"And people just yawn and keep electing these Napoleons and Snowballs." Ahh, but here's the rub, imo, when you only have Napoleons and Snowballs to vote fortyou're just voting for the least bad one ... and that's a sad sign in a free democracy.
Just as a side note, the erroneous beliefs of Christianity vary just as greatly.
Hurrah for Dedelus!!! For RobertCF: How would you like it if someone came to your blog and made a huge, long response complete with assumptions about your beliefs you never stated in your article ("I would guess you also think it's fine that thousands of illegals stream across our borders every year.") and blanket, dismissive statements about your ideological base ("Anyway, so you, as typical liberals do...")? It's bad debating, and beside th
Here's another note. Christianity's greatest apologist, C.S. Lewis, had very strong opinions about marriages under the State, and marriages under God. He saw them as two seperate entities, one conveying legal "rights," the other all the responsibilities that come from a holy covenant. On this issue his was the ultimate example of seperation of church and state. And while I am not a Christian, or any other religious affiliation, I can respect the concer
MM, I wasn't trying to be judgemental. I respect your opinions, and your right to them, and believe that at times moderation is not called for. I just always have to restrain a little ironic giggle whenever I read posts from "Moderate Man." As to the continuation of the thread, it sounds like we're all agreed——so-called liberals, conservatives and libertarians alike. Civil Unions=basically ok to everyone. So what are we still fighting a
Ok, since this has become a debate about gay marriage (which means I will ignore the content of the actual article) what does everyone think about the GOVERNMENT, not saying anything about churches, getting rid of the whole sanctioning of marriage thing and allow civil unions between consenting adults? Marriages are what happen in church, between people who want to make that commitment in the eyes of God, and civil unions give two adult people equal ri
I loved John, too, but he did seem nervous and the audience gave him no love!
How Not to Howl The Actor performs Ginsberg’s “Howl” with gusto. The audience listens demurely, Some call out trepiditious “go’s!” I picture an auditorium engorged with academics And a smattering of dark hearted, cigarette lunged poets. All are trying to channel that corner of soul which wears Darth Vadar’s helmet, and a black tu
Good thoughts, Guy. In response to BakerStreet—I'm a vegetarian for various reasons, and one of them is animal rights...in the sense that I think it's cruel and unusual to treat any feeling thing the way animals are treated in the big, corporate meat factories. That is not to suggest I believe carnivorism is "evil." We obviously have canines for a reason, and I have less of a problem with hunters than I do with people who won't eat meat on th
Ok, here's my two sense. (Naturally.) I agree with Gideon that homosexuality is not a "race" mostly because I think what we call "race" is mostly culturally constructed. As to the debate over genetic vs. choice. I know everyone's going to start screaming at me for a link I don't have but I believe the newest research gives some suggestion that homosexuality is genetic. Irregardless, my problem with the "choice" argument is I challenge any open
And don't forget fame and fortune following health and beauty, M.M. Congrats!
I just want to add something...My opinion of the male in question is solely based on Tova's description of the situation. (I haven't read the comments from the other blog.) As I'm realizing this is based on a current JU blogger, my goal wasn't at all to pass judgement on someone's difficult decision. My concern was just with someone bottling up their opposition to a very complicated issue, only to turn around and heap all their derision on the women.
I have to say, the particular guy in question doesn't sound like much of a "gentleman" to me, no matter what side of the argument you're on. A "gentleman" would have fought for his baby. Or a "gentleman" would have supported his lover. Only a jerk would pseudo-support his lover only to spend the time following condemning her for an act he assisted with. To the question of paternal control...Sure, it would be nice if men could have more say ove
I have several friends of my own generation, (20s-30s) who have all kept their original last names when they've gotten married. They also intend to have two children, per couple...so that each kid can have one of the names. Isn't it about time we stop focusing so much on "tradition" and "expected roles" and just be accepting of whatever works for individual people, couples and families?
Oh, I also want to add—I don't want to imply that those who vote Republican are "brainwashed" or incapable of thinking for themselves. I do think that 'spin' has power over the way people view things, but I think at this juncture, in the U.S. we're all, on some level, voting for what we consider the lesser of two evils. As you said, the extreme kooks on either side are in the minority. Everyone is just muddling through as best they can with only two pa
"Look at the whole Iraq thing. You'd think that the Democrats were against going into Iraq, yet most of them voted for it. Now some of them act like they were "tricked" by Bush. This is a losing proposition in a number of ways. Either you take them at their word and believe the guy they've labeled as the "smirking chimp" may be stupid but is still smarter than they are OR you don't believe them (and I don't) and think they simply voted yes for polit
Very interesting, and very well thought out. I agree with you a hundred percent that lumping an extremely diverse country like the U.S. into two political groupings is ridiculous. (However, regardless of who ultimately has power neither the Repubs or the Dems are likely to "allow" another party anytime soon, unfortunately.) I also think the criticism I've heard from some of the more rational "conservatives" on JU and elsewhere about "liberals" being to
Can I nominate Tom Cruise for the most obnoxious and needs to go away award?
Ack! I can only think of people I've hated this year!
Dharma, thanks, once again, for writing a well-written, well thought out article. Cheers!
Freud is in my fingers! Freud is in my fingers!
One more note...I have seen Fiennes in "Red Dragon" and thought he was great there too. (Although I haven't read the book.) The film doesn't transcend genre like "Science of the Lambs" but as a thriller it's as good as they come.
I've been referenced!!!! Thanks, Dan! Great post, and I agree with your assessment of Harry 4 the film, (and your assesment of film 3 but don't tell anyone. They may riot.) I must, however, beg to differ on Ray Fiennes turn as Voldemort. I thought he was fantastic! And scary as hell. I thought that was the best segment of the movie. But here's the rub...as with all things Potter related and beyond, everyone has their own idea of how things sh
Hey Tex, In answer to your initial question, yes, in more ways than one. Great article, and lots of good insight from you and others!
Great post, Dharma. And Lotherius, no worry's, I've had the same feeling about JU sometimes but I like it here too. Hang in there and keep posting your honest thoughts. Nobody has the right dictate your religion OR your politics. Cheers!
JoeUser Forums