Seperaqtion of Chirch and State huh ?

[This_person]

The study compares pre-invasion mortality with post-invasion mortality.

I'll admit I only skimmed the two pages you sent, but I noted the same name on both studies, and I never noted anything that verified that the death rates were due to our involvement. I saw all deaths (of the 654,000, about 58% were due to violence, and there was no direct comparison to violence prior - just direct gun shot wounds, which chemical attacks wouldn't be, etc.) had increased in the country, but it's pretty obvious there are a lot more people in Iraq than Iraqis, killing and being killed.

Very hard to say, but probably less.

That's not exactly backing it up, is it?

Conditions were terrible, no doubt, but more people are being killed now and there isn't much hope that's this will turn around anytime soon. I'm not making an argument that we should pull out, I'm just saying that these are the facts and they are not pretty and they really aren't being addressed.

You're making the point that war, "police actions", terror fighting, etc., are not pretty. I felt like you were saying it was our fault, the people trying to stop it. As (I think it was) Mark Twain said, there are lies, damn lies, and statistics. The statistics, as misquoted by so many, are very, very misleading until the whole study (and it's goal) are read.

 

[brendar buhl]

Just curious to know if given a choice would you prefer to die at the hands of your leader or die during a conflict to liberate your county?

Gee, that's a really thought provoking question. I'm just going to make a general stab in the dark here and guess that none of these people died in the manner that they would have picked if they were given a choice. If you bother to read the material you will know that most of these people did not die fighting for their liberation (like that would have made it acceptable). They could have chosen to die fighting for their liberation without us. These people died because after we showed up their world turned into hell. They died running for their lives, hiding, scared. They died because they lacked medical attention that they would have otherwise received. They died hungry. They died because we dropped bombs on them and because Saddam dropped bombs on them and because insurgents from other countries came and dropped bombs on them.

I'm sure that they did not die after answering such a sophomoric question.

 

[High EGT]

Gee, that's a really thought provoking question. I'm just going to make a general stab in the dark here and guess that none of these people died in the manner that they would have picked if they were given a choice. If you bother to read the material you will know that most of these people did not die fighting for their liberation (like that would have made it acceptable). They could have chosen to die fighting for their liberation without us. These people died because after we showed up their world turned into hell. They died running for their lives, hiding, scared. They died because they lacked medical attention that they would have otherwise received. They died hungry. They died because we dropped bombs on them and because Saddam dropped bombs on them and because insurgents from other countries came and dropped bombs on them.

I'm sure that they did not die after answering such a sophomoric question.

Basically the same (as you call it) sophomoric question was posed to the Virginia House of Burgesses in 1775 followed by a speech by Patrick Henery that convinced this body to commit VA troops to the Revolutionary War.

It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace-- but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

 

[buddy999]

A large portion? That's an odd statement. Kind of hard to back that one up. A large portion of Iraqis have died due to U.S. involvement. That might be a more arguable point.

There have been a large number of deaths on both sides since the conflict started. That wasn't my point. The Qu'ran means as much to the Muslim community as the Bible means to Christians. Neither book condones violence however, the Muslim extremists are using their religion to justify violence against the west.

 

[PsyOps]

Ah yes, hate never dies...it just finds another victim.

I'd be willing to bet that 10% or less of the Muslims are acutally 'radical'. Furthermore, why is it them alone that must talk sense into the 'radicals'. They're radical from the Muslim norm, hence the word 'radical'.

Your hate for Muslims only causes that much more friction and hatred towards your own, thus another car bomb tomorrow.

Why is it folks like you never seem to consider the hate the Muslims have for us - hate that is manifested in violence - is what is causing so many here to hate them? You know it’s one thing to say I hate someone, it’s quite another to act on that hate by killing. That is the defining difference between the hate some express towards Muslims and the hate the radical Muslims express towards us. You seem to condemn the hate that is not attached to violence while justifying the other.

I don’t hate Muslims. What I do hate is the fact that they, as a community, refuse to condemn the violent acts being committed in the name of their relgion.

 

[High EGT]

Ah yes, hate never dies...it just finds another victim.

I'd be willing to bet that 10% or less of the Muslims are acutally 'radical'. Furthermore, why is it them alone that must talk sense into the 'radicals'. They're radical from the Muslim norm, hence the word 'radical'.

Your hate for Muslims only causes that much more friction and hatred towards your own, thus another car bomb tomorrow.

The cruel irony (fact) that you seem to want to ignor is the hate is directed instead of (your own) but toward majority of other Muslims. So it would seem that Muslims have been losing alot of sleep hating just about everybody and finding all sorts of ways to express it. Even their Mosque are not immune

 

[2ndAmendment]

There have been a large number of deaths on both sides since the conflict started. That wasn't my point. The Qu'ran means as much to the Muslim community as the Bible means to Christians. Neither book condones violence however, the Muslim extremists are using their religion to justify violence against the west.

Amazing! Someone posting about something they know nothing about.

The Qur'an commands Muslims to kill infidels:

Allah is an enemy to unbelievers. - Sura 2:98

On unbelievers is the curse of Allah. - Sura 2:161

Slay them wherever ye find them and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. - 2:191

Fight against them until idolatry is no more and Allah's religion reigns supreme. (different translation: ) Fight them until there is no persecution and the religion is God's entirely. - Sura 2:193 and 8:39

Fighting is obligatory for you, much as you dislike it. - 2:216

Anyone who is not a Muslim and for that matter, Muslims that are not of your particular denomination, are infidels. So ... that makes virtually everyone an infidel to some Muslim.

People like you need to wake up.

Are all Muslims out to kill people? I don't think so, because there are many Muslims that are Muslims in name only (MINO); they don't really follow the teachings of the Qur'an just as there are Christians in name only that don't believe or follow the teachings of the Bible. But then those MINOs are another Muslim's infidel.

 

[RadioPatrol]

Ah yes, hate never dies...it just finds another victim.

I'd be willing to bet that 10% or less of the Muslims are acutally 'radical'. Furthermore, why is it them alone that must talk sense into the 'radicals'. They're radical from the Muslim norm, hence the word 'radical'.

Your hate for Muslims only causes that much more friction and hatred towards your own, thus another car bomb tomorrow.

and if they don't speak out against that 10% ........

 

[RadioPatrol]

I agree. The Muslim religion is not what is at fault here. It is generally a peaceful religion just as Christian are peaceful. Those that believe otherwise need to do further research on the different religions. All religions have their 'radical' factions.

A good example of this can be found in the fighting between Protestants and Catholics in Northern Ireland. Both these groups are Christian, yet they've been fighting a war for years over religious issues.

A large portion of Muslim people in Iraq have openly praised the US for freeing them from the tyrany of Saddam Hussein. It's the radical Muslim groups, most of whom hate not only the US, but all western cultures. They're using the Muslim religion only to justify their violence towards the western cultures.

Here is a Link that may shed some light on the subject.

I suggest you widen you reading beyond about.com and pick up a few books about your enemies and those that would behead you .......


oh but I am a paranoid Muslim hater so dont take my work for it ......

 

[Midnightrider]

I suggest you widen you reading beyond about.com and pick up a few books about your enemies and those that would behead you .......


oh but I am a paranoid Muslim hater so dont take my work for it ......

what is really ironic is that on both sides, the most religious also seem to be the most hate filled

 

[FredFlash]

as long as its Christianity that is separate .........

http://doctorbulldog.wordpress.com/...-at-university/


Quote:
Forget about the Constitutionally mandated separation of church and state . . . at least when it comes to mosque and state.

When students return in the fall, the University of Michigan-Dearbornistan is set to have Muslim footbaths in at least two locations.

And your tax funds are paying for it.

Where's the violation of Church State Separation, dude?

 

[FredFlash]

There is no Constitutionally mandated separation of church and state.

The Constitution created a limited government with only those powers that were expressly enumerated and granted. Among those enumerated powers is nothing that could be interpreted to be a grant of jurisdiction over the people's religion or their rights of religious conscience.

That sounds a lot like separation of church and state to me, hombre. What did I miss?

 

[This_person]

The Constitution created a limited government with only those powers that were expressly enumerated and granted to the government. Among those enumerated powers is nothing that could be interpreted to be a grant of jurisdiction over the people's religion or their rights of religious conscience.

That sounds a lot like separation of church and state to me, hombre. What did I miss?

Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

This is not a separation of "Church" and "State". This says the government won't establish a religion you must belong to, nor will it stop you from believing as you wish. It does NOT say that the government cannot tacitly accomodate different religious actions, such as having Christmas as a day off since most people would like that, or a means to wash your feet, or a school concert that includes the song "Dreidel dreidel dreidel".

I'm not sure you missed anything, I just think this is two separate ways of looking at the same thing. One way says the government can't do anything at all, the other is a strict reading of the actual words.

 

[FredFlash]

Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

This is not a separation of "Church" and "State". This says the government won't establish a religion you must belong to, nor will it stop you from believing as you wish. It does NOT say that the government cannot tacitly accomodate different religious actions, such as having Christmas as a day off since most people would like that, or a means to wash your feet, or a school concert that includes the song "Dreidel dreidel dreidel".

I see. So tell me, hombre, what method of interpretation did you employ to arrive at your understanding of the words of the First Amendment's establishment clause?

 

[This_person]

I see. So tell me, hombre, what method of interpretation did you employ to arrive at your understanding of the words of the First Amendment's establishment clause?

I'm not sure why you keep calling me hombre, but I would appreciate you not doing that.

I began speaking working English as a very young child, and continue straight on until today. I took 12 years of it in primary and secondary school, and then took some more for my Bachelor's Degree. So, I used this 40+ years of experience and working knowledge of English to come up with this (as well as a civics course or two....).

By your sarcastic tone, I presume you disagree with this well-established assessment?

 

[FredFlash]

I'm not sure why you keep calling me hombre, but I would appreciate you not doing that.

I began speaking working English as a very young child, and continue straight on until today. I took 12 years of it in primary and secondary school, and then took some more for my Bachelor's Degree. So, I used this 40+ years of experience and working knowledge of English to come up with this (as well as a civics course or two....).

By your sarcastic tone, I presume you disagree with this well-established assessment?

You are apparently unaware that, at the time the Constitution and Bill of Rights were adopted, there were well established common law rules of legal interpretation. The first Justices of the U. S. Supreme Court employed these rules to interpret the words of the Constitution. Is there a reason we shouldn't use the same rules when we construe the words of the Constitution?

 

[This_person]

You are apparently unaware that, at the time the Constitution and Bill of Rights were adopted, there were well established common law rules of legal interpretation. The first Justices of the U. S. Supreme Court employed these rules to interpret the words of the Constitution. Is there a reason we shouldn't use the same rules when we construe the words of the Constitution?

Since we're answering each other's questions with questions, I'll continue suit.

To what, specifically, in my interpretation do you object? Is it that the government may not establish a particular religion? Or, that an individual's right to practice their religion may not be stifled? Or, do you see some Lemon test that disagrees with my assessment that I don't see?

 

[FredFlash]

Since we're answering each other's questions with questions, I'll continue suit.

To what, specifically, in my interpretation do you object?

I primarily object to you not objectively seeking the will of the legislator at the time the law was made, and following the well established common law rules of interpretation.

You also neglected to tell us the meaning of the word "religion" in the establishment clause.

 

[RadioPatrol]

Where's the violation of Church State Separation, dude?

the point dud was in a time when anything Christian is being blasted, baned, insulted, assaulted, A University goes out of its way to install foot baths for Muslims ....... organizations are bending over backwards for these people @ the slightest threat of a lawsuit for any supposed insult

did you know in the UK the Gov. moved the direction the loo faced so not to insult Muslims taking a crap ......... ie they no longer face towards Mecca

 

[This_person]

I primarily object to you not objectively seeking the will of the legislator at the time the law was made, and following the well established common law rules of interpretation.

You also neglected to tell us the meaning of the word "religion" in the establishment clause.

I tend to believe that I am being objective. I believe it was the will of the writers that there would be no nationally established religion, church, sect, etc,. that would have primacy over any others. By "religion", I include all beliefs - and non-beliefs - in any number of supreme beings or concepts of the supernatural. Yes, non-beliefs fits there also. That means, telling people that the only acceptable public discourse is to keep all concepts of other religions besides lack of religion would favor atheism over other religions.

It's quite a conundrum, don't you think?

And, I also believe I'm being objective with the concept that people believing whatever they wish, be they Pagen, Jew, Christian, Bokononist, or athiest, or any other of any religion that can be imagined, should not be prohibited or discriminated against in any way, shape, or form.

I'm not sure what is confusing about the word "religion", but if you tell me your confusion I may be able to help.

Is there a point to your disagreement with me, something we can discuss? I feel like you're disagreeing, anyway, though you haven't told me the point with which you disagree.