patrick.net

thunderlips11 says

10 oz asserts the Constitution was based on the Bible, which is rubbish.
That’s what I’m trying to correct.

Oh Fuck! where did I say that?

Oh If I call you out for injecting 200 years later what the founding fathers meant to say in the Constitution. And you even go as far as to speak on behalf these dead guys on how they were thinking about religion. If I call you out for saying they were Godless, atheists, that somehow had a stern dislike for Christianity.

THEN you say I said, the constitution was based on the Bible.

I'm done talking to you, you have nothing redeeming to offer in integral conversation. As I clearly can't trust what you say, or attribute what was said by someone else. When you can't even grasp what is said. With out distorting it and injecting your own version of what I said, just like you Libtards do with the Founding father.

Hey dig them up and move their Jawbone for them to. It might be more convincing.

I never said, what the under pinning philosophy of the Constitution was, I only stated I don't think you do either.

Freedom of conscience with regard to religion is so embedded in in American culture that it's hard to imagine anything else. What hath Roger Williams wrought?
Meanwhile, on the Left Coast:
Classes started Tuesday at a new school in Berkeley that aims to be one of the first accredited Muslim-run liberal arts colleges in the United States.
Zaytuna College, which is working toward accreditation with the Western Association of Schools and Colleges, is initially offering two majors: Islamic law and theology and Arabic.
School officials said the accreditation process typically takes 4 to 8 years.
The school is starting out small with only 15 students and rented classroom space at the American Baptist Seminary of the West at Dwight Way and Hillegass Avenue, but officials said the college hopes to grow gradually and eventually have its own facility.

I find it very interesting that the same people who are all about freedom and individuality and libertarianism and owning whatever weapon they want under the pretext of their most liberal interpretation of Amendment 2 feel the need to impose their prejudices and beliefs on the lives of the people of the USA.

They want to be free to evangelize and harass people on the streets with bull horns screaming at women who wear make up and skimpy dresses so that the "Glory of Jesus" is served and they can "convert" the "heathens" for Christian Fundamentalists who are a minority of Christians in this country. I can't tell you how many times I've witnessed this in many cities across this country. However, they see some sort of difference between this practice and how the Taliban (Islamic Fundamentalists, the minority and not the majority of Muslims) do the same to women in Afghanistan and elsewhere because of a narrow interpretation of Sharia (Islamic Law) that isn't recognized by most Muslims.

There is no difference. Fundamentalism is Fundamentalism whether it's under the guise of Judaism, Christianity, or Islam. Fundamentalists are a minority in these religions and practice extreme behaviors resulting from extreme views.

Are we to judge the whole of Christianity by the actions of the crooked Televangelists and wackos that stand on street corners with bull horns yelling at "heathens?" If not, then stop trying to judge the entire religion called Islam based on their minority Fundamentalist groups who embarass them like the Christian Fundamentalists here embarass most Christians.

Whatever happened to "Judge not, lest ye be judged," to quote a familiar quote from Christianity's sacred texts?

And, I would like any of the people here who think that the Constitution was inspired by the Bible or anything to do with Christianity to prove it using historical documents and actual facts.

I already know the result. You can't do it. This is because the Founders were Deists, Agnostics, Free Masons, Quakers, and not Christians. They were religious misfits that were persecuted back in Europe and they knew how religion could be used by the government to control and abuse the people. They didn't want to see that happen here. They wanted to be free to practice whatever religion they wanted or no religion at all. They most certainly didn't want the government to get involved with religon or faith at all.

"In God We Trust" and "under God" were both additions made in the 20th Century. The Pledge was changed by a McCarthy Era congress. My own mother remembers reciting the pledge both before and after the change. "Under God" was placed in there to try to expose and intimidate alleged "Communists, Athiests, and Agnostics." It's an addition that shouldn't be there if we are to follow the strict interpretation of the Constitution. "In God We Trust" shouldn't be on our money either because we have a completely secular government based on secular humanist ideals that aren't tied to any one religion or god.

The encroachment of religion on our lives through government in this country is a dangerous progression that our Founders tried to prevent with the founding documents of our country.

This is not a Christian country, or a Jewish country, or a Muslim country, or a Hindu country, or a Buddhist country, or a Wiccan country, etc. because our founding documents are vehemently secular in design. They are free of the influence of any religion and arise out of a secular humanist philosophy whereby any and all peoples may participate in our society, country, and government.

I find it sick that people are trying to claim "Ground Zero" as "Holy Ground." Is it holy because radical Islamic Fundamentalists killed 6000 Americans and non-Americans of every creed, race, religion, sexual orientation, etc.? If so, that's a sad statement on what makes a space holy.

This country has built itself on top of holy ground of the native peoples of this land without any regard to any perceived holiness or respect for any of their beliefs.

If we are to remain true to the Founders' vision, we should have nothing negative to say about the building of any religious structure that doesn't interfere with local zoning ordinances.

If we forget that American Muslims died at "Ground Zero," we lose our identity as a country. If we don't allow those American Muslims to honor their dead around "Ground Zero" we are slapping our Founders in their faces and denying fellow Americans their right to religious freedom.

If this Muslim Cultural Center is prevented from being built on the basis of some sort of religious bigotry then the Al Qaeda Fundamentalist terrorists who crashed the planes into the towers won. They have changed the very fabric of our country that has always stood on the side of religious and spiritual tolerance. They have won if we continue to divide ourselves based on religion, belief, creed, etc.

Tozt, the terrorists have convinced you that Islam is only what Al Qaeda and the Taliban say it is. They have convinced you to discriminate against Muslims who do not share their views and who are citizens of our own country which is against our own Constitution and the principals that made this country great. The terrorists have won your soul and they cackle with glee when they see you and people like you spewing hate toward mainstream Islam. You play directly into their hands.

I find that sad.

simchaland,

Roughly 3000 people died on 9/11 not 6000. I don't know why you people can't at least do basic research to not sound like idiots.

If you don't think Ground Zero is sacred land, then I feel sorry for you.

It is perfectly fair at this point in time for a mosque to be built somewhere other than so close to Ground Zero. It's not going to destroy the Constitution or our country. It's one minor exception for the time being. Just like prohibiting a 5 year old from buying a semi-automatic machine gun isn't going to destroy the Constitution either. Both sides need to quit being so dramatic.

In 30 or 50 years, we may look back and view this as intolerant. For now, it seems fair, at least to me.

mthom says

If you don’t think Ground Zero is sacred land, then I feel sorry for you.

I don't consider a place that terrorists used to kill so many Americans as sacred. That's sad for you to think that a place becomes sacred through death and destruction. To me sacred space is something positive that is set aside. Ground Zero is a place where there should be memorials so that we don't forget what happened. However, I don't believe a space becomes sacred when people kill each other on that space. That, to me, is sick.

mthom says

It is perfectly fair at this point in time for a mosque to be built somewhere other than so close to Ground Zero. It’s not going to destroy the Constitution or our country. It’s one minor exception for the time being. Just like prohibiting a 5 year old from buying a semi-automatic machine gun isn’t going to destroy the Constitution either. Both sides need to quit being so dramatic.
In 30 or 50 years, we may look back and view this as intolerant. For now, it seems fair, at least to me.

For people who live their lives using rational thought it already looks intolerant and an afront to our rights as Americans. The terrorists are winning if we are using the results of their terror to divide us as a nation. We are becoming the intolerant monsters they already are. This is what they wanted, to make us end our way of life and take up theirs which is full of hate and intolerance.

So, I feel sad that for you, the terrorists have won. They have made you intolerant, unable to reason, and unable to stand for the US Constitution and the principals it embodies.

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Ben Franklin

See the Patriot Act when reflecting on the above quote. Think about restricting the liberty of fellow citizens because they happen to be Muslim when reflecting on the above quote.

simchaland says

mthom says

If you don’t think Ground Zero is sacred land, then I feel sorry for you.

I don’t consider a place that terrorists used to kill so many Americans as sacred. That’s sad for you to think that a place becomes sacred through death and destruction. To me sacred space is something positive that is set aside. Ground Zero is a place where there should be memorials so that we don’t forget what happened. However, I don’t believe a space becomes sacred when people kill each other on that space. That, to me, is sick.

Not sure what makes it sick. It wasn't people killing each other. The innocent people who died in the Twin Towers did not do any killing; they were just murdered.
simchaland says

For people who live their lives using rational thought it already looks intolerant and an afront to our rights as Americans. The terrorists are winning if we are using the results of their terror to divide us as a nation. We are becoming the intolerant monsters they already are. This is what they wanted, to make us end our way of life and take up theirs which is full of hate and intolerance.
So, I feel sad that for you, the terrorists have won. They have made you intolerant, unable to reason, and unable to stand for the US Constitution and the principals it embodies.
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” - Ben Franklin
See the Patriot Act when reflecting on the above quote. Think about restricting the liberty of fellow citizens because they happen to be Muslim when reflecting on the above quote.

You're kidding yourself if you didn't think we were an intolerant country before this. For some, this has to do with intolerance. For others, like myself, it has to do with respect. I don't want the mosque to be built somewhere else because I'm intolerant of Muslims; I want it elsewhere because I think it is disrepectful to those who died. Enough with the melodrama again. This doesn't really have anything to do with the Constitution. Even if it did, there are always parts of the Constitution that people point to when it supports their view, and then when it's something like Imus saying the N-word on the radio, all of a sudden they forget about the 1st amendment.
You want tolerance; well, I'd like some sensitivity for those who died.

mthom says

I want it elsewhere because I think it is disrepectful to those who died.

And many of the Americans that died that day were Muslim. What about those dead? Are the non-Muslim Americans who died that day more deserving of respect than the Muslim Americans who died that day? Are some Americans more deserving of respect than others?

How is it disrespectful to the dead of 9/11 to build a place of worship and community that does something positive?

I think it's disrespectful to the dead of 9/11 that there is a push to become a more intolerant nation and to disregard our Founding principles. They died that day at the hands of intolerant madmen. Is it respectful to those innocents to become intolerant madmen ourselves?

Basically those people died in vain if we ignore our Constitution and our way of life. That is the ultimate in disrespect to the dead of 9/11.

mthom says

Not sure what makes it sick. It wasn’t people killing each other. The innocent people who died in the Twin Towers did not do any killing; they were just murdered.

A place where innocent people were murdered becomes sacred? So, because of the violence perpetrated on innocent people in a place, that place becomes sacred. That's sick.

simchaland says

mthom says

I want it elsewhere because I think it is disrepectful to those who died.

And many of the Americans that died that day were Muslim. What about those dead? Are the non-Muslim Americans who died that day more deserving of respect than the Muslim Americans who died that day? Are some Americans more deserving of respect than others?
How is it disrespectful to the dead of 9/11 to build a place of worship and community that does something positive?
I think it’s disrespectful to the dead of 9/11 that there is a push to become a more intolerant nation and to disregard our Founding principles. They died that day at the hands of intolerant madmen. Is it respectful to those innocents to become intolerant madmen ourselves?
Basically those people died in vain if we ignore our Constitution and our way of life. That is the ultimate in disrespect to the dead of 9/11.
mthom says

Not sure what makes it sick. It wasn’t people killing each other. The innocent people who died in the Twin Towers did not do any killing; they were just murdered.

A place where innocent people were murdered becomes sacred? So, because of the violence perpetrated on innocent people in a place, that place becomes sacred. That’s sick.

They ALL deserve respect. Building the mosque does not do that - not even for the muslims who died in 9/11. I've never heard anyone say the mosque/community center is being built in honor of those who died in 9/11.

We aren't disregarding our founding principals. We are not becoming madmen. You and your dramatics with the demise of society and of the Constitution. Thunderlips posted a clip of the 1st amendment above. Re-read it. The Constitution is to make sure our government doesn't restrict us. It says nothing about Americans standing up against what they think is disrespectful and insulting.

You keep saying things are sick but don't explain why. If you don't think Ground Zero is sacred, that's fine. I disagree with you completely as explained above.

Thinking about it, I believe Americans expressing their disgust at the mosque is protected by the 1st amendment. Why are you so opposed to people expressing their view?

thunderlips11 says

Tenouncetrout says

Read the Dollar, or every American paper currency for that matter.

Don’t kid your self, we are a Christian(in one form or another) country.

The separation of the Church from state was only to keep the Preacher out of the law making process. But make no mistake the law makers consulted the preacher on Sunday, and made laws and policy on Monday.

“In God We Trust.”

We don’t smear Christianity around and try to keep it separated. But if some other group wants to push the issue and make their Religion a public issue. Then I expect Christianity to win in this country. If the Christians don’t want a big elaborate Catherderal on Ground Zero, and there isn’t a Synagogue, then the right for Muslims to have a Mosque should be a big “Fuck you, and hell no” non issue.

Yawn, because I said they attended church, you equate that to "The constitution was founded on Christian principals."

Sir you aren't even in my league, I deal only with people well rounded in reality and can follow dialog and topic.

Unlike you and most overly liberal Liberals, I speak for my self, and how I think people will react NOW. If the mosque issue is pressed. It's going to get ugly.

I leave what the founding fathers were thinking upto the legacy of what they wrote, in context to where they wrote it and how they meant it. You'll find no shortage of fools, that will take every thing you revisionists throw at them, but you wont get success here.

Keep looking.

thunderlips11 says

Shorter Version: A private organization shouldn’t spend their own private money to build their version of a shrine to the Invisble Man in the Sky in downtown Manhattan, because two hicks might get upset and attack some poor shlub who runs a 7-11.

Not me, but I'm not a religious fundamental nut job. Nor am I the Thrill seeker wondering what this button does, pressing the issue of building a Mosque on America's Holy Ground(If we have such a thing).

Well press it and find out Cupcake.

Tenouncetrout says

Well press it and find out Cupcake.

What it's not like History wont have enough to reflect unfavorably on Obama over.

I'll bet Bush comes out way ahead of Obama.

Palin will Undo Obamacare with in her first 100 days in office. Her 100 day report card will based on things she'll actually have done, by then.

Obama is going to fit right up there with Presidents that resided beside Oil Barons and sweat shop Industrialists in the late 1800's and early 1900's.

simcha,

One more question:
You seem very opposed to using the term "sacred" for Ground Zero. Actually, I think the word you used is "sick." You do know that Obama said, "Ground Zero is, indeed, hallowed ground," right? Hallowed and sacred are synonyms. I guess Obama is sick, like me and most Americans.

thunderlips11 says

You completely lost me somewhere. No Clue what you are saying after the first few sentences of your second post.

They've both lost me. Not much they are saying makes sense to me at the moment. And one of Tozt's posts is blank. I'm not sure what that's all about.

that big gold ball built atop of Solomon's Temple is just an example of the Arab mindset. Just imagine those Arab pray stations (like this one they want to build) as their version of the American Iwo Jima flag raising mound scene we have here and there. There is a BUNCH more to this than just another pray station. But, this too is supposed to happn.

Thank you guys for proving Osama bin Laden right. Clearly, America hates Islam and wants to destroy it.

Way to go, dipshits.

The problem with progress of any kind is we get so wrapped up in can we do it, we neglect to ask should we do it.

The fact that some, NYC Mayor Bloomburg, for example - open their arms and embrace the idea of a Mosque in such a sensitive location.

I am far more cynical and ask myselves the "Four W's" of reporting

Who - Who actually wants this built? Are there that many people in the surrounding area who would conceivably use the building as it is now proposed? Who is funding the construction?

What - What is achieved by doing this? What exactly is a "interfaith center" or whatever they are calling it? What other faiths are for and / or against the construction? What "brand" of Islam will be taught in the Mosques?

Where - Well this is obvious. But the question is more How - How did they pick the current location, and why are they so seemingly reluctant to even consider moving it to a less sensitive location?

Why - Why now? Why here? Why are the Islamics the front people for this project, given that the building certainly will have other uses?

*****

Hey we don't hate Muslims, in fact its the opposite of that.

Actually more Americans are sympathizing with the Palestinian cause, and see the Israel government as heavy handed and oppressive. More Americans are calling on Israel to recognize they have to live side by side with those other religions.

Plus Americans aren't naive, there are political motives behind this, it's not just a cut and dry location decision.

And if Kevin is so concerned what Osama Bin Lauden thinks, what I think, then I'm sorry. I'll try my damnedest to fight back my big ole Crocodile tears. As to say Boo Fucking Hoo.

One of the reasons I am for the right the build the Mosque, or whatever it is, at the location, other than all of the obvious reasons, is that this discussion (argument) is news everywhere, presumably even on Al Jazeera.

What does it say about us, if we allow it to be built ?

What does it say about us if we don't ?

I don't think that worrying about what others think is the only or even the biggest consideration, but it does matter..

I saw Ron Paul the other day voicing his strong view regarding the property rights and so on, and also his issue of us equating AL Queda with Islam. This is such a stupid argument to even be having.

Tenouncetrout says

What it’s not like History wont have enough to reflect unfavorably on Obama over.

I’ll bet Bush comes out way ahead of Obama.

Palin will Undo Obamacare with in her first 100 days in office. Her 100 day report card will based on things she’ll actually have done, by then.

Obama is going to fit right up there with Presidents that resided beside Oil Barons and sweat shop Industrialists in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s.

Riiight...

Kevin says

Thank you guys for proving Osama bin Laden right. Clearly, America hates Islam and wants to destroy it.
Way to go, dipshits.

Can't you guys (Simcha, Kevin) have a conversation without being overly dramatic? I am fine with a mosque being built just about anywhere in the country. All of these battle in CA, TN, etc. are stupid. I think building one that close to Ground Zero at this point in time is insulting. Where you get that America wants to destroy Islam is beyond me.

Islam wants to destroy everything that is non-Islam .. their own books and teachers make this clear. And, here's the kinda funny part, the two biggest halves of those crazy islamuslamic freaks will just kill each other when there is no other "enemy" around. That entire sect of humanity knows only death, lies, and hate. Isreal will survive, with or without mighty America.

When an artist is murdered for drawing pictures of Christ, and all Christians everywhere cheer the murder, then you can get back to me about the joys of the arab religion. Drawing pictures .. yep, that's a death sentence. Hell, my post is a death sentence to those crazy freaks.

I guess that's one option. Equate Islam, with the craziest voices within it and say, hey, you have to change ? OR disappear ? Or something like that ? How is that going to work out ?

Check this out : Muslim Voices Against Extremism and Terrorism - Part I - Fatwas - updated 5/5/10

http://www.theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/muslim_voices_against_extremism_and_terrorism_part_i_fatwas/

Personally, I would defend their right to build a mosque anywhere they legally bought land BUT only as long as I can say out loud without fear of violence that Mohammed was a horrible person who repeatedly robbed, raped, and murdered people who opposed him (as official Islamic hsitory records in detail):

http://www.faithfreedom.org/

They can keep their freedom of religion as long as I can keep my freedom of speech. Deal?

Personally, I would defend their right to build a mosque anywhere they legally bought land BUT only as long as I can say out loud without fear of violence that Mohammed was a horrible person who repeatedly robbed, raped, and murdered people who opposed him (as official Islamic hsitory records in detail):
http://www.faithfreedom.org/
They can keep their freedom of religion as long as I can keep my freedom of speech. Deal?

The best solution to the "mosque" problem I've heard so far by anyone.

I am officially starting my own religion.

I am now a born again heathen.

Those who wish to join can contribute 10% of their yearly earnings and will receive my blessings and a cool set of faux ram horns to wear when attending services. Please hurry with those contributions so I can found the first hodownery. Bless you, hotdamn.

There's a guy named Mark A. Schmidt who has this on facebook (see if it's readable)

I don't know how true Faithfreedoms take on Mohammed the man is. But LOGIC would suggest that considering the numbers, we would benefit from helping many of these people in to the 20th century (maybe the 21st after that).

Here's what I hear Patrick saying: "I want you to view us in friendship and with respect, but for the record, what I think about you is that the prophet that is at the core of your religion is a total dirtbag"

OH, but I hope we can still be friends.

Does the term self fulfilling prophecy mean anything to you ?

I'm not talking some wimpy PC liberal fantasy kumbaya here. Just logic. IF you had a neighbor that you thought potentially could be psychotic, but you thought might also have potential to grow and become an okay person, would it be important to you tell him that you think his mom was a whore (even if she was one ?)

Also, given the number of Muslims in the world, many of the statements about their propensity for violence seem greatly exaggerated to me.

Bap33 says

When an artist is murdered for drawing pictures of Christ, and all Christians everywhere cheer the murder, then you can get back to me about the joys of the arab religion

But y'all cheer when someone murders a doctor who performs abortions. Murder is murder. Under each circumstance (a killing over a drawing about Mohammed and a killing of a doctor who performs abortions) the motive is religious. You Christians are just as good as the Muslims at killing innocent people. Don't make me list all of the Crusades, pogroms, inquisitions, etc. both past and present perpetrated on innocents by Christians.

Now, I don't believe that most Christians cheer when a doctor who performs abortions is killed. It's only the Christian Fundamentalists who cheer when someone murders in the name of Jesus and Christianity. Islamic Fundamentalists are the only ones cheering when someone murders in the name of Islam. Fundamentalists in all religions are minorities. That is a fact.

simchaland says

You Christians are just as good as the Muslims at killing innocent people.

in this point you suggest that a person who has taken the hippo oath to protect all life "and do no harm", that is activly killing babies for a living, has not commited a crime ... that notion can be debated at least - meaning these is a possible view to be held based on normal human conduct as well as socially acceptable behavior, and law. THe point could be argued - both sides. But, to equate killing babies to making a drawing of some arab story teller -- that's a bit of a stretch, wouldn't you say? The killing of a baby "can be" called murder due to the fact it is pre-meditated, planned, and the victim has no defense, and the victim has done no harm. Are you equating the life of a baby to a cartoon? Really? That can't be intelligently argued in my opinion.

Nomo,
If intimidation is not counted, and the threat of death by head-chop-off for drawing a cartoon, or making fun of, or just not being the right type of islamuslamistic freak ..... if you feel the hostility and murder that has been supported and lifted up by THE MAJORITY of arab islamuslamists has not infringed on the freedoms of others world wide, then we disagree. Unless your point is, we have the freedom to draw cartoons and lampoon mohamad, it just may result in violence against us -- but we still retain that freedom -- if that's your point then I see what you are getting at, but that is not how most freedoms secured by the Consty are protected. Most are protected in a pro-active manner, not in a "go ahead and do it, just wait and see what's coming to you" type of way.
How is our freedom to express our opinions protected from retaliation, or even worse, our speech can be classified as "hate speech" and then what? I tend to agree with Patrick on this one.

Based on what I have seen and read, in my opinion, the left has taken up this fight for "freedom of religion". But the left is not "pro-religion" when the religion is Christianity. The left got in this because the left is anti-Christian (it seems), and that results in anti-American at times (in my opinion) because a large portion of America's core and foundation was built on JC philos, so any movement away from Christian ideals resembles a move away from American ideal ... both of which are really good things to islamuslamistic types, and bad for America.

Having said all that, I don't care where anyone builds anything. Build all the pray stations you want, it matters nil. I don't think a brothel should be next to a school, or a prison next to a playground, or a body shop next to a Sizzlers, but whoever wants to build whatever don't mean anything unless you are part of the group. THe fact this was made public is a media thing. Just another "watch the bouncing ball" trick. Arizona didn't last long enough to get Lord Barry and his band of thieves through November, so they needed something else. ANother Natelie Halloway story is what Barry really needs to keep things moving out of public eye.

Bap33 says

Based on what I have seen and read, in my opinion, the left has taken up this fight for “freedom of religion”. But the left is not “pro-religion” when the religion is Christianity.

Bap--don't you see the difference there? Being for "freedom of religion" is different than being "pro-religion". Most atheists are probably in favor of the freedom of religion.

Bap33 says

in this point you suggest that a person who has taken the hippo oath to protect all life “and do no harm”, that is activly killing babies for a living, has not commited a crime … that notion can be debated at least - meaning these is a possible view to be held based on normal human conduct as well as socially acceptable behavior, and law. THe point could be argued - both sides. But, to equate killing babies to making a drawing of some arab story teller — that’s a bit of a stretch, wouldn’t you say? The killing of a baby “can be” called murder due to the fact it is pre-meditated, planned, and the victim has no defense, and the victim has done no harm. Are you equating the life of a baby to a cartoon? Really? That can’t be intelligently argued in my opinion

So you believe that killing someone performing a legal activity (abortion is legal, the question of whether it should be is immaterial) is acceptable if you don't agree with their activity. What about all the people that do agree with their actions? Who made you the arbitrator? What about the people that say based on their beliefs that a cartoon is more offensive than killing a baby? Does that make it ok for them to kill the cartoonist (who is also performing a legal activity)?

Bap33 says

The killing of a baby “can be” called murder due to the fact it is pre-meditated, planned, and the victim has no defense, and the victim has done no harm. Are you equating the life of a baby to a cartoon? Really? That can’t be intelligently argued in my opinion.

I didn't hear him "equating" the two. He talked about killing innocent people. Some view a fetus as a potential life rather than an actual life. Only God knows when a soul enters a baby. Or when it becomes a true person. We aren't God (although some fundamentalists are equally arrogant as the cartoonist killers, THAT THEY ACTUALLY THINK THEY ARE DOING GODS WILL WHEN THEY KILL A COMPASSIONATE ADULT DOCTOR)

People who are pro-choice don't like abortions. But they believe in letting the person who is pregnant make the choice. We shouldn't have this debate here, because we both know both sides.

But...

I saw a pro-vegetarian video on that faithfreedom website about meat production. In it it said that an adult pig has the intelligence of a three year old child. Through your direct communication with God, do you somehow know that a fertilized human egg is somehow so much more valuable to him/her than the pig ? I just don't know. But I do have some bacon in my fridge.

Also, as a man who has never had children, but has used contraceptives many times or otherwise consciously prevented my sperm from finding a human egg, am I a murderer ? I could have had dozens of kids by now if I had made sure that my physical desire to reproduce had been as fruitful as possible. Preventing a baby with a condom, or the pill, or earlier, by saying no to a womans advances, is fine, but the moment that egg is fertilized, that potential human is suddenly a total human ? I just don't know. And I know, you do.

Obviously the doctor doing abortions has a view closer to mine. Making him innocent. So Simcha wasn't so far off with the comparison.

bob2356 says

What about the people that say based on their beliefs that a cartoon is more offensive than killing a baby? Does that make it ok for them to kill the cartoonist (who is also performing a legal activity)?

Good point.

bob2356 says

What about the people that say based on their beliefs that a cartoon is more offensive than killing a baby? Does that make it ok for them to kill the cartoonist (who is also performing a legal activity)?

Maybe not, because it's not just about beliefs. You see the fundamentalist Christians have the true religion and they know what God really wants, where as the Muslim fundamentalists may feel their beliefs just as much, but those beliefs are in a false religion, they only think they know what God wants. Come on,...keep up.

incase anyone is following along, the act of murdering a baby has just now been equated to drawing a picture. Weird.

I did not pass any judgment in my post, nor suggest any act of murder on a doctor was ok.

I do not suggest that having sex without wanting to make a baby is wrong, and using a contraceptive or some other dont-get-prego system is the same as killing the baby in the womb. Sex for rec, or personal abuse, is not murder in the Christian life (as far as I know).

A baby is a baby and has it's very own (soul/life force/whatever) after the fertilized cell begins to split, having it's own DNA that is part male doner and part female doner .... in my opinion. I feel this way because a normal healthy fertilized egg will continue to split and strive to live until the natural death of the 90+ year old person it becomes - if left alone and all goes well. Again, just my opinion.

Bap33 says

A baby is a baby and has it’s very own (soul/life force/whatever) after the fertilized cell begins to split, having it’s own DNA that is part male doner and part female doner …. in my opinion . Precisely!

And that is an opinion that comes from your religious beliefs and isn't really based in science. Please don't dishonor yourself by denying this.

And that's my point here. Christian Fundamentalists cheer when a doctor, who provides a perfectly legal procedure where he evacuates an organism that is a parasite (see definition of parasite) from a woman's uterus, gets murdered by one of their own based on the religious belief that somehow a soul has entered into this biological parasite and is now considered a "baby." Calling it a "baby" and a "human" is emotionally loaded language that is based on emotion and religious belief, not science. Therefore a Christian Fundamentalist, according to his or her beliefs, has decided that this type of doctor is a "murderer" and deserves to be murdered him/herself. And they celebrate this act of murder out of a religious belief that they are "saving" other "babies" from "murder." These Fundamentalist Christians cheer when an innocent is murdered.

That is the same thing as an Islamic Fundamentalist deciding for religious reasons that depicting Mohammed in a cartoon is blasphemy that should be punished by murder of the offending artist thus protecting other Muslims from blasphemy. And the Islamic Fundamentalists cheer when the innocent artist gets murdered.

Both the doctor and the artist are innocents here. And both are victims of Fundamentalism. In one case it's Christian Fundamentalism and in the other case it's Islamic Fundamentalism. The results are the same. An innocent gets murdered because of a religious belief.

Fundamentalism in any religion is the same. It seems to lead followers to a violent path that is based on doing for God on Earth what they are led to believe they must do for God.

Bap33 says

Sex for rec, or personal abuse, is not murder in the Christian life (as far as I know)

OF course not, but why ? Clearly millions of babies a year (in the US alone) that otherwise would have come in to existence, are prevented from doing so. All those sperms and eggs were prevented from fulfilling their mission. Just think.

How can you justify or rationalize that ?

And yet you KNOW that at fertilization those sperms and eggs that a moment ago were basically irrelevant biological matter, are now a human being?

From my point of view we are talking potential human being and the potential increases a lot at fertilization, and abortion is an ugly concept and process. But I don't know how anyone can know when a human becomes a human. If there is such a thing as a soul, I don't know why it would necessarily be there when there are just a few cells.

Incidentally, old school Catholics do (or did) have a belief that sex should always be about procreation and that masturbation is a sin. Obviously you get a lot of new Catholics with those beliefs.

Bap33 says

I feel this way because a normal healthy fertilized egg will continue to split and strive to live until the natural death of the 90+ year old person it becomes - if left alone and all goes well.

Nomo or others can probably speak to this better than I, but I'm pretty sure that a fertilized egg will not survive on its own.

no human survives without nurishment and a waste system. So, if you get fed through a tube because of a defective throat, or fed through a tube called an umb-cord, you are still getting fed. Food in, waste out, cells split, cells slough away, the process is life - I think. But, nothing that lives can survive on it's own.