![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 55 to 79 of 79. Go back in thread:
Posted by tealady on August 1, 2006, at 18:57:47
In reply to Mel Gibson, posted by Declan on August 1, 2006, at 18:16:03
> Mel Gibson's father is a follower of Archbishop Lefebvre, who was excommunicated (?) from the Catholic Church for his rejection of VaticanII.
> I sympathise with anyone who wants to maintain liturgical standards. (That's the best face I can put on it).
> Mel seems quite old fashioned.
> I can remember a time when Christians were antisemitic.
> Not that I am myself (I hasten to say.....one must be so careful these days).yes, I noticed about Mel, Dec.
I guess it's who controls?
I too can remember a time too. I like his acting and maybe I might like him too.. though don't know much about him.
Mels lesson, don't talk when drunk.. hmm maybe I should learn that one too.
I did used to find that useful in office parties though many years ago.Do you have a term for my "religion" above.. in "what name would u call"
Posted by Declan on August 1, 2006, at 20:26:35
In reply to Re: Mel Gibson, posted by tealady on August 1, 2006, at 18:57:47
I haven't got my census. I wondered if you were talking in code, but it's in today's paper. When did you get yours?
I never know what to put for my religion. I was born an anglican and the kids are baptised catholic. We don't go to church.
Why not say you're a Buddhist? Is there a spiritual category? Kinda like the Greens of religion. I don't want to be thought of as New Age.
Anyway, tell me about this census.
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 1, 2006, at 22:57:34
In reply to what name would u call this » Declan, posted by tealady on July 31, 2006, at 19:57:59
> this is a solution suggestion as drBob is always saying to make suggestions!!!
Thanks! I'll be interested to see the feedback you get...
Bob
Posted by AuntieMel on August 2, 2006, at 13:42:46
In reply to what name would u call this » Declan, posted by tealady on July 31, 2006, at 19:57:59
Why not just put 'pacifist?' Or what I ususally put - none.
Funny thing about too much drinking - you tend to say what you really think. I never much liked Mel Gibson until Braveheart, but I loved that movie.
Still, I don't think I'll ever be able to look at him again in the same way - and I probably will never buy any of his products.
His father was (is) also a big believer that the Holocaust was a giant fiction. It would have been interesting to see what Mel's mini-series would have been like.
As for oil? We (the US) were involved with Israel long before we were dependent on foriegn oil.
Posted by Declan on August 2, 2006, at 13:57:01
In reply to Re: what name would u call this » tealady, posted by AuntieMel on August 2, 2006, at 13:42:46
The US tilted to Israel more after Eisenhower?
Posted by Estella on August 3, 2006, at 18:54:45
In reply to Re: what name would u call this, posted by Declan on August 2, 2006, at 13:57:01
yeah census... this saturday - right?
trouble is that some people object to it because of the name...
the notion is that just how gay people reclaim the word 'gay' (which has nicer connotations) all the godless heathens out there decide that it is nicer to be characterised for something positive rather than an absence.
works for me (kina kinda)
Posted by Estella on August 3, 2006, at 19:19:24
In reply to Re: what name would u call this, posted by Estella on August 3, 2006, at 18:54:45
I have trouble with some of their claims (claims typically of individual members. For example... You can believe in the possibility of life after death even if you don't believe in God.) And so on... But anyways...
From the website:
The word atheist however is not in and of itself a negative term. However, it's used to infer something negative by those who misunderstand the word's origin, those who assume that atheist means against theism.
Look at it this way: Asymmetrical doesn't mean against symmetry; it means not symmetrical. It's a simple concept. Atheist means not theistic. There's nothing about being against theism implied in the word.
The ones who say there are no atheists in foxholes discount the authenticity of a person's belief system.
When our elected officials call for public prayer they show their contempt by shunning 29 million nonreligious citizens. For this reason, Many atheists are closeted. If they want to be heard--that is, taken seriously, and respected--they feel they have to keep their identity as atheists secret, closeted.
People whose world-view is naturalistic--that is, free of supernatural or mystical elements--refer to themselves as Brights. The Brights have learned something about the power of words from African Americans and gays. In this new connotation, Bright is a noun, like the word black is a noun when used to refer to an African American, and gay is a noun when used to refer to a homosexual person. Some Brights, like some African Americans and some homosexuals, are very intelligent. Others are average, ordinary people.
Who are these Brights? They are humanists, free thinkers, agnostics, skeptics and atheists. They are barbers, teachers, waitresses, doctors, philosophers, construction workers, and scientists. They are mothers and uncles. They are your next door neighbors. They are Republicans, Democrats, and Libertarians. And yes, some of them are members of your church, mosque or temple.
The only thing Brights have in common with all other Brights is that they base their ethics, morality, decisions and behaviors on a naturalistic worldview as opposed to one based on faith.
So often I hear the phrase freedom of religion. What does that mean? Does it mean we can choose any religion we want? Does it mean that in order to be considered credible citizens loyal to this great country, we must choose a religion? I don't think so. That just doesn't make sense. Freedom of religion must imply freedom from religion, or there is no real freedom regarding religion. Brights are free from religion.
What do these Brights want? They want the same thing blacks, gays, Christians, Jews, and Moslems want. They want a voice in social, political and ethical issues. They want to be heard and respected.
The Brights are coming, and they will staunchly support the separation of church and state. They will protest tax money being used to provide help of any kind with religious strings attached. They will protest tax dollars being spent to support schools that teach children to make important decisions based on faith as opposed to reason and scientific evidence.
Posted by Declan on August 3, 2006, at 20:34:24
In reply to Re: what name would u call this, posted by Estella on August 3, 2006, at 19:19:24
I might say I'm a Hindu. Lingam stones and stuff. Or maybe a Buddhist. I'd be Muslim except I don't like the Salafi thing. Certainly not a materialist.
Posted by tealady on August 5, 2006, at 5:18:16
In reply to Re: what name would u call this, posted by Estella on August 3, 2006, at 18:54:45
> yeah census... this saturday - right?
>
> http://www.the-brights.net/
>
> trouble is that some people object to it because of the name...
>
> the notion is that just how gay people reclaim the word 'gay' (which has nicer connotations) all the godless heathens out there decide that it is nicer to be characterised for something positive rather than an absence.
>
> works for me (kina kinda)
>
>
I know what u mean bu kinda;-).. only problem with that idea is, I do feel a spiriual sense .. quite strongly especially if I allow myself to .. that doesnt mean a 'being' as such.. just spiritual ..If I went into what I sense .. everyone would think I was a ... .well better not finish that sentence methinks;-)
I've occasionally tried edging around it .. but I get shot down.. anyway I relate to this spiritual stuff.. but dont understand what I feel..and definitely dont believe it has to be as any religion attempts to define it ..and know ITS BEYOND me to define it.. so I'm just content to sense and use that feeling for support too:-).. so that rules out the atheist stuff anyway.
now to get back to politics:-)..
When was Eisenhower Dec.. I forget.. actually I try NOt to follow US politics. Ok, I'll guess it was shortly after WWII though as it makes sense that the US suddenly strongly increased support for Israel after then.. due to the fact that somewhere was felt needed for the Jews to be safe...and ya wouldnt want it in the middle of the US now.. way better to support placing it where it didnt interrupt the US citizens as much.. and what better place to encourage the Jews to relocate than around the promised land??.. That's safely far enough away not to directly impact..thing is, if Israel was located in the middle of the US just consider.. would they be acting the same regarding border security issues??
I think it would be far better for all.. except those displaced of course.. but that affect far less people in the less densely populated US countryside than in an already densely populated country.(unless one picks the middle of New York)
and I suspect terrorism would also die down too.. The US citizens are hardly going to become terrorists.. no need is there? The US has enough strength to control its borders very effectively:-)
OK.. I went and googled it!!
http://www.danielpipes.org/article/610
and as I suspected the US involved in Israel after WWII ..
http://www.mideastweb.org/us_supportforstate.htm
it was Truman, although the Brits were in it too.. what a surprise there Dec.. the US and the Brits..and , the Arabs getting no say...
"Free lands must be opened to them" Truman
Posted by tealady on August 5, 2006, at 5:31:58
In reply to Re: what name would u call this, posted by Declan on August 3, 2006, at 20:34:24
I'm not a materialist either:-)
I studied a comparison of various religions around the world in an elective in Modern history in high school.. I think the election was a comparison of cultural beliefs/practises in sex and religion over various historical and geographical/racial times in modern history and how it influences that countries politics/history/culture etc...
Modern Hiostory being since Napolean.. It was something that got my interest anyway as a 15yr old:-)
But only being one of a no of electives we had to cover we didnt go into the depth I would have liked!!
I did like some aspects of Buddism though.. but I can't "believe" any rules made up by anyone else .. difficult enough following them!
and I like eating cows too much Dec :-)
I haven't managed to learn anything much else in my adult life either.. in BN I saw lots of Hari Krisna's..and lots of people preaching the end of the world on the streets! I don't see that much any more.. I'm not out and about as much..but it seems times have changed?
Maybe its caus its after 2000 now and the world is still here?.. so far anyway...
with the middle east situation, who knows..
Posted by tealady on August 5, 2006, at 5:46:38
In reply to Re: what name would u call this, posted by Declan on August 3, 2006, at 20:34:24
Muslim is way better for guys IMO:-)
I don't fancy that "obey" bit..
I don't mind the idea of multiple wives I guess.. but really, women should also be able to have multiple husbands too then.. these days it should be OK with genetic testing about!
Anyway.. Its the "obey" bit etc I couldnt live with.. I can take the covering up in the middle of a desertstorm in Arabia.. but NOT lying on a hot humid beach in Oz or swimming in the ocean either!..besides it causes VitD deficit!
politics bit...
One way Muslim spread was due to the Inquisition.. countries/peoples switched to avoid the inqusition. Muslim was a far friendlier way of life in those days..and also, in my impression, did not seem as "restrictive" as today in its practise.
I really could never understand the Inquisition... that's that extreme again I'm against!
I gather the Islam option is not going to be your choice in the census either?
I was raised C of E too.. and I put that on the last census in the end..as I didn't want anyone to think I was fundamentalist Islam or anything else, sigh. I guess I do have Christian "values". depending how losely one interprets that.oh yes Declan, I got the census hand delivered (as always).. Friday or Saturday a week ago.
Posted by Estella on August 5, 2006, at 9:21:43
In reply to Re: what name would u call this » Estella, posted by tealady on August 5, 2006, at 5:18:16
> I know what u mean bu kinda;-).. only problem with that idea is, I do feel a spiriual sense ..
yeah that adds to the 'kinda' too...
though strictly speaking they are a group of people who don't believe in spiritual *things* as in *entities*.
are numbers spiritual entities?
sigh.
it is hard to define...
i think it is mostly established religion and omni-god that they are trying to deal with...
someone wrote a pretty good critique about spirituality and co...
i get the impression dennett would be fairly unsympathetic to 'spiritual' too. he'd probably start talking about religous experience and temporal lobe epilepsy...sigh.
it can be hard to coordinate people...
i've heard it said that trying to coordinate a bunch of non-thiests can be like trying to heard a bunch of cats...
Posted by Jost on August 5, 2006, at 13:38:56
In reply to what name would u call this » Declan, posted by tealady on July 31, 2006, at 19:57:59
>
>
> I'd love to see the majority of Israel relocated to somewhere in the US..and still retain its sovereignty as Israel..and Israel be a divided country(like they made Germany after WWII).. not much diff in travelling time with modern aeroplanes and telecommunications would make it even closer.. so feasible. that would allow Israel to have the necessity territory is needs to expand as it wants..and still allow the others the live too.
> >>
>
Well, why not create a Palestinian state in the middle of the US?That seems an option noone's explored...
I kinda like the idea. Maybe in Texas.
Jost
Posted by tealady on August 5, 2006, at 17:40:01
In reply to Re: what name would u call this » tealady, posted by Estella on August 5, 2006, at 9:21:43
>
> i've heard it said that trying to coordinate a bunch of non-thiests can be like trying to heard a bunch of cats...
>
that takes a dog:-)
As a kid I had this dog, and a couple of houses up the road owned a LOT of cats..
My dog took great delight in rounding the cats into various groupings.. white long haired.. persian, black/white/brown, brown, black & white striped , various breeds etc :-). Funnily enough we disagreed on whether this was a great thing to do .. but I did find it amusing;-)
Dogs had more freedom in those days here.. politics strikes again
Posted by tealady on August 5, 2006, at 17:43:43
In reply to Re: what name would u call this, posted by Jost on August 5, 2006, at 13:38:56
> >
> >
> > I'd love to see the majority of Israel relocated to somewhere in the US..and still retain its sovereignty as Israel..and Israel be a divided country(like they made Germany after WWII).. not much diff in travelling time with modern aeroplanes and telecommunications would make it even closer.. so feasible. that would allow Israel to have the necessity territory is needs to expand as it wants..and still allow the others the live too.
> > >>
> >
>
>
> Well, why not create a Palestinian state in the middle of the US?
>
> That seems an option noone's explored...
>
> I kinda like the idea. Maybe in Texas.
>
> Jost
>
Jost, now you're starting to get the idea!
The argument against that is .. but it aint the 'promised land".. so take your idea and give them a share of their promised land too.. don't forget its also special to other religions ,
so that's where I came up with a split Israel..
a small part in the "promised land", and a way larger part in the US..enough so they can expand and have farming land etc.
Posted by Jost on August 5, 2006, at 21:37:29
In reply to Re: what name would u call this » Jost, posted by tealady on August 5, 2006, at 17:43:43
I may be wrong, but technically is it the "promised land" for Arabs?
As you pointed out, given the ease of travel with airplanes and now with telecommunications, the Texas Palestinians could travel back as often as desired for visits to the areas in the Holy Land that are sacred to Islam.
Plus maybe American airlines can offer reduced fare for travel to Mecca.
In terms of living conditions, uprooting people from refugee camps sounds more acceptable than uprooting people from a country with highly developed institutions and infrastructure, wouldn't you think?
Jost
Posted by Declan on August 7, 2006, at 14:13:18
In reply to Re: what name would u call this » tealady, posted by Jost on August 5, 2006, at 21:37:29
15 Israeli's, 12 of them soldiers(!), killed by a Hezbollah rocket.
Difficult to root out militarily.
I can't believe Hezbollah is not taking the long (>50years) view.
The surprise to me is that Hezbollah is so popular in Lebanon.
Posted by tealady on August 8, 2006, at 0:52:02
In reply to Re: Mid East situation- » Jost, posted by corafree on July 24, 2006, at 3:03:26
No worries, the census is not if the US :-)
Posted by AuntieMel on August 8, 2006, at 11:26:24
In reply to Re: what name would u call this » tealady, posted by Jost on August 5, 2006, at 21:37:29
We already have a Palestine in Texas.
Posted by Jost on August 8, 2006, at 13:18:10
In reply to Re: One small problem » Jost, posted by AuntieMel on August 8, 2006, at 11:26:24
I wasn't aware! Please elaborate.
I may have to rethink my Mid-East policy if that's the case.
Jost
Posted by tealady on August 9, 2006, at 17:22:33
In reply to Re: One small problem » Jost, posted by AuntieMel on August 8, 2006, at 11:26:24
> We already have a Palestine in Texas.
Washington?
Our news lastnight seemed to be saying that Israel is now targeting any moving cars in Sth Lebanon.. as they could be transporting military equipment..andits a war as far as Israel is cncernd, but terrorism on the part of Lebanon?
hmm
Posted by AuntieMel on August 10, 2006, at 9:43:06
In reply to Re: One small problem » AuntieMel, posted by tealady on August 9, 2006, at 17:22:33
Well, I meant Palestine. It's in east Texas. We also have a Rome, an Athens and a Washington (on-the-brazos). There is New Ulm, Paris, Egypt, Canadian and Turkey, and two towns named China Grove.
We've got Pep, Progress, Royalty, Friendship, Happy, Earth, Ponder, Utopia, Camelot, Uncertain and Magnet.
In a spirit of competition we have Best and Veribest.
In honour of local history we've got Old Glory, Muleshow, Gun Barrel City and everyone's favorite Cut and Shoot.
And of course there's Reklaw. They wanted to name the town Walker, but it was taken. There must have been too much confusion with the two China Groves....
But I think my all time favorite name is a body of water called "Woman Hollering Creek"
No Israel, though. Maybe we could make one.
-----------------
Now, let's see....
War vs. terrorism.
Hez. knows where the Israeli military installations are, but they send hundreds of rockets into villages.
Israel showers the countryside with leaflets first, telling the citizens to get out of the way.
War is a fight against enemies, with strategic targets. Civilians die, but it isn't then intent.
Terrorism intentionally targets ordinary people to try to scare them into submission.
And, yes I know, the infrastructure is now destroyed enough to make it difficult for civilians to get out. But it wasn't when the leaflets were first rained down on them.
Posted by Jost on August 10, 2006, at 11:34:45
In reply to Re: One small problem » tealady, posted by AuntieMel on August 10, 2006, at 9:43:06
Cut and Shoot? But no Cut and Run, I'm sure- -- how about a "Withdraw with Honor"?
If only there had been a "Mess O' Potamia" maybe we wouldn't have gotten into this fix.
Jost
Posted by AuntieMel on August 10, 2006, at 12:46:38
In reply to Re: One small problem » AuntieMel, posted by Jost on August 10, 2006, at 11:34:45
It cracked me up.
Right now I'm listening to BBC news - it's talk about todays arrests (the airline bombing plot)
There is a guy calling in (by accent, he's not a native) telling us that the whole thing is a hoax made up by Bush to take the heat off Israel.
Huh?
Posted by AuntieMel on August 10, 2006, at 12:48:10
In reply to Re: One small problem » AuntieMel, posted by Jost on August 10, 2006, at 11:34:45
There isn't a Cut and Run. Or a Surrender, or even a Negotiate.....
Think that's why we have a Happy? Maybe it isn't Blue Bell after all.
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Politics | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.