Sick and Tired

[Alan L.]

I'm watching Nightline. The subject is how the world press views America, especially in terms of the possible action against Iraq. If you can believe the media (a big question), then some of our historical friends see us as a bully. A Russian journalist called us a modern Roman Empire (thats a pot calling a kettle black).(Not to say Russia is a friend - I don't believe it for a minute).

In the wake of having 3000 of our innocent citizens murdered, you would think they could understand why we aren't quite as tolerant of potential threats as we were in the past. Before Sept 11th, we would basically respond to a chemical or nuclear attack from a rogue state. Now, we feel we need to act BEFORE this happens, because we now have first hand knowledge what these people are capable of.

In the court of world opinion we are getting NO support from our allies, some of whom some of you guys, and our Dad's and Grandads died to save their worthless butts.

Looks like maybe Tony Blair is coming through, but he seems to have little support in his country.

With friends like these, who needs enemies?

 

[Gary_in_Indiana]

If you're interested in more of a 'world view' of how America is perceived elsewhere you might want to get yourself a short wave radio and listen to some news as it's broadcast from other countries which broadcast in English (or whatever other language you might understand).

I'm not saying it's more accurate or anything. It's just interesting to hear the different perspectives.

 

[john4nh]

Gary are you saying its more positive or negative?

 

[jhburke]

I have been tired of all the BS for years. We have spent untold billions of dollars trying to buy friends. It has worked just like it does in real life. Just check around with the people you deal with every day, you will find that a very few are with you thru thick and thin. Most are there only when you are buying or have something that they want to use. In our society it has never worked and why the so called experts think it will is beyond me. If we would use the billions of dollars to buy what we need to defend and protect us. Then these others that keep having their hand out could either pay for theirs or shake hands with theirself. If something doesn't have a cost to it, it isn't considered of any value. Just think back to the kid whose family provided a car plus gas, tires, and repairs. Did they even try to take care of it. They didn't until they had to foot all the bills themself. Then their driving and use changed completely. If we are to continue try to save the world from poverty, we need to loan our money and materials with a real penalty if not repayed and if not repayed no further aid be given. I know some will say if we don't continue to give our enemies will and gain all of them. If somebody wants all the deadbeats then give them to them.
Well enough of this for now. I just ask how are we being treated and we are the giver and not the taker.

 

[Wingnut]

A great deal of the problem here is with the media you choose to watch. The big 3 networks: Nothing But Communism(Clinton), Constant BS, and Always Been Communist (my feeble attempts at humour) always seem to have a decidedly anti-American bias. Some talking heads much more than others. My wifealways thought I was "over-reacting" but even she has been admitting lately that they've gone way over the line.
The big problem is that we have a free media who chooses <font color=red>not</font color=red> to report news, and "they" have a non-free media who report the government line. What do you expect the average Russian to believe when they see only propaganda (anti-American propaganada). Can anyone outside our borders (except Canada, where (I believe) the media is somewhat less biased) form an unbiased opinion of what happened here last year - considering that the people that control what they hear hate us so much? Those countries that are mostly muslim (whatever that is) are run by "religious" leaders that hate us because they have no power over our citizens - even through terror (witness Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, etc). Those countries that have western stylr governments hate us because we constantly rub their noses in their own wrongdoings.
The one that I think is the absolute worst is that grtoup of supposedly civilized folks that we've liberated twice ... I'll just be circumspect and call them "cheese-eating surrender monkeys". They continually want to lecture us on how we should run our country and how we should interact with the world ... and then they turn around and sell military hardware top the scum of the earth.
As far as the English allies ... keep in mind that the opposition to the USA comes not from the politicians (like Tony Blair) ... but from the self-same media scum that we have here. They laid low for awhile after 9/11, knowing quickly what the popular feeling was (remember that creep Jennings?) ... but are back to feeling safe again. I don't think that there is any fear that the allies that counted in WWII (Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand) are really in question. But all those other countries that have been feeding off US handouts for the last many years? Well, when did you ever see gratitude from those folks? They're the same clowns that voted the US out of the UN committee on the treatment of people ... and voted France and China in.
I support Bush in most ways ... but I sure wish he'd stop worrying about world opinion ... and start using the opinions of the world leaders as an indication of who gets US support.

(crotchety) pete

 

[Boondox]

I agree with Gary on this one. Never trust news reported by people who act as if they had anything to do with it, or someone (Rather, Jennings, insert name here) who is intent on building a cult of personality around himself. I've never understood why a fellow who reads (often poorly) summaries (often inaccurate and biased) of events in far away places should be considered a "celebrity." They read the news; they don't create it!

Since pretty much every news organization slants things to support their agendas, the best way I've found is to listen to multiple viewpoints. Somewhere in the middle I generally find an element of truth.

Pete

 

[riptides]

Please DO NOT be offended by this......
Take it as my HUMBLE opinion.....
Take it with a grain of salt......


You want world views. go outside of this great country.
Forget how we rebuilt the planet - twice
Forget about our open wallet - since 1778 or thereabouts
Forget our technology prowess -
Forget our geography - location location location
Forget all you know about this GREAT mixing bowl called
America.

Go sit in other countries for a while, days, weeks, months,
learn the culture, their ways, make friends. Listen to them!
Now go peek back at America,
only then will you realize the mixed messages coming forth.

Yes it adds up. And all of a sudden it goes red-line. Some wacko stirs it up, for ALL the wrong reasons.... but it gets
stirred.

It is incredible to watch, spite, hate, greed, whatever -
human nature.

-Mike Z.

 

[knucklehead]

Human Nature? Whaddya mean - personal responsibility is at play here? Why, how callous! Imagine if everyone thought the same way as you! We'd have gardens growing in places where people now starve, and 100% of American aid sent to many places would get to the people in need, instead of 20% or 10%, or nothing. They eventually would cease to need our help, quite probably becoming able to help to others, themselves. We would send less moolah out of our country, making more available here, and the budget would shrink, as would out taxes, and we would all grow in wealth and creativity. All by making personal responsibility an crucial issue. And freeing people's spirits to create and help themselves.

The main difference between us and Rome is that we ostensibly acknowledge in our founding documents, and follow at least in part through our nation's laws, the tenets of the God of the Bible, which places emphasis on the value of the individual and exorts us to lift and not destroy humanity. This to the never-ending consternation of some who endlessly attempt to portray "religion" (they never say faith, because it's too personal) as oppressive to the spirit (historical examples exist, but closer examination always reveals bad men hiding behind their faith).

Those who work directly or indirectly to deny, neglect, or oppose the basic Godly origin of our nation, incredibly do so in the name of "freedom" and "rights". Even more incredibly they almost always find themselves espousing the opposite themes, socialistic in nature and very destructive to individual freedom and rights. All I can do in my head, over and over and over, is repeat "Oh what a tangled web we weave.....!"

But not to despair! We should make ourselves more familiar with our country's origins (Gee, why aren't we already? Oh, no! The Dreaded Public School Debate again!), and become more articulate in discussing these ideas. The Networks, a correct focus of this thread (way too funny Pete - glad to see you made it home O.K.), are losing market share, as are some of the leftist cable news channels, like the Clinton News Network. People are waking up; the reign of the left is slipping. They will not go quietly, but we need to make them go - there is plenty of room for different ideas; for different emphasis, even for disagreement and atheism. The time has come, however, to get the destructive elements of Godless humanism out of prominence. I find it interesting that humanism - isn't. Maybe we should call it deathism.

What's among the first things the USSR did when they invaded a country? Close or otherwise hamper the churches, and relax divorce laws.......does that tell you anything about where they considered the threat to be? Right at home! So where should we place our efforts?

A+ to all who said At Home!

 

[jhburke]

Mark
All I can say is AMEN.

 

[knucklehead]

Jim

It was your post above that got me thinking this way - I was gonna re-hash something I heard on the radio yesterday - that we should start acting like a superpower and not skulking around reacting to others' opinions. Since we are the leaders, the other weaker-willed countries will follow. But there is a reason they are weak, and I believe it stems from spiritual and moral bankruptcy. You got me thinking in that direction.

Thank you.

 

[PitbullMidwest]

knucklehead,

Have you seen the latest ad for the ACLU? Makes me want to puke everytime I see it (I'm sure that's the reaction they want from someone with my Christian views). It's shot in the classic propaganda style, black and white, low angles, showing the poor and huddled masses and symbols of freedom while the playing the song "This Little Light Of Mine".

This Little Light Of Mine and the ACLU? Isn't that like having Pat Buchanan doing voice overs for Ted Kennedy's reelection ads?

Only the godless ACLU would pervert a children's song about personnal faith to their own advantage.

 

[Tractorgirl]

Well said Mark!

Rhonda

 

[jhburke]

I agree with you but today it seems to be the rule to slant without any regard to truth or morals everything to suit your desires.

 

[blurrybill]

Excellent, Mark. I would only add that in my orientation as an humanistic/existentially-oriented psychologist, I too recognize and value an individual orientation. As others have implied, individuals are destroyed by "gifts" that rob them of incentive and a sense of self-worth. I see it every week in my practice. Thanks for continuing the message.

Bill

 

[knucklehead]

Pit, Tgirl, Jim, Blurry: Thanks!

Pit, Blurry: I gotta run, and slog off to Rockland to suffer through some shrimp and salt air, after assaulting the back of the house with clapboards yesterday. My wife is tugging at my sleeve, and made me promise to be brief. I want to talk more about psychology, and about the ACLU, but I have to make the sacrifice for the family. /w3tcompact/icons/grin.gif

Do ya get Adrian Rogers on the radio out there, Pit? He's whacking them, lately.

 

[wroughtn_harv]

<font color=blue>Those who work directly or indirectly to deny, neglect, or oppose the basic Godly origin of our nation, incredibly do so in the name of "freedom" and "rights".</font color=blue>

I agree with you Mark one hundred percent. So many today forget or even worse, never learned, that our great nation was founded by those who understood intimately about gods and government being hand in glove. They understood that any god given preference caused harm to not only individuals but society as a whole.

Of course one has to admit their experience with gods was singular in name but plural in doctrination. I guess they understood that sharing even one god could cause severe problems. We could even quote Jesus, <font color=red>"Render therefore unto Ceasar the things which be Ceasar's, and unto God the things which be God's."</font color=red> And have an accepted authority's opinion on god in government.

No, they understood best that government should govern and faith should be an intimate experience by each individual according to their needs. Faith isn't a one size fits all kind of thing.

<font color=blue>Even more incredibly they almost always find themselves espousing the opposite themes, socialistic in nature and very destructive to individual freedom and rights.</font color=blue>

You'll have to explain this. I think anyone can look at religion in general and see it as socialism by definition. One could even take a close look at faith as it purtains to the individual and see that it expresses socialistic concepts, group responsibility for the individual and individual's responsibility for the group.

<font color=blue>All I can do in my head, over and over and over, is repeat "Oh what a tangled web we weave.....!"</font color=blue>

Self therapy at work one oh one!/w3tcompact/icons/laugh.gif

<font color=blue>The time has come, however, to get the destructive elements of Godless humanism out of prominence. I find it interesting that humanism - isn't. Maybe we should call it deathism.</font color=blue>

A little challenge for you Mark. Show me where humanism is causing conflict. Just some examples, nothing real hard for you I'm sure.

Of course you can't use the conflicts in the middle east. God's got that covered coming and going. The same thing can be said in India and Pakistan, Ireland, Afghanistan, Europe, Africa, the gods have got it going their way.

Now if we did take out humanism and put a god into the government we have to wonder which one to choose. We can look where they do have god's integrated into the government and there's problems. Saudi Arabia would be a classic example. Ireland would be another. We can look back through history and every nation that was based upon religion, faith in a god or gods, has fallen. Might be a lesson in that........../w3tcompact/icons/laugh.gif

BTW I'm a secular humanist sometimes. Sometimes I'm an atheist. It all depends upon whom I'm talking to about the subject. When I'm discussing personal faith with someone not really adept at the discussion I use secular humanist. It gives me an edge because I know where they're coming from and they don't have a clue about me until they get home and find a dictionary.

<font color=blue>What's among the first things the USSR did when they invaded a country? Close or otherwise hamper the churches, and relax divorce laws.......does that tell you anything about where they considered the threat to be? Right at home!</font color=blue>

I find your statement interesting. Saudia Arabia sounds like your kind of place. God's in charge and divorce is out of the question. In fact some of the most restrictive and backwards societies have restrictions on divorce, again, might be a message there....../w3tcompact/icons/laugh.gif

You might also note about your statement that the nation you're complaining so loudly about has a tradition against infringing upon personal faith and or religion.

Again define yourself a little clearer for me, what exactly do you want and show me some examples if you will about how it will make us better as a nation.

 

[Boondox]

All I can say, Harv...is Amen! I can't think of a single war started by a humanist. /w3tcompact/icons/laugh.gif Or as that great Vermonter and American patriot, Ethan Allen, once said, "The gods of the hills are not the gods of the valleys."

To each his own.

Pete

 

[PitbullMidwest]

<font color=blue>We could even quote Jesus, "Render therefore unto Ceasar the things which be Ceasar's, and unto God the things which be God's." </font color=blue>

This quote was in response to whether man should pay taxes, had nothing to do with seperation of church and state. In fact Jesus's view seemed to be that most of society's problems stemmed from following the state's laws instead of God's laws (singular God BTW).

Seperation of church and state does not exist in the Constitution. The state is prohibited from establishing a national religion but says nothing about the seperation of the two. This was in direct response to the Church of England, established by the Crown and headed by the King. Anyone remember why the Pilgrams and Quakers left England? Religious persacution from the State established church. The Magna Carta, Articles of Confederation and the Constitution all have their foundations in Biblical law and should be enough evidence that the framers intended to prevent the establishment of a national church not the seperation of the church from the state..

 

[wroughtn_harv]

Happy lunch time Pit Bull,

<font color=blue>This quote was in response to whether man should pay taxes, had nothing to do with seperation of church and state.</font color=blue>

It was a discussion about tribute. They were pawns of politicians trying to trick Jesus into stating something inflammatory so they could get him brought up on sedition charges against Rome.

What I find so interesting about this discussion is how Jesus wasn't crucified for being contrary towards the government but being a threat to the church of the moment. Pilate, Rome's representative didn't want to have anything to do with Jesus' being persecuted but did his part solely to appease the local powers that be in the church. They had no civil authority.

So once again, Jesus' life stood for separation of church and state.

And if you have a bucket of grins to play with you could have a ball comparing the church that killed Jesus with the current administration.

What is interesting is Jesus understood their interest and what the ramifications of their inquiries. You can see over and over again where Jesus goes out of his way to separate his spiritual kingdom from the earthly kingdom. When he does talk about earthly goals and aspirations it's in a very anticapitialistic vein. Over and over again Jesus ridicules personal wealth and seeking to achieve it.

<font color=blue>In fact Jesus's view seemed to be that most of society's problems stemmed from following the state's laws instead of God's laws (singular God BTW).</font color=blue>

You'll have to show me your source for that statement. As I've read the Bible I see him complain about Jewish law, Old Testament law, but never do you hear him attack Roman law, the law of the land.

If you set down with your Bible and read the four gospels, hour at most, you will come away with the distinct separation of church, christian church, and state.

<font color=blue>The Magna Carta, Articles of Confederation and the Constitution all have their foundations in Biblical law</font color=blue>

Of course you do understand that Biblical law is a copy of civil laws used long before the time of the Bible by other civilizations??????

If you don't you should.

 

[PitbullMidwest]

Afternoon Harv,

you said <font color=blue> "You'll have to show me your source for that statement. As I've read the Bible I see him complain about Jewish law, Old Testament law, but never do you hear him attack Roman law, the law of the land. </font color=blue>

Jesus quoted from Deuteronomy (the 2nd law) more than any other book of scripture. Don't recall him ever complaining about His Father's laws. He complained about those Leaders of the Sanhedrin (sic) who added law upon law (Democrats? /w3tcompact/icons/smile.gif) and made it a burdan on the people or those who twisted it to their own advantage (Republicans? /w3tcompact/icons/smile.gif) but don't recall Him complaining about the Law itself.

Look at the history of the Jewish people as recorded in scripture. The closer the people and their goverment (Kings and Judges) stayed to God's law the more prosperous and successful they were as a nation. But as they seperated themselves from God and his law they suffered.

Jesus said that He and the Father were one, since all law decends from God and it was God who established goverment, it would seem contrary to hold that Jesus believed in seperation of Church and State.