Armageddon's-a-comin'!

[random evil guy]

well, you can't really compare the western europe to the former yugoslavia, russia and the rest of eastern europa. the western euorpe have been democratic for many years now, while the east was basically ruled by the communists in moscow. nevertheless; with the expansion of the european union, i would think the eastern parts of europe will become similar to the western parts in the years to come.

 

In other words, they WILL be assimilated! Seriously, what you are implying is that your own culture is better than any other culture, and that superiority is why others should emulate you rather than you emulate them. Never mind the mind-boggling thought that each country should actually keep their own culture, LOL!

 

well, to be honest. there are some cultures i don't respect; religious fundamentalism shouldn't be tolerated. it's opressive in its nature.

 

And there, in a nutshell, is the philosophy that sent hundreds of thousands of your ancestors across the pond to my country, where they became my ancestors. They were searching for religious freedom, the ability to practice their own religion without suffering the prejudice of anti-religious folks like yourself and the persecution of intolerant governments.

 

Which may give a clue to the answer to your next question:

 

but here is a question for you; why is canada so similar to the western europe, while the us is a lot more conservative?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

First, I won't pretend to respond to the culture and history of Canada. It's not my place to, since I'm neither Canadian nor an expert on Canadians. I can, however, point out that the large percentage of Americans who consider religion a major part of their life has to do with why these people and/or their ancestors came to America in the first place... for religious freedom. Therefore, it stands to reason that a large populace of Americans would be religious.

 

BTW, I'm not a Christian myself, so there are quite a few non-theists running around. Freedom to practice religion also means freedom not to practice religion, which is why I'm quite sensitive to any perceived attempts by the government to enforce the religious beliefs of others onto me via legislative means.

 

We are a massive country. We could stick most countries in Europe into the corner of our large cities, and not notice the increase in population. Therefore, we are as diverse, or more diverse, within ourselves as the whole of Europe, west from east and everything in between. Which is why it's so annoying to have Europeans, or anyone else, generalize Americans. You were quite quick to point out the difference between western and eastern European culture, yet seem to believe that all Americans are homogenious robotrons. I can assure you, we are not.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

it's called progress; europe was once(not that long ago) an opressive society in which kings and emperors ruled ruthlessly. it has changed and i hope other parts of the world will evolve as well. i hope they will by themselves, i'm not saying they should be forced.

 

the us is a diverse country, but in general americans are way more conservative than europeans. look at kerry for instance; in the us, he is considered a liberal. in europe, he would almost be a conservative. i.e. the environment; in europe there are extra taxes on cars that pollute the most and on gas. americans would flip if someone decided to increase taxes on gas...

[Ellester]

True, we have huge populations of Latinos and Asian. Those two groups probably equal 30%-40% (guessing) of our population. Let alone all the other races and cultures we have in the US. I find it hilarious when people generalize and think we

[taks]

it's called progress; europe was once(not that long ago) an opressive society in which kings and emperors ruled ruthlessly. it has changed and i hope other parts of the world will evolve as well. i hope they will by themselves, i'm not saying they should be forced.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

uh, hate to break it to you but just because you think a lack of religion is "progress" or part of "evolving" does not make it so. this line of thinking is actually oppressive in its own right. you're expecting others to be tolerant, nay acceptant, of your views yet can't fathom why they balk at your lack of tolerance of their views. a double standard at best.

 

taks

[random evil guy]

it's called progress; europe was once(not that long ago) an opressive society in which kings and emperors ruled ruthlessly. it has changed and i hope other parts of the world will evolve as well. i hope they will by themselves, i'm not saying they should be forced.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

uh, hate to break it to you but just because you think a lack of religion is "progress" or part of "evolving" does not make it so. this line of thinking is actually oppressive in its own right. you're expecting others to be tolerant, nay acceptant, of your views yet can't fathom why they balk at your lack of tolerance of their views. a double standard at best.

 

taks

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

no it's not. i have no problem with people being religious; i can't understand it and i hope they'll realise how moronic it is, but i'll accept the fact that some people chose believe in fairytales( " ). i just don't tolerate laws and regulations based on religion; if i.e. christians want to follow the bible, fine. but they shouldn't be able to force everyone else to do the same...

[Rhomal]

> Right, but case in point. My religion [Liberalism/Non-Christian Ideology] is being oppressed right now, by the state.

 

At least your religion is just oppressed. Trying having the sitting president look into a camera and tell them he does not think your beleifs IS a religion. Talk about scary and history repeating itself.

 

For clarity he was talking about paganism when he said that.

[~Di]

it's called progress; europe was once(not that long ago) an opressive society in which kings and emperors ruled ruthlessly. it has changed and i hope other parts of the world will evolve as well. i hope they will by themselves, i'm not saying they should be forced.

 

Hmm. I'm not sure that I would look toward western Europe as a shining example of "progress", and how the rest of the world should be. If you are enamored enough by your personal lifestyle to think the rest of the planet should emulate it, more power to you, however!

 

the us is a diverse country, but in general americans are way more conservative than europeans. look at kerry for instance; in the us, he is considered a liberal. in europe, he would almost be a conservative. i.e. the environment; in europe there are extra taxes on cars that pollute the most and on gas. americans would flip if someone decided to increase taxes on gas...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

This is the kind of statement that frankly irks me a bit. Your presumption of knowing what Americans would and would not "flip" about is erroneous... and arrogant, frankly. Gas taxes are rampant in America... federal taxes, state taxes, local taxes. Here in California 75% of the cost of a gallon of gasoline consists of taxes(Edit: The quoted percentage is a guesstimate, and could vary a few percentage points one way or the other!). There are also environmental taxes of all kinds on all sorts of products and services. Not only have Americans not "flipped", but they have in nearly all cases voted those taxes onto themselves. So as you can see, your knowledge of our country does not appear to be as accurate and extensive as you seem to believe that it is.

 

Let me ask you this: What would you and your countrymen think if, during one of your elections, you opened your local newspaper to see various full-page ads from Americans telling you who we wanted you to elect? Would you be a bit peevish about it? Certainly Americans were when we were treated to that very thing by Norweigans and others who took it upon themselves to tell us who we should elect to govern ourselves. (And I did not vote for Bush, frankly, but that doesn't stop me from feeling mightily annoyed at the nerve of those across the pond who believe they have a right to tell us who to vote for). How would you feel if you saw dozens upon dozens of insulting headlines from around the world after your elections, headlines in which your citizens were called idiots, stupid fools, blind sheep and other such nastiness because the propagators of said newspapers didn't care for the individual you elected? Yet that's what Americans are now seeing. Can you guess how we feel about that?

 

Frankly Americans are getting pretty fed up with European arrogance and insult overall. Just a word to the wise. Pass it on to your leaders. And your newspapers.

[~Di]

True, we have huge populations of Latinos and Asian. Those two groups probably equal 30%-40% (guessing) of our population. Let alone all the other races and cultures we have in the US. I find it hilarious when people generalize and think we

[taks]

i just don't tolerate laws and regulations based on religion; if i.e. christians want to follow the bible, fine. but they shouldn't be able to force everyone else to do the same...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

pretty hypocritical statement there... if you don't tolerate laws based on other people's religion, why should they tolerate laws based on your concept of religion? you're trying to force your beliefs on other people.

 

taks

[taks]

At least your religion is just oppressed. Trying having the sitting president look into a camera and tell them he does not think your beleifs IS a religion. Talk about scary and history repeating itself.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

big deal. again, you're confusing acceptance with tolerance. apparently you didn't learn anything last time around.

 

quick lesson:

 

acceptance: "I agree that your religion is valid in spite of the fact that my religion tells me it is not"

 

tolerance: "I agree you have a right to your religion, in spite of the fact that my religion tells me it is invalid"

 

big difference. most religions do not accept the concept that other religions may be valid. nearly all in fact. they merely allow individual practitioners to put up with contrary beliefs. in christian religions in particular, paganism is seen as a sort of "anti-religion." so are you saying bush isn't allowed to follow his own belief system?

 

taks

[random evil guy]

i just don't tolerate laws and regulations based on religion; if i.e. christians want to follow the bible, fine. but they shouldn't be able to force everyone else to do the same...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

pretty hypocritical statement there... if you don't tolerate laws based on other people's religion, why should they tolerate laws based on your concept of religion? you're trying to force your beliefs on other people.

 

taks

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

i'm an atheist; that is the lack of religion. i just don't think there's any god and frankly i don't care.

 

an example:

christians want to ban gay marriage; why? because they don't like it. i, however, don't care. i think it's up to the churches to decide if they should allow gay marriage, gay priests and so on. however, i do think gay couples should be able to commit to their partner and recieve the same benefits as married, straight couples. you see the difference? i want everyone to have the same rights; most christians want to ban other people from doing things that christians disapprove of. a biiiig difference...

[taks]

i'm an atheist; that is the lack of religion. i just don't think there's any god and frankly i don't care.

 

an example:

christians want to ban gay marriage; why? because they don't like it. i, however, don't care. i think it's up to the churches to decide if they should allow gay marriage, gay priests and so on. however, i do think gay couples should be able to commit to their partner and recieve the same benefits as married, straight couples.  you see the difference? i want everyone to have the same rights; most christians want to ban other people from doing things that christians disapprove of. a biiiig difference...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

first of all, i figured you were atheist. that doesn't change the fact that your statement is hypocritical, and i've already shown why it is.

 

secondly, it's not just christians that want to ban gay marriage. it's nearly everybody. 80% or more, depending on where you live. christian, islamic, buddhist, atheist, you name it... nearly everybody. if someone chooses religion as the reason they want to ban gay marriage, then that's their prerogative. you're choosing your lack of religion as the reason behind your decision so maybe turnabout is fair play.

 

third, marriage is NOT A RIGHT. it is NOT GUARANTEED IN THE CONSTITUTION. this is a very, very important point. NOBODY has a right to get married according to the constitution. read it and tell me where it is... since it is not a constitutionally guaranteed right, states have domain over such decisions. efforts to put this type of clause into the constitution have fallen flat, evidence that our democratic system works.

 

your biiiig difference has holes in it evil one...

 

personally, i think the fed should get out of marriage entirely. states can do their thing for legal reasons and churches, too. drop all this tax BS involved and let state contracts deal with the legalities...

 

taks

[random evil guy]

it's called progress; europe was once(not that long ago) an opressive society in which kings and emperors ruled ruthlessly. it has changed and i hope other parts of the world will evolve as well. i hope they will by themselves, i'm not saying they should be forced.

 

Hmm. I'm not sure that I would look toward western Europe as a shining example of "progress", and how the rest of the world should be. If you are enamored enough by your personal lifestyle to think the rest of the planet should emulate it, more power to you, however!

 

the us is a diverse country, but in general americans are way more conservative than europeans. look at kerry for instance; in the us, he is considered a liberal. in europe, he would almost be a conservative. i.e. the environment; in europe there are extra taxes on cars that pollute the most and on gas. americans would flip if someone decided to increase taxes on gas...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

This is the kind of statement that frankly irks me a bit. Your presumption of knowing what Americans would and would not "flip" about is erroneous... and arrogant, frankly. Gas taxes are rampant in America... federal taxes, state taxes, local taxes. Here in California 75% of the cost of a gallon of gasoline consists of taxes(Edit: The quoted percentage is a guesstimate, and could vary a few percentage points one way or the other!). There are also environmental taxes of all kinds on all sorts of products and services. Not only have Americans not "flipped", but they have in nearly all cases voted those taxes onto themselves. So as you can see, your knowledge of our country does not appear to be as accurate and extensive as you seem to believe that it is.

 

Let me ask you this: What would you and your countrymen think if, during one of your elections, you opened your local newspaper to see various full-page ads from Americans telling you who we wanted you to elect? Would you be a bit peevish about it? Certainly Americans were when we were treated to that very thing by Norweigans and others who took it upon themselves to tell us who we should elect to govern ourselves. (And I did not vote for Bush, frankly, but that doesn't stop me from feeling mightily annoyed at the nerve of those across the pond who believe they have a right to tell us who to vote for). How would you feel if you saw dozens upon dozens of insulting headlines from around the world after your elections, headlines in which your citizens were called idiots, stupid fools, blind sheep and other such nastiness because the propagators of said newspapers didn't care for the individual you elected? Yet that's what Americans are now seeing. Can you guess how we feel about that?

 

Frankly Americans are getting pretty fed up with European arrogance and insult overall. Just a word to the wise. Pass it on to your leaders. And your newspapers.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

frankly i wouldn't care if americans put in an add. there is freedom of speech here, so i'm used to nutjobs sharing their views with the world(not saying you or americans are nutjobs).

 

nevertheless, i thought that ad was pretty stupid and meaningless. waste of money if you ask me...

 

i'm not sure what gas prices are in the us, but i think they're around 2-3 dollars a gallon? not that much, considering a gallon costs around 6-7 dollars in most european contries.

[random evil guy]

i'm an atheist; that is the lack of religion. i just don't think there's any god and frankly i don't care.

 

an example:

christians want to ban gay marriage; why? because they don't like it. i, however, don't care. i think it's up to the churches to decide if they should allow gay marriage, gay priests and so on. however, i do think gay couples should be able to commit to their partner and recieve the same benefits as married, straight couples.  you see the difference? i want everyone to have the same rights; most christians want to ban other people from doing things that christians disapprove of. a biiiig difference...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

first of all, i figured you were atheist. that doesn't change the fact that your statement is hypocritical, and i've already shown why it is.

 

secondly, it's not just christians that want to ban gay marriage. it's nearly everybody. 80% or more, depending on where you live. christian, islamic, buddhist, atheist, you name it... nearly everybody. if someone chooses religion as the reason they want to ban gay marriage, then that's their prerogative. you're choosing your lack of religion as the reason behind your decision so maybe turnabout is fair play.

 

third, marriage is NOT A RIGHT. it is NOT GUARANTEED IN THE CONSTITUTION. this is a very, very important point. NOBODY has a right to get married according to the constitution. read it and tell me where it is... since it is not a constitutionally guaranteed right, states have domain over such decisions. efforts to put this type of clause into the constitution have fallen flat, evidence that our democratic system works.

 

your biiiig difference has holes in it evil one...

 

personally, i think the fed should get out of marriage entirely. states can do their thing for legal reasons and churches, too. drop all this tax BS involved and let state contracts deal with the legalities...

 

taks

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

maybe you misunderstood me; i fully agree. fed gov should get out of marriage and i think church should decide for themselves if they want to wed gay couples. however, as you said, "drop all this tax BS involved and let state contracts deal with the legalities...". the problem is, right now there are tax benefits if you're married...

 

and how excactely am i forcing my views on others? maybe my support of freedom of speech and press are a thorn in the side of all those fascists out there... "

[~Di]

Right. Let's hoist the banner bragging about freedom of speech on the one hand, while the other waves a sign calling any who disagrees a "fascist."

 

Great way to get your point across.

 

Not.

[tripleRRR]

Marriage is a government issue here. It gives tax breaks and other things to the married individuals, because the government assumes that you will need the help to support the children that will probably be forthcoming.

 

So while people can be married in a church they still need a license from the state before they are considered to be legaly married. Thus the debate about gay marriage in our government today. Also state judges can marry people, you do not need a minister or rabbai or whatever to be married.

 

As a matter of course almost all "churches" over here that I know of will outright deny marrying any gay people, so the people who are members of these churches tend to agree with the "church" and so do not support gay marriage.

 

 

TripleRRR

[random evil guy]

Right.  Let's hoist the banner bragging about  freedom of speech on the one hand, while the other waves a sign calling any who disagrees a "fascist."

 

Great way to get your point across.

 

Not.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

i meant fascists; literally...and it was a joke.

[taks]

maybe you misunderstood me; i fully agree. fed gov should get out of marriage and i think church should decide for themselves if they want to wed gay couples. however, as you said, "drop all this tax BS involved and let state contracts deal with the legalities...". the problem is, right now there are tax benefits if you're married...

no, i fully understood you. you said you thought gays should have a right to wed, when in fact, none of us do. there really aren't tax benefits to being married, btw, and before bush, it was actually a penalty. the tax system is another issue, but in general, you should be able to claim anybody you want as a dependent if they are not working and you are supporting them. that gets rid of the federal need for marriage.

 

and how excactely am i forcing my views on others? maybe my support of freedom of speech and press are a thorn in the side of all those fascists out there...  "

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

by stating that you don't think the gov't officials should make decisions based on religion. you're forcing them to concede to your beliefs. people that have faith in anything use that faith as a guide. human nature.

 

nothing wrong with supporting freedom of speech and press, but you have to remember that this extends to politicians as well even if their speech and/or beliefs are religiously motivated.

 

the separation of church and state, btw, is actually a misnomer. read the constitution and you'll notice it does not explicitly state "separation of church and state." this is a key point and underlies what this clause is actually intended for. the intent is purely a catch-all so the government does not form a national religion. this clause is abused more than any...

 

taks

[taks]

Marriage is a government issue here. It gives tax breaks and other things to the married individuals, because the government assumes that you will need the help to support the children that will probably be forthcoming.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

nope, no benefits whatsoever. as a matter of fact, bush's tax cut actually brought married couples on par with two singles. there really was a penalty and i really did have to pay it every year. the ONLY benefit you get is if the 2nd half does not work. then you pay taxes based on only one income but two dependents. really, it just means you can claim your 2nd half as a dependent even though he/she is not a child. this can only be done if you're married but in the end, it really isn't a benefit as much as it is not a penalty.

 

taks

[Rhomal]

At least your religion is just oppressed. Trying having the sitting president look into a camera and tell them he does not think your beleifs IS a religion. Talk about scary and history repeating itself.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

big deal. again, you're confusing acceptance with tolerance. apparently you didn't learn anything last time around.

 

quick lesson:

 

acceptance: "I agree that your religion is valid in spite of the fact that my religion tells me it is not"

 

tolerance: "I agree you have a right to your religion, in spite of the fact that my religion tells me it is invalid"

 

big difference. most religions do not accept the concept that other religions may be valid. nearly all in fact. they merely allow individual practitioners to put up with contrary beliefs. in christian religions in particular, paganism is seen as a sort of "anti-religion." so are you saying bush isn't allowed to follow his own belief system?

 

taks

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Stop splitting hairs to defend this C student idiot. You must really enjoy being his PR whore here.

 

As PRESIDENT he should be neutral and not be biased. He does not have to agree or accept but putting one religion over another while on his soapbox certainly only causes divides and harsh feelings. So much for uniter not a divider.

 

Especially when hes tripping over himself giving federal money to religions he deems worthy but when someone from my faith asks the same they get the door slammed in their face and insulted.

 

Nice guy you back.

[Volourn]

"As PRESIDENT he should be neutral and not be biased."

 

Wrong. The President SHOULD be biased. Afterall, being neutral is boring and accomplishes nothing.

[Fionavar]

Perhaps we could try to discuss the matter without resorting to flaming and personal attacks. Please try to post in a civil and respectful manner, or this thread will have to be closed.

[Little Baron]

I think that you should do that, Fionavar.

 

****

 

Just think about this: In the 80's the Christian Conservatives proclaimed that D&D was the spawn of the devil, and should be banned. If it had been put to a popular vote, the ban would very likely have passed.

 

****

[@\NightandtheShape/@]

Di on the rampage I see..... Here we go again.

 

There are valid reasons for folk to fear the current situation, with Bush coming in for a second term.

 

Why do Europeans and folk from other lands take an interest in who Americans vote for?

 

Simple... Because in essence it effects them. It effects the world, and the stability of the world.

 

Alot of folks outside the US don't like the attitude that terrorism can be somehow crushed with the use of force. In my opinion it'll just make things worse in the long run.

 

America is based upon the principle of Freedom, while I personally found the land to have an oppressive nature and vary'in degree's of social confomity and falseness it is not for me to say how a people should live in their own land. I respect freedom in that sense, because to most Americans what they have is Freedom of their choosing.

 

The main problem is that America does impose itself upon other lands, it does impose it's values upon other people. It's happening in Iraq, and in Afganistan and soon it'll happen in Iran I'll wager.

 

This is the kind of hypocracy that truly irks me, coupled with christian idealology, and fundimentalism is infact dangerious when you come to think of what a christian in turn believes and desires to happen. This is fine within the borders of America, but outside it? I think not.

 

Is it not just another imperialistic age that we live in where America spreads it's culture beyond it's borders imposing it to unsuspecting numpties in some cases and by force in others.

 

Cultural battleground that is fought in the minds of every human on this planet. That is the current situation.

 

I'd like to see all American troops of the unofficial occupation of europe leave, especially from my homeland. I'd also like to think that this whole son of star wars thing wasn't in my region of the UK, why not put a bullseye on my forehead and take a pot shot... I mean really, I don't know of anyone in Yorkshire who's for this. Damn weak knee'd government.

 

Rant over, you can all pull my musings apart to your hearts content.

[Gromnir]

just so folks is clear... freedom of speech is not so much 'bout getting to say whatever you want. freedom of speech is 'bout having to endure speech you dislike.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[newc0253]

freedom of speech is 'bout having to endure speech you dislike. 

e.g. most of this thread.