vol_scouter 365 Posted February 22, 2009 Share Posted February 22, 2009 Fair enough since the MSM implied that the shootings in Knoxville, Tennessee were due to a fundamentalist Christian faith. So if that is OK, then establishing the muslim faith as a reason for the beheading is fair. Link to post Share on other sites
Merlyn_LeRoy 72 Posted February 22, 2009 Share Posted February 22, 2009 vol_scouter writes: since the MSM implied that the shootings in Knoxville, Tennessee were due to a fundamentalist Christian faith Got any links to these stories, vol_scouter? I don't remember any like that. Link to post Share on other sites
TheScout 10 Posted February 22, 2009 Share Posted February 22, 2009 What is ironic is the couple started a Muslim American TV channel to fight sterotypes against Muslims. Its almost laughable. Link to post Share on other sites
GernBlansten 10 Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 Shall we speculate on the motives and religious teachings of the 11 year old killer too? http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090222/ap_on_re_us/pregnant_woman_killed Link to post Share on other sites
Trevorum 24 Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 God save us from religion. Link to post Share on other sites
GernBlansten 10 Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 Imagine. Link to post Share on other sites
OldGreyEagle 5 Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 I am not so sure it's religion, but things man does in Religion's name for conquest. In WWI, the Germans singing O Tannebuam while the Englidh sang O Christmas Tree and the Christmas Day Soccer game. Religion didn't play a part there. WWII was not based on Religion either, in the west, Germany pretty much wanted religion out of its society and have its society worship its leader, in the east, Japan wanted to conquer and saw the US as the main impediment to its plans. It may have seen the US as an agreesor, but not as a Christian agressor, just as an agressor. yes, plenty of wars have been based on religion, but if not reliously base, you dont think another reason woudl not have been used? Relgion is easy because it's an easy my side your side tool, but if it didnt exist, there wouldnt be less wars. Link to post Share on other sites
scoutldr 732 Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 I hope I'm there on Judgement Day when G-d/Allah/Yeshua says "You did WHAT in my Name????" Link to post Share on other sites
Trevorum 24 Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 OK, how about this: God save us from True Believers who are utterly convinced that their religion is the one and only True Faith, who have no tolerance for other people who don't believe in the same way, and who are perfectly willing to resort to hatred and violence to achieve their goals. Link to post Share on other sites
Mr. Boyce 13 Posted February 23, 2009 Author Share Posted February 23, 2009 It's unfair, and a violation of good etiquette, to say that Mr. Boyce is a nativist. Who knows what this really means anymore? The 1830s are long over. . . I do believe the U.S. Constitution is extremely important to the United States. And I think any clear-eyed and truly open reading of world news would show anyone who considers himself to be objective, that there really ARE people who despite the United States and the constitutional principles upon which the United States is based. In 2009, there are European nations wrestling with this problem of maintaining liberal individual liberties in the face of opposition. It really does happen, like it or not, and because I point it out, it's a logical leap to assume that I'm implying more. And BACK to the original point by this original poster: large families have been villified in recent decades, I believe, and I think there are many positive points to them. Link to post Share on other sites
Mr. Boyce 13 Posted February 23, 2009 Author Share Posted February 23, 2009 Two more points to chew (sorry!): ---it's a mistake to immediately toss political issues into a "liberal vs. conservative", "black vs. white," paradigm. It may be convenient, but it may also block a fuller view into a subject. ---Looking around various forums here and there, I'm amazed at how often religion is getting attacked. I'm not sure this is a good thing in the long term, and I think it's probably a mistake to demonize Christians and muslims as the source of all troubles. Link to post Share on other sites
Nike 94 Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 When we lived in CA, anyone who had more than two children would be greeted with, "You must be military." It was a sneering, nasty comment that sprang from either contempt of women procreating instead of investment banking or envy that military get pre-natal, L&D, and post-natal, plus pedes, immunization, meds, basically for free from our military hospitals and clinics or through TRICARE (old CHAMPUS). Most military families I know do seem to have either two or more likely three children. Four is pretty common of, five rarer, and six+ isn't unheard of. I also think we should encourage larger families for those who can afford it. It just feels nice to have lots of kids around. The children learn a lot more about cooperation, sharing, conspiracy, and leverage. Parents figure out that kids will survive without constant attention and can do things for themselves, sometimes too much. Of course, I'm the mean mommy who tells her kids, "Go play in your room, the basement, or outside, but you're not staying here with me" after school. Link to post Share on other sites
TheScout 10 Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 So basically any denomination is ok as long as it is not one that believes it is the only true faith? Sounds a bit hypocritical by some out there. Link to post Share on other sites
Horizon 97 Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 With education and opportunity, family unit size decreases. Sociologists have been plotting this trend for quite awhile, and it keeps on happening in the third world as well. My wife and I have two sons. They each have their own bedroom, though the littler one prefers to camp on the floor of his big brother's bedroom. If we added more, we would have to go into debt to pay for college. Our family size works well for the opportunities that we wish to give our sons. I will also say that the largest impact on the environment is population growth. While we may have built an American empire on cheap labor at the bottom that kept on coming in from overseas, that is not a long-term sustainable model if we wish to keep on having places to take boys camping, fishing and hunting. Here in Southern California I can see the impact of a large population - we don't need to encourage more of it. Link to post Share on other sites
GernBlansten 10 Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 My parents generation, families were much larger. We are people of the earth, farmers. Ma came from a brood of 9, one died at birth. Large families were your free workforce. It wasn't uncommon to lose a few kids due to illness or farm accident. So you needed a large family to make the farm work. Now that we are an urban society, and all the farms are going the way of corporate mega-farms, we no longer need the large family to make a go of it. Having more than two kids, just enough to replace you, is the norm and socially acceptable. Everyone of my generation in my family did just that. Except one brother who had 3 and another brother who had zero. Next time you have trouble merging on the freeway, just think, do we need more people? Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now