terpfan1980 terpfan1980

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

▼

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

from JoeUser Forums
From the Washington Times, print edition, Inside Politics, December 22, 2004

    "Sen. Barbara Boxer, a liberal Democrat from California, finds herself on the wrong side of a group of fundamentalists," the Wall Street Journal says.
    "A modest piece of legislation that Ms. Boxer sponsored is under attack in court by plaintiffs who demand that the government enforce their moral views," the newspaper said in an editorial.
    "These are secular fundamentalists, not religious ones. At issue is the California Missions Preservation Act, which allots $10 million to restore and repair 21 historic churches in the Golden State. On December 2, two days after President Bush signed the act into law, Americans United for Separation of Church and State filed suit on behalf of Betty, Carol, John and Ronald Doe — not their real names — contending that such funding violates the separation of church and state.
...
    "Americans United is selective in its opposition to government funding of religious expression. The group filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the 1998 case of National Endowment for the Arts v. Finley, in which it unsuccessfully urged the Supreme Court to overturn a law imposing 'decency and respect' restrictions on NEA grantees. ...
    "The lawsuit prompted a heartening display of bipartisanship, as the California Republican Party issued a press release 'coming to the defense of Senator Boxer.' Maybe the country isn't quite as bitterly divided as it seemed on November 2."


So now the liberals have to resort to eating their own over separating Church and State.

When Barbara Boxer (who is most definitely not known for her conservative side) is being attacked for spending money to help preserve these historical sites. California has many such sites, with many of them in severe need of repair before they are lost completely and their history is erased -- oops, I forgot, the objective of these particular liberals is to erase any item that even remotely has a connection to religion from the face of the Earth.

Go go removal of religious symbols. Yup, that's just what we really want to have happen isn't it?!
politics
11,034 views 36 replies
Reply #26 from PolMach Forums Top
were in trouble, the righties have got the dictionary out again.
Reply #27 from JoeUser Forums Top
were in trouble, the righties have got the dictionary out again.
Fences - Organize your desktop icons today!
Reply #28 from JoeUser Forums Top
Being anti religion is a religion. It takes just as much faith (but not a lot of intellect) to believe there is no God as there is to be a follower of Jesus.
As for the pork barrel spending. Yeah it is. But its like trying to stop an elephant with a BB gun. Getting rid of it aint going to happen. So WTF;)
Reply #29 from JoeUser Forums Top

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


and that proves what doc? besides dictionary.com being a poor choice for precision (specially when ya use the lowest definition listed).   she is actually a he btw.

this is a far superior explanation of dogma vs just any old opinion.  id also suggest (since this is a discussion about religion) checking some religious dictionaries where you'll discover just how weak dictionary.com is in this instance.


As a fundamental element of religion, the term dogma is assigned to those theological tenets which are considered to be well demonstrated, such that their proposed disputation or revision effectively means that a person no longer accepts the given religion as his or her own, or has entered into a period of personal doubt. Dogma is distinguished from theological opinion regarding those things considered less well-known. Dogmata may be clarified and elaborated but not contradicted in novel teachings Religious dogmata, properly conceived, reach back to proofs other than themselves, and ultimately to faith.


Being anti religion is a religion. It takes just as much faith (but not a lot of intellect) to believe there is no God as there is to be a follower of Jesus.


since this is the issue i originally raised, might as well include your statement as well.

not believing requires no faith whatsoever.  there is no revelation to question.  no organization to join. no rituals to perform.  no fundamentals that must be accepted or adhered to.  ergo (and folks, please watch carefully cuz im gonna do this slowly so nobody gets confused) while one may be both a secularist and religious, everything i just noted about atheism is also true for secularism.  no revelations.  no organization.  no ritual . no fundamentals.  no dogma. 

which means there is not, nor can there be anything one could reasonably describe as a 'secular fundamentalist' in the sense the term was used in this article (unless, of course, you were referring to fundamentalist christians, muslims, jews, etc who are first and foremost fervent secularists and only then religious fundamentalists). 

now can we please move on?

Reply #30 from JoeUser Forums Top

and that proves what doc? besides dictionary.com being a poor choice for precision (specially when ya use the lowest definition listed). she is actually a he btw.


So the fourth edition of the American Heritage Dictionary is not a valid dictionary?


now can we please move on?


We can't until we can agree on what dictionaries and definitions are valid, since the American Heritage Dictionary is clearly invalid as well as any definitions that are not the primary ones.


Remember, if we don't have flawless semantics in this, an entire article will be disregarded because of one word whose primary definition is not used.

Reply #31 from JoeUser Forums Top

So the fourth edition of the American Heritage Dictionary is not a valid dictionary?


i see nothing at dictionary.com that indicates theyre associated with any specific dictionary, but if you'll take a few minutes to google for a definition of 'dogma' you should easily discover that your attempt to validate 'an opinion or belief' as defining dogma is like insisting that 'supersonic' means exactly the same as 'fast'.   of course it does mean fast but there is a specific connotation (like...faster than the speed of sound) that would have to be ignored.  you may have no respect for the precision of words--altho i doubt it.   either way, it's on you...not me.


We can't until we can agree on what dictionaries and definitions are valid, since the American Heritage Dictionary is clearly invalid as well as any definitions that are not the primary ones


why even use the word dogma when we could as easily use opinion?  if you choose the fourth ingredient listed on a box of cereal, you prolly are convinced youre really eating wheat or some other grain rather than mostly sugar.


Remember, if we don't have flawless semantics in this, an entire article will be disregarded because of one word whose primary definition is not used.


disregard would be the kindest fate available to an article based on a claim for the existence of secular fundamentalists.

Reply #32 from JoeUser Forums Top
disregard would be the kindest fate available to an article based on a claim for the existence of secular fundamentalists.


This is hilarious. This whole thread is hilarious. Whoman warned us about righties and dictionaries. Truly, not much else to say after this statement, kingbee.
Reply #33 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #26 By: whoman69 - 12/26/2004 8:16:46 PM
were in trouble, the righties have got the dictionary out again.


At least we know what they are, where to find them and how to use them.
Reply #34 from JoeUser Forums Top
At least we know what they are, where to find them and how to use them.


if that were the case, this thread would have half as many comments as it does. 
Reply #35 from JoeUser Forums Top

if that were the case, this thread would have half as many comments as it does.


Do a search for American Heritage Dictionary on this page. If you still can't find it, and if you still deny that words have multiple definitions, then what's the point of discussing anything with you? I'm seriously starting to believe you're purposely being stubborn. It's not as if the mention of the dictionary is hidden.


In fact, I have a feeling that the whole bitchfest about words not being used with their primary definitions was simply a lure to avoid discussing the actual article, so I'm through here, and I'll try to bring the discussion back to the actual topic.

Reply #36 from JoeUser Forums Top

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."


Aren't the historical churches close to the hearts of Latinos though? Sure, it might be pork barrel, but there's lesser stuff we could cut before we cut historical sites out of the budget, such as the NEA and other public services that are pretty worthless compared to their private counterparts.