The American Taliban

[Fenris Wolf]

The Taleban still win, I'm afraid, in spite of the best efforts of James the allegedly impartial.

The quotes above are opinions and nothing more, opinions which the west allows (but don't necessarily respect in the mainstream) and which are extremely unlikely to be acted upon. Sanity still has a marginal grip on the West though, unlike -

The Taleban, who not only espouse opinions the same or worse, but made and continue to make them law. They also, incidentally, will put to death those who dare to speak up in the same manner as those he's quoted unless in agreement.

Nice try, James. Fail.
Although you'll still have the usual roundup of anti-American fashion victims who'll see it as a gem of wise comparison and applaud roundly.

*Note - once again Baron Max nails the issue at the heart of the matter, and will probably be roundly abused for it.

 

[Oniw17]

One of those people is the head of the supreme court.

 

[Fenris Wolf]

Checks and balances, Oniw17. Our system has plenty of those and is unlikely to fall to extremism - theirs is not only riddled with extremism but controlled by it.

The original quotes were valid and serve as a warning to keep the balance in place. To compare the west to the Taliban was ridiculous, though, and just about what I'd expect from the hypocritical twats held up as models of impartiality in this place.

God damn it's fun to be here though. The parade of fools continues unabated.

 

[Bells]

The quotes above are opinions and nothing more, opinions which the west allows (but don't necessarily respect in the mainstream) and which are extremely unlikely to be acted upon. Sanity still has a marginal grip on the West though, unlike -

Have they remained opinions though? Look into some of the laws and policies enacted and you'll see that not all can be seen as being mere opinions.

The point is not freedom of speech. No one is disputing their right to voice their opinions. What is being discussed is whether said opinions are having an effect on the laws, government, courts, churches, etc, in the US. Now these opinions are given by people who are in positions of power in the US. Do you think these people have a say in how the country is run and should they be allowed to implement their personal opinions in the positions they hold?

For example, a Supreme Court judge with an opinion that the separation of church and state should be abolished is in a position to rule in favour of such an opinion if ever a case dealing with the issue were to appear before his court. Yes he is free to voice said opinion, but should he be allowed to implement such an opinion if he is the power to do so?

 

[Genji]

I support the criminalization of organized religion, particularly the Abrahamic faiths. Certainly fundamentalist Christianity would be my very first target. These are destructive elements that must be neutered before they gain even more power.

 

[James R]

The Taleban still win, I'm afraid, in spite of the best efforts of James the allegedly impartial.

I make no claim to impartiality on this topic.

The quotes above are opinions and nothing more, opinions which the west allows (but don't necessarily respect in the mainstream) and which are extremely unlikely to be acted upon.

You may think it is unlikely. However, the fact is that all these people have influence and some have the power to act on their undemocratic ideas.

The Taleban, who not only espouse opinions the same or worse, but made and continue to make them law. They also, incidentally, will put to death those who dare to speak up in the same manner as those he's quoted unless in agreement.

If you read the quotes in this thread, you'll see several which advocate that those of a different opinion be put to death.

The fact that these people claim to be Christian rather than Muslim is not an important difference. Both these people and the Taliban share a religious fundamentalism which is a threat to democracy in the United States.

*Note - once again Baron Max nails the issue at the heart of the matter, and will probably be roundly abused for it.

I'm actually supporting their freedom of speech by republishing their comments, not taking it away.

I think these views need to be countered with sanity, not censored.

 

[Kron]

America is a scary place...

 

[draqon]

America is a scary place...

not unless one makes it a scarry place. America is awsome place.

 

[Athelwulf]

I'd just like to note how sexy Ann Coulter is.

She has the face of a horse and the body of a skeleton.

Barf.

I may disagree with what they say, but I'll fight to the death for their right to say it.

Right. You get a cookie.

But fuck them if they want to say this and keep the power they currently have.

not unless one makes it a scarry place. America is awsome place.

It would be more awesome if these people in power actually sought to make it awesome.

 

[phoenix2634]

I just couldn't place the quotes by Rush Limbaugh, William Rehnquist, Tony Evans or George Bush Sr. with the others who are obviously nutty as a fruitcake.

Although Bush Sr. comment was a stupid thing to say if it was as Pres. Bush, and not private citizen Bush.

So I voted other.

 

[Fenris Wolf]

You may think it is unlikely. However, the fact is that all these people have influence and some have the power to act on their undemocratic ideas.

And yet those ideas are not widely accepted nor are law in the US. Do you think they are likely to be?
There are individuals in every society on the planet who have rather extreme ideals. Only in some places are those extremites law rather than opinion.

If you read the quotes in this thread, you'll see several which advocate that those of a different opinion be put to death.

Probably. And yet no one has yet been stoned to death or ceremonially raped in the US over an extreme religiously based law.
Well... not lately, anyway.

The fact that these people claim to be Christian rather than Muslim is not an important difference. Both these people and the Taliban share a religious fundamentalism which is a threat to democracy in the United States.

Perhaps you're right, and there is a threat there.
I don't, however, see Americans as being completely blind to it nor likely to allow it to become reality. If they do, then you have my permission to make comparisons to the more extreme muslim states.

Incidentally, the US is not a democracy.

I'm actually supporting their freedom of speech by republishing their comments, not taking it away.

And you are, in doing that and inviting "discussion", actively demonstrating why these people have limited influence.
I might begin to be worried and take to the hills with a rifle when I no longer see you posting here, and your name features in a documentary about the "disappeared" in Sydney or wherever the hell you live.

It is sometimes amusing to note that apathy, while being a source for disgust on many counts, helps in its own way to maintain the status quo in western society.
Case in point - Sheik Taj Din al-Hilali recently in Australia.
Media coverage, fury and frenzied comment.
And what happened?
Nothing. Haven't heard much about it since.

I think these views need to be countered with sanity, not censored.

And, again, in the US they frequently are. And then forgotten a few weeks later.

No one has said here that the USA is perfect. Nowhere on earth is. But it is so annoying to have people hate it so vehemently when the alternative is far more threatening.

We are no longer allowed to hate Muslims - they're all people too. We can't hate other cultures - every culture and people deserve respect.
But we are, because of our own stated ideal of tolerance and dislike of being accused of hypocrisy, allowed to hate ourselves. So many do - they lack a target for dissatisfaction which is tolerable to the society they live in.
We're breeding little lixlukes like rabbits.

How completely skewed it all is.


This entire thread has been skating on the edge of being tabloid journalism.
And there is my own little overreactive comparison, just for the purposes of highlighting.

 

[Fenris Wolf]

What is being discussed is whether said opinions are having an effect on the laws, government, courts, churches, etc, in the US.

They quite possibly are.
The problem is that any ideal or moral principle on which a law is based was once an opinion.

Ask yourself how often you've heard of a judgement which seemed completely unjust and ridiculous, but which the judge claimed was the only one he could possibly arrive at under the rule of law?

For example, a Supreme Court judge with an opinion that the separation of church and state should be abolished is in a position to rule in favour of such an opinion if ever a case dealing with the issue were to appear before his court. Yes he is free to voice said opinion, but should he be allowed to implement such an opinion if he is the power to do so?

Then who should we place in those positions? Someone whose opinion coincides with your own?

Y'all be careful where you walk. These here woods got bear traps all over.

 

[Gustav]

who is this wolf?
and what are these nonsensicle natterings?

i will demolish them
word by word

 

[Gustav]

we, the real americans, liberal and quite moderate in our outlook, understand what a close call we had with our christian fascists

free will and liberty is at stake
ja
still is

the fundies have long term plans
and staying power

vigilance is required
and perhaps a counter attack

we also appreciate our foreign friend's concerns (thank you, jamesr)

 

[Gustav]

jesus camp exposes more ugliness. movie can be found online

 

[Fenris Wolf]

Here I am, seeding the woods with beartraps, and all I got was some little pekinese someone let loose.

 

[Bells]

They quite possibly are.
The problem is that any ideal or moral principle on which a law is based was once an opinion.

Scary thought isn't it. But today is different to yesterday. Today we live in a culture of fear and many in power feed said fear with the rhetoric listed above. The 'us against them' belief system can lead to events which are catastrophic. History should have tought us that at the very least.

Ask yourself how often you've heard of a judgement which seemed completely unjust and ridiculous, but which the judge claimed was the only one he could possibly arrive at under the rule of law?

Oh quite often. But in many such situations, the law can be ammended. Common law can only be ammended if later supreme court judges decide against their predecessors and in a climate of religious fear and terror, I don't imagine an atheist ever making the bench, do you? Imagine a supreme court judge who passes such decisions which are entered as precedents and must be applied in later cases, all based on his beliefs that the separation of chuch and state should be abolished... *shudders in the woods*..

Then who should we place in those positions? Someone whose opinion coincides with your own?

No. I'd rather someone who could be objective without forcing their religious beliefs down the throats of others.

Y'all be careful where you walk. These here woods got bear traps all over.

Hmmm most are as dangerous as fluffy little teddy bears with bows tied around their necks.

Here I am, seeding the woods with beartraps, and all I got was some little pekinese someone let loose.

You killed Pookie!!

Oh and welcome back FW..

 

[Fenris Wolf]

The 'us against them' belief system can lead to events which are catastrophic. History should have tought us that at the very least.

It also serves to ensure that no belief system has complete control. I find that far more frightening a possibility than anything else.

Oh quite often. But in many such situations, the law can be ammended.

It can be if anyone makes a judgement based on grounds outside the law as it stands. That only requires that a bad judgement is made to begin with and then made public. This is the crux of the matter - in the US, that is not only possible, but happens. In those societies where religiously-based groups have complete control, it does not.

I don't imagine an atheist ever making the bench, do you?

"Ever" is a strong word.
I don't believe it would make any difference - atheists are as prone to extreme belief as those who are religious.

No. I'd rather someone who could be objective without forcing their religious beliefs down the throats of others.

Ah. Alright. What of non-religious beliefs?
What do you think is the primary original source for the morals and law of the Western world?

Hmmm most are as dangerous as fluffy little teddy bears with bows tied around their necks.

You're absolutely right.
If you were to walk around in the woods, having been told there were bear traps but not believing they exist, you would get hurt.

Here, you might be told there are bear traps - and yet, in choosing not to see them or in not understanding them, you suffer no consequence.