301. Rep. Davis: The Worst Person in the World

Comment #157788 by FightingFalcon on April 9, 2008 at 2:28 pm

Not brought forth in this story is that the hearing was poking at the soft, bloated underbelly of Chicago's corruption and malfeasance machine. There are only a handful of US cities holding a reputation for as much public corruption. Perhaps the State of New Jersey ranks only second to Davis' home town.

As a native of New Jersey, I'm curious as to what you mean by this.

302. Anti-evolution bill clears another hurdle

Comment #157415 by FightingFalcon on April 9, 2008 at 4:25 am

Hobbit,

I am about to make my first visit to the very backward state of Florida for work. I think I will have to be very careful and keep my atheist mouth shut. You all have too many guns for my liking.

First trip to America or just first trip to Florida?

You'll be surprised actually - Florida has a ton of Brits because of the cheap exchange rate right now. As an American living in the UK getting the short end of the stick, I can attest to how nice it must be for a Brit visiting in America. Brits are especially all over Orlando - apparently they love Disney World :-)

Anyway, hope you enjoy America. We're not all crazy!

303. Anti-evolution bill clears another hurdle

Comment #157282 by FightingFalcon on April 8, 2008 at 8:22 pm

Maybe the Union would be better off if the Confederacy won?

They certainly had nicer uniforms :) Too bad they didn't have better generals.

Are you two serious? Do you have any idea what the US would look like today had the Confederacy won? Take a trip to the Deep South of America today and you'll understand why we should all be thankful that the Union won.

For the record - I'm a Yankee and damn proud of it!

304. Get out of here, atheists!

Comment #157232 by FightingFalcon on April 8, 2008 at 6:35 pm

Just saw the video...couldn't agree more with Mr. Olbermann. An apology at the least - resignation at best.

305. Rep. Davis: The Worst Person in the World

Comment #157230 by FightingFalcon on April 8, 2008 at 6:33 pm

Just looking for this video on Olbermann's website. Thanks!

Keith Olbermann hit it right on the head - my feelings exactly.

306. Get out of here, atheists!

Comment #157226 by FightingFalcon on April 8, 2008 at 6:21 pm

I'm waitin for the video of Olbermann to be uploaded to either You Tube or his website. Hopefully he let this woman have it.

I was wondering today if there was a way for us to contact a major new source like CNN and try to get it on the front page of CNN.com. I wouldn't even bother with Fox News...

edit: Then again, getting CNN to report anything negative on a Democrat is a long-shot too.

double edit: Just contacted CNN.com with a link to the story in the Chicago Tribune. Let's see if anything happens.

307. The Atheist Next Door

Comment #157185 by FightingFalcon on April 8, 2008 at 4:12 pm

There is NO family in America all of whose members are rational. I would wager that there are few, if any, who have even 1 rational member

Well, we can be sure that whatever country you are from has at least 1 completely ignorant person.

Its just weird watching that program as a Brit.
We share the same language as the US (mostly) but here 90% of citizens are atheist or agnostic/dont care where in the US 90% are seriously religious.

Just shows how culturely different we have become

I'm not really sure where this myth comes from that America is overrun with religious fanatics while Britain is totally secular. There's a study on Anglo-American attitudes in the most recent issue of The Economist and Americans were 80%/15% on whether they believe in god or not. Brits were 40%/35% on the question of god, with the former # being the amount who believed and the latter answering no.

I don't know where you got the idea that 90% of Brits are a hodgepodge of Atheists, Agnostics and/or Indifferent. I do agree that most Brits seem to be fairly indifferent, although I would doubt the % that you gave. FYI - I'm an American living in the UK.

308. Anti-evolution bill clears another hurdle

Comment #157176 by FightingFalcon on April 8, 2008 at 3:58 pm

Man, I love living in the North East of America where we don't have to deal with this garbage...

309. Get out of here, atheists!

Comment #156802 by FightingFalcon on April 8, 2008 at 9:23 am

My letter:

===========

Representative Davis,

Ma'am, as both an Officer in the United States Air Force charged with the defense of the Constitution and an Atheist, I was appalled to hear recently that you verbally attacked Rob Sherman and threatened to kick him out of his testimony before the Illinois General Assembly. I am also extremely displeased to hear that you consider Atheism to be a danger to America, especially while I wear the uniform of our great Republic with exceptional pride.

As an elected official charged with the protection of the Constitution, you have an obligation to defend the freedoms of all American citizens - not just those whom you personally agree with. Out of respect for the Constitution, an apology at the least should be granted to Rob Sherman. However, if you have any respect for our Republic, you would acknowledge that you've lost your ability to defend our Constitution and therefore must step down from office.

Respectfully,
XXX

310. Get out of here, atheists!

Comment #156497 by FightingFalcon on April 7, 2008 at 4:55 pm

As for Richard's question:

http://votesmart.org/bio.php?can_id=6317

^^^ That's Representative Davis' information.

http://www.ildems.com/

^^^ Illinois State Democratic Party

No idea who organized the event.

EDIT: Looks like this wasn't an "event" per se, but testimony before the Illinois Grand Assembly.

311. Get out of here, atheists!

Comment #156407 by FightingFalcon on April 7, 2008 at 1:27 pm

Hey, what do you know - Democrats can be intolerant assholes as well.

312. Thy will be done

Comment #156115 by FightingFalcon on April 6, 2008 at 8:17 pm

Teratornis - First off, your post in #56. That's one of the best arguments for secular morality that I've ever seen. As you say, every Christian sins but there are certain sins that most of them would never commit. Just the same, we as Atheists would never commit them either. So if religion cannot be the answer for why humans feel that certain traits are simply wrong (regardless of what religious beliefs they have), then what causes us to feel that way? Richard Dawkins explain this a little bit with his term Moral Zeitgeist and I wish more research was put into the subject. There has to be something beyond religion that causes human beings to have an inherent sense of right and wrong. Maybe it's an evolved trait from when we lived in animal groups and relied on each other for protection. Who knows.

Of course we have by no means halted infanticide, we've just hypocritically shipped most of it overseas. During WWII, both the U.S. and the U.K. were probably more Christian than they are today, as one might infer from the strict moral codes governing movies at the time, but both nations launched carpet-bombing raids against enemy civilians, with the goal of inflicting maximum casualties on non-combatants. In absolute terms, the relatively modern U.S. may have murdered more infants than the ancient Spartans did (although in proportional terms, the less-numerous Spartans may have been more murderous).

Well, I certainly would disagree with you here. I hope that you can appreciate the difference between breaking the will of an enemy populace and murdering a defenseless baby that serves no ultimate purpose. War will always be terrible and certain methods will need to be adopted to bring about an end. The fact remains that the bombing of civilian targets in Berlin and Tokyo had a tremendous impact on the fighting. In the former, the RAF bombings of Berlin in retaliation for Hitler's decision to target London caused the people of Germany, for the first time, to question Adolf Hitler. It was the first time in the war that the fighting was brought to the German home-front. It was the first time that the people got a taste of the death and destruction that they were exporting to other countries. The psychological effect was tremendous on the population. As were the bombings of Tokyo, which so unnerved the populace that the Imperial government had to divert resources to defending the capital rather than its outlying defenses. This would prove dramatically helpful to the Allies in the recovery of the Pacific. The intentional targeting of civilians in wartime has been an accepted practice for years now. Certainly its unfortunate - but so is war.

So, as horrifying as infanticide is at arm's length, it's not much different than what we are doing now in a less obvious way. Americans may gripe about having to send more money to Saudi Arabian theocrats for petroleum, but so far it's mostly an inconvenience here, as gaswasting Americans start to trade in the Hummer for a Prius and maybe think about car-pooling now and then. Over in Africa, when food prices doubled, millions of folks who scrape by on less than $1/day/person became unable to buy enough food calories to sustain life.

The price of food - especially staple foods like corn - worldwide have hit an all-time high becuase of the foolish adoption of corn as an energy source. The UN has now released numerous calls for the abolition of Ethanol as an energy source, which many of us could have seen coming a mile away. Turning food into an energy source is simply not a solution. But I've found that the same people who complain about the West's love of oil also complain about nuclear power. You simply cannot have it both ways. While the search for a reliable replacement to oil continues to elude us for use in vehicles, we have a perfectly acceptable solution to our electrical energy use. Consumption of oil could be cut drastically if we stopped using it or its byproducts for energy use. Beggars can't be choosers, as the saying goes.

Thus as religion declines, we probably need to substitute some sort of community structure for restraining immoral behavior. Either that, or we could figure out how to increase the average IQ. IQ has a strong inverse correlation with criminality. Persons with high IQ are very underrepresented among prison populations. Which is to say, hanging out in a prison is very unlike attending a seminar at Google or any prestigious university. Or hanging out on brainiac Web sites like this one.

This is precisely my problem. Many people on this website seem bent on destroying religion and replacing it with nothing. Perhaps they don't realize just how significant of a social glue religion currently is. We've all found ways to cope without the comfort, purpose and significance that religion used to give us. We probably all had moments like Richard Dawkins talked about in TGD where, at the moment of our crossing over to Atheism, we thought that the world might end without a supreme being. But then we remembered the laws of science and that no being was necessary. Religion gives a sense of purpose and significance to a great deal of people in the world. We, by a natural process where many questions had to be answered, came to find answers in Reason, Rational thought, etc. I'm afraid that a rapid devolution of religion's place in society will cause a significant problem for many people. We need to have a workable solution in place for the gap left by religion. Religion simply cannot be withdrawn and replaced with nothing. For better or worse, humans have had religion since we first began to communicate. It's not going away anytime soon.

Look at how much theist energy has gone into churning out flea books aimed primarily at defending their existing base of adherents from books of atheist reason. Imagine if all those resources were free to win new converts or unleash new legal machinations. Theists aren't just going to sit there if atheists disengage.

I agree that there are certainly many battles out there worthy of our energy. But we aren't doing ourselves any favors by attacking things that ultimately aren't that important, IMHO. OK so the word god appears on US dollars. So what? Do I really think about that while paying for my lunch? Of course I don't. It doesn't bother me one bit. But threaten to change that money and all of a sudden the entire Theist community in America is up in arms.

Focus on the things that matter - keeping ID out of schools - where we have a significant amount of public support. In areas where we don't have public support, cultivate it before launching a campaign against that area.

313. Anti-gay Okla. lawmaker attracts 1,000 backers

Comment #154849 by FightingFalcon on April 3, 2008 at 8:08 pm

Sally, the people who were killed on 911 were not killed by gays or terrorists. They were killed by religion.

Tsk, tsk. Don't you know that the attacks of 11 September 2001 were god's punishment for America's tolerance of homosexuality and abortion? I mean...everyone knows that!

314. Thy will be done

Comment #154845 by FightingFalcon on April 3, 2008 at 7:57 pm

Teratornis - you've given me some things to think about here. If I didn't have a huge test tomorrow, I'd respond tonight :-)

I'll get back at this soon. I especially liked post #56 though.

315. Anti-gay Okla. lawmaker attracts 1,000 backers

Comment #154838 by FightingFalcon on April 3, 2008 at 7:48 pm

@Fighting Falcon: After on reflecting on that, you are right. Thank you for the clarification. I have a test tomorrow for my Ancient Philosophy class over the Republic, so I've kind of been in that mindset, haha.

Classical Studies FTW! Just finished up my first Master's class....it was on the Roman Republic/Empire. Or as I call them, the good old days ;)

316. Upside-down church sculpture on hit list

Comment #154648 by FightingFalcon on April 3, 2008 at 2:37 pm

I'd want it removed simply because its an eye-sore...

317. Anti-gay Okla. lawmaker attracts 1,000 backers

Comment #154633 by FightingFalcon on April 3, 2008 at 2:21 pm

Of course, these are HER beliefs. Don't put the citizens of your state ahead of YOUR agenda. Seriously, at what point did politicians stop serving citizens and only push their own ideas?!?

America is a federal republic - not a democracy. Our elected leaders serve the Constitution and not the people.

Not that I'm defending this psycho woman. I just cringe every time I see someone insinuate that America is a democracy.

318. Thy will be done

Comment #154625 by FightingFalcon on April 3, 2008 at 2:13 pm

There is a difference between seeking to impose and attempting to persuade. There is nothing wrong with having the goal of removing religious influence from public life if it that goal is approached through the right mechanisms.

It very much depends on how we go about it. I agree with a lot of what Tetratornis said in his/her opening segment in post #48. If we can convince people to voluntarily abandon religion, then we have a chance. If we choose the option of turning to the courts to forcefully revolutionize society, then we will never be successful in separating society from religion.

While we here at the RDF have found a way to live without religion, it still (unfortunately) acts as a restraint on many people. Just listen to Richard Dawkins on the Alan Colmes show and you'll hear a man say that if he didn't believe in god, he'd kill his neighbor. Another thread on here has highly disturbed me because several Atheists were talking about the possibility of murdering babies outside of the womb - in effect, extending abortion beyond delivery of the baby. That thread highly disturbed me and caused me to question our ultimate goal of a world without religion. I don't think humans have matured to the point where we, as a society, can live without religion. Most of us on here are probably upright, honest and decent people who reject the use of force and would never break the law. While I'm certainly not arguing that lack of religion turns one into a criminal, I strongly believe that some Theists would lash out without the restraining force of god.

Atheists also need to present an alternative world-view, as was discussed above. Religion is such an incredibly tremendous force in our world. It is a valuable voice in the wilderness to remind us when science has perhaps gone too far. I'm reading "Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" right now and toward the end, the author discusses the Holocaust. Even fanatical SS leaders began to question the Holocaust on religious grounds - not secular morality. Killing Jews didn't necessarily bother them but they did wonder if it was Christian-like to behave in such a way.

At this current moment, I don't think a world without religion is necessarily a valuable goal. We have to present our own morality to fill in the gap that will inevitably be left by Theism. As we discussed in the earlier thread, I personally am strongly opposed to the submission of Humanism for Theism (not to bring up that argument again). If we can convince people to voluntarily adopt rational free-thought, then we might have a chance. But fighting losing battles like trying to remove all traces of god from our society only turns people against us. Nothing can close an open-mind faster than threatening someone's religious beliefs. Nothing turns a group of semi-intellectually human beings into a disorderly mob like threatening the Pledge of Allegiance, for example. I know it's stupid but it's the reality.

319. Anti-gay Okla. lawmaker attracts 1,000 backers

Comment #154461 by FightingFalcon on April 3, 2008 at 10:05 am

Al-Rawandi,

I'll check out the book. I love how Muslims attempt to erase any traces of homosexuality in Islamic lands, given the strong tradition of homosexual practices in pre-Islamic Arabia. Even the practice of Bacchá continues to this day in certain Islamic lands.

I've seen that quote from the Koran as well. For some reason, everyone knows about the 72 virgins but not the young boys. I wonder why that is...

320. Anti-gay Okla. lawmaker attracts 1,000 backers

Comment #154455 by FightingFalcon on April 3, 2008 at 9:50 am

"Studies show no society that has totally embraced homosexuality has lasted more than a few decades,"

Sacred Band of Thebes, anyone? Composed of 150 male couples, it was the fiercest fighting force in Ancient Greece before being destroyed by Philip II of Macedon at Chaeronea.

That is to say nothing about the rest of Greece and, to a certain extent, Rome. Nor the widespread homosexual and bi-sexual practices in pre-Islamic (and post-Islamic for a while) Arabia. While certainly none of those cultures adopted homosexuality exclusively, I doubt any example can be found of a society that was exclusively homosexual. But bisexual practices in Ancient Greece and Rome were very much widespread. In Sparta, males were expected to be homosexual for the majority of their life before eventually settling down with a wife for the perpetuation of the society. But even then, males had to sneak out of the barracks because leaving your male partner behind to sleep with your wife was looked at with a negative light.


I don't know why this is so hard for people to understand.

321. Thy will be done

Comment #154444 by FightingFalcon on April 3, 2008 at 9:20 am

that IS our Ultimate Goal.

The complete and total elimination of religion from society.

Sorry, but that is not mine. I'll never agree, for instance, to the removal of Chaplains from the Congress and the military. Hell, I have used and will continue to use Chaplains, because of their confidence and trust.

I'll never seek to impose my values and lifestyle upon America. I've recognized the fact that I'm a minority in this country, despite me being a white male of European descent. As long as my rights aren't being infringed upon, I have no interest in fighting to completely revolutionize our society.

322. Thy will be done

Comment #154443 by FightingFalcon on April 3, 2008 at 9:18 am

What *is* however worth removing is active religious practices that impinge on people who dont want to participate in them, *especially* in the context of government - and it seems odd indicating this to an apparently atheist USAnian, to whom the separation of church and state is usually paramount.

Separation of church and state is important to me. But so is the idea of Majority Rule - Minority Rights, which is the guiding principle for America. Holding prayer before Congressional meetings is in no way affecting my rights as an American. As desperate as Atheists are to try and twist the 1st Amendment to read "freedom from religion" that isn't how it reads. I reject organized religion in schools because of the awkward position that it puts children in but that same argument can't be used with adults. We all need to grow up a little bit and grow some thicker skin. If we attack minor issues like this that affect no one, we're going to end up a marginalized fringe group. Just look at the Pledge issue - the figure-head for Atheism in America is now Michael Newdow, which is a horrible example to have. That case set back the cause of Atheism a tremendous amount in this country. Theists are convinced that we're on a campaign to destroy all traces of Judeo-Christian tradition in America. I want to fight the battles that really matter, such as ID in schools, which the courts have consistently backed us up on.

The presence of parayers in Congress, and God on coins and in pledges is actvely used by the theists to claim that there is no separation of church and state in the US and hence as a wedge to try to drive through more egregious violations which I expect you *would* object to.

No, it isn't. The presence of prayer in Congress has in no way altered the fight over ID in schools. Like I said earlier, every attempt by Theists to introduce ID into schools has been defeated. As has every attempt to introduce prayer - even voluntary group prayer - in school. We are doing fine in our cause to make America a more secular society and have come a long way. There's no need to attack issues that do not warrant our energy and drive ordinary Americans against us.

Here in the UK we have an established church whose influence is being slowly dismantled, only to be replaced by much more lethal strains of virus, Christian fundamentalism from the West and Islamic fundamentalism from the East. I never ever thought I'd see Creationism taught in a British school or a Bishop calling for the introduction of sharia law, but we've had both.

That's because the UK is so tolerant that it's gone overboard. Calling for Sharia law would simply never happen in the US because we all know that it would never happen. And while the Discovery Institute has tried desperately to get ID in our schools, they have failed at every turn.

Nowhere does he state that he wants religion to anything more than a practice exerted by consenting adults, and he certainly does not want it to have mandatory public inluence - especially over children in schools.

I, and the Supreme Court, both agree that there should be no prayers in school. Prayer in Congress, however, has constantly been upheld. As is prayer in the military, I'd like to point out.

The US can do without "In God we trust" visible everywhere, and without "One nation under god" at least.

I can't stress enough how much we'd lose if we started fighting these battles. During the Pledge case, you had Americans of all stripes organized against us. Congress even came together to sing the Pledge on the steps of the Capitol. We will not win this fight and will only galvanize the entire country against us. Sorry, but I'll have no participation in the fight to remove all traces of god from our society. I respect our tradition of Majority Rule - Minority Rights.

323. Thy will be done

Comment #154191 by FightingFalcon on April 2, 2008 at 8:22 pm

While not explicitly stated, my impression is that the complete removal of religion from society *is* the ultimate goal of the Richard Dawkins Foundation.Ccertainly something devoutly to be wished. By persuasion however, not force.

I have to disagree with you on that one. Dawkins has stated many times that he participates in public religious ceremonies (such as signing Christmas carols) and believes that teaching the Bible in school should be mandatory so that you can better appreciate certain aspects of our culture, such as Shakespeare.

The amount of Atheists, in my opinion, who want a completely secular society are a minority compared to those of us who are willing to live in a society with a measure of religious observation. Having god in our Pledge of Allegiance and on our money truly does not matter, in the end. Nor do crosses on public property. So much religious symbolism is built into our national heritage and landmarks (I'm speaking for America here) that it would be impossible to remove all traces of them. Impossible and foolish, IMHO.

324. Thy will be done

Comment #154163 by FightingFalcon on April 2, 2008 at 7:28 pm

Well I'm glad we have the Constitution here in the states. Falcon, you just bow your head to the sword. You do know this is public, right? I'm sorry I have to be so American on this...

You do realize, of course, that the US Congress has prayer as well, right?

Not to mention that the ceremony that I was involved in this morning involved the US military...

325. Thy will be done

Comment #154137 by FightingFalcon on April 2, 2008 at 6:31 pm

A fine compromise IMHO. Fighting battles like this will get us no where. We're never going to stop public prayer in situations like this and doing it only gives Theists more ammunition when they claim that our ultimate goal is the complete removal of religion from society.

Just today I was involved in a ceremony that involved an invocation. Myself and another guy - who I know is an Atheist - stood there quietly with our heads raised, as opposed to bowed. I have absolutely no problem with this.

326. BBC 'too scared to allow jokes about Islam'

Comment #154132 by FightingFalcon on April 2, 2008 at 6:23 pm

There's definitely something to be said about being too religiously tolerant. We're so desperate to be tolerant of everyone that we're now slowly allowing the death of free expression.

I'm still waiting for someone to explain why we should be so accommodating to Muslims. If they want to respond with hatred and violence, so be it. I thought living freely was more important than safety anyway.

327. Vote on freedom of expression marks the end of Universal Human Rights

Comment #153791 by FightingFalcon on April 2, 2008 at 5:11 am

You have already agreed that there are "inalienable human rights". This is just another way of saying "universally agreed upon rules". You live in a society (the US) of agreed-upon rules. You also live in a broader society (the world) with universal human rights.

Like I said before, if the US agrees to it then that's fine with me. Any "universal" human rights only apply so long as we agree to them.

There is no point in saying a country can pick and choose the parts of international law it wants to apply: either human rights are internationally applicable (in which case they apply despite what an individual nation decides) or they aren't. You say the US should be free to ignore internationally applicable human rights. You can't have it both ways.

You act like the entire world is in full agreement against the United States. Whose definition of "human rights" should I follow? The Western definition or the definition of the OIC? This very thread was brought about because the OIC flatly denies human rights that most Westerners (including myself) would agree to.

Yes, I would feel free to ignore (if that's what "jog on" means) a law passed by "an Islamic organisation" which doesn't represent me, and doesn't articulate universally applicable human rights. [I'm Australian, by the way]

Sorry, I've been living in England too long.

Just as you feel the OIC doesn't represent you, I feel the same way about almost any international organization.

Don't you see the irony in rejecting the OIC and then talking about "universally" applicable human rights? Maybe human rights aren't as universally accepted as you think they are. While I would almost certainly agree with 99% of what other Westerners consider universal human rights (except for the so-called right to free health care), I would never agree to it being forced upon us. We probably share many similar viewpoints but you're failing to appreciate the fact that I refuse to have anything forced upon me by a non-US entity. I support our Constitution with my life, fully support the UCMJ, Geneva/Hague Conventions, etc. and abhor tactics like torture. But I'll always forcefully reject any attempt by another country or organization to force its laws upon us without our consent. Every citizen should feel that way about his or her country.

If the US hasn't committed torture, war crimes, crimes against humanity etc, what is your problem in defending the charges before an international court?

Because every American, regardless of the crimes committed (unless committed in a foreign nation), have the right to be tried by a US judge and US jury. That's the Constitution that we've fought so long and hard for. You will never have the right to take an American and try him without those rights. I'm sorry, but never in a million years will I agree to that.

On a side note - please don't make the mistake of assuming that I support torture/war crimes.

Alright I gotta run to work....I'll address the rest later.

328. Faith healing church parents charged over toddler's death

Comment #153782 by FightingFalcon on April 2, 2008 at 4:36 am

This is aimed at all of you who have been dismissive of this discussion, such as you, FightingFalcon

I really don't care if I've been dismissive of this "discussion". I won't debate the idea of killing babies outside of the womb. I'm sorry, but that's absolutely disgusting. If you actually consider that to be acceptable, then you need some serious help. If you can't distinguish between humans and pigs, then you need to re-evaluate your level of common sense.

329. Faith healing church parents charged over toddler's death

Comment #153677 by FightingFalcon on April 1, 2008 at 7:56 pm

Some agree with Ayn Rand and some hate her.

I'm one of the ones who loves her :-)

Not Peikoff or the ARI though.

330. Faith healing church parents charged over toddler's death

Comment #153649 by FightingFalcon on April 1, 2008 at 6:15 pm

FF, I'm glad to say I agree with you wholeheartedly ... on this thread at least ;)

I swear, I'm not completely evil :-)

331. Faith healing church parents charged over toddler's death

Comment #153643 by FightingFalcon on April 1, 2008 at 6:09 pm

You are "right on" FF. After reading just a little bit of the insanity spouted out by SweatyPalmSunday, I am convinced they are related to Wooter, just trying to cause controversy. I think their agenda is Pro Life, and trying to play with "drawing the line". Come on SweatyPalmSunday, confess you are a Pro Lifer! I like drawing the line before the start of the third trimester, but for anyone to suggest you have the right to take the life of a baby after it is born is absolutely a fool or f'ing with us. Sweaty just joined the site, so I think it is a Wooter!

I figured it was just a Pro-Lifer playing Devil's Advocate as well.

But then when I saw other members actually entertaining his ideas, I became extremely confused. I can't believe that someone would actually debate the idea of murdering infants outside of the womb up to a certain date. I'm just glad that I wasn't the only person horrified by that proposal.

332. Vote on freedom of expression marks the end of Universal Human Rights

Comment #153636 by FightingFalcon on April 1, 2008 at 5:49 pm

I don't see where you are getting your "shoulds" from, and anyway, it sounds too absolute to me. I would say "we need to discuss the nature of these relationships".
I don't. I see no need for coercive human relationships.

How is this different from saying "What husbands do to their wives in the privacy of their own home is their own problem. I see no reason to put police in harm's way to arrest the perpetrators of domestic violence"? Living in a society carries a responsibility to protect the weaker members of that society.

First off, no it doesn't. No where in our Constitution am I responsible for the welfare of others. Secondly, your analogy fails because we live in a society of agreed-upon rules. A man may not beat his wife in America because its against the laws that we as a country have laid down for ourselves. Can you appreciate the difference between that and laws decided for us by people who don't even live in our country? I sure hope so...

The victims of human rights abuses have their "inalienable rights" taken away from them. Your claim to believe in the existence of those rights is hollow if you are not prepared to do something to protect them.

And what exactly would you like me to do? Use armed force just so that I can be dragged before an International Criminal Court by MPhil? Like I said earlier, non-Americans really need to make up their minds about the US. You either want us to use our military for the defense of human rights or you want us to stay out of everyone's business. Personally I don't care what you decide but you can't criticize us for both.

Obviously there are questions about the best way to do this, as Dr Benway has pointed out. But you seem to be denying that any international law should apply within domestic borders. My point is that this denial is contradictory to your expressed belief in universally applicable rights.

International law that isn't agreed upon by that nation! Ugh - why is this so hard to understand? If an Islamic organization passed a law and then ordered the UK to follow it, what do you think would happen? You would *hopefully* tell them to jog on!

The US should only follow laws that we agree to. Period. End of story. Finis.

I'm not talking about whether the UN is effective (clearly it isn't, on many fronts). I'm talking about whether, as a matter of logic and ethics, there should be a body of international law to which all nations (including the US) should be subject.

I would object to America even voluntarily joining such an international body. But I would fight to the death any attempt to coerce us to join.

So if parents were abusing their children, and the people who feel responsible to deal with that throw a grenade through the window - killing the parents, 2 of the 12 children whom they sought to protect and 6 of their friends - shouldn't be blamed, because after all all of this is the parents' fault?

It's a good thing that you're finished with this subject because you continue to make ridiculous analogies that warrant no response.

333. Vote on freedom of expression marks the end of Universal Human Rights

Comment #153623 by FightingFalcon on April 1, 2008 at 5:12 pm

The individual reigning supreme is perhaps appropriate for a while in frontier situations. We live now in a co-dependent world.

While we of course live in an increasingly connected world, that doesn't change the fact that all human relationships should be voluntary in nature. There should be no such thing as a coercive relationship, which is what we are increasingly moving toward.

You haven't answered that. If leaders in the US government commit war-crimes (say for example order the bombardmend of civillian settlements, killing thousands and maiming thousands more - or when their actions in foreign policy result - and could have been foreseen to result - in the starvation and deth of thousands)

By your logic, Chamberlain could have been blamed for the actions of Hitler because his policies appeased a murderous dictator bent on European domination, as was clearly evident in his own words vis-a-vis Mein Kempf. I didn't address this position of yours because its absolutely ludicrous. George H.W. Bush can be held accountable for the deaths of Iraqis because Saddam Hussein was a dictator who starved his people? That's a ridiculous proposition.

When a serious crime is engineered and ordered from another country, the country in which the crime was committed does have the right to seek extradition of the offender. If the crime is large enough to upset the whole political system and policy of the country in which the crime was committed (such as a war crime), an international court - whose judges are not bound by either the government of the country of the offender nor the victim - is the most just solution... such as has happened with Milosevic.

I'm not going to waste my time addressing this. You aren't bringing former American presidents or officials to the Netherlands and prosecuting them. It won't happen so you might as well drop the subject.

Would you have trusted Milosevic's government to prosecute Milosevic for the crimes he ordered, for the ethnical cleansings, violations of the Genever conventions and other despicable acts?

I would have let his own people try him, as we did with Saddam Hussein. Ironically, Milosevic was cleared of any genocide charges by your own beloved ICJ, so I'm not sure why you keep bringing up that case.

If a country be engages in something that amounts to "tyranny", why is the international community not entitled to object? Why should "domestic law" be an answer to a breach of internationally applicable human rights? And why should America be any exception?

"Object" all you want. How much as your "objection" accomplished in Africa, Asia and the Middle East?

334. Vote on freedom of expression marks the end of Universal Human Rights

Comment #153598 by FightingFalcon on April 1, 2008 at 4:20 pm

OK - both of you are misunderstanding me. That's probably my fault by what I said earlier about me only caring about our Republic. What I mean is that the Constitution is the only idea that I feel we as Americans have an obligation to defend, in terms of money and lives.

Do I care about persecution in other countries? Of course I do. I abhor tyranny anywhere but I don't think that we (America) have the responsibility to defend the entire world. I recognize the rights and laws of other countries (Hell, I live in England) but I will never agree to international law superseding American law.

You have an obligation not to tread upon their rights, and when a US citizen or official violates them (individually or as ordering a war-crime), they have to be held accountable.

If a US citizen breaks a law in your country, feel free to arrest them and prosecute them. But if an American, in America, breaks a so-called international law, you have no right to drag them to the Netherlands and persecute them.

Anyway - the above quote certainly is a contestor for the most horrible, despicable sentiment by a fellow atheist I have read on this site to date. I'm sorry to have to say this, but I want to be frank.

Trust me - no offense taken. I could just as easily say that I consider your views on Humanism to be pure evil. Which I do.

You make the mistake of labeling me a Nationalist, which I am not. I love the Constitution and the Republic with all my heart. Not necessarily America, our people, Congress, the president, etc. (Although for the record, I do love my country and its people). I took no oath to the American people and I don't owe them anything. I oppose welfare here in America just as much as I oppose any form of global welfare. I hate the idea of universal brotherhood in the States just as much as I hate it in Europe. So don't feel left out just because you aren't American.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal" - notice it does not state "oh yea - of course US citizens are by virtue of being such the crowning acheivement of mankind, and everyone else can go to hell for all we care".

All men are indeed "created" equal. I believe in certain inalienable rights for all human beings but I would never advocate the use of force to tell others how to live. I decry human rights abuses in foreign countries but wouldn't use force to change them.

I can't express how much I disdain Humanism. It's the same exact thing as religion, to me. My philosophy, one of individual supremacy over the state, has been tried once in history with great success. America, in 1789, was the first country to be built upon the idea that the individual reigns supreme over both society and the government. What followed was the greatest period of peace and prosperity ever achieved by a country or society. Sadly, we have forgotten our roots and now most Americans seek to transform our once great Republic into a pathetic European welfare state.

As for my philosophy being equated with Nazism, Ancient Rome/Greece, etc. you couldn't be more wrong. Those people thought that they had the right to subjugate others. I do not. Rejection of the initiation of force is at the foundation of my mindset. All else follows from there.

335. Faith healing church parents charged over toddler's death

Comment #153552 by FightingFalcon on April 1, 2008 at 2:55 pm

Wait a second - are people in this thread ACTUALLY contemplating infanticide? What alternate universe did I freaking stumble into?

SweatyPalmsSunday....you actually would allow someone to kill a baby outside the womb? Jesus Christ man, stay away from little kids. I'm serious.

Maybe Theists are onto something when they claim that world-wide Atheism would bring about immoral practices such as organ harvesting, human cloning and infanticide. This thread has seriously disturbed me.

336. Vote on freedom of expression marks the end of Universal Human Rights

Comment #153537 by FightingFalcon on April 1, 2008 at 2:39 pm

And you Americans wonder why so much of the world hates you.

I don't hate you ... but I find many of you very, very disturbing.

Sorry, but I didn't sign up to die in Africa to stop some useless civil war. What other countries want to do domestically is their own problem. I see no reason to sacrifice American lives and money to stop the domestic problems of others.

The ironic thing is that America gets criticized for both intervening in other countries and for doing nothing. I wish the rest of the world would make up its mind. Or shut its mouth. Either one.

O - and whoever made the suggestion of a UN Army - are you serious? What dream world are some of you living in? Honestly?

337. Vote on freedom of expression marks the end of Universal Human Rights

Comment #153517 by FightingFalcon on April 1, 2008 at 2:24 pm

I hope I am misinterpreting you - but it does sound an aweful lot like "the US uber alles".

MPhil,

You are not misinterpreting me. But first, let me lay some ground work.

I hate religion and Humanism for exactly the same reason. They both seek to destroy the Individual and subject him to the arbitrary rule of god and/or society. Religion and Humanism are the exact same thing dressed in a different cloak.

I care about one thing in this world - the preservation of the US Republic. Nothing else disturbs me in the least. I abhor terms like universal manhood, humankind, brother's keeper, etc. I have no obligation to take care of others and no domestic or international law will convince me otherwise. I voluntarily donate time/money to charities but I oppose any attempt by society, religion or the government to subject me to their power.

The US has fought for centuries to defend our sovereignty. You are right out of your mind if you think that we would voluntarily, without a fight, give up that sovereignty to Europeans, Africans or Asians. The idea is insane!

The only international treaties that we abide by are those that we voluntarily join. No country can ever, in a million years, force legislation upon the United States. Our laws are made in Washington D.C. and NO WHERE else!

America Uber Alles? Not necessarily. I don't seek the subjugation of other countries. "Trade with all - War with None" is my motto, to paraphrase Thomas Jefferson.

America can make mistakes but we are the ones who are in charge of fixing them. If any country thinks that they can force their laws upon us, they had better come with an army to back them up. We are a nation of fiercely independent people - we already won our independence once and don't feel like throwing it away for absolutely no reason.

338. Vote on freedom of expression marks the end of Universal Human Rights

Comment #153143 by FightingFalcon on April 1, 2008 at 5:42 am

The seconds comment reeks of nationalism. Dear me, it would be madness for an american citizen to be tried for war-crimes! After all, Kissinger is AMERICAN - the orchid of the human race! Having a US citizen tried for crimes he committed as an official against other countries and their populations - according to the rules of the UN declaration of human rights and general Charta. Utter madness - oh the injustice!
Honestly, what you wrote sounds very much like what Milosevic said.

The Constitution is a document that I've pledged my life to defend. Forbid me if I consider it the most important document in the history of mankind and something that I'll never allow Europeans in the Hague to subvert.

339. Vote on freedom of expression marks the end of Universal Human Rights

Comment #153132 by FightingFalcon on April 1, 2008 at 5:17 am

I second that - absolutely. While the US and China tend to ignore and belittle the UN - thus 'creating the reality' they supposedly describe - the UN has been a force for good in the past.

Right - the US ignores and belittles the UN while providing 22% of its budget....

For example, the US shouldn't be able to not recognise the Den Haag court (Kissinger should be brought to trial, among others).

When will Europeans drop this delusion about the US joining any sort of international court? Get this through your head - the United States will never participate in an international court. Our Constitution is the ultimate law of the land for our citizens and we're not going to let them be tried in a court where it doesn't apply. That would be complete madness.

340. Vote on freedom of expression marks the end of Universal Human Rights

Comment #152987 by FightingFalcon on March 31, 2008 at 7:48 pm

Even if that stipulation were made (and it would be a cold day in Hell before the UN ever stuck its neck out in protection of Atheists), the hate crime garbage would have to go. I briefly followed the hate crime debate in the other thread but I'd rather not reignite it here as well. Suffice it to say that I'm opposed to any and all hate crime legislation.

Certainly not Isolationism but I'm not sacrificing my national sovereignty to that complete joke known as the UN. People actually think that the UN has worked/is working? What world exactly are they living in?

341. Vote on freedom of expression marks the end of Universal Human Rights

Comment #152982 by FightingFalcon on March 31, 2008 at 7:39 pm

^^^

#10 is the worst? How about the whole fucking document? Not a single mention of secularists, Atheists, Agnostics, etc.

I forgot....Islam is the victim. That whole document can jog on.

342. Vote on freedom of expression marks the end of Universal Human Rights

Comment #152975 by FightingFalcon on March 31, 2008 at 7:27 pm

I'm honestly surprised at the reaction on this site. Do people really have that much faith in the UN? This isn't even remotely a story here in the US; I can't find any headlines on it. I guess we gave up on the UN a long time ago.

343. Anti-Quran Film Fitna Pulled From Web Due to 'Threats'

Comment #152972 by FightingFalcon on March 31, 2008 at 7:24 pm

Is there a reason why you're naming your party after a llama?

I'll join only if we can both agree on abolishing the IRS/Income Tax and the Federal Reserve. I'll start with that :-)

344. Anti-Quran Film Fitna Pulled From Web Due to 'Threats'

Comment #152969 by FightingFalcon on March 31, 2008 at 7:19 pm

Whenever I take the political compass test, I always end up in a corner of the screen completely by myself :-(

Most Libertarians I've found encounter Rand at some point. If you haven't done already, read Atlas Shrugged and make up your mind. That's the one that got me hooked, even though I had read Fountainhead previously.

345. Anti-Quran Film Fitna Pulled From Web Due to 'Threats'

Comment #152962 by FightingFalcon on March 31, 2008 at 7:10 pm

Rawandi and Falcon are to my right, closer to the E.

I'm actually a Libertarian. Economically very conservative, socially fairly liberal. Foreign policy - I tend to think that we should stay out of the business of other countries. But if someone wants to stir up the hornet's nest, they'll be in a world of hurt. And god forbid (metaphorically speaking) that you attack my Constitution....

I don't really like defining myself as a Libertarian though b/c that's just a political viewpoint. At heart, I'm an Objectivist of the Ayn Rand persuasion.

346. Vote on freedom of expression marks the end of Universal Human Rights

Comment #152953 by FightingFalcon on March 31, 2008 at 6:58 pm

There can no longer be any pretence that the Human Rights Council can defend human rights.

This was the final nail in the coffin for the legitimacy of the UN Human Rights Council?

I would have figured that it would have been genocide in Sudan. Or Mugabe's rule in Zimbabwe. Or Iran murdering homosexuals. Maybe Afghanistan killing journalists who criticize Islamic law. Or Russia flattening entire cities to the ground and blowing up its own apartments. Or the aptly named People's Republic of China murdering Tibetan protesters.

I'll stop there. What a joke, that entire organization.

347. Anti-Quran Film Fitna Pulled From Web Due to 'Threats'

Comment #152800 by FightingFalcon on March 31, 2008 at 2:56 pm

Dr Benway - I'm not arguing that our ultimate motive for going into Iraq was oil. I think President Bush truly thought that we could implant democracy in Iraq and then use that country to spread democratic ideals throughout the Middle East. A good idea on paper but, as we've found out, things don't always go exactly according to plan.

What I'm saying is that, while our true motive may not have been oil, it's definitely a legitimate motive. Our democratic experiment in Iraq could have just as easily been attempted in Africa, a continent desperate for democracy. But Africa presents us with little strategic gain, aside from certain countries like Nigeria. Having democratic pro-Western countries in the Middle East (where most proven oil reserves just so happen to be...) is of great importance to the West. Not just America.

Let me clarify more - while I don't think President Bush considered oil his primary motive for invasion, I personally would consider it a legitimate motive. Make sense?

348. Anti-Quran Film Fitna Pulled From Web Due to 'Threats'

Comment #152793 by FightingFalcon on March 31, 2008 at 2:48 pm

Let's hear wath Pat Condell has to say :

http://patcondell.libsyn.com/index.php?post_id=323191

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3_qelW5qp4

Quoting from Pat Condell:

"I hope the Hindus have it right - because if there's any justice, you will be reincarnated. As a female, homosexual Jew. And then you'll find out, what a pain it is, having to deal with violent, primitive dick heads like you."

LOL - I love it!!

349. Anti-Quran Film Fitna Pulled From Web Due to 'Threats'

Comment #152789 by FightingFalcon on March 31, 2008 at 2:43 pm

"I dont' worry about the changing demographics - we will all kill ourselves pretty soon anyway - so who cares- either an astroid, the influenza, global warming weather, or nuclear war, whatever the cause I'm not worried- when you're dead, you don't know you're dead :) "

Robotaholic,

I'm sorry, but that is quite possible the worst outlook on life that I've ever seen/heard.

Why do anything, then? Why advance the cause of science? Or humanity? Or any sense of progress?

350. Anti-Quran Film Fitna Pulled From Web Due to 'Threats'

Comment #152786 by FightingFalcon on March 31, 2008 at 2:38 pm

"The invasion of Iraq was supposedly because of WMD, but I suspect it was because of OIL. "

D'Arcy,

Still using this age-old argument? Even if we accept the conspiracy theories of people who wear tin hats and constantly dread black helicopters, the simple fact remains that it is in the interest of the West to have the 2nd largest proven reserves of oil (Iraq) in pro-Western hands. Do you have any idea how necessary oil is for our society? How we would totally and completely cease to exist without it? Every aspect of our society is dependent on our continued use of oil.

While I completely agree that we need to explore alternative uses of energy (being a huge advocate of nuclear power myself), it doesn't change the fact that we need to guarantee our reserves for the future. There is nothing selfish, evil or wrong in admitting this.