dark_unicorn

This is correct, the abuse is a consequence of a belief being inacted, while the religion being taught is the belief itself. The difference lay between the cause and the consequence. However, the use of force is tied to a person's epistemology, hense the abuse stems from the religious belief, as it is used as an implementation. What I am suggesting is that certain religious traditions will inevitably lead to abuse, because they're tied not merely to an evasion of rational thought, but to a blatant hostility to it. Speaking as a person who practices a religion, one that has been tied to a

I am personally hoping that they actually try to carry out their verdict, so everyone can see once and for all how absurd the concept of international law, as it is currently defined, is in practice. I want to see the German government actually try to send an extradition request, or better yet, try to send agents to try and snatch Rumsfeld from his home in the dead of night. Unfortunately, as any imasculated government, the Germans most probably do not have the will to actually try this. This nonsense of trials for political leaders during wars is actually a bit comical. I may be inspired t

I see, I scanned over the info on the link rather quickly and missed the fact that he was paraphrasing someone else. In that case, I can feel a measure of sympathy of the person whose viewpoint is being articulated by Dawkins. @Kufa - Moose is pretty much correct, although I myself would obviously fall into the other 10% category, as my parents are not of the same denomination as me. It is very rare that a person is strong willed enough to think differently from what they are taught. I'd recommend picking up a copy of Ayn Rand's "The New Left: The Anti-Industrial Revolution" and read t

I can think of no better excuse to get out of the UN after this, and also to launch a full condemnation of the EU. However, I'd actually like to see Germany try to come over here and take Rumsfeld by force, as I doubt they actually have the will to try. This reminds me of the witch hunt that Europe had for Pinochet after he helped liberate Chile, utterly disgusting.

I don't think the issue would specifically be that children would not learn to think for themselves, but the fact that the contradiction between what the child believes and what may be rammed down his throat. Parents often resort to irrational punishment systems and suppression of a child's indepedent social development with some of their religious teachings. Furthermore, a radical Evangelist/Catholic woman forcing her daughter to wash her privates with laundry detergent because she touches herself at age 13 IS child abuse, and I speak from experience as I have known girls who have had this d

He very well might have had the authority to have wiped out all of the bad guys in Iraq, but unfortunately we have a population that would consider that to be politically incorrect, his powerlessness underscores the poison of multiculturalism, and more generally speaking altruism. He himself may have been an altruist to some degree and probably did not make a connection between Saddam Hussein and citizens in Tikrit, Fallujah, or Mosul who helped him obtain and consolidate power. Republicans, by nature, are pragmatists and thus they can't distinguish between a supporter of tyranny and a victim

Wow, the Michigan voters really surprised me on this one. But alas, the true lesson in all of this is the hypocrisy that is running rampant in academia. Numb-skulled stiffs like Mary Sue Coleman will pay lip service to democracy when it serves their purposes, but as soon as a voting majority does something they don't like, they resort to Stalinistic tactics to try and quash a fair and legal vote. If I ever had any doubt that there was a crystal clear dichotomy between rational thought and mulitculturalism, it vanished here and now.

Hmmm, interesting viewpoint regarding teaching religion to children put forth by Dawkins. I think that in many respects he is correct, although obviously I would take a more specific approach regarding how to scutinize the way in which religion is taught and what the actual effects of it tend to be. During ARI's campaign in defense of free speech by showing and debating the Mohammed pictures drawn by those Danish Artists that are probably still in hiding, Yaron Brook said something about the difference between free speech and insightment of violence. We do have laws against, for example,

Fair enough, when it comes to discussing things I am something of a perfectionist and when something goes wrong, the first thing I do is make sure that it wasn't me who made the mistake. I do need to do a better job of emphasizing my view on an issue before I go into a rant, and that was what I was apologizing for. I can understand how you might have thought that I was a religious conservative, as I have not gone into to much length about my religious views, mostly because I didn't desire to unintentionally contradict the purpose of this forum. Anyhow, it's water under the bridge, I look

I've watched some of Rumsfeld's press conferences, he would literally poke holes in their illogical/pragmatic lines of questioning, it was a breathe of fresh air from the endless supply of Cabinet people who would either accept the premises of the media or try to match their illogic with bromides. However, what Rumsfeld did in those interviews is probably something that many people with his credentials in military expertize could do, all you need to do is not care what people think of you and keep to the facts. Rumsfeld is getting old, and no one is probably more happy about his exodus tha

@softwarenerd: I accept your apology, and I hope you will accept mine, my first response to you did not address your comments regarding the issue of reason in politics. Had I addressed that first, this could well have been avoided. When I first came to this site, I was given the impression by those whom disagree with Objectivism that this site was a propaganda outlet and that all of you were cultists. Everything that I have encountered here contradicts that, I have observed a variety of informed opinions, and have seen no one here who can be labeled as a dogmatist. Leonard Peikoff is a b

I know I stated that I wouldn't post on this thread again to avoid further confusion, but I wish to address one thing as to avoid any further arguements I have stated that I am Pro-Choice, however, I have also often invoked Aquinas on other threads, just not this one. I think what softwarenerd was concerned about was the fact that my comment disagreeing with the separation of church and state arguement that Peikoff made for supporting Democrats, because given the fact that I was once a student for the Priesthood under the Dominican order and they, like most of the Catholic Holy Orders, opp

Rumsfeld was one of the better Secretaries of State in regards of encouraging more spending in areas to help improve technological advances and overall planning, particularly considering the post-Vietnam environment still present in the government. However, his policy decisions are heavily dependent on Bush's lack of a will to get to the source of the problem. Ever since Jimmy Carter originally allowed these violent warlords to take control of Iran, no one has really had the stomach to suggest a more radical solution to the problem, one that will actually solve the problem permanently. Ru

I am going to end this conversation as I think that my original post was ambiguous and may have spurred some unneccesary confusion on here. I will simply state for the record that I have consistently voted Pro-Choice for the better part of my time being able to do so. I was simply stating for the record that I was not going to be joining in on a move to punish myself financially simply because the national Republican Party is mostly Pro-Life. I did not wish to start an argument, and will now cease my posts here.

You wouldn't be the first to consider me the enemy, I get that from alot of people, particularly some of my former Philosophy Profesors, no offense taken. However, it's not only money, it is the value of my productive labor, though be it in a material symbol rather than the work itself. It is no one's to take without my consent, lest they be a looter and a theif, I am not a man who purchases reproductive freedom at the price of chains and slavery. Furthermore, if we are to speak of philosophy where principles are held to be higher than pragmatic deception, you are essentially helping to p