MtnGoat

"I also have degrees in science, so I tend to need proof or at least suggestive evidence to believe things hence my difficulty with "faith". " Then I cannot see why you have difficulty with the idea that morality is innately belief based wether it's based in God, society, or anything else which is arbitrary and unprovable from bow to stern. What I see here is a lot of finger pointing about how those darned other people are using arbitrary views of god to determine how they want to live, while supposedly non religious people do *exactly* the same thing, on the same basis, they say so and they all believe it. They do not wish to cede the false high ground they stand on because that places their morality on the same quicksand as the christians stand on. I don't have a problem with this because I'll readily admit I can't prove the Christians are wrong, and that I stand on the same quicksand they do.

"It would take a powerful individual indeed to defend abortion doctors by the laws in our books when one's religion considers the act bloody murder and a sin." Only if your evalution of their religion ignores any other commitments they've made, which you assume they don't also value. I find it interesting that you think someone who may feel abortion is murder cannot see past that to find another murder likewise as wrong. Seems to me it's actually more ethically consistent to see both as murder, instead of one and not the other. The entire western world and it's humanistic growth was innately christian and yet recognizes murder as wrong, some here point out that the founders were religious and yet they stood against murder, how is this possible if Christians cannot see murder for what it is? You have not actually shown here, nor has robbob, that he has ended any prosecution of individuals captured for murder by reason of his religious beliefs, and neither of you has commented on the seeming expectation that attorney generals are to personally take roles in enforcement and prosecution for specific crimes. Still all we have is yours, and others assertions he can't do his job with the only evidence being your religious critique of his religion relative to yours.

"Iain's point was the same one I was making. I don't think he, I or anyone else on this board wants to philosophize about the relativity of morality in various religions." Of course you don't, and you don't want to include your relativity. That would be admission their actions in service of religion, are precisely the same as your injection of your religion or belief system into politics, and that's not ground that's very comfortable. It entirely poisons the case for denigrating others due to religion, and their actions in service of of it. This way, the folks that don't want to discuss it get to point at some christians for example, and say look at those aholes using their religious views in politics, while you get a pass. Pretty sweet arguing position, it automatically cedes you the high moral ground. Where there really, actually, is none if you intend to claim you are better and more balanced because you are supposedly objective in an area where no objectivity exists, moral values and their "rightness". "The rest of us were debating first the likely practical application of citizen intell collected by our government, and then once again the fitness of Ashcroft in his job, in light of the principles that our nation is supposed to be founded on." As with the disconnect between slavery and those principles, this is another such case. Since you brought up religion and it's application to govt, I'm bringing up *yours* and it's application to govt. Entirely germane. "Since you brought it up, amending the constitution because of omission versus amending it in direct opposition to the clearly stated intentions of its framers are two wildly different things. Saying they are the same is...silly." I am making the point that if their document needed amending to remain consistent, there is no reason this cannot apply elsewhere. "Iain's point is valid. We have an individual who is, in light of this, ill-suited for his job. He is a religious fundamentalist, a zealot on the scale of the average US citizen. And either he is using his zealous beliefs as a prism for choosing what to focus his work on, or he ain't too smart. Or both" and yet I have seen no evidence presented that he has thrown out a case due to his convictions, or failed to enforce the law as is his duty. Lots of claims, on no direct evidence. Seems a lot like religion.

A royal commission on pollution in the UK is recommending a tax on airline flights and ending airport expansion to limit air travel. This is in keeping with the UN's climate folks reporting that air travel is endangering the earths climate. So while you're glaring at SUV's on the road, don't forget to do your part and stop flying. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,850910,00.html

"Mtngoat, read the Jefferson quote. He is a more eloquent and thoughtful speaker on religion and government in the US than you are, IMO (also less smug and sarcastic)." Wow, I guess I didn't read it when it was posted and I've never seen it before. I responded without reading it, even though I responded because I read it. So telling me to read it will help a lot. Hows that for smug and sarcastic? Jefferson and others also wrote a fantastic document which described liberty in very libertarian viewpoints, and then forgot to include blacks. Whoops. Are you going to claim that didn't need some adjustment to be consistent with the rest of the constitution, or shall we assume it was good as it stands? If we agree it left a bit of something out, isn't it even the tiniest bit possible so does his definition of religion? "He, Adams, Franklin, Washington, and others were deists, and light-years ahead of the likes of Ashcroft, and, apparently, you." Wow, I feel humbled. What I don't see here is any actual answer here to the content of my post, while you deflect and attack me. So tell us, if you can, what makes your morality non subjective and that of the Christians subjective? What Jefferson thought or didn't think, said or didn't say, isn't germane here. I'm asking *you*. Go ahead and give me some evidence, as I asked Iain, that your morality is objective, not subjective.

"I'm not going to waste time with your academics on what you define as religion." That's fine. Just don't pretend your beliefs aren't religion until you can come up with some objective proof that they are not. I don't mean you saying you don't have a religion, I mean something that shows the Christians, Buddhists, and Hindus are all wrong, and your belief system is correct and non arbitrary. It's real convenient to decide what you want to believe isn't religion, while standing on nothing just like them, because it allows you to artificially separate yourself from them. Have at it, just don't expect anyone else to buy it. "While in Missouri Ashcroft did not seek out and prosecute the attackers of abortion clinic doctors who by every definition of the word were terrorists. It seemed clear that he let his religious obligations stand in the way of his ability to perform justice, his job he swore to fulfill. " Is it Ashcrofts job to do the legwork, the arrests, and prosecution, so you can fulfill this personal standard for what an attorney general does? I submit it's his job to oversee what goes on and if the policework was done according to normal procedure, he's done his job. Do you expect the Wa attorney general to personally hunt down and prosecute crimes too? I'm not aware anyone was arrested for these crimes and then let go on Ashcroft's religious say so. Then your case would seem a bit more solid. "Whether I have a faith-based existence is irrelevant. " If you find it relevant for him, I think it's fair to find it relevant for you, since you see to be claiming faith based ideologies have no place in govt, and then define them so narrowly as to leave your belief system untouched in spite of the fact that is in every way, completely arbitrary when it comes to morality. "I believe he did not do his job because his religious obligations prevented it. " So his religious obligations extend to sanctioning murder? An interesting viewpoint.

I can see your point, but they're probably not just sorting for "terrorism", they're coordinating all kinds of data. Which I agree, is kind of wild, and creepy, but the fact remains that we'd just plain better get used to it IMO because the amount of personal data on us is not going away, and will not get smaller. I have doubts the same as anyone else, but the point also remains that one is not convicted absent evidence of crime, and though this of course is subject to abuse, if we decide we cannot use how the system is supposed to work given our best efforts, there's no point in any legal system. The post from the attorney made some great points, but I personally wouldn't abolition of the system because of some illegally committed errors in it such as false prosecution, false testimony, evidence tampering, etc.

"I don't trust someone with that much power who views everything in the world within such a religious context. That position requires objectivity, and from what I have seen, he picks and chooses his "enemies of justice"." This and other comments here about keeping "religion" out of govt are cracking me up. It's so freakin' convenient to want "religion" out of govt when it's someone *elses* religion. Probably doesn't want religion out of govt when it comes to the arbitrary choice to decide hurting each other is "wrong". Probably doesn't want religion out of govt when forcing others to pay for social programs still others arbitrarily believe are "good". Making sure you set your own beliefs outside the equation of what is "religious", while deciding someone else is, is completely arbitrary. All morality is every bit as arbitrary as any classical "religion", and the most supposedly objective progressive has exactly, precisely the same amount of objective proof of their moral correctness and objectivity as the pope or anyone in any diety based theology... NONE. Trying to set up an entirely artificial distinction between arbitrary morality and classical religious morality isn't defensible in any absolute way, and only serves those who wish to get a leg up on their opponents by saying they should be excluded while the observer, of course, isn't religious. Thus attempting to claim the mantle of objectivity for what is *still* a subjective position, as baseless as any ideology, for any religion they'd consider religion. Won't wash with me, when I see someone comlaining about religion in govt, I just substitute progressivism, or socialism, or libertarianism, and it comes out *exactly* the same in the objective sense. Govt is religion, implemented. All we ever argue is religion when it comes to politics and morality, and it's time to advance political discourse one more subjective notch by not allowing some to exclude others on a basis of "religion" just because it serves their ends in a debate.

"Well then you shouldn't be scared about registering your gun(s) with the government. I mean your not doing anything bad." You are of course correct, so there's no point in registering, is there? I at a loss to determine how a list of who owns guns legally, will prevent any crimes. I suggest you pursue registration of illegally owned guns, that will place the onus on those whose deserve the attention, since they're already breaking the law. "I suggest reading about McCarthyism. When you read it replace communist with terrorist. A lot of folks had their lives seriously fucked up due to bullshit the government tried to pin on them. " Thanks for the tips on history, that others don't agree with you, does not indicate they did not read any. There are two aspects to McCarthism that need to be dealt with. First off is no one here is suggesting anyone be tried or convicted without evidence, hung in the court of public opinion, etc. Secondly is the fact that McCarthy was *right* about many of the things he said, and regardless of his unacceptable actions this fact remained true. Communist cells and moles, and organizations funded by the Evil Empire did in fact exist throughout the US. That he chose methods that were extremely poor to address this does not change the fact that much of what he said was true. "When you done with that try reading about the Salem witch trials." Since witches don't exist, the nature of these trials should be self evident. However, Islamic fascists do exist, do kill people, and given sufficient evidence of their activity, organization, planning and actions, a regular old real live trial for those in operation domestically is *totally* in accord with accepted legal principles which require actual evidence for very real crimes, unlike witches. "Just because this is the 21st century doesn't mean humans aren't able to do some fucked up shit. " On that we completely agree.

"Also, don't say: Islam, bomb, Saddam, terrorist, George Bush is a turnip, fuck America, burn down the government, subvert the right-wing pseudo-democratic Freemason fascist ruling class, or Dick Cheney smells like a goat." Say it all you like. Saying it can't get you thrown in prison for saying it. Saying it, and planning with others to do it, and buying the materials, and picking a time and a target and and setting it all up and being ready to do it.... now that's a different story. You have the right to say whatever you want. You do not have the right to actually do it, not just say it, if it involves blowing up innocents or otherwise violently attacking people.

I'm not sure why profiling should be a no no in the first place. When a woman is raped and she says it's a man, men are profiled. When the banks security camera shows the robber is a white male, white males are profiled. When Islamic fanatics tell us they intend to kill us until we convert to Islam, it's fully warranted to take a look at Muslims. There is no guarantee any citizen will never be looked at by police who are searching for criminals, no assurance you will not be questioned for a rape next door or a theft from your buisness. Your protection is A) not committing the crime in question and B) the trial that will take place if sufficient evidence exists to tie you to the crime.

I have difficulty seeing how anyone can expect to keep any secrets in an increasingly netoworked and wired society anyway. IMO it will take a sea change of attitudes about privacy, because wether the govt does it or buisness does it or private citizens do it, personal info will become nearly impossible to protect. Really to me the only option may be to go entirely the other way, and make sure you can watch the watchers, and in addition have a serious debate about how much control you intend to exert over your fellow citizens in the first place. Increasingly linked info and databases are a given, and it will only get worse. If we make sure this data cannot be used against people by making permanent protections agaisnt certain encroachments, it may be simpler than trying to protect the data itself. Just some thoughts. the tide is irreversible IMO and we'll need to deal with it in new ways instead of trying to protect what may well be unprotectable. If we go to a cashless society, every single transactions will be trackable for example, and the only way to insure freedom in that environment is to protect the uses of the transactions instead of trying to keep them secret. The problem to me is not that the data is not secret, but that it can be used agaisnt you. Orwells world was bad not because of what was known, IMO, but because of how that knowledge was used for control. If people can resist their overwhelming urge to use each other for their own ends, something we see repeatedly in politics, how much you know about someone is useless. [ 11-25-2002, 01:53 PM: Message edited by: MtnGoat ]

What did Hitler have to say, when he banned private ownership of firearms and rounded them all up?

cripes, you can see corn in there. Does it never change at either end? And the guy won't even put down the smoke to barf, now that's hardcore!

"I'm still wanting to know if you think fuel efficiency standards should be federally mandated, since you seemed to agree with the principle of better fuel efficiency." I was working on it, cool your jets! I've never really decided how I feel about this one for certain. On the one hand, it might be useful, on the other it indicates a huge amount of coercive power used to meet a goal that could be more morally jusitifable when reached by consumers *proving* they value what they claim to value via their actual choices. I see lots of fuel efficient cars around today, and yet still someone is making non efficient ones very, very popular, indicating it's real easy to claim to care about economy, but a heck of a lot of someones aren't actually choosing it. I suppose some middle ground is acceptable to me, federal standards for efficiency that creep up a percentage point every few years to reduce impacts on manufacturing and design. Still, federal oversight is a hard sell with me and I'll be upfront about that. I'm glad you're so keen on getting evasions answered, I'll keep that in mind for the future. [ 11-20-2002, 12:42 PM: Message edited by: MtnGoat ]

"However, in the war on terrorism and in the war against Iraq I think we are shooting ourselves in the foot" We'll have to disgree on this one. "and are only going to cause mass suffering in order to further some narrow-minded and undisclosed business objecives." There are lots of reasons something can be "undisclosed", one of which is, there could be nothing secret here in the first place. "I know I'm not going to convince you of this, however, especially if you believe what I see as the most preposterous lies possible." How bout some of those lies? I can't say you'll agree with my answers to you about them, and I expect I know what they are, but what the heck, I'd rather see them than operate on assumptions. "I just wondered whether you are able to question any of the "program" even in the tiniest way. It sounds like not." I am able to do so, I just don't see anything I do question presented here in our discussion. For one thing, our continued support of the Saudis troubles me on this front, but since I have not followed what, if any actions have been taken to press them on the participation of their citizens in terror attacks I am reluctant to make a call there. I will say not developing our domestic oil sources is not something I agree with.

"I'm curious, do you think it's worth it to sacrifice American civil liberites in the name of Homeland Security?" depends on the liberties in question, doesn't it? Everyone with any political goals is usually going to end up sacrificing someones civil liberties, so i'll say it may be acceptable in some cases and not in others since I don't have any specifics to work with. Any yes or no I give without them doesn't mean much!

"I asked whether you believe that our goal in the war against terrorism is to make America less threatened by terrorist attack." yes "I also asked whether you believe that waging wars in the region will further this objectives." yes, though not necessarily totally eliminate it. Individuals with drive and creativity will still be able to wreak havoc if they so choose. That people can use simple weapons to cause problems does not mean we can ignore other means as well. This is not an either/or situation, we must work on *all* fronts at once. I can't see a reason not to disarm Iraq *and* work on domestic antiterrorism *and* cut off financial sources and training resources where possible *and* work towards improving relations with other nations at the same time. Of course these will sometimes be at conflict with each other, but that's how it goes. I can agree some actions we take may be viewed with hostility or disdain, yet they may still be necessary.

ditto on nixon. unacceptable actions to dictate prices and wages. Unacceptable criminal acts amply documented. No way to defend his actions, thus he could resign, or be impeached, his choice. The only thing that can be said in his favor is he resigned rather than further disgrace the presidency, something a different party can't say about one of their own.

"Do you actually believe the B.S. about the war on terrorism and that our agenda in said war is to make America more secure?" So what's up with the "actually"? Only certain people are smart enough to see the "real" agenda. Give me some specific examples of the BS you speak of and I'll tell you wether I "actually" believe them! "I cannot understand how anybody with even a lick of sense would think that pursuing wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and anywhere else in the region is going to reduce terrorism directed at the U.S." I can't understand why anyone with a lick of sense feels that not taking direct action is a good idea. Osama and Co, and others, have directly and specifically said they intend to kill you, and keep on doing so until the world is safe for their brand of Islam. Nothing you can do, nothing you can say, will change the minds of fanatics who feel this way because they view moderation as weakness, and secularism as anathema to Gods word. "Do you really think we are going to "liberate" Iraq and set up some happy democracy there and they are all going to love us?" No, but I'm pretty sure we can remove Saddam as one armory of the mideast and it's a step that must be taken. The philosophy of the Baath party is not compatible with coexistence with the west, combine this with his actions internally and search for bigger and worse weapons and it must be dealt with. I'm not interesed in getting anyone to love us as a goal, it would be a nice sideffect but it should not stand in the way of doing what needs to be done.

"Hei sdestroying the economy," how? "destroying the World's perception on the US" What their perception of us is, is far less important than making sure we stick to standing up for ourselves, because no one else will. "but Bush's personal agenda is affecting us as citizens." that's what happens when any president is in office. Disagree all you like with the agenda, when you attack it merely because it's personal, you ignore any agenda held by a person is by definition "personal".

"Anthony G. Laos, president and chief executive of ProdiGene, Inc. was appointed by President George W. Bush to serve as a member of the Board for International Food and Agriculture Development (BIFAD). Mr.Laos will serve a four-year term, expiring on July 28, 2005. BIFAD, which consists of seven members all appointed by thePresident, provides advice to the Administrator of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) on international food issues such as agriculture and food security. BIFAD also assists and advises the U.S. Government Inter-Agency Working Group on Food Security in carrying out commitments made in the U.S. Country Paper for the November 1996 World Food Summit and on the Plan of Action agreed to at the summit. ProdiGene, headquartered in College Station, TX, is a privatebiotechnology company that is developing and manufacturing industrial and pharmaceutical proteins from a transgenic plant system." And? Are we to expect that another administration wouldn't appoint people that reflect *their* ideology, or wouldn't appoint people they knew or worked with or who were supporters? Hardly. What matters is the substance of the stances they take and actions they engage in. If this person fulfills the task they have been appointed for, that's what counts. There is little reason to expect that appointments should reflect an anti biotech position or no experience in biotech, when biotech is an indispensible part of feeding people.

"You almost forgot to mention the most egregious breach of trust-some might say treason-of the Clinton presidency:" For my money it's providing N Korea with the materials to become a nuclear power, with either no enforcement mechanism to make sure they didn't use it for weapons, or one that was never enforced. In either case, the result has been the same.. The last truly Stalinist state on the planet gets Clinton to provide them with atomic technology and materials because they promised they wouldn't be naughty. Great work and a really stellar example of how to play hardball without a clue.

"So Goat, by your logic, then, should everyone pay for their kids' education?" In a manner of speaking, of course they should. But this doesn't mean folks can't pool their money via govt collection for education styles they favor, only that you should be allowed to decide which style you intend to support. I'm sure lots of folks would support paying extra for folks who can't afford what they wish to choose, given that they get to choose what style that is. I wouldn't mind paying into a system with *truly* secular education, with no political viewpoints injected into social studies and moral issues, and even I would pay extra to fund lower income folks who wanted that education. "Seems to me that you would suggest relieving the tax burden for childless people like myself with regard to education." I don't see why not, since I don't view compulsive taxation on issues like this as a good thing.

"Plus, as any thinking human would quickly figger out, the voucher system would be unconstitutional, since 90% of private schools are faith-based. I don't want my tax dollars paying someone to preach the holy bible (and creationism) to impressionable kids, thank you very much. " You certainly don't mind *taking* those tax dollars from religious folks, doing so and then not allowing them to use those same dollars as they see fit, instead of you, is pretty lopsided. You sure don't mind the cash, but by golly if they expect to get what *you* want out of it too, kids educated the way you/they want, it's just radical and unfair. I say your forcing them to pay to support education by your social standards is every bit as arbitrary. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------