Quote:

A Scarborough church risked a $1 million fine last night by serving its weekly free Sunday meal, after the City of Stirling deemed many of the church's activities were in breach of local planning regulations.

http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/breaking/14937648/church-faces-1m-fine-for-meals/

The 'caring' face of atheists exposed.  For shame.

What has it got to do with atheists? They break the law and claim they are victims? They could just follow the guidelines - problem solved.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Sep 24^th, 2012 at 3:02pm:

What has it got to do with atheists? They break the law and claim they are victims? They could just follow the guidelines - problem solved. SOB

They broke the law - by serving free dinner to the needy and running other community based projects.


Quote:

Under the planning scheme, Scarborough Baptist Church is allowed to use its land on the corner of Westview Street and Brighton Road as a place of worship and child daycare centre. In a letter sent on September 18, the council identified activities such as serving dinner at weekly Sunday evening services, craft classes, band practice and preschool dance classes as unapproved use of the land.

Hangings too good for 'em.

... wrote on Sep 24^th, 2012 at 3:25pm:

They broke the law - by serving free dinner to the needy and running other community based projects.

Along with "late-night noise and antisocial behaviour such as urination in public."

Without the noise and urination, the council would probably have turned a blind eye.

Seems like the actions of a few are ruining it for everybody.

However, there is some hope:

"Health and compliance manager Peter Morrison said the council has told the church that it would consider changes to allow many of the activities if the church lodged the necessary applications and showed how it would address neighbourhood concerns."

Sounds reasonable.

But sadly:

"The church has refused to make any such application ... "

Oh dear.

Sounds like a job for Howard Sattler and Rick Ardon.

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 24^th, 2012 at 3:34pm:

Along with "late-night noise and antisocial behaviour such as urination in public."

Yeah.  You get that sort of thing around shelters, soup kitchens etc.  It's becasue the clientele is often...troubled. 

So would you have them starve because they make a bit of noise, or piss in the bushes?

So you still havent explained what atheists have to do with it?

SOB

... wrote on Sep 24^th, 2012 at 3:40pm:

Yeah.  You get that sort of thing around shelters, soup kitchens etc.  It's becasue the clientele is often...troubled.

You'd think the council would be aware of that.


... wrote on Sep 24^th, 2012 at 3:40pm:

So would you have them starve because they make a bit of noise, or piss in the bushes?

Piss in the bushes. 

However, you can't fight city hall.

If they want to feed the drongos without grandstanding, why don't they feed them somewhere that doesn't upset the residents? I'm sure that they could find a suitable place if they cared so much.

The council is probably doing what any other council would do.  The Baptist Church is doing what any other Baptist Church would do - having a hissy fit and claiming religious persecution where in fact the issue is disturbance of the peace.

The entire planning department of the City of Stirling are atheists because they treat the Baptist Church the same as anybody else? I don't think so. It's a very long bow, but on the other hand, it's a great opportunity for publicity.

This says it all:

Quote:

The council said it was obliged to investigate after receiving complaints from residents over late-night noise and antisocial behaviour such as urination in public.

The council was responding to complaints from residents.

muso wrote on Sep 24^th, 2012 at 9:17pm:

The council was responding to complaints from residents.

Which is exactly what one would expect any good council to do.

Ahh so the council are apparently atheists? Hahahahahaha! I bet most of them are not actually. Not that it matters or has anything whatsoever to do with it.

SOB

Most academics are stringent atheists, or strongly anti-Christian, but sprout an 'egalitarian' agenda. Yet who do you see feeding the homeless at night, who runs the soup kitchens? Christians, not academics.

Perhaps academics, who receive an annual paypacket anywhere between $80,000 to $250,000, could donate a lot of that to charity, or even set up some homeless shelters or soup kitchens themselves. I doubt it.

Next time the haters say "wheres all the good work christians supposedly do?" I'll point to this case.

The charity isnt a victim here. They are refusing to comply with the laws.
Isnt that what you ppl say the muslims should do? Comply by our laws in spite of their religion? Everyone should do that - not just muslims.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Sep 25^th, 2012 at 10:19am:

The charity isnt a victim here.

You're right - the people who they would be helping are.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Sep 25^th, 2012 at 9:50am:

Most academics are stringent atheists, or strongly anti-Christian, but sprout an 'egalitarian' agenda. Yet who do you see feeding the homeless at night, who runs the soup kitchens? Christians, not academics. Perhaps academics, who receive an annual paypacket anywhere between $80,000 to $250,000, could donate a lot of that to charity, or even set up some homeless shelters or soup kitchens themselves. I doubt it.

Gee i wonder why that is? Perhaps they are too intelligent to believe in fairies?

TRich ppl do start soup kitchens etc

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Sep 25^th, 2012 at 12:23pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Sep 25th, 2012 at 9:50am: Most academics are stringent atheists, or strongly anti-Christian, but sprout an 'egalitarian' agenda. Yet who do you see feeding the homeless at night, who runs the soup kitchens? Christians, not academics. Perhaps academics, who receive an annual paypacket anywhere between $80,000 to $250,000, could donate a lot of that to charity, or even set up some homeless shelters or soup kitchens themselves. I doubt it. Gee i wonder why that is? Perhaps they are too intelligent to believe in fairies? TRich ppl do start soup kitchens etc SOB

What's 'TRich'?

Perhaps academics could be more balanced in their analysis of Christianity. Instead of forever lambasting it, they could point out all the charity work it does. After all, it's that aspect of Christianity that coincides with their supposed egalitarian agenda.

... wrote on Sep 25^th, 2012 at 10:27am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Sep 25th, 2012 at 10:19am: The charity isnt a victim here. You're right - the people who they would be helping are.

I'm really impressed by your social conscience, Wesley. Personally I don't have such leftish leanings, but I like the way that you care about people.

Not so long ago, when there was a community and so there was community cohesion and there were values and standards held in common, this would have been dealt with by a phone call or a personal visit.

Now, when there is no community and so no values held in common, this sort of things in the domain of Compliance Managers who must pretend and act as if a church doing as churches do is now subject to a local government's Compliance Manager's review and approval (provided the necessary request form,s ae filled out and lodged).

From local community to local compliance management in a few short decades. This can happen only in the absence of a community.

... wrote on Sep 25^th, 2012 at 10:14am:

Next time the haters say "wheres all the good work christians supposedly do?" I'll point to this case.

Saying a group prayer before serving soup to strangers at a place called a church doesn't require you be a believer in christianity at all!

I'm guessing it's the same with those serving out of the back of a van!!

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Sep 25^th, 2012 at 9:24pm:

... wrote on Sep 25th, 2012 at 10:14am: Next time the haters say "wheres all the good work christians supposedly do?" I'll point to this case. Saying a group prayer before serving soup to strangers at a place called a church doesn't require you be a believer in christianity at all! I'm guessing it's the same with those serving out of the back of a van!!

This is exactly what I mean when I point to the vanishing of all the old certainties - you can even have DRAH posts without the swivel eyes galore. The world has gone mad, I tell you.
I know the world is in a constant flux but this is just too disorienting.

Not surprising, all this..  Nothing like a local government on a puritanical bender.

Over here, LGs are obsessed with proving they're up there with state government...

The threat is not about what "the people" want... It's about what will happen to these little fiefdoms when the state government amalgamates them... From 26 to 5.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Sep 25^th, 2012 at 12:46pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Sep 25th, 2012 at 12:23pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Sep 25th, 2012 at 9:50am: Most academics are stringent atheists, or strongly anti-Christian, but sprout an 'egalitarian' agenda. Yet who do you see feeding the homeless at night, who runs the soup kitchens? Christians, not academics. Perhaps academics, who receive an annual paypacket anywhere between $80,000 to $250,000, could donate a lot of that to charity, or even set up some homeless shelters or soup kitchens themselves. I doubt it. Gee i wonder why that is? Perhaps they are too intelligent to believe in fairies? TRich ppl do start soup kitchens etc SOB What's 'TRich'? Perhaps academics could be more balanced in their analysis of Christianity. Instead of forever lambasting it, they could point out all the charity work it does. After all, it's that aspect of Christianity that coincides with their supposed egalitarian agenda.

morning mist, why do christians and academics have to mutually exclusive?

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Sep 25^th, 2012 at 12:46pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Sep 25th, 2012 at 12:23pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Sep 25th, 2012 at 9:50am: Most academics are stringent atheists, or strongly anti-Christian, but sprout an 'egalitarian' agenda. Yet who do you see feeding the homeless at night, who runs the soup kitchens? Christians, not academics. Perhaps academics, who receive an annual paypacket anywhere between $80,000 to $250,000, could donate a lot of that to charity, or even set up some homeless shelters or soup kitchens themselves. I doubt it. Gee i wonder why that is? Perhaps they are too intelligent to believe in fairies? TRich ppl do start soup kitchens etc SOB What's 'TRich'? Perhaps academics could be more balanced in their analysis of Christianity. Instead of forever lambasting it, they could point out all the charity work it does. After all, it's that aspect of Christianity that coincides with their supposed egalitarian agenda.

Cant read typo huh? It means "rich". It was a typo.

Not sure what academics you are talking about. Perhaps the ones on the libs side of politics that dont believe in welfare for the needy etc.

SOB

Cobra wrote on Sep 25^th, 2012 at 11:08pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Sep 25th, 2012 at 12:46pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Sep 25th, 2012 at 12:23pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Sep 25th, 2012 at 9:50am: Most academics are stringent atheists, or strongly anti-Christian, but sprout an 'egalitarian' agenda. Yet who do you see feeding the homeless at night, who runs the soup kitchens? Christians, not academics. Perhaps academics, who receive an annual paypacket anywhere between $80,000 to $250,000, could donate a lot of that to charity, or even set up some homeless shelters or soup kitchens themselves. I doubt it. Gee i wonder why that is? Perhaps they are too intelligent to believe in fairies? TRich ppl do start soup kitchens etc SOB What's 'TRich'? Perhaps academics could be more balanced in their analysis of Christianity. Instead of forever lambasting it, they could point out all the charity work it does. After all, it's that aspect of Christianity that coincides with their supposed egalitarian agenda. morning mist, why do christians and academics have to mutually exclusive?

Hahahahahaha! In another thread someone was saying something like that too. Perhaps its because the uneducated are more likely to believe things rather than knowing things for themselves.

SOB

Cobra wrote on Sep 25^th, 2012 at 11:08pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Sep 25th, 2012 at 12:46pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Sep 25th, 2012 at 12:23pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Sep 25th, 2012 at 9:50am: Most academics are stringent atheists, or strongly anti-Christian, but sprout an 'egalitarian' agenda. Yet who do you see feeding the homeless at night, who runs the soup kitchens? Christians, not academics. Perhaps academics, who receive an annual paypacket anywhere between $80,000 to $250,000, could donate a lot of that to charity, or even set up some homeless shelters or soup kitchens themselves. I doubt it. Gee i wonder why that is? Perhaps they are too intelligent to believe in fairies? TRich ppl do start soup kitchens etc SOB What's 'TRich'? Perhaps academics could be more balanced in their analysis of Christianity. Instead of forever lambasting it, they could point out all the charity work it does. After all, it's that aspect of Christianity that coincides with their supposed egalitarian agenda. morning mist, why do christians and academics have to mutually exclusive?

They don't. But the point I was making is that most academics and Christians have a similar egalitarian philosophy, and it would be scholarly of academics to take note of that similarity. In actual fact, the egalitarian philosophy that academics espouse is an outgrowth from a set of ideas that originated in Christianity (and the Stoics before them). The 'brotherhood of man' is a Christian idea, the belief that at bottom we are all 'brothers and sisters' has been translated in the modern era into things like Human Rights and more recently by academics into the concepts of 'equality' and 'tolerance.'

The postmodern academics are so caught up in their trendy rebellion against authority that they have completely forgotten their roots. For them, history goes no further back than the 1960s, and only reach back further to lambaste the West wherever possible.

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Sep 26^th, 2012 at 5:40am:

Cobra wrote on Sep 25th, 2012 at 11:08pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Sep 25th, 2012 at 12:46pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Sep 25th, 2012 at 12:23pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Sep 25th, 2012 at 9:50am: Most academics are stringent atheists, or strongly anti-Christian, but sprout an 'egalitarian' agenda. Yet who do you see feeding the homeless at night, who runs the soup kitchens? Christians, not academics. Perhaps academics, who receive an annual paypacket anywhere between $80,000 to $250,000, could donate a lot of that to charity, or even set up some homeless shelters or soup kitchens themselves. I doubt it. Gee i wonder why that is? Perhaps they are too intelligent to believe in fairies? TRich ppl do start soup kitchens etc SOB What's 'TRich'? Perhaps academics could be more balanced in their analysis of Christianity. Instead of forever lambasting it, they could point out all the charity work it does. After all, it's that aspect of Christianity that coincides with their supposed egalitarian agenda. morning mist, why do christians and academics have to mutually exclusive? Hahahahahaha! In another thread someone was saying something like that too. Perhaps its because the uneducated are more likely to believe things rather than knowing things for themselves. SOB

Dear Spot of Borg,

From this point on I will be ceasing all communication with you. Unfortunately, I don't think you are truly here for debate or honest discussion.

Have a good day, Sir.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Sep 26^th, 2012 at 9:29am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Sep 26th, 2012 at 5:40am: Cobra wrote on Sep 25th, 2012 at 11:08pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Sep 25th, 2012 at 12:46pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Sep 25th, 2012 at 12:23pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Sep 25th, 2012 at 9:50am: Most academics are stringent atheists, or strongly anti-Christian, but sprout an 'egalitarian' agenda. Yet who do you see feeding the homeless at night, who runs the soup kitchens? Christians, not academics. Perhaps academics, who receive an annual paypacket anywhere between $80,000 to $250,000, could donate a lot of that to charity, or even set up some homeless shelters or soup kitchens themselves. I doubt it. Gee i wonder why that is? Perhaps they are too intelligent to believe in fairies? TRich ppl do start soup kitchens etc SOB What's 'TRich'? Perhaps academics could be more balanced in their analysis of Christianity. Instead of forever lambasting it, they could point out all the charity work it does. After all, it's that aspect of Christianity that coincides with their supposed egalitarian agenda. morning mist, why do christians and academics have to mutually exclusive? Hahahahahaha! In another thread someone was saying something like that too. Perhaps its because the uneducated are more likely to believe things rather than knowing things for themselves. SOB Dear Spot of Borg, From this point on I will be ceasing all communication with you. Unfortunately, I don't think you are truly here for debate or honest discussion. Have a good day, Sir.

No its not a good idea to engage in discussion with ppl you disagree with. You might learn something.

SOB

Soren wrote on Sep 25^th, 2012 at 9:15pm:

Not so long ago, when there was a community and so there was community cohesion and there were values and standards held in common, this would have been dealt with by a phone call or a personal visit. Now, when there is no community and so no values held in common, this sort of things in the domain of Compliance Managers who must pretend and act as if a church doing as churches do is now subject to a local government's Compliance Manager's review and approval (provided the necessary request form,s ae filled out and lodged). From local community to local compliance management in a few short decades. This can happen only in the absence of a community.

Good point. The council was acting in a strictly "neutral" compliance mode. The problem is that we really don't know what brought this on. Councils are often called on to intervene when communication breaks down between residents, or in this case between residents and a local church, which was obvious from the write up. 

There could be any number of reasons why the communication broke down in this case. Some people have more influence with councils than others. These include councillors and friends of councillors for a start. Now I'm not saying that this was the case, but we really don't know all the facts that led to this breakdown in communications. (We don't know the facts, but hey, why not jump on the bandwagon and throw rotten tomatoes at our pet hate anyway, whether it be officious councillors or sanctimonious arrogant Baptists. )

Another group that can be very powerful are groups of residents. If you have a delegation from the same street with the same message, things tend to get done much faster - or was it a case of local ratepayers versus a church congregation that lived outside the local government area perhaps? 

Hypothetically if you were a good friend of the mayor and you had a group of people from the Baptist Church soup kitchen urinating on your prize agapanthus bed every Wednesday night, it would be  easy to reconstruct how such events might unfold. 

Now this matter could have probably been resolved with some kind of compromise, but there were obviously roadblocks that prevented this from happening. Two groups of people with arrogant uncompromising positions would probably have had the result of engaging the council in compliance mode.

Community cohesion has been sacrificed to diversity, without any ability to draw the line.

Community cohesion requires a degree of conformity as its foundation, but that is now as dirty a word as racism, sexism, conservatism and all the rest. Community - everyone wants it. But nobody wants what a community is actually based on - a goodish degree of conformity to standards regarded as worth conforming to.

Paradoxically, where diversity is essential - marriage requires two people of the opposite sex -, the need for diversity of the sexes is dismissed as sexist and conservative.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Sep 25^th, 2012 at 9:50am:

Most academics are stringent atheists, or strongly anti-Christian, but sprout an 'egalitarian' agenda. Yet who do you see feeding the homeless at night, who runs the soup kitchens? Christians, not academics. Perhaps academics, who receive an annual paypacket anywhere between $80,000 to $250,000, could donate a lot of that to charity, or even set up some homeless shelters or soup kitchens themselves. I doubt it.

very true.
don't see any leftys running a soup kitchen.

Are you sure its atheists and not communists Wesley?

What does that mean sprint? Plenty of atheists feed the poor and so do ppl left of politics.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Nov 19^th, 2012 at 11:30am:

What does that mean sprint? Plenty of atheists feed the poor and so do ppl left of politics. SOB

Really?
Can you name a left wing atheist charity dedicated to the feeding of the poor among us?

Soren wrote on Nov 19^th, 2012 at 11:42pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Nov 19th, 2012 at 11:30am: What does that mean sprint? Plenty of atheists feed the poor and so do ppl left of politics. SOB Really? Can you name a left wing atheist charity dedicated to the feeding of the poor among us?

Doctors without borders

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Nov 20^th, 2012 at 5:20am:

Soren wrote on Nov 19th, 2012 at 11:42pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Nov 19th, 2012 at 11:30am: What does that mean sprint? Plenty of atheists feed the poor and so do ppl left of politics. SOB Really? Can you name a left wing atheist charity dedicated to the feeding of the poor among us? Doctors without borders SOB

I can't see anything in their Charter indicating atheism. Can you?


Charter

Doctors Without Borders/Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) is a private international association. The association is made up mainly of doctors and health sector workers and is also open to all other professions which might help in achieving its aims.

All of its members agree to honor the following principles:
Charter

Médecins Sans Frontières provides assistance to populations in distress, to victims of natural or man-made disasters and to victims of armed conflict. They do so irrespective of race, religion, creed or political convictions.

Médecins Sans Frontières observes neutrality and impartiality in the name of universal medical ethics and the right to humanitarian assistance and claims full and unhindered freedom in the exercise of its functions.

Members undertake to respect their professional code of ethics and to maintain complete independence from all political, economic, or religious powers.

As volunteers, members understand the risks and dangers of the missions they carry out and make no claim for themselves or their assigns for any form of compensation other than that which the association might be able to afford them.
http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/aboutus/charter.cfm

Soren wrote on Nov 20^th, 2012 at 8:58pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Nov 20th, 2012 at 5:20am: Soren wrote on Nov 19th, 2012 at 11:42pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Nov 19th, 2012 at 11:30am: What does that mean sprint? Plenty of atheists feed the poor and so do ppl left of politics. SOB Really? Can you name a left wing atheist charity dedicated to the feeding of the poor among us? Doctors without borders SOB I can't see anything in their Charter indicating atheism. Can you? Charter Doctors Without Borders/Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) is a private international association. The association is made up mainly of doctors and health sector workers and is also open to all other professions which might help in achieving its aims. All of its members agree to honor the following principles: Charter Médecins Sans Frontières provides assistance to populations in distress, to victims of natural or man-made disasters and to victims of armed conflict. They do so irrespective of race, religion, creed or political convictions. Médecins Sans Frontières observes neutrality and impartiality in the name of universal medical ethics and the right to humanitarian assistance and claims full and unhindered freedom in the exercise of its functions. Members undertake to respect their professional code of ethics and to maintain complete independence from all political, economic, or religious powers. As volunteers, members understand the risks and dangers of the missions they carry out and make no claim for themselves or their assigns for any form of compensation other than that which the association might be able to afford them. http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/aboutus/charter.cfm

Because atheism = lack of belief in a deity. Why would they put it in their charter. I was giving an example of a supposed "leftist" org anyway looks like someone edited their post. Its not a church. It doesnt mention religion.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Nov 21^st, 2012 at 5:22am:

Soren wrote on Nov 20th, 2012 at 8:58pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Nov 20th, 2012 at 5:20am: Soren wrote on Nov 19th, 2012 at 11:42pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Nov 19th, 2012 at 11:30am: What does that mean sprint? Plenty of atheists feed the poor and so do ppl left of politics. SOB Really? Can you name a left wing atheist charity dedicated to the feeding of the poor among us? Doctors without borders SOB I can't see anything in their Charter indicating atheism. Can you? Charter Doctors Without Borders/Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) is a private international association. The association is made up mainly of doctors and health sector workers and is also open to all other professions which might help in achieving its aims. All of its members agree to honor the following principles: Charter Médecins Sans Frontières provides assistance to populations in distress, to victims of natural or man-made disasters and to victims of armed conflict. They do so irrespective of race, religion, creed or political convictions. Médecins Sans Frontières observes neutrality and impartiality in the name of universal medical ethics and the right to humanitarian assistance and claims full and unhindered freedom in the exercise of its functions. Members undertake to respect their professional code of ethics and to maintain complete independence from all political, economic, or religious powers. As volunteers, members understand the risks and dangers of the missions they carry out and make no claim for themselves or their assigns for any form of compensation other than that which the association might be able to afford them. http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/aboutus/charter.cfm Because atheism = lack of belief in a deity. Why would they put it in their charter. I was giving an example of a supposed "leftist" org anyway looks like someone edited their post. Its not a church. It doesnt mention religion. SOB

Medicins sans frontiers is neither leftist nor atheist. There is no mention of politics or religion in their charter. They are simply following the Hyppocratic oath without borders.

The arse-elbow confusion by you again, Spot of Phosphorescence.

Médecins sans Frontières is my favourite charity. I've seen them in action. They have very few overheads compared with many other charities.

Anyway, this is not left wing, but one of many humanist charities:

http://foundationbeyondbelief.org/

Also, Fred Hollows was a well-known atheist. He was also a communist for what it's worth. The Fred Hollows Foundation, like most secular charities, distances itself from politics and religion.

The same can be said of Bill and Melinda Gates, George Soros, and Andrew Carnegie. All are/were atheists.

Soren wrote on Nov 26^th, 2012 at 7:52pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Nov 21st, 2012 at 5:22am: Soren wrote on Nov 20th, 2012 at 8:58pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Nov 20th, 2012 at 5:20am: Soren wrote on Nov 19th, 2012 at 11:42pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Nov 19th, 2012 at 11:30am: What does that mean sprint? Plenty of atheists feed the poor and so do ppl left of politics. SOB Really? Can you name a left wing atheist charity dedicated to the feeding of the poor among us? Doctors without borders SOB I can't see anything in their Charter indicating atheism. Can you? Charter Doctors Without Borders/Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) is a private international association. The association is made up mainly of doctors and health sector workers and is also open to all other professions which might help in achieving its aims. All of its members agree to honor the following principles: Charter Médecins Sans Frontières provides assistance to populations in distress, to victims of natural or man-made disasters and to victims of armed conflict. They do so irrespective of race, religion, creed or political convictions. Médecins Sans Frontières observes neutrality and impartiality in the name of universal medical ethics and the right to humanitarian assistance and claims full and unhindered freedom in the exercise of its functions. Members undertake to respect their professional code of ethics and to maintain complete independence from all political, economic, or religious powers. As volunteers, members understand the risks and dangers of the missions they carry out and make no claim for themselves or their assigns for any form of compensation other than that which the association might be able to afford them. http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/aboutus/charter.cfm Because atheism = lack of belief in a deity. Why would they put it in their charter. I was giving an example of a supposed "leftist" org anyway looks like someone edited their post. Its not a church. It doesnt mention religion. SOB Medicins sans frontiers is neither leftist nor atheist. There is no mention of politics or religion in their charter. They are simply following the Hyppocratic oath without borders. The arse-elbow confusion by you again, Spot of Phosphorescence.

But thats the thing - you were saying (via sock) that atheists are leftists. Since doctors without borders dont mention religion then they are non-religious - which makes them leftist.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Nov 27^th, 2012 at 4:34am:

Soren wrote on Nov 26th, 2012 at 7:52pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Nov 21st, 2012 at 5:22am: Soren wrote on Nov 20th, 2012 at 8:58pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Nov 20th, 2012 at 5:20am: Soren wrote on Nov 19th, 2012 at 11:42pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Nov 19th, 2012 at 11:30am: What does that mean sprint? Plenty of atheists feed the poor and so do ppl left of politics. SOB Really? Can you name a left wing atheist charity dedicated to the feeding of the poor among us? Doctors without borders SOB I can't see anything in their Charter indicating atheism. Can you? Charter Doctors Without Borders/Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) is a private international association. The association is made up mainly of doctors and health sector workers and is also open to all other professions which might help in achieving its aims. All of its members agree to honor the following principles: Charter Médecins Sans Frontières provides assistance to populations in distress, to victims of natural or man-made disasters and to victims of armed conflict. They do so irrespective of race, religion, creed or political convictions. Médecins Sans Frontières observes neutrality and impartiality in the name of universal medical ethics and the right to humanitarian assistance and claims full and unhindered freedom in the exercise of its functions. Members undertake to respect their professional code of ethics and to maintain complete independence from all political, economic, or religious powers. As volunteers, members understand the risks and dangers of the missions they carry out and make no claim for themselves or their assigns for any form of compensation other than that which the association might be able to afford them. http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/aboutus/charter.cfm Because atheism = lack of belief in a deity. Why would they put it in their charter. I was giving an example of a supposed "leftist" org anyway looks like someone edited their post. Its not a church. It doesnt mention religion. SOB Medicins sans frontiers is neither leftist nor atheist. There is no mention of politics or religion in their charter. They are simply following the Hyppocratic oath without borders. The arse-elbow confusion by you again, Spot of Phosphorescence. But thats the thing - you were saying (via sock) that atheists are leftists. Since doctors without borders dont mention religion then they are non-religious - which makes them leftist. SOB

Cheeses! you are a dam phosphorescent cretin! SO anyone who DOESN'T mention religion is therefore an atheist?

You were asked to name a leftists atheist charity. You named Medicines. You could have shut up  - a very sound advice you never heed - so it's now up to you to demonstrate that they are leftists and/or atheists. You can't do either because they are neither leftists nor atheists.

But you are left standing, as thick and incomprehending as ever.  That's what amazes me about you - there is no limit to your thickness. You must be living on a diet of thickening agents.

Nope. I was disagreeing with whoever it was that said all atheists are leftists.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Nov 27^th, 2012 at 10:22am:

Nope. I was disagreeing with whoever it was that said all atheists are leftists. SOB

Good grief, Christopher Hitchens would have had something to say about that.

muso wrote on Nov 27^th, 2012 at 5:43pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Nov 27th, 2012 at 10:22am: Nope. I was disagreeing with whoever it was that said all atheists are leftists. SOB Good grief, Christopher Hitchens would have had something to say about that.

What? And why should anyone care what he has to say?

SOB

He was an atheist, and about as right wing as it was possible to be.  ::)

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Nov 27^th, 2012 at 10:22am:

Nope. I was disagreeing with whoever it was that said all atheists are leftists. SOB

muso wrote on Nov 27^th, 2012 at 7:31pm:

He was an atheist, and about as right wing as it was possible to be.  ::)

He was a lefty but an honourable, universalist, traditional, principled leftie.
The kind of lefty I would be if all the lefties didn't think all that was too right wing.

Today the Left is about the cliches of PC bromides of emotional correctness. The last thing thy woul want to do i stand for ny universal value. Which is the Hitchenses and Orwells used to do.

Unless George Orwell now also counts as a right winger, because of 1984 and Animal Farm.

Well the ABC seems to think that he was right wing in his later life:


Quote:

Although he ended his writing life on the political right-wing, the writer started out on the left, working for the International Socialist magazine and later the New Statesman in London where he fiercely opposed the Vietnam War. But after the September 11 attacks in the United States a decade ago, he embraced a far more interventionist foreign policy and supported the Iraq war and denounced what he called "fascism with an Islamic face".

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-12-16/christopher-hitchens-dead-at-62/3735580

Oh?!? The ABC says he was right-wing?!?? SO the International Brigade in Spain in the 30s were also right-wing interventionists because they rallied to fight a fascist dictator in Spain? The Soviet and Cuban advisers across the globe during the Cold War were also right-wing. The Internationale itself is a hymn to right-wing interventionist foreign policy.


Or is everyone who thinks that there is today such a thing as  "fascism with an Islamic face" is now right-wing ??

Don't be silly, Muso.


http://static.thepeoplescube.com/images/Stop_Islamic_Intimidation2.jpg

Soren wrote on Nov 27^th, 2012 at 8:39pm:

Oh?!? The ABC says he was right-wing?!?? SO the International Brigade in Spain in the 30s were also right-wing interventionists because they rallied to fight a fascist dictator in Spain? The Soviet and Cuban advisers across the globe during the Cold War were also right-wing. The Internationale itself is a hymn to right-wing interventionist foreign policy. Or is everyone who thinks that there is today such a thing as  "fascism with an Islamic face" is now right-wing ?? Don't be silly, Muso.

Which part of "later life" have you difficulty with? It was only in the last decade that his right wing allegiances came out, and this was widely reported. 

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2000/nov2000/hitc-n27.shtml

He was widely regarded as being conservative, especially by those on the left of politics.  You do realise that he made it known that he supported GW Bush?

muso wrote on Nov 27^th, 2012 at 7:31pm:

He was an atheist, and about as right wing as it was possible to be.  ::)

Oh boy. Scroll back in the thread. I was not the person making the assertion that all atheists are leftists.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Nov 28^th, 2012 at 4:38am:

muso wrote on Nov 27th, 2012 at 7:31pm: He was an atheist, and about as right wing as it was possible to be.  ::) Oh boy. Scroll back in the thread. I was not the person making the assertion that all atheists are leftists. SOB

Are you thick? Don't answer that.

muso wrote on Nov 28^th, 2012 at 5:09am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Nov 28th, 2012 at 4:38am: muso wrote on Nov 27th, 2012 at 7:31pm: He was an atheist, and about as right wing as it was possible to be.  ::) Oh boy. Scroll back in the thread. I was not the person making the assertion that all atheists are leftists. SOB Are you thick? Don't answer that.

Well i dont know much about hitchens. Somebody got me to watch a tape of him talking - seems like pretty basic stuff - no idea why anyone would want to say it though.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Nov 28^th, 2012 at 6:34am:

no idea SOB

Indeed.

muso wrote on Nov 27^th, 2012 at 9:34pm:

Soren wrote on Nov 27th, 2012 at 8:39pm: Oh?!? The ABC says he was right-wing?!?? SO the International Brigade in Spain in the 30s were also right-wing interventionists because they rallied to fight a fascist dictator in Spain? The Soviet and Cuban advisers across the globe during the Cold War were also right-wing. The Internationale itself is a hymn to right-wing interventionist foreign policy. Or is everyone who thinks that there is today such a thing as  "fascism with an Islamic face" is now right-wing ?? Don't be silly, Muso. Which part of "later life" have you difficulty with? It was only in the last decade that his right wing allegiances came out, and this was widely reported.  http://www.wsws.org/articles/2000/nov2000/hitc-n27.shtml He was widely regarded as being conservative, especially by those on the left of politics.  You do realise that he made it known that he supported GW Bush?

Yes, he supported GWB for entirely lefty, internationalists reasons. My reference to Orwell and Spain were not random. He was as lft-wing, and in the same way, as Orwell (whose biographer he was). Orwell wrote Animal farm, about Stalin, and 1984 about totalitarianism.

Hitchens was not left-wing that is so widespread now.

He was a Trot in his youth and then moved to the honourable left, the social democratic but still internationalist left. With the advent of all the post-colonial, multiculturalist garbage, the internationalism of the Left was abandoned almost entirely as white man's burden stuff. The international reflex of the Left now is to let a thousand tyrants bloom as long as they grow from the rich local tradition of oppression.

Soren wrote on Nov 28^th, 2012 at 7:05am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Nov 28th, 2012 at 6:34am: no idea SOB Indeed.

Are you this obnoxious in real-life? Im betting not.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Nov 28^th, 2012 at 7:38am:

Soren wrote on Nov 28th, 2012 at 7:05am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Nov 28th, 2012 at 6:34am: no idea SOB Indeed. Are you this obnoxious in real-life? Im betting not. SOB

I agreed with you!!

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Nov 28^th, 2012 at 6:34am:

Well i dont know much SOB

I agree with you again.
Does that make me a  **sob **  bad person?

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Nov 28^th, 2012 at 7:38am:

Soren wrote on Nov 28th, 2012 at 7:05am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Nov 28th, 2012 at 6:34am: no idea SOB Indeed. Are you this obnoxious in real-life? Im betting not. SOB

I am far from obnoxious. In this instance, for example, I was charitable.

Soren wrote on Nov 28^th, 2012 at 7:14am:

muso wrote on Nov 27th, 2012 at 9:34pm: Soren wrote on Nov 27th, 2012 at 8:39pm: Oh?!? The ABC says he was right-wing?!?? SO the International Brigade in Spain in the 30s were also right-wing interventionists because they rallied to fight a fascist dictator in Spain? The Soviet and Cuban advisers across the globe during the Cold War were also right-wing. The Internationale itself is a hymn to right-wing interventionist foreign policy. Or is everyone who thinks that there is today such a thing as  "fascism with an Islamic face" is now right-wing ?? Don't be silly, Muso. Which part of "later life" have you difficulty with? It was only in the last decade that his right wing allegiances came out, and this was widely reported.  http://www.wsws.org/articles/2000/nov2000/hitc-n27.shtml He was widely regarded as being conservative, especially by those on the left of politics.  You do realise that he made it known that he supported GW Bush? Yes, he supported GWB for entirely lefty, internationalists reasons. My reference to Orwell and Spain were not random. He was as lft-wing, and in the same way, as Orwell (whose biographer he was). Orwell wrote Animal farm, about Stalin, and 1984 about totalitarianism. Hitchens was not left-wing that is so widespread now. He was a Trot in his youth and then moved to the honourable left, the social democratic but still internationalist left. With the advent of all the post-colonial, multiculturalist garbage, the internationalism of the Left was abandoned almost entirely as white man's burden stuff. The international reflex of the Left now is to let a thousand tyrants bloom as long as they grow from the rich local tradition of oppression.

OK, I concede that it was widely considered that he was a right wing in his later life, especially with regard to US foreign policy, and that he was invited to speak at numerous Republican functions. The concession is that I acknowledge that Soren believes in the principle  "Once a commie, always a commie".  Happy?

muso wrote on Nov 29^th, 2012 at 7:08pm:

OK, I concede that it was widely considered that he was a right wing in his later life, especially with regard to US foreign policy, and that he was invited to speak at numerous Republican functions. The concession is that I acknowledge that Soren believes in the principle  "Once a commie, always a commie".  Happy?

Happy (always happy) but disagree.

The internationalism of the old Left is now considered to be right wing.  Intervention on the basis of universal principles is considered right wing. I think this shows the poverty of the Left today, not that it is correct in any way. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e08fqxr3fOo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mS374kobqbE

This sort of thing makes Hitchens 'right wing' only in the minds of fools. You aren't one.

But Muso, do you think that these views (in the clips, for example) are 'right wing'??

OK I see what you're getting at now, and I agree that even Orwell would be considered Right Wing today on some issues.

Apart from that, there has been a gradual migration towards the right by almost all political parties in the last 20 years or so.   That's another issue.

The other factor is that extreme left and extreme right has always been difficult to distinguish between. Hitler was a (national) socialist. Then there was China after the cultural revolution. One of the least progressive and most authoritarian places on earth at one time, but the allegiances on the face of it were left wing.   

The more useful dimension today is the Authoritarian/ Libertarian divide.

muso wrote on Nov 30^th, 2012 at 10:00pm:

OK I see what you're getting at now, and I agree that even Orwell would be considered Right Wing today on some issues. Apart from that, there has been a gradual migration towards the right by almost all political parties in the last 20 years or so.   That's another issue. The other factor is that extreme left and extreme right has always been difficult to distinguish between. Hitler was a (national) socialist. Then there was China after the cultural revolution. One of the least progressive and most authoritarian places on earth at one time, but the allegiances on the face of it were left wing.    The more useful dimension today is the Authoritarian/ Libertarian divide.

I am a libertarian.

So is my God [....but he is very harsh against oppressors ['authoritarians'].]


2 Corinthians 3:17
Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.


[muso is unsure if i am kidding, or not.         :P      ]

Yadda wrote on Nov 30^th, 2012 at 10:08pm:

muso wrote on Nov 30th, 2012 at 10:00pm: OK I see what you're getting at now, and I agree that even Orwell would be considered Right Wing today on some issues. Apart from that, there has been a gradual migration towards the right by almost all political parties in the last 20 years or so.   That's another issue. The other factor is that extreme left and extreme right has always been difficult to distinguish between. Hitler was a (national) socialist. Then there was China after the cultural revolution. One of the least progressive and most authoritarian places on earth at one time, but the allegiances on the face of it were left wing.    The more useful dimension today is the Authoritarian/ Libertarian divide. I am a libertarian.

This is freedom and liberty;

Exodus 23:4
If thou meet thine enemy's ox or his ass going astray, thou shalt surely bring it back to him again.
5  If thou see the ass of him that hateth thee lying under his burden, and wouldest forbear to help him, thou shalt surely help with him.
6  Thou shalt not wrest the judgment of thy poor in his cause.
7  Keep thee far from a false matter; and the innocent and righteous slay thou not: for I will not justify the wicked.
8  And thou shalt take no gift: for the gift blindeth the wise, and perverteth the words of the righteous.
9  Also thou shalt not oppress a stranger: for ye know the heart of a stranger, seeing ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.

Deuteronomy 19:16
If a false witness rise up against any man to testify against him that which is wrong;
17  Then both the men, between whom the controversy is, shall stand before the LORD, before the priests and the judges, which shall be in those days;
18  And the judges shall make diligent inquisition: and, behold, if the witness be a false witness, and hath testified falsely against his brother;
19  Then shall ye do unto him, as he had thought to have done unto his brother: so shalt thou put the evil away from among you.
20  And those which remain shall hear, and fear, and shall henceforth commit no more any such evil among you.
21  And thine eye shall not pity; but life shall go for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.

Deuteronomy 25:1
If there be a controversy between men, and they come unto judgment, that the judges may judge them; then they shall justify the righteous, and condemn the wicked.

Deuteronomy 27:25
Cursed be he that taketh reward to slay an innocent person. And all the people shall say, Amen.




+++


Many men today, think that lawlessness is true freedom, and 'liberty'.


I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT.

Yadda wrote on Nov 30^th, 2012 at 10:30pm:

Many men today, think that lawlessness is true freedom, and 'liberty'.

What i mean is;
Many men today, believe that freedom from the consequences of their choices / actions, is true freedom.


AGAIN;
I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT.

muso wrote on Nov 30^th, 2012 at 10:00pm:

The more useful dimension today is the Authoritarian/ Libertarian divide.

Well, the Greens must be Right Wing then, because they are more authoritarian than anyone else in parliament.

I do not think your bifurcation is right. I'd say that you need authoritarianism in certain thing and liberty in others. 
For example, libertarianism (student-centredness) in education is the stupidest thing. It panders to the stupidest inventions, namely that knowledge exists for the pupil's sake. The exact opposite is true, of course, and you need a certain amount of authority to impress it on the pupil: he is there for the sake of knowledge. He is to absorb it, to add to it, and to pass it on. Learning is not about him but about knowledge.

The ancients thought that slaves had is easy because they were not free and so didn't have the burden of needing to decide right, as free men need to.

Today freedom means not needing to decide right.

Soren wrote on Nov 30^th, 2012 at 10:43pm:

muso wrote on Nov 30th, 2012 at 10:00pm:   The more useful dimension today is the Authoritarian/ Libertarian divide. Well, the Greens must be Right Wing then, because they are more authoritarian than anyone else in parliament.

I can see that I'll have to add some context:
http://www.politicalcompass.org/analysis2

The authoritarian - libertarian divide is a social axis, and the right - left divide is  an economic axis.

The three major parties in Australia are right of centre.
http://www.politicalcompass.org/images/aus2010.png

Do the test and see where you stand.  This is what my profile looks like:

---

You are not seriously suggesting that these are not loaded questions, calculated to bring results according to predetermined constructs?

These are caricatures
In a civilised society, one must always have people above to be obeyed and people below to be commanded.


In a civilised society we do have some people who obey and others who command. Representative democracy is precisely about that, or example.

Or ridiculous:
It is a waste of time to try to rehabilitate some criminals.


It is evidently a waste of time to try to rehabilitate some criminals. But the 'strongly disagree' response will make some people feel an inner glow of self-righteousness.



This is a silly questionnaire, a kind of lefty Astrological chart of social self-awareness.
Laughable.

Soren wrote on Dec 1^st, 2012 at 9:29am:

You are not seriously suggesting that these are not loaded questions, calculated to bring results according to predetermined constructs? These are caricatures In a civilised society, one must always have people above to be obeyed and people below to be commanded. In a civilised society we do have some people who obey and others who command. Representative democracy is precisely about that, or example. Or ridiculous: It is a waste of time to try to rehabilitate some criminals. It is evidently a waste of time to try to rehabilitate some criminals. But the 'strongly disagree' response will make some people feel an inner glow of self-righteousness. This is a silly questionnaire, a kind of lefty Astrological chart of social self-awareness. Laughable.

JUst answer the questions and see where you stand. You'll probably be  proud of the result  ;D

Quote:

Some of the questions are slanted Most of them are slanted! Some right-wingers accuse us of a leftward slant. Some left-wingers accuse us of a rightward slant. But it's important to realise that this isn't a survey, and these aren't questions. They're propositions — an altogether different proposition. To question the logic of individual ones that irritate you is to miss the point. Some propositions are extreme, and some are more moderate. That's how we can show you whether you lean towards extremism or moderation on the Compass. The propositions should not be overthought. Some of them are intentionally vague. Their purpose is to trigger buzzwords in the mind of the user, measuring feelings and prejudices rather than detailed opinions on policy. Incidentally, our test is not another internet personality classification tool. The essence of our site is the model for political analysis. The test is simply a demonstration of it.

muso wrote on Dec 1^st, 2012 at 9:42am:

trigger buzzwords in the mind

Exactly.

Look what these buzzwords triggered in my mind:


:D :D :D

Call me Comrade from now on, willya!

---

I am disappointed that i was unable to touch the top edge, and surprised at how left leaning i really am!       ;D
[i admit it, i was trying to manipulate the result]





1 Samuel 16:7
But the LORD said unto Samuel, Look not on his countenance, or on the height of his stature; because I have refused him: for the LORD seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the LORD looketh on the heart.

---

Soren wrote on Dec 1^st, 2012 at 10:54am:

Call me Comrade from now on, willya!

http://horsethatleaps.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/Chairman-Santa_590_green.jpg
Chairman Soren

Yadda wrote on Nov 30^th, 2012 at 10:08pm:

muso wrote on Nov 30th, 2012 at 10:00pm: OK I see what you're getting at now, and I agree that even Orwell would be considered Right Wing today on some issues. Apart from that, there has been a gradual migration towards the right by almost all political parties in the last 20 years or so.   That's another issue. The other factor is that extreme left and extreme right has always been difficult to distinguish between. Hitler was a (national) socialist. Then there was China after the cultural revolution. One of the least progressive and most authoritarian places on earth at one time, but the allegiances on the face of it were left wing.    The more useful dimension today is the Authoritarian/ Libertarian divide. I am a libertarian. So is my God [....but he is very harsh against oppressors ['authoritarians'].] 2 Corinthians 3:17 Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. [muso is unsure if i am kidding, or not.         :P      ]

yadda, how do you reconcile:


Quote:

I am a libertarian. So is my God [....but he is very harsh against oppressors ['authoritarians'].]

with

Exodus 23:30 By little and little I will drive them out from before you, until you be increased, and inherit the land.

in the context of israeli agression against their arab neighbours and the dead sea scrolls.

clock is ticking.. tick.. tick.. tick.. a you got served notice will come into effect at the expiration of 24 hours of this post. may yahweh have mercy on your worthless troll soul.

muso wrote on Dec 1^st, 2012 at 1:44pm:

Soren wrote on Dec 1st, 2012 at 10:54am: Call me Comrade from now on, willya! http://horsethatleaps.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/Chairman-Santa_590_green.jpg Chairman Soren

Mao was a capitalist stooge, the running dog of imperialists.

magpie wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2012 at 8:44am:

Yadda wrote on Nov 30th, 2012 at 10:08pm: muso wrote on Nov 30th, 2012 at 10:00pm: OK I see what you're getting at now, and I agree that even Orwell would be considered Right Wing today on some issues. Apart from that, there has been a gradual migration towards the right by almost all political parties in the last 20 years or so.   That's another issue. The other factor is that extreme left and extreme right has always been difficult to distinguish between. Hitler was a (national) socialist. Then there was China after the cultural revolution. One of the least progressive and most authoritarian places on earth at one time, but the allegiances on the face of it were left wing.    The more useful dimension today is the Authoritarian/ Libertarian divide. I am a libertarian. So is my God [....but he is very harsh against oppressors ['authoritarians'].] 2 Corinthians 3:17 Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. [muso is unsure if i am kidding, or not.         :P      ] yadda, how do you reconcile: Quote: I am a libertarian. So is my God [....but he is very harsh against oppressors ['authoritarians'].] with Exodus 23:30 By little and little I will drive them out from before you, until you be increased, and inherit the land. in the context of israeli agression against their arab neighbours and the dead sea scrolls. clock is ticking.. tick.. tick.. tick.. a you got served notice will come into effect at the expiration of 24 hours of this post. may yahweh have mercy on your worthless troll soul.

time's up, the you got served notice is now effective.

magpie wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2012 at 8:44am:

yadda, how do you reconcile: Quote: I am a libertarian. So is my God [....but he is very harsh against oppressors ['authoritarians'].] with Exodus 23:30 By little and little I will drive them out from before you, until you be increased, and inherit the land. in the context of israeli agression against their arab neighbours and the dead sea scrolls.

magpie,

The God of Israel declared that the land belonged to him, to God.

Leviticus 25:23
The land shall not be sold for ever: FOR THE LAND IS MINE; for ye are strangers and sojourners with me.




And that he, God, would be the one to decide who would live in his land.

And he, God, didn't want criminals, being in possession of his land.

Deuteronomy 9:4
....for the wickedness of these nations the LORD doth drive them out from before thee.


God informed Israel, that he, God, didn't want criminals, being in possession of his land,
AND,
that is the reason why Israel eventually got booted off the land [that belongs to God] too.

Leviticus 26:32-33
And I will scatter you among the heathen,...

Deuteronomy 4:26-27

Deuteronomy 28:64-66



But, God has forgiven Israel [God's people], and he is bringing them back to his land, now.

Isaiah 40:2
Speak ye comfortably to Jerusalem, and cry unto her, that her warfare is accomplished, that her iniquity is pardoned: for she hath received of the LORD'S hand double for all her sins.



And that is why the 'Pal's' have to go too [yet more criminals!].

The land is HOLY, too HOLY to allow moslems any further possession.

Its all in the Bible.


+++


What is your response ?

That the Israelis are aggressors, and that the Pal's are 'righteous' and 'innocent' people ???



Just keep saying that magpie.

But even after 1,000 years of saying that, saying it will not make it true.

The Pal's are people who are LIARS, and who worship a demon.

The moslems murder other moslems, and then claim that they are holy.




+++


magpie,

What do moslems do when they are confronted with truth ??? ;

They deny the truth.

That is what the kuffar do.







Part of the contemporary criticism by moslems, of 'unbelievers', is that the 'unbelievers' are vile people who are cursed by Allah.
....they are the 'Kuffar'.

"kuffar" = = "...is an Arabic word meaning.....[an unbeliever] a person....who hides, denies, or covers the truth."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuffar


NOTE THE WORDS,
"........a person....who hides, denies, or covers the truth."





magpie,

The moslems are the kuffar, and the moslems [lost in their own lies], do not even recognise that fact.

Soren wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2012 at 12:43pm:

muso wrote on Dec 1st, 2012 at 1:44pm: Soren wrote on Dec 1st, 2012 at 10:54am: Call me Comrade from now on, willya! http://horsethatleaps.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/Chairman-Santa_590_green.jpg Chairman Soren Mao was a capitalist stooge, the running dog of imperialists.

I still think we've brought up some interesting points about the changing nature of the Right and Left of politics.  I happened to catch an interesting wireless programme on ABC National the other day that discussed just how much both sides of politics have changed. It brought up the subject of (very right wing) Malthusian views that basically deal with the limitations of natural resources, and took the view that there will always be poor and rich people regardless of what we do.  It was a view that supported environmentalism.  So that was in stark contrast to the socialism of the early 20th Century, which took the stance that the nature of society is the only limitation, and this was in direct loggerheads with the Malthusian view. Of course, the left wing of today is generally where environmentalism resides.

It also made a good point about freedom, and the fact that the rights of the individual now emanate more from the new right, whereas the new left is all about increasing restrictions to personal freedom, such as smoking in public, drinking and constraints that protect the environment. 

I'll see if I can find the link to the programme. Here it is. It's worth listening to:
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/counterpoint/environemntalism/4400710


Quote:

Is there anything left wing about environmentalism? In recent times it is assumed that a leftie must also be a greenie but is this a betrayal of the ideas and principles that were once associated with being left wing?

It is also interesting to note that the bourgeois were originally part of the Left with the working classes.

That alliance didn't last long.

muso wrote on Dec 5^th, 2012 at 7:27pm:

I still think we've brought up some interesting points about the changing nature of the Right and Left of politics.....

I find it personally annoying [??? is that the word?], at just how much of a corrupting influence the left 'of politics' [in its dominance] has upon our whole culture.

Multiculturalism and the nanny state offered us so much, but it has all 'fallen flat' and gone awry, imo.

For some reason, we [as a culture] have chosen to give political authority to [morally] stupid, corrupt, and evil people.   [....people like ourselves ?]

And we now 'own' a culture which has been polluted, by our present aversion to truth and accountability.

And it will not end well.

And i am glad.         [because i do not like the state [the 'moment'] which 'problems' create. i prefer the state of resolution, of problems.   i really hate dislike this place, but i am willing to endure it.]

Yadda wrote on Dec 5^th, 2012 at 9:31am:

magpie wrote on Dec 3rd, 2012 at 8:44am: yadda, how do you reconcile: Quote: I am a libertarian. So is my God [....but he is very harsh against oppressors ['authoritarians'].] with Exodus 23:30 By little and little I will drive them out from before you, until you be increased, and inherit the land. in the context of israeli agression against their arab neighbours and the dead sea scrolls. magpie, The God of Israel declared that the land belonged to him, to God. Leviticus 25:23 The land shall not be sold for ever: FOR THE LAND IS MINE; for ye are strangers and sojourners with me. And that he, God, would be the one to decide who would live in his land. And he, God, didn't want criminals, being in possession of his land. Deuteronomy 9:4 ....for the wickedness of these nations the LORD doth drive them out from before thee. God informed Israel, that he, God, didn't want criminals, being in possession of his land, AND, that is the reason why Israel eventually got booted off the land [that belongs to God] too. Leviticus 26:32-33 And I will scatter you among the heathen,... Deuteronomy 4:26-27 Deuteronomy 28:64-66 But, God has forgiven Israel [God's people], and he is bringing them back to his land, now. Isaiah 40:2 Speak ye comfortably to Jerusalem, and cry unto her, that her warfare is accomplished, that her iniquity is pardoned: for she hath received of the LORD'S hand double for all her sins. And that is why the 'Pal's' have to go too [yet more criminals!]. The land is HOLY, too HOLY to allow moslems any further possession. Its all in the Bible. +++ What is your response ? That the Israelis are aggressors, and that the Pal's are 'righteous' and 'innocent' people ??? Just keep saying that magpie. But even after 1,000 years of saying that, saying it will not make it true. The Pal's are people who are LIARS, and who worship a demon. The moslems murder other moslems, and then claim that they are holy. +++ magpie, What do moslems do when they are confronted with truth ??? ; They deny the truth. That is what the kuffar do. Part of the contemporary criticism by moslems, of 'unbelievers', is that the 'unbelievers' are vile people who are cursed by Allah. ....they are the 'Kuffar'. "kuffar" = = "...is an Arabic word meaning.....[an unbeliever] a person....who hides, denies, or covers the truth." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuffar NOTE THE WORDS, "........a person....who hides, denies, or covers the truth." magpie, The moslems are the kuffar, and the moslems [lost in their own lies], do not even recognise that fact.

I haven't forgotten or ignored you yadda and I will respond to your post shortly.
with two days to go before you-know-what, the dreidel market is going ballistic and I can't keep up with the demand!

muso wrote on Dec 5^th, 2012 at 7:27pm:

I still think we've brought up some interesting points about the changing nature of the Right and Left of politics.  I happened to catch an interesting wireless programme on ABC National the other day that discussed just how much both sides of politics have changed. It brought up the subject of (very right wing) Malthusian views that basically deal with the limitations of natural resources, and took the view that there will always be poor and rich people regardless of what we do.  It was a view that supported environmentalism.  So that was in stark contrast to the socialism of the early 20th Century, which took the stance that the nature of society is the only limitation, and this was in direct loggerheads with the Malthusian view. Of course, the left wing of today is generally where environmentalism resides. It also made a good point about freedom, and the fact that the rights of the individual now emanate more from the new right, whereas the new left is all about increasing restrictions to personal freedom, such as smoking in public, drinking and constraints that protect the environment.

The socialism of the 20th century was about the working man. Industrialisation, mechanisation, productivity, wealth creation and especially wealth distribution were its central concerns. The countries pursuing these ideals caused the biggest environmental devastation.

The working class, still interested in wealth above all else, has been transformed into 'rednecks' by the Greenies who want to pursue the happiness of flora and fauna, at the expense of humans.

The Left of any hue has never been individialistic. The Left is always on about some group or class or collective.

The Right finds itself the only sane heir of the Enlightenment and the French Revolutioin which introduced the idea of the individual as being of greater concern than the group or class (aristocracy, clergy).


So perhaps the Left is a reaction to that, a way of going back to the feudalism of group-identity.

The surefire way to distinguish between a Leftie and a Rightie in any disagreement is this: the Rightie will tell you to keep talking (ie explian), the Leftie will tell you to shut up.

Soren wrote on Dec 6^th, 2012 at 10:08am:

muso wrote on Dec 5th, 2012 at 7:27pm: I still think we've brought up some interesting points about the changing nature of the Right and Left of politics.  I happened to catch an interesting wireless programme on ABC National the other day that discussed just how much both sides of politics have changed. It brought up the subject of (very right wing) Malthusian views that basically deal with the limitations of natural resources, and took the view that there will always be poor and rich people regardless of what we do.  It was a view that supported environmentalism.  So that was in stark contrast to the socialism of the early 20th Century, which took the stance that the nature of society is the only limitation, and this was in direct loggerheads with the Malthusian view. Of course, the left wing of today is generally where environmentalism resides. It also made a good point about freedom, and the fact that the rights of the individual now emanate more from the new right, whereas the new left is all about increasing restrictions to personal freedom, such as smoking in public, drinking and constraints that protect the environment.  The socialism of the 20th century was about the working man. Industrialisation, mechanisation, productivity, wealth creation and especially wealth distribution were its central concerns. The countries pursuing these ideals caused the biggest environmental devastation. The working class, still interested in wealth above all else, has been transformed into 'rednecks' by the Greenies who want to pursue the happiness of flora and fauna, at the expense of humans. The Left of any hue has never been individialistic. The Left is always on about some group or class or collective. The Right finds itself the only sane heir of the Enlightenment and the French Revolutioin which introduced the idea of the individual as being of greater concern than the group or class (aristocracy, clergy). So perhaps the Left is a reaction to that, a way of going back to the feudalism of group-identity. The surefire way to distinguish between a Leftie and a Rightie in any disagreement is this: the Rightie will tell you to keep talking (ie explian), the Leftie will tell you to shut up.

mmm That doesn't work if I ask you to keep talking though, does it?

sleeper wrote on Dec 6^th, 2012 at 1:29pm:

mmm That doesn't work if I ask you to keep talking though, does it?

Yes it does. It would identify you as a right-leaning moron.
Geddit?

This Topic was moved here from Atheism by freediver.