Why don't Americans have Evangelicals shut up?

Well since my attempt to actually speak about the real issue which is effecting ALL countires including the US didnt work or was completely ignored, i will have to come down to the lower playing field and I am gonna play as devils advocate just a bit here since i find it so absurd and use sophist techniques since, they seem to be favored over reason:

But to prove the point that a sophist argument such as the "rant" has no basis:

Everyone censored??? Hardley, most censoship in america is actually preformed by liberal supporting media that censors by omission and spin what they dont want reported , unless it gets then controvesial ratings and if evangelicals get any press coverage its ussually painted to be negative becuase it cuases controvesy which makes the networks money.

Liberals actually SHOUT foul way more often and with a lot more covereage than any conservative dares or ever gets to.

Looks like you have never watched any american politics at all, (outside of a very focused liberal filter) if anything the liberal agenda gets the majority of the attention allmost all the time in america.

And Keith Olbermann is one of the most LOUDLY outspoken propagandist out there, and he is everywhere, hardley censored. SMH

and saying McCain is more of the same doesnt make it so, no matter how much you want everyone to think it is your arguments sound like another example of a poor advertising tactics used by car salesman when they are as onesided as they are.

And your WE dont want statement strikes me as rather absurd. Just which "we" are you? Becuase you certiantly dont speak for all.

Of course its easy to throw whoppers from the peanut gallery whever your paticular peanut gallery may be.

Of course thats the problem with sophistry it's all to easy to turn it completely in a circle.

Which just proves my concerns are well founded. It is impossible to be a liberal person and respect the religious ideal that everyone has the right to their own beliefs.

Should I continue this example?

No need becuase your next post shall prove my point again?

Sophist rehtoric as opinion is fine use it all day long I dont care turn yourself blue with it, just dont expect me to swallow an argument with no logical basis behind it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by amosse85

Like Ragoczy pointed out, please don't attempt to characterize some 300 million very different people as a single entity. The US has some states the size of independent countries; referring to all Americans as one is like grouping the English and the French as "Europeans."

---

Unfortunately, this stereotype is the one that is currently projected to the rest of the world. Most intelligent people know that generalisations and stereotypes do not apply to all members of a culture and common sense tells us that it is ridiculous to assume so. However, common sense is the least common of the senses and there are an awful lot of people who take the 'easy' option.

A comment I remember being made about the holocaust was that German propaganda had stated that 'all Jews were evil'. However, every good German citizen apparently knew at least one 'good Jew'. The numbers here just do not add up given that the non Jews in Germany pre war far outnumbered the Jewish population. Now it is possible (but very unlikely) that every German citizen knew the same 'good Jew' and he had a lot of friends. However, it is far more likely that there were more good jews than the propaganda stated...

Media images along with how you present yourself can form impressions of a culture. It alarms me that fundamentalists are being associated strongly with thier relevant religions to the extent that many beleive that what they beleive is that religion. It applies to Muslims and Christians equally. I know many muslims and none of them are terrorists but it is a common beleif that all muslims are.

The beliefs of fundamentalists from both religions are far removed from the actual beliefs of those faiths. Christianity and Islam have a lot in common and are founded on what are fundamentally the same basis (there is one god, the concepts of charity and compassion and so on). Indeed, Muslims recognise what they refer to as the 'three peoples of the book' these being Islam, Christianity and Judaism thereby recognising the common root.

I think the problem is that with a fundamentalist in political power (as occurs in both America and many middle east countries fairly often) the beliefs of that particular branch of fundamentalism gets amplified so that, for example, Sharia law is imposed or abortion/contraception gets banned. These give the impression (especially when it is a democracy) that all the citizens of that country agree with the politician's beleifs even if they do not.

This is why I beleive that there needs to be a strong seperation of church and state in any government. Government has no place in controlling how churches manage themselves (so long as they do not break the law) and the church has no right to interfere in government.

Ironically, in Britain we have an apparent link between church and state (the head of state, the Monarch, is also the head of the Church of England and is by law forbidden from practising any other religion) but an effective seperation because the monarch has no right (at present) to pass any law without the support of parliament.

OMG, I thought you were a better person than that, Denuseri and for you to sink so low. You discussed no issue, but to tell her that her opinion is invalid. And your post - I thought we don't allow personal attacks and flaming on this site. And for what - because she dared to openly state what the rest of the world thinks of us. Because that is what the rest of the world thinks of us (and thats who, I assume, she meant by "we"). Have you bothered to read foreign newspapers and have you traveled abroad in the last 6 years, you would know that. You don't have to like her opinion, but she is entitled to it. That is called free speech.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by denuseri

Fact of the matter is, anyone in America can within reason; so long as they are not inciting treason or revolt, say pretty much whatever they want to. Including the one's you don't agree with.

---

Oh, there it lies the trap, its the great patriotic republicans who decide what is treason and revolt, right. What about the treason VP Cheney committed when he outed CIA agent? What about treason of George Bush who went to war without the vote of Congress? What about treason of Colin Powell who knowingly lied to UN Security Council? What about the treason of Alberto Gonzales and the rest of the Bush cronies?

I find your statement personally offensive because I was one of those who was denied the right to free speech and threatened that if I don't fall into the party line I will loose my job, be discredited personally and that they will destroy my family (I can PM you what my big sin was). I quit. I also recall a small matter of fired US attorneys because they refused to stop investigating Bush's friends. I could go on and on...but why bother? The day Bush got elected for second term I lost all faith in US, packed my bags and moved my family to France - I couldn't stand the climate of oppression and doom. It is highly unlikely I will ever move back. And if you are hoping to convince anyone that Bush is a great president - keep dreaming.

And she was being kind - I will put it bluntly, world despises US and its high handed international policies. The difference with which people take my views if they know I am American, or if they think that I am Canadian is unbelievable. They are weary of us - and thats the consequence of 8 years of Bush. The only reason I am given a break is because I am married to Canadian and I am only part American. You cant use fear and war and you cant demand respect without giving none.

And don't even get me started on Palin, who was only selected for her bimbo value. And I base my argument on the fact that she supports the war, has sent her son to Iraq - both based on Bush's Doctrine and she doesnt even know what that is. So much about being able to debate facts with republicans these days.

I for one would love if these "evangelicals" who have "kidnapped" the republican party crawled back into whatever swamp they crawled out from.

One thing you are right though, she was wrong - McCain isn't the new Bush, Palin is.
(Not that McCain matters anyway, he is already half dead.) And as for him knowing anything about war - he screwed up and was captured on his first mission, and that was decades ago.

I will stop now, this theme depresses the hell out of me. Congratulations though, you probably succeeded in confirming her stereotype - that we are all belligerent, war hounds and that we all posses sanctimonious belief in our own greatness that renders us incapable to rationally respond to or accept any criticism.

I have never said one isnt intitaled to thier opinion.

For the record i am not nor have i ever been a supporter of the evangelical movements attempts to control the republicans, any more than i have supported the s o c i o l i s t s attempts to take over the democrats.

As i said it was an example turned back on its self ( devils advocate) to show why the rant was an argument made with complete bias of such a one sided kind that it has no base in logic and ergo deserves rebuttle.

I find the assumtion that i am sinking so low or flameing when i have simply turned sophistry back on itself as and example personally offensive Aurora which its too easy to just point at your own post and say its flameing me ? come now,

the constitution speaks of the right of free speach and sets the standards by which is allowed, specifically that treason and inciting a riot are the areas under which it is to be denied, and not by any one party but judicial review, i have seen both parties when in power abuse the interpetation of the law, thomas Jefferson even abused it by holding the surpreme court hostage once, its abuse is even more rampant in many european countries not to mention the countires that have no free speach.

But I see censorship takes many forms when people read between the lines of a post or have a personal involvement and I am sorry if you took personal offence.

(also Bush did happen to get congresses approval prior just like his father did for the first gulf war he cant wage a war without them backing him) and i have never supported him, nor most of his policies, read my numerous other posts

Anyone can get up and spout such statements out the political realm on both sides which doesnt frequently result in any valuable out come when both sides are going to resort to such tactics instead of looking at facts or other emperical evidence, instead of ranting I ask ok then what is the solution to the question posed by the thread, how do we solve compacency? but to do that we need consensus, which cant be achieved when one side continues to rant as opposed to work to a solution .

One persons opinion doesnt speak for everyone, its impossible, blanket statements about opinions of world populations are often tools of the media and ussually based in poor if any statistical anaylasis. I would love to see a system by which real world populations actual opinions could be 100% reported as accurate, but the technology or drive to deliver it doesnt exist yet.

I get my news from more scources than you think, and have been, I have walked the streets of beruit and jeruselem, i have many relatives that live there and in germany, i am in contact with both the jewish and arab sides by blood. I have seen how my mother and our families were driven out of thier country over issues that were exacerbated by failed brittish polcies in the middle east that the usa is no closer to fixing today.

What shocks me is when people swallow such sophistry, instead of recognizing it for what it is.

As for confirming her stereotype? What about the stereotype she is portraying i ask you? I see a sterotype just as bilegerent and sanctimonious; expouseing a belief that renders us incapable to rationally respond to or accept any criticism.

Electing a new President of eaither party or a few senators in america isnt going to in and of itself change the worlds situation. The problems with ever decreasing rescources or the complacency of populations under tyrany by voluntary oppression (democracy). The divisions that exist between the conservative and liberal factions of all democratic governements are not going away by having one or the other side "win".

The fact of the matter is in america most people are moderates, that only lean to the left or right on specific issues with a minority of indivduals that loadly shout propaganda for thier side from the wings, which is why the past few elections have been so close.

Solutions are only going to come when both sides stop mudslinging and sit down to a real discussion.

I am out .
peace.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fetishdj

Unfortunately, this stereotype is the one that is currently projected to the rest of the world. Most intelligent people know that generalisations and stereotypes do not apply to all members of a culture and common sense tells us that it is ridiculous to assume so. However, common sense is the least common of the senses and there are an awful lot of people who take the 'easy' option.

Ironically, in Britain we have an apparent link between church and state (the head of state, the Monarch, is also the head of the Church of England and is by law forbidden from practising any other religion) but an effective seperation because the monarch has no right (at present) to pass any law without the support of parliament.

---

I agree totally, it is very dangerous and plays totally into the hands of the extremists on both sides if religion is used as some form of justification for military or terrorist acts, after all one man's freedom fighter is another's terrorist, give him religion as a rational for his actions and you raise the profile and polarize the different positions.

it is interesting that you make the point about the UK and our link between the church and state, for many, many years the UK fought the IRA, an exclusively Catholic organisation, however at no point was religion ever introduced by the state or media in terms of the conflict, never were acts carried out by the IRA attributed to Catholic freedom fighters, they were also referred to as the IRA or a liberation movement.

Incidentally a terrorist organisation that enjoyed considerable support and funding from Americans.

both AdrianaAurora and Daymanti have if truth be told watered down the strength of feeling here in Europe about the distrust of the US governments foreign policy and use of religious conviction in their case for the prosecution of so called rogue states or the axis of evil countries, feelings do run very high over here, i dread to think how the US is thought of in Africa and the Middle East.

no one posting so far has at all attacked America per se, the mistrust and resentment felt is directed squarely at the Bush administration, who it appears to us outside the US seem to be able to act with impunity and total disregard for both the internal laws of the US and international laws as well as seeming to show a complete lack or respect or understanding for the rules of dimplomacy and protocols.

The initial post, sorry to keep reverting back to it was made by Daymanti to highlight these apparent wrong doings, and bring attention to the fact that looking from the outside in, us Europeans have the viewpoint that no one seems to care, or have the will to challenge what is going on.

Without some form of checks or balances the flagrant abuses of power that to me seem to be being conducted run the risk of escalating.

Daymanti was i believe seeking to focus attention, OR ask for clarification from those within the US as to what was being done to challenge the current administration.

NO one dislikes Americans trust me, but the reputation of the country is being severely tarnished and devalued as a result of the evangelicals rhetoric and the Bush administrations apparent lack of respect for domestic and international law.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by craven

Daymanti was i believe seeking to focus attention, OR ask for clarification from those within the US as to what was being done to challenge the current administration.

NO one dislikes Americans trust me, but the reputation of the country is being severely tarnished and devalued as a result of the evangelicals rhetoric and the Bush administrations apparent lack of respect for domestic and international law.

---

Thank you!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That is precisely what was my point. And no one from across the pond bothered to answer those, instead they chose to attack me for generalizing all Americans into the same basket (though, more than once I pointed that is not my view).

I remember the mood in Europe during the first Bush presidential campaign, the general consensus was...we cant believe you are going to elect that retarded, rich jerk, he is going to be the disaster....I also remember the outpour of messages from US about how we don't understand anything and who we are to dare tell them who to pick for president....we all know how that ended.

p.s. denuseri in my previous post I said diplomacy not democracy. In your response that I favour one side over the other, sure I am - Obama talks about engaging people into talks and about reviving up US diplomacy. (When Russia attacked Georgia, it was Sarkozy who went to Russia and negotiated the deal with Putin and Medvedev. Then Rice came, nobody paid attention to her, but she had to come to have her pictures taken and to make it look like she did there something that mattered. What conclusion, of the state of US diplomacy, do you draw from that?) McCain talks about "100 years of war", Palin talks about going to war with Russia, (and pretty much anyone else who stands in her way) with such casualness. My point was that such rhetoric scares me! And that I find the lack of general revolt and the level of applause for it, very worrisome. That is the sentiment that comes across, I didn't make it up.

I don't care about sides, anyone who favors peace, diplomacy and the right of others to freedom - is the one who has my support.

Anyway, like AdrianaAurora said the whole thing is very depressing and very frustrating...so I am done, (I like it here and dont want to get banned) and anyway I said everything I had to say in the above posts. I hope McCain/Palin dont win...and if they do I hope they dont screw the world politics with even more conflict...(but it is likely that they will) and if they do...I doubt it will matter, - unless the conflict happens on US soil and you get to see the reality of war and that it is not the undertaking to be taken lightly - you will regardless call him "good president" by the mere fact that he is president and that he is American.

Ok back for one clarification:

I am sorry if my approch was seen as a personal attack by anyone.

My sole purpose was to try and get people to realize that when they use the techniques that i saw in the "rant" or my satiric rebuttle of "devils advocacy" used to highlight it in paticular; that they will find no common ground or diplomacy becuase both are too inflamatory and use dogma over fact.

Which defeats any attempt to come to an agreement.

Based off the opinions i have seen put forth here I believe that many in the international community have fallen prey to the controvesy driven liberal bias of the united state's own media and its infulence abroad when it come to painting assumptive characteratures of both of the american cantidates, giving the populace of the whole world a misguilded viewpoint that one is on thier side and one is against them.



People that have followed the Republican primaries closely know just how pissed the evangelical minority is at McCain being the choice made by the moderate majority for the GOP, there is a little war being waged in that party for its control and he is against Bush's side in it, not for it. Despite what you may have been lead to believe by the opposition.

A simular war has taken place in the democrates party with insidious outcomes, Obama has appeared to win on the surface, but when he refused totruely unite his party and took on Biden as his watchdog instead, I saw that he had lost the idealogical battle or at least suffered a severe setback.

Despite his inexperience i was for a long time one of his supporters, his demogogery and idealisum apealled to me. I have infact vacilated three times so far before the election, and probably will again as i gather more data, as opposed to rehtoric. But i am an independent despite my party affiliation which i keep to access at least one half of the primary proccess so vacilation is our middle name.

In these days ahead where our worlds rescources and populations are reaching Malthusian proportions, it will take more than mere idealisum or good intentions to save the world let alone preserve our own country, which has taken on too many of the worlds burdens despite our own peoples many misgivings, History has shown it was out of nessesity to preserve capitalisum at the time, unless you all prefered to learn german or later russian.

Which is where we started our own history of butting in, which i will admit i dont like that its been maintained or what its become becuase i see too many simularities with france and great brittans mishandeling of thier colonial empires which colapsed.

I unfortunately see many many years of strife to come and if an when america falls it will be dificult to avoid the collapse of western civilatation simular to or worse than what was suffered after rome's decline.

I can assure you regaurdless of who wins the election in the United States he is most assuradly on America's side first ..and everyone elses second.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by damyanti

It is possible to be a religious person and respect the liberal ideal that everyone has the right to their own beliefs.

Its the conservatives who always yell foul not Liberals...and my beef is that liberals don't, not nearly as ferociously.

No one tried to force Bristol Palin to abort, but her mother, if given chance, will do everything in her power to force her religious beliefs on other young teenagers and force them to give birth when they don't want. I don't have a problem with their beliefs, but the aggressive way in which they want to legislature it is something I find very dangerous.

Anyway all of that is the matter of your personal policies and you can have your country any way you like - what would be nice, is if you let the rest of the world enjoy the same luxury. You think McCain/Palin ticket will be equally successful in matters of foreign policy? Who will negotiate with them, when all they are seen is as more of the same (Bush)? Who will respect them when they are condescending towards other world leaders? When Obama came to Europe there were rallies of support of unbelievable proportion. We don't want McCain to visit at all, and if he does, he can expect pretty much the same "welcome" Bush receives every time he imposes himself on us.

---

It isn't possible to be religious person and respect the idea of an "oops" abortion. (The healthy, adult, sexually active woman who doesn't bother with birth control because she's too lazy and ends up getting pregnant and saying it was 'a mistake.') And just for the record I am pro-choice. And abstinent. IMHO.

It isn't possible to be a religious person and denounce your beliefs because other people feel it isn't politically correct. (Heaven forbid someone get their feelings hurt). IMHO.

I find that America is (and has been) falling further and further away from religion, and perhaps that is why some of the extremists are being rather loud. They see that loss. Though no extreme is healthy, that is for sure.

As for McCain not getting a welcome from other countries...well, frankly I don't really care what his welcome is like. He'd be the president of the United States, and we'd be the one having to deal with him on a daily basis. :D I don't believe McCain will be another Bush. I like how he goes between the parties. There are a few things I am not wild about, but overall he is a much better choice than Obama. I think Obama would be more worried about forgien policy than America. (Not to mention, I'd love to see him sit down and talk Al Qaeda and ask then why they aren't' being nice). I'd be willing to bet he'd invite them over to the USA for coffee and a chat...sorry, not the person I want running my country.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hopperboo

It isn't possible to be religious person and respect the idea of an "oops" abortion. (The healthy, adult, sexually active woman who doesn't bother with birth control because she's too lazy and ends up getting pregnant and saying it was 'a mistake.') And just for the record I am pro-choice. And abstinent. IMHO.

It isn't possible to be a religious person and denounce your beliefs because other people feel it isn't politically correct. (Heaven forbid someone get their feelings hurt). IMHO.

I find that America is (and has been) falling further and further away from religion, and perhaps that is why some of the extremists are being rather loud. They see that loss. Though no extreme is healthy, that is for sure.

As for McCain not getting a welcome from other countries...well, frankly I don't really care what his welcome is like. He'd be the president of the United States, and we'd be the one having to deal with him on a daily basis. :D I don't believe McCain will be another Bush. I like how he goes between the parties. There are a few things I am not wild about, but overall he is a much better choice than Obama. I think Obama would be more worried about forgien policy than America. (Not to mention, I'd love to see him sit down and talk Al Qaeda and ask then why they aren't' being nice). I'd be willing to bet he'd invite them over to the USA for coffee and a chat...sorry, not the person I want running my country.

---

So since it is against religion it should be against the law? Prohibited for everyone? So if someone is religious ergo he must be be intolerant of everyone else's choice and right to live their life as they see fit? And who gets to decide which religion is the religion?

You are welcome to McCain, but I don't want him for president of my country. In that case, kindly pack up your troops home and excuse yourself from meddling into matters of other nations. You have to deal with him (your president) on daily basis?...So do we! Everyday I have to live with the consequences of his actions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by damyanti

So since it is against religion it should be against the law? Prohibited for everyone? So if someone is religious ergo he must be be intolerant of everyone else's choice and right to live their life as they see fit? And who gets to decide which religion is the religion?

---

The abortion question doesn't hinge on religion, it hinges on when life begins. It just so happens that religion provides some people with an answer to that question.

If you have a fundamental belief that life begins at conception, that from that point it is a unique, human life, then, whatever the source of that belief, you have a duty to oppose abortion and it's reasonable to attempt to make illegal what you believe is murder.

Their position is not to impose their religion on others, but to oppose what they believe is wholesale murder -- again, it's a reasonable position given that belief.

Unfortunately, the answer to when it's a human life isn't answerable. Personally, I have issues with the extremes on both sides of the debate.

I think it's ridiculous to argue that it's a human being right after conception and hypocritical to say "well, okay, we'll let you murder that baby if you were raped".

On the other side are the proponents of abortion on-demand in the third trimester. Arguing that at eight months it isn't a human baby and has no rights is disgusting and reprehensible to me.

Again, unfortunately, we have no measuring stick for where that line between blob of cells and baby actually lies. The question I ask is:

Given that our entire legal system is based on the premise that it's better to allow the guilty to go free than to punish the innocent, that doubt should always fall to the possibility of innocence, shouldn't the maybe-child get the same benefit as the maybe-innocent-murderer?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by damyanti

So since it is against religion it should be against the law? Prohibited for everyone? So if someone is religious ergo he must be be intolerant of everyone else's choice and right to live their life as they see fit? And who gets to decide which religion is the religion?

You are welcome to McCain, but I don't want him for president of my country. In that case, kindly pack up your troops home and excuse yourself from meddling into matters of other nations. You have to deal with him (your president) on daily basis?...So do we! Everyday I have to live with the consequences of his actions.

---

No, I didn't say things that were against religion should be against the law. I said I don't have to (nor does a country) have respect for it. Again, that is just my personal opinion. Many people believe those who are not tolerant and respectful of every lifestyle are close-minded and bad, when I don't see it that way at all. People form opinions of what is right based on religion and their own beliefs and upbringing. How respectful is it to throw everything one believes in away because someone might get some feelings hurt? Forming and opinion and backing up that opinion isn't close-minded. It's a choice. Sitting on the fence, hurling insults at people who dare to form an opinion is not respectful either. (That is meant as a general comment, not a personal insult to you).

As for who decides what religion is paramount, the USA was founded on Christian beliefs. Yes, it founded on the right to freedom of religion, but if push comes to shove, it was founded on Christian beliefs.

It became our business when said country has terrorists that attack us. If other countries don't want us interfering they should get their own extremists groups under control.

hmmmmm i really did not want to respond any more to this thread as i though it had run its cause, but i do feel the need to reply to the last paragraph of the past post.


I would ask which country established, equipped and funded the young Osama Bin Laden's now labeled terror movement, answer yes the US, to fight the soviets i appreciate however Afghanistan a pretty much lawless nation did not expel al Qaeda, but then in reality what ability the Afghan taliban government actually had to so so is questionable given that to date the combined powers of many Western nations have also been unable to oust this US funded terror movement.

Also Iraq, again a US established military led dictatorship, Saddam Hussein being a proven CIA operative.

I do not condone either movement, but please do not state that once the terror is brought to US shores then the US administration has a god given right to execute regime change or attack sovereign nations.

Lets be honest amongst ourselves here it was always the US's business the moment it established both Osama Bin Ladens movement and empowered Saddam Hussein.

Modern world politics has to have a longer than 4 year shelf life, time and time again we are all seeing and living through the fallout of such short terminsim.

I really dont want to post anymore, i feel that this thread has been done to death, but do please free free to comment or disagree, we all have those wonderful rights.