Hahahahahahahahaha.
God Perry, Is there no begining to your knowledge?
Why don't you travel a bit, and actually learn about countries from going to them, or read some decent travel books, instead of plucking choice assumptive absurdities out of your arse?
You are absolutely right. The fact that you live in arguably the most liberal socialist country in the world where smoking pot at dinner in a restaurant is looked upon as freedom,
Smoking pot at dinner in a restaurant in Holland is looked upon as inconsiderate at the very least, and I believe is technically illegal in most places. You'd likely be asked to leave, unless of course it was one of the nicer Coffeeshops that serve food, in which case it would be okay. This ploy of yours is a red herring. I think you do this as you have no arguement to make in defence, so you attack, but unfortunately, do so without any idea of what you are talking about. Herring is popular here in Holland, we eat it raw, in one gulp. So be careful.
Can we have a joint-smoking smiley Simon? 8-)-~ is the best I can do in ASCII...
As for Holland being a 'liberal socialist country', it is fairly liberal, but it is not socialist. Do you actually know what socialist means, without looking it up? In fact, the new government are Centre-Right. It is a representative democracy with proportional representation, unlike the archaic system of 'representation' used by the USA (and the UK), that leads to undemocratic elections.
and faith in a Supreme Being is the "opiate of the masses" really has nothing to do with why you are fearful of anyone who believes in God.
Damn right it has nothing to do with anything, let alone the STRAWMAN attack you make YET AGAIN. Don't be so dull!
Firstly, I'm not Dutch. Do you have problems with reading comprehension? I've stated this quite clearly before. I ask as I wouldn't want to insult you for something you struggle with, but if you're just being lazy, you're free game.
If you knew anything about Holland at all you would find that for all it's seemingly liberal bent, much social policy is more pragmatic than liberal, and the south of the country, especially, is quite religious in character, at least compared to the UK where I come from. Example; 'god damn me' (in Dutch) is the stongest swear word, in comparison, '&uck' is commonplace.
As for the implied effects of this liberalism... we have less drug addicts as a percentage of the population than the USA, and far less than 1% of the population in jail (which the USA has), we have 1/6th or less of the murders per head of population than the USA, a teen pregnancy rate again a fraction (1/8th? can't remember) of what it is in the USA, and the average age of someone losing their virginity is at least two years higher than in the USA. Quite what point you are trying to make fails me. Seems tolerant secular liberal societies have less social problems than the USA. Funny that.
Every reasonable person knows that being forced to inhale second hand marijuana smoke is simply an expression of freedom and in know way imposes the values of one person on the values of another. My apologies.
This is more misinformed balderdash on your part. I think you should apologise for your overweaning ignorance; there's no excuse, you're sat at a computer with Internet.
After this I find it hard to follow you, as you have so misformated the next section of your post it looks like you're asking me the questions I asked you. And that's after you've been editing and re-editing it.
I can next follow your 'point' here;
Weren't you trying to compare people of faith with the likes of Bin Laden?
Yup. You see Perry, it may come as a surprise to you, but 'faith' has nothing to do with good or bad. There are bad people of faith and good people of faith. You ignore the examples.
Are you a religious bigot? By that I mean are you biased against non-Christians, i.e., do you think they are wrong and Christians are right, or that Christians are better than non-Christians? You may not realise it, but you sound that way, at least to me, and I'm sure you would want to correct any misapprehension on the part of your breathless readership.
Regarding your comments about 'shooting people', I should, under the circumstances, have made it obvious, even though it was implicit from the stucture of the sentence, that I meant 'murder'. If your research about Holland was as efficient as your pedantry you wouldn't be so nearly misinformed as you are.
I really think you are deliberately missing the point regarding religion in politics. If you're not deliberately missing the point, then, well, what are you?
It doesn't matter what religion it is, it's a bad idea to mix it with politics. As I said previously, the people who made your Constitution were quite clear on this. Most cultures can agree on half a dozen things as Universal wrongs 'off the top of their heads', more if they think about it. Religions can differ on a multitude of details, and one culture can encompass more than one religion or system of beliefs
For example, Bush is anti-choice as regards Abortion. Fine, he doesn't have to have one. But to let this effect his policy making, when those policies will effect the freedoms of people who are American as he, but who have a different opinion, is wrong. Your reaction to this will probably prove my entire point.
Secondly, whilst both secular and sectarian religious leaders have both done terrible things in the name of belief, sectarian ones, historically speaking, more likely to claim they have a mandate on right due to beliefs which they do not have to substansiate. Thus the point about the Divine Mandate that made it okay to try to eradicate Native Americans, and the question about whether this same religious chauvanism was influencing American governmental policy today. I think you missed the point, or were not honest enough to respond to it.
You say;
I think the haze is starting to lift a bit. So, what you are saying that if a leader fights evil because of a universal (read: popular) moral responsibility to do so that's ok. But if a leader fights evil because of a spiritual responsibility to do so then he is a fanatic?
Evil? Define please. Evil, as in;
'to train and supply despots and terrorists, and then, when they bite the hand that feeds them, expect the world to help sorting out the problem they caused by training and supplying such characters'
Or evil as in;
'kills peaceful unarmed civilians'.
What's the betting you'll not answer THAT one?
I am NOT saying what you imply; you are SO tedious with your strawman attacks . I am saying that it is as wrong for the American government to be influenced by religion, as it is for the Afghani goverment to be influenced by religion. Religion is opinion.
But unfortunately I think it's probably a little on the unlikely side of not bloody likely that I can have a decent debate with you. When I say I would think a President dicatating ANY reading material (at least as regards political or religious viewpoint) would be wrong, you say;
Yes, that would be very comunist-like wouldn't it? Fortunately, here in America we place a high value on freedom.
Yet the lack of freedom is exactly what I was worried about. There's blind, and there's blinkered, and there's head in the sand, and there's autoproxtology... Hmmmm... another smiley Simon?
From this point, I think you got a little over excited; spittle on a CRT screen is NEVER pretty Perry;
Oh yes I have an opinion. Since we are obviously in agreement on each and every point regarding imposing one's beliefs on others, I suggest that you become active on a discusion board that deals with your own country's flagrant violation of human rights.
Oh, yes, Holland is right up there in Human Rights violations, the executions of the mentally feeble and those who were minor when they commited the offence, mmmmm. Oh. That's America. Whoops. Oh, I know Milosevic is claiming the Netherlands have violated his human rights, but I think anyone who knows anything and can spend three minutes doing web searches will realise that Holland is quite good in that respect. The UK is worse.
The USA is ranked on some tables with China...
So you simply are lying and or using hyperbole to win an arguement, but just making yourself look foolish.
You rant further;
Go and see some of the ruined lives cause by drug addiction. Go and fight for the addicts who are trying to come clean but are constantly tempted by the "rights" of those who use drugs in public places.
Haaaaahahaha. You really should have done more homework Perry, I couldn't make you look this ignorant if I tried. You will find a drug addict far sooner stepping out YOUR door, than I could stepping our of mine. It's in the statistics.
Since you have no idea whatsoever if that utterly stupid statement about some imaginay cumpulsory bible reading at the Whithouse is true; don't you think that time spent ridding your own country of its well documented imposition of its liberal values on others would yield more positive results? Here, have another mandate.
Oh, yes, 'imposition of its liberal values', hahahahaha. Yup, every third Monday, they tie people who haven't smoked enough pot to chairs in the village square and make them watch hard-core donkey porn. Could you provide an example of 'well documented', and at some point please tell me why you think everyone else should shut-up unless they are perfect? You don't live by that rule, the USA doesn't. Why should anyone else?
As for 'cognitive dissonance', er, yeah, right. Beam. You. The. Pluck. Before. The. Eye. Mote. Out. Your. Out. Mine. Own. Of. Pluck. Of. You know the drill. As you have so signally excelled in elevating just being damn WRONG to an art form, could you tell us what 'cognitive dissonance' is? I'm just hoping that when you look it up, a bell will ring (hint, not your phone or door bell).
But, will you actually reply?
