tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19209018.post2374969461066882106..comments2024-03-27T14:07:52.573+00:00Comments on Who Would Have Believed The Singularity Would Be So Stupid?: Freedom of Speech: Silence is not GoldenPastoriushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03169561459129778670noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19209018.post-17607200760300664652009-06-19T18:52:16.681+01:002009-06-19T18:52:16.681+01:00Anonymous,
I am not sure what you are saying. Th...Anonymous,<br /><br />I am not sure what you are saying. There seem to be a lot of grammatical errors in what you wrote and you seem to have left some words out. Its not the end of the world, I do that too sometimes when posting comments, but it is a bad habit, since it might keep people from understanding what you are trying to say. I think that what you are trying to say is that we gloss over everything bad that is in the Bible and the Torah and that we shouldn't do that. You than say that we are defending Jews as chosen people, and that you think that is wrong, because they're are no chosen people. Am I correct, is that what you are trying to say?<br /><br />If that is what you are trying to tell us, I have several responses.<br /><br />One: There maybe calls for violence in the Bible, especially in the old testament, and that includes violence against women, but it is not mainstream Christianity or Judaism to beat your wife, or to call for the death of unbelievers, anywhere in the modern world. No mainstream preacher, priest or rabbi is calling for the overthrow of the United State's Government or replacing the constitution with Biblical law. On the other hand, there are plenty of Muslims who want to force everyone on Earth to live under Sharia, weather they like it or not. <br /><br />Two: On the Rare occasions when Christians or Jews commit acts of terrorism in the name of their religious beliefs, they are routinely condemned by their fellow Christians and Jews, and most importantly the leaders of their faiths. I haven't heard many prominent Imams condemn terrorism committed in the name of their religion and when they do, they rarely condemn the motives <br />behind the Jihadist's actions. There are plenty of Islamic Theocracies around the world, who's governments, harbor, and fund terrorist groups like Hamas and Al Queda. I can only think of one Christian nation that you could call a theocracy and that's the Vatican, but today, the Papal authority doesn't fund terrorism, or call for converting everyone to Catholicism by force, or even making people submit to Christianity against their will. I can't think of any Jewish state besides Israel, and it is not a theocracy at all.<br /><br />Three: We don't support Israel and the Jewish people over the Palestinians here at the Infidel Bloggers Alliance, because we think that the Jew are God's chosen people. There are athiest who don't believe anything in the Bible, and thus reject the idea that the Jews are God's chosen people, but none the less still support Israel. If all support for Israel was based solely on the Bible, how could you explain that? <br /><br />The modern state of Israel was created after the Holocaust, to give the Jewish people a homeland of their own, in large part, so that they could escape persecution. Israel is a democracy with freedom of religion. It is a western democratic out post, surrounded by barbaric enemies, who would love to wipe it off the face of the Earth. Its unlikely a Palestinian state would be a democracy at this point, and most likely would support terrorism. Also evidence suggests that what the Palestinians really want as a whole is to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth. They're the ones who reject every opportunity at genuine peace. The Palestinian Jihadists hate Israel, because it is not Islamic. The Israelis are on the front lines in a war for the survival of human liberty, against a bunch of theocratic, bigoted, thugs, who's ultimate goal is to turn the world into an Islamic Caliphate.Damienhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02691850040385670009noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19209018.post-29933471941933121042009-06-19T11:17:16.781+01:002009-06-19T11:17:16.781+01:00I can't ever recall they ever saying anything ...I can't ever recall they ever saying anything bad or disgusting about Judaism either you Christians need to stop meddling in the end they both hate and you just can't seem get out of the middle of all of this leave those people alone your bible clearly states this yet you seem to bypass that and talk trash about defending the chosen people well let me tell you something they aren't any chosen people as far as I'm concernedAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19209018.post-87502562380730023302009-03-30T19:13:00.000+01:002009-03-30T19:13:00.000+01:00Grant Jones,What I think makes the Fairness Doctri...Grant Jones,<BR/><BR/>What I think makes the Fairness Doctrine so insidious is that its actually censorship in the guise protecting free speech. Its back door censorship, they simply pass a law that forces radio stations to show opposing views, but in reality the broadcasters can't afford to always show the opposing side, so they drop political content altogether. Plus what is controversial and who would decide what was so controversial that the fairness doctrine should apply? <BR/><BR/>For example, Is the scientific theory of evolution controversial? Not if you ask your average scientist. There's almost no disagreement in the scientific community, but what about the rest of the public, who might support creationism? Does that make evolution controversial? It does technically make it controversial. A supporter of the fairness doctrine might counter that evolution is a scientific fact and not an ethical or political opinion and so it is different that say the issue of socialized medicine. Plus they might reasonably argue that forcing radio or television programs to support both evolution and creationism would violate the separation of church and state. However, the controversy is still there, and just about anything that one might not consider controversial, could still be regarded as controversial if there is significant disagreement on it.Damienhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02691850040385670009noreply@blogger.com