|
Post by MaccusGermanis on Feb 16, 2007 10:18:01 GMT -5
I believe it is correct to be concerned about this. Not only because of the inherent unfairness of funding such segregate schools, but because of the possibility that the school may further jihadist propaganda. The later has already happened in publicly funded schools in Britain. The name does give me a, perhaps false, hope that this school could have a goal similar to that of Eleazar Wheelock's Moor's Indian Charity School. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eleazar_WheelockKhalil Gibran was never a muslim. An interesting discussion of this school can be found at Dhimmiwatch. www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/015247.phpEdit: "is can be found" sheesh
|
|
|
Post by MaccusGermanis on Apr 18, 2007 16:13:17 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Apr 18, 2007 19:50:53 GMT -5
Nothing screams Islamofascist like Khalil Gibran.
101.1 FM is the extreme of the extreme right-wing and Jihadwatch is nuts feeding nuts.
|
|
|
Post by MaccusGermanis on Apr 19, 2007 7:32:12 GMT -5
Nothing screams Islamofascist like Khalil Gibran. 101.1 FM is the extreme of the extreme right-wing and Jihadwatch is nuts feeding nuts. And, how do you know that Khalil Gibran wasn't muslim? That's right. I told you. Do you see how pitifully misinformed supposed atheist are of little use in any debate. If you would read something like Jihadwatch, or get past the dust cover of anything, you might actually contribute at least interesting misconceptions.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Apr 19, 2007 7:49:22 GMT -5
Nothing screams Islamofascist like Khalil Gibran. 101.1 FM is the extreme of the extreme right-wing and Jihadwatch is nuts feeding nuts. And, how do you know that Khalil Gibran wasn't Muslim? That's right. I told you. Do you see how pitifully misinformed supposed atheist are of little use in any debate. If you would read something like Jihadwatch, or get past the dust cover of anything, you might actually contribute at least interesting misconceptions. I've read Khalil Gabran and his hippy-dippy Bahá'í(ish) philosophy. I also read Jihadwatch occasionally. Difference is I put it in perspective instead of looking for half-truths to rationalize my bigotry. How much sleep are you losing over this? www.theocracywatch.org/schools2.htm
|
|
|
Post by MaccusGermanis on Apr 19, 2007 11:26:01 GMT -5
I've read Khalil Gabran and his hippy-dippy Bahá'í(ish) philosophy. I also read Jihadwatch occasionally. Difference is I put it in perspective instead of looking for half-truths to rationalize my bigotry. How much sleep are you losing over this? www.theocracywatch.org/schools2.htmPerspective? You've never provided any such perspective in any of our conversations on this board. The perspective is that the self confessed "dominionists" and "theocrats" that you reference here do not have the same luxury of being totally in adherence with the longest standing and current traditions of their faith. Jesus never lobbied the Roman Senate. Christ did not raise an army to fight unbelievers. Mo' did both. The history of America shows that some of the most staunch supporters of "separation of church and state" were Christians. Newly minted theories of a theocratic USA, whether advanced by fear mongering atheists or the self named theocrats, are historical revision. No revision is necessary to point out that islam is and always was intended to be both a religious and political entity. You asked how much sleep I lose? Not much.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Apr 20, 2007 14:46:22 GMT -5
The history of America shows that some of the most staunch supporters of "separation of church and state" were Christians. Also the most staunch advocates of theocracy.
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on Apr 20, 2007 14:52:17 GMT -5
I'd point out that, when someone on the Right goes off the deep end- like Sanders did- the Right leads the charge in distancing themselves from the statement and condemning it.
Contrast that to the Left, who collective embrace those who go off the deep end and treat them like heroes.
But then a core principal of the Left- and it's easy to keep track of them because they have so few- is hypocrisy.
|
|
|
Post by MaccusGermanis on Apr 20, 2007 17:16:04 GMT -5
The history of America shows that some of the most staunch supporters of "separation of church and state" were Christians. Also the most staunch advocates of theocracy. So what makes this guy a theocrat? Whatever prevarication it may be, he did attempt to broaden the appeal of his silly arguments against boutique beer to a wider moral audience. Of course, that may have been because there is no clear ban of alcohol to be found in the Bible.
|
|
|
Post by MaccusGermanis on Apr 20, 2007 17:23:04 GMT -5
I'd point out that, when someone on the Right goes off the deep end- like Sanders did- the Right leads the charge in distancing themselves from the statement and condemning it. Contrast that to the Left, who collective embrace those who go off the deep end and treat them like heroes. But then a core principal of the Left- and it's easy to keep track of them because they have so few- is hypocrisy. I think I agree with you, but do find the language of "leads the charge in distancing themselves" to be amusing. Perhaps, you'd meant "leads the retreat." The problem with the left is that it embraces a regressive hero worship. All matters, no matter how complex, are understood as personal conflicts between demi-gods. The right, being more focused on issues rather than personal cults, has more experience with saying, "Lov' ya but your making an ass out of us. Bye."
|
|
|
Post by MaccusGermanis on Apr 20, 2007 17:23:42 GMT -5
And still I ask, where is this "perspective?"
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on Apr 20, 2007 18:56:36 GMT -5
MG-
Perhaps I should have said that the Right takes the lead in denouncing screwballs on the Right when they step over the line.
In contradistinction, the Left elevates such people to be Presidential candidates....
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Apr 23, 2007 12:04:21 GMT -5
MG- Perhaps I should have said that the Right takes the lead in denouncing screwballs on the Right when they step over the line. In contradistinction, the Left elevates such people to be Presidential candidates.... Actually, depending on where you stand, the exact opposite is true. Here's a nice Republican presidential candidate. And let's not forget this republican
|
|
|
Post by killer on Apr 23, 2007 12:09:12 GMT -5
Is picture #2 Hank Erwin? (The one between Coulter and Duke)
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Apr 23, 2007 12:58:31 GMT -5
The 10 Stupidest Things Pat Robertson Ever Said
10) "Over 100 years, I think the gradual erosion of the consensus that’s held our country together is probably more serious than a few bearded terrorists who fly into buildings." –Pat Robertson, on the dangers of judicial activism
9) "Lord, give us righteous judges who will not try to legislate and dominate this society. Take control, Lord! We ask for additional vacancies on the court." –Pat Robertson
8) "Just like what Nazi Germany did to the Jews, so liberal America is now doing to the evangelical Christians. It's no different. It is the same thing. It is happening all over again. It is the Democratic Congress, the liberal-based media and the homosexuals who want to destroy the Christians. Wholesale abuse and discrimination and the worst bigotry directed toward any group in America today. More terrible than anything suffered by any minority in history." –Pat Robertson
7) "I would warn Orlando that you're right in the way of some serious hurricanes, and I don't think I'd be waving those flags in God's face if I were you, This is not a message of hate -- this is a message of redemption. But a condition like this will bring about the destruction of your nation. It'll bring about terrorist bombs; it'll bring earthquakes, tornadoes, and possibly a meteor." –Pat Robertson, on "gay days" at Disneyworld
6) "(T)he feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians." –Pat Robertson
5) "I know this is painful for the ladies to hear, but if you get married, you have accepted the headship of a man, your husband. Christ is the head of the household and the husband is the head of the wife, and that's the way it is, period." –Pat Robertson
4) "I'd like to say to the good citizens of Dover: If there is a disaster in your area, don't turn to God, you just rejected him from your city. And don't wonder why he hasn't helped you when problems begin, if they begin. I'm not saying they will, but if they do, just remember, you just voted God out of your city. And if that's the case, don't ask for his help because he might not be there." --Pat Robertson, after the city of Dover, Pennsylvania voted to boot the current school board, which instituted an intelligent design policy that led to a federal trial
3) "God considers this land to be his. You read the Bible and he says 'This is my land,' and for any prime minister of Israel who decides he is going to carve it up and give it away, God says, 'No, this is mine.' ... He was dividing God's land. And I would say, 'Woe unto any prime minister of Israel who takes a similar course to appease the E.U., the United Nations, or the United States of America.' God says, 'This land belongs to me. You better leave it alone.'" --Pat Robertson, on why Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon suffered a massive stroke
2) "Maybe we need a very small nuke thrown off on Foggy Bottom to shake things up" –Pat Robertson, on nuking the State Department
1) "You know, I don't know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it. It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war ... We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability. We don't need another $200 billion war to get rid of one, you know, strong-arm dictator. It's a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with." –Pat Robertson, calling for the assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez
|
|
|
Post by MaccusGermanis on Apr 23, 2007 14:49:45 GMT -5
Actually, depending on where you stand, the exact opposite is true. "Her "faggot" joke was not just a distraction from all the good that was highlighted and represented at the conference." "With a single word, Coulter sullied the hard work of hundreds of CPAC participants and exhibitors and tarred the collective reputation of thousands of CPAC attendees. At a reception for college students held by the Young America's Foundation, I lambasted the substitution of stupid slurs for persuasion-- be it "faggot" from a conservative or "gook" from a liberal--and urged the young people there to conduct themselves at all times with dignity in their ideological battles on and off campus." michellemalkin.com/archives/006981.htm"I was appalled," says Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention's ethics and religious liberty commission. Besides the insensitivity, Land says, this is bad theology. Saint Paul himself wrote that "God's judgments are unsearchable." When Robertson connects Sharon's stroke with God's judgment, "he's way beyond his theological pay grade," Land says. "That's assuming the prerogatives of God and it betrays both an appalling spiritual ignorance and an appalling spiritual arrogance." www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5151840"However, in the real world those who actually admire and strive to emulate Hitler are not opponents of the global jihad, but its allies: witness the Aryan Nations' statement that "Islam is our ally, and the 1500 cults all claiming to be 'Christian' are our opposition." And now David Duke, the famous Louisiana racist, has turned up in Syria to provide more evidence of this." www.jihadwatch.org/archives/009158.phpOn which planet do you (blondie) stand?
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Apr 23, 2007 15:00:08 GMT -5
On which planet do you (blondie) stand? The one where right-wing nut jobs are a dime a dozen.
|
|
|
Post by MaccusGermanis on Apr 23, 2007 16:07:01 GMT -5
The one where right-wing nut jobs are a dime a dozen. Are you now implying that the willingness of conservatives to distance themselves from supposed ideological kin is only because they are so many "right-wing nut jobs?" -a kind of crunch all you want, we'll make more?- Nevertheless, My contention that the left understands political conflicts as personal cult wars, is underwritten by your attempted arguments here. You did not discuss the issue. You posted pictures of persons that you had assumed were leaders of a right-wing cult. These persons were already widely criticized by conservatives in manner similar to that which WOMI had suggested. You did not disprove WOMI's point, but you did unwittingly prove mine. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by deovindice on Apr 24, 2007 8:21:21 GMT -5
.........and once again the exchanges evolve into "My party's better than your party" jibes, or perhaps more accurately, degenerate into "Your party's worse than my party".
The parties are the problem. Both of 'em.
|
|