176ef880103a10f18cc6ed07bbdfc37d http://k8v3jsa.info/pub/pub-les-nuls.html ipod chaussure esther hyundai macros http://gh32efs.info/camping/camping-municipal-narbonne.html lecteur http://lp3rv03.info/lutte/lutte-comment-immobiliser-son-adversaire.html http://dkv3ovf.info/creation/creation-d-un-cd-autorun.html 82abbb2749f21add3feb413f5aa34e7b

Posted at April 6, 2007 6:46 AM in response to

Call me crazy, but I would prefer someone who wants to overturn Roe on Constitutional grounds than someone who wants to do so on religous grounds.

Why? It's the same policy either way. People who want to overturn it on religious grounds can simply claim they want to overturn it on constitutional grounds.

Posted at December 6, 2007 8:10 AM in response to Faith in the Public Square, part 1

But most importantly, they dance.

Hell, we can make that happen. Dance party at Dan K's every Saturday!

Posted at December 5, 2007 1:13 PM in response to Faith in the Public Square, part 1

I find this post to be a rather strange. I'm not theologian, but can we really know what God is doing? The suggestion that God is "doing" something is strange in itself, isn't it? Chalk it up to phrasing, I guess.

But supposing that we can understand it, isn't it the same question of what God wants out of us? If we get into heaven by doing what God wants us to do, by responding appropriately to what God "is doing," then is that not the same question?

I think it is important to know if there is any real difference between the Religious Right and the people such as Rev. McClaren who are religious and liberal. Is it really a matter of religion driving such people toward systemic issues or is merely a result of being liberal and also religious?

The other main point of Rev. McClaren's post is that we can't realistically ask the faithful to keep their religion out of the public sphere. But that is not what the separation of church and state is supposed to do. If you want to bring your convictions to bear on public policy issues, that is perfectly fine with me. What concerns me is when the religious try to bring public policy to bear on other people's convictions. Government is to stay out of the business of religion. That means no public religious education, no official religions, no preferred religions, no funding of religion.

So, what's so hard about that?

Posted at December 5, 2007 11:54 AM in response to Faith in the Public Square, part 1

That's certainly an interesting response. I did not intend to jump into your conversation in any serious way. I wrote my comment because I thought you were making your own false claim about the world--that nature has made mankind in a specific way. We can say that in some ways--it's hard to deny the facts of evolution--but it's important to remember that we have free will and in fact, we choose to be petty and greedy and vicious.

But let me ask, what do you mean by liberal scholasticism? You say that people tend to think that if they score a few theoretical points then they have won, and I agree that is a problem. It's the reason we're all arguing on the internet. But what does that have to do with scholasticism? Scholasticism is a methodology that can in fact be put to use in living a good life. The practice of law is essentially scholastic and always has been, including the continental and canonical traditions. Church law is scholastic, but it has always been intimately involved in expounding how people ought to live.

So, maybe we're just operating on different definitions of scholasticism. Would you explain what you mean?

Posted at December 5, 2007 10:56 AM in response to Christianity as a Global Threat

Or because they choose to be. No reason to soil Nature's good name.

Posted at December 4, 2007 8:50 AM in response to Christianity as a Global Threat

Wow, looking over the comments, I am a bit surprised by the level of animosity towards religion here. I am personally in a different place. While I think that the religious right has harmed this country, unlike the drunken Bush apologist Christopher Hitchens, I am not going to lay all the ills of the world at the feet of faith.

It will always be difficult to determine if "religion" generally is the cause of any problem in the world. In the end, problems are created by individuals, even if they make a choice based on religion, it is their choice and they ought to be responsible for their actions.

Furthermore, arguing about religion is a fruitless enterprise. At this point in my life I don't understand the sort of militant atheism of people like Hitchens. You're never going to argue a believer into disbelief. In some ways, these sorts of beliefs are not susceptible to rational argument. And being angry about what people believe isn't going to get you anywhere either.

People should read more William James. If an individual finds some use for religion and it matters in their life, then there is no reason for me to try to convince them otherwise. For me, it does not have any use in my life and I don't believe. I don't really consider myself an atheist, because that is sort of beside the point. I have found other beliefs that work for me--I am a materialist.

To put it another way, while other people may have a use for religion in their lives, I certainly have no use for anger about religion in my life. An old virtue of the much ridiculed Midwestern politeness was an unwillingness to talk about religion. There is, of course, some wisdom in this unwillingness, and I think we all ought to take it as our guide. When it comes to religion, let people be.

Posted at December 4, 2007 8:48 AM in response to Christianity as a Global Threat

I'll believe it when James Dobson says it. Until then, I have little reason to think that the Evangelical movement is somehow moving left or is otherwise ashamed of their actions.

Posted at December 4, 2007 7:14 AM in response to Christianity as a Global Threat

Cool. Sounds like an interesting book. At least there is some sanity out there. The question will be whether you can get the public to listen. Nuclear terrorism has been and will be the favored method of fear-mongering by right wing demagogues. May be this book is simply for policy makers, but it's better than nothing.

Posted at December 3, 2007 8:02 AM in response to No Defense is Perfect

Davai doesn't have any parties to choose from. He's an Israeli, not an American.

Posted at December 3, 2007 8:01 AM in response to Ease up, Dr. Krugman