posted on June 30, 2004 08:29:51 AM new
replaymedia
Actually it was their store (proceeds go to charity). Most of the stuff was donated and anything medicine related they weren't allowed to sell. We're talking things like aspirin, boxes of condoms (LOL!), pregnancy tests, etc. Drug stores donated stuff they didn't move.
I befriended a woman who worked there. She was a Reiki master and that's how I first met her. I have tons of aspirin now.
posted on June 30, 2004 09:21:50 AM newWe as American's can go to whatever part of the world we wish to that let us in. Like missionaries have done for centuries. Do we have a disagreement about that?
Yes and no you can't. The US government can prevent you from going to any country it wishes and even make it a criminal offence to go there.
Two - As American's we have a constitutional right to practice our religion....like owning a business that gets Bible's translated so the Muslims can read/understand them.....I'd bet the Koran has been tranlated so English speaking people can read it. Do we have a disagreement on this?
Yes and no you don't have such a right. There are limits to religious practice, but not belief. You can believe whatever you wish, but practice is regulated by the government.
Three - No one here has a right to tell anyone where they can or can't go to practice their religion. Just as you can't tell [say] a JW he *can't* come to your door. Should he come to your door [also including a different country] and he is not wanted there....all have the right to refuse to hear what is being spoken or for entry to be denied. I'm a little hesitant to ask if we agree here because I don't believe we do.
You're wrong.
I believe just like missionary's have done for centuries - they do have a right to go anywhere they wish - and whether they get in or are denied entry is in the hands of the country they wish to gain entry into.
When it interfers with foreign policy, it can not only be prevented but criminalized by the US govt.. The right was calling for Jesse Jackson's arrest when he went to Lybia and broke the law by doing so.
But to blame this President for the actions this group has taken is absurd. To not face up to the facts that clinton/gore also thought/think faith based programs have value and that they supported them.....is being in denial, imo.
Bush carries water for these groups everyday.
BTW, your example of Clinton's faith based initiatives is wrong. Bush has abolished the part that prevents religious groups from discriminating in their govt funded activities via executive order. Clinton demanded that any govt funded activity must be non-discriminating and no proslytizing/religious activity.
posted on June 30, 2004 09:24:40 AM new
Bush allowing christian missionaires into Iraq is not only stupid, but plays right into the hands of the terrorists. This is exactly what the terrorists claimed would happened.
posted on June 30, 2004 11:06:51 AM newWho blamed Bush? This isn't even a discussion about him.
Cheryl
Did you miss rustygumbo's opening thread post, cheryl?
------------
reamond -
1) The US government can prevent you from going to any country it wishes and even make it a criminal offence to go there.
I don't believe so. I've heard our government telling them it's unsafe to do so....but never saying they CAN'T go.
Are you aware of cases where our government has stepped in to obstruct American's rights to be missionary's in other countries. I haven't heard or read about cases where they have. Besides....in this case/example DIDN'T say this group had plans to go there, did it? ....just that they were raising money to have Bibles translated to be used there.
----
2)like owning a business that gets Bible's translated so the Muslims can read/understand them.....I'd bet the Koran has been tranlated so English speaking people can read it.
Yes and no you don't have such a right. There are limits to religious practice, but not belief. You can believe whatever you wish, but practice is regulated by the government.
reamond - There is NO restriction on the above mentioned actions taken by this group. You're really stretching here.
3) No I'm not wrong in the example I used.
4) When it interfers with foreign policy, it can not only be prevented but criminalized by the US govt.. The right was calling for Jesse Jackson's arrest when he went to Lybia and broke the law by doing so.
reamond - again....translating Bibles, selling Bibles is NOT interferring with foreign policy. I don't ever recall, in my whole long life, any law that said translating and selling Bibles would/could in any way be deemed to be against our foreign policy. It's not the same thing at all as movie stars or Jackson going over there to 'side' with the enemy or act like they have some political clout.
5) Bush carries water for these groups everyday. Yes, thank God for that. As has been shown these groups do a much better job of helping the down-and-out than government agencies are able to do. The two political sides DON'T disagree on that point.
BTW, your example of Clinton's faith based initiatives is wrong. [/i]Bush has abolished the part that prevents religious groups from discriminating in their govt funded activities via executive order[/i].
What Bush has done is work towards chaning the part of clinton's bill that FORCED faith-based charities to take actions that are against their religion, while helping the down-and-out. Like working to change it so Catholic churches don't HAVE to preform abortions....and other things that go against their beliefs.
Clinton demanded that any govt funded activity must be non-discriminating and no proslytizing/religious activity. The proslytizing part hasn't changed one bit...that's still there. Where there's disagreement is in the area of what you're referring to as discrimination. Trying to force them to provide pay for things that, again, are against their religious beliefs. And what has been pointed out since that time [clinton's bill] is that faith-based groups weren't being given the same equal treatment that other non-religious groups were being given. He has worked to change that. Imo, that's fair.
posted on June 30, 2004 11:46:57 AM newAre you aware of cases where our government has stepped in to obstruct American's rights to be missionary's in other countries.
Cuba and Lybia to name two. It is against the law for a US citizen to travel to Cuba. American do it by going to a third country first and then going to Cuba. The same was true for Lybia and I'm sure some others.
reamond - There is NO restriction on the above mentioned actions taken by this group. You're really stretching here
Me stretching ? No you're stretching it- you said -"As American's we have a constitutional right to practice our religion". We do not have such a right to practice. If we did, then we could not have outlawed polygamy or the use of drugs by some religions such as native Americans and Rastis.
It's not the same thing at all as movie stars or Jackson going over there to 'side' with the enemy or act like they have some political clout.
It is no different. Our religious Taliban are no better than theirs.
As has been shown these groups do a much better job of helping the down-and-out than government agencies are able to do.
Again you stretch the truth. Some studies have shown that some religious affliated programs perform better, but not all.
The proslytizing part hasn't changed one bit...that's still there.
Wrong again, Bush even gave a speech where he held up a bible and said that the bible was the only rule book and not federal laws.
Where there's disagreement is in the area of what you're referring to as discrimination. Trying to force them to provide pay for things that, again, are against their religious beliefs. And what has been pointed out since that time [clinton's bill] is that faith-based groups weren't being given the same equal treatment that other non-religious groups were being given. He has worked to change that. Imo, that's fair.
Wrong again. They aren't "forced" to do anything except keep their hands off tax dollars when they discriminate. The only thing not fair is permitting tax dollars to be used by groups that discriminate.
But as I said before, I am glad these religious institutions are going to feed at the government trough. It will be their downfall.
posted on June 30, 2004 02:16:00 PM new
OMG !! CNN just reported a poll from an Iraqi radio station -- 45% of the people said Saddam should be executed AND 41% SAID HE SHOULD BE RELEASED !!!! Unbelievable.
This time next year he might be in charge again, unless they kill him first.
posted on June 30, 2004 03:05:33 PM new
I saw on show on tv about the new Christian businesses'. They did this big unscientific polling of how Christians feel about being merchandised to. Many said they didnt mind. All of the television ministries are big marketers to help them raise money. They still have to live too.
Whats the difference between what wares you sell on ebay, and what wares they sell if they are bibles or acommplish their ends of living their lives? Except for the fact that they will probably be rejected in Iraq, and or killed - which is their choice to do, I dont get what the controvery over it is.
posted on June 30, 2004 03:21:16 PM new
Its in Iraq, I'm pretty sure, there is a group of what are considered the 'first Christians'.... darn, I don't know the name of where they are at.. I'll bet somebody here knows though. So it is not ALL Islamic there.
posted on June 30, 2004 03:25:19 PM new
I found it, they are the Assyrians.
Assyrians and Chaldeans are considered by many to be distinct ethnic groups, as well as the descendants of some of the earliest Christian communities. The communities speak a distinct language (Syriac). Although they do not define themselves as Arabs, the Baath Government defines Assyrians and Chaldeans as such, evidently to encourage them to identify with the Sunni-Arab dominated regime. Christians are concentrated in the north and in Baghdad.
Most Assyrians live in the northern governorates, and the Baath Government often has suspected them of "collaborating" with Iraqi Kurds. In the north, Kurdish groups often refer to Assyrians as Kurdish Christians. Military forces destroyed numerous Assyrian churches during the 1988 Anfal Campaign and reportedly executed and tortured many Assyrians. Both major Kurdish political parties have indicated that the Baath Government occasionally targeted Assyrians as well as ethnic Kurds and Turkomen as a part of its Arabization campaign of ethnic cleansing designed to harass and expel non-Arabs from government-controlled areas in the north.
posted on July 1, 2004 07:28:01 AM new
Reamond said, "OMG !! CNN just reported a poll from an Iraqi radio station -- 45% of the people said Saddam should be executed AND 41% SAID HE SHOULD BE RELEASED !!!! Unbelievable.
"This time next year he might be in charge again, unless they kill him first."
This is interesting.
From Abbas Kadhim, "Calling it Like It Is"
Saddam will have to face the court, along with his gang. Although there are hundreds of thousands that still need to follow them in the same process, it is a start. Let us hope that "past performance does not predict future outcome", as the people of Wall Street say. One good thing that can be cited so far is that the trial is going to be public and TV cameras will be allowed.
I still dislike the idea of having Sam Chalabi as the head judge. Not only because he is a Chalabi, but also because of his background. He also has no experience whatsoever as a judge. It is ridiculous to appoint him as the head judge for a trial the Iraqi government began to call "the trial of the century", as Muwaffaq al-Rubai'i, the Iraqi Natonal Security Advisor, said today.
I am not trying to be cute here, but there is a good reason for my argument, I believe. The lawyers who are likely to defend the dictator started making their case in the media. They did not address the charges at all (it is hard to justify well-documented genocide). Instead, they talk about the lack of legitimacy of the court. You do not want to give them one more thing to complain about -- a judge that cannot be taken seriously. Also, having Chalabi as the head Judge risks the process, because if he screws up the trial because of his lack of experience, the trial would be a farce and the verdict and the sentence would be overturned by any impartial appeal court (if any is allowed) on the basis of the law, rather than justice, or the guy would be executed based on the outcome of a corrupt trial. So they might as well hang him now. Why would anyone want this kind of risk when there are hundreds of unemployed competent Iraqi judges who can do the job right?
Credentials of the writer....
Biographical Note: Abbas Kadhim is a doctoral candidate in the Dept. of Near Eastern Studies at the University of California (UC Berkeley). He was born in Babylon (Iraq), but at the age of 12 moved to Najaf. He earned a Baccalaureate degree from the University of Musol (Iraq). He came to the U.S. in 1992 and received a Master degree in political theory from the San Francisco State University in 1998. After the MA, he studied political theory for three years at UC Davis before transferring to UC Berkeley. While in UC Davis, he was awarded a certificate in college teaching by the University Teaching Resources Center after completing the certificate program. The focus of his current doctoral research is Islamic ethics, politics, and theology. Since the summer of 2000, he has been teaching Arabic language at UC Berkeley and now he is a lecturer on Islamic ethics and the history of the Qur’an at the Graduate Theological Union (GTU), in Berkeley. From 1999 to 2002, he was an adjunct lecturer of American politics at Woodland Community College. In the Summer of 2002, he was Interim Religious Director at the Islamic Cultural Center of North California. He participated in many conferences, in and outside the United States, and delivered numerous lectures on Middle Eastern issues. He is the translator of many articles that appeared in various Arabic papers. His most recent Arabic translation was “Runaway World: How Globalization Is Reshaping Our Lives”, a book by Anthony Giddens (Beirut 2003). His upcoming book, The Shi’a Sects, is due in August 2004. He has working knowledge in Arabic, English, Persian, Russian, French, German, and Turkish.
posted on July 1, 2004 07:36:16 AM new
Good Post, NTS. I remember reading about the Assyrians. Have most of them been genocided by the arabs/muslims? I dont keep up with that.
posted on July 1, 2004 02:46:42 PM new
Just as Hussein deserves to be tried for War Crimes, George W. Bush and his father should be tried as well. Obviously not for the same reasons, however, there are many deals made behind closed doors between both Bush Presidents and the Iraqi government, along with Iran, Libya, Panama, and others. I would love to get to the bottom of the scandal that the entire Bush family is behind. I have often considered that Barbara Bush was more of a President than what Hillary Clinton ever was considered by Republicans. Barbara obviously wears the pants in that family and I wouldn't put it past her to have her hubby and sons on a short leash. Imagine the ex-first lady sporting leather and a whip as well... Maybe this is where Republican talk show hosts think it is ok to beat, kill and sodomize Iraqi's. Maybe they have month long orgies in Crawford, TX (that would explain what George W. was doing there for the month of August 2001).
[ edited by rustygumbo on Jul 1, 2004 02:48 PM ]
posted on July 1, 2004 04:10:51 PM new
Linda, oh Linda... please don't think I'm anti-AMERICA. I'm getting ready to join my family and friends for a good ole fashion 4th of July weekend where I'm going to work most of it to scrape by and afford those hot dogs, potatoe chips, baked beans and apple pie while watching the fireworks.
I'm just using my AMERICAN born right to express myself. What is anti-AMERICAN about that? What is anti-AMERICAN to believe that a President committed a crime? Why, the Republicans did it with Bill Clinton and he didn't give orders that would end up killing thousands and thousands of innocent civilians in a foreign country because he lied. It was ok for Republicans to try Clinton in court. George Sr. was head of the CIA and was chummy buds with Manuel Noriega (the Panamanian dictator now in prison in Miami). I've seen a photos of George Sr. hanging out on boats off the coast of Panama sharing a smoke and a drink with Noriega.
So, you must be referring to my notion that there just might be a possibility that the Bush family is into sex orgies led by Barbara Bush. Wow, I didn't realize orgies were anti-AMERICAN. The last I checked, Jack Ryan couldn't handle the heat because he wanted to have sex with 7 of 9 at a sex club for all to see. Amazing... how anti-AMERICAN Jack must have been to want to do such a thing. Oh, and let's not forget Rush Limbaugh saying that torture and forced sodomy were just a bunch of "AMERICAN soldiers blowing off steam, and it was nothing more than good old fashion AMERICAN pornography."
Linda, before you go off the deep end and claim I am anti-AMERICAN, keep in mind that your friends in the current administration just might be into a little dirty sex... It seems that some approve of that behavior or even participate in it. Really. It is ok to say that the Bush family just might be into a little s & m. It could explain some of their behaviors, though I don't see anything necessarily wrong with it. Personally, that is their thing, and it should be kept private.
[ edited by rustygumbo on Jul 1, 2004 04:39 PM ]
posted on July 1, 2004 04:20:36 PM new
Oh, and I guess I should also add Arnold Schwarzenegger to the list of dirty little Republicans. I guess he wouldn't count though since he wasn't born in AMERICA, huh Linda?
posted on July 1, 2004 04:32:10 PM new
George Bush waged a pre-emptive strike on a soverign country killing thousands of people and misled the American people to believe that Iraq had WMD ready to fire in 45 minutes. If you don't believe that Bush is a criminal, then you should at least recognize that he is miserably incompetent and a danger to America and to the world. I agree with Rustygumbo. If the situation was reversed and Saddam visited a little shock and awe in our direction don't you believe that he would be considered a criminal?
posted on July 1, 2004 04:46:44 PM new
rustygumbo - Nowhere in my above statement, did I in any way, violate your right to free speech....but rather used my own 'right' to make my comment.
posted on July 1, 2004 04:53:15 PM new
Geez Linda. I never said you violated my freedom of speech. I simply said I am not anti-American and backed up my case.
Go to church and pray, or pass a bible to a homeless person, or sell one on ebay, or read the Constitution or something. You're a real buzzkill.
