MorphRC Posted September 23, 2004 Author Share Posted September 23, 2004 Dont give me that "Spirit of the Law" junk. I can bag the US-Admin as much as I want with sources and quotes, and you cant do anything. Criticism IS NEGATIVE, it has a negative sense. THe End. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qfnol31 Posted September 23, 2004 Share Posted September 23, 2004 Morph, you keep getting on Raph. Either debate what you wanted to or don't. If you think he's censuring you, fine. However, you keep going on and won't do what you say you want to do. This is crazy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thy Geekdom Come Posted September 23, 2004 Share Posted September 23, 2004 [quote name='MorphRC' date='Sep 23 2004, 03:04 AM'] Dont give me that "Spirit of the Law" junk. I can bag the US-Admin as much as I want with sources and quotes, and you cant do anything. Criticism IS NEGATIVE, it has a negative sense. THe End. [/quote] Criticism needn't be negative. For instance, "your use of negative criticism troubles me. Perhaps if you would lighten things up and not use blanket statements, things would be more positive," is a positive criticism because it points to your actions, not you, and sets up a plan to help you resolve the problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmotherofpirl Posted September 23, 2004 Share Posted September 23, 2004 There is nothing wrong with criticism [positive or negative] if done in a polite manner. Cite your sources and use good manners. Remember, however, this is not a political board, so fixating on government behavior unless it is related to the Church really shouldn't be here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MartinLuther Posted September 23, 2004 Share Posted September 23, 2004 Gday Morph, I think you were actually negatively critcising a religion - Americanism - a religion that is believed just as strongly as catholicism (if not more strongly) by many posters on this board. Cheers ML [quote]America is a religion US leaders now see themselves as priests of a divine mission to rid the world of its demons George Monbiot Tuesday July 29, 2003 The Guardian (UK) "The death of Uday and Qusay," the commander of the ground forces in Iraq told reporters on Wednesday, "is definitely going to be a turning point for the resistance." Well, it was a turning point, but unfortunately not of the kind he envisaged. On the day he made his announcement, Iraqi insurgents killed one US soldier and wounded six others. On the following day, they killed another three; over the weekend they assassinated five and injured seven. Yesterday they slaughtered one more and wounded three. This has been the worst week for US soldiers in Iraq since George Bush declared that the war there was over. Few people believe that the resistance in that country is being coordinated by Saddam Hussein and his noxious family, or that it will come to an end when those people are killed. But the few appear to include the military and civilian command of the United States armed forces. For the hundredth time since the US invaded Iraq, the predictions made by those with access to intelligence have proved less reliable than the predictions made by those without. And, for the hundredth time, the inaccuracy of the official forecasts has been blamed on "intelligence failures". The explanation is wearing a little thin. Are we really expected to believe that the members of the US security services are the only people who cannot see that many Iraqis wish to rid themselves of the US army as fervently as they wished to rid themselves of Saddam Hussein? What is lacking in the Pentagon and the White House is not intelligence (or not, at any rate, of the kind we are considering here), but receptivity. Theirs is not a failure of information, but a failure of ideology. To understand why this failure persists, we must first grasp a reality which has seldom been discussed in print. The United States is no longer just a nation. It is now a religion. Its soldiers have entered Iraq to liberate its people not only from their dictator, their oil and their sovereignty, but also from their darkness. As George Bush told his troops on the day he announced victory: "Wherever you go, you carry a message of hope - a message that is ancient and ever new. In the words of the prophet Isaiah, 'To the captives, "come out," and to those in darkness, "be free".'" So American soldiers are no longer merely terrestrial combatants; they have become missionaries. They are no longer simply killing enemies; they are casting out demons. The people who reconstructed the faces of Uday and Qusay Hussein carelessly forgot to restore the pair of little horns on each brow, but the understanding that these were opponents from a different realm was transmitted nonetheless. Like all those who send missionaries abroad, the high priests of America cannot conceive that the infidels might resist through their own free will; if they refuse to convert, it is the work of the devil, in his current guise as the former dictator of Iraq. As Clifford Longley shows in his fascinating book Chosen People, published last year, the founding fathers of the USA, though they sometimes professed otherwise, sensed that they were guided by a divine purpose. Thomas Jefferson argued that the Great Seal of the United States should depict the Israelites, "led by a cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night". George Washington claimed, in his inaugural address, that every step towards independence was "distinguished by some token of providential agency". Longley argues that the formation of the American identity was part of a process of "supersession". The Roman Catholic church claimed that it had supplanted the Jews as the elect, as the Jews had been repudiated by God. The English Protestants accused the Catholics of breaking faith, and claimed that they had become the beloved of God. The American revolutionaries believed that the English, in turn, had broken their covenant: the Americans had now become the chosen people, with a divine duty to deliver the world to God's dominion. Six weeks ago, as if to show that this belief persists, George Bush recalled a remark of Woodrow Wilson's. "America," he quoted, "has a spiritual energy in her which no other nation can contribute to the liberation of mankind." Gradually this notion of election has been conflated with another, still more dangerous idea. It is not just that the Americans are God's chosen people; America itself is now perceived as a divine project. In his farewell presidential address, Ronald Reagan spoke of his country as a "shining city on a hill", a reference to the Sermon on the Mount. But what Jesus was describing was not a temporal Jerusalem, but the kingdom of heaven. Not only, in Reagan's account, was God's kingdom to be found in the United States of America, but the kingdom of hell could also now be located on earth: the "evil empire" of the Soviet Union, against which His holy warriors were pitched. Since the attacks on New York, this notion of America the divine has been extended and refined. In December 2001, Rudy Giuliani, the mayor of that city, delivered his last mayoral speech in St Paul's Chapel, close to the site of the shattered twin towers. "All that matters," he claimed, "is that you embrace America and understand its ideals and what it's all about. Abraham Lincoln used to say that the test of your Americanism was ... how much you believed in America. Because we're like a religion really. A secular religion." The chapel in which he spoke had been consecrated not just by God, but by the fact that George Washington had once prayed there. It was, he said, now "sacred ground to people who feel what America is all about". The United States of America no longer needs to call upon God; it is God, and those who go abroad to spread the light do so in the name of a celestial domain. The flag has become as sacred as the Bible; the name of the nation as holy as the name of God. The presidency is turning into a priesthood. So those who question George Bush's foreign policy are no longer merely critics; they are blasphemers, or "anti-Americans". Those foreign states which seek to change this policy are wasting their time: you can negotiate with politicians; you cannot negotiate with priests. The US has a divine mission, as Bush suggested in January: "to defend ... the hopes of all mankind", and woe betide those who hope for something other than the American way of life. The dangers of national divinity scarcely require explanation. Japan went to war in the 1930s convinced, like George Bush, that it possessed a heaven-sent mission to "liberate" Asia and extend the realm of its divine imperium. It would, the fascist theoretician Kita Ikki predicted: "light the darkness of the entire world". Those who seek to drag heaven down to earth are destined only to engineer a hell. [/quote] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Good Friday Posted September 23, 2004 Share Posted September 23, 2004 [quote name='Raphael']Only in the letter of the law. The spirit of the law is against negative criticism. dUSt simply wrote only about negative criticism of other religions because he did not anticipate political discussion. Negative criticism of any kind, I suspect, would be prohibited by dUSt himself.[/quote] "The spirit of the law"? And you [b]suspect[/b] it would be prohibited? Don't you think you should ask before censoring something? It's not like dUSt is totally inaccessible. You might ask him about something instead of taking it upon yourself to revise the rules. Will you take this approach to "negative criticism" when and if the new American administration becomes a Kerry Administration, or will you permit negative criticism then? Obviously, when they're talking about "the spirit of the law" and what dUSt [b]might[/b] do, the moderators are getting out of hand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
littleflower+JMJ Posted September 23, 2004 Share Posted September 23, 2004 [quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Sep 23 2004, 05:00 AM'] There is nothing wrong with criticism [positive or negative] if done in a polite manner. Cite your sources and use good manners. Remember, however, this is not a political board, so fixating on government behavior unless it is related to the Church really shouldn't be here. [/quote] she said it best. it really matters not what you say but how you say it. think before posting. have a great day! :tiphat: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MorphRC Posted September 23, 2004 Author Share Posted September 23, 2004 [quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Sep 23 2004, 08:30 PM'] There is nothing wrong with criticism [positive or negative] if done in a polite manner. Cite your sources and use good manners. Remember, however, this is not a political board, so fixating on government behavior unless it is related to the Church really shouldn't be here. [/quote] ty. Sorry, but there would be no where else, if I put it in Lame board, he would have closed it or deleted it. Cant put it in the open mic, since its a debate. Its the closest thing I could get. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MorphRC Posted September 23, 2004 Author Share Posted September 23, 2004 [quote name='Good Friday' date='Sep 23 2004, 10:16 PM'] [quote name='Raphael']Only in the letter of the law. The spirit of the law is against negative criticism. dUSt simply wrote only about negative criticism of other religions because he did not anticipate political discussion. Negative criticism of any kind, I suspect, would be prohibited by dUSt himself.[/quote] "The spirit of the law"? And you [b]suspect[/b] it would be prohibited? Don't you think you should ask before censoring something? It's not like dUSt is totally inaccessible. You might ask him about something instead of taking it upon yourself to revise the rules. [b]Will you take this approach to "negative criticism" when and if the new American administration becomes a Kerry Administration, or will you permit negative criticism then?[/b] Obviously, when they're talking about "the spirit of the law" and what dUSt [b]might[/b] do, the moderators are getting out of hand. [/quote] Bolded Part: Lol Got ya there. There is so much anti-kerry stuff on here I could fill a book. Yet there is no censoring, anti-bush stuff [color=red][EDIT EDIT EDIT][/color]. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmotherofpirl Posted September 23, 2004 Share Posted September 23, 2004 (edited) If Bush claimed to be catholic and still wanted to slice and dice children, he would get the same treatment :angry: Edited September 23, 2004 by cmotherofpirl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MorphRC Posted September 23, 2004 Author Share Posted September 23, 2004 [quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Sep 24 2004, 01:43 AM'] If Bush claimed to be catholic and still wanted to slice and dice children, he would get the same treatment :angry: [/quote] Is that a double standard? See, this is what I have to, and others, have to deal with. You say be kind here to this person, but to hell with this guy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qfnol31 Posted September 23, 2004 Share Posted September 23, 2004 I think she's saying that if Bush were pro-abortion and claimed to be Catholic, we would treat him the say way we do with Kerry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MorphRC Posted September 23, 2004 Author Share Posted September 23, 2004 [quote name='qfnol31' date='Sep 24 2004, 02:06 AM'] I think she's saying that if Bush were pro-abortion and claimed to be Catholic, we would treat him the say way we do with Kerry. [/quote] uncharitable..yes. I wonder why none of those people have been warned. I might go get some quotes of uncharitable comments. But i doubt anything will be done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MorphRC Posted September 23, 2004 Author Share Posted September 23, 2004 [b]Uncharitable Comments and Behaviour:[/b] [url="http://phorum.phatmass.com/index.php?act=Search&CODE=show&searchid=ad70d12b5c742a8026e032101363554f&search_in=titles&result_type=topics&highlite=kerry"]http://phorum.phatmass.com/index.php?act=S...&highlite=kerry[/url] More than a short list. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
littleflower+JMJ Posted September 23, 2004 Share Posted September 23, 2004 okay we decided a [i]long[/i] time ago there wasn't going to be any bashing anymore (bush or kerry). until then respect the moderator's choices...there is no editing or warning unless there is a reason. this is really getting redundant and tiring......so yeah its closed. PM me if you have any questions, but i think everything has been pretty much clear. I apologize if there is a misunderstanding...but thats all folks! God bless, flowery +JMJ+ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts