I think my intent was lost with all the bickering.

The point hoped for was that just because your have the legal right to do something...doesn't always make it the right thing to do morally.

Citing laws and codes doesn't detract from the fact that this could be seen as the wrong thing to do.

nope, that was covered in the "bickering"...

Cia support of Norega in Panama. Regan support of the Sandinistas in Honduras or Nicaragua. Invasion of a tiny Caribbean island because some 2bit Communist Guerillas took some US student hostage. This history goes back to Teddy Roosevelt. Deposed Queen of Hawaii because she opposed platation owners. Thus createing a territory status that allowed paltation owners to do pretty much as they pleased.

Support of Saddam Hussein. Support of the Taliban, for oil in defence of Haliburton and others.

Then, Illegal invasion of Iraq on false charges. Invasion of Afgahanistan. To remove those in power when they were no longer of use. Repeated accidental killings of civillans in both countries.

Lets see.....Support of a corrupt South Vietnamese Government because the people would have voted in communists because the guys in power were so bad. Then defending it, in total, for over 25 years in a gradual escalation. Ended ironically by Nixion.

Bush tells Palistinian people to vote and he will work with the democratically elected government only to go back on those statements when Hamas wins. Then allows Isreal to slaughter civillians in Gaza strip after he goes lame duck in December of 2008.

Decades of support of the apartheid state of Isreal.

Shipped Iron ore to Japan pre WW2 that was then used to make things to attack US.

Japanese and German internment camps during WW2.

The Native American Genocide.

And most directly. The Spanish-American war was specificlly fought to make the US an Imperialist power on par with Britian.

And the fact that US trade policies are specifically aimed at allows said corporations to do whatever they want. If you believe Iraq and Afgahanistan are about anything other then oil, your an idiot.

On topic,

NPR reported yesterday on All Things Considered that Fox news stated the mosque is being partilly funded by the Kingdom Foundation. The same people who offered Gulliani $10 million to help survivors after 9/11. They then claimed this foundation funds radical madrasses all over the world.

The guy who runs this radical organization. The crown-prince of Saudi Arabia. Who also is a part owner of News Corp which owns Fox News.

Secondly, The head of the Anti-Defemation League defended the Iman's character and advised him on how to handle the slander that is occuring. While the oppose the mosque, they oppose it for the same reason they oppose the build of a Catholic convent on the grounds of AUSCHWITZ.


Personally, Its two blocks away. Its not on ground zero. Therefore, leave them alone.

Lol

This seems relevant.

"If you don't believe me, wait until they put your wife in a burka,"

"If you don't believe me, wait until they put your wife in a burka," Gentries continued in reference to the face-and-body-covering worn by a small minority of Muslim women and banned in the universities of Turkey, Tunisia, and Syria. "Or worse, a rape camp. That's right: For reasons I am content being totally unable to articulate, I am choosing to associate Muslims with rape camps."

Good stuff.

Are you a New Atheist?

I had one of those moments where I read it and laugh... "Its funny because its true." Then a moment passes. I think that there's too many like this for it to be really funny. Then I'm just mad.

oh my god, I stopped reading after that first sentence and posted it, thought it wouldn't go any farther than that..

Yeah thats pretty messed up.

I don't know. I feel pretty much the same as last week.

Don't play coy Flynn.

Do you subscribe to Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris and Dennett's beliefs about the need for the eradication of religion?

Ehhhh, long story short, No. Though I wonder why you ask.

I don't know. Somebody needs to put a poll together so we know who the New Atheists on this board are and who aren't.

That way we can keep track of who is contradicting himself and of the natural biases.

Do you subscribe to the Great Commission and Jesus' teaching that every human should accept him and give up their religions? Which if achieved would eradicate every religion on earth accept Christianity.

Derail attempt.

It's so funny, that's exactly what I thought of your question (I suspect it's what batair thought, too).

It was more of a hypocrisy test.

From my perspective almost every atheist with one or two exceptions looks like a New Atheist.

So what's a New Atheist who wants the eradication of all religion doing advocating Muslim rights? Seems like a contradiction to me.

You want to stop children being "indoctrinated" yet you want to argue rights.

Make up your minds.

If by eradication you mean by the state, I haven't heard too many atheists say that. If you mean atheists would prefer that relgion slowly fades away, I'm sure many would agree.

There is no inconsistency in preferring a world without religion while also prefering a world where people are free to be religious.

Yeah, it does have that edge of being so close to the truth.

Other people aren't responsible for the quality of your perspective.

It's not.

Doesn't wanting to stop children being indoctrinated of necessity involve 'arguing rights'?

Can you post quotes from each of the four listed above that states the need for the eradication of religion. Because I'm fairly certain that you're (once again) incorrectly ascribing views to people.

I seem to recall Harris saying that we need to look and and question religion; not eradicate it.

Needless to say, this wouldn't be the first or even 20th time you've made false statements about them.