Texsox

I guess I took Duke's comments as more universal than specific to Soxtalk. As a group, we are probably more aware than most.

QUOTE (lostfan @ May 18, 2009 -> 07:47 AM) Good lord Tex, you are all over the place with the slippery slopes and the straw men. Different posters have made different points with different points of view, for me to stay in one place I will have to ignore some posts. It's a simple point, he's quoting from literature. Not a big deal. And the initial post mentioned that we have to stop because that is why some people hate us. So I've pointed out several ways that that does not make a difference in some people hating us. Some people will allow him to quote from some works of literature, but not others. That would require a government sanctioned list of approved books that can be quoted from. Telling someone of faith to check their beliefs at the door, would be the same as telling the atheists to check their beliefs at the door.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ May 18, 2009 -> 07:41 AM) Way to paint everyone in here as inferior to you. Anyway, good that this is ending, at least for now. I still wouldn't say its over, but, hopefully it is. I wish I had bookmarked it, but SS2k5 wrote a great post on just that topic albeit about Rwanda. We do tend to avoid brown on brown conflicts. Especially if they do not have any natural resources we need.

QUOTE (lostfan @ May 18, 2009 -> 07:26 AM) How many people have died during a briefing? Anyone going to die from the plans being briefed? Should the government create an official list of books that they are allowed to quote from? If you do not believe in the religion, it is just literature he is quoting from. But perhaps we should have an official government list of authors that can be read and quoted from. The anti-religion people here are amazing. The two most evil forces in the world, religion and Scot Boras Y'all would have been very comfortable in the Soviet Union. Perhaps that is why they are so loved and we are so hated around the world.

God rest their souls.

QUOTE (Reddy @ May 17, 2009 -> 10:27 PM) man this is so weird to me. like i said before, i'm not used to you being illogical - but what lost was saying is there's a time and place, and you don't agree with that? people should be able to say whatever the frick they want whenever they want to say it? without condemnation? is that what you're suggesting? I would suggest when people are dying, that is a good place and time for religion. Perhaps it would have been better if he just photocopied some of our currency instead. In God We Trust. Funny when we send US dollars to these countries, with In God We Trust emblazon across the face, they do not find that as a reason to hate us. My only wish is Rumsfeld invoked other religions as well in his memos. The Eastern religions especially have some great stuff on war and peace. Those that believe the country has now endorsed a religion, which one? Catholic, Lutheran, LDS, ??? When will we start shutting down the other Churches? GMAB. Like many of our rights, we are protected from the government stopping citizens from practicing their freely choosed religion. We did not write the Constitution to stop people from praying, we wrote that into the Constitution to ensure that we can continue to pray in the way that we want to. In all facets of life.

QUOTE (lostfan @ May 17, 2009 -> 10:05 PM) What they're saying is that there's a time and a place for that, and an official military briefing probably isn't. Are they intolerable or tolerable to Rumsfeld quoting certain forms of literature? It's a simple question, with a simple answer. They are intolerable of him quoting religious works. They will allow him to quote other material, or even make other statements of his own, as long as they are not reflecting his religious views. And the reasoning behind it is because the Iraqis will hate us. The Iraqis would prefer if we were fighting an atheistic war against them, and not a holy war. Perhaps then they will stop fighting a jihad, or holy war, and instead they too will fight an atheistic war against us. Then, things will be so much better. We will fight this war as friends. It's late, I'm done.

QUOTE (lostfan @ May 17, 2009 -> 09:40 PM) C. neither, choice between A and B is false Then again, I want to know how in the hell regular people have access to TS/SCI briefing slides even if the individual slides are unclassified. That's just... no. What some people here are stating is that Rumsfeld should not be allowed to quote religious material. That is intolerant to me. What would you call it?

QUOTE (lostfan @ May 17, 2009 -> 09:35 PM) Tex what are you talking about? I've been to hundreds of military briefings, the topic of religion (unless explicitly relevant to the subject at hand) is almost always entirely irrelevant. Religious intolerance? You're reaching hard. Stopping Rumsfeld from quoting material is . . . ? A. Religious tolerance B. Religious intolerance

During the cold war, did it make America feel better, and hate the Soviets less, that the Soviiets banned all religion? Why would it make a difference to the Iraqis?

QUOTE (lostfan @ May 17, 2009 -> 08:35 PM) The vast majority of what's been posted in this thread is far from the point. AHB and Heads about had it though. It gives the impression that this is a religion-based war which really just feeds into the terrorists' stereotypes. Stopping all religious comments feeds it even more. I do not see how saying, it is not just your religion we want to stop, we seek to stop all religion, is any better. At that point we begin promoting religious intolerance. That feeds the stereotypes.

QUOTE (Heads22 @ May 17, 2009 -> 09:16 PM) If using scripture on an official government document doesn't constitute an endorsement of that religion by our government, whether intended or not, I'm not sure what does. It does not create an official religion like the Church of England. It does not ban any other religions. Most of our Presidents have regularly attended services while in office, your thinking would stop that as well. That is far more of an endorsement than a cabinet member quoting scripture. The fact we have never elected an atheist President says something about America's leaning.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ May 17, 2009 -> 05:12 PM) Please explain how this quote would be valuable in any way to a U.S. soldier who happens to be Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, Atheist, etc: "Behold, the eye of the Lord is on those who fear Him…To deliver their soul from death." Perhaps not valuable at all. Not certain why they would be harmed either while the 60 or 70% who profess faith may find encouragement. I have no problem sitting respectfully by while other people profess their faith, I enjoy finding commonalities. I'll even enjoy a good atheist inspiration speech about evolving from slime and becoming worm food in the end.

QUOTE (Heads22 @ May 17, 2009 -> 05:10 PM) On an official government document, there should never be a religious quote, piece of scripture, etc. used in that manner. It gives the portrayal that we have a Christian justification for this war, anyways. It would seem that being tolerant of others practicing their religion would be better than denouncing against all religions. Instead of portraying a Christian justification, we would portray an atheistic justification for war. I'm not certain that those that we bomb will feel any better. The best course of action is respecting everyone's philosophy or religion. I have no problem sitting respectfully while someone quotes from the Koran or other teachings. I find inspiration in other people's faith as well. We may not be praying by name to the same deity or deities, but we may. People, fight wars. Some people are men and women of faith, others are not. We do not allow the government to dictate one religion like some countries. Showing the world that we embrace a wide variety of faiths is more powerful than rejecting all religion.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ May 17, 2009 -> 03:28 PM) I can't even begin to imagine the security this took. Honestly, I wish all presidents could do these types of things, but it isn't realistic, unfortunately. There are two ways of doing this, plan months in advance and try and control everything or spur of the moment and go. It might not have been as bad as originally it appears.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ May 17, 2009 -> 10:13 AM) You can personally pray to whichever deity you want but we shouldn't have military leaders quoting text from the bible to troops. Whether you believe in a deity nor not, the advice, counsel, and wisdom contained in religious texts, from all religions, is valuable. To ignore that, does more harm than allowing it. The quotes are, and among other things, wisdom and thoughts from previous generations. Would it be ok to quote other people's thoughts if they were atheists? Can we quote Plato but not Jesus? Quote Socrates but not the Buddha? Doesn't make sense. Any other speech you care to stop? Shall we eliminate Chaplains from our service? Shall we stop our soldiers from witnessing to each other? Only allow atheists into the military? I believe we should ban all atheist from ever speaking to balance this out.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ May 17, 2009 -> 10:09 AM) And meddling in their affairs. That to. Except for the part were we send them billions in aid to protect our interests. That sort of meddling at least rents us some love

Do you think some of the men and women who are getting shot at, and whose lives are being threatened everyday in war, pray? The old phrase "there are no atheists in foxholes" comes to mind. Why anyone would think that people's belief systems would stop at some point up the military ladder is silly. And we have soldiers praying to a wide range of deities. We have reasonable freedoms of religion is this country. Our soldiers can practice almost any religion they freely choose. The fact that it is usually Christian is a reflection of our country and the men and women of our military. I would find it intolerable to stop those men and women, and their leaders, by restricting them from practicing their religion; especially in light of the life or death situation our country has placed them in.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ May 17, 2009 -> 09:47 AM) exactly. People hate us because we are KILLING them.

Glad to see he can have some degree of normalcy to his life. The jacket is sweet, I'm wondering if Sox merchandise will see an Obama bump in sales?

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ May 17, 2009 -> 09:33 AM) Odd source, but this is from GQ- And we wonder why the middle east hates us. And why do we hate them? Do you really believe if we changed the rhetoric to "we are killing you because of a non-secular belief that you are evil and trying to destroy us" they will like us?

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ May 17, 2009 -> 08:27 AM) Perhaps its the type of hitters that are on the roster is the problem. Orlando Cabrera is hitting .223 with Oakland. Maybe Walker wasn't so bad with him. Swisher is down to .239. The White Sox pretty much have had a line-up with sluggers during Walker's reign. There hasn't been real high on base, high contact guys on the roster. The Walker bashing has gone overboard, but it would reach heights that cannot be equalled if there are more than one or two posts blaming him for Josh Fields striking out. Although I am starting to see the light. Instead of being angry Linebrink gave up a couple of runs yesterday, one on a golf shot and another on a broken bat single, I just b****ed out Cooper. If the player doesn't get the job done, its definitely on the coach. Just like corporate America, it would be crazy to hold the guys making all the money accountable. I guess what I find so funny is the same guys who say Thome is done, his bat has slowed, Konerko needs to be released, Dye is done....then say if these players whose skills they have determined aren't major league quality anymore cannot put up huge numbers like they did when they were in the primes of their careers, its proof postive that Greg Walker sucks. Dick, you are the Walker expert on this board. I think everyone agrees, he's great with sluggers. Could you list a couple players that have blossomed into more high contact type hitters? Look at golf as an example, Dave Pelz made a career out of helping just the short game. It is not an insult to Walker to say he is not as effective with guys trying to develop into high contact, high average, type players.

QUOTE (Baines3 @ May 17, 2009 -> 02:26 AM) I don't blame Josh for all the strikeouts. If we only had a hitting coach. To be fair, if only we had a hitting coach that was successful with multiple approaches to hitting. Dick has posted several times that Walker has produced results. As long as we populate the roster with Thome and Konerko type hitters, Walker is probably da man. I just do not see him coaching a guy to a high average.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ May 15, 2009 -> 03:57 PM) But their choice is effecting a child who is not old enough to understand that kind of choice. That is the issue here. If it was for themselves as adults, then obviously the courts should stay out of it. But the court's choice (strangers with no prior connection with the child) is effecting a child who is not old enough to understand that kind of choice. That is the issue here. If it was for themselves as adults, then obviously the courts should stay out of it. If this was a situation where the parents wanted chemo and the hospital decided the chances were too low to offer it, should the government jump in?

How about where the child needs a transfusion of some sort and the only donor is another child. Would the courts mandate that treatment for both children? Whichever course this country follows, parents or judges (neither of which are usually medical experts) there will be mistakes made. I would prefer that the mistakes be made by parents who will have to live with the consequences to their flesh and blood creation, than mistakes made by a legal authority. And is this a state's right or could it be argued to the SCOTUS?