Joe Lieberman

Aaeamdar · Post by **Aaeamdar** » August 19, 2003, 4:42 pm

1. It would be uncostituational to prohibit a student from bringing in a bible to school. It would be unconstitutional to prohibit a student from praying in school. If you have been told otherwise, it is probably because your religious leader is lying to you to convince you of his/her own adjenda of getting mandatory prayer (currently going by the code words of "moment of silent reflection") in school. Will your child feel "safe" bringing a bible into school and praying during his/her private time there? Probably not. (S)he'll get harrassed and possibly violently accosted by fellow students, just like the fags, geeks, fatties and retards. That's life in public school. Want to avoid it, either don't be different or punch back. But the schools themselves will not prohibit your child from bringing in your objects of indoctrination.

2. No. It will never be a good idea from me to spend my money so that people can be taught to hate me. That is what religion is all about, after all - learning who to hate. Why should I care if religious schools give their students a good education? To the contrary, I'd prefer anyone attending a religious school come out of it barely qualified to dig ditches. Hateful idiots can't do much damage - apart from the occasional violence they participate in that should then land them in jail. People who are well educated and hateful can do serious harm. So, no thanks. If my money is going to go to educating other people's children, I'd prefer that it not contribute directly to teaching them why I am evil.

3. The littel warning lables. Yeah not all bad, but not something I want to spend money on. For two reasons, really. Firstly, and this goes back to your religion, the government will establish one rating system. The values that establish that rating system may or may not reflect your own values. I know I personally find the movie rating system (that one is private, btw, so I am using it as an example of what is wrong with a single rating system, not what is wrong with government) absurd. In deciding the rating catagory of films it puts too much value on sex and not enough value of violence. Thus, if I were a parent, knowing a movie was rated R would not tell me if it was appropriate for my 12 year old. I'd still have to go read reviews on a movie by movie basis.

What would be good, and could only really happen with private institutions, is if multiple organizations rated the content of movies, TV, video, music, etc. Then parents could spend some time researching the rating organizations and select one (or possibly more than one) that most reflected their own moral compass. That makes good sense to me. Having one Government enforced standard is both useless and costs me money.

4. "That is why people with faith are upset and standing up more every day because in a country where we have FREE RELIGION it is being slowly removed from us a little every day."

Two questions/comments - a. What are "people of faith"? Are you trying to co-opt the "people of color" thing and pretend you are not an overwhelming majority in this country and not in any way in need of protection from the products of democracy?

b. going hand in hand with "a." - religion is in no way being "slowly removed from [you] a little every day." What is (thankfully) being removed from you a little bit every day is your collective power over those who don't think like you do. I certainly hope to one day live in an America where there is such a thing as "people of faith" in need of protection against a democratic majority of atheists, but I don't think I'll see that in my lifetime. But keeping to the point - what, specifically, is it that you would like to do regarding your religion that the government is prohibiting you from doing? I suspect you will be unable to come up with an answer to that question.

Silvarel Mistmoon · Post by **Silvarel Mistmoon** » August 19, 2003, 10:17 pm

Yes some schools and teachers do tell children not to bring them to schools.
What kind of church or temple do you go to or been to that they teach you to hate? I have never been to one myself.

Yes I am white and female and believe in God because I chose to not because I was told to.
By people of faith I mean of all religions not color, why you would bring race in to the phrase of "people of faith" is beyond me.

democratic majority of atheists

Oh yes please bring them in total control. What admin. in Washington has told you that you must believe in God and forced you to go to work or school made you pray and read a Bible or Koran? With Atheists in total control they would make ALL religion outlawed. And no Atheist is NOT a religion.

But these are just my opinion and obviously I am from a different world then you live on. We agree on one thing, not to agree with each other.

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » August 19, 2003, 11:09 pm

Silvarel Mistmoon wrote:

democratic majority of atheists

Oh yes please bring them in total control. What admin. in Washington has told you that you must believe in God and forced you to go to work or school made you pray and read a Bible or Koran? With Atheists in total control they would make ALL religion outlawed. And no Atheist is NOT a religion.

But these are just my opinion and obviously I am from a different world then you live on. We agree on one thing, not to agree with each other.

ummm, no
the US is pretty much run by all christians and some jews, other religions arnt outlawed,
i myself am agnostic and dont believe in following any particular faith to the same extent that athiest do, but i also believe in promoting freedom and not letting the government take it away, hence im a libertarian

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » August 20, 2003, 10:41 am

Lady, atheists could really give a damn what you believe, as long as you don't force them to mouth your personal dogma.

There is no guarantee of religion in the United States. There is a guarantee there will never be ONE state religion. I think you are confused.

Aaeamdar · Post by **Aaeamdar** » August 20, 2003, 10:10 pm

What religion do you belong to, Silv? If you really need me to find it, I am sure a quick web search will quickly demonstrate the true nature of your religion - namely instructing its masses who they should hate.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » August 20, 2003, 10:24 pm

paranoid and smarmy. two obnoxious qualities that make any athiest approximately five million times more fucking annoying than even the most rabid religious zealot.

Lohrno · Post by **Lohrno** » August 20, 2003, 10:32 pm

If it came to a vote between Lieberman and Bush...

Well, I'd just break down, cry, and not vote. I hate both of them with a passion. Lieberman is also a proponent of this TCPA crap. Lieberman also supported Bush's decision to go to Iraq. The two of them can go to hell 's far as I'm concerned.

I hope the Democrats can push someone decent forward for 2004...

-=Lohrno

Aaeamdar · Post by **Aaeamdar** » August 20, 2003, 11:46 pm

I don't think you know what smarmy means, Kyuo. I may be many things, but smarmy isn't one of them. Certainly my approach to the religious zealots here has, if anything, been blunt, openly hostile and ascerbic. Its not really possible to be that and "excessively ingratiating" (that's what being smarmy is, btw) at the same time. Not terribly suprising, however, given your grasp of the word "paranoid." To be paranoid, my fear/mistrust of religious nuts would have to be irrational. I think 1000+ years of hate and murder, coupled with the fact that these characteristics persist today in tangible forms with sufficient data available to back it appear in print daily pretty well establishes that my fear/distrust is not irrational. Please return to the conversation when you are capable of understanding the words you use.

BTW, even if you had correctly used the terms, your balance of priorities is seriously out of whack. Can you find ANY examples of atheists attacking or killing people because those people don't behave/believe the way the atheist does? That sort of thing is common place among the "most rabid religious zealot." It's amazing that you find paranoia and smarminess "five million times more fucking annoying" than murder.

Raistin · Post by **Raistin** » August 21, 2003, 12:28 am

Why do you need a bible and pray in a public school?

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » August 21, 2003, 1:04 am

Aaeamdar wrote:BTW, even if you had correctly used the terms, your balance of priorities is seriously out of whack. Can you find ANY examples of atheists attacking or killing people because those people don't behave/believe the way the atheist does? That sort of thing is common place among the "most rabid religious zealot." It's amazing that you find paranoia and smarminess "five million times more fucking annoying" than murder.

exactly so. I would rather be tortured to death by the spanish inquisition rather than listen to one more self-important, babbling athiest that thinks he is mr. smartypants because he doesn't believe in god and how phony and stupid everyone's faith is.

I am an athiest myself but I don't feel my time is well spent trying to convince everyone how violent and stupid thier chosen religion is.

Aaeamdar · Post by **Aaeamdar** » August 21, 2003, 2:24 am

But you do feel your time is well spent showing people you don't know the meaning of the words you use?

Anyway, I never said anything about:

1. being smarter than any of the theists here.

2. their religion being stupid or phony

Those are things you are choosing to read into my comments. I'll assume that is because your reading comprehension is on par with your command of vocabulary.

In case you need help with context (not really "in case", because you clearly need help with context), the discussion here has centered around the mix of religion and politics, in this case the mixing being personified in one man - Lieberman. It was suggested by the original poster, to paraphrase - "Lieberman's not bad for a Democrat." I expressed my counter possition that I would not want to compromise my otherwise conservative positions just to vote for someone who is a religious nut. Had the topic here been "religion - is it a good thing?" like you seem to have perverted it into, I might not have posted at all. "People of faith" are not necessarily hateful and violent (though 100% or very nearly 100%of people that are hateful towards gays are "people of faith"). But, religions do teach hate. Religious beliefs are why laws in the U.S. are repressive towards gays. So, when it comes to politicians, that they are bible thumpers (or in this case Torah thumpers), that fact is relevant to my political thinking. It is obviously not controling of my political thinking, or I would not vote Republican as a general rule. Hopefully (though doubtfully) you can now get a grasp on the context of this dicussion and stop making a fool of yourself.

Hammerstalker PE · Post by **Hammerstalker PE** » August 21, 2003, 2:40 am

Well that last verbal lashing should be enough for Kyoukan to vacate this thread.

BTW Dar just to clarify something. The murder, torture etc that you accuse most religions of perpetrating on the masses has absolutely nothing to do with religion. What it does have to do with is greedy assholes using religion as a guise to rally the masses. Every religion I know of promotes love your neighbor and your enemy.

Drasta · Post by **Drasta** » August 21, 2003, 2:43 am

the reason that they need prayer is that religions wants people to watch them be praticed. and yes religion does teach people to hate people. yes the country is run by jews and christians ... wasn't jfk the first catholic as president which was a break in the religious views of presidential election?

people kill people over religion ... crusades ring a bell? middle east ? hmmmm only killing in the name of your god.

Agnostic/Aethist people don't give a crap about what you praise as your god as long as your not going 'here read some documents about my god and be blessed by him"

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » August 21, 2003, 8:16 am

Aaeamdar wrote:But you do feel your time is well spent showing people you don't know the meaning of the words you use?

such as?

I actually wrote a long response to this but the server must have gone down while I was typing it cause I got a internal server error and then it ate my whole reply when I hit the back button. Suffice it to say I'm pretty sure I have a grasp of the "context" of the discussion, I was merely hijacking the thread because it annoys me when I see angsty self important athiests that find it their mission in life to obnoxiously declare anyone who follows a religious faith to be ignorant or violent, or intolerant (in a delicious irony considering the amount of intolerance for religious people you have).

Anyone who thinks Lieberman is some kind of overly religious nut is either stupid or crazy. The man is about as non-partisan in his faith as a politician can be. A couple of quotes you googled for where he states that people should be more moral and spiritual and talks about some generic god doesn't really sway me. The fact that you are saying this while at the same time you voted for a man who openly declared that he doesn't think an athiest should ever be considered an American citizen comes about as close to flooring me as it would if you told me you were pregnant.

And don't fool yourself into thinking that people don't like homosexuality because they're religious. Plenty of non-religious people don't like it either. There are a lot worse things to go after people for because the bible says it's wrong. They just use their faith as a crutch to justify their disdain for gay people.

Hammerstalker PE wrote:Well that last verbal lashing should be enough for Kyoukan to vacate this thread.

No you can't have more loot so shut the fucking hell up you cock gobbling sycophant. Don't you have even one fucking tiniest ounce of shame in your entire body? Watching you and your fucking worthless friends verbally fellate each other in every fucking thread you infest because you can't find anyone else that thinks you aren't a tired piece of human fucking waste is start to grate on my goddam nerves.

Hammerstalker PE · Post by **Hammerstalker PE** » August 21, 2003, 8:38 am

Now, now Kyoukan take a few deep breaths and relax before you fall into another fit of OMG I ARE SO FUCKING WITTY I NEED TO USE CAPS TO GET MY POINT ACROSS!!!

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » August 21, 2003, 8:47 am

Yes that was certainly relevant and poignant. good job.

Hammerstalker PE · Post by **Hammerstalker PE** » August 21, 2003, 9:08 am

No you can't have more loot so shut the fucking hell up you cock gobbling sycophant. Don't you have even one fucking tiniest ounce of shame in your entire body? Watching you and your fucking worthless friends verbally fellate each other in every fucking thread you infest because you can't find anyone else that thinks you aren't a tired piece of human fucking waste is start to grate on my goddam nerves.

About as relevant and poignant as you are or the shitty flame above, you moron.

Aaeamdar · Post by **Aaeamdar** » August 21, 2003, 9:53 am

Glad to see you replaced smarmy with "angsty." Not sure "agnsty is a word, but its a buffyism at worst, so its cute, and agnst is what you were looking or before. Glad to see you have a dictionary at least.

Your reading comprehension still leaves much to be desired, but maybe we can work through that. Consider this thread a lesson for you and take this critique in the spirit in which it is given. You'll be a better person for it.

1. just like I never called people's religious beliefs "phony" or "stupid" as you claimed before, I also have not called them "intollerant." I haven't even particularly called them violent, either. Religion is not violent, people are violent (pretty much all people). What I have said about religion is that it teaches hate (which it does), or more specifically I have said one of its prime functions is to teach its followers who they should hate (which is n overstatement for effect). Now, that is overstated. If you really need to attack something, why not attack what I have actually said rather than make shit up? There is a record here, you know? This is not a verbal conversation where you can divert the point and claim that someone said something they didn't. I can prove what I did and did not say - its all there in the posts before this.

2. You aren't "derailing" anything. Your pattern in this thread s exactly what it is in all threads. You started by stating your opinion, feigned some expertise, were presented with facts to the contrary of that stated expertise, then rather than address those facts, you started insulting the person who presented them to you. You do this all the time. You have a real issue engaging in constructive debate and a bigger issue admitting you are wrong. A great example of that is in the thread where you said that Davis was going to stay Governer because all the Republican candidates would split the vote. When proved wrong, you tried to morph what you said into something different, which was then also proven wrong, so you resorted to insulting people and then left the thread. In the future, accept that you don't know all that much about certain topics, and just admit you are wrong and move on. This is what makes you look so stupid. It also makes everything you say increadible, since you consistantly make shit up rather than admit when you are wrong. (A great example of this is in this very thread, but we'll get to that later).

3. Back to reading comprehension - this time Leiberman's words not mine. Leiberman does not say "people should be more moral" and his god is not "generic." He says "As a people we need to reaffirm our faith and renew the dedication of our nation to God and God's purposes." Ok, a couple of things.

Firstly the bolded terms, "a people" and "our nation" - these things refer to the collective whole of the people in the U.S. "A people" is not the same thing as "people." He means all of us, and he means it not all of us individually, but all of us collectively. Those are suggestions for the policy of a Nation, not suggestions as to how each of us individually shoud act.

Secondly, the italisized terms. Generic gods do not have specific purposes. The only way the term "God" is intended as generic is in an interfaith way. He is refering to THE GOD of the Jewish, Christian and Muslam faiths. He can do that correctly because that God is the same god. Just because three groups of religions worship the same God, does not make use of the term "God" generic. He certainly was not refering to Amaterasu, Shiva, or Satan in his supposedly generic "God." He was not refering either to "faith," in general, when refering to "God" so as to include Buddism, Toaism or Scientology.

Try actually reading things. More often than not their meanings are clear. Once again, since they are in print, you do not have the luxuary (as I can only guess you must do to some success IRL) of pretending what was written was different. The process of a meaningful, intellegent discssion is not really that hard, but to get it, you will need to deal with the facts as they are, not conveniently change them.

4. Don't make shit up. You are lying (or maybe lying is too harsh, as you may actually believe what you said was true) about George Bush. He has never once said that Atheists should not be considered Citizens of the U.S. There is pleanty about Bush for even the most staunch supporter to find fault with, why the need to lie about him? It, once again, does nothing to help your arguements and your pattern of doing this makes everything you say suspect. If you are going to say something, be able to back it up with facts. Google should make this easy for you, if you stick to the truth.

5. (Last one!) Back to context and reading comprehension. Let's assume for the moment that your lie about Bush was not a lie. Why would that be at all relevant? I already said I vote for religious nuts all the time. I already said that a person's religious belief were merely relevant, not controlling, in my political thinking. So, what good does it do you to say "well then why did you vote for Bush, if you won't vote for Lieberman based on Lieberman's religious views?" I already answered the question when you posed it the first time. It's not hypocritical. If there was a candidate with strong conservative economic beliefs but showed little to no sign that religion played a major role in his/her thinking, I would vote for that candidate over Bush in a second.

P.S. - PE is a DKP guild, so Hammer can agree or not agree with me all he likes and he is not going to get any more or less loot. My guess is he posted because he doesn't like you, not for some other reason.

Akaran_D · Post by **Akaran_D** » August 21, 2003, 10:02 am

This is turning into a great flamefest.

Much fun.

Fesuni Chopsui · Post by **Fesuni Chopsui** » August 21, 2003, 11:05 am

Akaran_D wrote:This is turning into a great flamefest.

Much fun.

Yeah, for once the cunt is losing

Atokal · Post by **Atokal** » August 21, 2003, 12:26 pm

Well now isnt it refreshing that someone that can articulate as well as Aaeamdar is taking Kyoukan to task for her ignorance. She isn't losing though... she has lost.

Aaeamdar 1
Kyoukan 0

Dar how about that loot bro

Kelgar · Post by **Kelgar** » August 21, 2003, 12:52 pm

Aaaeaeaeaeaemdar wrote:. Don't make shit up. You are lying (or maybe lying is too harsh, as you may actually believe what you said was true) about George Bush. He has never once said that Atheists should not be considered Citizens of the U.S

It depends on which Bush you're talking about. Since neither was specified, she is technically correct.

August 27, 1988, then presidential candidate George Bush made the following statement:

"I don't know that Atheists should be considered as citizens,
nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation
under God."

Kelgar · Post by **Kelgar** » August 21, 2003, 12:53 pm

BTW, did you vote for George I?

Aaeamdar · Post by **Aaeamdar** » August 21, 2003, 1:03 pm

Voted for Bush I the first time, then voted for Clinton (only election I have ever been actually excited about a Dem. Candidate - sadly Tsongus failed to win the primary).

Aaeamdar · Post by **Aaeamdar** » August 21, 2003, 1:14 pm

It depends on which Bush you're talking about. Since neither was specified, she is technically correct.

The fact that you are saying this while at the same time you voted for a man who openly declared that he doesn't think an athiest should ever be considered an American citizen comes about as close to flooring me as it would if you told me you were pregnant.

Since the only Bush I had indicated I had voted for at that time was GWB, its pretty clear to whom she was ascribing the comment. That said, it looks like she just made a mistake of identity, rather than wholesale fabrication. Given the similarities, that's pretty understandable, so I'll retract that portion of my comments (or rather, I'll retract that example in support thereof).

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » August 21, 2003, 1:42 pm

Aaeamdar wrote:What religion do you belong to, Silv? If you really need me to find it, I am sure a quick web search will quickly demonstrate the true nature of your religion - namely instructing its masses who they should hate.

You are 100% wrong about all religions teaching people to hate. It mainly just goes to show you that your google searches can find you information, but it can't make you understand it. Speaking only for Baptist, there is nothing you will ever come across that teaches you hatred of anyone. The entire faith is under the premise that we are all brothers and sisters under Christ and that you should love each and every one. Not every one will be perfect, as there was only one who was and he chose to die so we would have a chance at life. There are rules and guidelines set forth for us to live by and it is the responsibilities of each Christian to help their brothers out and to spread the word. You simply cannot be a Christian and truly harbor hatred. You may have serious struggles to love them, but under that faith you have to do it.

Post by **Sylvus** » August 21, 2003, 3:03 pm

I don't know if perhaps you're using the Queen's English (pun intended!) Aaeamdar, but the use of the word smarmy in the context of this thread is completely in line with what I learned in high school. In fact, you're being a pompous, smarmy asshole throughout your last several posts.

You're arguing semantics without having a good grasp on the meaning of the words yourself, acting all high and mighty with your retraction of comments that you made, and telling people to learn a lesson from what you are saying. It's easy to tell that all of your posts have been written with a smug, shit-eating grin on your face and that you feel a great deal of self-importance. You are the poster child for smarmy.

Since the only Bush I had indicated I had voted for at that time was GWB, its pretty clear to whom she was ascribing the comment.

That's complete and utter bullshit right there. Perhaps I missed a "W" or an "HW" somewhere in this thread, but from what I've seen there were only "George" and "Bush". You have, however, made the statement several times that you vote Republican as a rule, so it's completely reasonable to infer that, given your age, you would have voted for GHWB in '88.

In the future, try not to pat yourself on the back so much, you're putting yourself in danger of straining something.

Atokal · Post by **Atokal** » August 21, 2003, 3:22 pm

Great, the thread is complete now that Kyoukans lap dog has posted.

Hi Sylvus been out for a walk lately?

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » August 21, 2003, 3:27 pm

Religions don't teach people to hate (well, most don't anyway).

Religious leaders teach people to hate.

Drasta · Post by **Drasta** » August 21, 2003, 3:29 pm

kilmoll "speading the word" is basically telling people that they are wrong and need to do what you do. Don't the bapitists not agree with science or something? i taking a shot at the hip from this but i remember something about it and arn't they really strict in what they teach?

Atokal · Post by **Atokal** » August 21, 2003, 3:40 pm

Drasta wrote:kilmoll "speading the word" is basically telling people that they are wrong and need to do what you do. Don't the bapitists not agree with science or something? i taking a shot at the hip from this but i remember something about it and arn't they really strict in what they teach?

Spreading the word is a completely acceptable method of seeking converts. The problem arises when you chain someone to a chair and preach at them until they convert. Regardless, no christian faith teaches that killing is a good thing. Christ said to love thy neighbour as thy self and this was the greatest commandment of them all.

Any religion that teaches that murder is acceptable is not one I would choose to belong to.

Cheers

Drasta · Post by **Drasta** » August 21, 2003, 3:48 pm

what about holy wars?

Post by **Sylvus** » August 21, 2003, 3:50 pm

Atokal wrote:Great, the thread is complete now that Kyoukans lap dog has posted.

Hi Sylvus been out for a walk lately?

Ahh, I was waiting for an intelligent reply from the peanut gallery. Yours will just have to do for now. No, I'm not kyoukan's lap dog. In fact, I find her tastes a bit too liberal for me, and I often disagree with what she is posting. I do, however, respect her because she's intelligent and often presents a side of the argument that I hadn't thought about.

What I don't respect is stupidity, and that's why I'll always be against you and your ilk. I have yet to see you post anything thought-provoking, informative or even entertaining. You and Hammerstalker and Cartalas sit around and do your little anti-intelligence circle-jerk, high fiving each other for smashing the keys on the keyboard and successfully clicking the submit button. You are message board chaff, call me what you will.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » August 21, 2003, 4:15 pm

Aaeamdar wrote:Glad to see you replaced smarmy with "angsty." Not sure "agnsty is a word, but its a buffyism at worst, so its cute, and agnst is what you were looking or before. Glad to see you have a dictionary at least.

Your reading comprehension still leaves much to be desired, but maybe we can work through that. Consider this thread a lesson for you and take this critique in the spirit in which it is given. You'll be a better person for it.

1. just like I never called people's religious beliefs "phony" or "stupid" as you claimed before, I also have not called them "intollerant." I haven't even particularly called them violent, either. Religion is not violent, people are violent (pretty much all people). What I have said about religion is that it teaches hate (which it does), or more specifically I have said one of its prime functions is to teach its followers who they should hate (which is n overstatement for effect). Now, that is overstated. If you really need to attack something, why not attack what I have actually said rather than make shit up? There is a record here, you know? This is not a verbal conversation where you can divert the point and claim that someone said something they didn't. I can prove what I did and did not say - its all there in the posts before this.

2. You aren't "derailing" anything. Your pattern in this thread s exactly what it is in all threads. You started by stating your opinion, feigned some expertise, were presented with facts to the contrary of that stated expertise, then rather than address those facts, you started insulting the person who presented them to you. You do this all the time. You have a real issue engaging in constructive debate and a bigger issue admitting you are wrong. A great example of that is in the thread where you said that Davis was going to stay Governer because all the Republican candidates would split the vote. When proved wrong, you tried to morph what you said into something different, which was then also proven wrong, so you resorted to insulting people and then left the thread. In the future, accept that you don't know all that much about certain topics, and just admit you are wrong and move on. This is what makes you look so stupid. It also makes everything you say increadible, since you consistantly make shit up rather than admit when you are wrong. (A great example of this is in this very thread, but we'll get to that later).

3. Back to reading comprehension - this time Leiberman's words not mine. Leiberman does not say "people should be more moral" and his god is not "generic." He says "As a people we need to reaffirm our faith and renew the dedication of our nation to God and God's purposes." Ok, a couple of things.

Firstly the bolded terms, "a people" and "our nation" - these things refer to the collective whole of the people in the U.S. "A people" is not the same thing as "people." He means all of us, and he means it not all of us individually, but all of us collectively. Those are suggestions for the policy of a Nation, not suggestions as to how each of us individually shoud act.

Secondly, the italisized terms. Generic gods do not have specific purposes. The only way the term "God" is intended as generic is in an interfaith way. He is refering to THE GOD of the Jewish, Christian and Muslam faiths. He can do that correctly because that God is the same god. Just because three groups of religions worship the same God, does not make use of the term "God" generic. He certainly was not refering to Amaterasu, Shiva, or Satan in his supposedly generic "God." He was not refering either to "faith," in general, when refering to "God" so as to include Buddism, Toaism or Scientology.

Try actually reading things. More often than not their meanings are clear. Once again, since they are in print, you do not have the luxuary (as I can only guess you must do to some success IRL) of pretending what was written was different. The process of a meaningful, intellegent discssion is not really that hard, but to get it, you will need to deal with the facts as they are, not conveniently change them.

4. Don't make shit up. You are lying (or maybe lying is too harsh, as you may actually believe what you said was true) about George Bush. He has never once said that Atheists should not be considered Citizens of the U.S. There is pleanty about Bush for even the most staunch supporter to find fault with, why the need to lie about him? It, once again, does nothing to help your arguements and your pattern of doing this makes everything you say suspect. If you are going to say something, be able to back it up with facts. Google should make this easy for you, if you stick to the truth.

5. (Last one!) Back to context and reading comprehension. Let's assume for the moment that your lie about Bush was not a lie. Why would that be at all relevant? I already said I vote for religious nuts all the time. I already said that a person's religious belief were merely relevant, not controlling, in my political thinking. So, what good does it do you to say "well then why did you vote for Bush, if you won't vote for Lieberman based on Lieberman's religious views?" I already answered the question when you posed it the first time. It's not hypocritical. If there was a candidate with strong conservative economic beliefs but showed little to no sign that religion played a major role in his/her thinking, I would vote for that candidate over Bush in a second.

P.S. - PE is a DKP guild, so Hammer can agree or not agree with me all he likes and he is not going to get any more or less loot. My guess is he posted because he doesn't like you, not for some other reason.

Wow, I've never seen anyone write so much without attempting to address a single relevant point in my entire life. Nice job there coming out swinging by attacking me on the usage of two words. I'm sorry that my vocabulary is more colorful than yours. I guess I'm just a more interesting person than you are. Although that isn't particularly surprising given that sanctimonious fuckheaded athiests that think they they are smarter than everyone and preach about how clever they are more often than the pope preaches about God are generally boring fellows.

1. just like I never called people's religious beliefs "phony" or "stupid" as you claimed before, I also have not called them "intollerant." I haven't even particularly called them violent, either.

Actually I said intolerant. I used the correct spelling of the word. Generally I wouldn't bring it up but since you are being such a fucking shithead about my intelligence level, I thought it apropos to point out the fact you can't spell a fucking word that appears about three times in this thread already.

Regardless you've pretty much brought organized faith down to the level I described. The fact you didn't use those exact words are pure semantics. I'm sure you're used to getting away with arguing semantics and winning because you associate yourself with intellectual giants like hammerstalker and atokal, but now you're dealing with someone who successfully navigated the educational obstacle course of grade 3 and won.

2. You aren't "derailing" anything. Your pattern in this thread s exactly what it is in all threads. You started by stating your opinion, feigned some expertise, were presented with facts to the contrary of that stated expertise, then rather than address those facts, you started insulting the person who presented them to you.

What expertise did I feign, exactly? And do try to answer the question I'm asking this time and not bring up some petty horse shit from another thread to focus on.

3. Back to reading comprehension - this time Leiberman's words not mine. Leiberman does not say "people should be more moral" and his god is not "generic." He says "As a people we need to reaffirm our faith and renew the dedication of our nation to God and God's purposes."

Oh, I had no idea Mr. Lieberman had the ability to capitalize God's name in a verbal speech. That's a rare talent you don't see very often.

Given the fact that you say that Lieberman is overly religious, and also given the fact that Lieberman is a jew. Combine this with the fact that even mildly orthodox jews are forbidden to speak or write the word God or God's name I am going to go way out on a limb and say that Lieberman isn't a very religious dude.

4. Don't make shit up. You are lying (or maybe lying is too harsh, as you may actually believe what you said was true) about George Bush. He has never once said that Atheists should not be considered Citizens of the U.S. There is pleanty about Bush for even the most staunch supporter to find fault with, why the need to lie about him? It, once again, does nothing to help your arguements and your pattern of doing this makes everything you say suspect. If you are going to say something, be able to back it up with facts. Google should make this easy for you, if you stick to the truth.

You didn't vote for Bush sr.?

Aaeamdar · Post by **Aaeamdar** » August 21, 2003, 4:39 pm

Killmol,
Baptists? You mean the religion of Rev. Jerry Fallwell and Rev. Louis Sheldon? I want to make sure that is the religion you are talking about before I go gather information for you, because the hate flowing from those two alone ...

Sylvus,

1. Kyoukan did not bother to defend her use of the word smarmy for a reason - she looked it up after I explained it. Please do so yourself. I have no idea what you learned in high school - but if you learned that smarmy meant something other than "excessively ingratiating" - you learned wrong.

2. I took back one small part about what I said about kyoukan because I can understand how easily she could have made the mistake of confusing GWB with GHWB when recalling a statement. I did not even know GHWB had ever said such a thing, given that he did, my critism of Kyoucan on that limited point was excessive. She erred in identification, nothing more. Like with the word smarmy, there is a reason she did not come back to that point.

3. As for "Since the only Bush I had indicated I had voted for at that time was GWB, its pretty clear to whom she was ascribing the comment" being "complete and utter bullshit, just follow along with teh conversation. From the very first post, the Bush being discussed is GWB. Do you think Lieberman was critisizing our current President or his father? Obviously, the only Bush being discussed in this entire thread (until Kelgar's posts) was GWB. At any rate, maybe Kyoukan was talking about GHWB, but if she was, then she was making claims about my voting record that she did not know. Like I ultimately said when asked, I voted for Bush I the first time, but Clinton the second.

Post by **Sylvus** » August 21, 2003, 5:12 pm

Is it Aaeamdar Merriam or Aaeamdar Webster?

Have you looked it up?

Claims were made about your voting record that are completely reasonable leaps of logic being that you talk about voting republican as a rule. Then you even said that you voted for him. Why are you belaboring the point and still saying it was an error in identification? The only reason i'm arguing this is because you're talking as if you are infallible and better than everyone else and that your points are the most salient and true. That is exactly the point that Kyoukan was trying to make about atheists and why they are annoying, good job strengthening her argument.

Aaeamdar · Post by **Aaeamdar** » August 21, 2003, 5:35 pm

Did you actually read what was on the other side of those links? It says exactly what I said it means - unpleasantly and excessively suave or ingratiating in manner or speech, Sleek, effusively earnest, etc.

Post by **Sylvus** » August 21, 2003, 5:52 pm

Sure did, even read their synonyms, too! I was going more for the smarmy self-importance angle, myself. Or the smugly agreeable, with comments such as

Since the only Bush I had indicated I had voted for at that time was GWB, its pretty clear to whom she was ascribing the comment. That said, it looks like she just made a mistake of identity, rather than wholesale fabrication. Given the similarities, that's pretty understandable, so I'll retract that portion of my comments (or rather, I'll retract that example in support thereof).

"Oh you poor thing, you were just misled. Why, I shall be forced to grant you a favor and take back all those nasty things I said about you!"

I'm growing quite tired of the semantics argument; you're fucking smarmy.

Aaeamdar · Post by **Aaeamdar** » August 21, 2003, 7:07 pm

1. You are reading into things a tone that is not there. I am saying - Kyuokan made a mistake rather than fabricating things, but I accused her of fabricating stuff, so I was wrong and I take it back.

2. Even if you read the tone correctly (you didn't) and therefor got it right that the statement you quoted was smarmy, Kyuokan used smarmy to describe my statements regarding religion teaching people whom they should hate. Clearly none of those were.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » August 21, 2003, 7:40 pm

haha, it's fun to watch you flounder like the lightweight you are. you're failing at everything you accused me of doing by deflecting the entire argument into the usage of one word, and you aren't even right about that!

you should stick to shooting your mouth off in /gu where your fucking worthless toadies like hammerstalker and atokal are your only audience. although I'm sure even their red necks are getting a little worn out from all that nodding they do.

Aaeamdar · Post by **Aaeamdar** » August 22, 2003, 2:41 am

No, actually, and I am not sure why, but I completely missed your post, which I now see. I saw only Sylvus'. Wierd.

I am not hung up on your use of the word at all, btw. I mentioneded, you dropped it. I was done. Sylvus, however, seemed very interested in it, so I was willing to chat about it with him.

You still are very hung up on that intellegance thing, both yours (which, I concede I did insult by pointing out you don't know the meaning of words you are using) and of "people of faith." You, I get. "People of faith" I don't. I have accused them of either being hateful or allowing themselves to follow preachers of hate. There are all sorts of very intellegent hateful people out there. I have no idea at all where you get the idea that I am calling religious people stupid, because I am not, and never have. Intellegent people can hate.

The expertise your fiegned was "I have followed Joe Lieberman for a long time..." Yet somehow you are not aware of his strongly held religious beliefs and the fact that in public statements he suggests a substantial intermingling of religion and government. Given that until he became Gore's running mate all I knew was that he was a Democratic Senator, yet having simply followed the 2000 election and campaign I was very much aware of his religious/government mixing, I find it hard to accept that a person who has "followed Joe Lieberman for a long time..." would not know this.

Of course Lieberman has the ability to capitalize words in speach. We all do. It can be done in one of two ways - you can actually speak it "... capital "G" God..." fairly infrequently used - or simply by context. The person who reported his speach was here and listening to it and decided (most likely based on obvious content and the lack of a precedent article (a, an, the) ) that God was "God" not "god." Really the quote makes no sense any other way. You would not naturally suggest to "a people" that they "renew the dedication of [their] nation to a god and a god's purpopse." that would not make any sense. So I think the odds that the report got the quote wrong is remote.

Ok. You point about orthodox Jews not being able to say or write the word "God" just makes no sense to me. I have to admit I have no personal knowledge of this, but I have known a good many Orthodox Jews and have had religious discussions with them in which they have freely used the word "God." However, you could still be right and my assosicates may, like Lieberman, be weakly religious (though amazingly strict about so many other facets of their religion that I would find this suprising). So, I went to google and searched for website by and for Orthodox Jews. I have several examples - of which this is the best:
http://www.mesora.org/_private/mesora.html

Since I have no real way of knowing, here is a quote from their "About" page describing themselves as the "...voice of Orthodox Jewish thought. Moshe Ben-Chaim"

The word "God" is all over the site and in the literature available on their site.

Likewise: http://www.ou.org/ - The Orthodox Union - Where the word God appears in various texts.

And Finally - http://www.aderethel.org/index.html - the Homepage of an Orthodox Temple in NYC - where again the word "God" can be found.

Still, these could all be outliers, so tomorrow I will call a friend of mine, who is an Orthodox Rabbi and simply ask him.

In any event, this article - http://www.beth-am.org/index2.cfm?page=351 - may help explain to you further Lieberman's faith, the compormises he makes (with the advice of his Rabbis) and the interaction of his faith and his government position. It ight really be more relevant that the answer to the question of whether "God" is a permissable word.

Finally, I did vote for Bush Sr. in '88 (in my very first Presidential Election) and then against him in '92. Like I said, I was wrong in using that example, since even though you got the wrong Bush, that mistake is trivial (or, that misunderstanding on my part, though it being the case that GWB had been the only Bush discessed in the thread at that point and specifically the one I said I had voted for, it is a bit odd that if you meant GHWB that you would not have so stated).

Kelgar · Post by **Kelgar** » August 22, 2003, 4:02 am

Pilsburry version 2.0?

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » August 22, 2003, 9:04 am

Aaeamdar wrote:Killmol,
Baptists? You mean the religion of Rev. Jerry Fallwell and Rev. Louis Sheldon? I want to make sure that is the religion you are talking about before I go gather information for you, because the hate flowing from those two alone ...

You are struggling to understand the difference between individuals and a religion. There are a ton of misguided people out there who use religion as a cover for an agenda. If there was no television, those two would just be your crazy tent style evangelists trying to scare up some fast bucks for their pockets.

Drasta, giving people the information is what reaching out is aboot. We can offer the information and make a suggestion, but nothing can force you to believe in it. As for holy wars, that happened the last time when? Wars are not something that would be advocated by my religion.

Silvarel Mistmoon · Post by **Silvarel Mistmoon** » August 22, 2003, 10:33 am

Agnostic/Aethist people don't give a crap about what you praise as your god as long as your not going 'here read some documents about my god and be blessed by him"

If you don't ask me about my faith then I won't give you any documents or suggest the Bible to you. So do me a favor and don't offer my kids documents on how its ok to explore their sexuality on school grounds or hand out free rubbers to them.

Aaeamdar do you not understand that people like Rev. Jerry Fallwell and Rev. Louis Sheldon or Bin Laden (sp) or Rev. Jesse Jackson are the ones that USE religion to get what they want? They are users nothing more.

And as for you looking up my beliefs to teach me about them hang it up because you have NO CLUE about peoples true faith in God what so ever and you will never understand it.
You are NOT a open minded person you only believe in what some dip at college taught you.
You might try listening to other people considering what they are saying and try to see it from all sides. THAT is how you learn about people of all faith and non faith. That is how you learn to ACCEPT people in true fashion.

From your post it is clear to me that you are not accepting of anything other then your own little closed in world view.

Step out side and smell the flowers dear your missing a great life.

Tootles!

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » August 22, 2003, 12:07 pm

Sexuality != religion

No, schools don't need to be teaching this crap. One of the biggest problems in American society is the abrogation of duty of parents.

You religious folks need to get a handle on the fact that not everyone agrees with your decisions and that you have no right to dictate someone elses decisions based on YOUR religion which THEY do not follow.

Drasta · Post by **Drasta** » August 22, 2003, 1:38 pm

but some parents would tell there kids ... hey kid go have 5000 babies and go on welfare and suck more money form the goverment .... even tho school sex ed blows total ass the only thing they tell you to do is not to have sex and thats how babies are made

nothing about make sure you wrap your dick or you could get something that might make it fall off they tell you that there are 'nasty diseses out there!"

and im sorry if you think sex is so gross that it can't be talked about in public ... me and my parents have never had the "talk" because its not something any of us feel conftrable talking about and it puts your kids in very akward positions with your parents plus i doubt they could really educate me of gay sex

*EDIT*

i would like to add that sex ed in school is optional ... so why do people bitch about it you don't have to send your kid so top trying to piss on other peoples business

Sionistic · Post by **Sionistic** » August 22, 2003, 1:41 pm

Drasta wrote:but some parents would tell there kids ... hey kid go have 5000 babies and go on welfare and suck more money form the goverment .... even tho school sex ed blows total ass the only thing they tell you to do is not to have sex and thats how babies are made

nothing about make sure you wrap your dick or you could get something that might make it fall off they tell you that there are 'nasty diseses out there!"

and im sorry if you think sex is so gross that it can't be talked about in public ... me and my parents have never had the "talk" because its not something any of us feel conftrable talking about and it puts your kids in very akward positions with your parents plus i doubt they could really educate me of gay sex

what stops teachers from saying the same thing?

Vetiria · Post by **Vetiria** » August 22, 2003, 1:43 pm

If you don't ask me about my faith then I won't give you any documents or suggest the Bible to you. So do me a favor and don't offer my kids documents on how its ok to explore their sexuality on school grounds or hand out free rubbers to them.

Oh please. The stereotype of Catholic school girls wasn't just drawn up out of thin air.

Aaeamdar · Post by **Aaeamdar** » August 22, 2003, 1:59 pm

Aaeamdar do you not understand that people like Rev. Jerry Fallwell and Rev. Louis Sheldon or Bin Laden (sp) or Rev. Jesse Jackson are the ones that USE religion to get what they want?

You are struggling to understand the difference between individuals and a religion. There are a ton of misguided people out there who use religion as a cover for an agenda.

I am not struggling, I may simply lack knowledge. Do the Baptists not have a political structure at all? Can anyone who wants to set up shop, just open a church and call themselves a baptist minister? I assume they do, and if that is so, and these two are so misguided about the Baptist message, why have they not been removed from the church (along with several others I am sure - I used these two because they are famous).

Kilmoll, you proported to speak for baptists -

Speaking only for Baptist, there is nothing you will ever come across that teaches you hatred of anyone.

I am not sure why you are more qualified to speak for Baptists thatn two Baptists ministers, but regardless I assume you would, upon learning those two are Baptists at least retract your statement that there is "nothing" I will find that teaches hate?

you have NO CLUE about peoples true faith in God

Certainly true. I'm not sure anyone does. But then I have not been talking about faith in God, I have been talking about commitment to religion. I assume you agree both that a person does not need to be part of any religion to have a faith in God and that a person does not need to have a faith in God to be religious?

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » August 22, 2003, 5:21 pm

It's one thing to be dismissive of Cartalas or Hammerstalker or someone else who posts snide one liners with no factual content.

Being dismissive of Aaeamdar, who is making valid points that are being ignored by everyone is different. As a heavily liberal agnostic, those Lieberman quotes he posts are very bothersome to me, and dismissing him as "Pilsburry 2.0" or whatever, is ignorant.

VeeshanVault

Joe Lieberman

You know...