Atheist!

[sr71plt]

You might find this interesting in light of the last few posts...the wiki piece is preceded by several caveats concerning accuracy for some parts of the article, but this general statement seems accurate compared to other sources.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judeo-Christian

The Orthodox world would tear that definition apart. Greco-Roman aspects are considered a bastardization by the Christian world that was established in the Eastern Mediterranean region and has remained there, claiming it is the true Christian church, for centuries before the schism that created what we know as Western Christianity (which, again, isn't one big happy family either among its factions).

But that's sort of a side trip. I again invite Amicus to come on down here to Central Virginia, where more than half of the "founders" were kicking up their heels and listen more than talk for a while and learn to do more than pull doctrinaire suppositions out of his nether region when talking about the founding of this nation.

 

[amicus]

Oggbashan:


http://mindprod.com/politics/iraqwarcriminals.html

http://www.geocities.com/taekyo1202/iraq.html

http://www.shop.com/+-a-a+criminal+america+in+iraq-p194136434-q-k24-skipn-st.shtml

http://informationclearinghouse.info/article12447.htm

http://blog.pdamerica.org/2005/05/call-for-criminal-inquiry-into-iraq-invasion/

Keyword search: a criminal america in iraq

1 - 10 of 55,200,000 for a criminal america in iraq

Take your pick, lots to choose from...

~~~

I guess it was the Nation during the Bush years, but just the Bush administration now that the White House has a new occupant.

Thas what results from relative values, nothing is ever solid and can be reversed at any time.

Amicus...

 

[oggbashan]

Your words were Many of the activist liberals on this site claim the US is a criminal nation

None of the sites you list have the word "literotica" in them. I too could find many sites where the UK is/was accused of being criminal in Iraq.

Neither list of sites justifies an attack on people in Literotica.

Og

Oggbashan:


http://mindprod.com/politics/iraqwarcriminals.html

http://www.geocities.com/taekyo1202/iraq.html

http://www.shop.com/+-a-a+criminal+america+in+iraq-p194136434-q-k24-skipn-st.shtml

http://informationclearinghouse.info/article12447.htm

http://blog.pdamerica.org/2005/05/call-for-criminal-inquiry-into-iraq-invasion/

Keyword search: a criminal america in iraq

1 - 10 of 55,200,000 for a criminal america in iraq

Take your pick, lots to choose from...

~~~

I guess it was the Nation during the Bush years, but just the Bush administration now that the White House has a new occupant.

Thas what results from relative values, nothing is ever solid and can be reversed at any time.

Amicus...

 

[sr71plt]

Your words were Many of the activist liberals on this site claim the US is a criminal nation

None of the sites you list have the word "literotica" in them. I too could find many sites where the UK is/was accused of being criminal in Iraq.

Neither list of sites justifies an attack on people in Literotica.

Og

Ah, good. You made THE point.

 

[Stella_Omega]

A nation might or might not be as criminal as its leader, depending on whether the citizens have any choice-- but this nation is vauntedly democratic and loudly and willingly supported a criminal president during the Bush years- The majority voters of this nation certainly abetted Bush's crimes.

Now? the majority has shifted. I know Ami hates that, but things do shift. There is no longer a majority of Bush Supporters, possibly because his culpability got too blatant to ignore any longer, possibly because of the hits to the wallets.

 

[amicus]

Past_Perfect...thank you for your post...I can imagine the thoughts that preceded the typing of it were not pleasant and perhaps even painful.

I sense this is going to be a long one, so take your time, grab your favorite beverage as I attempt to stumble towards some conclusions and, as with my fiction, see where the idea leads as it develops.

I have referred a few times to a Professor I met at the University of Hawaii who also listened to my radio programs and invited me to his home to discuss some current pertinent issues at the University.

He taught previously at the University of Washington but his wife and daughter and he were immigrants from Germany. He said he had been a Luftewaffe pilot during the war and that after the war, when times were terrible, his family existed by eating rats they found in the rubble.

I gained a new perspective from that man and his experiences, enough to follow him to a small University in Kentucky where he chaired a department and we continued our relationship for a while. Rural Kentucky is not metropolitan Honolulu and my employment was with a small newspaper and a rock n roll radio station.

An unfortunate and unforeseen event occured when I arrived for dinner one evening with a charming young coed in tow and the atmosphere at the professors home chilled. The girl was Jewish, a thing I had no awareness of and would not been concerned had I.

I have never quite understood anti-Semitism and it saddened me to part company with a man I truly respected and still refer to as the only man I ever met who knew more about everything than I did.

I have a daughter, married to a Marine who is currently serving in Bangladesh, she is appalled at living conditions and the culture of a third world country, including the Muslim elements there.

In 1970, I flew to Heathrow in London, purchased a motorcycle and put 5,000 miles on it in a few months. I visited West Germany, Heidleberg, the Castle, wrote a poem, saw the Neander River, home of the name, Neanderthal. I wanted to visit Wiemar, which you most likely are aware, was the birthplace of Goethe. But a young Russian soldier with a weapon and tank on a ridge that tracked me to the checkpoint changed my plans.

I threw a chain in a small village, got acquainted with guesthouses and feather beds and local food, saw a lot of bicyles in Amsterdam, a lot of cemetaries with thousands of white crosses in France and Belgium, walked the beaches at Normandy and seduced a cute little school teacher from Michigan somewhere along the way; always carried Vin Ordinaire and long hard loaves of bread in my saddlebags and ate in a restaurant in the French countryside that was run by Communists who let me know it and were proud of it.

Gave my motorcycle to a little Spanish girl in Barcelona and flew back to Seattle. Some of the memories are as fresh today as they were back then.

I also read more than I ever wanted to about the Holocaust and the Nuremburg trials and I think I have watched every movie on world war two that was ever made, all the theatre's from Africa to Iwo Jima.

All of that in an attempt to demonstrate that I am not as uninformed as most decry and to state that History has been a love of mine forever and it begins with humans coming out of Africa and populating the world.

It may seem that I am avoiding the content of your post, I am not, really, but I have decided to approach from an oblique direction but still respond in what I hope is an acceptable manner.

I suggest it is impossible to judge America and Americans from an European point of view. We have never known a King or a Dictator, on one hand, on the other the Civil War is still not over and may never be and the wide disparity between opposing points of view, I would not call it 'ideology', has, in my opinion pushed this nation to the breaking point.

There were points of time during the Vietnam era, with riots in the streets and a divided nation that I thought might be fatal to the Union. Those divisions have continued and wear away at the basic fabric of this nation. It troubled me then, it does now.

It never seems like history when we are living through it, not my profundity, and I forget who said it originally, and all era's are unique unto themselves I suppose, but I sense a point of no return has been reached here and that too, troubles me.

I wrote and published a newsletter, "Resistance", thirty some years ago, convinced that the time to take sides and prepare for chaos was near. I was wrong, it wasn't.

At that time I was in the prime of life. Age changes ones ability to act and risk and at this point, in the waning years, I can but advise and ruminate, which is not to just 'chew the cud', but to ponder and meditate.

I think the American population, judging by the last election results, is on the verge, as Russia was during the Czar's and Germany was, following world war one, of high expectations from a strong Federal influence in all matters.

I understand every point you made, even to the acknowledgment of the hopelessness of trying to stop an incoming tide with a sand dike.

I can also sense the pathos in parents and grandparents who can often see the arrival of events long before their children do.

I hold a concept of the universality of human liberty and freedom from oppression. As a corollary, I hold that freedom must be earned and protected, within a patriarchal sense, in the wider community and as far as it can be extended while still protecting the source.

In my view, it begins as an obligation to protect one's self, one's family. There is an old homily, that to sacrifice a little freedom for a little security, is to sacrifice freedom.

I did my military service with communications and cryptology, I never fired a weapon in anger, so I cannot attest to my ability or courage should it become necessary to risk or give my life in defense of principles.

I can only imagine the plight of millions, around the world, who were faced with the options you outlined and in that heady time of, 'a war to end all wars'; were it only so.

As it is in nature, it is also in human nature; we compete for the best food, the best land, the prettiest woman and fight anyone who would dare take any of it from us.

That does not upset or perturb me, instead, I let it lead me to an ethical understanding of the nature of man and try, as I think we all do, to find our place in the grand scheme of things.

Warm regards and thank you for a thought provoking post, I trust I did justice to your words.

Amicus...

 

[BentSecrets]

I agree with iz. Athiesm is an insult to the authors of the dollar bill.

Actually, "In God We Trust" is an insult to the founding fathers. It wasn't consistently on money until the early 20th century. Prior to that it had appeared on a couple of different coins from the late 1860's onward, but make no mistake, the Founding Fathers would NEVER have allowed it on the money, even those who *were* Christian.

 

[sr71plt]

A nation might or might not be as criminal as its leader, depending on whether the citizens have any choice-- but this nation is vauntedly democratic and loudly and willingly supported a criminal president during the Bush years- The majority voters of this nation certainly abetted Bush's crimes.

Now? the majority has shifted. I know Ami hates that, but things do shift. There is no longer a majority of Bush Supporters, possibly because his culpability got too blatant to ignore any longer, possibly because of the hits to the wallets.

I think that more than a little harsh. First, people don't vote just for one person. They have far more offices they are voting for, all of which have a slice of influence/responsibility on where the nation goes.

And beyond that, there's no such thing as a one issue president or representative or anything. (Some people vote on one issue only, of course, but they just aren't very bright people.) I can't for the life of me understand why anyone would have voted for Bush for a second time, but I can see them looking at the bigger picture and deciding to go conservative or Republican because it was more palatable to them then the other options given.

If people hadn't been voting third choice--largely on the one-issue simplicity, Bush wouldn't have won at least the second time around. (And he didn't win the popular vote the first time.) So, it's a little hard to place a yoke around a whole NATION that was at least evenly split.

 

[wmrs2]

Maybe they will be REALLY, REALLY heavy... [/QUOTE
A psychologist is what is needed to penetrate your obsessive liberal slant. You are not opposed to traditional American ideas for philosophical reason, which is why dialogue with you would be futile. You appear to be opposed to Christian and American values because it justifies your lifestyle which would be considered degenerate by Christian and Jewish standards.

Your extreme liberalism is most likely the facade that hides your maladaptive lifestyle to the socially accepted American lifestyle. My criticism of extreme liberals did not affect you intellectually but triggered an emotional response. At first yours and others remarks bothered me but then it became apparent that you shot your mouth off because your moral standing was threatened by my position on religion and American citizenship.

If you were to believe in self-evident truths given to the nation by God, you could not logically be a lesbian, favor abortion, reject that the USA is a God fearing country, and you would have to alter your lifestyle in may ways. You want to appear to be a respectful mom and have the halo of intellectual superiority but you do not want to accept values of a lifestyle that would justify this prestigious position in our culture.

It must help you to be an anti-culture person when you go to PTA meetings and soccer practice with your kids and other parents. But it is doubtful that others will ever give you that recognition of good citizenship although you are good at sarcasm towards Christians and the people with which you socialize. The typical citizen does not have respect for your lifestyle and most likely your children will come to resent the scrutiny that public opinion puts on you and your children. That is the choice you make and you have every right to make it. But let's be honest, it is not me and my conservative philosophy that you hate. It is all those eyes in society that are watching you that has you out of sorts.

Your attitude is not something that will go away by you insulting others. You are obviously dissatisfied with the image you have created of yourself as your profile is a lesson of social defense and a flaunting of the immorality of society. You do appear to be a lady in great conflict. You pretend to have it all together but you do not.

 

[wmrs2]

Yes, ami. I too defend my convictions. My ideology. My philosophy.
With rational arguments based on verifiable data, common agreements and what I see as self evident premises. (or at least I try. If I succeed or if my premises are correct, is open fro discussion)

I, and many with me, don't defend faith in the same way. Faith can't and shouldn't be defended rationally. That's what makes it, you know, faith. And if you seek evidence and deuctive suport for your faith, it wasn't faith that you had.

Liar, it is not obvious to me what kind of faith you have but it is a fact that your best defense of any faith is reasoning. If you happen to believe in God, God wants you to reason with him. The statement that if we seek evidence and deductive support for your faith then it isn't faith is on verge of stupidity. There may be an argument by believers that believe that, but only God knows where it is.

The only reason known by others that religious people will not defend their faith is because they can not defend it. One thing seems apparent to me is that God being light does not want you walking in darkness. Not being able or willing to defend your faith is the same as not having faith. To me that is more believable of you than you actually being a believer. From my point of view from being a believer, you are not intellectually welcome on my side. There is no insult intended here. I just don't see how you are prepared to help the cause of God.

 

[wmrs2]

Interesting - since my grandfather died in the war, having been drafted and sent to the Russian front line, he was evil? And my uncle and cousins living in the GDR after the war were evil also, because they lived under their then regime? Your world view must be comforting to you, or frightening, can't make out which, but to me it doesn't even make any sense, sorry.

And how do you bring these quick judgements under one hat with: Judge not that you not be judged?

We have to judge things and situations each day and then we need the resolve and character to live by our judgment. It is living by your judgment that makes you great and strong in character. That is why G. W. Bush is admired by many Americans which is that he lived by principle and not shifting public opinion.

It would have taken strong moral character to have refused to serve on the Russian front line, if that was the sincere belief of your father that it was immoral to do so, he was less than great for going to war regardless of the coast. Moral greatness is not cheap.

My father was killed in France in 1944 by the Germans. He volunteered for the draft. I am extremely proud of him and his life. It does make sense to me that he went to war and I am so sorry that you don't feel that way about your father. That is my judgement and I think it stands well in the eyes of God.

Thank about it. Have you not judged me? You will be judged also, if you believe your statement from the New Testament. You only quoted part of the verse, The rest is: lest you be judged. I am willing to be judged but cowards are not. Liberals are cowards who judge us with the word of God when they really do not know the word of God.

 

[wmrs2]

Different statement though, as for them it is the realisation of being part of God, or oneness, whereas the Bible quote would denote separateness. Btw, is it written in the OT? Must have missed that.

It is written in the O.T. That is the source of Jesus's quote, which is rather self-evident. You appear to have missed much in the Bible. If you are going to base your life on the writings of the Bible, I suggest you read it and study it. If you do not believe the Bible, why do you use it to condemn others with the Bible? You appear to be a man in great conflict whereas you could be more content if you believed in the Bible and God.

 

[wmrs2]

Well, it is a topic with many facets - apart from some idiots who deny historic truths, there is a sense of national guilt for what happened before and during the war, or allowing that to happen. There are quite a few who claim they didn't know what was going on - including some of my family members - considering that they were living in remote rural areas at the time, I won't preclude the possibility.

However, at the time there were only two options really - either you got drafted or deserted, in case they caught you then, you were summarily executed. The groups in the resistance were mostly the left (communists and social democrats) and Christians (isn't that just wonderfully ironic?), who were sent to KZs or executed also. So it's a rather interesting moral dilemma - resist and most likely be killed, or partake and be guilty by association. Let's assume not wanting to be killed is cowardly also, is it evil per se? Or, in wmrs2's terms, if you are not innocent, you are evil?

Have to run now, will continue later.

That is not exactly what was said. Your character is brought into question for twisting that statement. It does make moral sense to me to be willing to die for principle than to live for anything, especially evil things.

 

[wmrs2]

K then, back to where I left off.

There appear to have been two rather tough choices for those who had a clear knowledge of what was really going on (not as many as one might think, there were rumours about what happened to the Jewish people, but clear knowledge was more or less limited to either those who were involved in those atrocities, or people who were already in the underground), but anyone with a half-way clear mind should have noticed that invading neighbouring nations might not be overly ethical either. Well, before invading Poland, they at least fabricated an incident not unlike Tonkin in Vietnam, so officially the German Reich "retaliated".

In any case, I suppose to many it was a not even a choice they consciously made - your nation is in a war, so you go fight and if you fight, you fight to win. What you think about the ruling power, in that case a totalitarian regime with a charismatic madman as a figurehead is was certainly secondary, or, IOW - you would have had plenty of rationalisations that it was not criminal to partake in a criminal war. Like the definite threat from Russia (maybe it would please you and wmrs2 more if I used communist threat), and after the Allied Forces responded to the V2 with bombarding German cities and causing ever higher casualties in the civilian population, simply defending your family and country, apart from the readily available propaganda that brainwashed quite a few sufficiently also.

The right choice would still have been to resist, sabotage, desert, turn your weapons against the criminals, no matter what the consequences, even if that meant to risk your life. Some did take that choice. Most of them perished, but left us with the legacy that it is not just human to put self-preservation above everything else, but also that doing nothing, looking away, not listening, fighting for something that is not real, to do as one is told, makes one an accessory to murder, a criminal not much better than those who initiated and executed those atrocities.

I would like to think that I would have made the right choice in those circumstances, and considering my political orientation, I would have probably been either in jail, a KZ or the underground anyway. However, if that wouldn't have been the case or I had lived in similar circumstances than my family members, I had probably done nothing or "my duty" just as almost everyone else and been as guilty as everyone else.

Criminal (in varying degrees) yes, evil, no, unless you were amongst those who engineered and executed the genocide and the war.

Second scenario - living in the GDR. GDR troops never partook in any wars, the only people they shot were people trying to flee the country. They didn't really have much of a choice of how to politically orientate after the war, being occupied by the Red Army and all. Guilty by association? No. Obligated to resist? Maybe, but not really. Well, they eventually did, non-violently and successfully though. Evil? No way, not even the apparatchiks - criminals in varying degrees those were, certainly, but evil certainly not.

The definition of evil in Christian and Jewish thought is that evil is the absence of good. To do nothing was evil. To excuse mankind from making the difficult choices as you do, this is also evil. You certainly are a confused person about good and evil and about what you believe as you go back and forth on what you believe. Life by principle and it will be more clear what you should do and it will help you to be truthful, not twisting the facts.

 

[wmrs2]

K then, back to where I left off.

There appear to have been two rather tough choices for those who had a clear knowledge of what was really going on (not as many as one might think, there were rumours about what happened to the Jewish people, but clear knowledge was more or less limited to either those who were involved in those atrocities, or people who were already in the underground), but anyone with a half-way clear mind should have noticed that invading neighbouring nations might not be overly ethical either. Well, before invading Poland, they at least fabricated an incident not

In any case, I suppose to many it was a not even a choice they consciously made - your nation is in a war, so you go fight and if you fight, you fight to win. What you think about the ruling power, in that case a totalitarian regime with a charismatic madman as a figurehead is was certainly secondary, or, IOW - you would have had plenty of rationalisations that it was not criminal to partake in a criminal war. Like the definite threat from Russia (maybe it would please you and wmrs2 more if I used communist threat), and after the Allied Forces responded to the V2 with bombarding German cities and causing ever higher casualties in the civilian population, simply defending your family and country, apart from the readily available propaganda that brainwashed quite a few sufficiently also.

The right choice would still have been to resist, sabotage, desert, turn your weapons against the criminals, no matter what the consequences, even if that meant to risk your life. Some did take that choice. Most of them perished, but left us with the legacy that it is not just human to put self-preservation above everything else, but also that doing nothing, looking away, not listening, fighting for something that is not real, to do as one is told, makes one an accessory to murder, a criminal not much better than those who initiated and executed those atrocities.

I would like to think that I would have made the right choice in those circumstances, and considering my political orientation, I would have probably been either in jail, a KZ or the underground anyway. However, if that wouldn't have been the case or I had lived in similar circumstances than my family members, I had probably done nothing or "my duty" just as almost everyone else and been as guilty as everyone else.

Criminal (in varying degrees) yes, evil, no, unless you were amongst those who engineered and executed the genocide and the war.

Second scenario - living in the GDR. GDR troops never partook in any wars, the only people they shot were people trying to flee the country. They didn't really have much of a choice of how to politically orientate after the war, being occupied by the Red Army and all. Guilty by association? No. Obligated to resist? Maybe, but not really. Well, they eventually did, non-violently and successfully though. Evil? No way, not even the apparatchiks - criminals in varying degrees those were, certainly, but evil certainly not.

With your negative opinion of the history of religion in America, you must have made a piss poor editor. Do you still have that job? Just a few points need to be made to point out the liberal bias in your opinions.

unlike Tonkin in Vietnam, so officially the German Reich "retaliated".

Well, that is just dumb! Rationalist would never justify the Reich as retaliating and comparing it to Vietnam. Your liberal interpretation has made you historically cross eyed.

Like the definite threat from Russia (maybe it would please you and wmrs2 more if I used communist threat), and after the Allied Forces responded to the V2 with bombarding German cities and causing ever higher casualties in the civilian population,

You might make a few fools believe that the communist were not a threat but that is beside the point in this discussion. The fact is that the German people were very happy with Hitler while he was killing people all over the world and bringing the world's wealth back to satisfy the people's lust for power and wealth. But when the USA bombed their superman's ass, they turned on Hitler and his opinion poll dropped below G. W. Bushes rating.

Evil? No way, not even the apparatchiks - criminals in varying degrees those were, certainly, but evil certainly not.

Do you have any definition of evil? The Germans did not kill the Jews in varying degrees. The Germans killed the Jews and Christians in a very absolute and completely evil manner. You have a very warped view of history that only a liberal could visualize. I am not trying to insult you but you certainly are not qualified to interpret history objectively.

 

[wmrs2]

In my travels, I've found a few in the Middle East who do extend this to "Nation," but in Europe and Asia? No. I was always clearly hearing "the current administration" in those regions.

I rather doubt Amicus has been out to his street curb let alone anywhere close to the expressed views of "many."

With liberal crossed eyes you are guilty of believing your own propaganda. Our nation and the past administration was never viewed by its allies in Europe or Asia as being criminal. It really comes down to the liberals controlling what has been said about Bush and our nation. Exp. when the radical Muslims began to burn down the country, France became a conservative nation and a close friend to the USA.

Do you think the fact that 93% of the press is liberal has anything to do with the expressed public opinion of a nation? You probably don't. But you need glasses. You are not giving a historical view of the world but you are giving the liberal interpretation of the world. Things are not like you seem them.

 

[wmrs2]

Am I the only one who noticed the term "Christian atheist?" It makes me wonder what other words wmrs2 is creatively defining. Do you suppose that anyone who doesn't agree with her must, by her definition, be an atheist?

You can't see it but it is a fact that a person who says they are a Christian but lives by and accepts a philosophy of the anti Christian faith, is not really a Christian. I don't know anyone who is stupid enough to say that he is a Christian and then deny the philosophy of Jesus Christ, unless it be you.

 

[wmrs2]

A nation might or might not be as criminal as its leader, depending on whether the citizens have any choice-- but this nation is vauntedly democratic and loudly and willingly supported a criminal president during the Bush years- The majority voters of this nation certainly abetted Bush's crimes.

Now? the majority has shifted. I know Ami hates that, but things do shift. There is no longer a majority of Bush Supporters, possibly because his culpability got too blatant to ignore any longer, possibly because of the hits to the wallets.

You too have those liberal crossed eyes. Bush was not a criminal no more than all the liberals in Congress who voted to support the war. The cowards they be, they ran for the hills when the liberals discovered the enemy used real bullets. The only culpability the press ignored was the liberals culpability for their failure to support the war for which they voted. The war would have been won long ago had the people who told Bush to go to ware had voted on principle. Cowards, they all be.

One more piece of stupidity, everybody but fools know that the economy was the issue that turned the nation in the last election. It is significant that your don't seem to know this.

 

[wmrs2]

Actually, "In God We Trust" is an insult to the founding fathers. It wasn't consistently on money until the early 20th century. Prior to that it had appeared on a couple of different coins from the late 1860's onward, but make no mistake, the Founding Fathers would NEVER have allowed it on the money, even those who *were* Christian.

There is not truth in everything you say here. How is it an insult to say."In God We Trust"? That is your opinion based on your hate of Christians. True historians would never speculate as you have. You have no evidence that the Founding Fathers would never have allowed this statement on the money. According to you the Founding Fathers would never allowed self-evident truths to be in the Constitution. Your logic is twisted and your view of history is incorrect. Speculation does not make a fact be.

 

[past_perfect]

We have to judge things and situations each day and then we need the resolve and character to live by our judgment. It is living by your judgment that makes you great and strong in character. That is why G. W. Bush is admired by many Americans which is that he lived by principle and not shifting public opinion.

It would have taken strong moral character to have refused to serve on the Russian front line, if that was the sincere belief of your father that it was immoral to do so, he was less than great for going to war regardless of the coast. Moral greatness is not cheap.

My father was killed in France in 1944 by the Germans. He volunteered for the draft. I am extremely proud of him and his life. It does make sense to me that he went to war and I am so sorry that you don't feel that way about your father. That is my judgement and I think it stands well in the eyes of God.

Thank about it. Have you not judged me? You will be judged also, if you believe your statement from the New Testament. You only quoted part of the verse, The rest is: lest you be judged. I am willing to be judged but cowards are not. Liberals are cowards who judge us with the word of God when they really do not know the word of God.

No, I have not judged you. I have made judgements about the validity of your remarks. You made judgements about groups of people, and in this instance Germans as a whole. That is not only wrong, but simplistic. There were Germans who resisted, there were Germans who did atrocious things, there were Germans who were Jewish and killed, there were Germans who were helping Jews to escape and were killed. So they were evil too? I couldn't even say anything about the character of my grandfather (not father) - I was born in 1963, I never met the guy. My father was 16 when the war ended, my mother 15, my uncle who later lived in the GDR 17 - so they were evil because they lived at the time of the war?

Or, since you seem to like to claim you are using logic, try to see the difference between the statement "some Germans killed Jews" and "All Germans killed Jews". Do you have any qualifying degrees? Like a four year old German, perhaps being slightly less responsible, or even, dare I say it, innocent?

So basically everything that is not in line with your belief (I wouldn't even call that Christian) cannot be good and therefore is evil, since evil is the absence of good? Fascinating.

I will answer to the rest of your posts here also. Editor? You are confusing me with sr71plt.

You don't seem to read well - I said that for a German living in the Third Reich it could have been a rationale for a "just" war, if he chose to believe the information that Poland had fired upon German troops first - the connection I drew was that in reality it was a fabricated incident, very much like Tonkin. Why not compare two fabricated incidents as the reason to start a war? It's comparing facts, not ideas. I am German, btw, in case that has escaped you also.

Opinion polls? Wtf? That wasn't the Iraq war for crying out loud. Many were seeing what was really happening only during the war, like soldiers passing a death march from a KZ when retreating and so forth, and some reacted. I repeat: The knowledge was not as wide-spread as one would think, for one, if you were caught spreading the rumour that something other than Jews being deported into labour camps was happening or said anything negative about the legality of Hitler's war, you were charged with treason and killed. Ever heard about the White Rose? That was one resistance cell (you might like those, as they were Christian - but German, so I suppose also evil), most others were actual communists or socialists, some opposing Hitler already even before he assumed power and got the money from American bankers to finance the war (Bush's grandfather for instance).

You judge groups. Groups are comprised of individuals. I won't stoop to your level and quote any incident of any American behaving criminal or evil and apply your twisted logic. That is neither logical nor Christian. Or a basis for a discussion.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Past Perfect, this person might be bi-polar, or schizophrenic, or loose in some other screw-- but talking to them is like talking to a bowl of goldfish for all the good it will do you...

 

[past_perfect]

Warm regards and thank you for a thought provoking post, I trust I did justice to your words.

Amicus...

Well, I return the compliment - and give you another incident from my life, to give you an idea what this feeling of national guilt entails or how it affects some. During my time in London I moved to a predominantly Jewish area (Stamford Hill). When getting a Falafel at my favourite take-away, I noticed the old woman handing it to me had a KZ number tattooed on her arm. What happened in that moment was like a wave of shame and guilt engulfing me, actually making me freeze for a moment, until I got some unspoken response from her, releasing me - she must have recognised me as German due to my then still slightly discernible accent. That was one of the most powerful moments of my life actually.

 

[past_perfect]

Past Perfect, this person might be bi-polar, or schizophrenic, or loose in some other screw-- but talking to them is like talking to a bowl of goldfish for all the good it will do you...

Well, there was one useful bit of information in all that for our sleuthing - if her father died in 1944 she is probably not exactly a young girl anymore.

 

[BentSecrets]

There is not truth in everything you say here. How is it an insult to say."In God We Trust"? That is your opinion based on your hate of Christians. True historians would never speculate as you have. You have no evidence that the Founding Fathers would never have allowed this statement on the money. According to you the Founding Fathers would never allowed self-evident truths to be in the Constitution. Your logic is twisted and your view of history is incorrect. Speculation does not make a fact be.

No, I have no hate of Christians at all. That's called "paranoia" on your part. I have a very simple bit of evidence that the Founding Fathers would never have allowed this statement on money: THEY NEVER DID. Every last one of them was long dead by the time this statement was added to the money we use today.

You mistake the idea of "divine revelation" for "self evident truth". A Self Evident Truth is called an Axiom, and what it means is that the concept is evident in and of itself, without outside additional evidence necessary. The statement "Existence Exists" is an Axiom, a "self evident truth". The statement "God created the world" is NOT an Axiom, it is NOT self evident (or evident at all, for that matter).

My logic is accurate and my view of history is exactly correct, informed, and educated. The Founding Fathers, even the Christian ones, were adamant that the Church and the State must be separate. Jefferson and Madison were well known to be Deists; Adams (John) was a Christian who nevertheless supported separation. They knew this to be necessary in order for the country to maintain a purpose higher and nobler than their respective beliefs--Liberty, which is the state of nature in which Individuals are free to choose and maintain their own beliefs independent of anyone else's and their right to do so is protected by law.

It's unfortunate, but an ignorant zealot such as yourself will likely never understand the depth of the Founders' brilliance or the uniqueness of what they achieved in history. Your own rabid desire to enforce your views on others is indicative of only one thing: Your own inability to rest comfortably with your beliefs. You are a doubter, and you hate yourself for it.

 

[sr71plt]

Our nation and the past administration was never viewed by its allies in Europe or Asia as being criminal. It really comes down to the liberals controlling what has been said about Bush and our nation. Exp. when the radical Muslims began to burn down the country, France became a conservative nation and a close friend to the USA.

I certainly hope that Bush and Cheney believe that and take a European vacation, as there are a few countries there that have them under indictment as war criminals.