Stonehead

Have you read any of the lynch mob opinions expressed in the comments section of the Seattle Times story? Those sort of responses only give more creedence to the ideas expressed by law professor Paul Butler, especially those seemingly radical ideas such as jury nullification (not in this particular murder case but perhaps in lesser crimes). I'm partially inclined to believe that the guy might be guilty by the initial media accounts but let the man have his day in court. If the man is found guilty, then by all means hang the bastard.

I just wanna ask, why are those women holding large red sausage-like things in their hands.

How many countless more? It also segues tangentially with Kevbone's conspiracy POV.

Sucker hole... Alaskan Victim of 1918 Flu Yields Sample of Killer Virus--NYTimes

In other news...

[video:youtube]1ts3A8D6ytE

I heard that Oathkeepers is planning to locate their West Coast office here.

[video:youtube]FCFZPT2skTY [video:youtube]ebWk9pBXSso

the audacity

[video:youtube]LVHyCyBVEOg [video:youtube]_Az05lG25m0

A) You presume to know what my religious beliefs are. Ergo B) You're a dumbshit.

Yes that's understood that these men weren't gods, but weren't they also students of history (with knowledge of the causes of the wars that ravaged the European Continent but also with an eye to the examples provided by the ancient world by the Roman Experience) who devised the blueprint provided by the US Constitution, that its checks and balances of power were designed, if working properly, to prevent the tyrannies of government? And the Bill of Rights was developed and ratified to show what a free people exercise in common? Certainly this is not uncommon knowledge and that they showed some spark of genius exhibited in their arrangement. Would things have been more appropriate if Jefferson has used Locke's words in saying: life, liberty and estate (or property), thus implying in line with the Greek model that only certain citizens were afforded the rights and also thus serving to sanction slavery? Granted, I am in line with you in believing to a certain degree in social progression but not merely for its own sake. There's a man called Marcuse who spoke of something called 'repressive desublimation' where freedom appears to increase in things such as the sexual realm but at the exact same time the prospects of real liberty are diminished. Be careful with what progression really is. That's open to debate. I am aware of the Jeffersonian Bible. Some have claimed he was merely a Deist but again that would imply a belief in something transcendent although not necessarily in some entity that interacts on a personal basis. Jefferson and others certainly did not carry the case as far as the French did when French revolutionists sacked the cathedrals and dethroned God only to replace the Deity with one of their own, personified as the Goddess Reason. BTW, I rather like the words said by Rousseau: Man is born free, but everywhere he is in chains. (Jacques-Jean Rousseau, The Social Contract, 1762). I do recognize that his words are in some opposition to the idea of natural rights but it is also a recognition of the chains that we bind ourselves in that social compact and that we often "'hang garlands of flowers on the iron chains that bind us'".

So, my question is: The similarity of the seemingly majority view...Is it some indication of the triumph of will (of the secular State) that heralds the success of the educational system in social conditioning to this brave new world? Or is it just an illusion of unity?

Right. And your compatriot's sole reliance on rationality properly expanded could lead to the argument that eating babies is ok since it is natural, i.e., it has a basis in the natural world, that it is possibly genetically determined and/or is evolutionarily advantageous as, paradoxically, a survival strategy for the group. Therefore, it is expected as an acceptible lifestyle that must be protected from discrimination as a valid social arrangement. Isn't that the crux of the anti-religiousness bias?

...said the Warden.

I'm firmly rooted in the American tradition which begins: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. The 1st Amendment speaks of the liberty to believe as you wish, that you may practice according to your religious beliefs free from persecution so long as my beliefs do not largely infringe upon the rights of others. The 2nd Amendment can be understood as the right to protect oneself from the encroachment by others upon one's rights. You speak as if you believe that our founding father's words are anathema to your postmodern(?--post postmodern?) view that sovereign nations, religions, and other traditional forms have been eclipsed by something infinitely better. John Lennon's Imagine really is your anthem isn't it?

Simply put, I'm not striving to prove what is transcendent, only that perhaps one must leave room for the possibility of something akin to God without dismissing it out outright.

Faith is inherently irrational and opposed to reason. You are familiar with the Enlightenment Fallacy, no? Not So 'Bright' Atheists aren't as rational as they think. What atheists Kant refute Reason must know its limits in order to be truly reasonable. Recall also the propositions developed in Ludwig Wittgenstein's Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus which concludes with: Proposition 7. What we cannot speak of we must pass over in silence. [in German: "Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muß man schweigen."]

I think it’s a disservice to depict the opposition as entirely composed of irrational creationists. What about the theistic evolutionists such as Dr. Francis Collins? Couldn’t the logic you use to navigate life, couldn’t the same logic also lead to God? Perhaps your conception of God is the stumbling block.

The way I understand it from that perspective is that there's something called 'collective' karma or 'collective' retribution, so that even if you're a good fella you can get caught up in some catastrophic event that does not distinguish between good people and evil people. I suppose though in our contemporary thoughts of justice we do not generally believe in the idea of collective punishment although we saw just that, for example, in the assault on Fallujah or in the bombing of Gaza. Maybe justice is merely an ideal construct whereas the will of the stronger is the operative rule.

Maybe you could pose the question to Dr. Francis Collins? http://biologos.org/about/

This is for all you crazy mofos out there. We love you DSHS! [video:youtube]aMfkVGCU_BA

All I wanna know is...will the H1N1 vaccination be kosher?