Go to ANTINOUVEAUANTIDISESTABLISHMENTARIANISM
- Add a comment
- Go to RELIGIOUS RIGHT ABOUT TO SUSPEND THE CONSTITUTION?
i dunno D.
I guess we just disagree. It seems rational to me to the enemy who wants to kill us if they have infomation that in our hands could save American soldiers and spill on American soil. Right or wrong. We must survive, right? Wars are fought to win, last I heard.
posted by
calmcantey75
on January 11, 2005 at 11:22 AM
| link to this | reply
jackie...
...I'm surprised at you.
What's wrong with a little mild torture, you ask????
What's wrong with holding people for 2 years plus without legal representation, access to families, access to the outside world and without being charged??? Can you imagine the diplomatic fury if that was 600 Americans being held by a foreign power??
What's wrong with both these is far more than the individual instance. What's wrong is they set a dangerous precedent of depraved behaviour that is seen as OK by a supposedly civilised country. What's wrong is this can then be used against us later. What's wrong is we're supposed to be growing and evolving as a species, not going backwards to thumbscrews and brandling irons.
Sorry this is off-topic, westwend. Scary post. Scary discussions.
D
posted by
DamonLeigh
on January 11, 2005 at 11:12 AM
| link to this | reply
freerain...
...yes - thank you.
D
posted by
DamonLeigh
on January 11, 2005 at 10:54 AM
| link to this | reply
freerain
thank you
posted by
Xeno-x
on January 8, 2005 at 8:20 AM
| link to this | reply
If you don't like my questions at the end of my comment
here is a good example of what I am refering to with my rhetorical questions: read DamonLeigh's blog:
Blowback
and get your head outa your arse.
FR
posted by
freerain
on January 7, 2005 at 12:08 PM
| link to this | reply
Gonzales said it himself:
"We are a country of Law and not of Men." Of course this is not being commented on by the media. But in essence, his devotion to Law is not the Law of Men, but his fundalmental view of the Law(s) of God. This man put our country into the catagory of being a Christian nation more effectively than even GWB. Our founding fathers foresaw this doom happening and tried their best to lay down Laws of Men and the mechanisms necessary to see that they are followed even over riding the Law(s) of God, which the Christians themselves find very hard to follow.
If the commandment of God says: "Thou shall not Kill" Christians justify that by retranslating it into "murder" and say that killing in times of war is morally justified--if killing is justified, than so is torture, so is plunder, so is greed.
Christ said: "Love your enemy, be kind to those who spitefully use you." Imagin, the Islamic fundalmentalists who have had anger invoked in them by the abuses our excesses having been imposed on them and their country--made to believe we are evil people--coming into contact for the first time with "real Americans" and then being treated with care and dignity? What do you think would be their view of what they were taught about Americans? But if we succumb to violence, we only confirm their views and justify their violence against us.
What are we doing in Iraq in the first place? For democracy? For oil? for world placement to be able to control the muslim land rich in resources? to spred the love of Christianity?
War. Good God, ya all, what is it good for?
FR
posted by
freerain
on January 7, 2005 at 12:02 PM
| link to this | reply
For me, here is the fallacy in or political condition. The majority is always right, seems to be the energy our nation is operating under right now. As politicians cater to the needs of the majority of the voting public, for obvious reasons, the rest of the peoples wants and needs seem to be overlooked. The way I see it when it comes to issues of morality, the majority is almost always wrong.
posted by
ThomasWelch
on January 6, 2005 at 3:02 PM
| link to this | reply
west, this is not a religious war. this is not the crusades
( if anything it is the muslims that are trying to conquer us, they are the religious aggressors, not us)the only similarity is the war in Iraq and the crusades is the religions are the same. But that does not mean it is the same thing all over again. It does not mean history is repeating itself. I dont think we agree at all on the threat that is imposed to this country. You seem to be to far into philosophical musings on the relationship between religion and war and history instead of what this country is facing. Realpolitik is needed here. I am not saying America is as pure as the driven snow, but should we not defend ourselves? Should we just lay down and be conquered?
posted by
calmcantey75
on January 6, 2005 at 11:26 AM
| link to this | reply
what I'm saying
is that you cannot make what they are doing into a pure, white, good thing.
actually it reminds me of the First Crusade.
where the knights had this saying: "My strength is as the strength of 10 because my heart is pure." ("Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.")
then they went on to kill and enslave the residents of the Balkan area (Yugoslavia) and slaughtered Jew and Eastern Orthodox alike in Constantinople on the way to their "so pure" crusade for Christ.
they thought too that the end justifies the means.
and about the Japanese (and German) interrment camps -- this was a great atrocity -- the idea might have been right in that we needed to protect ourselves from foreign sympathizers -- but the camps violated the rights of American citizens.
you see -- if it happens to them, it's OK.
but there's hell to pay if it happens to us.
right?
posted by
Xeno-x
on January 6, 2005 at 11:16 AM
| link to this | reply
west, come on
what excactly are you saying in that last comment? War in defense of our country is not sin. When we kill the enemy in war that is not murder. Did FDR commit sin when he put the Japenese in internment camps? Are we committing sin when we attempt to extract info from the enemy that could save American lives? How do you define torture? We are not torturing ( mildly) for some kind of cruel sick pleasure, we are torturing to get infomation in a time of war. Its not the same thing.
posted by
calmcantey75
on January 6, 2005 at 11:03 AM
| link to this | reply
I'm glad that my post on this
inspired you to write your counter attack. Maybe you should contact Dr. Dobson directly or Focus on the Family or the AFRA or ACLJ and share your opinion on this with them?
posted by
PastorB
on January 6, 2005 at 11:03 AM
| link to this | reply
according to christian conservatives
sin is black and white
there are no gray areas.
even if they do not sink to the level of the terrorists
still they are violating principles
either they are sinning or they are not.
there is not halfway.
there is no comparison or relativeness.
either they are upholding the law or they are not
which is it?
posted by
Xeno-x
on January 6, 2005 at 10:53 AM
| link to this | reply
constitution is being circumvented
by forcing a stacking of the deck of judges who would circumvent the constitution
basic idea of the constitution is to protect rights
not to restrict them
many of the "marriage protection" laws and amendments have, as part of their purpose, the restriction of rights of a certain segment of society.
marriage wouild still be intact without these amendments. they are primarily biased against a segment of society. the constitution is supposed to protect people against bias.
posted by
Xeno-x
on January 6, 2005 at 10:51 AM
| link to this | reply
O.K. if it is against your point of view it is rhetoric
but that aside, how is the constitution being circumvented? I must confess I am coasting on common sense in the midst of a war that I want us to win. But maybe you are a constitutional scholar. Educate me.
The way I understand it, Geneva Convention does not apply to terrorists. These people are our enemies. They want to kill us. They are brutal murderers. They are cutting peoples heads off on video. They have declared war on us a long time ago. Why are you so concerned about how they are treated by our soldiers in detainment? What if we could get info from them that would save our soldiers lives and prevent future attacks on our soil? Even if we do inflict MILD torture to get infomation in a time of war, we still are in no way sinking to the level these people.
According to Article IV of the Geneva Convention:
- Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfill the following conditions:
- That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
- That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
- That of carrying arms openly;
- That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
posted by
calmcantey75
on January 6, 2005 at 9:57 AM
| link to this | reply
jackie o
that article is a great example of faulty rhetoric
let's look at what it is by examining one of the bases of firm logic.
"all lions are cats, but not all cats are lions."
see?
the article makes blanket statements that lump Democrats into one category of evil.
and then some.
it is full of conclusions that are not back up -- full of faulty innuendo. It does not validly defend Gonzales actions -- it calls names and make accusations against his opponents --
it makes multiple statements without the facts to back them up. it is an editorial (obviously) -- but if you want us to lean even a little toward this point of view, you have to give us a link where the statements are backed up.
I personally feel that Gonzales et al are circumventing and ignoring not only our constitution, but world-wide conventions where the U.S. has been a signatory -- and that this government is applying "police-state" policies in the situation of Afghani (and other) detainees at Guantanamo and prisoners at Abu Ghraib.
Abortion has nothing to do with that situation. It is a different matter entirely.
If the author, George Neumayr, really wants to be considered rational and believable, then he should address the single issue directly instead of wandering all over the place in his rhetoric.
posted by
Xeno-x
on January 6, 2005 at 9:33 AM
| link to this | reply
heres an article for you
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=7593
posted by
calmcantey75
on January 6, 2005 at 9:13 AM
| link to this | reply