| Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format |
| Open Forums for ExChristian.Net > Old Board > Time to Declare this a Judeo-Christian Nation? |
| Posted by: sexkitten Oct 14 2004, 12:40 PM |
| Posted by: JimmyDtD Mar 9 2004, 07:32 PM I heard that Iraq has ratified its consititution, which we helped them to create. Part of the tenets of the document is that they declare that Islam is the official religion of Iraq. I also heard recently that Islamists are running for elected office all over the country, in greater numbers than ever before. My thought to the second one....what will happen when there is a Islamic minorty in congress? Will the US ever be able to fight Islamic terrorism, or will the hands of congress be tied on every issue? What would happen if Islamists gained power? What would this country become? How would you all feel about the United States if Islam is in control? Would it make you yearn for the days of the nominal Christian control? Posted by: moorezw Mar 9 2004, 07:35 PM There's nothing troubling about Muslim politicians. What troubles me are fundamentalist politicians, whatever their religion. Posted by: Autumnwind Mar 9 2004, 07:35 PM I'd be just as scared in a nation that had Chrisitanity as law as a nation with Islam as law. For the record, I'd have no problems with an Islamic senator or congressman. The Pink Unicorn only knows we need more religious minorities to balance out the power-trip the hyper-Xian government is in. I have no doubts us heathens would live in terror if your extremists had their way. Posted by: Starflier Mar 9 2004, 07:44 PM I'm with the rest in agreement on this. Nuff said. Posted by: chefranden Mar 9 2004, 08:01 PM QUOTE (JimmyDtD @ Mar 9 2004, 09:32 PM) My thought to the second one....what will happen when there is a Islamic minorty in congress? Will the US ever be able to fight Islamic terrorism, or will the hands of congress be tied on every issue? What would happen if Islamists gained power? What would this country become? ------------------------------------------------------------------------- How would you all feel about the United States if Islam is in control? Would it make you yearn for the days of the nominal Christian control? Hey, Jim, that is democracy for you. Maybe you would rather have a Xian King? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I feel pretty anxious with any religion in control, as did the founding fathers. If you don't want Islam taking over then don't help your religion to take over either, thus setting a precedent. Now you are beginning to see the wisdom of the separation of church and state? Posted by: Matthew Mar 9 2004, 08:12 PM QUOTE How would you all feel about the United States if Islam is in control? Would it make you yearn for the days of the nominal Christian control? Jimmy, this is one of your silliest posts yet! I have no problem with an elected official of any religious conviction. If they have a minority voice in Congress, so what? As long as they do not let their faith affect their public policy, I don't care. As for the "nominal Christian control" that scares me. I don't want the government controlled by Christians or Muslims. It's not simply a matter of picking the lesser of the two evils or which group you like less than the other. I don't like either Christians or Muslims but I detest Christians more because Muslims aren't exactly trying to "witness" to me or preach to me. This is not a Christian nation and I don't think for a second it was ever one. I will do whatever I can to fight against America becoming a Christian nation and will fight, even to death, to take it back from Christians should they gain control. If this country was founded by Christians, on Christian principles, then I would be the first one to migrate to Germany, Canada, or any other non-Christian country. Perhaps a Muslim country. Maybe I would conclude that living under Muslims is the lesser of the two evils. Matthew Posted by: Vixentrox Mar 9 2004, 08:47 PM Hmmm...what do I prefer...stoning to death or being burned at the stake..... Posted by: Tocis Mar 9 2004, 08:55 PM QUOTE (JimmyDtD @ Mar 9 2004, 07:32 PM) How would you all feel about the United States if Islam is in control? Would it make you yearn for the days of the nominal Christian control? The US have never been under "nominal christian control". Bush and his bastards are working hard to establish such a thing, and it would be an abomination if they succeeded. Same for muslim rule. State, religion. Fire, water. Matter, antimatter. Clear enough? Posted by: Sanguine Mar 9 2004, 09:19 PM How about a government of tibetan buddhists? all that inner-peace and enlightenment would boil much christian blood QUOTE State, religion. Fire, water. Matter, antimatter. Clear enough? Thankfully not quite as explosive as the latter. Posted by: Lokmer Mar 9 2004, 09:29 PM Actually the history of Tibetan Buddhism is almost as bloody as that of Xianity. Or did you never wonder why peace-loving pacifist meditators developed martial arts? -Lokmer Posted by: Sanguine Mar 9 2004, 09:43 PM Not to be vitriolic lokmer, but you need to re-examine my http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=facetious Posted by: fortunehooks Mar 9 2004, 09:59 PM No,Mr.Jimmy,I will not be happy if the U.S.A.,became a nation led by another religious majority. I accept,and vote for separation of church and state. If the U.S.A,wants to be a religious nation,I gather Matthew and I will meet each other in Germany. Posted by: Tocis Mar 9 2004, 11:04 PM QUOTE (fortunehooks @ Mar 9 2004, 09:59 PM) If the U.S.A,wants to be a religious nation,I gather Matthew and I will meet each other in Germany. Be sure to tell me when and where, I'll drop in Posted by: Reality Amplifier Mar 9 2004, 11:20 PM QUOTE (JimmyDtD @ Mar 9 2004, 07:32 PM) How would you all feel about the United States if Islam is in control? Would it make you yearn for the days of the nominal Christian control? http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_prac2.htm It looks like the Wiccans will be in charge before Muslims will have a chance. So how will you feel when the U.S. is under the control of Wiccans, since they are the fastest growing religion in terms of percentages? Posted by: .:WebMaster:. Mar 10 2004, 12:24 AM QUOTE (fortunehooks @ Mar 10 2004, 12:59 AM) No, Mr.Jimmy, I will not be happy if the U.S.A. became a nation led by another religious majority. I accept, and vote for separation of church and state. If the U.S.A. wants to be a religious nation, I gather Matthew and I will meet each other in Germany. Well stated Fortunehooks! As far as the fear of minority groups holding office, I find it interesting that Jimmy would even dare imply that someone should not be given equal opportunity in this country based on religion. To even suggest that it is dangerous to have someone with the "wrong" religion hold office seems amazing. However, I can visualize where Jimmy got that idea. I can hear his screaming fundamentalist preacher now, ranting about how the muslims are trying to take over the country. "What will all those who say America isn't a Christian nation say once Islam is the religion of the US?" Can you hear it? Let's see, what would the differences be between a truly Christian nation and an Islamic nation. 1) Alcohol would be illegal. 2) Women would be relegated to second class citizens. 3) Prayer and attending religious worship would be mandatory. 4) Heretics (anyone who openly resisted religion) would be persecuted and killed. 5) Church and State would be completely intermingled in all law making. Oh, whoops, those aren't differences are they? Posted by: Starflier Mar 10 2004, 12:35 AM QUOTE (Sanguine @ Mar 9 2004, 09:19 PM) How about a government of tibetan buddhists? all that inner-peace and enlightenment would boil much christian blood This is pretty close to the Natural Law Party. They used to run for the presidency but I don't know if they still do or not. I've haven't seen any in recent years. Posted by: Fweethawt Mar 10 2004, 12:36 AM QUOTE (Matthew @ Mar 9 2004, 11:12 PM) Jimmy, this is one of your silliest posts yet! Hey Matt, I think this is the first time that I've disagreed with you. There is a good chance that Jimmy might just step into the light with the attention that this thread could get. I think your post is a good one Jimmy. Pay close attention to the responses and really try to understand what everybody is saying. Christianity = not bad Christian Fundamentalists = very bad Christian Fundamentalist Government = Armageddon Hey Tocis, You won't have any other choice but to drop in on us. We're coming to your house! TO STAY! Posted by: Starflier Mar 10 2004, 01:02 AM QUOTE (Reality Amplifier @ Mar 9 2004, 11:20 PM) It looks like the Wiccans will be in charge before Muslims will have a chance. So how will you feel when the U.S. is under the control of Wiccans, since they are the fastest growing religion in terms of percentages? This would be interesting indeed. At least they're down to earth oriented & not sky god worshippers. Might save a bundle of taxpayer money now being poured into the space race black hole. Charity beings at home on earth & all that. It's about time. They're also into natural medicine & wholistic healing so that might curb the pharmeceutical corps & that collusion with the AMA plus ridiculously high priced health insurance. Hmmm, I'll have to think on this. Might not be a bad idea. As long they don't pit their goddess against the U.S. money god (In God in we trust). Might start a gender war. And we'd have to print all new money. There's enough of that going on now not backed by gold that's already dangerously flooding the market. But surely they'd get rid of the "under god" in the pledge. I'm all for that. Let's see what would they replace that with? "One nation upon Goddess Gaia (mother earth)....."? Then there's "all women are created equal" (both genders included). Posted by: Neil Mar 10 2004, 01:33 AM Hahahahaha! What the hell is this?! Is this one of those contrast-and-compare-religions posts? "See?! We're better than Islam! Christianity wins!" You're both nuts. I don't want my laws being based off of theology, no matter which theology it happens to be. When I see Christians pointing at Islam and trying to say that they, the Christians, are better, one word comes to mind... Hypocrisy. Posted by: Guest Mar 10 2004, 02:38 AM This topic reminds me of an http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2004/03/04/politics1748EST0756.DTL who equated a vote against Bush is a vote for Osama. You can read the reasons in the link, but I think the opposite is true because Bush's X-ianity crusade gives Osama more fuel for the hate. The US turning into any other theology driven country is just as bad. On the other hand...it might be interesting to see if the US turns into a sanctioned theology driven country. Almost everyone with a Ph.D./Masters in the sciences would get the hell out of dodge and we'd be witnesses the downfall of one of the world's greatest sucess stories in our lifetime. Posted by: Lokmer Mar 10 2004, 02:47 AM QUOTE (Sanguine @ Mar 9 2004, 09:43 PM) Not to be vitriolic lokmer, but you need to re-examine my http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=facetious No offense taken What you said facetiously many people actually believe literally, so I felt a qualifier was in order. I did get a chuckle out of it, though -Lokmer Posted by: Fweethawt Mar 10 2004, 02:51 AM QUOTE (Guest @ Mar 10 2004, 05:38 AM) Almost everyone with a Ph.D./Masters in the sciences would get the hell out of dodge and we'd be witnesses the downfall of one of the world's greatest sucess stories in our lifetime. Didn't this happen to some degree when Bush went against cloning? I don't know where I read it, but I remember seeing something about how many scientists left the country after this. Maybe it was misinformation, I don't really know. Posted by: Tocis Mar 10 2004, 04:41 AM QUOTE (Fweethawt @ Mar 10 2004, 12:36 AM) Hey Tocis, You won't have any other choice but to drop in on us. We're coming to your house! TO STAY! Uh oh, time to move home Posted by: Skankboy Mar 10 2004, 05:08 AM QUOTE My thought to the second one....what will happen when there is a Islamic minorty in congress? Will the US ever be able to fight Islamic terrorism, or will the hands of congress be tied on every issue? What would happen if Islamists gained power? What would this country become? I'm sorry but I have to object to the assumption here that American Muslims wouldn't object to terrorism (whatever ideology it espoused). That's like saying the US shouldn't have any opinion about N. Ireland because they're christians (so they aren't REALLY terrorists)... And besides, this is the beauty of the separation of church and state. That way, when the wiccans take over, I won't be forced to burn incense and hug trees! Posted by: brick Mar 10 2004, 06:59 AM A theocrasy is a theocrasy is a theocrasy, all are the same and all must be avoided. The separation of church and state is the only road to social progress and international stability, IMO. As an aside, the 'holy land' while under the control of "the infidels" (muslims) when the first crusade was ordered by Rome, was a place of religious tolerance (as I understand it, though I haven't verified this with my own research) where muslims, christians and jews all were permitted their own places of worship within Jerusalem. Not that I'm suggesting we should expect the same in this day and age, but it is something to think about. I fail to imagine a reciprocal gesture by a christian theocratic America. Posted by: Skankboy Mar 10 2004, 07:19 AM QUOTE As an aside, the 'holy land' while under the control of "the infidels" (muslims) when the first crusade was ordered by Rome, was a place of religious tolerance (as I understand it, though I haven't verified this with my own research) where muslims, christians and jews all were permitted their own places of worship within Jerusalem. My understanding is that is correct Brick. From what I remember, non-muslims had to pay an extra tax, but were for the most part left alone. Of course, all that changed after the Crusades... Posted by: brick Mar 10 2004, 07:28 AM QUOTE (Skankboy @ Mar 10 2004, 07:19 AM) Of course, all that changed after the Crusades... Exactly so! I wasn't a popluar figure at work following the 9/11 attack when I suggested that Muslim extremism was a reactionary byproduct of christian rampages during the crusades. Nobody at the time wanted to hear that the movement of Islam against christianity was bought and payed for by the very people who were so outraged by the attack. I realise that there are other factors to blame for the modern hostilities that involve politics and economics but the source of the hatred is ancient and unmistakable. Posted by: Skankboy Mar 10 2004, 07:37 AM QUOTE I realise that there are other factors to blame for the modern hostilities that involve politics and economics but the source of the hatred is ancient and unmistakable. Yes, some of this stems (esp Al Qeada) from being used as pawns during the cold war. Russian tried to take some oil fields so we trained the local rebels (including Bin Ladin [sic]) to fight against them. We provided tactical training and weapons and then let them go. But soon the cold war was over and we withdrew all support for the rebel factions, essentially hanging them out to dry. Gee, I can't imagine why they'd be so pissed at us... Posted by: Rational_One Mar 10 2004, 08:19 AM I wasn't going to reply to this since everyone else has done such a good job of covering the issues, mainly separation of church and state and radical fundamentalism. But I felt that one thing was left out. Doesn't Article VI of the Constitution still hold true in America? Considering that, I feel no religious test is right at all, but fundamentalists seem to disagree and get the just treatment by having others try to keep them out of office based on religion, just as they try to use it to keep other religious groups out. Posted by: channelcat Mar 10 2004, 08:20 AM QUOTE (JimmyDtD @ Mar 9 2004, 07:32 PM) Would it make you yearn for the days of the NOMINAL Christian control? NOMINAL Christian control is'nt bad, in and of itself. But one is a liar that denies that the nature and agenda of Christianity is to ultimately establish a complete theocracy. Dynamite is'nt dangerous...until it's detonated. If Christianity would remain nominal and balanced, then there is nothing to be anxious about. But we all know, even you Jimmy, that the Christian Right will not be satisfied until their God is president of the U.S. Posted by: Reality Amplifier Mar 10 2004, 03:15 PM QUOTE (channelcat @ Mar 10 2004, 08:20 AM) NOMINAL Christian control is'nt bad, in and of itself. But one is a liar that denies that the nature and agenda of Christianity is to ultimately establish a complete theocracy. Dynamite is'nt dangerous...until it's detonated. Perhaps this is the burning Chistian theocratic fuse? http://www.detnews.com/2002/religion/0210/23/a10d-619638.htm The Fellowship is a collection of public officials, business leaders and religious ministries that defies easy description. Sometimes known as the prayer group movement, its members espouse a common devotion to the teachings of Jesus and a belief that peace and justice can come about through quiet efforts to change individuals, particularly those in positions of power. Personal outreach is paramount. Posted by: JimmyDtD Mar 10 2004, 07:23 PM I'm no expert on this topic, which I started, but I'll throw a few more thoughts in here: Any Muslim would got elected to high office, in my opinion, would come under great pressure (not openly, but secretly) by international radical Islamics to help their agenda. France and England have sizeable Muslim populations now, and this is causing all kinds of difficulties. The 911 terrorists lived among us, some lived in Hollywood Florida, a place I once lived. They kept a low profile until the day that they got onto planes and did their deed. Seems like it would make sense to do the same thing, but only in the political arena. I was glad to see that some picked up on the word NOMINAL, which is exactly what I was saying. NOT fundamentalist. Posted by: TruthWarrior Mar 10 2004, 08:21 PM Given the choice, I'd prefer anarchism. Posted by: fortunehooks Mar 10 2004, 09:51 PM Tocis, If the above ever happens,I'll be in germany soon after,you,matthew and i will be at the bar getting drunk and laughing all night. webmaster, i see what you mean,not really any differences so it might be the same. truthwarrior, i'm not sure about anarchism,and i know you meant it as a joke,but some people should want a government. some rebels are good,but not when everyone is one. if it broke out,i would gladly fight we you against the pricks. Posted by: AggieNostic Mar 11 2004, 07:05 AM QUOTE (JimmyDtD @ Mar 9 2004, 10:32 PM) My thought to the second one....what will happen when there is a Islamic minorty in congress? Will the US ever be able to fight Islamic terrorism, or will the hands of congress be tied on every issue? What would happen if Islamists gained power? What would this country become? How would you all feel about the United States if Islam is in control? Would it make you yearn for the days of the nominal Christian control? I'm not necessarily fearful of religious people in public office. I'm fearful of the ideologues, the fanatics and the fundamentalists who can't contain their urge to control the lives of other people. While the d@mn liberals are picking my pocket, the f**king conservatives are telling me how to live my life. They can all go to he!! no matter what religion they practice. Posted by: God's Prosecutor Mar 11 2004, 08:42 AM QUOTE (JimmyDtD @ Mar 10 2004, 09:23 PM) Any Muslim would got elected to high office, in my opinion, would come under great pressure (not openly, but secretly) by international radical Islamics to help their agenda. Wrong. 911 slammed the door on high political aspirations of every Muslim in America. Not necessarily fair, but it's just the way it's going to be for a good long while. Posted by: Judyism Mar 11 2004, 09:05 AM QUOTE I'm no expert on this topic, which I started, but I'll throw a few more thoughts in here: Any Muslim would got elected to high office, in my opinion, would come under great pressure (not openly, but secretly) by international radical Islamics to help their agenda. Hmmm, you mean unlike the xtians in office who are trying to impose their religious ideals on others? Like GW didn't get the stamp of approval as a candidate from Tim LaHaye? This is precisely the reason to separate religion & politics. If you can't include everyone, then leave religion out of politics period. QUOTE France and England have sizeable Muslim populations now, and this is causing all kinds of difficulties. For whom? QUOTE The 911 terrorists lived among us, some lived in Hollywood Florida, a place I once lived. They kept a low profile until the day that they got onto planes and did their deed. Seems like it would make sense to do the same thing, but only in the political arena. Yea, and Tim McVeigh was an American. So are the countless other offenders who commit crimes in this country. So what? QUOTE I was glad to see that some picked up on the word NOMINAL, which is exactly what I was saying. NOT fundamentalist. Yes, and how do we maintain nominal without it becoming fundie? You can't, so keep it out of politics. Posted by: Skankboy Mar 11 2004, 09:09 AM QUOTE Any Muslim would got elected to high office, in my opinion, would come under great pressure (not openly, but secretly) by international radical Islamics to help their agenda. And? I (going back to my IRA/Christian example) know for a fact the IRA (a known 'terrorist' organization) lobbies in Mass (the state, not the ceremony) and I'm sure elsewhere in the country. No matter what faith you espouse (esp if you espouse any at all) other members of that faith are going to feel that you (the politician) have an obligation to that shared faith and its community. This is exactly why I think the separation of church and state is so important. It forces the politicians to (hopefully) see us as AMERICANS and not xtians, atheists, whatever... I know we aren't necessarily there right now, but I can dream can't I? Posted by: Tocis Mar 11 2004, 09:52 AM QUOTE (fortunehooks @ Mar 10 2004, 09:51 PM) Tocis, If the above ever happens,I'll be in germany soon after,you,matthew and i will be at the bar getting drunk and laughing all night. You're welcome Posted by: Aryan Mar 12 2004, 12:00 PM QUOTE (God's Prosecutor @ Mar 11 2004, 11:42 AM) QUOTE (JimmyDtD @ Mar 10 2004, 09:23 PM) Any Muslim would got elected to high office, in my opinion, would come under great pressure (not openly, but secretly) by international radical Islamics to help their agenda. Wrong. 911 slammed the door on high political aspirations of every Muslim in America. Not necessarily fair, but it's just the way it's going to be for a good long while. They don't have to run for office, just find some useful fool candiates that will sell out the country for a few million dollars and a few million votes just to get elected to office. QUOTE http://www.indolink.com/News/NRI/news_090403-164752.php CHICAGO; Sept. 4, 2003 - Leaders of the U.S. Muslim community intend to deliver a bloc vote in next year´s presidential elections, one that will go against the candidate they endorsed last time - President George W. Bush. QUOTE http://www.amperspective.com/html/leaders_set_agenga.html Estimates of the number of U.S. Muslims vary dramatically from 2 million to 6 million. But immigrant Muslims generally are highly educated professionals with the means to make significant campaign donations. You think us Christians are bad with with our "One nation under God" and silent prayers in class" stuff, wait till the rag heads take over. This is from one of your own websites, not one of mine. http://www.sepschool.org/edlib/v3n5/student.html QUOTE http://www.islamonline.net/english/ArtCulture/2003/11/article10.shtml In the city of Chicago, the Chicago school district issued a memo on the first day of Ramadan asking all principals, in over 450 schools around the city, to help their Muslim students perform their fasting. Though there is no change in daily schedules, the memo notes that the schools should find appropriate places such as libraries or faculty lounges where the students can stay while lunch is being served to the rest of their classmates. Posted by: brij Mar 12 2004, 12:05 PM QUOTE You think us Christians are bad with with our "One nation under God" and silent prayers in class" stuff, wait till the rag heads take over. This is from one of your own websites, not one of mine. Christians take over, they fuck up the nation. Muslims take over they fuck up the nation...... dammed either way. Posted by: Aryan Mar 12 2004, 12:08 PM QUOTE (fortunehooks @ Mar 11 2004, 12:51 AM) Tocis, If the above ever happens,I'll be in germany soon after,you,matthew and i will be at the bar getting drunk and laughing all night. webmaster, i see what you mean,not really any differences so it might be the same. truthwarrior, i'm not sure about anarchism,and i know you meant it as a joke,but some people should want a government. some rebels are good,but not when everyone is one. if it broke out,i would gladly fight we you against the pricks. Thought you was running out on us and heading for a bar in Germany? Won't do you much good, because Germany and Europe is facing the same problems with Islam as we are. Posted by: Judyism Mar 12 2004, 12:43 PM QUOTE You think us Christians are bad with with our "One nation under God" and silent prayers in class" stuff, wait till the rag heads take over. I figured it would only be a matter of time before you started to show your true racist colors. Posted by: Aryan Mar 12 2004, 12:45 PM QUOTE (brij @ Mar 12 2004, 03:05 PM) QUOTE You think us Christians are bad with with our "One nation under God" and silent prayers in class" stuff, wait till the rag heads take over. This is from one of your own websites, not one of mine. Christians take over, they fuck up the nation. Muslims take over they fuck up the nation...... dammed either way. Yep damn if you do and damn if you don't. You just have to pick from lesser of two evils. Check out the diffrence between Brazil and Turkey in the World Cup. Now tell me again, which country would you want to live in? Posted by: Aryan Mar 12 2004, 12:46 PM QUOTE (Judyism @ Mar 12 2004, 03:43 PM) QUOTE You think us Christians are bad with with our "One nation under God" and silent prayers in class" stuff, wait till the rag heads take over. I figured it would only be a matter of time before you started to show your true racist colors. So what race are "rag heads?" Darn, you caught me! Happy now? Posted by: brij Mar 12 2004, 01:06 PM QUOTE Yep damn if you do and damn if you don't. You just have to pick from lesser of two evils. Check out the diffrence between Brazil and Turkey in the World Cup. Now tell me again, which country would you want to live in? But how do you know which is the lesser of 2 evils? George bush the chossen one has fooled just about every american into thinking the economy is fine, when hes finished the nation will be a third world country, so yes i would probably would rather be in turkey, at least there i can live it up on a dollar or 2. Posted by: mandylibra1979 Mar 12 2004, 03:53 PM QUOTE (Aryan) You think us Christians are bad with with our "One nation under God" and silent prayers in class" stuff, wait till the rag heads take over. aryan- Why do you have to resort to calling certain races by degrading names? Your sig says, "profanity is the last refuge of the inarticulate." Well don't you think that calling a whole race of people names is even worse than profanity? In the least it is inarticulate beyond comprehension! You are degrading a WHOLE race of people when you use terms like that. That is just wrong. I am a big fan of free speech but the ignorance and hate that you are spreading is making me sick. Grow up. Posted by: chefranden Mar 12 2004, 04:15 PM QUOTE (Aryan @ Mar 12 2004, 02:45 PM) QUOTE (brij @ Mar 12 2004, 03:05 PM) QUOTE You think us Christians are bad with with our "One nation under God" and silent prayers in class" stuff, wait till the rag heads take over. This is from one of your own websites, not one of mine. Christians take over, they fuck up the nation. Muslims take over they fuck up the nation...... dammed either way. Yep damn if you do and damn if you don't. You just have to pick from lesser of two evils. Check out the diffrence between Brazil and Turkey in the World Cup. Now tell me again, which country would you want to live in? image removed because of size Wisconsin Posted by: Neil Mar 12 2004, 04:32 PM QUOTE (Aryan @ Mar 12 2004, 02:45 PM) You just have to pick from lesser of two evils. Check out the diffrence between Brazil and Turkey in the World Cup. Now tell me again, which country would you want to live in? Neither. I don't care how fancy you make it look on the outside. I've seen the ugliness of Christianity, and I don't want to live in a theocratic nation based on it. "But-but-but-but-but... We're better than Islam!! See!? Look!" Shut up. Secularization is fine. We don't need to be a Christian nation. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Well... She could be my friend. QUOTE You think us Christians are bad with with our "One nation under God" and silent prayers in class" stuff, wait till the rag heads take over. Well, racial slur aside, you may think that "In God we trust" is cute and harmless and we shouldn't make a big deal over it, but these things have an accumulative effect. You know, we just put up with these little phrases on our currency and in the Pledge, but then suddenly we get these religious assholes trying to sabotage the science curriculum, because they think Christianity is just the default religion or something. I agree that if a state office is going to take down a religious monument, then it should take them all down, including manoras and whatever else might be there. Everyone should be allowed to practice their religion freely, but I also think there should be no tollerence for any religious favoritism in the government and states, Christian or otherwise. Posted by: fool_ps14:1 Mar 12 2004, 06:02 PM QUOTE (Aryan @ Mar 12 2004, 12:46 PM) QUOTE (Judyism @ Mar 12 2004, 03:43 PM) QUOTE You think us Christians are bad with with our "One nation under God" and silent prayers in class" stuff, wait till the rag heads take over. I figured it would only be a matter of time before you started to show your true racist colors. So what race are "rag heads?" Darn, you caught me! Happy now? Yup, caught you! Ya Fuckin racist asshole! (profanity added especially for you!) Posted by: Aryan Mar 12 2004, 11:01 PM Darn, their I go asking another question nobody can answer. It alway amazes me how liblerals resort to personal atttacks and name calling when there limited minds fail them. "Your a racist!." Which race did I slur? "We don't know, but you are a racist!" Which race is rag heads? "We don't know, but you are a racist." Isn't this off topic? " "We don't know, but you are a racist." Does the sun rise in the east, "We don't know, but you are a racist." You people are priceless. Posted by: Aryan Mar 12 2004, 11:31 PM QUOTE (JimmyDtD @ Mar 9 2004, 10:32 PM) I heard that Iraq has ratified its consititution, which we helped them to create. Part of the tenets of the document is that they declare that Islam is the official religion of Iraq. I also heard recently that Islamists are running for elected office all over the country, in greater numbers than ever before. My thought to the second one....what will happen when there is a Islamic minorty in congress? Will the US ever be able to fight Islamic terrorism, or will the hands of congress be tied on every issue? What would happen if Islamists gained power? What would this country become? How would you all feel about the United States if Islam is in control? Would it make you yearn for the days of the nominal Christian control? Getting back to the orginal question. There's nothing troubling about Muslim politicians. I'd be just as scared in a nation that had Chrisitanity as law as a nation with Islam as law. For the record, I'd have no problems with an Islamic senator or congressman. I'm with the rest in agreement on this. Nuff said. I will do whatever I can to fight against America becoming a Christian nation and will fight, even to death, to take it back from Christians should they gain control. Maybe I would conclude that living under Muslims is the lesser of the two evils. How about a government of tibetan buddhists? Oh, whoops, those aren't differences are they? When I see Christians pointing at Islam and trying to say that they, the Christians, are better, one word comes to mind... Hypocrisy. I'm sorry but I have to object to the assumption here that American Muslims wouldn't object to terrorism (whatever ideology it espoused) I fail to imagine a reciprocal gesture by a christian theocratic America. I wasn't a popluar figure at work following the 9/11 attack when I suggested that Muslim extremism was a reactionary byproduct of christian rampages during the crusades. so yes i would probably would rather be in turkey, at least there i can live it up on a dollar or 2. So it if you had to make a choice between an Islamic and Christian state to live under, then you would choice the Islamic state. Posted by: .:WebMaster:. Mar 13 2004, 06:27 AM QUOTE (Aryan @ Mar 13 2004, 02:01 AM) Darn, their I go asking another question nobody can answer. It alway amazes me how liblerals resort to personal atttacks and name calling when there limited minds fail them. You people are priceless. It amazes me how fundies are consistently unable to spell or use proper grammar and always resort to personal attacks and name-calling. In your post, you improperly used the words there and their. You misspelled the words "liberals and attacks." The word alway should be always. You implied that those who disagree with you are both liberal and have limited minds. Then you mock them saying they are "priceless." Now, I will admit that I misspell words, use incorrect grammar on occasion, and resort to name calling sometimes. I realize that I do these things and sometimes I do them on purpose to make a point. Whether I make the point successfully or not is a matter for debate, but I still do these things. The differences with the usual brand of fundies that pop in on this site is that they either don't realize they do these things, or feel they have a superior position in life so they are justified being ignorant. This might be an interesting discussion. People, including me, are generally quite able to identify the flaws in others while their own inadequacies remain invisible in the mirror. Think about it. I think someone you claim to worship may have said something similar. Oh, and just for a fun P.S. I am not a liberal. I've never voted straight liberal anything, and in fact am quite conservative on many issues. Not all, or even the majority of conservative people are Christians. To believe they are is to swallow a complete fabrication on the part of fundamentalists. Now, I am not an ultra-conservative, as I suppose you propbably are. So to you, I would guess that anyone who is not completely ultra-conservative would appear liberal. You see the trouble with the words liberal and conservative is that they really have no set definition. The only purpose for titles like this is to marginalize those in political opposition. Nearly no one is only liberal or only conservative; it is not a black and white sort of issue. There are many shades of gray between and amongst people. You are a human being and so am I. I have used the term "rag-heads" plenty of times while my son was being shot at in Iraq. It is racist term and is a term to dehumanize the enemy. I used it, because my son is a Marine, and I wanted him to come home alive. Once again, I repeat, "rag-head" is a racist word. It is a general term that has been used for generations to spit in the face of Middle Eastern people. However, if it is not an inflammatory name to call that group of people rag-heads, then I guess calling you an "ignorant redneck" will be okay? Posted by: Guest Mar 13 2004, 06:43 AM QUOTE (.:WebMaster:. @ Mar 13 2004, 06:27 AM) QUOTE (Aryan @ Mar 13 2004, 02:01 AM) Darn, their I go asking another question nobody can answer. It alway amazes me how liblerals resort to personal atttacks and name calling when there limited minds fail them. You people are priceless. It amazes me how fundies are consistently unable to spell or use proper grammar and always resort to personal attacks and name-calling. In your post, you improperly used the words there and their. You misspelled the words "liberals and attacks." The word alway should be always. You implied that those who disagree with you are both liberal and have limited minds. Then you mock them saying they are "priceless." Now, I will admit that I misspell words, use incorrect grammar on occasion, and resort to name calling sometimes. I realize that I do these things and sometimes I do them on purpose to make a point. Whether I make the point successfully or not is a matter for debate, but I still do these things. The differences with the usual brand of fundies that pop in on this site is that they either don't realize they do these things, or feel they have a superior position in life so they are justified being ignorant. This might be an interesting discussion. People, including me, are generally quite able to identify the flaws in others while their own inadequacies remain invisible in the mirror. Think about it. I think someone you claim to worship may have said something similar. Oh, and just for a fun P.S. I am not a liberal. I've never voted straight liberal anything, and in fact am quite conservative on many issues. Not all, or even the majority of conservative people are Christians. To believe they are is to swallow a complete fabrication on the part of fundamentalists. Now, I am not an ultra-conservative, as I suppose you propbably are. So to you, I would guess that anyone who is not completely ultra-conservative would appear liberal. You see the trouble with the words liberal and conservative is that they really have no set definition. The only purpose for titles like this is to marginalize those in political opposition. Nearly no one is only liberal or only conservative; it is not a black and white sort of issue. There are many shades of gray between and amongst people. You are a human being and so am I. I have used the term "rag-heads" plenty of times while my son was being shot at in Iraq. It is racist term and is a term to dehumanize the enemy. I used it, because my son is a Marine, and I wanted him to come home alive. Once again, I repeat, "rag-head" is a racist word. It is a general term that has been used for generations to spit in the face of Middle Eastern people. However, if it is not an inflammatory name to call that group of people rag-heads, then I guess calling you an "ignorant redneck" will be okay? I'll ask the same question to you, what race are rag heads? Posted by: ericf Mar 13 2004, 06:52 AM Now, now. Maybe aryan didn't know that "rag head" was racist slang for arabs or other people of middle-eastern decent. I have a feeling he did but maybe not. I was part of a group that accidentally was using racist slang. It was a group of 16 people that would constantly sit on the porch of the dorm building. It was made up of mixed races (although we lacked an african american member) and country of origin. Most were smokers, which is why they sat on the porch in the first place, but some weren't (like myself). Eventually we decided that we needed a name for ourselves... someone said, "Porch Monkeys" and it instantly stuck. It just seemed cute and fun at the time. We even made up a manner to be initiated into the group (20+ hours sitting with the group in the space of one week). We had no idea that the term was racist in origin. I doubt the guy who suggested it had any idea (he was from India and not light skinned himself). Some time later some of us joined another group and mentioned that most of our class was "porch monkeys." One of the active members freaked out and wanted to know why we were using language like that -- this group was very opposed to discrimination of any kind and was careful to ensure that future members understood that. Once we explained ourselves we were told what the term referred to and, although we kept the label for the group, we were careful to frame the context correctly to ensure that no one became offended. See! Maybe he really didn't know it was racist. It is possible. Not everyone is up to date on their racist slang. Maybe he missed "Klan 201: Slang, term, codes, and other terms for non-whites." Posted by: Aryan Mar 13 2004, 07:06 AM I wonder how much hate mail Jeff Foxworthy got because of "You might be a redneck if...." routine? How many letters of protest did you send to him? If you are outraged by me calling people ragheads, shouldn't you be outraged at him for calling people rednecks just because they live in rural poverty? Calling me a redneck would probably be correct. Calling me an ignorant redneck neck would be incorrect, since I am better education than a lot of the posters on here. Posted by: Aryan Mar 13 2004, 07:25 AM QUOTE (ericf @ Mar 13 2004, 09:52 AM) Now, now. Maybe aryan didn't know that "rag head" was racist slang for arabs or other people of middle-eastern decent. I have a feeling he did but maybe not. I was part of a group that accidentally was using racist slang. It was a group of 16 people that would constantly sit on the porch of the dorm building. It was made up of mixed races (although we lacked an african american member) and country of origin. Most were smokers, which is why they sat on the porch in the first place, but some weren't (like myself). Eventually we decided that we needed a name for ourselves... someone said, "Porch Monkeys" and it instantly stuck. It just seemed cute and fun at the time. We even made up a manner to be initiated into the group (20+ hours sitting with the group in the space of one week). We had no idea that the term was racist in origin. I doubt the guy who suggested it had any idea (he was from India and not light skinned himself). Some time later some of us joined another group and mentioned that most of our class was "porch monkeys." One of the active members freaked out and wanted to know why we were using language like that -- this group was very opposed to discrimination of any kind and was careful to ensure that future members understood that. Once we explained ourselves we were told what the term referred to and, although we kept the label for the group, we were careful to frame the context correctly to ensure that no one became offended. See! Maybe he really didn't know it was racist. It is possible. Not everyone is up to date on their racist slang. Maybe he missed "Klan 201: Slang, term, codes, and other terms for non-whites." I guess I'll have to answer my own question. To begin with raghead cannot be a racist slur, because it refers to a religion and not a race. Calling people of the Islamic faith ragheads is of little difference than calling people of the Christian faith "fundies" like so many of you like to do. If it was a racial slur then I would be right in using it. Since so many Moslems are Caucasians like I am then me calling them ragheads would be little different than a Black rapper calling other Blacks "niggers." Do you express outrage over the words that Black rappers use? Posted by: .:WebMaster:. Mar 13 2004, 08:08 AM QUOTE (Aryan @ Mar 13 2004, 10:06 AM) Calling me an ignorant redneck neck would be incorrect, since I am better education than a lot of the posters on here. Case closed, From now on you are an ignorant redneck. Posted by: Judyism Mar 13 2004, 08:09 AM QUOTE (Aryan @ Mar 13 2004, 10:06 AM) Calling me a redneck would probably be correct. Calling me an ignorant redneck neck would be incorrect, since I am better education than a lot of the posters on here. "since I am better education than a lot of the posters here. You should probably quit trying to tell everyone how intelligent you are until you can work this grammar problem out so that you don't look like a moron in writing. You are wholly without any redeeming social grace or value. If there is a god and he ever decides to give the planet an enema you'd better run like the wind because anywhere you stand is a suitable place for The Insertion. You can try to put your racial slur off by using semantics, but that just doesn't cut it. You are ridiculous and obnoxious and an embarrassment to other good Southerners. I've always thought there was a reason South Carolina is shaped like an armpit. Posted by: .:WebMaster:. Mar 13 2004, 08:14 AM Judyism, you are a genius! Posted by: Vixentrox Mar 13 2004, 08:14 AM I notice his avatar is a flag from a loosing side. Maybe we should just call him Loser. Posted by: ericf Mar 13 2004, 08:17 AM Well, ignorant is a sure thing. As for well-educated that is still up in the air. Would a well educated person be unable to read? I think not. Let me repeat for those in the back of the class, "A raghead is a person of Arab decent." It has nothing to do with religion, nothing at all. Just became the Grand Dragon said it, doesn't make it true. The term is racist. Also, there is a huge difference from Jeff Foxworthy -- who was a known comedian and was making fun WITH his "redneck" audience and your use of it here on the site. In a way it is like the N-word you referred to. It can be used only in the right company and by a person belonging to that sub-culture. Relax... save your energy for a good cross-burning! Hmm, come to think of it the Klan does do something I agree with. Edit: Definition from the English slang dictionary Noun. An arab, Sikh, or other race or religion that traditionally wears cloth headwear. Offens.[I] Posted by: Shadfox Mar 13 2004, 08:18 AM QUOTE Calling me an ignorant redneck neck would be incorrect, since I am better education than a lot of the posters on here. Educated? It takes no education to quote quotes from other websites. It takes no education to regurgitate fallacies of logic and snide labels from your favorite hate radio shows. Let your words speak for your intelligence. Posted by: Judyism Mar 13 2004, 08:28 AM QUOTE (.:WebMaster:. @ Mar 13 2004, 11:14 AM) Judyism, you are a genius! heh, I don't think "genius" was what my Dad meant when he said I was "full of it." <wink> Posted by: fool_ps14:1 Mar 13 2004, 08:31 AM Aryan. You are just going to have to come to terms with the fact that my opinion of you is just that, an opinion, entirely subjective. when I see the flag, I think "aryan nation," when i see your name, i think "aryan nation". when you discuss ebonic, i think racism, when you discuss immigration, I think racism. when you use the term"raghead" (which doesn't just apply to muslim's, also applies to sihk's, anyone who wears a turbin) i think racist. Just my opinion. aslso think you are an asshole, but again, just my opinion Posted by: Reach Mar 13 2004, 08:34 AM QUOTE (Shadfox @ Mar 13 2004, 11:18 AM) Educated? It takes no education to quote quotes from other websites. It takes no education to regurgitate fallacies of logic and snide labels from your favorite hate radio shows. Let your words speak for your intelligence. It never fails to amaze me how casual of thought one might be over the use of one's own words. Especially in this type of setting where the reader is forced to draw his conclusions and form a judgment of a poster from nothing more than the words of his post. You would think one might have more dignity and integrity than to simply slip down the path of least resistance. It's wise to fight gravity of the mental sort. ......... Ericf: Please define porch monkey. Posted by: ericf Mar 13 2004, 08:48 AM reach, A porch monkey refers to a black person, usually inner-city, who does nothing at all but sit around on the stoops of buildings. The connotation is nowhere near that nice... usually it is said like it really means, "f-ing lazy n-er." I really hate to even define it. But the image it is supposed to evoke (doesn't for me but it was explained) is a toothless black man who is too lazy and dumb to do anything but sit and watch everyone be productive. Sorry to even have to define this. It is such an ugly concept but I swear none of us had any idea when we used this. Most of us were small town or country people, or not even from the states, and had never heard the term used like that. Posted by: ericf Mar 13 2004, 09:00 AM QUOTE (ericf @ Mar 13 2004, 11:17 AM) It has nothing to do with religion, nothing at all. Just became the Grand Dragon said it, doesn't make it true. The term is racist. Edit: Definition from the English slang dictionary Noun. An arab, Sikh, or other race or religion that traditionally wears cloth headwear. Offens. You will note that I said became when I meant because and that I provided a definition that disproved what I was saying. What can I say? That is what working nights will do to your head. Anyway. The use of "or" in the definition means it applys to ALL of those groups at the same time. If a person falls into one of those groups they are covered by that term. So, even though it can refer to a person who is just a follower of a certain faith, the term is racist. On top of that, it is not relevant if aryan used the term to belittle a race or a faith. What is relevant is that he is being a bigot and stereotyping large groups of people. That is why I am upset (I can't speak for the rest of the people). aryan, you are an ignorant bigot. I admit that you might not be a member of the Klan or a person who hates non-white humans but you have proven, over and over, what you do believe. Posted by: Reach Mar 13 2004, 09:02 AM Eric, Thanks Eric. I didn't mean to make you uncomfortable. I assure you I merely was seeking information. I asked because I have friends who sit out on the porch to smoke. The term, as you initially used it, was amusing and would have worked for me as well if not for the derisive element. The term I'm more accustomed to (which I don't use) is that one is "holding up walls." You can picture your same scenario of the unemployed (of any race) leaning up against an inner-city building on a corner. Sad, that the terms we sometimes choose to define others reveal a superiority complex in our own mind while we try to cheapen the value of another human being in someone else's. P.S. Like WebMaster when his Marine son was in Iraq, when my Navy husband was on the ground on the Iraqi-Kuwaiti border, raghead was a very useful term to keep handy and it most certainly was intended to be racist. Posted by: mandylibra1979 Mar 13 2004, 09:06 AM Okay, this is the last time that I am going to address this situation. Aryan, there is a HUGE difference between calling someone a "fundie" and calling someone a "raghead" because Fundamental Christians is what they actually ARE. I reiterate, the word "fundie" cannot be considered racist; it's just what Fundamental Christians ARE. On the flip side, whether you are referring to people of Islam in general OR the people of the Islamic faith as "rag heads" it is still a racist word. When I hear ANY of the racist words that were referred to in earlier posts I take offense. Everyone should. Aryan, you are the one resorting to personal attacks . . . racism is a personal attack. As for the name calling, you initiated that with your "rag head" statement. Address people for what they are and not the first insulting slur that comes to your mind and then you won't have to worry about people saying that you are racist. By the way, Aryan, EVERYONE is as you said, "priceless." Maybe you should actually start treating everyone as though they are. We all have something to contribute including the people with liberal views. Posted by: Aryan Mar 13 2004, 09:11 AM QUOTE (ericf @ Mar 13 2004, 11:17 AM) Well, ignorant is a sure thing. As for well-educated that is still up in the air. Would a well educated person be unable to read? I think not. Let me repeat for those in the back of the class, "A raghead is a person of Arab decent." It has nothing to do with religion, nothing at all. Just became the Grand Dragon said it, doesn't make it true. The term is racist. Also, there is a huge difference from Jeff Foxworthy -- who was a known comedian and was making fun WITH his "redneck" audience and your use of it here on the site. In a way it is like the N-word you referred to. It can be used only in the right company and by a person belonging to that sub-culture. Relax... save your energy for a good cross-burning! Hmm, come to think of it the Klan does do something I agree with. Edit: Definition from the English slang dictionary Noun. An arab, Sikh, or other race or religion that traditionally wears cloth headwear. Offens.[I] Careful your ignorance is showing again. There you are with your liberal stereotyping. Try telling the Afghans and Iraqis that they are Arabs and see the response you get. Posted by: ericf Mar 13 2004, 09:14 AM reach, I know you didn't mean to make me uncomfortable. I just hate defining it because I hate to remember that some people think like that. It bothers me that what was so much fun for us was sullied by racism. I am white and I am prouder of being a porch monkey than I am of the genetics I was born with. I had a choice in one and not the other. I wish we had picked a term without the connotations but knowing people that probably isn't possible. It is hard for us because we never even thought the term was negative. We took pride in the fact that it was easier to find us by looking out your window than calling our rooms. It meant that we weren't part of the computer addicted that populate college campuses. We enjoyed our tans and just talking for hours. We enjoyed our lives and racism took away our name. No! Racism tried to take away our name. We didn't let it but it tried. In the process the name got a little dirty but that doesn't make it horrible to us. Posted by: Reach Mar 13 2004, 09:21 AM Eric, If the shoe fits, wear it. Hehe Your term, as you used it, works for me and I will use the same with my suntanning, smoking, fresh-air friends. Thank you for a delightful picture. It's perfect. Between you and me, can we just forget the part about the shoes? reach Posted by: brij Mar 13 2004, 09:23 AM QUOTE So it if you had to make a choice between an Islamic and Christian state to live under, then you would choice the Islamic state. Yes because i can live like a king in turkey. Do i really want to live in the first world working until 70 just to get enough from my pension to live on toast and beans. QUOTE Calling me a redneck would probably be correct. Calling me an ignorant redneck neck would be incorrect, since I am better education than a lot of the posters on here. You are just another drone in your Christian nation, you believe your educated, but your not, you are only educated in what they want you to know, you are a drone for there use. MUUHAHAHAHAHHA Posted by: ericf Mar 13 2004, 09:35 AM QUOTE (Aryan @ Mar 13 2004, 12:11 PM) There you are with your liberal stereotyping. Try telling the Afghans and Iraqis that they are Arabs and see the response you get. I am not sure what you mean by liberal stereotyping. Am I liberal in my action by stereotyping anyone who comes along? Or am I a liberal polically and that is defining my stereotyping? So, they don't want to be called arabs? Well... why don't we go over there and test your theory. I will call a guy an arab and you can correct me and let him know that he is a raghead. We'll see who gets shot. Posted by: Aryan Mar 13 2004, 09:54 AM QUOTE (ericf @ Mar 13 2004, 12:35 PM) QUOTE (Aryan @ Mar 13 2004, 12:11 PM) There you are with your liberal stereotyping. Try telling the Afghans and Iraqis that they are Arabs and see the response you get. I am not sure what you mean by liberal stereotyping. Am I liberal in my action by stereotyping anyone who comes along? Or am I a liberal polically and that is defining my stereotyping? So, they don't want to be called arabs? Well... why don't we go over there and test your theory. I will call a guy an arab and you can correct me and let him know that he is a raghead. We'll see who gets shot. Saying that all Moslems are Arabs is your typical ignorant liberal stereotyping of Moslems. I have read enough about the war in Afghanistan to know the Afghans hate the Arabs for supporting the Taliban . Also the Iraqis hate the Arabs also. Try reading some current events sometimes. Posted by: ericf Mar 13 2004, 10:04 AM Hmm, are we really going to have to walk you through understanding written English? The term raghead is racist because it refers to Arabs in a degrogatory manner. It refers to other groups as well at the same time but that doesn't stop the fact that it is racist. And if you have been reading my posts, which it is clear you haven't been, you would see that I mentioned bigotry as my main issue and not racism. You still haven't defined how you are using the word "liberal" but you have shown that you can leap to false conclusions that contradict information I have already posted regarding my knowledge of the issue at hand. Keep it up... you're losing credibility by the post here. Not like you had much to start with but, if you have any left, I am sure you can destroy it all with a couple more posts. Posted by: KJPee Mar 13 2004, 10:06 AM This PM was a brief discussion I had with our friend Aryan recently when I joined the Trib Force forum. If he is not getting his point across on our forum, then he is either a downright liar, or confused. I believe he is quite a sad figure, but one I wouldn't want to be alone with for any length of time. Aryan QUOTE Kevin, I would be happy to talk with you, but not in a public arena. You are from Canada? What do you know of the history of America and the South? Why do you have such hatred for a symbol from a another country? How am I to know you are a Christian, when everything you have posted is to attack me? I am sincere in my questions. I will not change and I don't execpt for you to change, I would just like to understand you a little better, Kevin QUOTE Yes I'm from Canada. I know from what I have seen and read, regarding any country I have not lived in. I do not hate any symbols; only what they represent. I am a christian but this has nothing to do with christianity. Can I ask you a question? Do you belong to a White Supremacist group? Kevin. Aryan QUOTE No, if you had read some of my post, I mentioned some gay friends. Not too many White Supremacist have gay friends. I also have Black friends and Jewish family members, and I lived in a mixed working class neighbor hood. I'll be honest I am a White Nationalist in my beliefs, which is different than a Supremacist. Never was much of a joiner, too much of a loner. I fail to see why you just jumped in an attacked me. If I was racist I would have been take care of by the monitors long ago. A word of advice, when you are new to a place like we both are, don't stir the pot, until you see what is going on, -------------------- Borders Language Culture M. Savage Posted by: Shadfox Mar 13 2004, 10:08 AM I think we've been baited into a flame trap. So, in the spirit of BillJ: This Albino Wallaby has settled in well over the past two months, much to the enjoyment of Addy and Nar the female wallabies. He has been named Willerby by Julie Wilson of Cambridge who won a competition to name and adopt him in a l |