markomalley

I was going to post something a couple days ago about some theists having this inane need to defend their beliefs and attack all others. But then I changed my mind...why bother...

MStar, And there are many people who believe Hamas and Hezbollah are charitable organizations as well (seriously). And both organizations also do a significant amount of charity work. They both build schools, run hospitals, and the whole 9 yards. However, they also do terrorism. (And, as I've said in every post I've made on this thread: I don't personally care about Ellison one way or the other. That's Minnesota's problem, not mine)

In my opinion, each article should be viewed independently. Many of the articles are impeccably sourced. However, not all are...and some of the sources cited are not exactly reliable. Anything "wiki" should be treated with caution: caveat emptor.

A man's worst nightmare...his woman asking him the question, "Am I fat?" If the man answers "no" -- the comeback is "liar!" If the man answers "yes" -- the comeback is "pig!" :asdf: Now, back to our regularly scheduled thread...

That's blue-eyed white devils, to you, Lindy! Of course I've heard of it before... Why do you think the concern about Congressman Ellison's background?

Fair question. But before I continue, let me state again, I don't care personally one way or the other. i'm just trying to provide some additional information on some of the background that might explain the furor over his use of a Quran for his swearing-in photo op: Nihad Awad, executive director of the Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations, flew to Minneapolis for an Aug. 25 fundraiser for Ellison - Washington Post, 9/11/06 More than 1,000 people turned out on Saturday at the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) banquet in Arlington, Va., to hear addresses by several elected officials, including Keith Ellison, the first Muslim in Congress. - CAIR Press Release, 11/20/2006 I think the above two establish somewhat of a connection between Ellison and CAIR. There's other references, but that shows the point. As far as CAIR's ties to terrorism, apparently Barbara Boxer has some concerns: In a highly unusual move, Sen. Barbara Boxer of California has rescinded an award to an Islamic activist in her home state because of the man’s connections to a major American Muslim organization that recently has been courted by leading political figures and even the FBI. Boxer’s office confirmed to NEWSWEEK that she has withdrawn a “certificate of accomplishment” to Sacramento activist Basim Elkarra after learning that he serves as an official with the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). After directing her staff to look into CAIR, Boxer “expressed concern” about some past statements and actions by the group, as well as assertions by some law enforcement officials that it “gives aid to international terrorist groups,” according to Natalie Ravitz, the senator’s press spokeswoman. - Newsweek, Dec 29, 2006 Charles Schumer also has some concerns about CAIR: Yet, Ellison is causing fresh concerns for some voters. He recently went to Florida to raise campaign funds at a party hosted by an official of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, a group accused by U.S. Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., and others of alliances with terrorists. The council is running a TV commercial in Minnesota vigorously denying such ties. - St. Paul Pioneer Press, 10/31/2006 Finally, you could take a look for yourself: Take a look at this web archive of CAIR's website on 9/17/2001 On the right hand panel of that page, about 2/3 of the way down, there is a section called "Help for Victims" Notice the second option they give: "Donate to the NY/DC Emergency Relief Fund" If you move your mouse over that link (don't click it), you will see that it points to the following URL: http://web.archive.org/web/20010917013636/...mp;function=add You will see within that link the text "www.hlf.org" -- that was the URL for a group called the "Holy Land Foundation." According to Wikipedia (multiple citations therein), both the US government and the European Union have linked it to Hamas and had it shut down as a terrorist organization. So, if Boxer and Schumer (neither of whom are friendly with Bush) are concerned about being linked with CAIR, I'd say there just might be something there... But, again, that's Minnesota's problem. I haven't lived in Minnesota for over 25 years and so it isn't mine.

I think, though, that a lot of the hooplah regarding Ellison come from a rather checkered past that he has had. Let me repeat that I don't care whether a congressweenie swears on a Bible, a Quran, or a used kleenex. Let me also repeat that I think that this is a publicity stunt. Having said that: But Ellison is dogged by questions about his faith, particularly after disclosures about his past associations with the Nation of Islam, a group led by Louis Farrakhan. While Ellison has since denounced Farrakhan, Jewish leaders say the candidate's ties to the organization remain an issue. "For Jews, there's no ambiguity when it comes to the Nation of Islam," said Stephen Silberfarb, executive director of the Jewish Community Relations Council of Minnesota and the Dakotas. "It's a group that hates the Jewish people." Around 1990, Ellison _ then a University of Minnesota law student known as Keith E. Hakim _ wrote several columns in the student newspaper that are getting a second look. One column defended Farrakhan against charges of anti-Semitism; a second suggested the creation of a state for black residents. In 1995, Ellison helped organize a delegation to Farrakhan's Million Man March in Washington. Source: CBS Now others are raising the same concerns about Ellison, especially about his relationship with the Nation of Islam. That group has been working to improve the conditions for African Americans, but has been criticized for being anti-Semitic, anti-gay and anti-white. When he was in law school in 1990, Ellison wrote a column in the University of Minnesota's student newspaper defending Louis Farrakhan, the Nation of Islam's leader. In another column he called for a separate nation for blacks. Ellison was also a member of the Black Law Student Association and was criticized for sponsoring anti-semitic speakers at the U of M. "My recollections of Keith are of that person who was very much in support of the Nation of Islam and their messages they tried to convey to the larger community," says Dan Weiss, a University of Minnesota Law School classmate of Ellison's. He was also a member of the Law School's Jewish Caucus. Back then Weiss says Ellison would downplay or ignore some of the hateful messages portrayed by the Nation of Islam. Even so, Weiss and another Jewish law student say they never got the impression that Ellison himself was anti-Semitic. Weiss doesn't live in Minneapolis now so he hasn't payed too much attention to Ellison's recent political career. But he says Ellison should explain whether his views have changed since then. "If you're going to latch on to a very strong, but racist, movement, you have to be sure to explain why that happened so people in the community know why that happened so they know that you really have changed," Weiss says. Source: Minnesota Public Radio Now Ellison has said that he has renounced his association with Farrakhan. So maybe it is in his past. Ellison has also been closely linked with CAIR (Council on American Islamic Relations). CAIR has been, in turn, linked to the terrorist group Hamas. So perhaps some of the concerns regarding Ellison are not purely religious bigotry, but are concerns based on disturbing aspects from his past. Again, just trying to bring in these additional data points...

The New Year may not be so happy if Iranian leaders have their way. The Islamic Messiah known as the "Twelfth Imam" or the "Mahdi" may come to earth in 2007 and could be revealed to the world as early as the Spring Equinox, reports an official Iranian government news website. The Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB) website says the world is now in its "last days." It claims that the Mahdi will first appear in Mecca, and then Medina. He will conquer all of Arabia, Syria, Iraq, destroy Israel, and then set up a "global government" based in Iraq, interestingly enough, not Iran. Such Islamic eschatology (end times theology) is driving the Iranian regime and helps explains why Iran has no interest in helping the U.S. and E.U. create peace in Iraq or the region, much less in ending its bid for nuclear weapons, the Iraq Study Group Report notwithstanding. Anticipation of the imminent arrival or "illumination" of the Islamic Messiah has been steadily intensifying inside Iran since Mahmoud Ahmadinejad emerged as president of the country in June of 2005. A television series on IRIB called "The World Towards Illumination" has been running since last November to help answer the many questions Iranians have about the end of the world as we know it. The series explains the signs of the last days and what to expect when the Islamic Messiah arrives. The program also says that Jesus is coming back to earth soon as a Shiite Muslim leader and it denounces "born again Christians" for supporting "the illegal Zionist state of Israel." An Israeli news site was the first to pick up the story and its significance to Israeli national security, noting that the Mahdi will soon "form an army to defeat Islam's enemies in a series of apocalyptic battles" and "will overcome his archvillain in Jerusalem." (snip) Shiite Islamic scholars also say Jesus is coming back to Earth soon. He will not, however, come as the Son of God or even as a leader but will serve as a deputy to the mahdi to destroy the infidels, such scholars say. “We read in the book Tazkarat ol-Olia, ‘the Mahdi will come with Jesus son of Mary accompanying him,’” the series explains. “This indicates that these two great men are complement each other. Imam Mahdi will be the leader while Prophet Jesus will act as his lieutenant in the struggle against oppression and establishment of justice in the world.” (remainder snipped) Source: Inveztor (NL) Other sources: Iran News, Note to mods: Not sure if this should go in 'tacks or in 'silly or in the doctrine dungeon. So maybe it could stay in open for a bit...

First, I personally couldn't care less whether Ellison is sworn in with his hand on the Bible, the Qu'ran, or on a roll of toilet paper. Whatever. For the vast majority elected officials, the "oath of office" is meaningless, anyway. Second, I think that, rather than being a statement of his faith, it is him trying to "make a statement." Best cure for him "making a statement" is to ignore it.

Your Language Arts Grade: 100% Way to go! You know not to trust the MS Grammar Check and you know "no" from "know." Now, go forth and spread the good word (or at least, the proper use of apostrophes). Are You Gooder at Grammar? Make a Quiz W00t! W00t!

Or, could it be that he's using this:

Moryan, Congratulations! Sounds like you saw what you needed to see.

I guess I am not as enlightened... I don't call them evil. I am just relating what I hear and see around me. And it's very likely that I don't hang with the same enlightened crowd you do. But along those lines, you know when I will believe that society has fully accepted homosexuality as a norm (not THE norm but A norm)... When shows like Queer Eye for the Straight Guy are not on anymore (after all, it's just a joke based upon effeminate behavior). When comics (including homosexual ones) no longer make jokes based on butch women or queer men. When prime time television has a show with either a homosexual couple (showing the same degree of sexual content as a straight couple) is cast as the leads in a series, that series is a success, and that fact is not news. When the concept of marriage is relegated to the religious institutions of the country and cohabitation contracts are the norm for both straight and gay couples, trebles, or whatever arrangement fits the people involved. When it is not an issue to "out" somebody. When school/military dormatories, prisons, and other institutional housing arrangements account for sexual preference more so than physical plumbing (that is assuming they don't just abandon the concept of segregating residents by sex at all -- be it by sex or by preference -- after all, how will one house the ambisexual residents?). When 'gay pride' parades no longer exist...not because of suppression but because of lack of interest (or if they do exist, where the paraders celebrate sexual freedom and pure hedonism, rather than pride in a given sexual preference). When all of the above occur, I will say that society has fully accepted diversity in sexual preference. And so it becomes ever more interesting that Martina Navratilova getting bent out of shape on this...

Met many?

Many years ago I resolved not to make any new years resolutions. The only way I can keep that resolution is to not make resolutions. Therefore, I haven't resolved anything in years. That lack of resolution is one of the main reasons I post down in 'tacks. Nothing gets resolved there, so it's perfect for me!

That is an interesting concept. Speaking of deaf, there were major protests at Galludet University (a university for the deaf) when a new University President was named. Apparently that president wasn't "deaf enough" for the students...after a couple of months of protest, the new president was fired and a different one was named. That is an interesting point. It depends, I guess, on how one looks at homosexuality at all. Myself, I am rather a traditionalist and view it as being an abberation. I still am old fashioned enough to believe that the purpose of sex is procreation and that the pleasure sensations are there to encourage it and thus encourage the species to reproduce. Therefore, my feeling sorry for somebody whose nature does not allow them to participate (truly voluntarily) in the natural process is the similar feeling that I have toward somebody with another handicap that otherwise limits them (be that handicap a physical or a mental disability or degeneration). I realize that is a knuckle-dragging, old fashioned attitude. And that makes me more of a cro-magnon 20th century man than a fully modern 21st century one, but I guess my primative attitude is genetic and can't change. I don't want special rights. I just want equal rights. I would rather see my tax dollars not to go to either. I pay far too many taxes as it stands ;)But, again, it comes back to my ugly, cro-magnon attitude. The way I look at something like this is as a possible cure or preventative (like an innoculation). I realize that my attitudes are horrible, but they can't change. If a victim of Parkinson's could get a cure, I would not deny him the cure because of wanting to maintain diversity. If a cure was possible for diabetis, I sure wouldn't want to stop development of that cure. If a cure could be found for leukoderma, I wouldn't want to deny that cure to ensure that we all don't think, look, or act the same. I wouldn't force a cure on any of them, but I'd hate to think that a cure was possible and ethically acceptable but denying it from a person. I perceive that you are saying that my understanding, "if I could choose, I would never choose to be gay" is now obsolete and that the current attitude is that homosexuality is now considered like a skin color. Not a defect, but just different. In my somewhat limited experience, when two parents of a given race have a child, that child is also a member of that race (children with an albino defect aside). Also from my limited experience, I haven't seen that to be universally the case when two gay people collaborate to have a child (through artificial insemination, IVF, or some other technique). It's usually hit or miss. Well, we could look at it this way: if it were possible to apply a hormonal patch to a pregnant woman to ensure her child would not be gay, doesn't it stand to reason that a different patch could be applied to ensure her child would be gay? If you had a situation where a surrogate was carrying a pregnancy for a homosexual male couple, I would think, if homosexuality is the same as race, that the couple would want her to apply such a patch so that they could assure that they'd raise a child of the same preference. Or, in the instance of a homosexual female couple, such as Mary Cheney, I would imagine that she and her partner would prefer to raise a lesbian or gay child. If, in fact, sexual preference should be regarded the same as race. A technology such as a hormonal patch could make such a dream a reality, I'd think. (I say this not as a flippant statement, but based on how the reactions of each and every one of my friends "of color" would react if a black couple had a white baby. "Did you adopt?" would be asked to their faces. Upon denial that the child was adopted, behind their backs, "Who's the father" would be whispered. Absolutely guaranteed...and no amount of talking would change the minds) Just as with racism, I see that it is a lot more muted now than it was. I don't think anybody's attitudes have really changed. I just think that they have learned to suppress their inner feelings better than before.

The fundamental difference, though, is that most people I know who have 'colored skin' don't say "if I could choose...I would choose otherwise."

Maybe Pat Robertson is trying to get on the board for CES: In what has become an annual tradition of prognostications, religious broadcaster Pat Robertson predicted Tuesday that a terrorist attack on the United States would result in "mass killing" late in 2007. "I'm not necessarily saying it's going to be nuclear," he said during his news-and-talk television show "The 700 Club" on the Christian Broadcasting Network. "The Lord didn't say nuclear. But I do believe it will be something like that." Robertson said God told him during a recent prayer retreat that major cities and possibly millions of people will be affected by the attack, which should take place sometime after September. (snip) The broadcaster predicted in January 2004 that President Bush would easily win re-election. Bush won 51 percent of the vote that fall, beating Democratic Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts. He also predicted Bush's victory for a second term in 2005. "I have a relatively good track record," he said. "Sometimes I miss." In May, Robertson said God told him that storms and possibly a tsunami were to crash into America's coastline in 2006. Even though the U.S. was not hit with a tsunami, Robertson on Tuesday cited last spring's heavy rains and flooding in New England as partly fulfilling the prediction. Source: AP

There was NO traffic in DC yesterday. It was a great commute! Of course, OTOH, I was not able to get much done (as my government customers were out playing golf, shopping, or whatever)...

In an article in last Sunday's London (UK) Times, it was revealed that scientists have been experimenting on sheep to reduce the rams' propensity to be homosexual. This treatment involves adjustment of the hormonal balance in the rams' brains. According to the article, apparently about 1 in 10 sheep are born with a proclivity towards other sheep of the same sex. The research was commissioned in order to improve the "productivity" of sheep herds (Apparently a ram mounting a ram does not result in a lamb, so therefore that ram is not considered to be productive by its owner). The thought is that if a treatment regimen can be developed for sheep, a similar hormonal treatment might be able to be developed for humans. The article cites the possibility of a woman being able to wear a hormonal patch during her pregnancy in order to minimize or eliminate the possibility of her offspring being homosexual. The reason I am posting this article, though, is that I am confused by the harsh criticism the research is receiving both within the "gay" community and within the medical ethics community. Apparently the conduct of this research is considered "homophobic." For example, tennis player Martina Navratilova had the following criticism of the research: Navratilova defended the “right” of sheep to be gay. She said: “How can it be that in the year 2006 a major university would host such homophobic and cruel experiments?” She said gay men and lesbians would be “deeply offended” by the social implications of the tests. Ethicists are expressing similar concerns. They are worried if the results of the research got into the hands of countries like Iran, they might try to weed out their gay communities. They have invoked Godwin's Rule already, comparing the research to Nazi eugenics experiments... That is what confuses me. I remember when the discussions about psychological counselling to "convert" gays was in vogue, when President Clinton tried integrating homosexual people into the military, and during the gay marriage debates that one of the most frequent arguments raised was "Do you think I want to be gay? I have no choice in the matter. If I could be straight I would, but I can't, so I just have to live with what I am..." and so on. What's wrong with this picture? I have, in the past couple of years, really tried to change my attitude towards gay people, being more sensitive to their plight. After all, what rational person would want to be on the sidelines of society, constantly ridiculed, spit on, discriminated against and so forth. I have come to recognize that it wasn't a choice, but a genetic fact of life for some people. And I believed them when they stated that they would never be gay if they had a choice about it. But now I am confused. Where's Trefor when you need him...he always had his head on straight and would have been able to un-confuse me on why the gay community is criticizing this....

Thank you VERY MUCH for restoring the option for the regular skin. That makes it a WHOLE LOT easier to read.

I don't believe that you can say "of course not" around here...there are a number of people on this board who recognize this element of heresy for what it was: just another ripoff. This one from Arius.

What can I say...

This new skin is very nice, but there are too many graphic details and it makes it so I have a hard time focusing on the content. You used to have an option on which skin to use. Can you please restore that option? Thank you.

Rascal: Just an imho, fwiw, and remember that ymmv...