Well, for once, I agree with Der Trihs- but I think that this thread is not the place to debate this issue, and we are straying dangerously far from the OP. Why don’t you or Sam Stone start a new thread to talk about whether it’s better to have large or small government, since the issue doesn’t seem to be related to the increasing partisanship in US politics?
Not necessarily. They’re demonstrating why there is partisanship in the first place. I wonder how many people actually change their minds on political matters and whether it can actually be done. People get awful stubborn about what they think about.
Yeah, I guess I agree. While some people’s politics certainly do evolve over time, I’d be interested in seeing some sort of study as to what percentage of people adopt their family’s/town’s/culture’s ideology.
I think people of strong beliefs are not afraid if other people agree or disagree with them.
If the government allowed one religion to put up their religious symbols on Government property there would be a big out cry if the devil worshippers put up their symbol of satan next to a nativity scene, or a Buddah,or Baal. Hence our forefathers wisdom in seperation of religion and state.
I find it strange that I have never seen the 10 commandments posted in front of a church of any denomination,but they want it up in the public buildings; no one has ever complained about one being put up in front of a church, (or the nativity scenes that some churches put up in front of their buildings).
Some people will tolerate anothers beliefs,but there are a few who do not, I think they are afraid that if everyone doesn’t follow their beliefs that maybe they are wrong!
Monavis
There’s a difference between civil society and corrupt society. In a corrupt society, government regulation doesn’t matter, because you just buy the regulators. In a civil society, there are many forces keeping things on the straight and narrow. Insurance rules, building associations, tort law, etc.
Right. Because before 1962, Americans were dropping like flies from deadly medicines. And God knows, with the FDA looking after it all now, no useless or dangerous medicines ever get to market.
Right… Everyone knows there is no profit in coming up with new drugs. Ask Pfizer. And how many people die waiting for drugs to come onto the market that are being held up for FDA approval?
You really believe that, don’t you? You think the average person would let their child grow up illiterate?
In every society wealthy enough to be able to afford widespread education, there is widespread education. Whether or not it’s run by the government.
You know, that statistic is completely wrong. It counts only the number of people who wound up in morgues before and after the war. But the victims of secret police rarely wind up in a morgue. They wind up in mass graves or fed into woodchippers. So far, between 250,000 and 400,000 bodies have been found in mass graves in Iraq. This does not include Kurds killed by gas, or the Shiites that were killed in reprisals from their uprising in 1991, or other publically-known killings. These are people who just ‘disappeared’. Family members dragged away in the night, or vanished on their way home from work. Shot in the back of the head for ‘disloyalty’ and disposed of in a shallow grave somewhere. That’s roughly 10-20,000 PER YEAR.
Similarly, around the same number of WW2 veterans died due to smoking as died in WW2 combat (or even more.) If the government had been more thorough in testing suspected “death sticks” (as they were already known as at the time,) and less time buying cigarette makers’ smokescreens (NPI,) and obfuscations, perhaps fewer would have died as a result.
Sorry, guys, I was out of town for a couple of days, but I’m now ready to take my medicine on some of your excellent points.
First, monavis , you make a very good point regarding the 10 commandments and their placement. I hadn’t realized that until you posted it. I haven’t seen them posted in front of churches either; then again, most Christian denominations tend to focus on the New Testament rather that the Old. This could possibly be the reason. As far as “people of strong beliefs”, this is one of the points I was trying to get across. I respect everyone’s right to their own beliefs; after all, that is the basis of a free society. The fact that we can get together in a forum such as this to discuss them bears this out. My objection is to those in that society who would use the political process to turn those beliefs into law and to stigmatize those who disagree with those beliefs.
It just irritates me that there are those among us who would puff out their chests and tell the world “We are the standard bearers of freedom and liberty” while at the same time attempting to pass legislation based on their own personal moral codes. If you think homosexuality is immoral, fine. If you think abortion is murder, by all means, go on believing that. But I think it’s time to look at the big picture and try to solve the real problems our nation faces–crime, the economy, dishonest politicians, influence-peddling–things that really need to be our priorities! I think most of us can agree on that.
Regarding all the posts about religious symbols: I was stating that I was not offended by them. But you’ve all made good arguments regarding the use of public funds to display them, so I’m willing to concede that point. BTW, I don’t want any more of my tax money funding this whole fiasco in Iraq–who do I see about that? 
I admit my idealism may be unrealistic–so was the Revolutionary War.
I think in the end we can’t get along because of method not means (I’ll explain).
Most of us agree that Murder is wrong. A nice simple belief we can all share. But what is murder? Is capital punishment murder? Is abortion? Is killing an agressor? Is war?
What should we do to stop it? Protest? Arrest? Incarcerate? Study? Rehabilatate? Shoot upon arrest?
What should we do to discourage it?
What should we do to make sure we have agreement on terms?
Who decides which terms are to be used? Government? Religious writtings? Juries? Individial opinion?
I hope that illistrates what I consider the ‘issue’
In the basest sense we agree (means), but we often don’t see the agreement over the arguements on the method. We picture the method to be a basic (and ‘wrong’) difference; where it isn’t.
We can’t get along, because we hold our methods so closely that we can’t see the means anymore.
You kinda trouble me with these statistics, Sam. You and I…a Canadian and a Texan…are steeped in our native cultures, and therefore men of modesty and restraint, not given to wild exaggeration.
For instance, you will probably recall the British press item that suggested upwards of 100,000 Iraqis had (presumably gladly) given thier lives in the cause of their liberation. I rather imagine you regarded that number with some reservation, nay, suspicion. You might have suspected that such numbers as these masked an agenda. As well you might.
But what of these numbers, Sam? You directly contradict numbers offered by Red Shirt, and then offer your own set with no more corroboration than he did. Have you considered the possiblility, however remote, that these numbers are offered by persons with an agenda, and hence, suspect?
How does one go about numbering a mass grave? I’ve no idea. I vaguely recall the places you speak of, but only once or twice, and they seem to have entered the discussion as truth incarnate. Are they? I know, without question, that Saddam is a very bad man, but these numbers would make Idi Amin Dada whimper and flee, to hide under his bed with his banky, sucking his thumb.
Most of the testimony I’ve heard suggest that the average Iraqi was under no particular threat so long as he managed not to call attention to himself, there were no roving caravans of roving wood-chippers seizing passersby and rendering them into socially useful compost on the streets of Baghdad (which is where most of this would have been likely to happen, being the place where so many lived…)
Men like you and I, of calm and reflective temperment, must be alert to agenda. These numbers, for instance, suggest an agenda to retrofit our self-defense by way of pre-emptive strike motive with a new! improved! international Guardian Angel action. “Wasn’t about us, we did it for them.”
In the words of Bugs Bunny, it is to laugh.
So, where did you get these numbers? Have you tracked their source and given it your usual relentless scrutiny?
From the U.S. Department of State:
From USAID:
From Archaologists for Human Rights:
From Human Rights Watch:
This last is a heavily footnoted, comprehensive report including forensic evidence, photographic evidence, eye witness accounts, documentary evidence,
From Wikipedia:
Of course, human rights reports were ignored when Saddam was our friend, but one cite there shows once again, this time on verifying the evidence, the current administration yet again found a way to mess up:
From the Human Rights Watch cite:
Seeing that groups in the new government are involved in current death squads, I don’t hold my breath on seeing progress here.
I suspect I coined Argument By Attrition.
That, or I subconsciously jacked it from somoene else. Anyone know?
-Joe, contributor
I think I stole the phrase from you. It came up in one of those “did we let Bin Laden escape” threads I think.
FINALLY I have the chance to be remembered as something other than the guy with the 13" penis.
-Joe