all=allow

Posted at July 2, 2008 7:28 PM in response to Obama is NOT sympathetic to atheists/secularists

By that you mean "all them to exist in the same country as long as they remain quiet?"

Posted at July 2, 2008 7:26 PM in response to Obama is NOT sympathetic to atheists/secularists

ha! Speaking of reading comprehension, please point me to where I insinuated you were an atheist. Please.

Then do some re-reading yourself. Your argument was foundationally incorrect because you presumed that "immortal soul" was part and parcel to religion. It isn't, at least not to all. Therefore your argument is shit. That's why I told you to put your Plato back in the century it belongs.

Care to answer that one?

Posted at July 2, 2008 7:25 PM in response to Obama is NOT sympathetic to atheists/secularists

Liam, please don't waste your time striking down provincial theological arguments that only apply to certain religions--even certain segments of some religions, as though that somehow solved the whole issue. Plato's influences (immortal souls) aren't the only theological influence in town.

Socratic Gadfly, I'll check my religious beliefs--which you rightly note have some influence on my opinions--at the door when you hang your atheism on the political coat rack before entering as well. Can you pick out the parts of your atheism that influence your opinions?

Not so easy. It appears you just get hot and bothered, then, when you have to "put up" with hearing religious language. You seem to have a visceral response, rooted in some psychological trauma, to things "religious." I can understand. Some religion can be very hurtful, even dangerous. But so can militant atheism, says the same history books.

But saying faith-based programs are "uniquely powerful way of solving problems" doesn't preclude other programs not of this kind from being effective or even "uniquely powerful" in their own way. Unique doesn't mean what you imply it does ("better" than others).

And "First, they're unconstitutional" has a dangling modifier. I assume you didn't mean that secularists and atheists are unconstitutional, which the "they're" seems to be the antecedent for.

And quoting the NOW president as someone who is somehow prima facie not an atheist is, well, pretty hilarious.

Atheists seem to think "inclusive" means: "as long as everyone looks like an atheist." Isn't that silly! The Interfaith movement proves religions very different from one another can get along...why can't atheists make room for the religious?

Posted at July 2, 2008 5:13 PM in response to Obama is NOT sympathetic to atheists/secularists

glibgirl,

Don't for a minute suggest that you have perused the 114 page document.

At least not until you click on the link.

Posted at July 1, 2008 6:38 PM in response to Why did I support Obama?? Oh yeah, I remember...

My understanding is similar to The Progressive. The FISA court USED to review evidence and who the target was and its oversight involved determining independently of the requesting government agency whether there was sufficient evidence for a warrant. Not too different, really, from any kind of wiretap.

However, as you can see from the link, that has now changed. It's a violation of the constitutional principle of illegal search and seizures. Libgirl is simply wrong. The FISA court is now a placeholder for whatever the administration (whoever that is) wants to spy on. American Muslims especially should refocus their indignation away from headscarf crap and pay attention to Obama's real capitulation.

This from a guy who was supposed to campaign locally for him with six-month son in tow the day after his FISA statement. I also gave money to him and rallied others to vote for Obama.

I'm not doing any of these things anymore.

Posted at July 1, 2008 6:34 PM in response to Why did I support Obama?? Oh yeah, I remember...

surlawda is exactly right. Please, people, don't forget the telecomm immunity, as horrible as it was, wasn't the main fold. The main problem was the move to now make LEGAL the spying that Bush has been doing illegally over the past 7 years. It's the difference between breaking the law through ignoring the 4th amendment and making a law which effectively and officially renders the 4th amendment impotent. In other words, it's worse than Bush.

Posted at July 1, 2008 5:28 PM in response to Why did I support Obama?? Oh yeah, I remember...

Thanks for the O'Reilly line of argument ("many say..."). I'm talking about sheer numbers. Throwing away or recycling newspapers has little-to-no obvious effect to the average American financially speaking. Energy is apples; newspapers are oranges. It doesn't cost you much to recycle (especially when your city provides curbside pickup), but it does cost a great deal to make sustainable energy choices. But beyond that, your focus is all wrong. If you want the infrastructure to support new choices, you have to put a gun to the head of capital to make it happen. You just do. We live in a free market system. Deal.

Posted at June 24, 2008 7:29 PM in response to President of Shell Oil says a barrel of oil ought to cost $35 to $65 right now.

That's a fantastic line of argument in idealist utopian world where all Americans are the moral leaders of the free world. But we don't live there. The preponderance of people--even Americans--get motivated when they are forced. I have to admit this even in my own life.

Posted at June 24, 2008 6:57 PM in response to President of Shell Oil says a barrel of oil ought to cost $35 to $65 right now.

That pattern holds in nearly every part of the country, not just California.

Posted at June 17, 2008 12:03 PM in response to Poll: Al Franken Way Behind In Minnesota Senate Race