Muslim Voters in America

[Peikko 1,575]

Is there a wholesale attempt by any group or organization to try to prevent you from practicing your religion? Is there an attempt by any group or organization to prevent anyone from practicing their religion?

When have you been pointed at and laughed at in the streets for being 'religious'? What are these attacks on religion of which you speak? Oh, that's right comedians poking fun at the perceived hypocrisies of religious people is an attack?

BY, when you understand why it's ok to use the word redneck and not ok to use the word ***, then you might approach an understanding of what is and isn't an attack on religion

[HAL 9000 96]

For people who pride themselves on their intellect you sure do make some wild, unsubstantiated and completely false accusations.

It seems again, that the personal emotional involvement with this topic has led to some to take leave of their senses and spread more smeer and lies.

If you think liberals attacks on religion is unsubstantiated, hearsay and generalizing, then what can I say. Because no matter what evidence I present to you, you will pull a six.

Well, I may be considered liberal by most measures of political doctrine. And to be specific, I do see cases of some subscribers to atheistic doctrine also subscribing to liberal political doctrine. That act to quench religious discourse from public institutions via constitutional law. Much like I also see many more subscribers of religious doctrines that also subscribe to conservative political doctrine that act to impose religious discourse on the rest of society using history to claim common sense.

Who's right? IMO, neither. Religion should be inclusive for all to decide and to embrace or reject- but not by complete severance and most definitely not by imposition. The middle ground is for people to realize that one side does not have the right to impose its view on the other.

There is no need to polarize religion of any sort and to tie it in to politics unless the political doctrine itself wants to be religious. In which case it needs to be honest with itself and its follower base.

[Peikko 1,575]

For people who pride themselves on their intellect you sure do make some wild, unsubstantiated and completely false accusations.

It seems again, that the personal emotional involvement with this topic has led to some to take leave of their senses and spread more smeer and lies.

If you think liberals attacks on religion is unsubstantiated, hearsay and generalizing, then what can I say. Because no matter what evidence I present to you, you will pull a six.

Well, I may be considered liberal by most measures of political doctrine. And to be specific, I do see cases of some subscribers to atheistic doctrine also subscribing to liberal political doctrine. That act to quench religious discourse from public institutions via constitutional law. Much like I also see many more subscribers of religious doctrines that also subscribe to conservative political doctrine that act to impose religious discourse on the rest of society using history to claim common sense.

Who's right? IMO, neither. Religion should be inclusive for all to decide and to embrace or reject- but not by complete severance and most definitely not by imposition. The middle ground is for people to realize that one side does not have the right to impose its view on the other.

There is no need to polarize religion of any sort and to tie it in to politics unless the political doctrine itself wants to be religious. In which case it needs to be honest with itself and its follower base.

I am not familiar with anything more that some people asking for religious symbols to be removed from public places and for there to be no imposition of christianity in public schools. Neither of those things promote an athiest view, in my opinion. However, if there are groups who wish to secularize institutions to the extent that religion is supressed then yes, that would be wrong and potentially dangerous.

[SpiritAlight 1]

Is there a wholesale attempt by any group or organization to try to prevent you from practicing your religion? Is there an attempt by any group or organization to prevent anyone from practicing their religion?

When have you been pointed at and laughed at in the streets for being 'religious'? What are these attacks on religion of which you speak? Oh, that's right comedians poking fun at the perceived hypocrisies of religious people is an attack?

BY, when you understand why it's ok to use the word redneck and not ok to use the word ***, then you might approach an understanding of what is and isn't an attack on religion

Madame Cleo, thanks for inspiring me to look that word up.

Illuminating.

And how it has changed meaning over the years....like so many words have, though.

I will drop it from my vocabulary as I have with many other derogatory words.

Thanks!

[HAL 9000 96]

For people who pride themselves on their intellect you sure do make some wild, unsubstantiated and completely false accusations.

It seems again, that the personal emotional involvement with this topic has led to some to take leave of their senses and spread more smeer and lies.

If you think liberals attacks on religion is unsubstantiated, hearsay and generalizing, then what can I say. Because no matter what evidence I present to you, you will pull a six.

Well, I may be considered liberal by most measures of political doctrine. And to be specific, I do see cases of some subscribers to atheistic doctrine also subscribing to liberal political doctrine. That act to quench religious discourse from public institutions via constitutional law. Much like I also see many more subscribers of religious doctrines that also subscribe to conservative political doctrine that act to impose religious discourse on the rest of society using history to claim common sense.

Who's right? IMO, neither. Religion should be inclusive for all to decide and to embrace or reject- but not by complete severance and most definitely not by imposition. The middle ground is for people to realize that one side does not have the right to impose its view on the other.

There is no need to polarize religion of any sort and to tie it in to politics unless the political doctrine itself wants to be religious. In which case it needs to be honest with itself and its follower base.

I am not familiar with anything more that some people asking for religious symbols to be removed from public places and for there to be no imposition of christianity in public schools. Neither of those things promote an athiest view, in my opinion. However, if there are groups who wish to secularize institutions to the extent that religion is supressed then yes, that would be wrong and potentially dangerous.

There's all kinds of flavors out there. I am also hard-pressed to identify an actual atheist plot to turn all members of the public into godless drones or some other evil plot of the sort.

Now as for evangelization... we do have plenty of examples of that don't we?

In the middle there is the celebration of everything... but of course in some places its more skewed towards actual constituencies and in other places its skewed towards imposed beliefs- which is part of the problem and much more an issue when considering rights, lawfulness, and freedom of choice.

[SpiritAlight 1]

For people who pride themselves on their intellect you sure do make some wild, unsubstantiated and completely false accusations.

It seems again, that the personal emotional involvement with this topic has led to some to take leave of their senses and spread more smeer and lies.

If you think liberals attacks on religion is unsubstantiated, hearsay and generalizing, then what can I say. Because no matter what evidence I present to you, you will pull a six.

Well, I may be considered liberal by most measures of political doctrine. And to be specific, I do see cases of some subscribers to atheistic doctrine also subscribing to liberal political doctrine. That act to quench religious discourse from public institutions via constitutional law. Much like I also see many more subscribers of religious doctrines that also subscribe to conservative political doctrine that act to impose religious discourse on the rest of society using history to claim common sense.

Who's right? IMO, neither. Religion should be inclusive for all to decide and to embrace or reject- but not by complete severance and most definitely not by imposition. The middle ground is for people to realize that one side does not have the right to impose its view on the other.

There is no need to polarize religion of any sort and to tie it in to politics unless the political doctrine itself wants to be religious. In which case it needs to be honest with itself and its follower base.

I am not familiar with anything more that some people asking for religious symbols to be removed from public places and for there to be no imposition of christianity in public schools. Neither of those things promote an athiest view, in my opinion. However, if there are groups who wish to secularize institutions to the extent that religion is supressed then yes, that would be wrong and potentially dangerous.

There's all kinds of flavors out there. I am also hard-pressed to identify an actual atheist plot to turn all members of the public into godless drones or some other evil plot of the sort.

Now as for evangelization... we do have plenty of examples of that don't we?

In the middle there is the celebration of everything... but of course in some places its more skewed towards actual constituencies and in other places its skewed towards imposed beliefs- which is part of the problem and much more an issue when considering rights, lawfulness, and freedom of choice.

I absolutely love that:

the celebration of everything!

YES!!!

That is what I'm talkin' about.

Live and let live.

[Peikko 1,575]

Is there a wholesale attempt by any group or organization to try to prevent you from practicing your religion? Is there an attempt by any group or organization to prevent anyone from practicing their religion?

When have you been pointed at and laughed at in the streets for being 'religious'? What are these attacks on religion of which you speak? Oh, that's right comedians poking fun at the perceived hypocrisies of religious people is an attack?

BY, when you understand why it's ok to use the word redneck and not ok to use the word ***, then you might approach an understanding of what is and isn't an attack on religion

Madame Cleo, thanks for inspiring me to look that word up.

Illuminating.

And how it has changed meaning over the years....like so many words have, though.

I will drop it from my vocabulary as I have with many other derogatory words.

Thanks!

I have never used the term and I don't plan on starting. However I think it's important to understand why and how 'n*****r' became taboo while 'trailer trash' or 'redneck' and other such words are still in use. If one can't understand this difference then I think it is understandable although not commendable that people have this idea that the US Is biased against certain caucasions. It's sad that this is then used to determine that Blacks are a group of whiney entitlement dependants but such appears to be the case.

For people who pride themselves on their intellect you sure do make some wild, unsubstantiated and completely false accusations.

It seems again, that the personal emotional involvement with this topic has led to some to take leave of their senses and spread more smeer and lies.

If you think liberals attacks on religion is unsubstantiated, hearsay and generalizing, then what can I say. Because no matter what evidence I present to you, you will pull a six.

Well, I may be considered liberal by most measures of political doctrine. And to be specific, I do see cases of some subscribers to atheistic doctrine also subscribing to liberal political doctrine. That act to quench religious discourse from public institutions via constitutional law. Much like I also see many more subscribers of religious doctrines that also subscribe to conservative political doctrine that act to impose religious discourse on the rest of society using history to claim common sense.

Who's right? IMO, neither. Religion should be inclusive for all to decide and to embrace or reject- but not by complete severance and most definitely not by imposition. The middle ground is for people to realize that one side does not have the right to impose its view on the other.

There is no need to polarize religion of any sort and to tie it in to politics unless the political doctrine itself wants to be religious. In which case it needs to be honest with itself and its follower base.

I am not familiar with anything more that some people asking for religious symbols to be removed from public places and for there to be no imposition of christianity in public schools. Neither of those things promote an athiest view, in my opinion. However, if there are groups who wish to secularize institutions to the extent that religion is supressed then yes, that would be wrong and potentially dangerous.

There's all kinds of flavors out there. I am also hard-pressed to identify an actual atheist plot to turn all members of the public into godless drones or some other evil plot of the sort.

Now as for evangelization... we do have plenty of examples of that don't we?

In the middle there is the celebration of everything... but of course in some places its more skewed towards actual constituencies and in other places its skewed towards imposed beliefs- which is part of the problem and much more an issue when considering rights, lawfulness, and freedom of choice.

I absolutely love that:

the celebration of everything!

YES!!!

That is what I'm talkin' about.

Live and let live.

Indeed - live and let live and all on a very level playing field. Hard to accomplish it would seem.

[Heracles 417]

I have never used the term and I don't plan on starting. However I think it's important to understand why and how 'n*****r' became taboo while 'trailer trash' or 'redneck' and other such words are still in use. If one can't understand this difference then I think it is understandable although not commendable that people have this idea that the US Is biased against certain caucasions. It's sad that this is then used to determine that Blacks are a group of whiney entitlement dependants but such appears to be the case.

White trash is a different story. That is like bogan in Aus or chavs in Uk, or ghetto trash in America.

Whereas redneck and *** are racist regardless of how they are used. As is the term Wog in Australia.

As an ethnic reference in Australian

Wog is also an ethnic slur in Australian English. The term traditionally denoted immigrants principally of Southern European Mediterranean and Eastern European origins (and since then, also their descendants). Among those traditionally included as wogs are Australians of Italian, Greek, Maltese, Spanish, Portuguese, Croatian, Serbian, and Bulgarian descent.

In modern usage, the term has seen itself extended and has become highly subjective and arbitrary. It now often encompasses latter migratory waves of Mediterraneans of non-European stock, that is, people from the Mediterranean countries of the Middle East and North Africa, such as Turks, Lebanese, Syrians, Palestinians, and Egyptians. Still yet, as a further extension to this expanded meaning, other peoples from Middle Eastern countries not bordering the Mediterranean might also see themselves drawn into the scope of the word, including Iraqis, Jordanians, up to and including Iranians, but not Afghans or those further beyond (note the arbitrayness, as both Iranians and Afghans are the one same ethnicity; Persians). It may sometimes even included Latin Americans as an extension to the Spanish and Portuguese, both of whom are indeed included in the traditional meaning of the word. At the same time, the frequency of the application of "wog" to the traditionally encompassed Europeans has lessened as they integrated and assimilated into the general population (over their comparatively longer history in Australia compared to later non-European "wogs" who are still in the early stages of the same process given their later arrival).

The "ethnic" character of the term "wog" came into popular use in the 1950s when Australia accepted large numbers of immigrants from Southern Europe's Mediterranean countries and from Eastern Europe, in contrast to the then overwhelmingly dominant ethnic Anglo-Celtic stock of the population. Although originally used pejoratively, the term is increasingly used more affectionately, especially by the individuals the term is used to describe.

Wog is a word with definite and widespread currency in contemporary Australian English, and for the most part it is rarely considered to be the sort of racist slur that it remains in other parts of the Anglosphere. The related term wogball, meaning association football, comes from its popularity among such people - among Australians of Anglo-Celtic/Northern European ancestry Rugby football and Australian Rules football are considered more prestigious and manly.

The term was often used in popular Australian comedy Kingswood Country between 1979-84 and was used in a sense that was sometimes perjorative, sometimes affectionate and sometimes neutral.

The word was prominently used in the popular early 1990s stage show Wogs Out of Work, created by Greek-Australian Nick Giannopoulos and Spanish-Australian Simon Palomares. The production was followed on television with Acropolis Now, starring Giannopoulos, Palomares, George Kapiniaris and Mary Coustas, and in film with The Wog Boy.

Nevertheless, the term remains quite offensive to a lot of people in Australia, particularly people of Mediterranean origin who grew up in Australia during the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s as it was still very much an ethnic slur or insult.

The derogatory nature of the term when used as an ethnic slur largely succeeded in overtaking and driving out use of the term Wog to describe illness or undesirable insects.

Edited October 27, 2008 by Aficionado

[Peikko 1,575]

You keep repeating the same point and still miss mine. That's fine but it makes it possible to understand why you come to the conclusions you do, even though a little thought from you might bring about a sea change.

[HAL 9000 96]

Enough said. Move on.

[SpiritAlight 1]

Damn, the video is gone already.

No longer available!!!

What was on it?

[HAL 9000 96]

Its Country Music star Gretchen Wilson singing about being a Redneck Woman. Meaning its not a racist epithet.

[Marilyn. 340]

Enough said. Move on.

Damn, the video is gone already.

No longer available!!!

What was on it?

it is not gone.. the embedding was disabled on that vid.. they do that to a lot of music vids on youtube...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L30V5vnYHzk

[Morning Sunshine 0]

As for Virtual*@# she needs to wake up and smell the coffee. She has serious issues if she believes McCain will help any of us! I do not know her issue!

[Ban Hammer 12,900]

As for Virtual*@# she needs to wake up and smell the coffee. She has serious issues if she believes McCain will help any of us! I do not know her issue!

so using profanity gets your point across even more so, eh?