People have fallen out of planes with bruises and scratches - now your point of view is that a child would break their leg jumping of his roof - thats your point of view - my point of view is damage would be done - religous people factualy believe in god - there is no doubt just as u do not doubt the consequence of jumping from a roof.. thats all I'm saying.

I totally agree with you but religous people have that proof you talk about whether it may be made up of strong faith (just a knowing) or supernatural experiences to these types of people god is fact.

Wow.

Look, before I say anything: I'm not religious. "Agnostic" is about as close to a description of my "beliefs" as anyone is likely to get.

That said, I think quite a few people don't understand what "faith" or "belief" is. Very simply, "proof" never enters into it. I'm not saying that "proof" is impossible -- I'm saying it's irrelevant.

If you believe in the teachings of Christ, you don't need proof of anything. All that's asked of you is that you live your life in accordance with those teachings. You don't need to see Christ's footprints on water, you don't need to see his face burned into the shroud of Turin. The lessons either work for you or they don't. And if they do, you live your life according to what they say.

Most people who call themselves "Christians" today are anything but. Christians don't kill, they don't lead people to be killed, they don't make decisions that cause people to be killed, they never place their welfare or their position above that of others. There really is nothing "wrong" with Christianity, as long as you can get past that whole "Supreme Being" thing. It's "Christians" that are the problem.

Mother Teresa was a Christian. George Bush is a "Christian." No true Christian would ever accept the role of President, just as no true Muslim would ever fly a plane full of people into a building to kill others.

There is not a single thing wrong with the major faiths of this world. The problem lies with the people who claim to follow them and who yet still find reason to believe that their lives are more important than others'. If you give your life to God, then God matters. Not you, and certainly not the borders and laws of your country.

That's not to say that George Bush's "faith" should demand that he step down. But he should definitely stop claiming to be a Christian. He's not one.

I agree with that AK, I really do.

I've never known a child to break his leg jumping off a roof.
I actually jumped off a roof once as a child and didn't get hurt at all. My friends with me who jumped were not hurt. Granted, the yard sloped toward the house, so it was a slightly shorter distance than most roofs, but I have empirical proof that this child didn't get hurt.

I have known people who committed adultery and their life suffered. I have mourned with families whose children were murdered for no reason. I have used the teachings of the Bible to refute stupid acts or statements of people claiming justification for their acts through the Bible. I have seen a person with a broken spirit find love and acceptance at my church. I have more proof of the harm caused by not following the teachings of Christ than I do of a child breaking their leg jumping off a roof.

AK, I pray that more Christians take on the responsibility of government. While Jesus was not a politician, he surrounded himself with tax collectors, fisherman, zealots and prostitutes. Some of the strongest community leaders were chosen as his disciples. I don't think that Jesus requires Christians to avoid positions that require hard decisions. Rather, I think he requires Christians in tough situations to pray for and follow God's direction.

If we just had the courage to stand behind the people who really want to help us it wouldnt matter what relegion they were. I just beleive that, while a persons relegion can have a strong effect on their day to day lives, relegion itself needs to be left out of the political arena. It just saves us from a lot of problems in the long run. There are too many different people and too many different relegions and beliefs in this country to say that one way of looking at things should be the guiding force in government. Theocracy is how they do it over in those middle east countries we're bombing, except for Iraq which had a secular government.

are you absolutely sure you didn't hurt yourself in any way, not even bruises ??

I do not want a theocracy. They tried state run church in England, that's why many colonists left. I believe in a constitutional republic as a basis of our government. That includes the first amendment religious freedom/establishment clauses. Just because we have a constitutional republic, though, does not mean that only agnostics/atheists should run the government. I generally vote for and trust Christian leaders. I do not support every person claiming to be a Christian. We recently had a group send a petition to our County government asking them to display the Ten Commandments. I was happy to see our elected officials, many of which are Christian, recognize that as unconstitutional.

Quite certain! The back yard was a hill sloping down toward the house. The house was only one story. So long as you jumped out and rolled when you hit the ground, no bruises, no breaks, no worries. About 4 of us did it without incident.

sorry to drag this out but tell me how old you were and I'll shut up.

I don't know exactly, maybe 10 - 12. By the way, I am not recommending that any kiddies try this at home.

I'm not suggesting that only atheists should govern, but the question is where do you draw the line? Take the abortion issue, for example. A LOT of christian voters think it should be illegal, period, no exceptions. There are a lot of government officials who share the same beliefs and feel he same way. Is it their right to feel that way, of course it is, but the issue of whether or not it is best for the common good to outlaw it needs to be discussed, and that ends as soon as the relegious aspect of it comes into play. This can be applied to a lot of issues, but abortion and gay rights are obviously the fist things that spring to mind. I know you're stance on both of these issues, Freeman, and I respect both of them. However, not everyone is as gracious as you are with things, and unfortunately, you don't make the laws. So there is a point where a persons relegious beliefs can conflict directly with their ability to make decisions that affect everyone. And let's face the truth, just because you believe something doesn't necessarily mean you are right about it. So if someone has to choose between making or upholding a public policy that is in the interest of the greater public. or fulfilling what they feel is something important to their faith, how do you think most people would vote?

This is precisely the reason we have a constitution. Strict constructionists of the constitution believe that the elected legislatures make the laws and are held accountable by the majority (the voters). Only when the majority tries to overstep the boundaries and infringe the rights of the minority, does the court step in. So Courts should look at the specific rights that have been granted to the minority and protect them.

The problem comes when you have activist judges who decide to give the words of the constitution the meaning they want it to have, rather than its strict construction based on what it meant when it was enacted. If the words do not have any meaning, other than the meaning that a judge gives it, then the judge decides when the rights are in existence. If the guarantees of the constitution can be changed based on what is popular, then the majority can decide what the protections are. In other words, the majority decides the protections afforded the minority is whatever the majority wants it to be.

That may have seemed confusing, but the bottom line is we need judges who interpret the constitution giving the words of the constitution their plain meaning, as originally enacted, or we face losing the protections we have. Strict constructionists, like Thomas & Scalia, are criticized by those supporting expansionist judges. As a Christian, and an American, I want the Constitution to mean what is says and protect those it protects, even when I disagree with them.

Again, as Jesus said: "Render unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's, render unto God what is God's."

I can tell you that some people experience god in a way that is not easily comprehendable, I'm not talking about faith or attributated coincidences - actual freaky shit that defies explaination except by a presence other than what we see and understand. Events that I'm sure some people wish they never experienced because life is easier without god being involved.

No offense, but that's modern-day rationale that's used by "Christians" to justify the behavior that contradicts the "faith" they claim to follow.

Christ said to turn the other cheek. He didn't say "turn the other cheek except when it's not convenient."

You see, the real "hard decision" you're talking about is maintaining your belief in Christ's gospel, and your practice of his teachings, even when everything seems to be stacked against you. Kierkegaard wrote about this at some length, using the Biblical example of Abraham, and God's command that Abraham sacrifice his son.

When you start finding workarounds for your "faith" because you need a little elbow room to make so-called "hard decisions," you're basically telling Christ that his gospel doesn't fit your needs.

Which is all well and good. I don't mean to be preaching here. I'm not a Christian.

But quite a few people who refer to themselves as such aren't either.

You've taken one example (turn the other cheek) and said that any other reading of the Bible is just modern-day rationale. Another example is Jesus in the Temple turning over the money changer's tables and running them out with a bull whip. My point is that none of these examples should be taken out of context. I believe you should always filter any interpretation through the filter of the rest of the story. One sentence is not enough justification.

A prime example is homosexuality. Friends have pointed to one verse and told me it's wrong. I've looked at the whole book and I'm not as convinced. If it is wrong, I still believe that Jesus loved the sinner and hated the sin. Believing that way, I can't support the gay marriage ban, but I understand why others do. In fact, I would think it is better for homosexuals to marry, than commit fornication.

When we went into Afghanistan and Iraq, my preacher gave a sermon as to when and how he believed the government was justified to go to war. I'm no preacher, but it was full of Biblical support for proper times for the government (and only the government) to go to war. You may think of this as a workaround, I do not. I honestly want to see what I can learn from the Bible and pray for understanding and guidance to do what's right. I know I get it wrong sometimes, but I don't stop trying. That is what it means to be a Christian to me. You strive to be Christ-like.

How can you strive to be like someone that there are so many conflicting views about !?!?

imho each of us should strive to be the best person we can be (of which I'm failing miserably) not the best person someone else can be - that would be envy.

No, you're missing the point. Twice now you've used something that Christ did in an effort to show "flexibility" in his gospel. But you're not Christ. You don't get to compare his decisions to yours. Because Jesus hung out with hookers doesn't mean it's OK for you to do it. That's another flaw with modern "Christianity" -- this "What Would Jesus Do?" nonsense. You're not Jesus and you don't and can't walk in his shoes. If you genuinely believe that Christ is the son of God, then you're talking about an offspring of an Absolute. His word is absolute law and the Bible is pretty clear as to the guidelines of those laws.



Well. of course. I wouldn't expect any modern religious leader to do anything but support a conservative president.

But ask yourself this: if God loves you and protects you and promises you eternal life if you love him in return and lead a life of peace, why do you feel that your country ever needs to go to war? Why would you need anyone besides God to protect you? What could you possibly be so afraid of that you've given God's responsibility to some human being -- whether it's a doctor, a cop or George Bush?

And with regard to times or war -- if everlasting life awaits any of us who choose to follow the teachings of Christ, how in the world would any of us ever buy into the notion that our faith supports the taking of even one life?

The modern-day Christian is like the vegetarian who eats "only a little" meat every day.

This discussion has turned painful. I don't want to keep arguing the merits and trappings of relegion and faith in this thread, let's start a new thread for that one. Let's get back to politics.

Let's start with the 93,000 extra votes that were found in a county in Ohio. Or how about let's talk about how the Associated Press keeps going back and revising stories they wrote just after the election. Like now they are saynig that the gay marriage ban vote did not contribute to a Bush win, whereas they were saying it did. Is it just me, or are a lot of news organazations waffling a bit on their reporting now that some time has gone by?

Given that the majority of Bush's support came from the Bible Belt and from people who say their greatest concern was "moral values," I think a discussion of the rampant hypocrisy of religious types in this country is entirely relevant to a political discussion.

But whatever.

Maybe not him, but the people who are running this little internal takeover of my country dont need him, theres always someone like him who wants to be president, even if it is just a figurehead position. My fear is that, without a feeling of any real competition or danger to their power base, these people will run progressively nuttier people who want to play god for four years.

It's thinking like that that led the DNC to nominate the most liberal ticket in its history. Dems don't even recognize how nutty their own guys were.


There's a whole lot of red on this map and it ain't just the southern bible belt!

From Hannity.Com and I'm supposd to take it seriously? Sorry Freeman, but that map is total bullshit, and I KNOW you're smarter than that. For crying out loud, that map shows a whole lot of red in states that stil went to Kerry in the election, so that's a really poor example of something and I'm really dissapointed that you would present that as something to be proud of. The national numbers still say it was 51% BUSH 49% KERRY. That's pretty damn close. So no offense, and all my repsect, but you can take that map and stick it where only a proctologist can find it.

http://www.cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/el ... rlarge.png



How do you like that one then?

Be more realistic man, I've come to respect you too much to allow you to fall into that kind of narrow minded malaise.

Actually, Hannity got it straight off the USA Today webpage. I simply copied it from Hannity, because it was easier to find. What it shows is county by county, which counties went Bush and which counties went Kerry. Do you dispute the accuracy of these results? If so, show me your evidence. That pretty little picture you showed has a lot of purple. In a winner takes all situation, red and blue are all that count. So I'll stick my map back where it belongs and you are welcome to stick the purple map where you wish.

The fact that I get information from someone you do not like, does not mean I fell into a narrowminded malaise.

I watch FOXNews every morning! Bush's popular numbers give him the first president election victor to take more than 50% since his father.
Ofcourse, the numbers that really count, the electoral vote:
Bush: 286
Kerry: 252

As they say, close only counts in horseshoes, handgrenades and nuclear warfare!

Com on Free, that is narrow minded because it doesnt take into account the people in those areas who did NOT vote republican. This 'all that matters is red and blue' stuff is a big part of what's going wrong in this country and is a narrow minded point of view because it doesnt take inot account the subtleties in the way people think. There are dems that voted for Bush for one reason or another, just as there are reps that there are reps that voted for Kerry for one reason or another. The purple map is much more representitive of the people, not just the politics, that actually make up the country. Add to that the fact that the map is not representitive of population density, and you have a map that is purposely designed to project a certain image that, while being accurate, is not being true. Overall you have more people on the coasts and in the cities than you in the vast, rolling plain states of the country, and the majority of those people voted democrat. I'm surprised to see you pushing a divisive idea like this. What does that image really mean to you? Is it really that important to have a validation like that? For crying out loud, you're side won, do you still need to feel good about your choice?

And as for Hannity, all I can say is I hope you're a better and more open minded person than he is.

Since when is it so wrong to celebrate a victory! I know everyone wants to be PC, but this is ridiculous. I put up a map that accurately shows the county by county result and I'm slammed and narrow-minded? Had Kerry won, all you dems would be celebrating just as much, if not more.

I'm not humping Bush's leg, but I am ecstatic that he won. I think Kerry and, more importantly, Edwards would have caused harm to my country. I think Bush is on the right path. If I want to shout "Yea Bush" I will. Call me narrow-minded if you want, but the facts are the facts and I can present those facts I like. It's not my job to be "fair and balanced", I'll leave that to FoxNews.

DKR, be nice, that doesnt help.

Well this is the first time I think I have been really dissapointed in you during our discussion. I don't want to think that you are narrow minded, but those last couple of statements certainly are. I want to look at the better aspects of your charecter, but you're not putting them foreward at this moment.

Be serious. DKR says I'm humping Bush's leg and I can't respond? As for the maps, the only one that counts is the electoral one that is majorly red. The county one is interesting to me and I chose to share it when you referenced the "little internal takeover" of the country and AK said the majority of Bush's support came from the Bible Belt. Don't call my character into question, merely because I give you some information you don't like. By the way, didn't you tell me to stick my map where only a proctologist can find it? Not exactly the finest example of your character.

Everyone watch the flames, get back to the topic at hand and in future edit a single post instead of posting consecutive times.

I've watched foxnews in the past (purely for the entertainment value) and I can tell you as a non-brainwashed Australian that there is no way that FoxNews is fair and balanced.

-----

I don't understand why you, Projbalance, are having such a cry over the map - do you feel like freemanlaw is rubbing the electoral win in your face ?


EDIT: sorry if I'm not inline with your last post Insert Username, I missed your post cause it was on the next page.

Fox News is fair and balanced in light of the other tv news networks. Most network news anchors are liberal at heart. Most FoxNews anchors are conservative at heart. Listen to NPR and watch Fox News and you've heard both sides of the story. Having grown up listening to Dan Rather most of my life, FoxNews is refreshing.

I use to watch obrian - or something - can't remember his name exactly now - loved to hate that man - couldn't stand the guy but I use watch his show a lot... he is like an itch I know I shouldnt scratch but can't help myself.

O'Reilly? I watch him every now and then, but he gets a little to cocky for my tastes.

yeah yeah O'Reilly - the O'Reilly Factor hehehe

but he gets a little to cocky for my tastes.

thats one of the major reasons I liked to watch him.

I just don't think the map is very representitive of my country. It's hard to describe whats going on over here right now, Renegade, but it's hard to watch so many people go along with something you feel is so wrong.

And Freeman, I apologise for getting out of line, but seeing that map does infuriate me. And just as you have a right to gloat, I have a right to be indignant, and this is the first time you have presented such a one sided attitude in the course of this conversation. I forget how polarized we are in our two views, and we have degenerated into a Hannity and Colmes style stand off.

Let's talk politics. The gay marriage ban won in Georgia by something like 75%, but Bush's majority was not near that close. This is typical of elections in the South. If you ask most dems how they feel on specific issues, they are conservative. If you ask them how they're voting, they vote democrat. It is one of the craziest things I've seen.

Actually, many of the articles I have read over the last year or so say the majority of people are pretty moderate on most issues. Unfortunately for all of us, the most single minded people are also usually the ones with the biggest mouths, so it makes us all look more seperate than we truely are. I believe in spending less through our government, but I also beleive that we should spend money on social programs and building a more defensive military. I beleive that we should let individual states dictate their own policies on marriage rights laws, the same as Bush and Cheney's original position on the subject. I do also beleive that we should be tightening our environmental laws, not loosening them. I want a smaller govenrment, but one that does not listen to the will of corporations over people. I'm not for abortion, but I am for the right to choose. Most people are going to be pretty much in the middle on most issues, so why don't our elected officials represent this more?

http://news.yahoo.com/electionresults

Yes but over 3 million, a 3% spread is a pretty good feat. Try not to look at the yahoo map. It may make you mad.


My congressional representative is a democrat who votes half with the left and half with the right. He supports the Iraq war, openly supported Bush for reelection and is strong on veterans affairs. He votes with the left on social spending and is opposed to tax reform. If you want balanced leaders, elect them.

I just don't have the trust that people will do the things they say they will. People are so easy to manipulate, or they have a tendency to succumb to thier own greed. Hell, even Kerry was full of shit on more than a couple of issues, and I voted for him.

!snap

What good does it do for the international media to be biased in regards to American politics?

As far as FOX goes, their news reporting is accurate based on what they report, it's the over abundance of opinion pieces and opinion based commentary during the news that becomes the issue. Since they are on a news channel, many people don't seperate the opinion from the news. Is that the publics fault, you're goddamn right it is. Still, that doesnt give Roger Aimes and Rupert Murdoch the right to manipulate issues the way they do. Don't listen to me though, go rent "OutFOXED" on DVD. If you can look past the so-called "liberal" agenda behind it, theres some good observations and information there.

I don't just have issues wih FOX, I have issues with al the media. If they are so liberal, how come they arent running every bad thing about Bush and the republicans that I have read online in the last year? The accusation just isn't true, considering all the news organazations are corporate owned, and all the corporate owners are republicans. Mainstream journalism is dead in this country.

Didn't say you said liberal, added that on my own.

Is it just possible that the international media has a point of view that we dont have here? I don't know, but I have gotten some information from teh BBC that I wish I had gotten from any of our media.

Journalists can write what they want, but the show producers and editors and people on the corporate side of the media business control which stories get on and how they are presented. On that DVD there is a story about a pair of writers at FOX that either got bounced or quit, can't remember which one, for refusing to rewrite a story that passed all the fact checking levels. The story was about growth hormones used on cows getting into the milk, you've probably heard about it by now. Then there was the 60 Minutes piece that got killed, the one where they were going to read the names of the soldiers who died in Iraq and Afghnistan up to that point, as both a tribute and a reminder of how much war SUCKS!!!!!!!!

sorry

I mean it BLOWS!!!!!!!!!!

we get fairly spot on news of the body counts on both sides here in Australia.

the rest of the worlds view of america does seem jaded and the refusal to sign the kyoto treaty does not help - australias image is not helped by doing the same.

heres my analogy of america having to sign the kyoto treaty - 10000 fat kids simultaneously forced to diet - ain't gonna happen!!

Science Vs. Government. Article at Wired.Com

http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,65693,00.html

Not if the source material comes from the DoD press releases on Reuters or Associated Press newswires....which they do. The most unbiased news you're likely to find in Australia is ABC (most bulletins, 7:30 Report and Lateline) or SBS World News. Everything else is compromised beyond repair by external commercial and editorial interests.

i was watching sbs last night for a brief moment and as much of the showing of iraqi dead bodies all over the place as i can bare - pretty graphical stuff - I don't think 7, 9 and 10 or even ABC would show images of that nature.

do you guys know if america has an abc or sbs equivalent - im not sure if americas abc is supposed to be australias equivalent as in american broadcasting corporation and if they only share similarities in title.

----

side note: I was looking for the au abc.com website and ended up at the american abc site unawares - clicked the jobs link and was sent to disney corporation

I don't know what ABC in Australia is, but here it is just like NBC and CBS. For years, those three were the only networks out there. Then came FOX, then cable and they've been growing ever since.

On another note, did any of you see this:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/graphics/p ... /flash.htm

If you look at the second picture, it shows vials of Sarin gas that were found in a briefcase in the trunk of a car in Fallujah. Isn't Sarin gas a WMD? Why do no news agencies report the discovery of WMDs? Instead it is buried in the middle of a picture slide show.