Jane Harman's War on the First AmendmentBy Col. DAN SMITHwww counterpunch org/smith10252007 htmlCongresswoman Jane Harman has introduced legislation--H. R. 1955: "Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism"--that is expected to be referred to the House Rules Committee for assignment of floor time for debate by the House. This is a bill that is unneeded unwise and unfortunately will pass and be signed into law as it purports to be part of the response to 9/11 and the global war on terror. At base. Harman's proposal seems to be a direct attack on First Amendment rights. No where is this more clear than in the third introductory paragraph (the "where as" section) that provides the context for the action desired. Specifically this legislation aims at the unregulated nature of the Internet:"The Internet has aided in facilitating violent radicalization ideologically based violence and the homegrown terrorism process in the United States by providing access to broad and constant streams of terrorist-related propaganda to United States citizens."Moreover. Harman is telling the American public citizens and permanent residents that they are too dumb to recognize hate speech demonizing rhetoric and propaganda and are so morally immature that they are not capable of knowing when to "blow off" terrorists and their messages designed to incite large scale insurrectionOne also gets the impression that Harman believes that terrorist criminality has become so wide and the number of people who mentally entertain thoughts of non-compliance with authority so numerous that the country is about to teeter into chaosBut looking at the FBI's major violent crime trend lines over the past 20 years reveals if not the opposite situation at least a wash on violent crime frequency. I've chosen three reference points: 1987 before "terrorism" became an issue; 2001 (with September 11th fatalities not included in the murder rate); and 2006.- In 1987 the U. S population was 242.3 million; in 2001 285.3 million; and in 2006 299.4 million.- In 1987 an estimated 1.484 million violent crimes were committed in the U. S.; in 2001 the total was 1.438 million; and in 2006. 1.418 million.- In 1987 the violent crime rate per 100,000 was 612.5; in 2001 504.5; and in 2006 473.5. The 2006 rate was the000 third lowest in this 20 year comparison violent crime in the U. S rose 1.9% between 2005 and 2006 the second consecutive year the rate went up. About the only statistic that has really gone wild is the number of people sent to jail in the U. S. As of June 30. 2006. U. S prisons held 776,010 inmates an increase of 2.5% over the previous June 30. 2005. I am a bit surprised that more defenders of the constitution have not started a groundswell to ensure the legislation never gets to the floor of the House for discussion. I have already pointed out the First Amendment. There is more. To get to this "more," it's necessary to reproduce three definitions contained in the bill. VIOLENT RADICALIZATION- the process of adopting or promoting an extremist belief system for the purpose of facilitating ideologically based violence to advance political religious or social change. HOMEGROWN TERRORISM- the use planned use or threatened use of force or violence by a group or individual born raised or based and operating primarily within the United States or any possession of the United States to intimidate or coerce the United States government the civilian population of the United States or any segment thereof in furtherance of political or social objectives. IDEOLOGICALLY BASED VIOLENCE- the use planned use or threatened use of force or violence by a group or individual to promote the group or individual's political religious or social beliefs. The key is in the last definition. The history of democracy is that over time government encroaches so much into the lives of its people that government itself becomes the problem. Consider that in the 1770s had the U. S been a country with a law that criminalized the "threatened use of violence," every one of the Founding Fathers who participated in the Boston Tea Party organized into the Minute Men detachments or refused to accede to the British soldiers foraging on private property would have been guilty of "violent radicalization" and of promoting "ideologically based violence."What has become an "extremist belief" in some circles within the government is democracy. Look again at the three definitions. Do they not directly challenge one of the most fundamental rights that many in the U. S trace back to time immemorial: the right of citizens to "keep and bear arms"? Again a people who have access to firearms inherently pose a "threat" to any government even one with a standing army at its beck and call. And the more centralized the power of the ruler (e g. the unitary presidency) the greater the temptation to seize the weapons--and the rights--of its citizens. In fact as she was drafting the legislation. Congresswoman Harman must have realized that she was at best on a slippery slope and at worst in quicksand up to her neck and no solid footing play. In the eighth "where as" section the proposed legislation reads:"Any measure taken to prevent violent radicalization homegrown terrorism and ideologically based violence and homegrown terrorism in the United States should not violate the constitutional rights civil rights and civil liberties of United States citizens and lawful permanent residents" (emphasis added). When it comes to safeguarding rights and liberties. I much prefer "will" to "should"--and so ought every member of Congress. Terrorism is terrorism whether foreign-inspired or homegrown and is not acceptable. Congresswomen Harman has not made the case for distinguishing between "homegrown" and "foreign" ideologically-based terror and there is no logical moral or legal reason to divide them; both are violations of morality and of law. But just as important is the point that to try to criminalize "radical thinking" is to deny the opportunity to citizens to re-invigorate democracy so that it does not descend into tyranny. In this legislation as drafted the underlying unacknowledged assumption is that "radicalized thought" can lead to only one outcome: an attempt to overthrow government by violence. One need only recall that it is through the airing of opinion that the falsehoods and lies become exposed and defused--which is what makes the British institution of "Speakers' Corner" in London's Hyde Park a model for democratic practice the world over. To which can be added Edward R. Murrow's most succinct observation: "We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty."Col. Dan Smith is a military affairs analyst for a retired U. S. Army colonel and a senior fellow on military affairs at the Friends Committee on National Legislation. Email at.

Britney Spears Makes a 4 Hour Sex Tape?! Download and enjoy this hot video right now!

definition of christian morality bloggers, take a bit of your day to say Hi to Carli Banks. She has a nice new teaser video for you.
~Ray



comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

definition of christian morality visitors may need more sites to be happy.
Here are more adult websites to visit that are free for you...
exclusive video
web cams
strip blog
gay blog
tranny blog
nude pictures
shemale blog

feel free to browse around and maybe you will find something that you like?

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

Thanks for the response. I evaluate maybe we'll get to the inform where we are arguing semantics on the atheism definition so we'll agree to disagree. I do sight that you are certainly strong in your stance as to what you believe and don't. I'd like to dig deeper. Author Phillip Johnson says that "one who claims to be a skeptic of one set of beliefs is usually a adjust believer in another set of beliefs." Have you ever been skeptical about your skepticism? What evidence don't you have that you would need in request to dress your world view?It's been my experience that those people who support the idea of this universe not having been caused by a creator choose not to believe in him b/c of their own personal world view. They want to be able to decide for themselves what is right and wrong. They do not like the implications of a sovereign God. If there is real purpose to our lives which I believe there is then there is a real alter and wrong way to be it. I notice most "atheists" and "agnostics" I undergo spoken with would like nothing more than to run their lives unquestioned without submitting to a higher authority (the outcome of this in cultures without a judeo-christian value system has often been unfortunate e g. Nazi Germany). You being an Atheist. I'd love to hear how you arrived at your conclusions. What studies premises proofs empirical scientific evidence you can share with me that has lead you to where you are in belief that a god does not exist? Perhaps it would be helpful if we start here: (I'd like to inform out that you seem desire an educated guy so any elementary explanation is more for other readers benefit than yours.. so I don't come across as condescending). Arguments such as the law of general relativity which states that the universe had a beginning (Einstein's calculations revealed a definite beginning which he found irritating seeing that he originally believed in a static universe that was always here leading him to say "God doesn't play dice"). Many scientists have confirmed Einsteins discovery. Fundamental to all of science is that when something has a beginning it has a create. Law of causality. What caused the world to begin? Being that this is the starting point for both our beliefs we each have answers. I think you know mine. What is yours? By what bear witness can you support your view? I personally accept it was intelligently designed but I am curious how you would answer. I can certainly add more but I will wait. BTW.. the mere point of.

Britney Spears Makes a 4 Hour Sex Tape?! Download and enjoy this hot video right now!

The news was the twice-divorced three-times-married (once to a second cousin) Giuliani pro-choice and a man who roomed with two gay guys after his second wife tossed him out is now deemed “authorise” with religious conservatives or the most “authorise” of those running.  But Pat Robertson has been a bit of an embarrassment to the Christian alter at times and may not communicate for all of them.  Those cynics who construe Menken and avidly follow this Robertson fellow smile when they denote Pat Robertson advocated the assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez told residents of that Pennsylvania town that rejected efforts to teach intelligent create by mental act in public schools that they shouldn’t be surprised if God abandons them and they all die horribly and most famously joined Jerry Falwell in – 9/11 was God’s retaliation for America’s secular ways as we tolerated gays took prayer our of schools and allowed women in distress to choose to have abortions along with all the immodesty and whatnot.  An endorsement from this guy comes with a bit of baggage. It’s possible that these people will evaluate Newt Gingrich and Rudy Giuliani for the same “moral” reasons they condemned Clinton. But I very much doubt it. Dobson and Falwell and all these guys are hucksters and the people who follow them either have no moral consistency or they are alter and insincere. Oh they’ll sight some maim rationale as all Republicans do but it has desire been clear that the only thing that matters to them is that the candidate be a member in good standing of the tribe and that they pay tribute to the High Priests. Just talked to a top social conservative. He says hinting that more prominent social cons will end up going with Rudy. “There’s plenty more where this comes from.” On the impact of the Robertson endorsement on the race: “What it does for Rudy is it says. ‘It’s OK to choose for Rudy.’ I think there will be more of that pre-nomination and post-nomination.” On conservative evangelical voters and Giuliani: “If Rudy is the nominee they’re going to vote for him - period.” And why not indeed? The Cheney logic is impregnable: the president is not move by the law or the Geneva Conventions; anguish reveals information that allows the government to seize individuals who might at some inform act terror attacks; the president’s job is to prevent terror attacks. Torture is thereby a good. Alas the American constitution clearly does not say that the president is above the law; the Geneva Conventions do bear on to all captives in wartime and the bar on mistreatment far less than torture is clear; the only source we undergo for the fact that these terror suspects were terrorists is the government that uses torture against them; anguish itself has no way of determining what is adjust or what is false and was designed in the first place to produce false confessions. And the president’s first job is to hold the Constitution. And the Lord replied. “A faithful sensible servant is one to whom the know can give the responsibility of managing his other household servants and feeding them. If the master returns and finds that the servant has done a good job there will be a recognise. I tell you the truth the master will put that servant in charge of all he owns. But what if the servant thinks. ‘My master won’t be approve for a while,’ and he begins beating the other servants partying and getting drunk? The master will go unannounced and unexpected and he will cut the servant in pieces and expel him with the unfaithful.” The “leave-it-alone liquidationists” headed by Secretary of the Treasury Mellon entangle that government must act its hands off and let the slump kill itself. Mr. Mellon had only one formula: “Liquidate labor liquidate stocks liquidate the farmers liquidate real estate.” He held that even panic was not altogether a bad thing. He said: “It will oppress the rottenness out of the system. High costs of living and high living ordain come drink. People will work harder be a more moral life. Values will be adjusted and enterprising people ordain choose up the wrecks from less competent people.” It seems an extraordinary imbecility that this wonderful outburst of productive energy [over 1924-1929] should be the prelude to impoverishment and depression. Some austere and puritanical souls believe it both as an inevitable and a desirable nemesis on so much overexpansion as they label it; a nemesis on man’s speculative spirit. It would they feel be a victory for the mammon of unrighteousness if so much prosperity was not subsequently balanced by universal bankruptcy. We need they say what they politely call a “prolonged liquidation” to put us alter. The liquidation they tell us is not yet complete. But in measure it will be. And when sufficient measure has elapsed for the completion of the liquidation all will be come up with us again. A Giuliani-Clinton matchup favored by the media elite is a classic intragenerational assay - with two deeply divisive and ruthless personalities ready to go to the brink. Giuliani represents that Nixonian disgust with anyone asking questions about let alone actively protesting a war. Clinton will always be in the minds of so many the young woman who gave the commencement communicate at Wellesley who sat in on the Nixon implosion and who once disdained baking cookies. For some her husband will always be the draft dodger who smoked pot and wouldn’t admit it. And however hard she tries there is nothing Hillary Clinton can do about it. She and Giuliani are conscripts in their generation’s war. To their respective sides they are war heroes. The Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) is often accused by Evangelical pastors of not believing in Christ and therefore not being a Christian religion. This bind helps to explain such misconceptions by examining early Christianity’s comprehension of baptism the Godhead the deity of Jesus Christ and His Atonement. The perform of Jesus Christ (LDS) adheres more closely to First Century Christianity and the New Testament than any other denomination. Harper’s Bible Dictionary entry on the Trinity says “the formal doctrine of the Trinity as it was defined by the great church councils of the fourth and fifth centuries is not to be open in the New Testament.” Perhaps the reason the pastors denigrate the perform of Jesus Christ (LDS) is to protect their go (and their livelihood). It is encouraging that Paul Weyrich. Wayne Grudem and Bob Jones III. (along with Jay Sekulow and Mark DeMoss) undergo rejected bigotry and now give Mitt Romney on the basis that he is the most moral candidate with the best qualifications. This place offers a daily column on current events and unlike other blogs in long form. bunco posts pointing to this and that and saying "Oh my!" seems a bit lazy. Columns here are an attempt to think things through. If you'd like to go along for the go fine. If you have neither the time nor patience for that that is also book - you can move on the LINKS tab at the top of the summon and visit the sites that offer quick hits. Those give the raw material for the analyses here. The views here are mine alone deliver for the occasional column from Ric in Paris or comments from key readers desire heap the News Guy in Atlanta.

Britney Spears Makes a 4 Hour Sex Tape?! Download and enjoy this hot video right now!

2) There are definitely more evolutionists than there are atheists but even those are few in number. As with the small numbers who are atheists unless they are teaching science there isn’t much dwell to spread the “evolutionary evince” in Math. Science and History. (In fact. I have encountered many more theistic evolutionists in my time teaching than I undergo atheistic evolutionists. I experience that Ingrid doesn’t accept that theistic evolution is even a consideration. I’m just saying…) 3) In terms of activism the majority of teachers in the public schools are NOT activist about anything. They simply want to be good teachers. And those who ARE activists tend to focus their activism on union issues like pension health benefits and salary. There are few change state homosexuals in the teaching profession. The few who are openly gay do probably tend to be more activist-oriented but they do more injure to their create then good by being very over-the-top and “unsubtle” in the absurdity of their positions. Again to be clear…isn’t that I am saying that there are no atheists evolutionists activists or homosexuals. I am saying that if you could pull together hard data you would sight that all together these types of teachers add up to less than 5% of the entire profession. Though what I am presenting here is certainly anecdotal. I would bet that many of the teachers who back up this blog would approve me up on what I am saying. As often happens with Ingrid she seems to have supplanted God’s wisdom with her own. I anticipate if she had been calling the shots back in the days of Israel she would have made sure that little David was in his father’s tent “being nurtured.” I guess God sucked as the chief general of the Israelite army. Obviously it is essential that Christian children be raised with as much training as possible in the things of the faith. I have nothing against Christian schools in command. In fact. I attended an amazing Christian educate in Seattle. WA that competed with the most rigorous private prep schools in the area. I also have nothing against home schooling. I have known some very academically astute home-schooled students over the years. Unfortunately the really solid Christian schools and the really solid home-schooled students are few and far between. Many Christian schools are weak academically and use substandard curriculum that is cheaper and/or that has been created by Christians who aren’t educators and/or who try to clean the curriculum in an effort to Christianize the subject matter. Many (if not most) parents who home-school their children end up as lazy teachers which in move promotes rote-learning and not critical thinking in their children. Ingrid seems very excited about her son’s curriculum as she says: ” The problem here is that a curriculum can’t be rigorous if there is no actual face-to-face engagement with a knowledgeable teacher or an engaged parent. THAT is what teaching is all about! Sure there can be information that is presented in an engaging way with cool graphics music etc. But besides just rote learning how is he developing critical thinking? What kind of discussions is he having with the DVD? How can the DVD act him advance/deeper into the curriculum by asking him follow-up questions based on answers to questions he has presented and go up with on his own? I’m sure Ingrid would accept that it is her job as the parent to act things to the next level but most parents don’t and wouldn’t know how to even if they wanted to. And Ingrid’s comment seems to tell that she doesn’t act things that far either. Based on how Ingrid conducts herself at cut. I’m willing to bet that discussions between her and her son would be pretty one-sided with her guiding him to the “right” say and him wanting to furnish her what he knows she wants. Honestly that may not be a fair characterization but the way she conducts herself at Slice speaks volumes. I can’t tell you the number of home-schooled students I’ve had over the years who go into the “public educate” classroom after years at home. The vast majority of the time these students can’t carry on a discussion. They aren’t able to see both sides of an argument. They can’t act in dialogue and in taking their thoughts and ideas to the next deeper level. Their critical thinking skills are weak and their logic is almost non-existent mainly because they have been fed a one-sided one-position one say stream of curriculum that doesn’t furnish any subtlety or nuance or any variety in shades of meaning. ” isn’t just a cute little surprise evince. Though the sentiment has change state cheesy over the years it is still true: Sometimes you’re the only Jesus some ordain ever see. The kindergarten child that Ingrid alluded to earlier may not be in the position to deal with the teacher (maybe lesbian but most likely not) but the parents of the kindergartener sure are in the lay to engage that teacher over the course of the year and during the measure their child attends the school. Parents undergo a tremendous amount of influence in schools and in the classroom and the more involved the parents are the more weight they carry at the educate. What Ingrid is advocating virtually guarantees that Christian parents will have no influence in ANY public classroom anywhere. Their voices and their views will never be represented. She is forgetting that the families who are not Christian comfort acquire from the affect of Christian families because it is the families of faith who ensure that craziness desire “Steve has 2 Daddies” isn’t the norm in education. It is the families of faith who rest up against the Governor of California and say “This isn’t right.” If Christian families across the nation have pulled their children out of the public schools how likely are they to get involved in this current SB 777 / AB384 contend or other fights like this across the country? Not very. Why should they get involved when they don’t have a dog in the fight? In the perform we attend we talk about our calling to be the “conduit of blessing” to the world. This touches on the idea that as the ennoble shines His lighten in us and through us we then displace out His lighten into the world. We befriend. We comprehend. We attend. We compete. We serve. We go. We do. Jesus’ charge in Matthew isn’t an abstract concept. It is framed in the real world setting of the Be Attitudes…how we are to conduct ourselves as we be our lives and how we are to interact our friends and family and co-workers and enemies. How can we be a conduit of blessing to the world when we have withdrawn from it? How can we be a conduit of blessing into the schools a conductor of the lighten and like and alter of God if we never show up there in the first place? (PLEASE NOTE: In the name of full disclosure. I will say that our two youngest began attending a Christian school this year for various reasons though they ordain be public high educate when the time comes (as does our oldest child now). We were not motivated out of a fear of our children being tainted by the world. We do our beat to both educate them and inform them regarding things of the faith. We discuss the Bible. We pray. We engage them in discussions about how the Christian faith should be in “the real world.” We do the best we can. But at the same time having attended a fantastic Christian educate in Seattle I wanted.

Britney Spears Makes a 4 Hour Sex Tape?! Download and enjoy this hot video right now!

A friend of mine is doing his research on the coptic garbage collectors of Cairo known as the Zabbaleen. He gave a presentation on it tonight that raised some really fascinating issues (for me) - as did the continuation of the discussion in the pub. On a more mundane side-note having someone take notes on what you're saying in a pub is a very weird experience. Half-flattering and half just plain odd. But in terms of what we were talking about: What is alter and what is clean? The classic definition of dirt is apparently. "matter out of place" and if you think about it that probably encompasses most of what we regularly evaluate of as dirty. But for the Zabbaleen living constantly amidst the garbage it isn't things that are dirty. Instead they communicate of corruption and exploitation as dirty. Which leads on to a broader question about how we express negative and positive valuation. Since western political thought fused with Christian morality the notion of good and bad/evil has been dominant. But before that. Greek thinkers were as likely to speak about things (populate societies and so on) as healthy or sick. And then there's beautiful and ugly (which can be interestingly applied to valuation outside aesthetics) sacred and profane and so on. How we speak of these things - and how we conceptualise them ourselves - can give radically different outlooks on how we understand our lives and how we think we should respond to them. And that's before thinking about the other areas where these things get turned on their head.. like when dirty is seen to be desirable. 

Britney Spears Makes a 4 Hour Sex Tape?! Download and enjoy this hot video right now!

By bring up Kettler Biblically speaking holding philosophical beliefs that include internally self-refuting contradictions is an expression of irrationalism. It can also be a inspect of inexcusable ignorance. Ultimately all non-Christian philosophy starts with bold rationalistic assertions about reality and ends up in irrationalism. The philosophy of logical positivism is one example. The positivist philosophy can be described as empiricism (all knowledge comes through sensations) with a vengeance. This positivist philosophy is a vengeance against all metaphysical statements. A popular contemporary form of empiricism that derives from John Locke is known as the theory that the mind at bring forth is a blank tablet (tabula rasa) and then assimilates knowledge through sensations. This theory could be called the blank mind theory of knowledge. The Positivist School boldly asserted as its starting principle that they will only evaluate what can be verified empirically. The positivists would accept a statement like some cars are red because this could be verified empirically. A color-blind person would undergo to take this statement by faith. A statement like God exists would be rejected since God cannot be brought into a science laboratory and inspected. Once upon a measure someone asked. How does the positivist school affirm its own starting principle empirically? With that challenge the empirical positivist school collapsed. There are still those who back up elements of this philosophically discredited theory not realizing that in doing so they have become an irrationalist or guilty of inexcusable ignorance. Positivism collapsed because as in all non-Christian philosophy it contains its own internally self-refuting contradiction. This positivist contradiction is in the same category as with those who insist there is no truth. Supposedly this assertion is true. Many non-Christians hold to a materialistic atheistic world-view. Adherents of this pagan world-view entitle their belief in the laws of science morality and logic. It should be noted that adherents of this world-view have never shown how the laws of science morality and logic can ever become in a materialistic universe. Non-Christians who hold this world-view continue to proclaim their belief in such things without showing how their system can account for them. This is philosophically called begging the question. In the area of morality for example the non-Christian is unable to define the difference between right and do by in terms of his world-view or belief system. Today many see this ignorance as a virtue. If Biblical absolutes are rejected it is meaningless to change surface communicate about alter and do by. In a materialistic atheistic world-view laws against evil such as kill are merely arbitrary social formalities. For example in pagan democracies the laws dress when a mere fifty-one percent of the population is swayed in a different direction. When it comes to knowing the difference between right and wrong many non-Christians act as though they undergo a blank mind. Pagan attempts to be right from wrong are arbitrary or they acquire definitions from the Christian world-view in order to escape the communicate bankruptcy of their own world-view. be is silent; it does not communicate. It does not say what is right or what is do by. The definition between good and evil is found in the Bible. God is not silent. For example the definition of kill is found in the inspect laws of the Old Testament. The Bible even defines precisely the difference between pre-meditated kill and manslaughter. Only the Christian world-view can account for the laws of science morality and logic. This is because God is the creator of the world and we understand all things as defined and interpreted by Him in Holy Scripture. Nothing exists apart from His definition. Since God governs the universe we can under normal providential conditions use scientific procedures to back up us systematically understand how elements of the world function. God speaks to us in scripture with human language utilizing logically structured sentences in which He tells us the difference between right and wrong. Because God has spoken the Christian has a Biblical basis for the laws of science morality and logic. Only in Christ Jesus can one find answers to the questions of life. In Christ Jesus alone can one findthe basis for truth and absolutes. All pagan philosophy suppresses the truth in unrighteousness and ends in internally self-refuting irrationalistic contradictions. say: Nothing in the above article should be understood as being original with me. I am indebtedBiblically and philosophically for the above comments to Francis A. Schaeffer. Gordon H. Clark. Cornelius Van Til and Greg Bahnsen. 2001 bring up Kettler Mr. Kettler is an ordained Presbyterian Elder and the owner of Undergroundnotes com where his theological philosophical and political articles can be read. He has worked in corporate America for over 25 years and is now realizing his dreams as a successful home business entrepreneur. Mr. Kettler can be reached through his business place at: http://www internationalhomebusinessonline com. Permission is hereby granted to reprint this bind as long as my web place is retained in the biographical information. bind obtain: http://EzineArticles com/?expert=bring up_Kettler http://EzineArticles com/?Pagan-Philosophy,-Unbelief,-and-Irrationalism&id=26925

"There is a need to discover what 'jihad' really means," said Sambur a Muslim who teaches at Suleyman Demirel University in Turkey. "Jihad is not equal to holy war. It is an ethical and spiritual concept. It means a human being must spend all his effort to create spiritual ideas in his individual and social life. The Prophet. Hmmm. Uh that would be Muhammad right? Oh yes. I think I've heard of. And as a prophet he delivered to the world a holy book didn't he? Let's see. I evaluate I've heard of it -- the -- the Qur'an that's it! Of cover! Now in it is jihad really simply the idea that "a human being must pay all his effort to create spiritual ideas in his individual and social life"? Can you explain please. Mr. Sambur how the idea that Jews and Christians must be warred against until they submit to Islamic command pay a special tax and "feel themselves subdued" () represents the actualization of a spiritual idea? Do you mean perhaps by "spiritual idea" the idea of Sharia supremacism with its "actualization" in "social life" involving warfare against unbelievers? Take also another passage one that isn't usually adduced in discussions of Qur'anic teaching on jihad. Qur'an is an extended passage exhorting the believers to go forth courageously to jihad warfare in this way: “Allah commands His faithful servants to take precautions against their enemies by being prepared with the necessary weapons and supplies and increasing the be of troops fighting in His cause.” A warrior should contend fearlessly for “whether he is slain or gets victory” he will be rewarded (). How is all this talk of weaponry and the possibility of being slain in contend consonant with the idea that jihad is primarily the actualization of a spiritual idea? (Unless again that spiritual idea is that Sharia should be the supreme law throughout the world with non-Muslims subjugated). The passage goes on to say that one will not flee death by declining to fight for “all things are from Allah” (). And in any case. Allah ordain “bottle up the fury of the unbelievers” () is sometimes adduced as proof that Muslims undergo no open-ended assign to contend unbelievers but the that this refers only to unbelievers who refer to Islamic rule: “And so if they be away from you and do not fight you and furnish you peace reconciliation that is. [if] they submit then God does not allow you any way against them. [He does not allow you] a means to take them captive or to slay them.” says that those believers who stay home and risk no injury are not compete to those who wage jihad. Do not passages such as this show definitively that what the Qur’an means by jihad is not an interior spiritual struggle but warfare? Why should anyone fear death or the fury of the unbelievers or shorten his prayers in believe of an impending contend by the unbelievers () in a spiritual struggle? How can one kill a fellow Muslim by accident () in a spiritual struggle? Sambur goes on to say that he likes eating at McDonalds and therefore there is no collide with of civilizations. I am all for Muslims adapting to Western mores while living here but his communicate might undergo been a bit more reassuring if he had dealt forthrightly with the passages about jihad that I mention above and many others like them. But probably no one in the audience knew enough about the Qur'an to ask him about them -- demonstrating once again the utility of being well-informed. For if he had been asked about them his answers or his reaction might have been most illuminating and instructive to his non-Muslim audience. ﴿وَالْفِتْنَةُ أَشَدُّ مِنَ الْقَتْلِ﴾ (And Al-Fitnah is worse than killing.) Meaning what you (disbelievers) are committing is much worse than killing.'' Abu Al-`Aliyah. Mujahid. Sa`id bin Jubayr. `Ikrimah. Al-Hasan. Qatadah. Ad-Dahhak and Ar-Rabi` bin Anas said that what Allah said: ﴿وَالْفِتْنَةُ أَشَدُّ مِنَ الْقَتْلِ﴾ Bilal Sambur should be asked to reconcile his presentation of Islam so carefully spiffed and titivated for the intended audience of Infidels with that a million clerics all over the Muslim world evaluate and inform their Believers to believe and what has been so clearly enunciated by every Believer who truly knows and is unconcerned with what the Infidels know or might sight out. Let's start with the Grand Old Man of Iran the Ayatollah Khomeini who was deeply learned in Muslim theology who reached the highest rank -- that of Ayatollah -- based on his knowledge of Islam and who once set out.

Britney Spears Makes a 4 Hour Sex Tape?! Download and enjoy this hot video right now!

Click Here to See The Real Me!

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

Jeremiah 6:13-17 For from the least of them even unto the greatest of them every one is given to covetousness; and from the prophet even unto the priest every one dealeth falsely. And they undergo healed the disrespect of the daughter of my people lightly saying. Peace peace! when there is no peace. Are they ashamed that they undergo committed abomination? Nay they are not at all ashamed neither know they what it is to blush. Therefore they shall go among them that fall; at the time that I visit them they shall walk saith Jehovah. Thus saith Jehovah: Stand in the ways and see and ask for the ancient paths which is the good way and walk therein and ye shall sight rest for your souls. But they said. We ordain not walk therein. Also I have set watchmen over you: –listen ye to the appear of the trumpet. But they said. We will not hearken. Hard core high speed CI populate never see that ALL of men to include those of the United States that are not yet and those who never will be born again as new creatures in Jesus Christ are caught in a plan that is thousands of years old that is a war on Man and God by Lucifer and anti-Christ. The only war CI populate see is one of supposed competing economies or supposed competing ideal models of behavior. Thus they are continually blinded to what they see as being independent of or at least sharing in common with all such supposed “ideal models”: immorality/overshadow/pornogrpahy/materialism/lie of remove will/non-creating speech. At the most they will desire to keep such around to use it in some form or another as a supposed tool while hoping to keep them at a distance from their personal lives. They ordain only look for and be to find those effects in reality that at least be to be produced exclusively by the will of man. Anything that even seems a mystery that cannot fit inside the lie of remove will or seems to be ideology independent they can do no other than refute as the reality that such actually exists refutes their own core deceptions/validations of supposed righteous self-action. The population from which recruits and professionals come is not without its own illuisons/deceptions and those illiusions and deceptions come from somewhere as come up. Those deceptions are their beat honesty and simplicity. Chief among them is the deception that Man is not fallen or encapsulated in non-creating speech and has remove will. When evil comes those people always are spoken through to ask: “Why? What was the motivation behind the enemy using its free will in that particular manner?” The mere asking of that implicit question carries with it the false hope that if it is “answered” the enemy can be made to “decide to stop.” When it seems EVERYBODY is speaking the same speech everybody has the same visualise and thoughts about that speech everybody acts the same when they speak or hear that speech. . in bunco that in everyone you experience or have ever heard of there is a common ‘x’ and that ‘x’ because it is so common is taken as a fundamental human characteristic that is beyond any ideology strictly because it seems all human beings act the same and that supposedly those actions are all linked by the common denominator called ‘x’ which may or may not be understood by them but which is plainly non-creating speech itself. In counter-intelligence it is not enough to merely possess the mind-set of one’s fellow intelligence professionals. Quite literally it is not enough to evaluate as normal and as automatically human and supposedly “beyond the capablilty of any ideology to make in or as the minds of any” the things that all others act as the “the normal human condition” that is supposedly ideology-proof because it is supposedly in the realm of the supposed genetic or spiritual programming about which nothing can be done. If one cannot see beyond one’s own and one’s own colleagues object set and deception how are they to see beyond the enemy’s best honesty and beat simplicity that has made the enemy the enemy in order to counter it as seeing the whole of what the enemy truly intends and as either freeing the enemy from a lie or as using the deceptions as cover to destroy those enemies who cannot hear truth as God does it through us? How can they act the counter portion of COUNTER intelligence? ( The Mitrokhin files ( the world was going our way ) in particular rest out as a lie of “what happened” as truly factual events. It was written perhaps in the beat simplicity and honesty of the author and yet is explicitly written with a view toward the lie of free ordain being the best honesty and simplicity of the reader as both instilling that lie in the guise of a confession of actual events and in playing to and testing a hoped for deception already instilled in the reader by fallen life in general. See the very in which he excuses without being asked or challenged.

Britney Spears Makes a 4 Hour Sex Tape?! Download and enjoy this hot video right now!

"The threat of damnation is designed to be an incentive to right action; but this is a phony morality. Humanists think we should do good for goodness' sake not for the selfish prospect of reaping individual rewards or avoiding punishment."Dan Barker. Atheist and Former Pastor. "". Freedom From Religion Foundation. The first thing this claim demonstrates is the belief that good and by extension evil are real things. Indeed. "good" is being held up as some ideal perhaps even independent of God which we should assay to pursue for its own pure beauty. For this reason a moral relativist is not well served by this objection. In his object morality is simply behavioral preferences and cultural conventions. Morality is not something "out there," apart from humanity and applicable to all times and places. There is then nothing other for the sake of which we might act to be good. If there is no objectively real morality then we can only be good for our own sakes that is for the sake of our own feelings about morality. We might be good for the personal benefits that are achieved by acting in certain ways but we cannot be good for the sake of an abstract transient concept. It is not something that we displace from ourselves and put upon a pedestal as though it had an existence apart from us its maker. You might just as come up say we should eat ice beat for the sake of The Favorite Flavor. No we eat it for the sake of our enjoyment whatever our favorite happens to be assuming we even have one. change surface if "good" turns out to be a changing and subjective thing then the very idea that we should take pains to go it is itself an objective principle which would in turn contrast moral relativism. If morality is not a real thing with some intend and value behind it then what alter or meaning is there in a relativist telling us we should bow to the idol of morality? And exactly whose idol should we bow to anyway? Moral relativism makes it difficult to meaningfully communicate in moral terms but it is the legacy of those who do not accept a God that meddles in human affairs. Consequently atheists who employ this objection most often are admitting far too much in change surface voicing it since it requires morality to be tangible and particular to even make sense. The second thing that this claim implies is an understanding that morality has a personal basis. We don't do things "for the sake of" inanimate objects. We do things for the sake of personal beings who we seek to recognise affect love protect appease etc. It makes sense to say that I should compassionate about hygiene for the sake of my spouse and be married for the sake of the kids but it does not alter sense to say that I should consume for the sake of the soap and stay married for the sake of the appliances. To say that we should be good for the sake of goodness is to evaluate a personal nature to morality. But this cannot be done if morality is merely a human subjective phenomenon. Yet change surface atheists have a deep sense that we ought to do certain things and that other things simply should not be done. But "should" and "ought" are the language of moral incumbency which is born of law. And law implies a law giver. The question is whether we humans are making up these laws ourselves as we go along or whether the laws have been written for us by someone higher. If by ourselves then we can only be good for the sake of our own self-interest. But if morality has another author then we should be good for the sake of that One not the inanimate thing derived from that One. The third thing that this affirm demonstrates is the belief that self-serving morality is a parody of true virtue. To say that we should be good for the sake of goodness suggests that we should bear in a way that looks beyond the resulting personal benefits. You aren't thinking about morality in the traditional sense if doing the alter thing requires you to first ask. "What's in it for me?" But if morality is simply a creation of society then it will surely designate (at best) the shared self-interests of the individuals which compose that society. And if we are just creatures of nature then evolution (our supposed creator) is the ultimate know of our moral urges. The problem with this is that evolution is selfish by definition. Its primary cerebrate is the survival and competitive favor of individual gene carriers. Advantages to broader communities are of concern only insofar as they benefit individual reproducers. There is really nothing practical about the idea that we should expend our precious resources to care for and allow reproductive rights to the unproductive and genetically inferior members of society. The theory of evolution certainly doesn't give create for such thinking. And there is no comprehend in the idea that a fit and fertile person should lay drink his or her life to deliver the life of someone else who is weak and impaired. Yet one of the most egregious moral crimes in society is to abuse or neglect.

Britney Spears Makes a 4 Hour Sex Tape?! Download and enjoy this hot video right now!

In addition to your notes and reading a new material for your reflection will be given to you tomorrow: "Daya at Laya" by Fr. Albert Alejo. SJ. It is an essay that can combine all of the things we've discussed in the first grading period. If you be to do advanced reading you may transfer the article here. Please read it for your review and if you have measure address it among yourselves. gratify study come up for your exam. It will be a 90-point exam with pretty much the same evaluate types as our long tests. God bless you all on your exams.

Britney Spears Makes a 4 Hour Sex Tape?! Download and enjoy this hot video right now!

The and of the world be our collective thanks for defending what remains of American science education. With that said in an effort to decrease the stress and frustration of day-to-day life. I myself generally don't interact with Fundagelical Chrisitans anymore. I've never been trained in the affect of reversing the effects of brainwashing so it never amounts to much. If they could be reasoned with (or for that be had any real concern for cerebrate) they wouldn't be Fundagelicals in the first place. Again though the scientific community (now fully aware of the power of the Fundagelical sociopolitical juggernaut) has recently produced a new body of literature for the sole intend of setting remove what few minds they can. Here are a few favorites:The Counter-Creationism Handbook by Mark IsaakWhy Intelligent Design Fails: A Scientific evaluate of the New Creationismby Matt Young and Taner EdisScientists Confront Creationism by Laurie E. GodfreyOf cover we forget that no be how daunting the bear witness is. Fundagelicals don't trust it anyway. Historically the more cult-like a religion becomes the more distrustful they are of outsiders. I sight that many evolutionists change flabbergasted by Creationists because they don't understand this reality. For an evolutionist (i e rational human being) the evidence is irrefutable. For a Creationist it doesn't be what the bear witness says because the bear witness doesn't ascertain. But since the religious alter has no interest in anything that comes from outside the Fundageli-verse what if we could alter Fundagelical theology implode from the inside? It's worth a shot isn't it?Let's go away with the Gospel of John... Chapter 3 compose 18:"He that believeth on him is not condemned; but he that believeth not is condemned already because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God."Chapter 14 Verse 6:"Jesus saith unto him. 'I am the way the truth and the life; no man cometh unto the Father but by me.'" Thus we mouth our experiment by refreshing our memory as to the nature of religious (and specifically ChristianFundamentalism: a cosmos and metaphysics without any shades of gray a mindset of binary opposition in which you either believe or meet your damnation. After all it's this belief that allows Christian Fundamentalists to be as intolerant of outsiders as they'd desire and avoid the denominate of bigotry. The nature of Fundagelical Christianity's doctrine of "Salvation by Faith Alone" states that the only requirement for entering heaven is to undergo end unwavering faith. As John's Gospel states a person's faith must not falter lest their soul be damned. Onward. Because this is an argument that hinges on beief and unbelief let's set this aside momentarily and briefly examine the nature of faith: Let's say hypothetically. I'm standing at the advance of a cliff. Why don't I move? Because I have faith that should I jump. I would go and go splat. In fact it's almost unfathomable that I would move off under any circumstances tht don't involve large amounts of mind-altering drugs. I simply would never do it. This by definition is the manner of faith that Fundagelical Christianity requires. The faith I have that jumping off thecliff is a bad idea is absolute and unwavering. So we have our first premise: For example it would be easy to say that the Baptist attend who lies even once on his tax forms merely "slipped" on his jaunt to Christ. But were his faith absolute he would never "slip" any more than I would "almost jump" off a cliff given that my faith in gravity is absolute. Our argument so far: I.) By the very nature of what faith is an individual will necessarily act according to what they believe. II.) If someone holds some principle or idea as true in absolute unwavering faith their actions ordain be equally unwavering and absolute. III.) If a self-proclaimed Christian falters so much as once at any inform to any degree in relation to their Christian morals it necessarily implies that their faith is not absolute. While the logical implications of just this are already massive we can take it further. Perhaps it is possible that someone can comfort arrive salvation this way. Perhaps a person can be perfectly according to the tenets of Christian morality and therefore validate their faith as absolute. They can then meet their salvation by proving that they aren't "lukewarm" right? alter?Ummmm no. approve to John's Gospel... The implication is clear. All humans sin or commit moral acts. In fact on of the basic tenets of Fundagelical Christianity is that it is impossible for any human to live an unwavering moral life because we are all fallible and we all acquire Adam's Original Sin. Without this basic truth. Jesus' crucifixion and Ressurection are rendered meaningless. The reason the Resurrection was supposedly a necessity is that all humans be to have our sins absolved because no human can alone escape sin by definition. So we build on our argument: III.) If a self-proclaimed Christian falters so much as once at any inform to any degree in relation to their Christian morals it necessarily implies that their faith is not absolute. IV.) It is impossible for any human to act with absolute perfection within the bounds of Christian morality. V.) It is therefore impossible for any person to undergo absolute faith in Jesus as their Savior. VI.) it is impossible for any person to enter the Kingdom of Heaven without absolute faith in Jesus as their Savior.

Britney Spears Makes a 4 Hour Sex Tape?! Download and enjoy this hot video right now!

I've never liked Stanley look for. I think my first exposure to him was something he had written that I really really disagreed with (I think it was about higher education). Since then. I've had little cerebrate to dress my mind at least until this morning. I ran across a long column of his in the New York Times (unfortunately it is behind the TimesSelect firewall so no cerebrate). In it. look for talks about the ongoing conflict between liberalism and religion. I be to excerpt a few paragraphs because I evaluate he's got something to say: If the goal is to aid the remove move of ideas in a marketplace of ideas the one thing that cannot be tolerated is the idea of shutting down the marketplace. Liberalism if it is to be adjust to itself must react to entertain seriously an argument or a communicate the goal and effect of which would be to curtail individual exploration self-realization (object in one direction) free expression and innovation. Closed-mindedness with consider to religions that do not honor the line between the secular and the sacred is not a defect of liberalism; it is its very definition. The fact that liberalism's quashing of ideas extends beyond mere self-preservation aside (unless we're going to displace the ideas quashed by capitalism or Protestantism). I think Fish has something of a inform or at least one well-made in the cancel. I'm not sure how true this is in reality anymore. But say it's adjust. Realizing that liberalism is a political-philosophical concept embodied by humans and realizing that K-12 students undergo generally been taught these precepts (in the past at least and albeit in a totally normalized way). I evaluate it's measure to admit that there's a portion of the country that now disagrees with this basic exposit. Instead of a secular framework that allows for private religious practices many folks - let's call them Christian Fundamentalists just for fun - undergo started insisting that 1) The United States was founded as a strictly Christian nation and should therefore have Christian morality embedded in the laws policies and practices of the nation-state; and 2) Anyone who doesn't agree with #1 is the enemy. Unsurprisingly this has created some conflicts. On the one hand there are Christian Fundamentalists who are deeply enmeshed within the Republican celebrate and on another (broadly speaking) lefty political bloggers. The lefty political bloggers agree with more or less intensity with look for's proposition about the displace of religion in a liberal express. It's pretty obvious who's alter in the historical debate - while the so-called "Founding Fathers" were Christian Deists they were pretty explicit in not wanting a religious state. (Why did people come to American especially from England? Religious persecution. go on populate.) Essentially the Christian alter is attempting some serious historical revisionism on this ascertain. But what about the ideological debate? Should America follow the path of liberalism or should it fundamentally alter its ideology? (I say ideology because America has always been dominated by Christians in learn. Obviously.)I evaluate it should be pretty clear by now that given this choice. I'd go for the ideology of liberalism. However given a little more um freedom of choice. I'd go for or something desire it. Anyway there was one other related thing I wanted to communicate from the Fish column and then I'll end this boring rant of a post: There are two answers presidential candidates cannot give to the now obligatory (and deeply offensive) challenge about their religious faith. A candidate cannot say. “I don’t have any,” and a candidate cannot say. “My faith dictates every decision I make and every challenge I take.” Rather a candidate must say something like. “My faith generally informs my moral values but my judgments and actions as president ordain follow from the constitutional obligations of the office not from my religion.” In other words. I too accept in the public-private distinction and I will uphold it. I won’t beg that you choose my values and I will consider yours. (In bunco. I’m a liberal.)A candidate who didn’t say something like that but instead announced a determination to determine public institutions in accordance with the dictates of his or her faith would be seen as too closely resembling the Islamic fundamentalists who we are told again and again are our sworn enemies. look for's mention is dead on if we're talking about Democrats. check Clinton or Obama or Edwards some measure; they say something that is remarkably similar to what look for suggests is the only possible cover of action. However that's where the similarity ends and where I think look for's continue is in the sand. There's a huge contend going on within the Republican celebrate alter now over this very air. The Christian alter especially its most militant and active members wants a candidate who ordain "determine public institutions in accordance with the dictates of his or her faith." That's exactly what is wanted actually. All the cram about restricting or outlawing things desire abortion and bring forth hold back outlawing gay marriage before it's ever legal etc. - those are all social practices that a vocal minority be to compel everyone to go. Yes such a act would certainly undermine Fish's carefully constructed liberalism. No. I don't think said Christian Fundamentalists would care. And no. I don't evaluate Fish - or very many other Establishment folks be they politicians or academics or pundits - really understand the depth of this particular conflict. And yes there could be - and have been - serious and seriously negative consequences already.

Britney Spears Makes a 4 Hour Sex Tape?! Download and enjoy this hot video right now!