Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Pope's speech on Faith and reason

[MDixon6569]

In a message dated 9/18/06 11:00:13 P.M. Central Daylight Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  
  Here's what you said:"Unfortunately, there are many who say they 
  aren't evolved enough to handle democracy and need a Saddam or that we 
  have no business helping these people get rid of their dictators that 
  steel their wealth that pours into their nations by the hundreds of 
  billions of dollars. The same also say it's too costly or lets just do 
  what we can to get along so we can do business and keep the oil flowing as 
  cheaply as we can. No, not everybody wants to keep the third world 
  nations impoverished and under the thumbs of dictators, just 
  some."Do you really not find your incredibly feeble copoutabove 
  embarrassing?You were *obviously* referring to politicians. Butnow 
  that you're trying to wiggle out of that andpretend you were talking about 
  people on this forum,it turns out there's only *one* person, and you 
  aren'teven sure they used that term.Moreover, "not ready for" is 
  very different from"not evolved enough." One may be 
  entirelycircumstantial--he wasn't ready for the big 
  leagues(because he hadn't trained long enough)--but thatdoesn't mean 
  *inherently* incapable."Not ready for democracy" is a statement about 
  thesituation; "not evolved enough for democracy" is aninsult to a 
  nation's people. They aren'tinterchangeable.You tried to put that 
  insult, which you yourselfmade up, in the mouths of liberals. Shame on 
  you. 

Let me ask you then Judy, do you think Iraq is "ready" for Democracy? Or do 
you think they need a "strong man" to keep their society in order? Obviously 
several on this list think it was a mistake to change the regime in Iraq. Which 
means they think Iraq would have been better off ruled under Saddam. Most of the 
Democrat party NOW believes that if they had known before what they know now, 
they would have been against the war and there would have been no regime change 
at least with their consent. So my question to you is, was removing Saddam from 
power a mistake? And do you think that Iraqi's are not ready for Democracy 
now?If removing him from power was not a mistake, what would you have replaced 
him with? Perhaps my word selection accusing liberals of thinking of Arabs as 
not being "evolved" enough would have been better put as being "not ready for", 
but either way you put it, it is still an insult to Muslim nations to think they 
are some how not ready to take the step up to a democratic form of government 
which Iraq would not have now had Democrat Monday morning Quarter backs had 
their way.
__._,_.___





To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!'








   



  



  
  Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional 
  Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required) 
  Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured 
   
Visit Your Group 
   |
  
Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use
   |
  
   Unsubscribe 
   
 

  




__,_._,___

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Pope's speech on Faith and reason

[Irmeli Mattsson]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Irmeli Mattsson 
 Irmeli.Mattsson@ wrote:
 
  I just cannot see the speech as offensive. The quotation becomes
  offensive only,  when it is taken out of the context of the whole 
 speech.
  The pope is quoting a Christian Byzantine Emperor, who is trying to
  challenge an educated Persian by his claims and questions. 
  I have very difficult to imagine that the Christians would feel 
 deeply
  hurt and offended had the claim been made by a muslim about
  Christianity. 
 
 It really depends who holds global power. Muslims feel under attack 
 nowadays by Christians, so there is a strong tendency by Muslims to 
 feel every slight, real or imagined, because it is the Christians 
 who are in power. Those who would view this situation logically or 
 dispassionately miss this point. 
 
 There is a popular talk show host on TV in the USA, Dr. Phil McGraw, 
 (Dr. Phil) who speaks about 'psychological sunburn'- a phenomenon 
 whereby a person or group feel so upset about the practices of 
 another, that even expressions that are not offensive, but that 
 remind the upset group of abuse, are only dealt with by outbursts of 
 violence and anger.
 
 The situation isn't helped any by those in the West who then point 
 to this logically misplaced anger and declare the angry group as 
 extremists and madmen.


The pope was not pointing to a logically misplaced anger through
choosing the quotatation, but wanting to open a discussion about the
basic beliefs and structures between Islam and Christianity that
differ in some essential features. It was an invitation to a dialogue.
The muslims responded to it by misplaced anger and violence. Is the
pope to be considered responsible for the reactions of the Muslims?
Do we have to accept any kind of behavior from the Muslims just
because we want to condescend them to mere poor incompetent victims
with little capacity to more advanced moral reasoning than the
principles of shame and revenge.

Irmeli





To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

* To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

* To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Pope's speech on Faith and reason

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ 
 wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, MDixon6569@ wrote:

   In a message dated 9/17/06 9:41:17 A.M. Central Daylight Time,  
   jstein@ writes:
   
   Unfortunately, there are many who say they aren't evolved
   enough to handle democracy and need a Saddam
   
   Who has said that?  Can you give us *just one* name
   and quote?
   
   Yes , A democratic Senator ot Congressman just recently
   said that Iraq was better off under Saddam. I think it
   was Jay Rockafeller. I'm pretty darned sure Offworld
   and Easy1 would agree.
  
  I'm asking for a name and quote from someone who
  says Iraqis aren't evolved enough to handle
  democracy.  I gather you just made that part up.
 
 http://tinyurl.com/nw4wc

Not only does not one of these Google hits say
anything about Iraqis not being able to handle
democracy because they aren't evolved enough, not
one expresses the opinion that Iraqis can't handle
democracy *for any reason*.

The closest any of them comes is to say (as of
January 2005) that they weren't prepared for an
election because of a lack of security and lack
of education about the issues.  (He was wrong on
that point, in that elections were indeed held;
whether they should be considered a successful
exercise in democracy is another question
entirely.)

All the rest, Shemp, were *disagreeing* with the
proposition that Iraqis can't handle democracy.  And
this was obvious just from the text included in the
list of hits; you didn't have to actually look at
the pages to realize that.

But you didn't even bother to read the hits.

Now, here's what George Bush said in May 2004:

There's a lot of people in the world who don't believe that people 
whose skin color may not be the same as ours can be free and self-
govern. I reject that. I reject that strongly. I believe that people 
who practice the Muslim faith can self-govern. I believe that people 
whose skins aren't necessarily -- are a different color than white 
can self-govern.

Asked to give examples of the white racists Bush seemed
to be referring to, press secretary Scott McClellen
later said Bush simply meant that some people felt
those in some Middle Eastern countries were unable to
live in freedom.

(Note also Bush's phrase people whose skin color may
not be the same as ours.  By ours, presumably he
meant Americans.  Apparently Bush thinks people whose
skin color isn't white are not really Americans.)

Even leaving out evolved and skin color, the idea
that some people say Iraqis aren't able to handle
democracy was one of Bush's famous straw men.  The
right wing, of course, assumed there was a significant
number of people who were making such an argument,
because Bush had said so, and proceeded to denounce
the idea (that's what most of the folks in your Google
hits are doing).

In fact, if there are *any* people making that
argument, it's a very small number.  It's not a
significant part of the debate about Iraq.

And *nobody*, to my knowledge, has argued that Iraqis
aren't evolved enough to handle democracy (with the
possible exception of the two people on this forum
MDixon cites).

The better off under Saddam idea, to which MDixon
tried to backpedal, refers not to any inherent
inability of Iraqis to handle democracy, but rather
to the simple fact that under Saddam, Iraqis didn't
have to worry about being blown up left and right by
suicide bombers, or kidnapped, tortured, and murdered
by death squads (over 200 in the past week).

And that, of course, is a measure not of how wonderful
Saddam was but of the utter mess the U.S. has managed
to make of Iraq through sheer incompetence.  *Even
under Saddam*, in other words, the Iraqis were better
off than they are now.  That's called *irony*.







To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

* To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

* To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Pope's speech on Faith and reason

[jim_flanegin]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Irmeli Mattsson 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
jim_flanegin wrote: 
  The situation isn't helped any by those in the West who then 
point 
  to this logically misplaced anger and declare the angry group as 
  extremists and madmen.
 
 
 The pope was not pointing to a logically misplaced anger through
 choosing the quotatation, but wanting to open a discussion about 
the
 basic beliefs and structures between Islam and Christianity that
 differ in some essential features. It was an invitation to a 
dialogue.

Agreed- I was speaking about the commentary in the West over the 
backlash from the Muslims to the Pope's comments.

 The muslims responded to it by misplaced anger and violence. Is the
 pope to be considered responsible for the reactions of the Muslims?

Yes, in part. He holds a position of tremendous influence in the 
world today, and must be exceptionally careful with what he says. 

 Do we have to accept any kind of behavior from the Muslims just
 because we want to condescend them to mere poor incompetent victims
 with little capacity to more advanced moral reasoning than the
 principles of shame and revenge.

For now, the situation is extremely delicate. I think that what is 
needed yet not occurring is for the US to engage in direct dialogue 
with those in the middle east. Instead what we are doing is forcing 
our objectives on them, which is not working. Demonizing our enemies 
clearly no longer works, nor does pitying them.

Hey, I know! Let's treat them as equal human beings! What a 
concept...






To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

* To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

* To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Pope's speech on Faith and reason

[MDixon6569]

In a message dated 9/17/06 9:30:18 P.M. Central Daylight Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm 
  asking for a name and quote from someone whosays Iraqis aren't evolved 
  enough to handledemocracy. I gather you just made that part 
  up.

Oh, I've heard easy1 make that comment several times. He may or may not 
have used the term evolved but said they aren't "ready" for democracy. "Evolved" 
should be a clue that it wasn't a politician butsomebody on the 
list.
__._,_.___





To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!'








   



  



  
  Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional 
  Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required) 
  Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured 
   
Visit Your Group 
   |
  
Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use
   |
  
   Unsubscribe 
   
 

  




__,_._,___

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Pope's speech on Faith and reason

[MDixon6569]

In a message dated 9/17/06 9:30:18 P.M. Central Daylight Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm 
  asking for a name and quote from someone whosays Iraqis aren't evolved 
  enough to handledemocracy. I gather you just made that part 
  up.

Easy1 has made either that exact statement or one similar numerous 
times to me. More likely Easy1 would have said to me Arabs aren't ready for 
democracy. So, no Judy, I didn't just make that up. I'm pretty certain others 
over the years have made similar statements on this list, I remember thinking 
"how racist" of a liberal to think Arabs or Muslims weren't good enough 
forDemocracy.
__._,_.___





To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!'








   



  



  
  Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional 
  Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required) 
  Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured 
   
Visit Your Group 
   |
  
Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use
   |
  
   Unsubscribe 
   
 

  




__,_._,___

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Pope's speech on Faith and reason

[MDixon6569]

In a message dated 9/17/06 9:33:33 P.M. Central Daylight Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Funny, I 
  don't remember much arguing about invadingAfghanistan, at least not after 
  9/11. Kind of like the 50,000 body bags for US soldiers to take 
  Baghdad caused by  gas and chemical attacks.I believe it 
  was the Bushies who kept warning thatSaddam was planning to use gas and 
  chemicals againstAmerican troops.

There wasn't a lot of argument about invading Afghanistan. Sentiment was 
very strong just weeks after 911. But there were a few that did. Yes everybody 
was concerned about the use of WMD's on invading troops in Iraq but many 
especially in the media kept saying 50,000 troops would die taking Baghdad. 
Seems one of them was Sam Donaldson, not sure about that 
though.
__._,_.___





To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!'








   



  



  
  Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional 
  Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required) 
  Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured 
   
Visit Your Group 
   |
  
Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use
   |
  
   Unsubscribe 
   
 

  




__,_._,___

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Pope's speech on Faith and reason

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  
 In a message dated 9/17/06 9:30:18 P.M. Central Daylight Time,  
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
 
 I'm  asking for a name and quote from someone who
 says Iraqis aren't evolved  enough to handle
 democracy. I gather you just made that part  up.
 
 Easy1 has made either that exact statement  or one similar 
numerous  times to 
 me. More likely Easy1 would have said to me Arabs aren't ready for  
 democracy. So, no Judy, I didn't just make that up. I'm pretty 
certain others  over the 
 years have made similar statements on this list, I remember 
thinking  how 
 racist of a liberal to think Arabs or Muslims weren't good enough  
for 
 Democracy.

Shame on you.







To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

* To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

* To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Pope's speech on Faith and reason

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  
 In a message dated 9/17/06 9:30:18 P.M. Central Daylight Time,  
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
 
 I'm  asking for a name and quote from someone who
 says Iraqis aren't evolved  enough to handle
 democracy. I gather you just made that part  up.
 
 Oh, I've heard easy1 make that comment several times. He may
 or may not have used the term evolved but said they aren't
 ready for democracy. Evolved should be a clue that it
 wasn't a politician but somebody on the list.

I don't know how you can look at yourself in a
mirror, MDixon.

Here's what you said:

Unfortunately, there are many who say they aren't evolved enough to 
handle democracy and need a Saddam or that we have no business 
helping these people get rid of their dictators that steel their 
wealth that pours into their nations by the hundreds of billions of 
dollars. The same also say it's too costly or lets just do what we 
can to get along so we can do business and keep the oil flowing as 
cheaply as we can. No, not everybody wants to keep the third world 
nations impoverished and under the thumbs of dictators, just some.

Do you really not find your incredibly feeble copout
above embarrassing?

You were *obviously* referring to politicians.  But
now that you're trying to wiggle out of that and
pretend you were talking about people on this forum,
it turns out there's only *one* person, and you aren't
even sure they used that term.

Moreover, not ready for is very different from
not evolved enough.  One may be entirely
circumstantial--he wasn't ready for the big leagues
(because he hadn't trained long enough)--but that
doesn't mean *inherently* incapable.

Not ready for democracy is a statement about the
situation; not evolved enough for democracy is an
insult to a nation's people.  They aren't
interchangeable.

You tried to put that insult, which you yourself
made up, in the mouths of liberals.  Shame on you.







To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

* To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

* To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Pope's speech on Faith and reason

[Irmeli Mattsson]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 The current conflict continues as long as the West thinks that by 
 killing enough of the third world people, we can force the rest into 
 submission and servitude. It isn't working, nor will it. 
 


Is this really how the majority of people and the politicians in the
USA think?
Certainly not in Europe and by no means in Finland. Here I feel we are
too understanding of everything people in the Muslim world do and we
don't dare to criticize their values and moral thinking. They are seen
as just the poor victims.

I don't think they are in the first place victims. I think they are a
culture and religion in deep crisis.  Something developmental arrest
there must be, when big parts of people live in deep poverty in spite
of the huge oil riches, and their attitudes and values are on the
level people in Europe had in medieval times.
I think in 2001 the gross national product of the whole Arab world,
when the oil incomes where reduced, was as big as  that of Finland's.
Finland has 5 million inhabitants. I find that very telltale. 

In my opinion the pope addresses this issue in the speech relatively
tactfully by a quotation of the issue that he sees to be at the core
of the problem. 
Interesting is also his main theme of the speech that Chistianity has
helped in the development of reasonable communication, and moral
reasoning among the people in Europe.
He also says that he appreciates highly science and its achievements.
He is only critical about the narrow use of reason and intellect in
scientific thinking.
Which I think almost all spiritually inclined people can agree about.

His courageous quotation was good also in that sense that it made me
and many others read his speech, that I found to be fine. I have never
before read a speech by a pope, and got very positively surprised. I'm
not a Christian.

Irmeli






To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

* To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

* To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Pope's speech on Faith and reason

[Sal Sunshine]

On Sep 17, 2006, at 2:31 AM, Irmeli Mattsson wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 wrote:

 The current conflict continues as long as the West thinks that by
 killing enough of the third world people, we can force the rest into
 submission and servitude. It isn't working, nor will it.



 Is this really how the majority of people and the politicians in the
 USA think?

OF course not.  What do you think?  A few lunatics on the right do, and 
unfortunately they've cheated and bullied their way into power.  It 
won't last, it never does.

 Certainly not in Europe and by no means in Finland. Here I feel we are
 too understanding of everything people in the Muslim world do and we
 don't dare to criticize their values and moral thinking. They are seen
 as just the poor victims.

Not a particularly healthy attitude.

 I don't think they are in the first place victims. I think they are a
 culture and religion in deep crisis.  Something developmental arrest
 there must be, when big parts of people live in deep poverty in spite
 of the huge oil riches, and their attitudes and values are on the
 level people in Europe had in medieval times.

Yes, it's pathetic and a huge waste of resources, both material and 
intellectual.

 I think in 2001 the gross national product of the whole Arab world,
 when the oil incomes where reduced, was as big as  that of Finland's.
 Finland has 5 million inhabitants. I find that very telltale.

 In my opinion the pope addresses this issue in the speech relatively
 tactfully by a quotation of the issue that he sees to be at the core
 of the problem.
 Interesting is also his main theme of the speech that Chistianity has
 helped in the development of reasonable communication, and moral
 reasoning among the people in Europe.
 He also says that he appreciates highly science and its achievements.
 He is only critical about the narrow use of reason and intellect in
 scientific thinking.
 Which I think almost all spiritually inclined people can agree about.

 His courageous quotation was good also in that sense that it made me
 and many others read his speech, that I found to be fine. I have never
 before read a speech by a pope, and got very positively surprised. I'm
 not a Christian.

Now I'm interested in reading it too.  Know where I can find it?

Sal



To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

* To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

* To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Pope's speech on Faith and reason

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:

 On Sep 17, 2006, at 2:31 AM, Irmeli Mattsson wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@ 
  wrote:
  
   The current conflict continues as long as the West thinks that 
   by killing enough of the third world people, we can force the 
   rest into submission and servitude. It isn't working, nor will 
   it.
 
  Is this really how the majority of people and the politicians 
  in the USA think?
 
 OF course not.  What do you think?  A few lunatics on the 
 right do, and unfortunately they've cheated and bullied 
 their way into power.  It won't last, it never does.

To present the deva's advocate position, one could
safely say that because in theory America is a democracy,
and because in a democracy those who get to run the country 
and set its policies can do so only because the majority 
of the population *allows* them to do so (via elections), 
America's policies towards the Third World *do*, in fact, 
represent the thinking of the American people.

If they cared anything about these people in Third World
countries, Americans wouldn't have allowed their leaders
to have treated them the way they have, for decades now. 
But they clearly *didn't* care, and still don't, because 
they have done nothing to remove the leaders who treat
the Arab world the way they do.

That's the thing that Europeans see about American Whiners
that the whiners themselves don't see. Americans are always
whining about how their leaders don't really represent who
and what Americans 'really' are. I'm with Maharishi on this
one -- I think that today's American leaders very *accurately* 
represent how most of today's Americans think. And as long 
as the people allow the current leaders to *stay* leaders, 
that thinking on the part of the American population has 
not changed.

Americans as a whole don't care whether the people in the
Third World live or die. That's why they elect leaders
who don't care whether these people live or die and who
design and implement their global strategies accordingly. 
The emotional reactions (and overreactions) we're seeing 
in the Arab world are because they're realizing this, too.








To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

* To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

* To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Pope's speech on Faith and reason

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
 Americans as a whole don't care whether the people in the
 Third World live or die. That's why they elect leaders
 who don't care whether these people live or die and who
 design and implement their global strategies accordingly.

Well, no, not Americans as a whole.

More than 51 million Americans voted *against*
George Bush in 2000; more than 59 million voted
against him in 2004.

Unfortunately only around 60 percent of those
eligible to vote actually voted in 2004, so we
don't know how the rest felt.  But we *do* know
that less than a third of voters actually pulled
the lever for Bush.







To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

* To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

* To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Pope's speech on Faith and reason

[Irmeli Mattsson]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:

 On Sep 17, 2006, at 2:31 AM, Irmeli Mattsson wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@ 
  wrote:
 
  The current conflict continues as long as the West thinks that by
  killing enough of the third world people, we can force the rest into
  submission and servitude. It isn't working, nor will it.
 
 
 
  Is this really how the majority of people and the politicians in the
  USA think?
 
 OF course not.  What do you think?  A few lunatics on the right do, and 
 unfortunately they've cheated and bullied their way into power.  It 
 won't last, it never does.
 
  Certainly not in Europe and by no means in Finland. Here I feel we are
  too understanding of everything people in the Muslim world do and we
  don't dare to criticize their values and moral thinking. They are seen
  as just the poor victims.
 
 Not a particularly healthy attitude.
 
  I don't think they are in the first place victims. I think they are a
  culture and religion in deep crisis.  Something developmental arrest
  there must be, when big parts of people live in deep poverty in spite
  of the huge oil riches, and their attitudes and values are on the
  level people in Europe had in medieval times.
 
 Yes, it's pathetic and a huge waste of resources, both material and 
 intellectual.
 
  I think in 2001 the gross national product of the whole Arab world,
  when the oil incomes where reduced, was as big as  that of Finland's.
  Finland has 5 million inhabitants. I find that very telltale.
 
  In my opinion the pope addresses this issue in the speech relatively
  tactfully by a quotation of the issue that he sees to be at the core
  of the problem.
  Interesting is also his main theme of the speech that Chistianity has
  helped in the development of reasonable communication, and moral
  reasoning among the people in Europe.
  He also says that he appreciates highly science and its achievements.
  He is only critical about the narrow use of reason and intellect in
  scientific thinking.
  Which I think almost all spiritually inclined people can agree about.
 
  His courageous quotation was good also in that sense that it made me
  and many others read his speech, that I found to be fine. I have never
  before read a speech by a pope, and got very positively surprised. I'm
  not a Christian.
 
 Now I'm interested in reading it too.  Know where I can find it?

Here:http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2006/september/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20060912_university-regensburg_en.html
 
 Sal








To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

* To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

* To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Pope's speech on Faith and reason

[Sal Sunshine]

On Sep 17, 2006, at 7:33 AM, TurquoiseB wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:

 On Sep 17, 2006, at 2:31 AM, Irmeli Mattsson wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@
 wrote:

 The current conflict continues as long as the West thinks that
 by killing enough of the third world people, we can force the
 rest into submission and servitude. It isn't working, nor will
 it.

 Is this really how the majority of people and the politicians
 in the USA think?

 OF course not.  What do you think?  A few lunatics on the
 right do, and unfortunately they've cheated and bullied
 their way into power.  It won't last, it never does.

 To present the deva's advocate position, one could
 safely say that because in theory America is a democracy,
 and because in a democracy those who get to run the country
 and set its policies can do so only because the majority
 of the population *allows* them to do so (via elections),
 America's policies towards the Third World *do*, in fact,
 represent the thinking of the American people.

Unfortunately, Barry, I agree with you--whether it's because of 
outright participation (fairly rare) or just plain apathy (much more 
common, IMO) we here in the US have allowed our leaders to get away 
with unbelievable horrors in the 3rd world.  And it's not really even 
that the information is or isn't out there (although much of it is) 
it's that people don't even ask questions--and haven't for decades.  I 
can't explain it--maybe everyone is so overmedicated they can't  think 
straight. (Not much of an excuse, I know, but the best I can come up 
with right now.)

 Americans as a whole don't care whether the people in the
 Third World live or die.
Many don't even care whether people *here* live or die--look at the 
debacle of Katrina.  And when GB's poll #s finally started to go down, 
was it over horror at what those people endured?  No, it was for purely 
selfish reasons--gas prices.

  That's why they elect leaders
 who don't care whether these people live or die and who
 design and implement their global strategies accordingly.
 The emotional reactions (and overreactions) we're seeing
 in the Arab world are because they're realizing this, too.

I think they've realized it a lot longer than most Americans, 
unfortunately.  The Islamic world, for all it's poverty, does not seem 
to lack for people who perceive things fairly clearly and who are 
willing to fight.  I might not agree with their methods, but at least 
it's not apathy. 
   



To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

* To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

* To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Pope's speech on Faith and reason

[Sal Sunshine]

On Sep 17, 2006, at 8:06 AM, Irmeli Mattsson wrote:

 Now I'm interested in reading it too.  Know where I can find it?

 Here:http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2006/ 
 september/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20060912_university- 
 regensburg_en.html

Thanks!

Sal



To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

* To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

* To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Pope's speech on Faith and reason

[TurquoiseB]

Irmeli, I'm with you on the Pope having done nothing
really wrong in this scenario, and that in fact he was
trying to spread peace, not conflict.

I think that one of the things that many people are
missing is how *medieval* this whole tempest in a 
pisspot is. That is, they're missing the 700-year
historical context of the Pope's recent remarks. It's
as fundamental a mistake as trying to figure out what's
happening in Northern Ireland without going back 700
years to the origins of the Protestant/Catholic wars.

There is a small subset of a subset of medieval historians
in the world whose world view is very much centered on
the period of the Crusades, and immediately afterwards.
They are convinced that many if not most of the trends 
we see about us in the daily events of our world have 
their roots in events that took place in the years of
the Crusades and the years that followed them.

In short, these guys noticed that a *lot* of the memes
we take for granted in Western culture -- demonization
of homosexuality, Christians looking down on all other
religions (especially Islam) as being lower than Christ-
ianity or even demonic, Arabs as filthy, Arabs as
ignorant, Arabs as backwards, Arabs as out of touch
with modern society -- had their origin in this period
just after the Crusades ended.

These historians' view is pretty simple. Europe, in its 
hubris, launched a set of wars in the Middle East to
recapture the Holy Land. They got their butts whipped.
The consolidated might of Europe went to Africa sure of
a quick and easy victory, and the survivors came home
with their tails between their legs, whimpering like
whipped dogs and happy just to still be alive.

Shortly thereafter, within a couple of decades, *most*
of the language of the nobility of Europe and the Church
had changed radically, towards a demonization of the
culture that had whipped its ass. Arabs suddenly (his-
torically speaking, that is) went from being portrayed
as intelligent and sympathetic in European literature,
to being portrayed as ignorant, barbaric, and without 
moral values. Europe reacted to getting its ass whupped
by badmouthing the guys who had whupped it, and they have
kept reacting the same way for nearly seven centuries now.

What you're seeing in the Arab world, in my opinion, 
is not *just* religious fundamentalism, but a sense of
rage at having been treated like the niggers of the 
world for almost seven hundred years. They WON back 
then, and they've been being treated like ignoramuses 
by the losers ever since. They're understandably a 
little pissed.

Anyway, I just thought I'd mention this perspective. 
It surprises me sometimes that I don't see it more in
mainstream analysis of the whole Middle East conflict.
To me, reading the news every day is like what reading
what the daily news would have been like in the 13th and 
14th centuries. 


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Irmeli Mattsson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@ wrote:
 
  The current conflict continues as long as the West thinks that by 
  killing enough of the third world people, we can force the rest 
  into submission and servitude. It isn't working, nor will it. 
 
 
 Is this really how the majority of people and the politicians in the
 USA think?
 Certainly not in Europe and by no means in Finland. Here I feel we are
 too understanding of everything people in the Muslim world do and we
 don't dare to criticize their values and moral thinking. They are seen
 as just the poor victims.
 
 I don't think they are in the first place victims. I think they are a
 culture and religion in deep crisis.  Something developmental arrest
 there must be, when big parts of people live in deep poverty in spite
 of the huge oil riches, and their attitudes and values are on the
 level people in Europe had in medieval times.
 I think in 2001 the gross national product of the whole Arab world,
 when the oil incomes where reduced, was as big as  that of Finland's.
 Finland has 5 million inhabitants. I find that very telltale. 
 
 In my opinion the pope addresses this issue in the speech relatively
 tactfully by a quotation of the issue that he sees to be at the core
 of the problem. 
 Interesting is also his main theme of the speech that Chistianity has
 helped in the development of reasonable communication, and moral
 reasoning among the people in Europe.
 He also says that he appreciates highly science and its achievements.
 He is only critical about the narrow use of reason and intellect in
 scientific thinking.
 Which I think almost all spiritually inclined people can agree about.
 
 His courageous quotation was good also in that sense that it made me
 and many others read his speech, that I found to be fine. I have never
 before read a speech by a pope, and got very positively surprised. I'm
 not a Christian.
 
 Irmeli







To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Pope's speech on Faith and reason

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote:
 snip
  Americans as a whole don't care whether the people in the
  Third World live or die. That's why they elect leaders
  who don't care whether these people live or die and who
  design and implement their global strategies accordingly.
 
 Well, no, not Americans as a whole.
 
 More than 51 million Americans voted *against*
 George Bush in 2000; more than 59 million voted
 against him in 2004.
 
 Unfortunately only around 60 percent of those
 eligible to vote actually voted in 2004, so we
 don't know how the rest felt.  But we *do* know
 that less than a third of voters actually pulled
 the lever for Bush.

We DO know how those who didn't vote felt.

They didn't care enough even to vote.

Therefore in effect they voted.

Bush is President because the American people
caused him to be there, via comission or omission.







To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

* To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

* To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Pope's speech on Faith and reason

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Irmeli Mattsson 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
 In my opinion the pope addresses this issue in the speech relatively
 tactfully by a quotation of the issue that he sees to be at the core
 of the problem.

Just so we know what we're talking about here,
this is the quotation that has angered Muslims
(from an AP report on Yahoo! News):

In his speech on Tuesday, Benedict quoted from a book recounting a 
conversation between 14th century Byzantine Christian Emperor Manuel 
Paleologos II and an educated Persian on the truths of Christianity 
and Islam.

'The emperor comes to speak about the issue of jihad, holy war,' the 
pope said. 'He said, I quote, Show me just what Muhammad brought 
that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, 
such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.'

Whatever the truth of the last part of the sentence
(and it's not quite the slam-dunk some seem to think),
it's the first part that is so offensive to Muslims:
the only new things Muhammad brought were evil and
inhuman.  It's not hard to grasp why that has aroused
such fury.  Imagine the wrath of Christians if a non-
Christian were to say the only new things Jesus brought
were evil and inhuman, citing, say, Jesus' instruction
to hate one's father and mother!

The big problem was that the pope *did not repudiate*
the offensive part of the quote.  He could have made
his point about violent jihad just as well if he'd
said to start with that he didn't condone the first
part.

It's too bad that slip (among others, but that was the
worst) was so inflammatory that it was hard to hear
the rest of what he said dispassionately.

And he *still* hasn't apologized for it.  All he's
said is that he was sorry Muslims were offended by
it.






To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

* To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

* To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Pope's speech on Faith and reason

[Sal Sunshine]

On Sep 17, 2006, at 8:19 AM, TurquoiseB wrote:

 What you're seeing in the Arab world, in my opinion,
 is not *just* religious fundamentalism, but a sense of
 rage at having been treated like the niggers of the
 world for almost seven hundred years. They WON back
 then, and they've been being treated like ignoramuses
 by the losers ever since. They're understandably a
 little pissed.

OTOH, Barry, as intelligent and thoughtful as most Arabs undoubtedly 
are, they *have* allowed a small, corrupt cadre of uncaring individuals 
with little or no conscience (with, admittedly, the aid and support of 
just-as-corrupt US leaders) to drain the huge oil  wealth and 
resources for decades  for palaces, harems, etc for those select few, 
when it should have gone towards making life better for everyone.

It would be interesting to speculate whether or not these corrupt 
regimes would still be n power w/o US support--my guess is, many would. 
  Apathy is not restricted to our shores.

Sal



To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

* To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

* To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Pope's speech on Faith and reason

[jyouells2000]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Irmeli Mattsson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@ wrote:
 
  The current conflict continues as long as the West thinks that by 
  killing enough of the third world people, we can force the rest into 
  submission and servitude. It isn't working, nor will it. 
  
 
 
 Is this really how the majority of people and the politicians in the
 USA think?

No, not  in the slightest. The majority of people are probably
absorbed in matters closer to home...

JohnY 


 Certainly not in Europe and by no means in Finland. Here I feel we are
 too understanding of everything people in the Muslim world do and we
 don't dare to criticize their values and moral thinking. They are seen
 as just the poor victims.
 
snip





To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

* To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

* To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Pope's speech on Faith and reason

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:

 On Sep 17, 2006, at 7:33 AM, TurquoiseB wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine salsunshine@
  wrote:
 
  On Sep 17, 2006, at 2:31 AM, Irmeli Mattsson wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@
  wrote:
 
  The current conflict continues as long as the West thinks that
  by killing enough of the third world people, we can force the
  rest into submission and servitude. It isn't working, nor will
  it.
 
  Is this really how the majority of people and the politicians
  in the USA think?
 
  OF course not.  What do you think?  A few lunatics on the
  right do, and unfortunately they've cheated and bullied
  their way into power.  It won't last, it never does.
 
  To present the deva's advocate position, one could
  safely say that because in theory America is a democracy,
  and because in a democracy those who get to run the country
  and set its policies can do so only because the majority
  of the population *allows* them to do so (via elections),
  America's policies towards the Third World *do*, in fact,
  represent the thinking of the American people.
 
 Unfortunately, Barry, I agree with you--whether it's because of 
 outright participation (fairly rare) or just plain apathy (much 
 more common, IMO) we here in the US have allowed our leaders 
 to get away with unbelievable horrors in the 3rd world.  And 
 it's not really even that the information is or isn't out there 
 (although much of it is) it's that people don't even ask 
 questions--and haven't for decades.  

Not only do they not ask questions, they settle for
the Easiest Possible Answer when others do. 

 I can't explain it--maybe everyone is so overmedicated they 
 can't  think straight. 

I actually believe that's a major factor. America is
currently one of the most self-medicated cultures on
the planet. 

  Americans as a whole don't care whether the people in the
  Third World live or die.

 Many don't even care whether people *here* live or die--look 
 at the debacle of Katrina.  

True.

 And when GB's poll #s finally started to go down, was it 
 over horror at what those people endured?  No, it was for 
 purely selfish reasons--gas prices.

It's a real *issue* with America. Self Interest has
been elevated to such Godlike status that it's scary.

   That's why they elect leaders
  who don't care whether these people live or die and who
  design and implement their global strategies accordingly.
  The emotional reactions (and overreactions) we're seeing
  in the Arab world are because they're realizing this, too.

 I think they've realized it a lot longer than most Americans, 
 unfortunately.  The Islamic world, for all it's poverty, 
 does not seem to lack for people who perceive things fairly 
 clearly and who are willing to fight.  I might not agree with 
 their methods, but at least it's not apathy.

Gotta agree. I currently live in France, which has MORE
than its share of problems. They're *also* a remarkably
Self Important culture. But one of the things they are
NOT is apathetic. If a president of France had tried to
fuck with the French people basic rights one tenth as
greviously as Bush has fucked with Americans' basic rights, 
the entire population of France would have been out on the 
streets in protest. The country would have shut down and 
would not have moved again until the government rescinded 
its actions.

The French may *be* the drama queens of the planet, but
in times like these, drama queens can be counted on to
man the barricades, whereas your everyday American can't
even be counted upon to make it to a polling place on 
election day.








To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

* To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

* To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Pope's speech on Faith and reason

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ 
wrote:
  snip
   Americans as a whole don't care whether the people in the
   Third World live or die. That's why they elect leaders
   who don't care whether these people live or die and who
   design and implement their global strategies accordingly.
  
  Well, no, not Americans as a whole.
  
  More than 51 million Americans voted *against*
  George Bush in 2000; more than 59 million voted
  against him in 2004.
  
  Unfortunately only around 60 percent of those
  eligible to vote actually voted in 2004, so we
  don't know how the rest felt.  But we *do* know
  that less than a third of voters actually pulled
  the lever for Bush.
 
 We DO know how those who didn't vote felt.

No, sorry, we do NOT know how they felt about Bush.

But my point (which of course you do not address)
was that your Americans as a whole was grossly
incorrect.

snip non sequiturs







To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

* To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

* To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Pope's speech on Faith and reason

[curtisdeltablues]

Americans as a whole don't care whether the people in the
Third World live or die. That's why they elect leaders
who don't care whether these people live or die and who
design and implement their global strategies accordingly.
The emotional reactions (and overreactions) we're seeing
in the Arab world are because they're realizing this, too

I don't agree with singling America out for callousness.  I can't
think of a single country that acts more virtuously when it has power.
 We are not fundamentally flawed in the world as Americans compared to
people from other countries.  As long as people in Africa die by the
millions as we all watch, no county has the high ground on compassion.
The history of man doesn't show any country acting better in any way.
 It's a primate thing.  It is amazing that we ever transcend our past.
  



















--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine salsunshine@
 wrote:
 
  On Sep 17, 2006, at 2:31 AM, Irmeli Mattsson wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@ 
   wrote:
   
The current conflict continues as long as the West thinks that 
by killing enough of the third world people, we can force the 
rest into submission and servitude. It isn't working, nor will 
it.
  
   Is this really how the majority of people and the politicians 
   in the USA think?
  
  OF course not.  What do you think?  A few lunatics on the 
  right do, and unfortunately they've cheated and bullied 
  their way into power.  It won't last, it never does.
 
 To present the deva's advocate position, one could
 safely say that because in theory America is a democracy,
 and because in a democracy those who get to run the country 
 and set its policies can do so only because the majority 
 of the population *allows* them to do so (via elections), 
 America's policies towards the Third World *do*, in fact, 
 represent the thinking of the American people.
 
 If they cared anything about these people in Third World
 countries, Americans wouldn't have allowed their leaders
 to have treated them the way they have, for decades now. 
 But they clearly *didn't* care, and still don't, because 
 they have done nothing to remove the leaders who treat
 the Arab world the way they do.
 
 That's the thing that Europeans see about American Whiners
 that the whiners themselves don't see. Americans are always
 whining about how their leaders don't really represent who
 and what Americans 'really' are. I'm with Maharishi on this
 one -- I think that today's American leaders very *accurately* 
 represent how most of today's Americans think. And as long 
 as the people allow the current leaders to *stay* leaders, 
 that thinking on the part of the American population has 
 not changed.
 
 Americans as a whole don't care whether the people in the
 Third World live or die. That's why they elect leaders
 who don't care whether these people live or die and who
 design and implement their global strategies accordingly. 
 The emotional reactions (and overreactions) we're seeing 
 in the Arab world are because they're realizing this, too.







To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

* To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

* To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Pope's speech on Faith and reason

[MDixon6569]

In a message dated 9/17/06 7:36:10 A.M. Central Daylight Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
they 
  cared anything about these people in Third Worldcountries, Americans 
  wouldn't have allowed their leadersto have treated them the way they have, 
  for decades now. But they clearly *didn't* care, and still don't, because 
  they have done nothing to remove the leaders who treatthe Arab world 
  the way they do.

Ummm, we overthrew the Taliban and established a democracy for the people 
and continue to stay there to stabilize Afghanistan. The only thing Afghanistan 
has ever offered the world are drugs and terrorism yet we sacrifice or soldiers 
and our resources to help those people have a better way of life. We also 
overthrew Saddam, one of these leaders, who treats the Arab world the way they 
do and have established a democracy there as well in which over 12 million 
people have voted in. We also continue to pursue this goal of a democracy for 
these people with American resources and lives so that they can work out their 
own differences, reconcile with one another and join the rest of the civilized 
world and one day leave violence behind and enjoy their own prosperity. 
Unfortunately, there are many who say they aren't evolved enough to handle 
democracy and need a Saddam or that we have no business helping these people get 
rid of their dictators that steel their wealth that pours into their 
nations by the hundreds of billions of dollars. The same also say it's too 
costly or lets just do what we can to get along so we can do business and keep 
the oil flowing as cheaply as we can. No, not everybody wants to keep the 
third world nations impoverished and under the thumbs of dictators, just 
some.
__._,_.___





To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!'








   



  



  
  Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional 
  Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required) 
  Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured 
   
Visit Your Group 
   |
  
Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use
   |
  
   Unsubscribe 
   
 

  




__,_._,___

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Pope's speech on Faith and reason

[Sal Sunshine]

On Sep 17, 2006, at 8:40 AM, TurquoiseB wrote:

 Gotta agree. I currently live in France, which has MORE
 than its share of problems. They're *also* a remarkably
 Self Important culture. But one of the things they are
 NOT is apathetic.
Any culture which invented the croissant, cappucino, and Freedom Fries 
has my vote...even if they can't speak American or even French. :)

 If a president of France had tried to
 fuck with the French people basic rights one tenth as
 greviously as Bush has fucked with Americans' basic rights,
 the entire population of France would have been out on the
 streets in protest. The country would have shut down and
 would not have moved again until the government rescinded
 its actions.

Presumably they never would have elected an illiterate moron to begin 
with...let alone a whole group of them.

Sal



To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

* To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

* To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Pope's speech on Faith and reason

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:

 On Sep 17, 2006, at 8:19 AM, TurquoiseB wrote:
 
  What you're seeing in the Arab world, in my opinion,
  is not *just* religious fundamentalism, but a sense of
  rage at having been treated like the niggers of the
  world for almost seven hundred years. They WON back
  then, and they've been being treated like ignoramuses
  by the losers ever since. They're understandably a
  little pissed.
 
 OTOH, Barry, as intelligent and thoughtful as most Arabs 
 undoubtedly are, they *have* allowed a small, corrupt cadre 
 of uncaring individuals with little or no conscience (with, 
 admittedly, the aid and support of just-as-corrupt US 
 leaders) to drain the huge oil  wealth and resources for 
 decades  for palaces, harems, etc for those select few, 
 when it should have gone towards making life better for everyone.
 
 It would be interesting to speculate whether or not these corrupt 
 regimes would still be n power w/o US support--my guess is, many 
 would. Apathy is not restricted to our shores.

I agree that the reason the Arab countries are the
way that they are (corruption and all, imbalance of
rich and poor and all) is because the people of those
countries allow it to take place. However, it's a little
different there than it is in America. In America I think
you can safely use the word apathy because you're talk-
ing about a people who grew up having been told that 
*they* could change things any time they wanted, through
the voting process.

This is not true in the Arab world. These people grew
up in a culture in which the idea of unseating a reigning
monarch or tranferring power to the people is unthink-
able. There is no model for it; it has never happened.
It's like trying to get a medieval serf to think of 
the idea of challening his feudal lord. It takes *reallY*
extraordinary events (like starvation) before a people 
raised in a feudal mindset can even conceive of challeng-
ing the feudal structure.

So I don't think apathy is the right word to describe
the acceptance of the status quo we see in many Arab
countries. It's more that many of the people really
don't know that there is an alternative quo.







To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

* To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

* To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Pope's speech on Faith and reason

[Sal Sunshine]

On Sep 17, 2006, at 8:57 AM, TurquoiseB wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:

 On Sep 17, 2006, at 8:19 AM, TurquoiseB wrote:

 What you're seeing in the Arab world, in my opinion,
 is not *just* religious fundamentalism, but a sense of
 rage at having been treated like the niggers of the
 world for almost seven hundred years. They WON back
 then, and they've been being treated like ignoramuses
 by the losers ever since. They're understandably a
 little pissed.

 OTOH, Barry, as intelligent and thoughtful as most Arabs
 undoubtedly are, they *have* allowed a small, corrupt cadre
 of uncaring individuals with little or no conscience (with,
 admittedly, the aid and support of just-as-corrupt US
 leaders) to drain the huge oil  wealth and resources for
 decades  for palaces, harems, etc for those select few,
 when it should have gone towards making life better for everyone.

 It would be interesting to speculate whether or not these corrupt
 regimes would still be n power w/o US support--my guess is, many
 would. Apathy is not restricted to our shores.

 I agree that the reason the Arab countries are the
 way that they are (corruption and all, imbalance of
 rich and poor and all) is because the people of those
 countries allow it to take place. However, it's a little
 different there than it is in America. In America I think
 you can safely use the word apathy because you're talk-
 ing about a people who grew up having been told that
 *they* could change things any time they wanted, through
 the voting process.

 This is not true in the Arab world. These people grew
 up in a culture in which the idea of unseating a reigning
 monarch or tranferring power to the people is unthink-
 able.

Oh, come on.  Many of these reigning monarchs, like in Saudi Arabia 
and other Gulf states, have only been there for a few decades, put in 
place to keep the oil flowing.  Most of the the people there are very 
aware of that, I would guess.

  There is no model for it; it has never happened.

Maybe that's because most of these countries weren't countries at all 
until the early 20th century--they were part of various empires--the 
Holy Roman, Ottoman, etc.  It's totally different now, and it's foolish 
to think they can't tell the difference.

 It's like trying to get a medieval serf to think of
 the idea of challening his feudal lord. It takes *reallY*
 extraordinary events (like starvation) before a people
 raised in a feudal mindset can even conceive of challeng-
 ing the feudal structure.

They've been all but starving there for decades, and yet nothing's 
happened. The rulers toss them just enough scraps to keep them from 
mass starvation, but that's about it.

 So I don't think apathy is the right word to describe
 the acceptance of the status quo we see in many Arab
 countries. It's more that many of the people really
 don't know that there is an alternative quo.

I'll give them a lot more credit for awareness than you do.  My guess 
is most know the US would crush any overt attempt at removal, hence the 
suicide bombers and other methods the US *can't* crush.

Sal



To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

* To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

* To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Pope's speech on Faith and reason

[MDixon6569]

In a message dated 9/17/06 7:59:30 A.M. Central Daylight Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Americans as a whole don't care whether the people in the Third 
  World live or die. That's why they elect leaders who don't care 
  whether these people live or die and who design and implement their 
  global strategies accordingly.Well, no, not "Americans as a 
  whole."More than 51 million Americans voted *against*George Bush 
  in 2000; more than 59 million votedagainst him in 
2004.

Yet those same 51 million and 59 million would have been led by those that 
would never have committed to liberating Afghanistan because "no nation has ever 
conquered the Afghans and we would fall into the same trap that the Russians 
fell into". "It would be another Vietnam for America". And Saddam would still be 
in power with more oil revenues than ever before, most likely without sanctions 
because the ones he had were being undermined by all those powers that wanted 
Saddam's oil. He would be in a paranoid state with his neighbor developing nukes 
and feel justified in restarting his own WMD programs again and he would be 
doing exactly what all those Arab leaders do to their own people.He would have 
beenraping , killing and impoverishing them as he had been doing. Those 
same leaders, American,would have been happy to maintain the status quo 
for "peace" sake and maintain cheap oil supplies and take the risks of leaving 
leaders like Saddam in power.
__._,_.___





To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!'








   



  



  
  Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional 
  Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required) 
  Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured 
   
Visit Your Group 
   |
  
Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use
   |
  
   Unsubscribe 
   
 

  




__,_._,___

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Pope's speech on Faith and reason

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:

 On Sep 17, 2006, at 8:40 AM, TurquoiseB wrote:
 
  Gotta agree. I currently live in France, which has MORE
  than its share of problems. They're *also* a remarkably
  Self Important culture. But one of the things they are
  NOT is apathetic.

 Any culture which invented the croissant, cappucino, and 
 Freedom Fries has my vote...even if they can't speak American 
 or even French. :)

Here, for possible future reference, is the deep,
dark secret that all tourist guides to France should
tell you but few do:

At least in the major cities, many if not most of
the people you speak to *can* understand and speak 
English. It's just that unless their income is 
completely dependent on tips -- and sometimes even 
when it is -- they WON'T converse with you in English 
until you first prove your worthiness as a human being. 

You do this by attempting to speak French, and thus by
embarrassing yourself thoroughly in public. Once you've
done this and the other French people in the shop or
bar or restaurant have had the opportunity to snicker
silently at your terrible accent and grammar, the French 
are more than willing to suddenly rediscover their 
previously-lapsed language skills and speak English 
with you. It's a pecking order thang.  :-)

  If a president of France had tried to
  fuck with the French people basic rights one tenth as
  greviously as Bush has fucked with Americans' basic rights,
  the entire population of France would have been out on the
  streets in protest. The country would have shut down and
  would not have moved again until the government rescinded
  its actions.
 
 Presumably they never would have elected an illiterate moron 
 to begin with...let alone a whole group of them.

I dunno. Look at Chirac. He's in place because (near
as I can figure out) the French went into the last
*primary* elections voting the way French people DO,
for tiny little Green and Socialist and Liberal and
even Commie party candidates. They do this thinking
that the primary is where they get to protest, and
then they'll cast their *real* vote in the final
election. 

Well, the problem was that so many people voted for
their for show tiny parties that the two candidates
for the final election were a conservative blowhard
with a history of corruption and zero charisma (Chirac)
and a dangerous Right-wing (but charismatic) nutcase 
named Le Pen. It is to the French people's credit that 
they came out en masse to vote Le Pen down, but it is 
to their discredit that they allowed either him *or* 
Chirac to be nominated in the first place.  Just my 
opinion.








To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

* To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

* To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Pope's speech on Faith and reason

[Sal Sunshine]

On Sep 17, 2006, at 9:13 AM, TurquoiseB wrote:

 At least in the major cities, many if not most of
 the people you speak to *can* understand and speak
 English. It's just that unless their income is
 completely dependent on tips -- and sometimes even
 when it is -- they WON'T converse with you in English
 until you first prove your worthiness as a human being.

 You do this by attempting to speak French, and thus by
 embarrassing yourself thoroughly in public. Once you've
 done this and the other French people in the shop or
 bar or restaurant have had the opportunity to snicker
 silently at your terrible accent and grammar, the French
 are more than willing to suddenly rediscover their
 previously-lapsed language skills and speak English
 with you. It's a pecking order thang.  :-)

  Actually, I've found that most people appreciate this.  Nobody expects 
fluency from a tourist, but if you visit another country, and attempt 
to speak even a few phrases, even if you have to look them up in a 
phrase-book right as you're speaking them, people seem to treat you 
differently, as someone who is making an effort, even a small one, to 
understand a part of their culture.  I've never interpreted the 
laughter to be derisive.

Sal



To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

* To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

* To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Pope's speech on Faith and reason

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
 Unfortunately, there are many who say they aren't evolved enough
 to handle democracy and need a Saddam

Who has said that?  Can you give us *just one* name
and quote?






To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

* To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

* To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Pope's speech on Faith and reason

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:

 On Sep 17, 2006, at 8:57 AM, TurquoiseB wrote:
snip
  So I don't think apathy is the right word to describe
  the acceptance of the status quo we see in many Arab
  countries. It's more that many of the people really
  don't know that there is an alternative quo.
 
 I'll give them a lot more credit for awareness than you do.  My guess 
 is most know the US would crush any overt attempt at removal, hence 
 the suicide bombers and other methods the US *can't* crush.

On the nose, Sal.







To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

* To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

* To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Pope's speech on Faith and reason

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  
 In a message dated 9/17/06 7:59:30 A.M. Central Daylight Time,  
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
 
 Americans as a whole don't care whether the people in the
  Third  World live or die. That's why they elect leaders
  who don't care  whether these people live or die and who
  design and implement their  global strategies accordingly.
 
 Well, no, not Americans as a  whole.
 
 More than 51 million Americans voted *against*
 George Bush  in 2000; more than 59 million voted
 against him in  2004.
 
 Yet those same 51 million and 59 million would have been led
 by those that would never have committed to liberating Afghanistan 
 because no nation has ever conquered the Afghans and we would
 fall into the same trap that the Russians  fell into.

Sorry, but imaginary scenarios about what Gore
or Kerry would have done do not an argument make.

As for our having liberated Afghanistan, you
don't read the news much, I gather.






To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

* To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

* To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Pope's speech on Faith and reason

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:

 On Sep 17, 2006, at 9:13 AM, TurquoiseB wrote:
 
  At least in the major cities, many if not most of
  the people you speak to *can* understand and speak
  English. It's just that unless their income is
  completely dependent on tips -- and sometimes even
  when it is -- they WON'T converse with you in English
  until you first prove your worthiness as a human being.
 
  You do this by attempting to speak French, and thus by
  embarrassing yourself thoroughly in public. Once you've
  done this and the other French people in the shop or
  bar or restaurant have had the opportunity to snicker
  silently at your terrible accent and grammar, the French
  are more than willing to suddenly rediscover their
  previously-lapsed language skills and speak English
  with you. It's a pecking order thang.  :-)
 
 Actually, I've found that most people appreciate this. Nobody expects 
 fluency from a tourist, but if you visit another country, and attempt 
 to speak even a few phrases, even if you have to look them up in a 
 phrase-book right as you're speaking them, people seem to treat you 
 differently, as someone who is making an effort, even a small one, 
 to understand a part of their culture.  I've never interpreted the 
 laughter to be derisive.

Most of the time it isn't. I was just doing the Dave
Barry version.  :-)

http://www.davebarry.com/president/dave2k/columns/french1.htm

http://www.davebarry.com/president/dave2k/columns/french2.htm

Woon.







To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

* To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

* To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Pope's speech on Faith and reason

[curtisdeltablues]

I just learned to say hi and thank you in the languages of the
different Asian communities I live with.  It totally transforms my
relationships  like a cultural open seseme. (sometimes I have needed
the phrase does your brother carry a gun.)

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:

 On Sep 17, 2006, at 9:13 AM, TurquoiseB wrote:
 
  At least in the major cities, many if not most of
  the people you speak to *can* understand and speak
  English. It's just that unless their income is
  completely dependent on tips -- and sometimes even
  when it is -- they WON'T converse with you in English
  until you first prove your worthiness as a human being.
 
  You do this by attempting to speak French, and thus by
  embarrassing yourself thoroughly in public. Once you've
  done this and the other French people in the shop or
  bar or restaurant have had the opportunity to snicker
  silently at your terrible accent and grammar, the French
  are more than willing to suddenly rediscover their
  previously-lapsed language skills and speak English
  with you. It's a pecking order thang.  :-)
 
   Actually, I've found that most people appreciate this.  Nobody
expects 
 fluency from a tourist, but if you visit another country, and attempt 
 to speak even a few phrases, even if you have to look them up in a 
 phrase-book right as you're speaking them, people seem to treat you 
 differently, as someone who is making an effort, even a small one, to 
 understand a part of their culture.  I've never interpreted the 
 laughter to be derisive.
 
 Sal








To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

* To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

* To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Pope's speech on Faith and reason

[new . morning]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote:
  snip
   Americans as a whole don't care whether the people in the
   Third World live or die. That's why they elect leaders
   who don't care whether these people live or die and who
   design and implement their global strategies accordingly.
  
  Well, no, not Americans as a whole.
  
  More than 51 million Americans voted *against*
  George Bush in 2000; more than 59 million voted
  against him in 2004.
  
  Unfortunately only around 60 percent of those
  eligible to vote actually voted in 2004, so we
  don't know how the rest felt.  But we *do* know
  that less than a third of voters actually pulled
  the lever for Bush.
 
 We DO know how those who didn't vote felt.
 
 They didn't care enough even to vote.
 
 Therefore in effect they voted.
 
 Bush is President because the American people
 caused him to be there, via comission or omission.


Your theory appears to presume the US is a pure democracy -- one
person, one vote. While that is the standard throughout much of the
civilized world, the US is a democratic back water.

It remains a backwater of darkness and corruption due to i) the
electoral college (Gore won in 2000 -- the was the true reflection of
US will), ii) a bi-cameral system of legislature where one house is
the antithesis of  one persone, one vote, and the other is so rigged
(jerrymandering) that only 10% or so of races are actually competitive
-- that is -- democratic. The rest of the races are simple
power-maintnenace by entrenched rulers. Further, out-of-state
contribution to local races, corrupt lobbying rules and campaign
finance, and no centralized national election rules -- allowing local
corruption (Ohio, Florida, Kathleen Smith, paperless trail voting
machines) all are choking the true will of the people by entrenched
powers. 

With so many distortions in in ts so-called democracy, democracy in
the US is a sick patient in intensive care. Hardly vibrant and
reflective of the will of the people. The US currently is more than
than not, a banana republic of entrenched powers sustaining their
power. Its not a wonder corrupt low-vibe policies are developed and
implemented. 

How to break the black-shroud of darkeness choking american democracy? 









To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

* To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

* To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Pope's speech on Faith and reason

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 I just learned to say hi and thank you in the languages 
 of the different Asian communities I live with.  

I always had good luck with the phrase, We've come
for your daughters, Chuck. When properly translated,
most people in most countries take this as some kind
of obscure film reference (which it is), and rarely
look upon it as a sincere admission of intent.

 It totally transforms my relationships like a cultural 
 open seseme...

I'll have to look into this. That's the effect I 
was going for with my phrase...  :-)







To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

* To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

* To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Pope's speech on Faith and reason

[new . morning]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
 curtisdeltablues@ wrote:
 
  I just learned to say hi and thank you in the languages 
  of the different Asian communities I live with.  
 
 I always had good luck with the phrase, We've come
 for your daughters, Chuck. When properly translated,
 most people in most countries take this as some kind
 of obscure film reference (which it is), and rarely
 look upon it as a sincere admission of intent.
 
  It totally transforms my relationships like a cultural 
  open seseme...
 
 I'll have to look into this. That's the effect I 
 was going for with my phrase...  :-)


So it will now be: 
Hi. We have come for your daughters, chuck(lehead), Thanks!?









To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

* To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

* To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Pope's speech on Faith and reason

[shempmcgurk]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:

 On Sep 17, 2006, at 8:19 AM, TurquoiseB wrote:
 
  What you're seeing in the Arab world, in my opinion,
  is not *just* religious fundamentalism, but a sense of
  rage at having been treated like the niggers of the
  world for almost seven hundred years. They WON back
  then, and they've been being treated like ignoramuses
  by the losers ever since. They're understandably a
  little pissed.
 
 OTOH, Barry, as intelligent and thoughtful as most Arabs 
undoubtedly 
 are, they *have* allowed a small, corrupt cadre of uncaring 
individuals 
 with little or no conscience (with, admittedly, the aid and 
support of 
 just-as-corrupt US leaders)




just as corrupt US leaders?

And who would those be, Sunshine?  And why?






 to drain the huge oil  wealth and 
 resources for decades  for palaces, harems, etc for those select 
few, 
 when it should have gone towards making life better for everyone.
 
 It would be interesting to speculate whether or not these corrupt 
 regimes would still be n power w/o US support--my guess is, many 
would. 
   Apathy is not restricted to our shores.
 
 Sal








To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

* To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

* To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Pope's speech on Faith and reason

[shempmcgurk]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:



[snip]

 Gotta agree. I currently live in France, which has MORE
 than its share of problems. They're *also* a remarkably
 Self Important culture. But one of the things they are
 NOT is apathetic. If a president of France had tried to
 fuck with the French people basic rights one tenth as
 greviously as Bush has fucked with Americans' basic rights, 
 the entire population of France would have been out on the 
 streets in protest. 





Having a 25 hour work week (or whatever the maximum hours the French 
unions have negotiated for themselves) is NOT a basic human right, 
Barry.

Neither the judicial system nor the basic rights and freedoms of the 
French come close to what Americans enjoy.

You simply don't know what you're talking about.








The country would have shut down and 
 would not have moved again until the government rescinded 
 its actions.
 
 The French may *be* the drama queens of the planet, but
 in times like these, drama queens can be counted on to
 man the barricades, whereas your everyday American can't
 even be counted upon to make it to a polling place on 
 election day.








To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

* To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

* To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Pope's speech on Faith and reason

[Sal Sunshine]

On Sep 17, 2006, at 10:19 AM, shempmcgurk wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:

 On Sep 17, 2006, at 8:19 AM, TurquoiseB wrote:

 What you're seeing in the Arab world, in my opinion,
 is not *just* religious fundamentalism, but a sense of
 rage at having been treated like the niggers of the
 world for almost seven hundred years. They WON back
 then, and they've been being treated like ignoramuses
 by the losers ever since. They're understandably a
 little pissed.

 OTOH, Barry, as intelligent and thoughtful as most Arabs
 undoubtedly
 are, they *have* allowed a small, corrupt cadre of uncaring
 individuals
 with little or no conscience (with, admittedly, the aid and
 support of
 just-as-corrupt US leaders)


 just as corrupt US leaders?

 And who would those be, Sunshine?
Pretty much all the ones you admire, Shemp.

  And why?



To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

* To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

* To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Pope's speech on Faith and reason

[shempmcgurk]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, MDixon6569@ wrote:
 snip
  Unfortunately, there are many who say they aren't evolved enough
  to handle democracy and need a Saddam
 
 Who has said that?  Can you give us *just one* name
 and quote?



Strangely, I have a Kuwaiti friend who has said exactly this.

Her family and friends went through hell when Saddam invaded Kuwait in 
1990 (she was here in America through it all), and the Americans saved 
them.  Yet she was dead-set against invading and toppling Saddam in 
2003.  She is incredibly anti-Bush.





To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

* To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

* To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Pope's speech on Faith and reason

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:

 Having a 25 hour work week (or whatever the maximum 
 hours the French unions have negotiated for themselves) 
 is NOT a basic human right, Barry.

35 hours, Shemp. 

But you have the origin of this shorter work week
backwards. It didn't come from the side of the 
workers or from labor union efforts, but from the
side of the guvmint itself. They figured that if
they set the max work week at 35 hours per day,
they could create more jobs and thus have more
people working. 

Besides, you're just jealous. The French workers
also get a minimum of four weeks' paid vacation
per year, too. Nyaah nyaah.  :-)








To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

* To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

* To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Pope's speech on Faith and reason

[curtisdeltablues]

  It totally transforms my relationships like a cultural 
  open seseme...
 
 I'll have to look into this. That's the effect I 
 was going for with my phrase...  :-)

Can I pour you another? can work.




--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
 curtisdeltablues@ wrote:
 
  I just learned to say hi and thank you in the languages 
  of the different Asian communities I live with.  
 
 I always had good luck with the phrase, We've come
 for your daughters, Chuck. When properly translated,
 most people in most countries take this as some kind
 of obscure film reference (which it is), and rarely
 look upon it as a sincere admission of intent.
 








To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

* To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

* To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Pope's speech on Faith and reason

[shempmcgurk]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ 
wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ 
wrote:
   snip
Americans as a whole don't care whether the people in the
Third World live or die. That's why they elect leaders
who don't care whether these people live or die and who
design and implement their global strategies accordingly.
   
   Well, no, not Americans as a whole.
   
   More than 51 million Americans voted *against*
   George Bush in 2000; more than 59 million voted
   against him in 2004.
   
   Unfortunately only around 60 percent of those
   eligible to vote actually voted in 2004, so we
   don't know how the rest felt.  But we *do* know
   that less than a third of voters actually pulled
   the lever for Bush.
  
  We DO know how those who didn't vote felt.
  
  They didn't care enough even to vote.
  
  Therefore in effect they voted.
  
  Bush is President because the American people
  caused him to be there, via comission or omission.
 
 
 Your theory appears to presume the US is a pure democracy -- one
 person, one vote. While that is the standard throughout much of the
 civilized world





Oh, really?

Tell us where this is a standard, please.

Often, the one-man-one-vote standard is purposely NOT built into a 
country's democratic system.

For example, where you have minorities, the one-man-one-vote 
principal can wipe out their individual and minority rights and, 
often, a country's constitution will provide protections for them.  
In Canada where I'm from, the constitution provided certain 
minorities guaranteed minimum seats in pariament, despite their 
dwindling numbers or their percentage of the population.

The most blatant example of that is the tiny Island of Prince Edward 
Island with a population of about 150,000.  The Canadian 
constitution guarantees them 4 seats in the federal parliament 
whereas if it were done on the basis of one-man-one-vote they'd get 
less than one.

And one of the big complaints by provinces such as Alberta is that 
the one-man-one-vote principle is grossly unfair to them in ther 
federal parliament.  Alberta didn't exist when Canada and its 
constitution were created in 1867.  Today, relative to Ontario and 
Quebec, Alberta and B.C. have little population and have no hope of 
being a majority in parliament.  Capture the votes of just Ontario 
and some of Quebec and the other 8 provinces can be ignored. And 
that's why separation is not just a Quebec phenomenon but an Alberta 
one as well.

Indeed, Alberta has been crying for decades for precisely the sort 
of thing that you rail against below: the distortion of and 
antithesis of one-man-one-vote...that is, a Senate with equal 
provincial representation in a bicameral legislature.









 the US is a democratic back water.
 
 It remains a backwater of darkness and corruption due to i) the
 electoral college (Gore won in 2000 -- the was the true reflection 
of
 US will), ii) a bi-cameral system of legislature where one house is
 the antithesis of  one persone, one vote, and the other is so 
rigged
 (jerrymandering) that only 10% or so of races are actually 
competitive
 -- that is -- democratic. The rest of the races are simple
 power-maintnenace by entrenched rulers. Further, out-of-state
 contribution to local races, corrupt lobbying rules and campaign
 finance, and no centralized national election rules -- allowing 
local
 corruption (Ohio, Florida, Kathleen Smith, paperless trail voting
 machines) all are choking the true will of the people by entrenched
 powers. 
 
 With so many distortions in in ts so-called democracy, democracy in
 the US is a sick patient in intensive care. Hardly vibrant and
 reflective of the will of the people. The US currently is more than
 than not, a banana republic of entrenched powers sustaining their
 power. Its not a wonder corrupt low-vibe policies are developed and
 implemented. 
 
 How to break the black-shroud of darkeness choking american 
democracy?







To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

* To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

* To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Pope's speech on Faith and reason

[shempmcgurk]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:

 
 On Sep 17, 2006, at 10:19 AM, shempmcgurk wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine salsunshine@
  wrote:
 
  On Sep 17, 2006, at 8:19 AM, TurquoiseB wrote:
 
  What you're seeing in the Arab world, in my opinion,
  is not *just* religious fundamentalism, but a sense of
  rage at having been treated like the niggers of the
  world for almost seven hundred years. They WON back
  then, and they've been being treated like ignoramuses
  by the losers ever since. They're understandably a
  little pissed.
 
  OTOH, Barry, as intelligent and thoughtful as most Arabs
  undoubtedly
  are, they *have* allowed a small, corrupt cadre of uncaring
  individuals
  with little or no conscience (with, admittedly, the aid and
  support of
  just-as-corrupt US leaders)
 
 
  just as corrupt US leaders?
 
  And who would those be, Sunshine?
 Pretty much all the ones you admire, Shemp.



Great answer, Sunshine-ski.

I pretty much figured you didn't have an argument there to back up 
what you said.

It just sounded cool to say, didn't it.




 
   And why?








To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

* To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

* To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Pope's speech on Faith and reason

[new . morning]

your argument appears to be that those who can glob onto more power
over others, relative to their population, will do so. No huge insight
there. The question is whether a democracy of one-person one vote is
more reflective of the will of the people than systems where some
peoples vote count 10x, sometimes 100x of others.

Let Canadians do what they will. In the US, I advocate one-person one
vote. And the abolishment of hugely distortianal systems like the
electoral college which not only distorts the will of the popular vote
(Gore 2000) but makes all but a handful states mere observers, not
participants in national elections. I lived in California most of my
life. In memory, few presidential candidates ever visited or spent
energy in California. What kind of system is that where the most
populous state, the largest state economy, and some would venture the
most creative, innovation and research-focussed state, is basically
excluded from presidential systems. 

Blame the election on Iowans! :)
 

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning no_reply@ 
 wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ 
 wrote:
   
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ 
 wrote:
snip
 Americans as a whole don't care whether the people in the
 Third World live or die. That's why they elect leaders
 who don't care whether these people live or die and who
 design and implement their global strategies accordingly.

Well, no, not Americans as a whole.

More than 51 million Americans voted *against*
George Bush in 2000; more than 59 million voted
against him in 2004.

Unfortunately only around 60 percent of those
eligible to vote actually voted in 2004, so we
don't know how the rest felt.  But we *do* know
that less than a third of voters actually pulled
the lever for Bush.
   
   We DO know how those who didn't vote felt.
   
   They didn't care enough even to vote.
   
   Therefore in effect they voted.
   
   Bush is President because the American people
   caused him to be there, via comission or omission.
  
  
  Your theory appears to presume the US is a pure democracy -- one
  person, one vote. While that is the standard throughout much of the
  civilized world
 
 
 
 
 
 Oh, really?
 
 Tell us where this is a standard, please.
 
 Often, the one-man-one-vote standard is purposely NOT built into a 
 country's democratic system.
 
 For example, where you have minorities, the one-man-one-vote 
 principal can wipe out their individual and minority rights and, 
 often, a country's constitution will provide protections for them.  
 In Canada where I'm from, the constitution provided certain 
 minorities guaranteed minimum seats in pariament, despite their 
 dwindling numbers or their percentage of the population.
 
 The most blatant example of that is the tiny Island of Prince Edward 
 Island with a population of about 150,000.  The Canadian 
 constitution guarantees them 4 seats in the federal parliament 
 whereas if it were done on the basis of one-man-one-vote they'd get 
 less than one.
 
 And one of the big complaints by provinces such as Alberta is that 
 the one-man-one-vote principle is grossly unfair to them in ther 
 federal parliament.  Alberta didn't exist when Canada and its 
 constitution were created in 1867.  Today, relative to Ontario and 
 Quebec, Alberta and B.C. have little population and have no hope of 
 being a majority in parliament.  Capture the votes of just Ontario 
 and some of Quebec and the other 8 provinces can be ignored. And 
 that's why separation is not just a Quebec phenomenon but an Alberta 
 one as well.
 
 Indeed, Alberta has been crying for decades for precisely the sort 
 of thing that you rail against below: the distortion of and 
 antithesis of one-man-one-vote...that is, a Senate with equal 
 provincial representation in a bicameral legislature.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  the US is a democratic back water.
  
  It remains a backwater of darkness and corruption due to i) the
  electoral college (Gore won in 2000 -- the was the true reflection 
 of
  US will), ii) a bi-cameral system of legislature where one house is
  the antithesis of  one persone, one vote, and the other is so 
 rigged
  (jerrymandering) that only 10% or so of races are actually 
 competitive
  -- that is -- democratic. The rest of the races are simple
  power-maintnenace by entrenched rulers. Further, out-of-state
  contribution to local races, corrupt lobbying rules and campaign
  finance, and no centralized national election rules -- allowing 
 local
  corruption (Ohio, Florida, Kathleen Smith, paperless trail voting
  machines) all are choking the true will of the people by entrenched
  powers. 
  
  With so many distortions in in ts so-called democracy, 

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Pope's speech on Faith and reason

[jim_flanegin]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Irmeli Mattsson 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@ 
wrote:
 
  The current conflict continues as long as the West thinks that 
by 
  killing enough of the third world people, we can force the rest 
into 
  submission and servitude. It isn't working, nor will it. 
  
 
 
 Is this really how the majority of people and the politicians in 
the
 USA think?
 Certainly not in Europe and by no means in Finland. Here I feel we 
are
 too understanding of everything people in the Muslim world do and 
we
 don't dare to criticize their values and moral thinking. They are 
seen
 as just the poor victims.

There is that well known saying,Actions speak louder than words.

The politicians are there to carry out the will of those in power 
and placate the people. Behind the scenes in the US and in Europe 
the imperial agenda is still very much in place. The palatable lies 
told to the populace to make them believe in 'kinder and gentler' 
leaders are calculated to prevent us from seeing the geopolitical 
reality. If you stop listening to the politicians and just observe 
for a little while, you may see an entirely different picture than 
those spouting empty words would have you believe.





To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

* To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

* To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Pope's speech on Faith and reason

[shempmcgurk]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:

 your argument appears to be that those who can glob onto more power
 over others, relative to their population, will do so.





It's not so much a globbing on to power as it is a protection 
against the misuse of power by a majority.

Tyranny of the majority is also globbing onto more power and is 
one that can run roughshod over minorities.

You huffily proclaimed that because of it's absense of pure one-man-
one-vote, the U.S. is a democratic back water.  I pointed out to 
you that democracy is more than just one-man-one-vote and 
concessions to this don't necessarily mean an abandonment of 
democracy nor because democratic principles are ignored.

Protection of the weak and minorities is hardly darkness and 
corruption.






 No huge insight
 there. The question is whether a democracy of one-person one vote 
is
 more reflective of the will of the people than systems where some
 peoples vote count 10x, sometimes 100x of others.
 
 Let Canadians do what they will. In the US, I advocate one-person 
one
 vote. And the abolishment of hugely distortianal systems like the
 electoral college which not only distorts the will of the popular 
vote
 (Gore 2000) but makes all but a handful states mere observers, not
 participants in national elections. I lived in California most of 
my
 life. In memory, few presidential candidates ever visited or spent
 energy in California. What kind of system is that where the most
 populous state, the largest state economy, and some would venture 
the
 most creative, innovation and research-focussed state, is basically
 excluded from presidential systems. 
 
 Blame the election on Iowans! :)
  
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@
 wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning no_reply@ 
  wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ 
wrote:
   
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ 
  wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB 
no_reply@ 
  wrote:
 snip
  Americans as a whole don't care whether the people in the
  Third World live or die. That's why they elect leaders
  who don't care whether these people live or die and who
  design and implement their global strategies accordingly.
 
 Well, no, not Americans as a whole.
 
 More than 51 million Americans voted *against*
 George Bush in 2000; more than 59 million voted
 against him in 2004.
 
 Unfortunately only around 60 percent of those
 eligible to vote actually voted in 2004, so we
 don't know how the rest felt.  But we *do* know
 that less than a third of voters actually pulled
 the lever for Bush.

We DO know how those who didn't vote felt.

They didn't care enough even to vote.

Therefore in effect they voted.

Bush is President because the American people
caused him to be there, via comission or omission.
   
   
   Your theory appears to presume the US is a pure democracy -- 
one
   person, one vote. While that is the standard throughout much 
of the
   civilized world
  
  
  
  
  
  Oh, really?
  
  Tell us where this is a standard, please.
  
  Often, the one-man-one-vote standard is purposely NOT built 
into a 
  country's democratic system.
  
  For example, where you have minorities, the one-man-one-vote 
  principal can wipe out their individual and minority rights and, 
  often, a country's constitution will provide protections for 
them.  
  In Canada where I'm from, the constitution provided certain 
  minorities guaranteed minimum seats in pariament, despite their 
  dwindling numbers or their percentage of the population.
  
  The most blatant example of that is the tiny Island of Prince 
Edward 
  Island with a population of about 150,000.  The Canadian 
  constitution guarantees them 4 seats in the federal parliament 
  whereas if it were done on the basis of one-man-one-vote they'd 
get 
  less than one.
  
  And one of the big complaints by provinces such as Alberta is 
that 
  the one-man-one-vote principle is grossly unfair to them in ther 
  federal parliament.  Alberta didn't exist when Canada and its 
  constitution were created in 1867.  Today, relative to Ontario 
and 
  Quebec, Alberta and B.C. have little population and have no hope 
of 
  being a majority in parliament.  Capture the votes of just 
Ontario 
  and some of Quebec and the other 8 provinces can be ignored. And 
  that's why separation is not just a Quebec phenomenon but an 
Alberta 
  one as well.
  
  Indeed, Alberta has been crying for decades for precisely the 
sort 
  of thing that you rail against below: the distortion of and 
  antithesis of one-man-one-vote...that is, a Senate with equal 
  provincial representation in a bicameral legislature.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
   the US is a democratic back water.
   
   It remains a 

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Pope's speech on Faith and reason

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 On Sep 17, 2006, at 2:31 AM, Irmeli Mattsson wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@ 
  wrote:
 
  The current conflict continues as long as the West thinks that by
  killing enough of the third world people, we can force the rest into
  submission and servitude. It isn't working, nor will it.
 
 
 
  Is this really how the majority of people and the politicians in the
  USA think?
 
 OF course not.  What do you think?  A few lunatics on the right do, and 
 unfortunately they've cheated and bullied their way into power.  It 
 won't last, it never does.
 
  Certainly not in Europe and by no means in Finland. Here I feel we are
  too understanding of everything people in the Muslim world do and we
  don't dare to criticize their values and moral thinking. They are seen
  as just the poor victims.
 
 Not a particularly healthy attitude.
 
  I don't think they are in the first place victims. I think they are a
  culture and religion in deep crisis.  Something developmental arrest
  there must be, when big parts of people live in deep poverty in spite
  of the huge oil riches, and their attitudes and values are on the
  level people in Europe had in medieval times.
 
 Yes, it's pathetic and a huge waste of resources, both material and 
 intellectual.

It goes back to Western manipulation of non-Western civilizations (not that the 
non-
Western civilization don't indulge as well). We (Brits, US, Europe, USSR) have 
supported 
very nasty regimes in the Middle East for generations in order to control the 
oil, the 
geography, etc. Those same regimes see the writing on the wall as far as their 
power goes 
because the world will quite soon (within the next century) go to a post-oil 
economy, and 
theyare fighting to stay in power. 

Staying in power doesn't mean creating an educated citizenry.






To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

* To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

* To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Pope's speech on Faith and reason

[shempmcgurk]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:

 your argument appears to be that those who can glob onto more power
 over others, relative to their population, will do so. No huge 
insight
 there. The question is whether a democracy of one-person one vote 
is
 more reflective of the will of the people than systems where some
 peoples vote count 10x, sometimes 100x of others.
 
 Let Canadians do what they will. In the US, I advocate one-person 
one
 vote. And the abolishment of hugely distortianal systems like the
 electoral college which not only distorts the will of the popular 
vote
 (Gore 2000) but makes all but a handful states mere observers, not
 participants in national elections. I lived in California most of 
my
 life. In memory, few presidential candidates ever visited or spent
 energy in California. What kind of system is that where the most
 populous state, the largest state economy, and some would venture 
the
 most creative, innovation and research-focussed state, is basically
 excluded from presidential systems. 
 
 Blame the election on Iowans! :)




I ask you again:  Where is one-man-one-vote -- which you claim is 
the standard almost everywhere -- the standard?





  
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@
 wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning no_reply@ 
  wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ 
wrote:
   
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ 
  wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB 
no_reply@ 
  wrote:
 snip
  Americans as a whole don't care whether the people in the
  Third World live or die. That's why they elect leaders
  who don't care whether these people live or die and who
  design and implement their global strategies accordingly.
 
 Well, no, not Americans as a whole.
 
 More than 51 million Americans voted *against*
 George Bush in 2000; more than 59 million voted
 against him in 2004.
 
 Unfortunately only around 60 percent of those
 eligible to vote actually voted in 2004, so we
 don't know how the rest felt.  But we *do* know
 that less than a third of voters actually pulled
 the lever for Bush.

We DO know how those who didn't vote felt.

They didn't care enough even to vote.

Therefore in effect they voted.

Bush is President because the American people
caused him to be there, via comission or omission.
   
   
   Your theory appears to presume the US is a pure democracy -- 
one
   person, one vote. While that is the standard throughout much 
of the
   civilized world
  
  
  
  
  
  Oh, really?
  
  Tell us where this is a standard, please.
  
  Often, the one-man-one-vote standard is purposely NOT built 
into a 
  country's democratic system.
  
  For example, where you have minorities, the one-man-one-vote 
  principal can wipe out their individual and minority rights and, 
  often, a country's constitution will provide protections for 
them.  
  In Canada where I'm from, the constitution provided certain 
  minorities guaranteed minimum seats in pariament, despite their 
  dwindling numbers or their percentage of the population.
  
  The most blatant example of that is the tiny Island of Prince 
Edward 
  Island with a population of about 150,000.  The Canadian 
  constitution guarantees them 4 seats in the federal parliament 
  whereas if it were done on the basis of one-man-one-vote they'd 
get 
  less than one.
  
  And one of the big complaints by provinces such as Alberta is 
that 
  the one-man-one-vote principle is grossly unfair to them in ther 
  federal parliament.  Alberta didn't exist when Canada and its 
  constitution were created in 1867.  Today, relative to Ontario 
and 
  Quebec, Alberta and B.C. have little population and have no hope 
of 
  being a majority in parliament.  Capture the votes of just 
Ontario 
  and some of Quebec and the other 8 provinces can be ignored. And 
  that's why separation is not just a Quebec phenomenon but an 
Alberta 
  one as well.
  
  Indeed, Alberta has been crying for decades for precisely the 
sort 
  of thing that you rail against below: the distortion of and 
  antithesis of one-man-one-vote...that is, a Senate with equal 
  provincial representation in a bicameral legislature.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
   the US is a democratic back water.
   
   It remains a backwater of darkness and corruption due to i) the
   electoral college (Gore won in 2000 -- the was the true 
reflection 
  of
   US will), ii) a bi-cameral system of legislature where one 
house is
   the antithesis of  one persone, one vote, and the other is so 
  rigged
   (jerrymandering) that only 10% or so of races are actually 
  competitive
   -- that is -- democratic. The rest of the races are simple
   power-maintnenace by entrenched rulers. Further, out-of-state
   

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Pope's speech on Faith and reason

[new . morning]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning no_reply@ 
 wrote:
 
  your argument appears to be that those who can glob onto more power
  over others, relative to their population, will do so.
 
 
 
 
 
 It's not so much a globbing on to power as it is a protection 
 against the misuse of power by a majority.

So says the minority globbing on to power.

I think baisc protections for minorityes are needed in constitution,
but that doesn't mean every minory should have unequal voting power.
TMers are a minority, why should we have 100x the voting power of
otehrs. Blues guitarists are a minority, why shouldn't they hav 100x
the voting power of others. Smart people are a minority, why shouldn't
they have 100x voting power? And ergo, why should smart, TMing blues
guitarists have 1,000,000 (10^3) voting power?

So give minority more voting power so it can misue power over the
majority?
 
 Tyranny of the majority is also globbing onto more power and is 
 one that can run roughshod over minorities.

The power you talking about is funding and allocation power over tax
dollars, IMO. Its raw power grabs. Thus, push gov't programs to lowest
possible level of decentralization, IMO. But a big gov't central
planning type like you might disagree. :)

 
 You huffily,

No, you huffiliy heard, apparently

 proclaimed that because of it's absense of pure one-man-
 one-vote, the U.S. is a democratic back water. I pointed out to 
 you that democracy is more than just one-man-one-vote and 
 concessions to this don't necessarily mean an abandonment of 
 democracy nor because democratic principles are ignored.

So its less democratic. I didnt say US was totally dsevoid of
democracy. But more than not, ruled by entrenched powers.

So you support electoral college, jerryrigging house districts, out of
state funding for local elections, corrupt campaign finance and
lobbying rules, etc? Because these are among the major things for
which I advocated reform

 
 Protection of the weak and minorities is hardly darkness and 
 corruption.

If you want to create strawmen, and make arguemnts totally black and
white, have a great go at it, if that amuses you. I am interested in
serious discussion, not polemics.


 
 
  No huge insight
  there. The question is whether a democracy of one-person one vote 
 is
  more reflective of the will of the people than systems where some
  peoples vote count 10x, sometimes 100x of others.
  
  Let Canadians do what they will. In the US, I advocate one-person 
 one
  vote. And the abolishment of hugely distortianal systems like the
  electoral college which not only distorts the will of the popular 
 vote
  (Gore 2000) but makes all but a handful states mere observers, not
  participants in national elections. I lived in California most of 
 my
  life. In memory, few presidential candidates ever visited or spent
  energy in California. What kind of system is that where the most
  populous state, the largest state economy, and some would venture 
 the
  most creative, innovation and research-focussed state, is basically
  excluded from presidential systems. 
  
  Blame the election on Iowans! :)
   
  
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@
  wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning no_reply@ 
   wrote:
   
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ 
 wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ 
   wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB 
 no_reply@ 
   wrote:
  snip
   Americans as a whole don't care whether the people in the
   Third World live or die. That's why they elect leaders
   who don't care whether these people live or die and who
   design and implement their global strategies accordingly.
  
  Well, no, not Americans as a whole.
  
  More than 51 million Americans voted *against*
  George Bush in 2000; more than 59 million voted
  against him in 2004.
  
  Unfortunately only around 60 percent of those
  eligible to vote actually voted in 2004, so we
  don't know how the rest felt.  But we *do* know
  that less than a third of voters actually pulled
  the lever for Bush.
 
 We DO know how those who didn't vote felt.
 
 They didn't care enough even to vote.
 
 Therefore in effect they voted.
 
 Bush is President because the American people
 caused him to be there, via comission or omission.


Your theory appears to presume the US is a pure democracy -- 
 one
person, one vote. While that is the standard throughout much 
 of the
civilized world
   
   
   
   
   
   Oh, really?
   
   Tell us where this is a standard, please.
   
   Often, the one-man-one-vote standard is purposely NOT built 
 into a 
   country's democratic system.
   
   For example, where you have 

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Pope's speech on Faith and reason

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 On Sep 17, 2006, at 8:40 AM, TurquoiseB wrote:
 
  Gotta agree. I currently live in France, which has MORE
  than its share of problems. They're *also* a remarkably
  Self Important culture. But one of the things they are
  NOT is apathetic.
 Any culture which invented the croissant, cappucino, and Freedom Fries 
 has my vote...even if they can't speak American or even French. :)
 
  If a president of France had tried to
  fuck with the French people basic rights one tenth as
  greviously as Bush has fucked with Americans' basic rights,
  the entire population of France would have been out on the
  streets in protest. The country would have shut down and
  would not have moved again until the government rescinded
  its actions.
 
 Presumably they never would have elected an illiterate moron to begin 
 with...let alone a whole group of them.
 
 Sal


Bush isn't illiterate. Nor is he a moron. He literally likes to play one on TV, 
however.






To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

* To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

* To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Pope's speech on Faith and reason

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, MDixon6569@ wrote:
  snip
   Unfortunately, there are many who say they aren't evolved enough
   to handle democracy and need a Saddam
  
  Who has said that?  Can you give us *just one* name
  and quote?
 
 
 
 Strangely, I have a Kuwaiti friend who has said exactly this.
 
 Her family and friends went through hell when Saddam invaded Kuwait in 
 1990 (she was here in America through it all), and the Americans saved 
 them.  Yet she was dead-set against invading and toppling Saddam in 
 2003.  She is incredibly anti-Bush.


Have you asked why?






To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

* To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

* To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Pope's speech on Faith and reason

[shempmcgurk]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@
 wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning no_reply@ 
  wrote:
  
   your argument appears to be that those who can glob onto more 
power
   over others, relative to their population, will do so.
  
  
  
  
  
  It's not so much a globbing on to power as it is a protection 
  against the misuse of power by a majority.
 
 So says the minority globbing on to power.
 
 I think baisc protections for minorityes are needed in 
constitution,
 but that doesn't mean every minory should have unequal voting 
power.
 TMers are a minority, why should we have 100x the voting power of
 otehrs. Blues guitarists are a minority, why shouldn't they hav 
100x
 the voting power of others. Smart people are a minority, why 
shouldn't
 they have 100x voting power? And ergo, why should smart, TMing 
blues
 guitarists have 1,000,000 (10^3) voting power?
 
 So give minority more voting power so it can misue power over the
 majority?
  
  Tyranny of the majority is also globbing onto more power and 
is 
  one that can run roughshod over minorities.
 
 The power you talking about is funding and allocation power over 
tax
 dollars, IMO. Its raw power grabs. Thus, push gov't programs to 
lowest
 possible level of decentralization, IMO. But a big gov't central
 planning type like you might disagree. :)
 
  
  You huffily,
 
 No, you huffiliy heard, apparently
 
  proclaimed that because of it's absense of pure one-man-
  one-vote, the U.S. is a democratic back water. I pointed out 
to 
  you that democracy is more than just one-man-one-vote and 
  concessions to this don't necessarily mean an abandonment of 
  democracy nor because democratic principles are ignored.
 
 So its less democratic. I didnt say US was totally dsevoid of
 democracy.




Oh, I think the use of the words democratic backwater 
and backwater of darkness and corruption and black shroud of 
darkness choking American democracy comes pretty close.







 But more than not, ruled by entrenched powers.
 
 So you support electoral college,





Yes.





 jerryrigging house districts,




No.






 out of
 state funding for local elections,






Doesn't bother me in the slightest








 corrupt campaign finance and
 lobbying rules, etc?






Anything less than laissez-faire in the area of campaign finances 
bothers me.








 Because these are among the major things for
 which I advocated reform
 
  
  Protection of the weak and minorities is hardly darkness and 
  corruption.
 
 If you want to create strawmen, and make arguemnts totally black 
and
 white, have a great go at it, if that amuses you. I am interested 
in
 serious discussion, not polemics.





I see.

And your darkness, backwater etc. comments are...what...examples 
of maturity?







 
 
  
  
   No huge insight
   there. The question is whether a democracy of one-person one 
vote 
  is
   more reflective of the will of the people than systems where 
some
   peoples vote count 10x, sometimes 100x of others.
   
   Let Canadians do what they will. In the US, I advocate one-
person 
  one
   vote. And the abolishment of hugely distortianal systems like 
the
   electoral college which not only distorts the will of the 
popular 
  vote
   (Gore 2000) but makes all but a handful states mere observers, 
not
   participants in national elections. I lived in California most 
of 
  my
   life. In memory, few presidential candidates ever visited or 
spent
   energy in California. What kind of system is that where the 
most
   populous state, the largest state economy, and some would 
venture 
  the
   most creative, innovation and research-focussed state, is 
basically
   excluded from presidential systems. 
   
   Blame the election on Iowans! :)

   
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk 
shempmcgurk@
   wrote:
   
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning 
no_reply@ 
wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB 
no_reply@ 
  wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend 
jstein@ 
wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB 
  no_reply@ 
wrote:
   snip
Americans as a whole don't care whether the people 
in the
Third World live or die. That's why they elect 
leaders
who don't care whether these people live or die and 
who
design and implement their global strategies 
accordingly.
   
   Well, no, not Americans as a whole.
   
   More than 51 million Americans voted *against*
   George Bush in 2000; more than 59 million voted
   against him in 2004.
   
   Unfortunately only around 60 percent of those
   eligible to vote actually voted in 2004, so we
   don't know how the rest felt.  But we *do* know
   that less than a third of voters actually pulled
   the 

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Pope's speech on Faith and reason

[new . morning]

If you can provide examples where the electoral college and senate
system (as well as jerrymandering, corrupt campaign finance and
lobbying, out-of-distric funding of local elections) etc, helps any
minorities in the US in substantive and sustained ways, I would give
your arguments more credence and support. 

A proposal that would actually be in the direction of protecting
minority rights (and one needs to first make a case that rights are
being violated) would be to guarantee all native americans of 50% or
greater NA heredity living on reservations 10-20 house seats. And
perhaps 30 seats to all living below 15,000 / income.  Then the
structure would appear, at least on the surface to protect minority*
or more importantly, underpriveledged rights. i might tend to support
such a system, if we could reform the other non-democratic aspects of
US political system.

* I don't see reasons to absolutely focus on minority rights if such
are not being abused. Asian indians or japanese imigrants are a
minority but seem to do quite well in the US. Why give a particular
minority class special priviledges if they are as a class already
quite priviledged?






 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@
 wrote:
  It's not so much a globbing on to power as it is a protection 
  against the misuse of power by a majority.






To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

* To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

* To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Pope's speech on Faith and reason

[Sal Sunshine]

On Sep 17, 2006, at 12:05 PM, new.morning wrote:

 If you can provide examples where the electoral college and senate
 system (as well as jerrymandering, corrupt campaign finance and
 lobbying, out-of-distric funding of local elections) etc, helps any
 minorities in the US in substantive and sustained ways, I would give
 your arguments more credence and support.

They don't, in fact institutions and practices like that do everything 
in their power to suppress minority rights and voices, something which 
Shemp supports wholeheartedly, since he is not directly affected.  He 
uses those and other such arguments as diversionary tactics.

Sal



To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

* To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

* To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Pope's speech on Faith and reason

[shempmcgurk]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:

 On Sep 17, 2006, at 12:05 PM, new.morning wrote:
 
  If you can provide examples where the electoral college and 
senate
  system (as well as jerrymandering, corrupt campaign finance and
  lobbying, out-of-distric funding of local elections) etc, helps 
any
  minorities in the US in substantive and sustained ways, I would 
give
  your arguments more credence and support.
 
 They don't, in fact institutions and practices like that do 
everything 
 in their power to suppress minority rights and voices, something 
which 
 Shemp supports wholeheartedly, since he is not directly affected.  
He 
 uses those and other such arguments as diversionary tactics.
 
 Sal



Vermont and Rhode Island disagree with you.






To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

* To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

* To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Pope's speech on Faith and reason

[shempmcgurk]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:

 If you can provide examples where the electoral college and senate
 system (as well as jerrymandering, corrupt campaign finance and
 lobbying, out-of-distric funding of local elections) etc, helps any
 minorities in the US in substantive and sustained ways, I would 
give
 your arguments more credence and support. 




First all of, I'm still waiting for YOU to tell us where in the 
world the one-man-one-vote rule -- which you claim is the standard --
 exists.

As for jerrymandering, I specifically said I didn't support 
that...so why are you asking me for examples of it?  As for the 
other things, I didn't mean to give you the impression that I 
thought they were for supporting minorities.

I'm obviously NOT for corruption in campaign financing or any other 
area of life.  But it's quite a subjective thing in the area of 
campaign financing to claim that this or that practise is corrupt.

I'm for laissez-faire in this area.  I don't give a rat's ass how 
much is spent or by whom in any campaign.  In this day and age of 
the internet, if people are going to be fooled by a TV campaign ad, 
then they will get the government they deserve.

Campaign finance laws do more damage than good.







 
 A proposal that would actually be in the direction of protecting
 minority rights (and one needs to first make a case that rights are
 being violated) would be to guarantee all native americans of 50% 
or
 greater NA heredity living on reservations 10-20 house seats. And
 perhaps 30 seats to all living below 15,000 / income.  Then the
 structure would appear, at least on the surface to protect 
minority*
 or more importantly, underpriveledged rights. i might tend to 
support
 such a system, if we could reform the other non-democratic aspects 
of
 US political system.
 
 * I don't see reasons to absolutely focus on minority rights if 
such
 are not being abused. Asian indians or japanese imigrants are a
 minority but seem to do quite well in the US. Why give a particular
 minority class special priviledges if they are as a class already
 quite priviledged?




I'm not necessarily for or against minority protections.  I brought 
up that example to counter your sweeping claim that one-man-one-vote 
was the standard for democracy when it clearly isn't.

By the way, I'm still waiting for some examples of this standard.







 
 
 
 
 
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk 
shempmcgurk@
  wrote:
   It's not so much a globbing on to power as it is a protection 
   against the misuse of power by a majority.








To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

* To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

* To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Pope's speech on Faith and reason

[shempmcgurk]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:

 If you can provide examples where the electoral college and senate
 system (as well as jerrymandering,



Again, I'm not a supporter of jerrymandering, but one of the most 
prevalent uses of jerrymandering of the past 40 years in the USA has 
been to protect a minority and provide them with an opportunity for 
electoral representation.

I'm talking of course about the African-American community in which 
many, many districts are jerrymandered according to census tracks in 
order for the opportunity for majority or plurality Black votes to 
elect Black members of Congress.





 corrupt campaign finance and
 lobbying, out-of-distric funding of local elections) etc, helps any
 minorities in the US in substantive and sustained ways, I would 
give
 your arguments more credence and support. 
 
 A proposal that would actually be in the direction of protecting
 minority rights (and one needs to first make a case that rights are
 being violated) would be to guarantee all native americans of 50% 
or
 greater NA heredity living on reservations 10-20 house seats. And
 perhaps 30 seats to all living below 15,000 / income.  Then the
 structure would appear, at least on the surface to protect 
minority*
 or more importantly, underpriveledged rights. i might tend to 
support
 such a system, if we could reform the other non-democratic aspects 
of
 US political system.
 
 * I don't see reasons to absolutely focus on minority rights if 
such
 are not being abused. Asian indians or japanese imigrants are a
 minority but seem to do quite well in the US. Why give a particular
 minority class special priviledges if they are as a class already
 quite priviledged?
 
 
 
 
 
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk 
shempmcgurk@
  wrote:
   It's not so much a globbing on to power as it is a protection 
   against the misuse of power by a majority.








To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

* To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

* To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Pope's speech on Faith and reason

[shempmcgurk]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:

 On Sep 17, 2006, at 12:05 PM, new.morning wrote:
 
  If you can provide examples where the electoral college and 
senate
  system (as well as jerrymandering, corrupt campaign finance and
  lobbying, out-of-distric funding of local elections) etc, helps 
any
  minorities in the US in substantive and sustained ways, I would 
give
  your arguments more credence and support.
 
 They don't, in fact institutions and practices like that do 
everything 
 in their power to suppress minority rights and voices, something 
which 
 Shemp supports wholeheartedly, since he is not directly affected.  
He 
 uses those and other such arguments as diversionary tactics.
 
 Sal



Sal:

You remind me of Judy...without the I.Q.







To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

* To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

* To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Pope's speech on Faith and reason

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Irmeli Mattsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:

 The Pope's recent speech the Muslims feel so agitated about is really
 very good. It is about the old historical connection Christianity in
 its essence has to reason due to strong Hellenistic influences from
 the times of the inception of Christianity. He also mentions that this
 adherence to reason has not always been a lived reality in
 Christianity especially during the Middle Ages. He states that Europe
 has got moulded to what it is nowadays under a strong influence of a
 Christian religion that sees God revealing himself as logos. In the
 beginning was the logos, and the logos is God, declares Evangelist John.
 In Islam the understanding the idea of likeness between our reason and
 that of God's is missing. There God's transcendence and otherness are
 so exalted that our reason, our sense of true and good are not an
 authentic mirror of God.
 
 The link:
 http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2006/september/
documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20060912_university-regensburg_en.html
 
 
 Irmeli


Yep, nothing in that talk could be cnosidered an attack on Isalm or Maohammed...

I mean, just because this is the keynote quote for his speech shouldn't be 
taken as a sign 
that he agrees with it. In fact, it is obvious that he does, despite any 
prevarication he may 
make now...:



Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find 
things only 
evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he 
preached







To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

* To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

* To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Pope's speech on Faith and reason

[Irmeli Mattsson]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Irmeli Mattsson 
 Irmeli.Mattsson@ wrote:
 snip
  In my opinion the pope addresses this issue in the speech relatively
  tactfully by a quotation of the issue that he sees to be at the core
  of the problem.
 
 Just so we know what we're talking about here,
 this is the quotation that has angered Muslims
 (from an AP report on Yahoo! News):
 
 In his speech on Tuesday, Benedict quoted from a book recounting a 
 conversation between 14th century Byzantine Christian Emperor Manuel 
 Paleologos II and an educated Persian on the truths of Christianity 
 and Islam.
 
 'The emperor comes to speak about the issue of jihad, holy war,' the 
 pope said. 'He said, I quote, Show me just what Muhammad brought 
 that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, 
 such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.'
 
 Whatever the truth of the last part of the sentence
 (and it's not quite the slam-dunk some seem to think),
 it's the first part that is so offensive to Muslims:
 the only new things Muhammad brought were evil and
 inhuman.  It's not hard to grasp why that has aroused
 such fury.  Imagine the wrath of Christians if a non-
 Christian were to say the only new things Jesus brought
 were evil and inhuman, citing, say, Jesus' instruction
 to hate one's father and mother!
 
 The big problem was that the pope *did not repudiate*
 the offensive part of the quote.  He could have made
 his point about violent jihad just as well if he'd
 said to start with that he didn't condone the first
 part.
 
 It's too bad that slip (among others, but that was the
 worst) was so inflammatory that it was hard to hear
 the rest of what he said dispassionately.
 
 And he *still* hasn't apologized for it.  All he's
 said is that he was sorry Muslims were offended by
 it.


I just cannot see the speech as offensive. The quotation becomes
offensive only,  when it is taken out of the context of the whole speech.
The pope is quoting a Christian Byzantine Emperor, who is trying to
challenge an educated Persian by his claims and questions. 
I have very difficult to imagine that the Christians would feel deeply
hurt and offended had the claim been made by a muslim about
Christianity. Instead the Christians would have tried to defend their
own view by answering to questions of the emperor and trying to refute
his claims.

We have also to remember what kind of audience this speech was given
to. The pope is a former professor of theology, and he was invited to
speak at the University of Regensburg.
It is a scholarly speach for other scholars. Why do the muslims feel
the need to control even what can be expressed in the academia of a
western country?

Irmeli






To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

* To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

* To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Pope's speech on Faith and reason

[jim_flanegin]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Irmeli Mattsson 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 I just cannot see the speech as offensive. The quotation becomes
 offensive only,  when it is taken out of the context of the whole 
speech.
 The pope is quoting a Christian Byzantine Emperor, who is trying to
 challenge an educated Persian by his claims and questions. 
 I have very difficult to imagine that the Christians would feel 
deeply
 hurt and offended had the claim been made by a muslim about
 Christianity. 

It really depends who holds global power. Muslims feel under attack 
nowadays by Christians, so there is a strong tendency by Muslims to 
feel every slight, real or imagined, because it is the Christians 
who are in power. Those who would view this situation logically or 
dispassionately miss this point. 

There is a popular talk show host on TV in the USA, Dr. Phil McGraw, 
(Dr. Phil) who speaks about 'psychological sunburn'- a phenomenon 
whereby a person or group feel so upset about the practices of 
another, that even expressions that are not offensive, but that 
remind the upset group of abuse, are only dealt with by outbursts of 
violence and anger.

The situation isn't helped any by those in the West who then point 
to this logically misplaced anger and declare the angry group as 
extremists and madmen.








To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

* To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

* To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Pope's speech on Faith and reason

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Irmeli Mattsson 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
snip
  Imagine the wrath of Christians if a non-
  Christian were to say the only new things Jesus brought
  were evil and inhuman, citing, say, Jesus' instruction
  to hate one's father and mother!
  
  The big problem was that the pope *did not repudiate*
  the offensive part of the quote.  He could have made
  his point about violent jihad just as well if he'd
  said to start with that he didn't condone the first
  part.
  
  It's too bad that slip (among others, but that was the
  worst) was so inflammatory that it was hard to hear
  the rest of what he said dispassionately.
  
  And he *still* hasn't apologized for it.  All he's
  said is that he was sorry Muslims were offended by
  it.
 
 I just cannot see the speech as offensive. The quotation becomes
 offensive only,  when it is taken out of the context of the whole
 speech. The pope is quoting a Christian Byzantine Emperor, who is 
 trying to challenge an educated Persian by his claims and 
 questions. I have very difficult to imagine that the Christians 
 would feel deeply hurt and offended had the claim been made by a 
 muslim about Christianity. Instead the Christians would have tried 
 to defend their own view by answering to questions of the emperor 
 and trying to refute his claims.

Some might; others would be outraged.  And bear in
mind that there's no one in Islam equivalent to the
pope, with his power and influence and international
status as a religious leader.

 We have also to remember what kind of audience this speech was given
 to. The pope is a former professor of theology, and he was invited 
 to speak at the University of Regensburg. It is a scholarly speach 
 for other scholars. Why do the muslims feel the need to control 
 even what can be expressed in the academia of a western country?

With his prominence as a public figure, the pope
can't just give a scholarly speech for other
scholars and expect it to stay within that context.
Whatever he says is going to be widely reported and
taken to be the official view of the Roman Catholic
Church.

Whether the quote was taken out of context or not, he
should have known better than to use it without
explicitly saying it didn't reflect his own views.
That he did not do so makes him, at the very least,
insensitive.

That's just Public Relations 101.






To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

* To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

* To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Pope's speech on Faith and reason

[MDixon6569]

In a message dated 9/17/06 11:59:24 A.M. Central Daylight Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
 
  Unfortunately, there are many who say they aren't evolved enough  
   to handle democracy and need a SaddamWho has 
  said that? Can you give us *just one* name  and quote? 
 Strangely, I have a Kuwaiti friend who has said 
  exactly this.  Her family and friends went through hell when 
  Saddam invaded Kuwait in  1990 (she was here in America through it 
  all), and the Americans saved  them. Yet she was dead-set against 
  invading and toppling Saddam in  2003. She is incredibly 
  anti-Bush.

It seems I heard a democratic Senator or congressman who said Iraqis were 
better off under Saddam just recently. Was it Jay Rockafeller? I have also hear 
numerous people some on this list have said the middle eastern countries aren't 
ready for democracy. Easy1 was one of them.
__._,_.___





To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!'








   



  



  
  Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional 
  Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required) 
  Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured 
   
Visit Your Group 
   |
  
Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use
   |
  
   Unsubscribe 
   
 

  




__,_._,___

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Pope's speech on Faith and reason

[MDixon6569]

In a message dated 9/17/06 9:41:17 A.M. Central Daylight Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Unfortunately, there are many who say they aren't evolved 
  enough to handle democracy and need a SaddamWho has said that? 
  Can you give us *just one* nameand quote?

Yes , A democratic Senator ot Congressman just recently said that Iraq was 
better off under Saddam. I think it was Jay Rockafeller. I'm pretty darned sure 
Offworld and Easy1would agree.
__._,_.___





To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!'








   



  



  
  Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional 
  Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required) 
  Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured 
   
Visit Your Group 
   |
  
Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use
   |
  
   Unsubscribe 
   
 

  




__,_._,___

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Pope's speech on Faith and reason

[MDixon6569]

In a message dated 9/17/06 9:40:32 A.M. Central Daylight Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Yet 
  those same 51 million and 59 million would have been led by those that 
  would never have committed to liberating Afghanistan  because "no 
  nation has ever conquered the Afghans and we would fall into the same 
  trap that the Russians fell into".Sorry, but imaginary scenarios about 
  what Goreor Kerry would have done do not an argument make.As for 
  our having "liberated" Afghanistan, youdon't read the news much, I 
  gather.

No those were common liberal arguments why we should not invade 
Afghanistan.Kind of like the 50,000 body bags for US soldiers to take 
Baghdad caused by gasand chemical attacks.I never heard any 
conservative arguments why we should not invade Afghanistan.Yes Afghanistan is 
liberated and has a democratically elected government. Are things perfect and 
peaceful? No.But definitely better off now than under the 
Taliban.
__._,_.___





To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!'








   



  



  
  Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional 
  Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required) 
  Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured 
   
Visit Your Group 
   |
  
Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use
   |
  
   Unsubscribe 
   
 

  




__,_._,___

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Pope's speech on Faith and reason

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  
 In a message dated 9/17/06 9:41:17 A.M. Central Daylight Time,  
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
 
 Unfortunately, there are many who say they aren't evolved  enough
  to handle democracy and need a Saddam
 
 Who has said that?  Can you give us *just one* name
 and quote?
 
 Yes , A democratic Senator ot Congressman just recently said that 
Iraq was  
 better off under Saddam. I think it was Jay Rockafeller. I'm pretty 
darned sure 
  Offworld and Easy1 would agree.

I'm asking for a name and quote from someone who
says Iraqis aren't evolved enough to handle
democracy.  I gather you just made that part up.








To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

* To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

* To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Pope's speech on Faith and reason

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  
 In a message dated 9/17/06 9:40:32 A.M. Central Daylight Time,  
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
 
 Yet  those same 51 million and 59 million would have been led
  by those that  would never have committed to liberating 
Afghanistan 
  because no  nation has ever conquered the Afghans and we would
  fall into the same  trap that the Russians fell into.
 
 Sorry, but imaginary scenarios about  what Gore
 or Kerry would have done do not an argument make.
 
 As for  our having liberated Afghanistan, you
 don't read the news much, I  gather.
 
 No those were common liberal arguments why we should not invade  
Afghanistan. 

Funny, I don't remember much arguing about invading
Afghanistan, at least not after 9/11.

 Kind of like the 50,000 body bags for US soldiers to take  Baghdad 
caused by 
 gas and chemical attacks.

I believe it was the Bushies who kept warning that
Saddam was planning to use gas and chemicals against
American troops.

 I never heard any  conservative arguments why we 
 should not invade Afghanistan.Yes Afghanistan is  liberated and has 
a 
 democratically elected government. Are things perfect and  
peaceful? No.But definitely 
 better off now than under the  Taliban.

You don't read the news much, I gather.






To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

* To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

* To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Pope's speech on Faith and reason

[MDixon6569]

In a message dated 9/17/06 9:13:01 P.M. Central Daylight Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  
  
  
  
  
  In a message dated 9/17/06 9:41:17 A.M. Central Daylight Time, 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]com writes:
  Unfortunately, there are many who say they aren't evolved 
enough to handle democracy and need a SaddamWho has said 
that? Can you give us *just one* nameand 
  quote?
  
  Yes , A democratic Senator ot Congressman just recently said that Iraq 
  was better off under Saddam. I think it was Jay Rockafeller. I'm pretty darned 
  sure Offworld and Easy1would agree.
   

By the way Judy, Google "better off under Saddam", you might be 
surprised.
__._,_.___





To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!'








   



  



  
  Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional 
  Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required) 
  Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured 
   
Visit Your Group 
   |
  
Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use
   |
  
   Unsubscribe 
   
 

  




__,_._,___

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Pope's speech on Faith and reason

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  
 In a message dated 9/17/06 9:40:32 A.M. Central Daylight Time,  
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
 
 Yet  those same 51 million and 59 million would have been led
  by those that  would never have committed to liberating 
Afghanistan 
  because no  nation has ever conquered the Afghans and we would
  fall into the same  trap that the Russians fell into.
 
 Sorry, but imaginary scenarios about  what Gore
 or Kerry would have done do not an argument make.
 
 As for  our having liberated Afghanistan, you
 don't read the news much, I  gather.
 
 No those were common liberal arguments why we should not invade  
Afghanistan.

P.S.: Take responsibility for what you write, please.
You explicitly said it was the leaders of those who
voted against Bush in the elections who wouldn't
have committed to liberating Afghanistan.  Those
leaders were Gore and Kerry, not just some liberals.







To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

* To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

* To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Pope's speech on Faith and reason

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  
 In a message dated 9/17/06 9:13:01 P.M. Central Daylight Time,  
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
 
 In a message dated 9/17/06 9:41:17 A.M. Central Daylight Time,  
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] a messag
 
 Unfortunately, there are many who say they aren't evolved  enough
  to handle democracy and need a Saddam
 
 Who has said  that? Can you give us *just one* name
 and  quote?
 
 Yes , A democratic Senator ot Congressman just recently said that 
Iraq  was 
 better off under Saddam. I think it was Jay Rockafeller. I'm pretty 
darned  
 sure Offworld and Easy1 would agree.
 
 By the way Judy, Google better off under Saddam, you might be  
surprised.

I was looking for not evolved enough to handle democracy
and couldn't find anything.








To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

* To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

* To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Pope's speech on Faith and reason

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  
 In a message dated 9/17/06 9:40:32 A.M. Central Daylight Time,  
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
 
 Yet  those same 51 million and 59 million would have been led
  by those that  would never have committed to liberating Afghanistan 
  because no  nation has ever conquered the Afghans and we would
  fall into the same  trap that the Russians fell into.
 
 Sorry, but imaginary scenarios about  what Gore
 or Kerry would have done do not an argument make.
 
 As for  our having liberated Afghanistan, you
 don't read the news much, I  gather.
 
 
 
 
 No those were common liberal arguments why we should not invade  Afghanistan. 
 Kind of like the 50,000 body bags for US soldiers to take  Baghdad caused by 
 gas and chemical attacks. I never heard any  conservative arguments why we 
 should not invade Afghanistan.Yes Afghanistan is  liberated and has a 
 democratically elected government. Are things perfect and  peaceful? No.But 
 definitely 
 better off now than under the  Taliban.


Really? Who told you this?






To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

* To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

* To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Pope's speech on Faith and reason

[shempmcgurk]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, MDixon6569@ wrote:
 
   
  In a message dated 9/17/06 9:41:17 A.M. Central Daylight Time,  
  jstein@ writes:
  
  Unfortunately, there are many who say they aren't evolved  enough
   to handle democracy and need a Saddam
  
  Who has said that?  Can you give us *just one* name
  and quote?
  
  Yes , A democratic Senator ot Congressman just recently said 
that 
 Iraq was  
  better off under Saddam. I think it was Jay Rockafeller. I'm 
pretty 
 darned sure 
   Offworld and Easy1 would agree.
 
 I'm asking for a name and quote from someone who
 says Iraqis aren't evolved enough to handle
 democracy.  I gather you just made that part up.


http://tinyurl.com/nw4wc







To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

* To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

* To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Pope's speech on Faith and reason

[Irmeli Mattsson]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Irmeli Mattsson 
 Irmeli.Mattsson@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
 snip
   Imagine the wrath of Christians if a non-
   Christian were to say the only new things Jesus brought
   were evil and inhuman, citing, say, Jesus' instruction
   to hate one's father and mother!
   
   The big problem was that the pope *did not repudiate*
   the offensive part of the quote.  He could have made
   his point about violent jihad just as well if he'd
   said to start with that he didn't condone the first
   part.
   
   It's too bad that slip (among others, but that was the
   worst) was so inflammatory that it was hard to hear
   the rest of what he said dispassionately.
   
   And he *still* hasn't apologized for it.  All he's
   said is that he was sorry Muslims were offended by
   it.
  
  I just cannot see the speech as offensive. The quotation becomes
  offensive only,  when it is taken out of the context of the whole
  speech. The pope is quoting a Christian Byzantine Emperor, who is 
  trying to challenge an educated Persian by his claims and 
  questions. I have very difficult to imagine that the Christians 
  would feel deeply hurt and offended had the claim been made by a 
  muslim about Christianity. Instead the Christians would have tried 
  to defend their own view by answering to questions of the emperor 
  and trying to refute his claims.
 
 Some might; others would be outraged.  And bear in
 mind that there's no one in Islam equivalent to the
 pope, with his power and influence and international
 status as a religious leader.
 
  We have also to remember what kind of audience this speech was given
  to. The pope is a former professor of theology, and he was invited 
  to speak at the University of Regensburg. It is a scholarly speach 
  for other scholars. Why do the muslims feel the need to control 
  even what can be expressed in the academia of a western country?
 
 With his prominence as a public figure, the pope
 can't just give a scholarly speech for other
 scholars and expect it to stay within that context.
 Whatever he says is going to be widely reported and
 taken to be the official view of the Roman Catholic
 Church.
 
 Whether the quote was taken out of context or not, he
 should have known better than to use it without
 explicitly saying it didn't reflect his own views.
 That he did not do so makes him, at the very least,
 insensitive.
 
 That's just Public Relations 101.


I think he made a courageous and respectful gesture by a little bit
challenging the Muslims and inviting them to a deep and serious
discussion.

I feel rather frustrated about the attitude of the press here in
Finland. The Muslims are here seen as the poor oppressed victims of
the west. Their actions are not criticized. However I suspect that the
deeper motivator of this kind of behaviour is a fear of the
consequences of possible revenge in the form of terrorism. As long as
the Muslims can control our behaviour and thinking by the threat of
terrorism they will increasingly use that weapon.

The pope ends his speech by a sincere invitation to dialogue:  Not to
act reasonably, not to act with logos, is contrary to the nature of
God, said Manuel II , according to his Christian understanding of
God, in response to the Persian interlocutor. It is to this great 
logos, to this breadth of reason, that we invite our partners in the
dialogue of cultures.

It was an invitation to a deep dialogue by expressing some challenging
questions about Islam. I think we need more this kind of approach
instead of warfare, or trying to close our eyes and pretend that there
are no problems ,or to see all the problems being caused by the west
as the press does in Finland. 

Actually by seeing only the West as a responsible part in this
conflict Muslim hides an extremely condescending attitude towards the
Muslims, as if they were totally lacking the capacity to responsible,
reasonable actions on their own, lowering them in a way to the same
level with animals.

Irmeli






To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

* To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

* To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Pope's speech on Faith and reason

[jim_flanegin]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, bob_brigante no_reply@ 
 wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ 
wrote:
   In other words, as far as I can tell they're blasting
   the Pope for knowing more about the history of their
   religion than they do.
   
  http://tinyurl.com/frea5
 
 From the Times of London:
 
 Times Online September 15, 2006 
 How an emperor's words landed the Pope in trouble
 By Ruth Gledhill, Religion Correspondent of The Times
  
This whole issue, with the US, Europe and the Pope painting Islam in 
a poor light seems to me the ultimate clash between the former 
imperial powers and what is called the third world. We in the West 
have become victims of our own success. In part by exploiting the 
third world, disproportionate wealth has been created in the West, 
leading to rapid technological advancements in communication, 
transportation  and weaponry, which have greatly leveled the playing 
field between the third world and the West, in terms of them being 
able to oppose us. No more 'Great White Father'.

The current conflict continues as long as the West thinks that by 
killing enough of the third world people, we can force the rest into 
submission and servitude. It isn't working, nor will it. 

The root of the problem is entrenched greed and the momentum of 
centuries of weapons development in the West, and centuries of 
resentment in the third world. Hence the clashes currently, where 
each side paints the other in the worst possible light.






To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

* To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

* To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Pope's speech on Faith and reason

[TurquoiseB]

I agree. It was actually a very scholarly speech,
delivered to a scholarly audience. Everything he
said was well-quoted, and attributed to the people
who said it; none of it was his ideas alone. That
said, what the Islamic community is overreacting
to is that the sources he quoted really took a
Medieval view of both Islam and Christianity. At
that time, there was no real concept of jihad,
or holy war. He was quoting from periods before
that perversion of the original ideas of the 
prophet had taken over the religion.

I'm *not* a fan of this Pope, but I read the whole
speech and I think he didn't do anything wrong
here. It's an overreaction by Muslims who have
been brainwashed to believe that their prophet
really taught them to wage holy war. In other words,
as far as I can tell they're blasting the Pope for 
knowing more about the history of their religion 
than they do.


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Irmeli Mattsson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 The Pope's recent speech the Muslims feel so agitated about is really
 very good. It is about the old historical connection Christianity in
 its essence has to reason due to strong Hellenistic influences from
 the times of the inception of Christianity. He also mentions that this
 adherence to reason has not always been a lived reality in
 Christianity especially during the Middle Ages. He states that Europe
 has got moulded to what it is nowadays under a strong influence of a
 Christian religion that sees God revealing himself as logos. In the
 beginning was the logos, and the logos is God, declares Evangelist
John.
 In Islam the understanding the idea of likeness between our reason and
 that of God's is missing. There God's transcendence and otherness are
 so exalted that our reason, our sense of true and good are not an
 authentic mirror of God.
 
 The link:

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2006/september/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20060912_university-regensburg_en.html
 
 
 Irmeli








To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

* To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

* To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Pope's speech on Faith and reason

[bob_brigante]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 I agree. It was actually a very scholarly speech,
 delivered to a scholarly audience. Everything he
 said was well-quoted, and attributed to the people
 who said it; none of it was his ideas alone. That
 said, what the Islamic community is overreacting
 to is that the sources he quoted really took a
 Medieval view of both Islam and Christianity. At
 that time, there was no real concept of jihad,
 or holy war. He was quoting from periods before
 that perversion of the original ideas of the 
 prophet had taken over the religion.
 
 I'm *not* a fan of this Pope, but I read the whole
 speech and I think he didn't do anything wrong
 here. It's an overreaction by Muslims who have
 been brainwashed to believe that their prophet
 really taught them to wage holy war. In other words,
 as far as I can tell they're blasting the Pope for 
 knowing more about the history of their religion 
 than they do.
 
 



http://www.islamfortoday.com/jihad01.htm






To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

* To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

* To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Pope's speech on Faith and reason

[bob_brigante]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 I agree. It was actually a very scholarly speech,
 delivered to a scholarly audience. Everything he
 said was well-quoted, and attributed to the people
 who said it; none of it was his ideas alone. That
 said, what the Islamic community is overreacting
 to is that the sources he quoted really took a
 Medieval view of both Islam and Christianity. At
 that time, there was no real concept of jihad,
 or holy war. He was quoting from periods before
 that perversion of the original ideas of the 
 prophet had taken over the religion.
 
 I'm *not* a fan of this Pope, but I read the whole
 speech and I think he didn't do anything wrong
 here. It's an overreaction by Muslims who have
 been brainwashed to believe that their prophet
 really taught them to wage holy war. In other words,
 as far as I can tell they're blasting the Pope for 
 knowing more about the history of their religion 
 than they do.
 



 
http://tinyurl.com/frea5






To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

* To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

* To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Pope's speech on Faith and reason

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, bob_brigante [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote:
  In other words, as far as I can tell they're blasting
  the Pope for knowing more about the history of their
  religion than they do.
  
 http://tinyurl.com/frea5

From the Times of London:

Times Online September 15, 2006 
How an emperor's words landed the Pope in trouble
By Ruth Gledhill, Religion Correspondent of The Times
 
Even his critics are agreed that the Pope did not intend to cause 
offence to the world's MuslimsThe Pope's mistake was his failure 
to distance himself from the Byzantine Emperor's comments 
 
And his address is undermined further by a serious error in regards 
to the Koran[He said,] The emperor must have known that surah 
2,256 reads:`There is no compulsion in religion.' It is one of the 
suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and 
under threat.
 
In fact, this surah is held by Muslim scholars to be from the middle 
period, around the 24th year of Mohammed's prophethood in 624 or 625, 
when he was in Medina and in control of a state. Contrary to what the 
Pope said, this was written when Mohammed was in a position of 
strength, not weakness.
 
...Professor Hans Kung, a former colleague of his when at Tubingen 
university, agrees that the Pope did not intend to provoke Muslims.
 
He is very interested in dialogue with all religions. But using this 
quotation and his whole approach to Islam in the lecture was very 
unfortunate, he said
 
This just shows the limits of the theologian Joseph Ratzinger. He 
never studied the religions thoroughly and very obviously has a 
unilateral view of Islam and the other religions.
 
The Pope has a history of criticism of Islam. According to another 
leading Catholic...Benedict XVI believes that Islam cannot be 
reformed and is therefore incompatible with democracyFather 
Joseph Fessio...said the Pope believes that reform of Islam is 
impossible because it's against the very nature of the Koran, as 
it's understood by Muslims
 
Another senior Catholic source also described the Pope's use of the 
Byzantine emperor's comments asextraordinary...: He is fully 
entitled to raise the issue of Islamist terror of course, but in this 
address he is not really doing thatHe should have said the 
emperor's comments were deplorable, and that he also recognised the 
reality of Christian violence, then there might not be such trouble 
now.
 
The tragedy of the episode is that the Pope was arguing against the 
idea that violence can be justified, in any religion. He was making 
the case for the compatibility of reason with religion at a time when 
fundamentalism has rarely been more pre-eminent across the religious 
spectrum. 
 
The irony is that the extremity of Islamic response illustrates in 
terrifying clarity how desperately the world needs to hear his 
message.
 
Read the whole thing at:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2359816,00.html

http://tinyurl.com/z9tlq







To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

* To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

* To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Pope's speech on Faith and reason

[bob_brigante]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, bob_brigante no_reply@ 
 wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ 
wrote:
   In other words, as far as I can tell they're blasting
   the Pope for knowing more about the history of their
   religion than they do.
   
  http://tinyurl.com/frea5
 
 From the Times of London:
 
 Times Online September 15, 2006 
 How an emperor's words landed the Pope in trouble
 By Ruth Gledhill, Religion Correspondent of The Times
  
 Even his critics are agreed that the Pope did not intend to cause 
 offence to the world's MuslimsThe Pope's mistake was his 
failure 
 to distance himself from the Byzantine Emperor's comments 
  
 And his address is undermined further by a serious error in regards 
 to the Koran[He said,] The emperor must have known that surah 
 2,256 reads:`There is no compulsion in religion.' It is one of the 
 suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and 
 under threat.
  
 In fact, this surah is held by Muslim scholars to be from the 
middle 
 period, around the 24th year of Mohammed's prophethood in 624 or 
625, 
 when he was in Medina and in control of a state. Contrary to what 
the 
 Pope said, this was written when Mohammed was in a position of 
 strength, not weakness.
  
 ...Professor Hans Kung, a former colleague of his when at Tubingen 
 university, agrees that the Pope did not intend to provoke Muslims.
  
 He is very interested in dialogue with all religions. But using 
this 
 quotation and his whole approach to Islam in the lecture was very 
 unfortunate, he said
  
 This just shows the limits of the theologian Joseph Ratzinger. He 
 never studied the religions thoroughly and very obviously has a 
 unilateral view of Islam and the other religions.
  
 The Pope has a history of criticism of Islam. According to another 
 leading Catholic...Benedict XVI believes that Islam cannot be 
 reformed and is therefore incompatible with democracyFather 
 Joseph Fessio...said the Pope believes that reform of Islam is 
 impossible because it's against the very nature of the Koran, as 
 it's understood by Muslims
  
 Another senior Catholic source also described the Pope's use of the 
 Byzantine emperor's comments asextraordinary...: He is fully 
 entitled to raise the issue of Islamist terror of course, but in 
this 
 address he is not really doing thatHe should have said the 
 emperor's comments were deplorable, and that he also recognised the 
 reality of Christian violence, then there might not be such trouble 
 now.
  



It's hard to imagine a more stupid and provocative statement on 
Ratfinger's part -- if the Pope goes ahead with his visit to Turkey 
(unlikely), he'd better slap on another layer of bulletproof glass 
(wasn't the last guy to shoot a Pope a Turk?).






To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

* To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

* To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Pope's speech on Faith and reason

[shempmcgurk]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, bob_brigante [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, bob_brigante no_reply@ 
  wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ 
 wrote:
In other words, as far as I can tell they're blasting
the Pope for knowing more about the history of their
religion than they do.

   http://tinyurl.com/frea5
  
  From the Times of London:
  
  Times Online September 15, 2006 
  How an emperor's words landed the Pope in trouble
  By Ruth Gledhill, Religion Correspondent of The Times
   
  Even his critics are agreed that the Pope did not intend to 
cause 
  offence to the world's MuslimsThe Pope's mistake was his 
 failure 
  to distance himself from the Byzantine Emperor's comments 
   
  And his address is undermined further by a serious error in 
regards 
  to the Koran[He said,] The emperor must have known that 
surah 
  2,256 reads:`There is no compulsion in religion.' It is one of 
the 
  suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and 
  under threat.
   
  In fact, this surah is held by Muslim scholars to be from the 
 middle 
  period, around the 24th year of Mohammed's prophethood in 624 or 
 625, 
  when he was in Medina and in control of a state. Contrary to 
what 
 the 
  Pope said, this was written when Mohammed was in a position of 
  strength, not weakness.
   
  ...Professor Hans Kung, a former colleague of his when at 
Tubingen 
  university, agrees that the Pope did not intend to provoke 
Muslims.
   
  He is very interested in dialogue with all religions. But using 
 this 
  quotation and his whole approach to Islam in the lecture was 
very 
  unfortunate, he said
   
  This just shows the limits of the theologian Joseph Ratzinger. 
He 
  never studied the religions thoroughly and very obviously has a 
  unilateral view of Islam and the other religions.
   
  The Pope has a history of criticism of Islam. According to 
another 
  leading Catholic...Benedict XVI believes that Islam cannot be 
  reformed and is therefore incompatible with democracyFather 
  Joseph Fessio...said the Pope believes that reform of Islam is 
  impossible because it's against the very nature of the Koran, 
as 
  it's understood by Muslims
   
  Another senior Catholic source also described the Pope's use of 
the 
  Byzantine emperor's comments asextraordinary...: He is fully 
  entitled to raise the issue of Islamist terror of course, but in 
 this 
  address he is not really doing thatHe should have said the 
  emperor's comments were deplorable, and that he also recognised 
the 
  reality of Christian violence, then there might not be such 
trouble 
  now.
   
 
 
 
 It's hard to imagine a more stupid and provocative statement on 
 Ratfinger's part -- if the Pope goes ahead with his visit to 
Turkey 
 (unlikely), he'd better slap on another layer of bulletproof glass 
 (wasn't the last guy to shoot a Pope a Turk?).



A Turk, a Pope, and a lesbian walk into a bar...





To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

* To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

* To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/