Watch the liberals eat their own over Church and State sep..

Its actually a story over pork barrel spending. It shouldn't be supported from either side. Of course, Bush did sign it into law.

Ahhhh... Infighting....

Ya know, I really do get your point here. It's about trying to save historic structures, rather than supporting the religion behind them. And, I agree, to some degree, that it's about pork spending in times of fiscal crisis. But, I find your attitude over this, your hateful spin on it despicable. Then, you go around saying how hateful liberals are. Boy, talk about hypocrisy........................

shhhhhhhh do not tell anyone but I have voted for barbra and will continue to vote for her because altho she is a liberal she is a liberal that makes sense........ bless her heart.

I hope I dont get trolled for this but........ merry christmas dabe AND A VERY MERRY XMAS. HANUKAH TO YOU you all


ps liberals eating there own is a time honored tradition by the way terp............. bwahahahahahahahahahahaha

"These are secular fundamentalists

do tell.  

that alone is enough nonsense to discredit anything that begins with this sentence:

Sen. Barbara Boxer, a liberal Democrat from California, finds herself on the wrong side of a group of fundamentalists

and follows the words:

"These are secular fundamentalists..."

Its actually a story over pork barrel spending. It shouldn't be supported from either side. Of course, Bush did sign it into law.

Is preserving missions pork-barrel spending? If so, what about preserving anything else?

that alone is enough nonsense to discredit anything that begins with this sentence: Sen. Barbara Boxer, a liberal Democrat from California, finds herself on the wrong side of a group of fundamentalists and follows the words: "These are secular fundamentalists..."

But surely you acknowledge that secularists can be as nutty and dogmatic as religious fundamentalists, right?

Reply #6 By: messybuu - 12/23/2004 2:12:40 PM

Reply #6 By: messybuu - 12/23/2004 2:12:40 PM Its actually a story over pork barrel spending. It shouldn't be supported from either side. Of course, Bush did sign it into law. Is preserving missions pork-barrel spending? If so, what about preserving anything else? that alone is enough nonsense to discredit anything that begins with this sentence: Sen. Barbara Boxer, a liberal Democrat from California, finds herself on the wrong side of a group of fundamentalists and follows the words: "These are secular fundamentalists..." But surely you acknowledge that secularists can be as nutty and dogmatic as religious fundamentalists, right?

heck no messybuu no "right thinking leftist secularist is ever going to admit they can be as nutty as the rightwinglunes are.

secularists can be as nutty and dogmatic as religious fundamentalists

i dont think fundamentalists are necessarily nutty.  of course they cant be as dogmatic.  there is no secular dogma nor anything 'revealed' that is accepted on faith.

Let's look at one of the definitions of dogma according to Diictionary.com: A principle or belief or a group of them.
Don't secularists have principles and beliefs?

Are you purposely focusing on semantics, or do you acknowledge that secularists can be as bad as fundamentalists can be at forcing their beliefs and principles onto others?

secularists can be as bad as fundamentalists can be at forcing their beliefs and principles onto others?

TRU-THAT!!!

This sound like pandering to me. For one there are a thousand other things far more important that some old beat up church being restored. Chances are the people who worshipped undeer their roofs have moved on, and because of that they in reality could probably care less if the churches are restored. These are not ancient ruins like you find in the Med or the Middle East. These are only buildings that have served their purpose, hence, it is time for them to go away.

This is money that can be better spent on other more importtant projects. As to what I have not yet looked into any one program, however, I am sure most of you can. Oh, there is one; infact one that is close to my heart "The National Diabettes Foundation."

Pam

This is money that can be better spent on other more importtant projects

Yeah, like buying Clinton's birth home[?] There are thousands of public schools in need of repair, too. Nevertheless those old churches are historic to the Latinos. 

This is money that can be better spent on other more importtant projects. As to what I have not yet looked into any one program, however, I am sure most of you can. Oh, there is one; infact one that is close to my heart "The National Diabettes Foundation."

So, the government should cut funding to preserve historical churches and end the National Endowment for the Arts?

As to "Billy Clinton's" birth home they could use as practice for the local fire department for all I care. But because we want the Latino vote we must save these churches. My, my, my, my, how could I be so stupid.

Pam

Are you purposely focusing on semantics, or do you acknowledge that secularists can be as bad as fundamentalists can be at forcing their beliefs and principles onto others?

by bringin in dictionary.com (which, by the way, has done a very poor job of defining dogma) youre the one focusing on semantics.  dogma may be an opinion but its one that arises outta revelation.   more to the point of this discussion, all fundamentalists do not force their beliefs or principles on others.  christian and muslim fundamentalists often do.  those who do, do so because they believe it's one of their religious duties.

secularists are duty free in that regard.

Reply #11 By: Pam Johnson - 12/24/2004 12:55:41 AM This sound like pandering to me. For one there are a thousand other things far more important that some old beat up church being restored. Chances are the people who worshipped undeer their roofs have moved on, and because of that they in reality could probably care less if the churches are restored. These are not ancient ruins like you find in the Med or the Middle East. These are only buildings that have served their purpose, hence, it is time for them to go away. This is money that can be better spent on other more importtant projects. As to what I have not yet looked into any one program, however, I am sure most of you can. Oh, there is one; infact one that is close to my heart "The National Diabettes Foundation." Pam

Yeah and the National MS foundation is near to mine. But the churches are historic sites, and as such *need* to be preserved. Unless of course you are advocating we do away with *all* historic restoration projects. Staring with Independence Hall?

by bringin in dictionary.com (which, by the way, has done a very poor job of defining dogma) youre the one focusing on semantics. dogma may be an opinion but its one that arises outta revelation. more to the point of this discussion, all fundamentalists do not force their beliefs or principles on others. christian and muslim fundamentalists often do. those who do, do so because they believe it's one of their religious duties.

Weren't you the one that disregarded the article simply because it referred to a group of zealous secularists as "fundamentalists?" In the definition of dogma I cited, there is no mention of said belief arising from revelation.

Also, you didn't answer my question. Can't secularists be as bad in forcing their beliefs and principles onto others as fundamentalists can be?

Reply #17 By: messybuu - 12/24/2004 2:12:17 AM Also, you didn't answer my question. Can't secularists be as bad in forcing their beliefs and principles onto others as fundamentalists can be?

They can and do!!!

drmiler,

Well my dear let put it another way. The house I live in was built in 1885, and it is still in fairly good shape, however, if it were to be restore back to its original design it could become a historial building. . .but of course that will never happen. Just because a building or structure is old and for some reason seems to have some form of historial meaning does not mean it should be restored. It is nice to have a way of looking back to where our kin came from, however, it that is what is wanted then it should be up to the local community to come up with a way for the restoration. Why should you and I who may live several hundred miles away have to support the restoration.

Please, when you really think about this it is nothing more then posturing by both Dem and Rep to gather in the Latino vote. Do You really think someone in Maine could really care about this. . .no. I am sorry, but as someone who has a Doctorate in History I have seen this to offen, and in a great deal of these types of restoration once it is completed it goes down hill. Why, because there is no further money to continue the up keep of these projects.

Who is going to maintain these structures; the Park Service. . . sorry their buget is always being cut. Is the state going to continue the maintenance, or is there some form of community action group going to help maintain these chruches. .

This is nothing more then pandering. In twenty to fifty years they will be right back where they are at present.

disregarded the article simply because it referred to a group of zealous secularists as "fundamentalists?"

zealous is derived from the word zealot which is a term used to describe a specific sect of religious fanatics.

In the definition of dogma I cited, there is no mention of said belief arising from revelation

as i explained, the definition of dogma you cited was flawed. 

Also, you didn't answer my question. Can't  secularists be as bad in forcing their beliefs and principles onto others as fundamentalists can be?

you're the one who is describing fundamentalists as bad and coercive.  whether they are or arent, isnt relevant to my assertion that secular fundamentism is an oxymoron. fundamentalists could be the most inobtrusive humans on the planet..or the most aggressive proselytizers who ever breathed air...and secularists could be door-to-door timeshare salespeople  but that still wouldnt evidence the existence of anything at all like a secular fundamentalist.

ive answered your question twice. you refuse to accept the answer cuz it doesnt fit into your agenda. 

just for the record, i'd have no problem using taxes to restore or maintain boston's old north church. it's a bonafide historical landmark; the intention would be to preserve the landmark, not a church. 

the mission at san juan capistrano is in dire need ot rehabilitation.  it's value is both sentimental as well as historic. it's also a religious site and commecially valuable to the residents of the city that's taken its name.  it would be much more appropriate for the business community (and the merchants whove turned the plaza into a swapmeet) to raise the necessary funding for repairs.

most of california's missions employed slave labor; almost all will require extensive earthquake reinforcement.  should nazi and japanese industrial sites that engaged in similar practices be renovated? 

as far as eating our own, i wouldnt turn barbara boxer down.

zealous is derived from the word zealot which is a term used to describe a specific sect of religious fanatics.

Now if that isn't arguing over semantics...

as i explained, the definition of dogma you cited was flawed.

So the fourth edition of the American Heritage Dictionary is not a credible souce?

you're the one who is describing fundamentalists as bad and coercive. whether they are or arent, isnt relevant to my assertion that secular fundamentism is an oxymoron. fundamentalists could be the most inobtrusive humans on the planet..or the most aggressive proselytizers who ever breathed air...and secularists could be door-to-door timeshare salespeople but that still wouldnt evidence the existence of anything at all like a secular fundamentalist.

I haven't said they are bad or coercive. I have said they can be bad and coercive. I've seen enough posts from you to know that it's not only a possibility in your eyes, but a fact that many fundamentalists are indeed bad and coercive and wish to turn the nation into a theocracy. If you're going to deny that, then what value do your words have?

So the fourth edition of the American Heritage Dictionary is not a credible souce?

i dunno.   your earlier definition was provided like this.

Let's look at one of the definitions of dogma according to Diictionary.com: A principle or belief or a group of them

that's so broad, why even use the word 'dogma'  when something more simple like 'belief' exists.

I've seen enough posts from you to know that it's not only a possibility in your eyes, but a fact that many fundamentalists are indeed bad and coercive and wish to turn the nation into a theocracy

fundamentalism--as a concept--isnt a problem. if people want to handle venomous snakes to demonstrate their belief they wont be bitten, it's more a curiosity than anything else. unless or until it's combined with evangelizing and they insist everyone has to join in and that i have to pay for antivenom and rats...or for emergency room care, im cool with em faithin themselves into the grave.  even then, i wouldnt characterize it as 'bad'--as in evil--so much as dangerously foolish.  

Reply #24 By: kingbee - 12/26/2004 4:52:21 AM So the fourth edition of the American Heritage Dictionary is not a credible souce? i dunno. your earlier definition was provided like this. Let's look at one of the definitions of dogma according to Diictionary.com: A principle or belief or a group of them

As you can see what she posted was a direct quote from dictionary.com

3 entries found for dogma. dog·ma ( P ) Pronunciation Key (dôgm, dg-) n. pl. dog·mas or dog·ma·ta (-m-t) 1. A doctrine or a corpus of doctrines relating to matters such as morality and faith, set forth in an authoritative manner by a church. 2. An authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true. See Synonyms at doctrine. 3. A principle or belief or a group of them: “The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present” (Abraham Lincoln).