Bryan

At least your bias is clear enough. You should send a letter explaining that to the Christians in Darfur. Except most of them are dead already. Again, your bias is clear enough. You appear to have neglected my reliance on the law in making my case. Very convenient for you, I'm sure. Some of the straw men you guys build are so funny they should be doing shows in Vegas. Now playing at the Stardust ... It wasn't the chilling effect "of" Supreme Court decisions to which I referred. It was the rationale used by the Supreme Court in reaching some of its key decisions regarding free speech. Didn't visit the source I provided before electing to insert your foot in your mouth, eh?

Your lack of class in admitting error is noted. True, since they'll be made 7,000 times worse with the ascendancy of the Democrats. Fortunately, Bush did enough right so that we may yet survive the dingbattery of Democrats like Reed, who declared the Iraq War lost last summer, and Barack Obama, who can't make up his mind where our troops will be in 2010 (as he tells far left supporters one thing while his policy advisers contradict him). Might as well throw Clinton in there for attacking free trade while her now former) adviser works on a deal with our South American ally, Columbia. If the Democrats do a good a job of matching their idiotic rhetoric after the 2008 election as they did following the 2006 election then the United States is well on its way to losing superpower status (something some Democrats have openly yearned for).

No metaphysical basis for your morality? Does that concern you at all? When your unique morals conflict with those of somebody else (as with your basis for objecting to the Christian account of salvation), do you not wonder whether there is a correct view? Your sketch of your ministerial duties and views was interesting, but I thought I'd stick with what I had asked you about. Thanks for the reply.

Just feel the love--along with the complete absence of bigotry, of course. How we got from "Christian Nation" to disliking blacks, Hispanics, Asians, Muslims and secularists could do with some explanation, though.

Yet nobody else seemed to have Matthew's ... extreme courage to do something about it after all those years at Kearny. Paul has long since painted his views at the extreme end of the religious and political spectrum. Ah, yes. That proven method of promoting religious extremism. Victimhood. If you can't see the LaClairs using every bit of it to further their religious agenda, that's your problem. More likely you simply agree with their religious agenda so you come to their defense as a knee-jerk response.

You don't know an absurd argument when you see one, or else you wouldn't have posted. From where to you draw my supposed conclusion "It happened"? I simply cited the evidence that it had happened. From where did you get my supposed conclusion that it happened because of the actions of the LaClairs (2 and 3 are suitably identical). On the contrary, I predicted the chilling effect based on Supreme Court decisions touching Constitutional law. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilling_effect I also drew on my personal experience of reading news accounts that indicate similar behaviors across the United States--a history that is well-known enough for Paul LaClair to refrain from expressing any great skepticism regarding the reports. Baloney. I accept the claims as evidence that the events happened. You committed the fallacy in accepting my statements as an acceptance of the claims as facts. Baloney. You don't know that I know nothing about the incidents, and I don't need any basis for saying why they happened. I predicted such events. It is for you to wonder how such a thing would be accurately predicted if my reasoning had been fallacious. Yes, and? Schools will do such things anyway because they fear lawsuits such as LaClair's. That's the point, and you can't dance around it. Meh. There was no law enforced and you're fooling yourself if you think otherwise. There is no law against what Paszkiewicz did except in the minds of adherents of the "Living Constitution" (the ones who can make the document say what they want it to say). Law enforcement was never involved. Instead, the ACLU and the LaClairs took the course of bullying the administration with the threat of lawsuit. When that type of thing happens the law goes out the window and the parties calculate according to the bottom line more often than not. Straw man fallacy x2. Congratulations for helping to confirm that your side of the argument lacks a representative sufficiently capable of logical reasoning to address it without committing an obvious fallacy. Once again, a good thing that you remembered to post as "Guest."

Oh, a personal attack. What a surprise.. Smart man, political lightweight. There is no contradiction. He hasn't survived it until he survives it, and even then surviving criticism doesn't keep him from being a lightweight since we're probably measuring it in terms of public opinion (like yours). Even if he's the next president he's still a lightweight just like Jimmy Carter was. And if you don't like my example of a lightweight who became president I'm sure you can think of your own.

The golden rule is not an ethical system, but a generalized ethical precept. I encourage you to explore the metaphysical foundations you see for the golden rule if you choose to sketch your moral system in a new thread (referring to my reply to you in a different thread). Are you saying that you do not know whether or not you have free will? Are you not informed on the matter by your world view, at least?

So that you can continue to dodge the questions? Both men could be current members of the KKK and the comparison would still be strained. Didn't I already point out Hagee's leadership role in Christians United For Israel? It's a special interest group that supports Israel. That is the significance of the endorsement. That's your cue to keep dodging any engagement on the issues. ... and you'll keep right on dodging. Parsley's at least partly a dingbat, but there's no context for McCain's reference to him as a "spiritual guide" (that is, nothing to tell us what the term meant in that instance, since McCain, for example, has apparently never attended Parsley's church). Chances are Parsley appears nowhere in McCain's autobiography, whereas Wright figures prominently in Obama's (the title comes from Wright). That's something else you should dodge, though no doubt you don't need me to tell you that.

When did the UCMJ begin to apply to the CIA, by the way?

They sold their school project very effectively. Google "LaClair" and "Kearny." And they used victimization. Poor Matthew "Didn't feel safe." And his life was threatened. Did you know that? Uh--if they need the weapons for the inciting then how effective could the story be at the same task? Or is the story engraved on the rifle barrels and painted on the Katyushas? Hence Christian theology teaches a god who is both kind and just, not just kind. Nasty tone, but since you asked, I completed the master of humanist leadership studies at the Humanist Institute. The current tuition rates are available online. The actual ordination was by recommendation and authorized by the American Humanist Association division of Humanist Certification Nasty? Not at all, unless you consider a touch of ridicule out of place when you criticize an aspect of Christian theology about which you appear ignorant. Perhaps a master of humanist leadership studies can provide a superior account of the metaphysics of humanist ethics tha(n) can Paul LaClair (one should hope), however. You may have missed my point, there (perhaps indirectly owing to my typographical errors). I'd like to hear your account of the metaphysics of humanist morality. You should probably start a fresh thread for its sake if you're game. I don't expect an involved essay--just a sketch that will facilitate discussion. But if you prefer the essay approach that's fine with me.

... keep right on believing in "universal" human values regardless of their universality, that is. "... they're unwilling to think about them clearly, much less part with them."

... said the guy who takes every opportunity to duck defending what he supposedly believes. Take Paul to task on his supposedly "universal" moral system and he hems like a seamstress and haws like Roy Clark. His religion is as ill-founded as any, but he has blinded himself to the fact.

Look, you're quite right that Obama is a lightweight with virtually no significant legislative accomplishments under his belt (certainly with less history of bipartisan cooperation than Sen. McCain), but Obama did have a career as an Illinois state senator and that is clearly what the person you're replying to was talking about. Obama is an easy enough target for criticism without distorting or ignoring the facts.

Sure it is, unless you're committing a fallacy of equivocation. You're not committing a fallacy of equivocation, are you? Riiiight. Try to put that reductio ad absurdum in a deductive syllogism someday. See how far you get.

That question would be more appropriate once I get in the habit of ending my posts with "Bryan has spoken!" or the like. But I guess you can use any excuse to take a shot at me. Yeah. I've got tons of work to do in order to measure up to your level of self-disclosure, don't I?

I doubt that will be possible until you see yourself in the description you offer of religionists. Seriously.

Not counting the victimization of Paul and Matthew LaClair, of course. The story is used to incite? Where and how? Huh? Who says? The traditional doctrine is that Adam and Eve possessed heavenly access regardless of the reasoning you suggest above, and sin broke the relationship. The sufferings of Christ as far as I know are never referred to as providing the rationale for Christ's sacrifice (on the contrary, the plan of redemption is implied as an eternal expectation). Were you ordained by the Universal Life church or what? What do they charge these days for the paperwork? Heh. It's free these days! http://www.themonastery.org/?destination=ordination Neither does ethics in the sense you're apparently using the term. Including the theory that good science always hold the possibility that a new discover will prove or disprove an earlier theory? Or does that not rise to the level of "theory" either? So there's no use asking you about those great ideas, I suppose.

You could be right, but there's plenty of game left to play, and plenty of things can change between now and election day. I think that press scrutiny will reveal more flaws with Obama than with McCain (McCain has already been vetted). If issues mean anything at all, Obama will be crushed (you can't seriously talk about restoring the economy and balancing the budget at the same time--pipe dream). Obama has proposed big billions of dollars of new spending. Where is the money coming from if not through taxation (brakes on the economy)? Who's Radagast?

Bah. I believe I predicted that your machinations would produce a chilling effect on proper religious free speech. You denied it then, as I recall. Now there is evidence to support the prediction, but no acknowledgment from you of a correlation and no expression of regret over the outcome. Just an apparently puzzled Well, that shouldn't have happened.

Clinton may not have, either. Bill got a fishy (big) buyout from foreign national some weeks ago. If you're surprised that the Clintons are liars you didn't pay attention during the Clinton presidency. But Hillary would still probably make a better president than Obama (though I find Clinton personally despicable and Obama--still (the more his mask slips the tougher the chore)--basically likable). The hard left isn't going to melt away to nothing, unfortunately. But you're right that the best case scenario has the Democrats re-aligning to the party of the Kennedy era while the far left forms a new party to rival the Green and Libertarian parties for nuttiness.

Vote Clinton. The senator from New York has only twice the campaign debt of McCain.

I'd be interested in hearing what ethical system you use from which to condemn slavery. And then I'd be interested in hearing whether or not you are a determinist/compatibilist.

Saddam Hussein repeatedly defied the UN--not Bush personally. The Iraq War was undertaken in addition to the effort to destroy al Qaeda in Afghanistan, just like D-Day did not take place instead of attacking Japan in the Pacific theater. Start with a flawed premise and you end with a flawed conclusion. You should identify that segment of the program that supposedly supports what you're claiming. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/bushswar/

Because once they understand that they'll completely ignore the data regardless of its accuracy? The rationalization subsequent to your protestation that you did not change the topic looks like an admission that you changed the topic. Where exactly did you deal with the Democrats' record on earmarks, may I ask? It's both, but it's not an entitlement program in the mold of food stamps, welfare, or social security. Probably you had a fallacy of equivocation in mind. VA hospitals sometimes have MRI scanners, too, so you should ask me to describe how an MRI works. Since I mentioned the VA it would be on topic. Right? Let me know where to mark my calendar for when you'll be willing to address the Democrats' history on earmarks.