| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
19 Aug 2004 07:00:17 PM |
| Object: |
Re : : Is Bush insane? |
Is Bush insane?
The US President claims to have been "instructed" directly by "God"
himself to conquer Iraq and Afghanistan.
"God told me to strike at al-Qaida and I struck them, and
then He instructed me to strike at Saddam"
- G. W. Bush, August 2004
Is Bush just trying to say that God automatically supports the US
government no matter what they do? Or, more importantly, is the leader of
the world's most powerful nation actually hearing voices?
Please read the whole article:
[ http://www.theinsider.org/mailing/article.asp?id=0556 ]
.
|
|
| User: "Courageous" |
|
| Title: Re: Re : : Is Bush insane? |
19 Aug 2004 07:12:05 PM |
|
|
Is Bush just trying to say that God automatically supports the US
government no matter what they do? Or, more importantly, is the leader of
the world's most powerful nation actually hearing voices?
*shrug*
I wonder that about _any_ religious person, actually. It's clear
to me that most religion involves a hefty component of delusion.
C//
.
|
|
|
| User: "New10." |
|
| Title: Re: Re : : Is Bush insane? |
27 Aug 2004 12:39:25 AM |
|
|
THE ERROR
By New10.
The error of debating a Christian is because you think you are debating a
sane person. Just like you can't talk a schizophrenic out of their illness
you can't talk a Christian out of theirs. It was not only Sigmund Freud that
called religion pathological. There are more psychologists than ever since
Freud that are not afraid to call Christianity a mental disorder. The only
reason the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorder) does
not categorize Christianity as mental disorder is because of the numbers who
believe. In other words, if ONLY one person believed in the tenets of
Christianity they would be diagnose as schizophrenic.
I
RELIGION AND LAS VEGAS
New 10.
XX
` Just as Las Vegas has a gambling game to fit the taste of every
gambler so too Christianity has a denomination that will fit the taste of
every Christian. The pathology of the compulsive gambler is that while
gambling they can shut out their contemporary problems and is willing to
risk all of their money to do so. Those who remain in the religion of their
families are also compulsive in their religion and get their neurotic needs
met by familiarity as to not cause cognitive dissonance. When they find
their religion no longer satisfies their psychological needs will join a
denomination that fits their particular neurosis just as the gamblers will
find the game that satisfies their neurosis. There are those who can step
back and examine their religion with critical eyes for the first time---even
if they do suffer from cognitive dissonance and can stay with it long enough
until the new information becomes familiar, they will discover the
psychology of change. When religion ceases to comfort one intellectually and
psychologically they often become atheists.
www.atheistfelloship.com
"
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Woods" |
|
| Title: Bruce Springsteen Hates America And Spits On American Soldiers! Liberals Hate America!!!!!!! |
19 Aug 2004 08:47:24 PM |
|
|
Bruce Springsteen Hates America And Spits On American Soldiers!
Liberals Hate America!!!!!!!
Known dope addict, Bruce Springsteen, has long freely admitted
escaping the Vietnam draft by purposely flunking his induction
physical, telling Rolling Stone Magazine, ``I did the basic fillin'
sixties rag, you know: fillin' out the forms all crazy, not taking the
test.'' So it's odd to envision Bruce hanging upside down on his mike
stand for a candidate who voted for the Iraq war and whose Vietnam
service has become the central argument for his fitness to serve as
commander in chief.
from:
http://news.bostonherald.com/opinion/view.bg?articleid=38847
.
|
|
|
| User: "maff" |
|
| Title: Re: Bruce Springsteen Hates America And Spits On American Soldiers! Liberals Hate America!!!!!!! |
21 Aug 2004 01:21:32 PM |
|
|
Matt Woods <MW00DS@N0SPAM.C0M> wrote in message news:<70mai0dihm5ucccbbmklhvv05vk8i2sucm@4ax.com>...
[...]
Nah. It's Christian funamentalists, Confederates and the Klan who hate
America and spit on Union soldiers.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jez" |
|
| Title: Re: Bruce Springsteen Hates America And Spits On American Soldiers!Liberals Hate America!!!!!!! |
20 Aug 2004 10:33:45 AM |
|
|
Matt Woods wrote:
Bruce Springsteen Hates America And Spits On American Soldiers!
Liberals Hate America!!!!!!!
Known dope addict, Bruce Springsteen,
What do you mean by 'Dope' ?
--
Jez
"The condition of alienation, of being asleep, of being unconscious,
of being out of one's mind, is the condition of the normal man. Society
highly values its normal man.It educates children to lose themselves
and to become absurd,and thus to be normal. Normal men have killed
perhaps 100,000,000 of their fellow normal men in the last fifty years."
R.D. Laing
.
|
|
|
| User: "Clayton The Kaafir Ilzaad With A Lizard Gizard" |
|
| Title: Re: Bruce Springsteen Hates America And Spits On American Soldiers! Liberals Hate America!!!!!!! |
20 Aug 2004 07:50:50 PM |
|
|
"Jez" <iced_spear@NOSPAMdsl.pipex.com> wrote in message
news:412619f3$0$20251$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com...
Matt Woods wrote:
Bruce Springsteen Hates America And Spits On American Soldiers!
Liberals Hate America!!!!!!!
Known dope addict, Bruce Springsteen,
What do you mean by 'Dope' ?
1. President Bush
2. White powder President Bush snorts
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jez" |
|
| Title: Re: Bruce Springsteen Hates America And Spits On American Soldiers!Liberals Hate America!!!!!!! |
21 Aug 2004 09:06:40 AM |
|
|
Clayton The Kaafir Ilzaad With A Lizard Gizard wrote:
"Jez" <iced_spear@NOSPAMdsl.pipex.com> wrote in message
news:412619f3$0$20251$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com...
Matt Woods wrote:
Bruce Springsteen Hates America And Spits On American Soldiers!
Liberals Hate America!!!!!!!
Known dope addict, Bruce Springsteen,
What do you mean by 'Dope' ?
1. President Bush
2. White powder President Bush snorts
Hehe !
--
Jez
"The condition of alienation, of being asleep, of being unconscious,
of being out of one's mind, is the condition of the normal man. Society
highly values its normal man.It educates children to lose themselves
and to become absurd,and thus to be normal. Normal men have killed
perhaps 100,000,000 of their fellow normal men in the last fifty years."
R.D. Laing
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Bradley" |
|
| Title: ISLAM AND BEHEADINGS! AND LIBERALS THAT HATE AMERICA!!!!!!!!! |
19 Aug 2004 11:41:15 PM |
|
|
ISLAM AND BEHEADINGS! AND LIBERALS THAT HATE AMERICA!!!!!!!!!
August 13, 2004, 8:53 a.m.
Abetting Beheadings
It is not clear that Islam condemns the al Qaeda killings.
Any rational person has to welcome yesterday's attempt by Mustafa
Akyol to find in Islam an unambiguous condemnation of the barbarous
beheadings we've repeatedly seen since the butchering of Daniel Pearl
two years ago. Regrettably, however, Akyol manages to achieve
ostensible clarity only by abridging the Koran and seminal events in
Islamic history - including the life of the Prophet Muhammed. I wish
he had engaged these troublesome matters directly and opined about
what we are to make of them.
To begin with, Akyol proceeds from the premise that jihad, i.e.,
violent holy war, as anticipated in the Islamic tradition,
contemplates both that there will be many prisoners during active
hostilities and that they must under all circumstances be treated
humanely. Alas, there is abundant evidence that neither proposition is
true. First and foremost, there is the Koran itself - specifically,
Sura 8:65-67:
65. O Prophet, rouse the Believers to the fight. If there are twenty
amongst you, patient and persevering, they will vanquish two hundred:
if a hundred they will vanquish a thousand of the Unbelievers: for
these are a people without understanding. 66. For the present, Allah
hath lightened your burden, for he knoweth that there is a weak spot
in you: But even so, if there are a hundred of you, patient and
persevering, they will vanquish two hundred, and if a thousand, they
will vanquish two thousand, with the leave of Allah:
for Allah is with those who patiently persevere. 67. It is not fitting
for a Prophet that he should have prisoners of war until he hath
thoroughly subdued the land: Ye look for the temporal goods of this
world, but Allah looketh to the Hereafter: and Allah is exalted in
might, Wise. (Emphasis added.)
To support the notion of a consistent Islamic doctrine mandating
humane treatment of prisoners, Akyol mines verse 6 from Sura 9: "If
one amongst the Pagans ask thee for asylum, grant it to him, so that
he may hear the word of God; and then escort him to where he can be
secure. That is because they are men without knowledge."
Unfortunately, this passage addresses the very different situation of
the time after Muslims have "subdued the land" and find themselves
dealing with unbelievers who have broken treaties.
In fact, and on the contrary - as the verses from Sura 8 excerpted
above illustrate - there is clearly Koranic authority for militants to
rely on in concluding that (a) when jihad is ongoing, the taking of
prisoners is frowned on, and (b) jihad should be ongoing until the
enemy is subdued, meaning he has either surrendered or been routed.
So if prisoners ought not be kept, what, according to Muslim
tradition, is to be done with them? The answer is not nearly as clear
or as reassuring as Akyol contends. As Andrew G. Bostom has recently
explained:
According to Muhammad's sacralized biography by Ibn Ishaq, Muhammad
himself sanctioned the massacre of the Qurayza, a vanquished Jewish
tribe. He appointed an "arbiter" who soon rendered this concise
verdict: the men were to be put to death, the women and children sold
into slavery, the spoils to be divided among the Muslims. Muhammad
ratified this judgment stating that it was a decree of God pronounced
from above the Seven Heavens. Thus some 600 to 900 men from the
Qurayza were lead [sic] on Muhammad's order to the Market of Medina.
Trenches were dug and the men were beheaded, and their decapitated
corpses buried in the trenches while Muhammad watched in attendance.
Women and children were sold into slavery, a number of them being
distributed as gifts among Muhammad's companions, and Muhammad chose
one of the Qurayza women (Rayhana) for himself. The Qurayza's property
and other possessions (including weapons) were also divided up as
additional "booty" among the Muslims, to support further jihad
campaigns. (Emphasis added.)
Akyol lingers on "historical accounts reporting Prophet Muhammad
ordering his men to treat captives very humanely," but he leaves this
one out. Moreover, it is far from the only germane example of Islamic
beheading practice. As Bostom elaborates, the eleventh-century
classical Islamic jurist al-Mawardi, writing during the so-called
"Golden Age" of the Abbasid-Baghdadian Caliphate, counseled the
following with regard to captives taken in the jihad:
As for the captives, the amir [ruler] has the choice of taking the
most beneficial action of four possibilities: the first to put them to
death by cutting their necks; the second, to enslave them and apply
the laws of slavery regarding their sale and manumission; the third,
to ransom them in exchange for goods or prisoners; and fourth, to show
favor to them and pardon them. (Emphasis added.)
Why give the choice of execution by beheading ("cutting their necks")?
Marwadi relied on the Koran itself, specifically Sura 47:4. This is
precisely the verse that Akyol cites to support his proposition that
if beheading victims Nicholas Berg, Paul Johnson, and Kim Sun-il had
been "regarded as prisoners of war" by their jihadist captors, "The
verdict of the Koran is clear about them: They should be taken as
captives during the battle, then, after the war, they should be
released for free or ransomed." But is that what Sura 47:4 really
says? Unfortunately, no. It reads:
Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers in fight, smite at their
necks; at length, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind the
captives firmly: therefore is the time for either generosity or ransom
until the war lays down its burdens. . . ." (Emphasis added.)
Obviously, we should all wish that the interpretation of this verse
were as Akyol would have it - and perhaps someday, if there is a
Muslim reformation and a clearly defined moderate Islam becomes the
creed's dominant ideological force, that will finally be the case. But
we are not going to get there by pretending, ostrich-like, that the
words "smite at their necks" aren't there. The militants may plainly
read this verse to say: Execute by beheading first, and show mercy
only after the enemy - i.e., the entire enemy, not the individual
captive - has been "thoroughly subdued." Akyol needs to make a
principled argument about why that jihadist construction is not only
unreasonable but somehow pellucidly un-Islamic. He is not going to
convince anyone who needs convincing by simply avoiding the words he'd
prefer not to confront.
Nor, one is sadly forced to note, is Sura 47:4 singular. Others not
addressed by Akyol but plain as day include, for example, Sura 2:191
("[S]lay them wherever you catch them, and turn them out from where
they have turned you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter; but
fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they first fight you
there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those
who reject faith"); Sura 5:33 ("The punishment of those who wage war
against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for
mischief throughout the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the
cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the
land"); and Sura 8:12 ("Remember thy Lord inspired the angels with the
message: 'I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will
instill terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: Smite ye above
their necks and smite all their fingertips off them"). (All italics
mine.)
The execution of captives, particularly by beheading, is not unusual
in the history and scripture of Islam. This is not in any way to say
that beheading is unique to the Muslim world - it was, for example,
practiced in Europe for centuries. But, it is still practiced commonly
in the Muslim world, and not just among jihadists but also in states,
such as Saudi Arabia, in which Islamic law is, at least nominally, the
regnant legal system.
I applaud Akyol for condemning the depravity of the militants who have
savaged Johnson, Berg, il-Sun, Pearl, and others. But I don't believe
he has made a compelling case for the "Islamic condemnation of the al
Qaeda killings." Such a case would require taking these troubling
verses and incidents head-on, and providing a cogent explanation of
why they should not be interpreted as jihadists have interpreted them.
-- Andrew C. McCarthy, who led the 1995 terrorism prosecution against
Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and eleven others, is reachable through
www.benadorassociates.com.
---------
Liberals Hate America!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Bradley" |
|
| Title: Kerry staff refuses to back Christmas in Cambodia" story! Liberals Hate America! |
19 Aug 2004 11:34:49 PM |
|
|
Kerry staff refuses to back Christmas in Cambodia" story! Liberals
Hate America!
As more instances of Sen. John Kerry telling a story about his
spending Christmas 1968 in Cambodia come to light, his campaign has
yet to address the charge of fellow veterans that the presidential
candidate's account is a lie.
As of press time, neither WorldNetDaily nor Fox News Channel has
received a response to the charges from Kerry's staff, despite
repeated requests.
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39924
---------
Liberals Hate America!
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
