  I think not

But is "God", in the traditional sense, necessary for spirituality?  I think not


Not necessarily at all.  Furthermore, neither God nor spirituality is necessary to be a good citizen of the U.S.  However, respect for the faiths of others is, IMO.

Good point on the first.  On the second, you're making a cheap Douglas Adams reference. 

If I could scientifically demonstrate God as a fact, I would obviate the need for faith.  First of all, fate does not auger well for those who try to do that. 

Which is to say, I am not interested in scientifically proving faith nor am interested settling for only the mundane because the mundane is all that is objectively present on the plane.  We might well be the only animal capable of spirituality.  Perhaps the whales and dolphins do, but it remains on proven. 



But is "God", in the traditional sense, necessary for spirituality?  I think not


Swimming with dolphins is probably the most spiritual thing I've ever done.  Seriously.  Just thought I'd throw that in.


Not necessarily at all.  Furthermore, neither God nor spirituality is necessary to be a good citizen of the U.S.  However, respect for the faiths of others is, IMO.




Word up.

Not necessarily at all.  Furthermore, neither God nor spirituality is necessary to be a good citizen of the U.S.  However, respect for the faiths of others is, IMO.




I totally agree

Not necessarily at all.  Furthermore, neither God nor spirituality is necessary to be a good citizen of the U.S.  However, respect for the faiths of others is, IMO.




I agree.

Despite warnings from the Vatican, Gen. David Petraeus, Lt. Gen. William Caldwell, NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen, Michael Bloomberg, and others that it's only going to something worse, it's still going ahead.

If it does, and many die as the result of this, the blood will be on Terry Jone's hands, and others participating in the plan burning of the Q'uran.

::)

The only Terry Jones, that matters.

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTF3xo86DlT9LsniWCEnU4tzE_IbfJw7Dxi43IAud9ruHom14k&t=1&usg=__-aO0yhMYQIGgPfSLrZhM-WCU5OY=

Despite warnings from the Vatican, Gen. David Petraeus, Lt. Gen. William Caldwell, NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen, Michael Bloomberg, and others that it's only going to something worse, it's still going ahead.

If it does, and many die as the result of this, the blood will be on Terry Jone's hands, and others participating in the plan burning of the Q'uran.

::)

The only Terry Jones, that maters.

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTF3xo86DlT9LsniWCEnU4tzE_IbfJw7Dxi43IAud9ruHom14k&t=1&usg=__-aO0yhMYQIGgPfSLrZhM-WCU5OY=


I made a quote about that earlier, did you see "The Bishop" on Youtube?

I am wondering if it is possible to just ignore this group. They are only doing it to seek attention and unfortunately, they have it. If the media doesn't cover it-do not interview the @$$hole..er..the guy, do not mention about it, just totally ignore it, I wonder if it will defuse any power keg that will be ignited if it happens.




Cat

I am wondering if it is possible to just ignore this group. They are only doing it to seek attention and unfortunately, they have it. If the media doesn't cover it-do not interview the @$$hole..er..the guy, do not mention about it, just totally ignore it, I wonder if it will defuse any power keg that will be ignited if it happens.




Cat

It might. the Media has lots of power. More than we even know, I think.

www.huffingtonpost.com/harry-shearer/who-is-terry-jones_b_708990.html

"He (and his second wife Sylvia) left Germany in 2008 after one of their three adult children... along with a former church elder... accused them of financial and labour (sic) abuses... (the Florida church) is funded by TS & Company, a furniture shipping business owned by the church, which buys vintage pieces from Europe and sells them at profit in the U.S. The workforce is comprised of the Jones's disciples, who work for no wages and live cost-free in tatty properties owned by the (Joneses)."

www.huffingtonpost.com/harry-shearer/who-is-terry-jones_b_708990.html

"He (and his second wife Sylvia) left Germany in 2008 after one of their three adult children... along with a former church elder... accused them of financial and labour (sic) abuses... (the Florida church) is funded by TS & Company, a furniture shipping business owned by the church, which buys vintage pieces from Europe and sells them at profit in the U.S. The workforce is comprised of the Jones's disciples, who work for no wages and live cost-free in tatty properties owned by the (Joneses)."


Don't accept a glass of Kool-Aid from this guy!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/09/scared.gif

Don't accept a glass of Kool-Aid from this guy!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/09/scared.gif


Or drink it for that matter!

I made a quote about that earlier, did you see "The Bishop" on Youtube?


You mean this video?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDnE-5lD7w8

This topic was mentioned in our weekly Bible study last night at Church. All of us basically said "Geez, what is this guys thinking...stupid bugger...hopefully he reconsiders coz what he's doing is pretty idiotic."

This topic was mentioned in our weekly Bible study last night at Church. All of us basically said "Geez, what is this guys thinking...stupid bugger...hopefully he reconsiders coz what he's doing is pretty idiotic."


Ask the imam at your local mosque what Jesus means to Islam.  Of Jesus, the Qur'an says:

“When any human being is born. Satan touches him at both sides of the body with his two fingers, except Jesus, the son of Mary, whom Satan tried to touch but failed, for he touched the placenta-cover instead.�
   â€”Bukhari, Sahih al-Bukhari, 4:54:506

Muslims do not believe Jesus to be the Christ, the anointed one, the messiah.  If they did, they'd be Christian!  Jesus IS the most important prophet in Islam besides Mohamed himself.  They don't say "peace be upon him" for nothing.  

No branch of Protestantism ordained Jones a minister.  He is a self-fashioned cult leader.  Not even the crowned princes of faux-Christian ugly -- Franklin Graham and Pat Robertson -- endorse Jones's "Internation Burn-a-Koran Day"

On the other hand, the cops are making Jones pay for the extra police detail, and the bank holding the title to his "church" is no longer interested in Dove's business.  They are demanding Dove World Outreach remit the $140,000 mortgage balance immediately.  Ouch.

Now Jones says he won't go ahead with the burning so long as Imam Feisal Abdul Rau moves the Park 51 Islamic center.  However, other pastors announce they are going ahead with their own Koran burnings, including Pastor Bob Old from Springfield, Tenn., and the infamous Westboro Baptist Church from Topeka.

What could happen in the next 48 hours is anybody's guess...

http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/10/unhappy.gif

Ask the imam at your local mosque what Jesus means to Islam.  Of Jesus, the Qur'an says:

“When any human being is born. Satan touches him at both sides of the body with his two fingers, except Jesus, the son of Mary, whom Satan tried to touch but failed, for he touched the placenta-cover instead.�
    —Bukhari, Sahih al-Bukhari, 4:54:506

Surprise, surprise.. the Koran just makes stuff up, too.


Now Jones says he won't go ahead with the burning so long as Imam Feisal Abdul Rau moves the Park 51 Islamic center.  However, other pastors announce they are going ahead with their own Koran burnings, including Pastor Bob Old from Springfield, Tenn., and the infamous Westboro Baptist Church from Topeka.

What could happen in the next 48 hours is anybody's guess...

http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/10/unhappy.gif

Why don't they leave it up to Allah?  If, while the books are burning (anyone smell a Midnight Oil parody in there?), Allah decides to smite the heretics, then obviously he didn't like the idea.  If he doesn't, then surely the book burning is OK with him and Muslims shouldn't get so uptight.

This just in........

It has been called off!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/quran_burning

Surprise, surprise.. the Koran just makes stuff up, too.
Why don't they leave it up to Allah?  If, while the books are burning (anyone smell a Midnight Oil parody in there?), Allah decides to smite the heretics, then obviously he didn't like the idea.  If he doesn't, then surely the book burning is OK with him and Muslims shouldn't get so uptight.


We can argue theology 'till the cows come home.  The pressing matter is the potential loss of lives. 

Religion isn't going away.  The fact remains some members of some religions find it morally acceptable to destroy people for one reason or not destroy them for another.  I'm not here to talk anybody into or out of anything.  Right now we need delicate brinkmanship with aggressive Muslim factions.  We can't have this f**ktard out there burning the Koran. 

Or can we?

Maybe this guy's on the CIA payroll!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/05/fro.gif

He says he called it off. I'll believe it when I don't see it.  Don't worry, Westboro Baptist Church will do something equally heinous instead.
::) ::) ::)

Now The Donald wants in.
::)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9n4BKdfW5R4

We can argue theology 'till the cows come home.  The pressing matter is the potential loss of lives.  

Religion isn't going away.


http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_1acqGJBJuuQ/TGcGciRobpI/AAAAAAAABFM/he8W4v7pZyk/s1600/1293978130_ecbdbce6f6.jpg

Don't enforce it.  Just imagine it.  I'm just putting it out there, just planting seeds...

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_1acqGJBJuuQ/TGcGciRobpI/AAAAAAAABFM/he8W4v7pZyk/s1600/1293978130_ecbdbce6f6.jpg

Don't enforce it.  Just imagine it.  I'm just putting it out there, just planting seeds...


Lenin, eh?

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_65fJY6BlFC0/SP9LT4r0ZOI/AAAAAAAAAXc/MMlV9eGEJf8/s400/lenin.jpg

http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/13/jerk.gif

It's a win/win for Pastor Jones.  Worldwide media exposure and save on matches!
::)

Terrorism, not religion, flies you into buildings.  Terrorism or just crummy navigation!

True, but most terrorism in the modern context is based around religion.

If those with faith could prove the existence of God, it wouldn't be faith anymore then would it?

Yes, it would be fact -- a much more useful thing than superstition.

Would you shed a tear over the burning of a million biology textbooks?  That's what's next for the funny-mentalists down in Gainesville!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/14/read2.gif

No...  I wouldn't.  There is no shortage of biology books, and it's not like Gainesville would be using them for anything other than kindle anyway.

Not necessarily at all.  Furthermore, neither God nor spirituality is necessary to be a good citizen of the U.S.  However, respect for the faiths of others is, IMO.


Respect of differing viewpoints is, to a degree, necessary for a free society.  However, there is much connected to religion that no reasonable person should respect.

Jones's book burning proposal may be hateful, but to kill or riot over it is even more hateful.

Essentially, Jones is playing many Muslims throughout the world like a deck of cards.  He's trolling them all too well, because as so many Muslims have shown us, it doesn't take much to make them flip out.

We can argue theology 'till the cows come home.  The pressing matter is the potential loss of lives.

That's a convenient excuse by much of the Left to defend censorship of the burning.  For some reason, they didn't exactly pay as much attention to the Wikileaks dossier that ended up killing several Afghan leaders when the Taliban got ahold of it.

Religion isn't going away.  The fact remains some members of some religions find it morally acceptable to destroy people for one reason or not destroy them for another.  I'm not here to talk anybody into or out of anything.  Right now we need delicate brinkmanship with aggressive Muslim factions.  We can't have this f**ktard out there burning the Koran.  

I would argue we should offend them.  We should offend them as much as possible, so that they eventually get the picture that free speech doesn't give you the right to not be offended.  They should get the picture that we have the freedom to offend them while in America, and that any attacks they make against us or our soldiers will be answered with our might.

And honestly, they shouldn't be too offended with the aggressive approach in the first place, since they worship an ancient warlord (Mohammed).  He didn't exactly take the pacifist route in spreading his religion, and Islam itself is no more a religion of peace than Christianity is.


Basically, if they want to attack us over something a random preacher decides to do, that's their loss.  They can continue to attack us, but that's just going to lengthen the time we'll stay in Afghanistan.  If they were smart, they'd just wait things out for us to leave first.

Nevertheless, coddling these extremists and bending over backwards in avoiding offending Muslims with everything from censoring burnings to cartoons isn't the answer.  It just makes us look submissive.  I'd much rather be aggressive than submissive.

Respect a man's religion.  You don't have to respect his state, but you must respect his religion.  You must also respect him if he claims no religion.  Peace is better than war, right?  If you can establish you respect their religion -- even if -- they don't respect yours -- then affairs of state get easier.  Islam and Christianity are older than the current political states in their domains.  If you can't extend that hand of spiritual respect, you might offend their human identities.  This is a much more severe divide than mere politics du jure.
  http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/13/icon_sunny.gif

Why is something more worthy of respect just because it has been around for longer?

If I believe something that is truly asinine, does it make it any less asinine just because my ancestors all the way back for generations believed the same thing?

Why is something more worthy of respect just because it has been around for longer?

If I believe something that is truly asinine, does it make it any less asinine just because my ancestors all the way back for generations believed the same thing?


It might be asinine but that's how it works.

It might be asinine but that's how it works.


There is a practical side to what you're saying, but what I do instead is that I try to be egalitarian about things.  I don't go out of my way to offend someone's religion (even Islam), but I will definitely fight for the right to offend it if I or someone else chooses to.

Peace is not always better than war.  Sometimes, conflicts in the short term are the only way to a longer term peace.  This goes for both war and societal issues.

An ideal world, war would not occur.  We would all resolve our conflicts with peaceful diplomacy.  However, this is no ideal world!  Sometimes war is unavoidable.  Think of Hitler.  Certainly, people such as Pat Buchanan will tell you we could have avoided WWII if we treated Germany better after WWI and if we presented with aid rather than sanctions.  Hindsight is 20/20.  By 1938 there was no way we were going to be able avoid war with the Axis powers.

It might be asinine but that's how it works.

I tolerate many people's views; I respect their right to hold whatever views they want.  But some views are simply not worthy of respect, and I don't think they should be accorded respect simply because some people have been indoctrinated with them from childhood.. if anything quite the opposite.

I tolerate many people's views; I respect their right to hold whatever views they want.  But some views are simply not worthy of respect, and I don't think they should be accorded respect simply because some people have been indoctrinated with them from childhood.. if anything quite the opposite.


You are free to respect or not belief system X or Y while you are not determining political diplomacy.  However, to say to a billion people inhabiting and directing many nations, "Our culture does not respect your culture" is dangerous to the peace of the world.  When the Ayatollah calls the West "The Great Satan," we scoff and call the Ayatollah a wingnut.  It is vital to the Ayatolloah's power to keep his people focused on hating the West.  Similarly, when Western countries call Muslims retrograde or fanatical, it plays into the hands of bigots who want to use fear of the other for their own political gain.  

Some aspects of Islam are not worthy of respect in that they make it too easy for violent people to rationalize their violence in the name of religion.  If it is forbidden to draw pictures of the prophet Mohamed in Islam let it be so for Muslims not Danish cartoonists!  At the same time as no Muslim should be compelled to draw Mohamed, no non-Muslim residing in a non-Muslim state should be proscribed from drawing Mohamed.  

I think so because my society indoctrinated me from childhood to believe in freedom of the press.  Freedom of the press is only about 300 years old and freedom of the press as we understand it in Western democracies today is less than a century old.  A hundred years ago, you could get arrested for sending a photo of a naked lady through the mail.  James Joyce's "Ulysses" was banned in the U.S. for 20 years after its completion.  Yet, the U.S. had the same First Amendment to its Constitution as it did in 1792.  It took us more than 150 years before Hugh Hefner could publish Playboy without getting arrested.  A freedom-of-expression liberal such as I call this a social good for it allows freedom of expression.  A conservative Muslim would point to the saturation of our culture with pornography and declare my "freedom of expression" abominable and ask why he should accord my values with respect.

I tolerate many people's views; I respect their right to hold whatever views they want.  But some views are simply not worthy of respect, and I don't think they should be accorded respect simply because some people have been indoctrinated with them from childhood.. if anything quite the opposite.


You certainly don't have to respect anyone you don't feel deserves it, but I've found that my life is so much easier if I just let people have their way.  You are never ever ever going to change their minds.  You can offer all of the logical arguments in the world, but people will hold on to their religion more tightly than anything else.  It hurts you more than it hurts them for you to beat your head against a brick wall.  Because in my opinion, that's what religion is.  A brick wall that will never ever come down.  You can fight it, or you can walk around it. 

There is a difference between being religious and doing things in the name of religion and I'm not even sure this situation is about religion anymore or whether it ever was. From my perspective (distorted or not) this is all about obtaining power through religion and I don't like that at all. I didn't respect The Spanish Inquisition or The Crusades and I don't respect people burning books or blowing up buildings with planes in the name of religion.  

Luckily, Terry Jones stopped going through with his plan on burning The Koran on 9/11 as he finally got his way though I'm not too sure what I think about this situation: Pastor Jones gets his way but it shows the government pandering to religious extremists to keep religious extremists happy or we don't pander to a religious extremist and the results become a reason for the other religious extremists to justify their own extreme ways. Talk about being between a rock and a hard place. We must remember that not every religious person is an extreme lunatic but unfortunately, in this world of heightened sensitivity, it only takes one to start a riot.

I have this image of God and Allah looking down on this world, tutting, shaking their heads and saying to each other; "was it really worth six days work?"


You certainly don't have to respect anyone you don't feel deserves it, but I've found that my life is so much easier if I just let people have their way.  You are never ever ever going to change their minds.  You can offer all of the logical arguments in the world, but people will hold on to their religion more tightly than anything else.  It hurts you more than it hurts them for you to beat your head against a brick wall.  Because in my opinion, that's what religion is.  A brick wall that will never ever come down.  You can fight it, or you can walk around it.  


It is cool to let people have their way as long as they allow you to think and believe in the way you wish. Religion is about faith and sometimes tradition not logic so that's why the brick wall will never come down. The agree to disagree and respect each other rule is definitely the best approach.  :)

 It took us more than 150 years before Hugh Hefner could publish Playboy without getting arrested.  A freedom-of-expression liberal such as I call this a social good for it allows freedom of expression.  A conservative Muslim would point to the saturation of our culture with pornography and declare my "freedom of expression" abominable and ask why he should accord my values with respect.


Fair enough, but any conservative Muslim living here can go back to where he/she came from if he/she doesn't like it.

You certainly don't have to respect anyone you don't feel deserves it, but I've found that my life is so much easier if I just let people have their way.  You are never ever ever going to change their minds.  You can offer all of the logical arguments in the world, but people will hold on to their religion more tightly than anything else.  It hurts you more than it hurts them for you to beat your head against a brick wall.  Because in my opinion, that's what religion is.  A brick wall that will never ever come down.  You can fight it, or you can walk around it. 


I can agree with that, but I'm certainly not going to let any religious group censor my freedom of speech or the press.

There is a difference between being religious and doing things in the name of religion


Exactly! 
:)

You certainly don't have to respect anyone you don't feel deserves it, but I've found that my life is so much easier if I just let people have their way.


Up to a point.


The three rules listed below are by no means exhaustive; they are merely the first leads to the understanding of a vast subject.
  1. In any conflict between two men (or two groups) who hold the same basic principles, it is the more consistent one who wins.
  2. In any collaboration between two men (or two groups) who hold different basic principles, it is the more evil or irrational one who wins.
  3. When opposite basic principles are clearly and openly defined, it works to the advantage of the rational side; when they are not clearly defined, but are hidden or evaded, it works to the advantage of the irrational side.

 - Ayn Rand, “The Anatomy of Compromiseâ€�, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal

You can (and probably should, because it's usually better for both of you!) compromise with a rational opponent.  If you're compromising with an irrational opponnent, you're going to end up with "OK, Ash, your face is exposed.  Please get into the pit and we'll start heaving the stones at you shortly.  You gotta go along to get along..."

Doesn't matter if the irrational opponent is Osama or some book-burning pastor in Floriduh: accepting another person's irrationality is fine - because when push comes to shove, you'll win by virtue of #1.  But by #2, if you compromise with irrationality, you lose. 

And by #3, Jones is as big an asshat than Osama.  I want the nuts out there burning books and stoning heretics.  I want them to be offending me, because if I'm not offended I'll just ignore it.  Offensive jerkwads give rational people something to argue against, and remove whatever fig leaves behind which the irrational people were trying to hide.  Who's the greater threat?  The racist who says "All X are dumber than Y" and seals his rhetorical death warrant?  Or the racist who says "X?  Oh, those poor Xs need help, gimme a few bucks and help turn those Xs into Ys like you!" and gets elected to public office?

A conservative Muslim would point to the saturation of our culture with pornography and declare my "freedom of expression" abominable and ask why he should accord my values with respect.

I don't expect him to accord my beliefs/values any respect, if he wants to think that my values are an abomination, it's up to him.  It would be hypocritical of me to expect automatic respect for Western values when I'm not prepared to accord the same to everyone else's.  Besides, it's likely not to be "freedom of expression" per se, it's just he doesn't happen to like what other people express.  And that's tough - I don't like some of the things our society comes up with, but the problem with limiting freedom of expression is the people who want to do the censoring.


You certainly don't have to respect anyone you don't feel deserves it, but I've found that my life is so much easier if I just let people have their way.  You are never ever ever going to change their minds.  You can offer all of the logical arguments in the world, but people will hold on to their religion more tightly than anything else.  It hurts you more than it hurts them for you to beat your head against a brick wall.  Because in my opinion, that's what religion is.  A brick wall that will never ever come down.  You can fight it, or you can walk around it. 

I also draw a distinction between respecting a person and respecting the beliefs they hold: I have no difficulty in respecting and enjoying the company of many people who hold views (be they religious or nutrition/health-related) that I consider utterly barmy; unless they decide they want to foist these opinions on me, I'm quite happy not to make an issue of them.  Having said that, when they try selling me stuff that's useless, overpriced or both, I *do* argue back - it's quite staggering at times how people are more willing to believe those who they have a vested interest in trusting, even though those people are disseminating nonsense (and easily-provable nonsense, too).

Up to a point.
 - Ayn Rand, “The Anatomy of Compromiseâ€�, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal

You can (and probably should, because it's usually better for both of you!) compromise with a rational opponent.  If you're compromising with an irrational opponnent, you're going to end up with "OK, Ash, your face is exposed.  Please get into the pit and we'll start heaving the stones at you shortly.  You gotta go along to get along..."

Doesn't matter if the irrational opponent is Osama or some book-burning pastor in Floriduh: accepting another person's irrationality is fine - because when push comes to shove, you'll win by virtue of #1.  But by #2, if you compromise with irrationality, you lose.  

And by #3, Jones is as big an asshat than Osama.  I want the nuts out there burning books and stoning heretics.  I want them to be offending me, because if I'm not offended I'll just ignore it.  Offensive jerkwads give rational people something to argue against, and remove whatever fig leaves behind which the irrational people were trying to hide.  Who's the greater threat?  The racist who says "All X are dumber than Y" and seals his rhetorical death warrant?  Or the racist who says "X?  Oh, those poor Xs need help, gimme a few bucks and help turn those Xs into Ys like you!" and gets elected to public office?


A little off-topic here, but I recognize Rand's 3rd rule from my own life...

I've gotten burned because my adversaries didn't want to implement clearly defined rules.  Sometimes dishonest people get in charge of an organization and use irrational Peter Principal blurriness to keep their crooked behavior going.  If the rules were clear, I could force them to follow their own rules.  HOWEVER, the executive committee of this particular organization had no trouble enforcing the rules in the manual against my side.  If the rules weren't there, they would just improvise.  HOWEVER, they told me in quite uncertain terms when the rules were on my side that the manual wasn't set in stone.  It was just guidelines.  I don't want to give a full account of the organization and the story because that would take several paragraphs.  The point is you can run a soft dictatorship if you set up a bogus democracy.  This applies to a nation of 300 million or a club of a mere 200 individuals.
::)

One person on You Tube has a crazy theory, about the "Ground Zero Mosque".

::)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=weL_7rpqADQ

Cordoba House sounds like a vegetarian restaurant.

It's kind of sad how I went into watching that clip thinking she was just being facetious.  I mean...  "theTrutherGirls"...  That's high comedy...  or rather... it should be.  Oh well, she's clearly a nut.

I know I spoke against the NYC mosque earlier, but in hindsight, this issue reminds me of the Quran burning issue.  Both situations involve Constitutional freedoms.  To be consistent, I can't support being against the building of this mosque if I'm willing to allow the burning of Qurans.

Cordoba House sounds like a vegetarian restaurant.

It's kind of sad how I went into watching that clip thinking she was just being facetious.  I mean...  "theTrutherGirls"...  That's high comedy...  or rather... it should be.  Oh well, she's clearly a nut.

I know I spoke against the NYC mosque earlier, but in hindsight, this issue reminds me of the Quran burning issue.  Both situations involve Constitutional freedoms.  To be consistent, I can't support being against the building of this mosque if I'm willing to allow the burning of Qurans.



Cordoba House sounds more like a parillada (barbecue steak house) to me. 

Sometimes, it difficult to be consistent in one's belief, and a mark of intelligence to recognize the contradictions.  My respect.

Cordoba House sounds more like a parillada (barbecue steak house) to me. 

Sometimes, it difficult to be consistent in one's belief, and a mark of intelligence to recognize the contradictions.  My respect.


There could be big bucks in that.  Imagine a Spanish-style chain of Steakhouses, just like Outback is for Australia!

;D

Sometimes, it difficult to be consistent in one's belief, and a mark of intelligence to recognize the contradictions.  My respect.


What you said.  But to be pedantic, recognizing the contradiction's just the first step.  The way you get out of doublethink is to examine the premises of the argument.

"Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong."
   - Some ditzy chick :)

Macphisto's post is a perfect example of how to resolve the apparent contradiction.  One guy wants to burn another guy's holy book.  The other guy wants to lease space from a private landowner to worship some sort of God that the first guy doesn't worship.  Doesn't matter which (if any, if either, if both) of them anybody else thinks are asshats.  It's none of anybody else's business.

But since I'm on a Rand kick tonight (and since it's on the same URL): "The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities."

I'm on a Rand kick tonight


Well, give her a kick for me!
:)

..I'm on a Rand kick tonight..

feeling Rand-y?

feeling Rand-y?


Karma for that. Ayn Rand was an idiot with a big vocabulary, an idiot savant

What you said.  But to be pedantic, recognizing the contradiction's just the first step.  The way you get out of doublethink is to examine the premises of the argument.

"Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong."
   - Some ditzy chick :)

Macphisto's post is a perfect example of how to resolve the apparent contradiction.  One guy wants to burn another guy's holy book.  The other guy wants to lease space from a private landowner to worship some sort of God that the first guy doesn't worship.  Doesn't matter which (if any, if either, if both) of them anybody else thinks are asshats.  It's none of anybody else's business.

But since I'm on a Rand kick tonight (and since it's on the same URL): "The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities."


Thanks, Don and Foo...  I try to be fair.  :)

What I say?  it's still a Hobbesian state of affairs.  It's how we have lived for the last 500.  Maybe we cannot allow Hobbes via his handmaidens such as Ayn Rand continue to set the values of our country.  It was okay when we were kids, but we're getting old now.
8)

Don


If you mean me, its Carlos, "Don" is because I'm an old latino and I deserve the respect

What I say?  it's still a Hobbesian state of affairs.  It's how we have lived for the last 500.  Maybe we cannot allow Hobbes via his handmaidens such as Ayn Rand continue to set the values of our country.  It was okay when we were kids, but we're getting old now.
8)


In high school I flirted with the individualism crap, but it didn't take me long to figure out that it was a mask for racism, sexism, and all kinds of other ugly bs

If you mean me, its Carlos, "Don" is because I'm an old latino and I deserve the respect


You may call me Sir Mac then...  :P

In high school I flirted with the individualism crap, but it didn't take me long to figure out that it was a mask for racism, sexism, and all kinds of other ugly bs


Hobbes was proto-Enlightenment.  In the limited experience I have with him I gather he was at once for an infallible State and for the Individual's need to pursue the good things in life.  It's much in line with the Thatcher/Reagan philosophies.  Okay, if your Individual need to pursue the good things in life (such as a pound of cocaine -- provided you're twisted enough to think that's a good thing) runs afoul of the Infallible state, the Individual is up sh*t creek without a paddle!

Pardon me before I say something dumb. 

Liberals today are horrified by Hobbes's "Leviathan" but living in it doesn't bother them so much.  Highway patrol.  That's a necessity?  It is a necessity to have the government sit out there like some babysitter and watch how you behave on the road?  I feel that way when I get traffic tickets.  However, when there's a car crash, the emergency crew is there within 90 seconds.  So what do you want?  You dance the jig, you gotta pay the piper.

http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/11/bunny.gif

Which is to say, Hobbes was asking "What are the Rights of Man?"

This was much an improvement over the previous apex of civilization, Ancient Rome:  I'm Julius Caesar.  Do what I say or I will nail you asses to the wall.  Just ask the city across the ridge.  We have ten thousand of them nailed to crosses.  Do you really wanna f**k with us?"

You may call me Sir Mac then...   :P



Do you have a PhD or two and can be called a doctor? Are you a senior citizen?



Cat

You may call me Sir Mac then...   :P


You may call me Carlos, my name, as most everyone here does.  And by the way, "Don" is not just an affectation, my maternal Grandfather was a "knight" of the Spanish court. 

They did arrest that one NJ railroad worker who burned pages from the Koran.  The government agency fired him because of his religious beliefs.  Now he has a real First Amendment case. 

D'OH!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/04/errrr.gif

They did arrest that one NJ railroad worker who burned pages from the Koran.  The government agency fired him because of his religious beliefs.  Now he has a real First Amendment case. 

D'OH!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/04/errrr.gif


I have heard that an American has the right to burn the American flag if s/he wishes to. Is religious literature (of all religions) included in that right as well?

I have heard that an American has the right to burn the American flag if s/he wishes to. Is religious literature (of all religions) included in that right as well?


As far as I know, we yanks have the right to burn any inanimate object that we own, as long as we don't try to collect insurance on it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2-KgBhslBQ&feature=player_embedded

Do you have a PhD or two and can be called a doctor? Are you a senior citizen?

Cat


I thought liberals weren't fans of titles...

http://dahldreams.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/thomas-jefferson-picture.jpg

You may call me Carlos, my name, as most everyone here does.  And by the way, "Don" is not just an affectation, my maternal Grandfather was a "knight" of the Spanish court. 


Interesting...  :) My grandfather was a WW2 vet that is now recognized as a Chevalier in the Legion of Honor by the French government.

Interesting...  :) My grandfather was a WW2 vet that is now recognized as a Chevalier in the Legion of Honor by the French government.


I got into this a few months ago with a co-worker on the subject of jury duty.  We were debating the merits of the word "peer" in the context of "jury of your peers".  I had to practically beat it into him that even if the case is about some esoteric point of intellectual property law, it doesn't matter whether the guy sitting on the jury is making $1M/year as a tax lawyer or if he's a public school dropout who can barely sign his own name let alone understand the issues of the case.  We may not always like it (and that's what voir dire is for), but the whole point of ditching Peerage (i.e. hereditary titles of nobility), if they're a citizen, they're a peer.  There's only one class of American citizenship, and it's "citizen".

There's insufficient data to opine on Carlos' ancestry (I don't know what the title was, and I don't know jack about Spanish law), but the last time I checked, the American oath of citizenship involved the repudiation of hereditary titles or orders of nobility.  

And when it comes to the frogs, I do remember something about them: the French Legion of Honor was first modern order of merit - expressly created by Napoleon as an recognition of merit, not nobility, because all orders of nobility had been abolished during the French Revolution.  I see no contradiction there: you don't get your grandfather's title by virtue of birth, and he only got it because he served France incidental to his service for the US in WW2.  He's also (presumably) a US citizen and never had to take a formal oath of citizenship, so the whole point is probably moot.  The US doesn't recognize titles of nobility because - as I said before - there's only one class of American citizenship, and it's "citizen".  If you're not an American, and you want to become one, you have to give up your hereditary title or resign from your order of nobility, and if you are an American, your country ignores them, even if bestowed upon you by some foreign government.

I thought liberals weren't fans of titles...

http://dahldreams.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/thomas-jefferson-picture.jpg


Oh, titles, I thought you wrote something else.  I was like, of course I'm fond of those and so was old Tom!
:D

No, no titles in America.  You can call you dog "Duke" if you like, and if you're a real putz, you can call your university "Duke" too!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2-KgBhslBQ&feature=player_embedded



This gives me hope.


Cat

I thought liberals weren't fans of titles...

http://dahldreams.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/thomas-jefferson-picture.jpg



I don't know where you got that from. I happen to hold a few titles that I like very much.

-Mrs.
-Sergeant.  ??? Yup, that's right. I hold the title of Sergeant.  :o :o :o
-In Puerto Rico I hold the title of Doña. (I have legal papers specifying that-which is a little strange to me but so be it. I'll get used to it.)


Cat

I got into this a few months ago with a co-worker on the subject of jury duty.  We were debating the merits of the word "peer" in the context of "jury of your peers".  I had to practically beat it into him that even if the case is about some esoteric point of intellectual property law, it doesn't matter whether the guy sitting on the jury is making $1M/year as a tax lawyer or if he's a public school dropout who can barely sign his own name let alone understand the issues of the case.  We may not always like it (and that's what voir dire is for), but the whole point of ditching Peerage (i.e. hereditary titles of nobility), if they're a citizen, they're a peer.  There's only one class of American citizenship, and it's "citizen".

There's insufficient data to opine on Carlos' ancestry (I don't know what the title was, and I don't know jack about Spanish law), but the last time I checked, the American oath of citizenship involved the repudiation of hereditary titles or orders of nobility.  

And when it comes to the frogs, I do remember something about them: the French Legion of Honor was first modern order of merit - expressly created by Napoleon as an recognition of merit, not nobility, because all orders of nobility had been abolished during the French Revolution.  I see no contradiction there: you don't get your grandfather's title by virtue of birth, and he only got it because he served France incidental to his service for the US in WW2.  He's also (presumably) a US citizen and never had to take a formal oath of citizenship, so the whole point is probably moot.  The US doesn't recognize titles of nobility because - as I said before - there's only one class of American citizenship, and it's "citizen".  If you're not an American, and you want to become one, you have to give up your hereditary title or resign from your order of nobility, and if you are an American, your country ignores them, even if bestowed upon you by some foreign government.


You are, of course absolutely correct, and quite frankly I don't get why Mac got his nose bent out of shape.  As a matter of fact, down here any old man is referred to as Don, its just a sign of respect.  Since I don't look my age, most people here call me señor.  Having been born in Patterson NJ, of two citizens (Puerto Ricans were given citizenship by act of congress in 1917 - mark the date) I was a citizen by birth from every standpoint. 

I got into this a few months ago with a co-worker on the subject of jury duty.  We were debating the merits of the word "peer" in the context of "jury of your peers".  I had to practically beat it into him that even if the case is about some esoteric point of intellectual property law, it doesn't matter whether the guy sitting on the jury is making $1M/year as a tax lawyer or if he's a public school dropout who can barely sign his own name let alone understand the issues of the case.  We may not always like it (and that's what voir dire is for), but the whole point of ditching Peerage (i.e. hereditary titles of nobility), if they're a citizen, they're a peer.  There's only one class of American citizenship, and it's "citizen".

There's insufficient data to opine on Carlos' ancestry (I don't know what the title was, and I don't know jack about Spanish law), but the last time I checked, the American oath of citizenship involved the repudiation of hereditary titles or orders of nobility.  

And when it comes to the frogs, I do remember something about them: the French Legion of Honor was first modern order of merit - expressly created by Napoleon as an recognition of merit, not nobility, because all orders of nobility had been abolished during the French Revolution.  I see no contradiction there: you don't get your grandfather's title by virtue of birth, and he only got it because he served France incidental to his service for the US in WW2.  He's also (presumably) a US citizen and never had to take a formal oath of citizenship, so the whole point is probably moot.  The US doesn't recognize titles of nobility because - as I said before - there's only one class of American citizenship, and it's "citizen".  If you're not an American, and you want to become one, you have to give up your hereditary title or resign from your order of nobility, and if you are an American, your country ignores them, even if bestowed upon you by some foreign government.


Pretty much...  I can honestly say that this is one of those things that is worth having pride in America for.

You are, of course absolutely correct, and quite frankly I don't get why Mac got his nose bent out of shape.  As a matter of fact, down here any old man is referred to as Don, its just a sign of respect.  Since I don't look my age, most people here call me señor.  Having been born in Patterson NJ, of two citizens (Puerto Ricans were given citizenship by act of congress in 1917 - mark the date) I was a citizen by birth from every standpoint. 


Carlos, you do realize that I was just messing with you, right?  Half of the stuff I post is intentionally facetious...  if a bit inflammatory...  ;)

Granted, Foo Bar is far superior to me in terms of humor.

You are, of course absolutely correct, and quite frankly I don't get why Mac got his nose bent out of shape.  As a matter of fact, down here any old man is referred to as Don, its just a sign of respect.  Since I don't look my age, most people here call me señor.  Having been born in Patterson NJ, of two citizens (Puerto Ricans were given citizenship by act of congress in 1917 - mark the date) I was a citizen by birth from every standpoint.  


Out of respect, I call you Don Carlos or Professor Carlos! You often have something illuminating to add to the discussion!  You are not so harsh when I write some complete bullshirt.  

I had this English composition in college who used the word liberally in his notes on my essays!

He got on my nerves for a semester.  I got an A.  But he would come to class half in the wrapper and start spewing forth,
"Ronald Reagan?  He's just another dumb politician.  Don't get me started.  Economics is my second passion, AND YOU KNOW NOTHING!"
;D

All these years later I'm supposed bristle with affection for that stubborn professor who taught me so much.  Nope.  That professor was a dick.

;D

I still referred to him as Professor or Dr., though.

Carlos, you do realize that I was just messing with you, right?  Half of the stuff I post is intentionally facetious...  if a bit inflammatory...  ;)

Granted, Foo Bar is far superior to me in terms of humor.


Well, Sir Mac, I must agree.

Well, Sir Mac, I must agree.


Thanks...  Don Carlos.  ;)