Article

2003-10-28 Fifth Column

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Atomic Conspiracy 2003-10-28 11:15:25 AM|| || Front Page|| [11130 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 the AFSC has been actively encouraging illegal immigration here in the San Diego region. Every time there's an illegal's death - either by weather exposure or trying to run a checkpoint, you can count on teh usual suspects making news appearances

Posted by Frank G 2003-10-28 11:31:42 AM|| 2003-10-28 11:31:42 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 My personal faith and most people I know believe that non support of your own government in everything when they are morally right including war is unChristian and unlawful this also pertains to the jehovah's witenesses and others besides the Quakers but that is our opinion so take it or leave it however none of us beleive in going after them considering it is their own problem to deal with exept if they deal directlly with dictatorships

Posted by Anonymous 2003-10-28 11:48:36 AM|| 2003-10-28 11:48:36 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 I think I am going to change brands of oatmeal as well as write run-on sentnces without any punctuation so I sound like a fifteen year old discussing pro wrestling in a chatroom because that would be lots of fun

Posted by OminousWhatever 2003-10-28 11:57:54 AM|| 2003-10-28 11:57:54 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 Well, semi-literate Anonymous person, I don't share your religious beliefs, so I don't believe that groups that act in the public arena have some kind of immunity to criticism or opposition. Asserting that it is improper to "go after them" is an endorsement of censorship, like the idiot who suggested that I be jailed for violating the Dixie Chicks' rights when I dared to speak against them on my radio show.

Posted by Atomic Conspiracy 2003-10-28 12:10:03 PM|| 2003-10-28 12:10:03 PM|| Front Page Top

#5 OminousWhatever - that was delicious - I hope I never piss you off, lol

Posted by Frank G 2003-10-28 12:25:26 PM|| 2003-10-28 12:25:26 PM|| Front Page Top

#6 First to AC My statement above includes everybody in non interference in thought and beliefs i was not talking about if they broke civil law which is morally wrong however I am still against forcing people to think a certain way Next to OW I type this way in the web because it is more convinent however if you want a literate statement of mine tell me where I can send one

Posted by Anonymous 2003-10-28 12:36:56 PM|| 2003-10-28 12:36:56 PM|| Front Page Top

#7 Anonymous? What the hell was that?
Has Rodung defected?

Posted by tu3031 2003-10-28 12:37:27 PM|| 2003-10-28 12:37:27 PM|| Front Page Top

#8 Anonymous:
How is anyone being "forced to think a certain way"?

Posted by Atomic Conspiracy 2003-10-28 12:40:47 PM|| 2003-10-28 12:40:47 PM|| Front Page Top

#9 The first international arms control conference was held in The Hague in 1899. It accomplished little, nor was the second Hague conference of 1907 any better. A third meeting scheduled for 1915 had to be canceled due to the outbreak of World War I. In 1928, the Kellogg-Briand Pact, named after the U.S. Secretary of State and the French Foreign Minister, "outlawed" war.

To quote Ann Coulter, "Anybody sense a pattern here?"

Posted by Raj 2003-10-28 12:49:42 PM|| [http://angrycyclist.blogspot.com] 2003-10-28 12:49:42 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 To AC again being forced think a certain way is being attacked on a statement of belief rather than actions of individual people however I should have said to 'try to force different beliefs' like the spainish did to the Jews and Moors To Tu3031 my beliefs are based on the majority of statements of Soveriegn and Reformed Baptists with My own personal application

Posted by Anonymous 2003-10-28 12:52:02 PM|| 2003-10-28 12:52:02 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 Thanks, Anonymous. I'm glad we cleared that up.
Right.

Posted by tu3031 2003-10-28 12:56:57 PM|| 2003-10-28 12:56:57 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 I should have put the word Grace following Soveriegn

Posted by Anonymous 2003-10-28 12:59:39 PM|| 2003-10-28 12:59:39 PM|| Front Page Top

#13 There is no right to immunity from criticism, of belief or anything else.
This kind of criticism is not "force," and it is obscene and dishonest for you to compare it to the actions of the Spanish Inquisition. If you have a problem with free speech; fine, that is your right. Just don't try to enforce it.

Posted by Atomic Conspiracy 2003-10-28 1:02:39 PM|| 2003-10-28 1:02:39 PM|| Front Page Top

#14 If You truly read My statements It cleary points out I am for freedom of speach and how is it obscene when considering the Spainish Inquisition started when people in general attacked other groups of people for being different in beliefs

Posted by Anonymous 2003-10-28 1:11:30 PM|| 2003-10-28 1:11:30 PM|| Front Page Top

#15 The Spanish Inquisition started when somebody asserted that it was unlawful to question certain beliefs, as you are doing now.
Criticism is not force, it is not torture, and it is not oppression. Pretending that they are is a direct attack on free speech.

Posted by Atomic Conspiracy 2003-10-28 1:22:06 PM|| 2003-10-28 1:22:06 PM|| Front Page Top

#16 Quakers are not "fundamentalists". Fundamentalist has a specific theological meaning, especially when referring to a Christian sect, and Quakers don't remotely qualify. Their pacifism is bad Christian doctrine in my opinion, and just a first example of why they can't be considered fundamentalist. I wouldn't argue with "cult", though.

I'd be interest in some support for the contention that the "The Quackers [sic] of the time in fact did everything possible and legal, and some things that werenât, to undermine the war effort and materially assist Nazi forces." My understanding is that Quakers were permitted CO status but that many served as medics and in other legal alternative service. Leaving aside the debate about whether a CO was "objectively pro-Nazi", what else is supposed to have happened?

Posted by VAMark 2003-10-28 1:30:09 PM|| 2003-10-28 1:30:09 PM|| Front Page Top

#17 Once again We are in agreement in Your statement about freedom of speach and also about your opinion of the quaker group in question however i never stated above that I am against You stating Your opinion but all opinions including mine have a tendecy to being taken out of context and used improperly so both of us should be careful of what we say and do with the empthasis on me not you

Posted by Anonymous 2003-10-28 1:33:37 PM|| 2003-10-28 1:33:37 PM|| Front Page Top

#18 And to clear up cofusion I was talking about governments going after them not individuals in voicing their oppostion to them

Posted by Anonymous 2003-10-28 1:46:48 PM|| 2003-10-28 1:46:48 PM|| Front Page Top

#19 I don't care where the Quakers tand politically because, damn it, they make a hell of a good cereal.

Posted by Super Hose 2003-10-28 1:59:48 PM|| 2003-10-28 1:59:48 PM|| Front Page Top

#20 This is a small "f" fundamentalism, Mark. By the strict definition, as used in theology, Muslim fundamentalism is no such thing either. In terms of relying on religious doctrine in defiance of objective experience, I think that Quaker beliefs share important characteristics with those of certain groups who are often characterized as fundamentalist. In their case, this doctrine is not Biblical, but it is fundamental to their belief system.
Before the US entry into World War 2, Quakers were very active in the Isolationist movement, which indisputably delayed US entry into the war. Whether this was justified is debatable, but there is no doubt at all that it materially assisted the early Nazi conquests and prolonged the war.
I don't know who said that COs were objectively pro-Nazi, but I am not willing to extend this to individual COs who accepted alternate service, since this service did in fact assist the war effort and contribute to the defeat of the Nazi regime. Some Quakers were jailed for refusing even alternate service on this basis and it is hard to argue with their doctrinal consistency in that respect.
"What else is supposed to have happened?"
Why is anything else supposed to have happened? Our system requires us to accommodate religious dissidence to a reasonable extent.
I have not suggested changing that but if Quakers trumpet their opposition to Nazism, it is only fair and reasonable for me to point out that this opposition was ineffective and counter-productive, especially in comparison to the efforts they did their best to oppose.

Posted by Atomic Conspiracy 2003-10-28 2:22:57 PM|| 2003-10-28 2:22:57 PM|| Front Page Top

#21 To AC if I offended you inadvertantly I appoligize and I ask for your forgivness brother I call you brother because we seem to be of the same Flock spiritually speaking along with VAMark who I also sense the same from even if we differ slightly in doctrine and political view

Posted by Anonymous 2003-10-28 2:25:26 PM|| 2003-10-28 2:25:26 PM|| Front Page Top

#22 Thank you, Anonymous, and please accept my apology for the strident tone that is sometimes the norm here.
Feel free to e-mail me with information on this Baptist group to which you belong. I am sorry to say that I am not familiar with it.

Posted by Atomic Conspiracy 2003-10-28 2:37:30 PM|| 2003-10-28 2:37:30 PM|| Front Page Top

#23 AC, OW & others,

PLEASE, do NOT feed the trolls!

Thank you.

-Analog

Posted by Analog Roam 2003-10-28 3:16:43 PM|| 2003-10-28 3:16:43 PM|| Front Page Top

#24 I haven't. I just changed brands of Oatmeal because I'm feeling petty.

Posted by OminousWhatever 2003-10-28 3:36:47 PM|| 2003-10-28 3:36:47 PM|| Front Page Top

#25 I wont get into whether Quakers are good christians or what not (as long as christians here dont presume to comment on the propriety of say, driving on shabbos) I will note that it is my impression that the AFSC has a considerable independence from the Society of Friends, and that while Quakers do tend to be liberal, not all share the positions of the AFSC.

Posted by liberalhawk 2003-10-28 4:20:16 PM|| 2003-10-28 4:20:16 PM|| Front Page Top

#26 To AC I sent an E-mail but If you do not recieve it just look up sovereign grace baptist in the World Wide Web I apolgize in advance for any incovienance

Posted by Anonymous 2003-10-28 5:10:37 PM|| 2003-10-28 5:10:37 PM|| Front Page Top

#27 Dammit Bastian! Is that you?

Thanks for letting me borrow the cart. Sorry about the lettuce.

Posted by Shipman 2003-10-28 8:00:14 PM|| 2003-10-28 8:00:14 PM|| Front Page Top

#28 To AC forgot the number 80 after the word sun in my e-mail adress if you want to send any message to me

Posted by Anonymous 2003-10-28 8:53:16 PM|| 2003-10-28 8:53:16 PM|| Front Page Top

04:50 Alex Davidson
04:32 Val
00:37 Steve White
22:53 Stephen
22:42 Stephen
22:31 Stephen
21:59 Pappy
21:56 Charles
21:51 Charles
21:46 Mercutio
21:42 Old Patriot
21:40 Pappy
21:32 Old Patriot
20:53 Anonymous
20:43 Robert Crawford
20:34 pill
20:17 Slumming
20:03 Shipman
20:00 Shipman
19:53 Shipman
19:49 Shipman
19:45 Frank G
19:41 Shipman
19:35 Shipman