Print
E-mail
Share
digg
Newsvine
Facebook
Stumble
Technorati
reddit
Fark
twitterLETTER TO THE EDITOR:
Religious extremism isn’t foreign to U.S.
Saturday, Jan. 3, 2009 | 2:03 a.m.
Isn’t it terrible that people who live in Muslim countries are forced to live their lives based on the Koran, the Muslim holy book? In those countries, men and women have a long list of restrictions they have to live by. I wouldn’t want to live there.
But wait, as I think about it, isn’t there an attempt here in the USA to have everyone follow the message of the Bible? Don’t some religious people here not only want to follow the religious laws they believe in, but want the rest of us to do so as well? For example, Barack Obama doesn’t perform abortions, or advise women to have one. But because he, like other elected officials, took an oath to uphold the law, and a woman’s right to have an abortion is the law of the land, he respects that law. Some religious leaders want a total ban on abortions, so they told their congregations not to vote for him.
How is that not like a Muslim nation?
Gays getting married won’t affect the general population, but because the Bible says homosexuality is wrong, many churches got involved in pushing measures such as Proposition 8 in California to ban gay marriage.
How is that not like a Muslim nation?
Actor Michael J. Fox, who suffers from Parkinson’s disease, and others have pushed for stem-cell research, so a cure for many ailments can be found, only to have their efforts blocked by President George W. Bush and religious fanatics.
How is that not like a Muslim nation?
Let’s put an end to religious hysteria. If you have your religious beliefs, fine, follow them, but don’t think you have the right to impose them on the rest of us.
Discussion: 61 comments so far…
Post a comment
- Most Read
- Discussed
- Most E-mailed
- Corrections officer with Metro killed in U.S. 95 crash
- The pull of a drug, a push to the brink
- System fails to catch contractor’s family tie with county
- Where to watch UFC 106
- Findlay guard Joseph scores 33, talks about UNLV
- UNLV and Southern Illinois will be guarded tonight
- Bishop Gorman takes Sunset Region title in win over Cimarron
- Basic’s magical season continues with trip to state semifinals
- Was there an ulterior motive in parking the stripper-mobile?
- Reid clears major health care hurdle, daunting weeks ahead
Blogs
Culture and Entertainment
UFC 106 walk-in music: Griffin changes his tune, secures win over Ortiz
The Kats Report
For props, Lewis Black needs only his manic delivery and torrid material (7 Comments)
Elsewhere
Sands China raises $2.5 billion in Hong Kong IPO (2 Comments)
Marquardt v. Sonnen scheduled for UFC 109
Bloggity, Bloggity, Bloggity
Will a fourth consecutive title by Jimmie Johnson be good or bad for NASCAR? (4 Comments)
Top Chef: Las Vegas
The Jet Stream: And then there were four
Top Chef Episode 12: On keeping it simple
- Live chat
- Tuesday, noon PST
- Chat with Krista Creelman
- Problem Gambling Center executive director Krista Creelman will answer questions about gambling addiction from Las Vegas Sun readers from noon to 1 p.m. Tuesday, Nov. ... Submit question
Calendar »
- 22 Sun
- 23 Mon
- 24 Tue
- 25 Wed
- 26 Thu
-
The Four Tops at The Orleans Showroom
Orleans Hotel-Casino
-
The Chase at Downtown Cocktail Room
Downtown Cocktail Room | 10 p.m. to 11:59 p.m.
-
Lady Gaga album release party at Revolution Lounge
Beatles Revolution Lounge | 10 p.m. to 11:59 p.m.
-
Food drive at Christian Audigier
Christian Audigier The Nightclub | 10 p.m. to 11:59 p.m.
-
Above & Beyond at Moon
Moon Nightclub | 10 p.m. to 11:59 p.m.
The Sun
Locally owned and independent for more than 50 years.
This is a silly argument. The writer does not have a clue that almost all our laws are based on our collective understanding of right and wrong which often has a strong basis in our religious beliefs.
He if applied his logic then we would have to eliminate or modify the majority of our laws. We would eliminate or greatly modify laws that deal with murder, incest, polgamy and a whole host of other laws.
Some things work both ways. I am sure that one's religious views are the basis of the support for gay marriage.
"How is that not like a Muslim nation?"
Most Muslin nations do not have the same level of democracy and representative government that we have. Most of the time, their religious leaders dictate the laws whether the majority of their people like it or not.
If you want gay marriage then you acn campaign for it and elect people who will vote for it. That would exclude Obama and Reid for they are against gay marriage.
Put blame on those radical Puritans that came here to practice "freedom" of religion from England.
jfnance32 - you are surely the proof that to enjoy free speech one must endure free speech.
Many laws don't pass constitutional muster. But lumping laws like those prohibiting incest and polygamy in with murder shows you didn't think this one through.
Your comment "I am sure that one's religious views are the basis of the support for gay marriage" is just wrong. "Support" has many meanings in this context, from just being in favor of it in one's own mind -- and doing nothing more -- to actually contributing time, talents, money and other resources to correct this injustice.
Personally my religious views have nothing to do with my opinion on the subject. It's my views on "liberty and justice for all."
All scripture can be the basis of general morality and law. But none of that information is contained in the literal words. They are all books or myth and metaphor. None of them contain rules or history. To see them that way renders them impotent.
When scripture is taken as myth and metaphor, it can elevate both the individual and society as a whole. This is the basis for a collective morality that can work.
When scripture if taken as literal, it serves to divide and introduces conflict. Opposing factions of understanding then disagree and want to impose their different moralities and ideologies on each other.
Sadly, we and most of the world tend towards that latter. At least right now.
Comment removed by staff.
jfnance32 can always be counted upon to offer the most INANE, INSANE, ILLOGICAL comment.
"Many laws don't pass constitutional muster"
We have a judical branch that decides. You have the right to file a case in Federal District court or state court. You should do that if you think that a law is not constitutional.
slovo - for historical perspective on your comments I recommend you google "victims of christianity"
Some of my ancestors were early Mormons. The governor of Missouri issued an order in 1838 to exterminate all Mormons within that state. Missouri did not get around to rescinding that order until 1976. Look it up -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lilburn_Bog...
Your comments on the Inquisition and The Crusades are right on. The history of Christianity is a history of mass slaughter and genocide. On the Inquisition I highly recommend you head for Blockbuster and rent "Goya's Ghosts." Besides being an excellent movie it underscores my opinion Natalie Portman again (after "V for Vendetta") deserves an award for Best Actor in All Explored Space, Forever.
I wager money that governments that are dominated by secular ideas have slaughter more people who were "enemies of the state" than any government dominated by religious ideas.
jfnance32 - don't offer a worthless wager unless you show you're going to give up your anonymity and validate it to whoever accepts your offer. Instead prove your point!
I suggest you first peruse the links I offered then revise your post.
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.TAB...
This one estimate shows that the governments that are Communism based murdered nearly 100 million people. I can get you some others if you do not like this one.
Boggs was a bad guy. I never said that were no bad religious guys. We have plenty of those. There were some bad religious guys on 9/11. Just a FYI, you article listed no deaths that were a result of the Boggs law.
All I am saying that the bay secular guys are much worse than the bay religious guys.
I do not think that I will revise my post.
Not to "nitpick", but was it not Christians that dropped 2 atomic bombs on men, women AND CHILDREN?, firebombed the (known civillian) city of Dresden, and didn't the Vatican make deals with the German SS and Gestapo during WW 2? These atrocities (within 5 years time)include Jews being denied saefty in this country while Hitler's "final solution" was known and taking place?
Cultural Extremism, Hmm...
Regards to all.
You don't consider the Vatican/Catholics Christian?
There is a big difference between slaughter in the name of the Christian god and bombs dropped as acts of war. Likely the historical record will show comments from the likes of Roosevelt and the general in charge of the Pacific war to include references to god and so on. Too busy today to do the research.
Dresden was a complete and utter tragedy, a waste not only of bombs but of a beautiful city and people. Vonnegut's "Slaughterhouse 5" was pretty good on that subject. If I remember right he was actually there.
Again - google "victims of christianity" and you will see proof of my point. Granted most of the slaughters were the doings of the Catholic church -- especially with the "requiremento" which you'll find here and there. You'll also find that in a document found at http://historysources.tripod.com/us-clas...
Then remember Columbus was required to recite it when he first set foot in the Americas.
Only one of the reasons I have no use at all for organized religions.
Comment removed by staff.
If you want to add war activity that is Ok ,too.
It still will be far short of the communist government's democide number of 100 million where as governmental policy they inflicted death that mainly targeted their own citizens.
100 million is just the mid-range estimate.
That number does not include the estimated domicide numbers of Nazi's 20 million or China's 10 million or the other less numerous famous tryants like Saddam's 600,000.
The total number will be even higher if one added the war activity of the Nazi, China and Soviet Union governments.
There is no comparison. Secular based government have inflicted more horror upon man-kind than the religious based governments.
If you hate religious based government then you must really really hate seculer based government if one uses domicide as a measure.
You want examples of extremism, read "under the banner of heaven" by John Krakauer. It's about Mormons who go rogue, or do they? Also you have the "mountain meadows massacre". That should keep you aware of some home grown fanatics.
religious extremism or payback?
It appears a well-documented article on The Mountain Meadows Massacre can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_Me...
If you research the history you'll see this was an entire people vigorously persecuted, mostly by religious types, and driven from place to place for their beliefs. They endured far more than anyone could expect any group of citizens to put up with. Besides the Missouri Extermination Order there was the Haun's Mill Massacre. Check that one out at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haun%27s_Mi...
17 killed, + uncounted rapes.
One notable point is not one of the perpetrators were ever brought to justice. Even the courts turned their backs on them.
Fast forward 19 years. In the meantime these people had to go west to find land nobody else wanted. Many had been driven out of their homes they'd built themselves, with crops in the field, under official threat of death. Some were driven out in the dead of winter. They then had to take what they had left and trek west under less than ideal conditions. Many if not most had built hand carts since they no longer had the means or livestock to pull wagons.
The federal authorities then went after them in Utah. That's at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah_War
In our day we have allowed our government war on its own citizens. Can anyone say Waco? Ruby Ridge?
People can only be pushed so far before something's got to give. Not an apologist for either the LDS or that particular massacre. Just my opinion, that's all.
"I wager money that governments that are dominated by secular ideas have slaughter more people who were "enemies of the state" than any government dominated by religious ideas."
You only provide data from the last 70 years to prove your point. Please provide a larger timeframe.
Surely, since you are so confident, you would not mind finding numbers to support your assertion from the past 200 years. Or 300 years. Or 1000 years.
You are basing your declaration on data collected only during the 20th century. I am challenging you to dig deeper.
I post my numbers once you post your numbers for the last 1,000.
I see you are unwilling to defend your declaration.
Anyone can cherry-pick a limited period of time and make a blanket statement about the nature of man. Unfortunately, many times if the period of time is expanded, that blanket statement turns out to be false.
It is unsurprising that you lack the intellectual curiosity to further investigate your poorly researched conclusions, and, given your history of hasty generalizations, I find it nearly impossible to take you at your word, jfnance32.
You cannot accurately recount the number of sunspots, even given the easily accessible academic reports available online. I have little doubt you have no ability whatsoever to gauge the death counts of secular vs. non-secular governments. In fact, looking back beyond a hundred years or so, I think it's safe to say that secular governments were outnumbered over the ages.
Finally, if you have no data or statistics available to support your conclusion other than a limited time frame, then it remains a hypothesis, not reality.
You are so lame.
You make a challenge but run under a rock.
Go hide.
That is funny.
You wrote, "This one estimate shows that the governments that are Communism based murdered nearly 100 million people. I can get you some others if you do not like this one."
So I asked you for some other figures, like you offered to provide, and you now refuse to do so?
First you are very confident in your declaration and say you will not revise it, now you don't seem nearly as confident and won't go any further to prove your little hypothesis.
When you offered to give some other statistics, was that just a lie, then?
I guess people cannot take you at your word.
You make a challenge and then punt.
KillerB,
I know the exact history of the mountain meadow massacre, you cannot defend the actions by saying look what happened way back when.
If you look at the middle east all of the justification for what the Muslims are doing comes from way back when.
Spurious comments cannot bring back an absolute miscarriage of facts. The LDS church has recently admitted the actions and built a monument.
Crazy that it happened on 9/11 though.
The mormon faith is packed with zeolots, they will follow a leader over a cliff if he tells them he had it revealed to him.
Well, first you present yourself as a scholar of secular bodycounts and holder of statistics and sources, then suddenly clam up when asked to provide supporting evidence.
Some would call that the very definition of punting, jfnance32.
In any account, you remain unwilling to support your own hypothesis, which leads one to believe that it was never true to begin with.
You are so deep hiding under that rock that I can not hear you.
Oh Nance, your antics grow more desperate every day.
You offer to give more data, and when someone calls you on it, you demand that THEY research it themselves? And now you've done the equivalent of poking your fingers in your ears? How... adult... of you.
I, too, doubt that if the timeframe were changed we would see the same result.
C'mon, Nance. He gave you a challenge. Isn't there a right-wingnut website out there you can crib some stats from?
You said you would provide them. Pull your fingers out of your ears and prove your theory.
(Although, like the non-existent Masto-Gansert letter he still refuses to forfeit, don't hold your breath, ksand.)
I dunno, if I said I'd provide more stats, I would.
I guess when the request doesn't come easily from your secular-hating sources, you duck and cover.
There are entire passages of the Bible which condone genocidal conduct.
Deuteronomy 7:
"1 When the LORD thy God shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it, and hath cast out many nations before thee, the Hittites, and the Girgashiites, and the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier than thou;"
"2 And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them"
Or in 1 Samuel 15:
"3 Now go and completely destroy[a] the entire Amalekite nation--men, women, children, babies, cattle, sheep, goats, camels, and donkeys."
Religious extremism in any capacity, by anyone who wants to read the books literally, can give excuse for the worst actions. It is largely up to secular society to keep these factions in check.
getalife - Didn't say I was defending. Just provided some historical perspective. Since I have ancestors who were swept up in the events of that time -- I'm descended from polygamists, one of them survived being caught by a Missouri mob -- it gave me motivation to do some research.
And LDS is far from alone about being "packed with zealots." Seems politics and religion have the tendency to bring that out in people. It's probably part of the dynamics of any herd. The cult around Jim Jones is a good example of what you're talking about. And the Manson Family. The list goes on and on.
Maybe it would be fair to throw in the Sand Creek Massacre, too. What happened to Custer was definitely karma! Maybe it was the isolation of the frontier that made slaughtering people not uncommon.
I thank you for an intelligent response, something not uniform in this particular forum.
ksand99 -- and this is from the same source that gave us "Thou shalt not kill"
Got another quote for you, and it's even on one of my tshirts: "After coming in contact with a religious man I always feel I must wash my hands." -- Frederick Nietzsche
Last word on all this religiosity going on here -- check out http://www.etext.org/zines/ASCII/2112/21...
theBS: "You offer to give more data, and when someone calls you on it, you demand that THEY research it themselves?"
You got it backward.
I present a theory with data.
ksand99 present a different theory without data. Then he asked me to research his theory and provide data against it.
I said I would provide data against his theory if he would provide data in favor of his theory first.
He has chickened out and went into hiding.
At least ksand99 does stick his neck out and post an original thought here and there.
theBS is the ultimate contrarian.
I personally have never seen theBS post something where it was not a counter point to what someone else has post.
There might be some out there but they are probably very hard to find.
theBS lies: "I dunno, if I said I'd provide more stats, I would."
Actual Truth: "I post my numbers once you post your numbers for the last 1,000."
Another theBS's lie: "How many times have you been wrong in the past six months, Nance? When you announced Hillary would be the nominee? When you announced McCain would win when he picked Palin? "
I have never made either announcement.
"I wager money that governments that are dominated by secular ideas have slaughter more people who were "enemies of the state" than any government dominated by religious ideas."
You made a blanket statement without a timeframe. If one were to read this with any amount of critical thought, they would see it as having statistics that were true whether seen in a single century or many centuries. Had you limited your hasty generalization to the years you provided data there would be no argument. You failed to do so.
You then wrote:
"This one estimate shows that the governments that are Communism based murdered nearly 100 million people. I can get you some others if you do not like this one."
So I asked for more data over a larger timeframe. Since you put forth the theory, it is not up to anyone else to provide supporting evidence, especially if you OFFER to provide more statistics.
Just as in scientific journals, if you want to be published, you must provide large amounts of data. You have not done so.
So I wrote:
"You only provide data from the last 70 years to prove your point. Please provide a larger timeframe."
I challenged you to expand your data... the data that you offered to provide. You replied with snarky and patronizing data that refused to do so.
So no, there is no reason to assume your theory is true outside of the limited timeframe of data that you provided, jfnance32. Furthermore, even when challenged, you did not provide any more supporting evidence, just a single source.
I think it's bogus.
"There are entire passages of the Bible which condone genocidal conduct."
Most scriptures reference battle in one form or another. But it's always myth, and therefore refers to internal spiritual battles rather than external wars against others. The battle is between Ego and Self, rather than outside foes.
In fact, temple gargoyles are typically misinterpreted as "keeping bad spirits away". They actually forewarn those who dare to enter the temple of the demons they must face to awaken. Those are the battles referred to in any scripture. Not killing "evil" people.
After all, if nothing exists outside of God, then who is being murdered in any war?
Nance: Coming from you, if I come off as a contrarian, that's the highest compliment you could ever pay.
"theBS lies: "I dunno, if I said I'd provide more stats, I would."
And I would. Not sure how that's a lie, but go with it, buddy!
"Actual Truth: "I post my numbers once you post your numbers for the last 1,000."
Yay! Cherry-picking your OWN words now?
Actual Truth: "I can get you some others [statistics] if you do not like this one."
Was that a limited-time offer, then?
John: the nuance of myth v. reality is often lost on the religious extremists. Like some of our favorite commenters, they cherry-pick words or lines to fit their prejudices and justify their intent.
theBS: "Actual Truth: "I can get you some others [statistics] if you do not like this one."
Another full blown lie.
Here is the whole truth...not your lie.
"This one estimate shows that the governments that are Communism based murdered nearly 100 million people. I can get you some others if you do not like this one."
If you want another estimate on how many people were murdered by Communism then I will get you another estimate.
theBS is so full of lies tonight.
ksand99..... I responded that I would data for your time period theory if you provided data first to support.
You chickened out.
You are weak.
theBS: "they cherry-pick words "
TheBS is the King of Cherry-Pick Words.
Jfnance32, you have blown a very simple request out of proportion.
You made a statement that secular governments have killed more people than non-secular governments. To support this, you brought up statistics that are from a very short time-frame.
I asked if you could support it with a wider time frame, after you suggested you would be willing to provide additional statistics/sources.
Now, it seems, you are only willing to provide additional statistics for the short time period that you have already provided. Thus, you did not meet a challenge, and have failed to prove your theory outside of a limited time frame.
If you would care to prove it additionally, as I originally requested, be my guest. I would like to know the answer, and since you seemed to be well-versed in the subject and claimed to have additional sources, I requested to see those sources.
My request was answered with anger and sarcasm.
Sorry I attempted to ask you a question about your theory. Real scholars are not nearly as touchy. They also do their own research. Since you apparently have no additional research to supply, and only have name-calling and kindergarden games to play, it is obvious no one will get anywhere "arguing" with you.
I continue to doubt that your theory is valid beyond a very limited time-frame, and seeing as you have failed to provide any other support for your claim, I reject it.
Also jfnanc32, as an aside, I thought you said you didn't attack people. I guess that wasn't true, either.
It is clear the impression I got from your words was shared by others. I would suggest you be more clear and concise in wording your future comments, rather than resorting to name-calling and childish ranting.
ksand99: TheBS is going to provide the data that you are asking for.
thebS pretending to quote theBS so as not to admit to a lie: "theBS lies: "I dunno, if I said I'd provide more stats, I would."......"And I would"
So the theBS, aka Mr. "I dunno, I will provide more stats", is going to provide whatever stats anybody on this thread needs.
theBS, I need the number of people killed by religious based governments between 1008 and 1900 and the number of people killed secular based governments between 1008 and 1900. I need that broken up by those killed in wars and those murdered by the government.
Get going, theBs.
You know on that comment thread where everyone and their brother said you distort what people say, Nance?
Would you like an example?
I said: "I dunno, if I said I'd provide more stats, I would."
Your interpretation, "I dunno, I will provide more stats."
Did you see what you did there? You imposed "will" over "would." That changes the meaning and distorts what I said.
Your limp attempts at character assassination fail when your distortion is so obvious.
You said, "This one estimate shows that the governments that are Communism based murdered nearly 100 million people. I can get you some others if you do not like this one."
You didn't limit the scope. You didn't say, "I'll get you more stats, BUT ONLY FROM THIS PARTICULAR CENTURY." You said you would supply more "estimates" of the murders of Communist-based governments.
And when asked to do so, you refused.
And now you want me to help prove your thesis? To do your research for you? No thanks, I'm having too much fun watching you deny what you've said.
"I thought you said you didn't attack people. I guess that wasn't true, either."
1st you said that I "have no ability".
Then, I said that you are lame. Because it is very lame to propose your own theory then ask somebody use to do research and gather data to disprove your theory, of which you have provide no data yourself. That is very lame.
Then, you called me a liar by being falsely making claim to a promise that was clearly a promise to provide another estimate on deaths by Communism if one did like the one I provided.
To tell the truth, I think you are a better person than all this nonsense. You are not another theBS who just goes around posting counter points. He only lives to attack others. If nobody post then he would not exist. You are not like in that regard. You posted a good point by quoting from the Bible. It was original and not some crazy twisting and swirling that theBS does.
That is your opinion, and it is wrong. I did not propose a different theory. My original post simply asks you to provide the information you said you would provide: more data on secular deaths, over a wider period of time.
The rest of this has been you claiming you didn't mean what you said, or calling people names. Now, suddenly, you are only willing to provide numbers on Communism.
Just a little tip: numbers on Communism does not prove your original thesis, that secular governments kill more than non-secular. But that is neither here nor there.
You found a website with some numbers and derailed the topic of this article from religious extremism to some anti-Communist diatribe about whether they kill more than governments heavily influenced by religion. If anything, you have proven your own thesis true for 5% of recorded history. Congratulations. Unfortunately, your original thesis, if read strictly, was that ALL secular governments had killed more than ALL non-secular governments. You have failed to prove that.
As for your frequent and boring assault on thebs, I find this the most funny. You seem to be the only one around here with that particular impression of him. I have read his posts over several months, and he does a good job of arguing the points, rather than distorting people's words and taking them out of context.
If you are willing to post here and post statistics, you should do due dilligence and make sure they are correct. We saw yesterday that you had to own up to a whole bunch of errors and mistakes and admitted that you had made them up. You should also be able to withstand criticism without freaking out and calling people "lame."
It is clear you don't handle criticism well. You should work on that.
If you want to be silly like theBS than be silly.
I am OK with both theBS and your silliness.
Tonight, you and theBS were pretty lame.
Asking people to do research to prove your point is beyond lame. I only do research to prove my own points. I offered to double check your research which you decline to provide.
You said that I had no ability before I called you lame. Now you are whining about that which adds to you lameness.
theBS is not so lame. He is correct to claim that my promise is ... "You said you would supply more "estimates" of the murders of Communist-based governments".
Then he got lame by asking for Communist-based governments before this last century. FYI to theBS, there were no Communist-based governments before this past century but there were secular based governments.
theBS's lie: "How many times have you been wrong in the past six months, Nance? When you announced Hillary would be the nominee? When you announced McCain would win when he picked Palin? "
I have never made either announcement.
Yes, you made several comments about how Hillary should have been the nominee, and how Barack was going to help the Republican ticket in Nevada and you were the strongest advocate for Sarah Palin. In fact, I think you said you wanted her at the top of the ticket for the Republicans.
Either way, you have failed to prove anything today. You pointed at a large number and said "This means secular governments have killed more enemies of the state!"
What's the problem with that? You didn't provide a number to compare it to. Sure, secular governments MAY have killed 100 million people. The sad fact is, even your own "source" can't pin a good number on it, and you still haven't provided another source, even though you indicated you would upon request.
I requested, and then requested, and requested again and you refused. I guess your word isn't worth much.
But saying "Secular governments have killed 100 million people" does not prove that they have killed more than non-secular governments. You need to provide a number to compare that to. I won't bother asking, because you'll just screech and holler that you don't need to prove what you would actually need to prove to have an argument.
I could go into the details of what "burden of proof" and "prima facie" means, but it's clear you would ignore conventional rhetorical conventions and call me lame.
That's ok. I don't hold your opinion in high regard.
I mean, you admitted yesterday that you just make up facts and figures and call them "mistakes" or "errors." Several of your "facts" have been proven wrong, and you've admitted it.
I've wondered why I bother arguing with you, when you just make stuff up or quote people who didn't say what you said they said. It's even ridiculous writing it because it's a game children play.
All of this is to say that you need to become more comfortable with accepting when you are wrong. Once you do that, you will be above petty name calling.
"Yes, you made several comments about how Hillary should have been the nominee, and how Barack was going to help the Republican ticket in Nevada and you were the strongest advocate for Sarah Palin. In fact, I think you said you wanted her at the top of the ticket for the Republicans."
Absolutely none of that equals:
announced Hillary would be the nominee
or
announced McCain would win when he picked Palin
"I requested, and then requested, and requested again and you refused. I guess your word isn't worth much."
I offered to provide different estimates on the number of people murdered by Communist governments.
I offered to provide you the numbers requested to challenge your theory if you provided the numbers to support you own theory.
If you want to be silly and say I broke my word then be silly. Can't stop you from that.
"I've wondered why I bother arguing with you"
Then I suggest you don't.
Because you get offended when I call you lame after you said that I have no ability. Just a tip, do not tell others that they have no ability and then act all surprise when they insult you back.
You act silly by asking me that I need to get numbers to support your theory when you have not offered one single set of numbers yourself.
I think that you should take your own advice and not argue with me.
"You act silly by asking me that I need to get numbers to support your theory when you have not offered one single set of numbers yourself."
That is a gross distortion of what I said.
Let us revisit what I said:
"You only provide data from the last 70 years to prove your point. Please provide a larger timeframe."
"Surely, since you are so confident, you would not mind finding numbers to support your assertion from the past 200 years. Or 300 years. Or 1000 years."
I had no theory. I proposed no theory. Since you seemed so confident, I thought you had done more research.
I was obviously very wrong. You did no other research. In fact, you have brought no corroborating evidence to support your claim. You have so far based all of your argument on a single graph. Good job!
But rather than argue the issue and further prove your own "hypothesis" (I laugh just calling it that), you distort my words, which are very simple and claim I had a theory... which I did not, until you suddenly wouldn't supply the statistics you said you would.
All you have is a hasty generalization based on a short time-period, based on a single graph. Oh, and name calling. I'm not offended by your name calling. To the contrary, I got a belly laugh out of it. I just don't understand it, that's all.
Let's just say...next time do not ask me to get data to prove something that you are trying to prove.
You are a big boy. Go do that yourself.
Yes, next time I will not take you at your word when you say you will provide more data. I will assume you do not mean what you say.
ksand99: "Unfortunately, many times if the period of time is expanded, that blanket statement turns out to be false."
Your theory and with zero data provided.
"I will not take you at your word when you say you will provide more data"
I promised to you specifically to provide data if you provided your numbers first. I promised to the thread to provide more estimates on number of people murder under Communist governments.
You are again silly.
unless accomodation can be reached between zealots of religions and governments of the world, WW3 is inevitable. Unfortunately, in many countries these are not mutually exclusive entities. Judeo/Christians V. Muslims. It will take a miracle to stop it now.
wow, lots of people have lots of time on their hands - consider these two things
1. A black friend recently pointed out that the slaves feared the Christian masters more - they were more cruel - I think because they thought they had God on their side - the bible told me so.
2. I know a child who was delivered by a doctor who also did abortions - so the doctor was murdered. Also some doctors who performed abortions was murdered by a Presbyterian minister -
at the same time there are many church based ministries that are helpful. And many that are very judgmental. Religion stuff is good according to some of us - and like the rest of the social scene it has a negative side. I hope that you all learn to live within a radical ethic of love which is derived from biblical texts. Ok, you are all children of God!
Here we go. This is the exact same thing that happens time and time again. It's been happening for centuries. First, an article or comment is put forth and then the comments start. The first comments from folks that are not very religious and are rational in their thinking and genuinely voice their opinion on an article or thought. Then come the lunatic religious fanatics talking about my god vs. your god. After that fists start flying, bullets whizz around and bombs go off. You don't believe in what I believe in? I'll kill you. It's just all insane and it has the potential to absolutely destroy the world we all live in. It's just such trash and we should all be ashamed from all corners of the globe. What century is this?
I don't know if you any of you know this or not but there has been a variety of societies that have walked the Earth before us. Many of them had religious beliefs of one kind for another. We can learn from these previous people. For example, the Greeks. The Greek Mythology we know of today was in fact a religion. People really did believe in these characters. However, over a large period of time, the godlike characters were denounced and their likenesses destroyed. Why? Well, I personally think that the Greeks began to realize that they were fighting the wars, they were defending their homeland, they were making things right, not some deity. They began to pat themselves on the back for a job well done. They also began to question. For example: Where was Zeus in your time of need on the battlefield? Why did he not spare my brother while in battle? etc. etc. They simply moved away from the effects of religion of any kind and began creating societal methods that are still in use today. IE: Courts,Law,Judges etc. etc.
In today's world, the religious extremist problem is enormous. The cure for religious extremism of all types is death, plain and simple. No one left to talk about God/Allah/Jesus/Mary/Little Green Men etc. etc. Think that's a crazy view? Is it? Let's look at the facts, the extremists have the same view and plan for those of us who do not believe. It's time for societies from around the world to start growing out of our infancies and start making a stride toward a new tomorrow.