I suggest to several posters that belief in God is not antithical to belief in the worth of science. It should be apparent that theories of science are useful for their predictive power, not their beauty or spiritual uplifting, and that theories should always be under review in light of new information.
Thus, there should be a modicrum of doubt to every theory of science, in that future discoveries may invalidate the theory. Meanwhile, as Hans Vaihinger has proposed, act "As If" these scientific propositions are true unless and until disproved, but do not elevate them to the level of a quasi-religious belief system.
This leaves lots of room for a religion such as Christianity to prosper in the mind and heart, while avidly supporting science.Comment Posted By mannning On 1.12.2009 @ 15:47
First thoughts, from Palin or anyone, are subject to change as knowledge and wisdom grows. She reminds me of a teenager trying out ideas like coats to see if they fit well.Comment Posted By mannning On 21.11.2009 @ 08:50
I can't make an infinite regression out of that sarcasm thing; besides, I don't do sarcasm very well. It might have been more of a parody I was thinking of, or just a quirky outlook on the future.
The real question is, is there a grain of truth in those predictions? I know that some people think exactly that way about what must transpire in the nation on a few or all of those Universals, and I have a copy of the signed document to prove it! Many professors seem to enjoy that SH stuff, and quite a few congressmen.
So it is a trend to watch out for, though by the time you realize it is really underway it will very likely be too late! Or, that seems to be the plan.
Needless to say, I don't do conspiracy theories very well either: someone has to hand it to me on a platter, and he did.Comment Posted By mannning On 19.11.2009 @ 22:26
Extrapolation, busboy. (OOMA you might say.) Simply applying a look at the Obama Liberal Dem legislative and administrative trends, and the stated objectives of the Secular Humanists (Humanist Manifestos I, II, III, 2000. Over 60 SM manifesto signers are in the Congress now, and hundreds are in the Administration), and then hanging them with universal, Utopian this, that, and the other objectives.
The first point is that Obama is moving far faster to install his form of Utopian government than is realized, with the help of the resident Humanists in Congress and the Administration, and with more of his appointees on the way. There is no such thing as visibility of the processes.
So what is the end point? Well, the #12 post is one version of what the trends say. Amnesty for illegals, opening the borders to all and sundry--even worldwide,as the EU has done within their borders, moving to make the UN more effective as a governing body,with help from the internationals/one-worlders in the UN, etc, etc.
Call it the ultimate change program!
The need for speed is obvious, so they will have to make as many inroads as possible in Obama's first term, hoping he will win a second term in 2012 so that they can continue down this path to Universality,one world government, Equality of Outcome, Leveling, and control of the commercial sector. Obviously doing all of this by 2012 is impossible, but they are setting their directions down now. Look for free college legislation once something has happened with Cap and Trade.
In the end, however, I was being sarcastic--with a touch of cynicism and madness.
/sarcasmComment Posted By mannning On 19.11.2009 @ 07:58
It would appear that Obama will run in 2012.
It would appear that at least Romney or Palin will run against Obama, if not one of a few others that pop up.
Whether Palin emerges as a competent conpetitor or not, if she gets the Republican nomination, she gets my vote, since, after tons of reasoned analysis mixed in with several "I told you so's", I see Obama and his ilk as a far, far worse threat to the nation, czars and all! One ecomomic
analysis has our 2019 national debt at $32 Trillion with all of the Obama stuff properly accounted for.
Of course, I would rather have Romney as President and cheer him on as he deconstructs the Obama era, and constructs a new, sound conservative era for our country. Out with change for the sake of unions and cronies, and in with change we can understand item by item, and be able to judge each of them in turn to be good.
Democratic Utopianism is apparently far from dead in this nation. Let me see, by 2012 we may find ourselves with a government that supports:
Universal world government. It is still championed, despite the preponderance of evil nations.
Universal World Constitution. Here is their chance to rid the US of that pesky Constitution that keeps limiting things they want to do... for the people.
Universal Healthcare. It is on the table now.
Universal Education is very likely not far behind; free through college. There is quite a stimulus here for the building industry.
Universal Welfare is coming back under many disguises, such as earmarks, stimuluses and the like, and eventually out in the open.
Universal Housing had a rough beginning, but they are working on it. The concept of a no-payback mortgage seems to make sense. Then there could be no defaulting! Here is yet another stimulus for the building industry!
Universal Retirement Funds better than Social Security will be in the mix. Lets all retire to Hawaii.
Universal Insurance covering, well, everything from life to autos to housing, to health, to...you name it! Very high premiums, enforced membership, long waits for settlements and low payouts would be par for Government-run operations.
Universal Food and Agriculture Management will ensure enough to eat for the world--hopefully. Here comes rationing!
Universal Loans for any old purpose, guaranteed by the US Government, will ensure that the entrepreneural spirit never dies. Maybe it will be on the Korean System where each family member gets three chances to establish himself in a business funded by the family (in our case, the Feds).
Universal Correctness of Speech and Hate Control will ensure employment for just about every other person in the nation--Dems--to watch over us and report-- 24/7.
Universal Unionization Act will make us all joiners, else there will be a penalty of $10,000 and an 8-year jail term. Another big immigration employment boost here--a lot more jails to build!
Universal Immigration and Open Borders Act. Y'all come!
Universal Environmental Controls Act. This will make it very difficult for Repubs to buy, build, or operate any kind of business, and will extend Government control over every aspect of business in general.
Note 1: To my children: After 2020, invest in the building industry!Comment Posted By mannning On 18.11.2009 @ 14:27
Note 2: Do it in Hawaii!
Note 3: Cancel the first two notes! The nation will be totally broke far before any of these Utopian stimuluses (stimuli?) take effect.
So a couple of craven bows to "royalty" of sorts gets us 30 places up the Like Us role?
President Obama the Bowmeister should bow a lot more often to both royalty and non-royalty. That would ensure our lead in the roles for the next 50 years.
That is, if such a lead means a damn to anyone of real importance. Have they polled the Mau Mau yet?Comment Posted By mannning On 16.11.2009 @ 10:46
Let us simply agree to disagree, busboy. Your apologetics for Hasan's actions, divorcing them from the reality of his Islamic faith and the tenets of the Koran that he most deeply believed in, and preached for years to anyone that would listen, just don't sell as far as I am concerned.
I would agree that some groups of Muslims do indeed act like flocks of sheep and follow their particular shepard unquestioningly.
You must agree that it is self-evidently not possible for the somewhat fractionated and ideologically estranged Islamic leadership to exert effective control on each and every Muslim in the world 24/7, especially one that has inculcated into himself the very jihadic duty that I say was instrumental in the attack in the middle of Ft Hood.
However, all that said, the whole purpose of Shari'a is to control the actions of every Muslim down to the most intimate aspects of a Muslim's life.Comment Posted By mannning On 14.11.2009 @ 22:00
Perhaps what we are struggling witrh is a semantic problem in the definition and use of the term "jihad." Hasan himself defined it in his presentation at Walter Reed in 2007, which is what Bostom was referring to, and it was the classic definition. Every Muslim has a duty to perform jihad, both the internal and external versions. In the external version, Muslims must support the ummah's objective of Islam conquering all nations and submitting them to Shari'a, and to contribute where they can, but if they are in a foreign land there are dispensations to allow Muslims to sort of fit in until there is a majority in the nation.
There is absolutely no question of assimilation
into the American way, but rather, for most, a careful blending in so as not to call too much attention to themselves.
A jihadic act is one of doing grief unto infidels in both small and large ways. In Islam, under Shari'a Law it is perfectly ok for a Muslim to lie, cheat, steal from, and even kill an infidel. All of their kindness and humanity is completely reserved for their brother Muslims, but they recognize that such behavior is out of bounds in the West and would get themselves imprisoned, so they blend in until and unless they are either commanded to take part in a jihadic operation, or, as in the case of Hasan, they perceive it their duty to act immediately against the hated infidel, possibly because of the conflict going on in their heads over the wildly divergent tenets they are trying to live with in the US.
Major declarations of jihad, such as the one in za fatwa from the Whahabbi Sunni cleric against the US, are, as I said before, a declaration of war, but it still takes much further direction, training, financing, and logistics to implement more specific and serious jihadic acts involving multiple actors.
But, for a single actor, working alone and without effective supervision, all of this is not necessary. He decides to act, and then does so. After all, he is in the middle of a huge US Army base, and is surrounded with "the enemy Muslim-killing infidels" all day, so supervision is sketchy at best.
You should go to the WAPO site and pull up the 50 slide presentation Hasan gave at Walter Reed, and then read the comments there. Jim Anderson has a great piece there.Comment Posted By mannning On 14.11.2009 @ 21:32
Amdrew Bostom at American thinker:
These quintessential goals of jihad were reiterated by the mass murdering jihadist psychiatrist Nidal Hasan as part of an erstwhile "medical grand rounds" given on June 27, 2007. Although Hasan merely reiterates salient aspects of classical jihad theory (i.e., see slides 35, 39, 42, 43, 44, 45, and 49), this reality is understandably "shocking" to our willfully uninformed elites in the media, military, and government. Nidal Hasan's presentation concludes, in full accord with classical Islamic doctrine regarding jihad war, (slide 49), "Fighting to establish an Islamic State to please Allah, even by force is condoned by (sic) Islam."Comment Posted By mannning On 14.11.2009 @ 14:28
Unapologetic observations from 1950 by a great 20th century "Islamist" scholar of the Shari'a, G.H. Bousquet, contextualize these ominous trends. Bousquet described Islam itself as "as a doubly totalitarian system," which, "claimed to impose itself on the whole world and it claimed also, by the divinely appointed Muhammadan law...to regulate down to the smallest details the whole life of the Islamic community and of every individual believer."
Andrew Bostom at American Thinker has posted a salient article on Islam, which in part says:
Blockquote>These quintessential goals of jihad were reiterated by the mass murdering jihadist psychiatrist Nidal Hasan as part of an erstwhile "medical grand rounds" given on June 27, 2007. Although Hasan merely reiterates salient aspects of classical jihad theory (i.e., see slides 35, 39, 42, 43, 44, 45, and 49), this reality is understandably "shocking" to our willfully uninformed elites in the media, military, and government. Nidal Hasan's presentation concludes, in full accord with classical Islamic doctrine regarding jihad war, (slide 49), "Fighting to establish an Islamic State to please Allah, even by force is condoned by (sic) Islam."
Unapologetic observations from 1950 by a great 20th century "Islamist" scholar of the Shari'a, G.H. Bousquet, contextualize these ominous trends. Bousquet described Islam itself as "as a doubly totalitarian system," which, "claimed to impose itself on the whole world and it claimed also, by the divinely appointed Muhammadan law...to regulate down to the smallest details the whole life of the Islamic community and of every individual believer."Comment Posted By mannning On 14.11.2009 @ 14:26