HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » jberryhill » Journal

jberryhill

Profile Information

Gender: Male
Hometown: Delaware
Member since: Fri Jan 20, 2006, 07:14 PM
Number of posts: 62,444

Journal Archives

Breaking News: Most Of Planet's 1B Muslims Had A Normal Day


In what seems to have been a spontaneous global breakout of normalcy, most of the world's 1B Muslims report having a normal day in what many call, "Kind of a mundane week, really."

Which occupation best controls malpractice?

Some professions remain largely self-regulating:

The Constitution expressly grants a right to the services of only one of these professions

South Africa was run by Dutch Reformed Protestants

The apotheosis of the Pilgrims is largely a product of a certain strain of Protestantism. The reason the Pilgrims went from England to Holland is twofold. First, the political climate in relation to anglican, reformed, and Catholic populations had long been turbulent. Second, their Calvinistic strain of belief was itself an import, most directly kindred to the Dutch Reformed.

They left Holland for two reasons. First, they were concerned that their children's minds were being polluted by Dutch tolerance. Now, the Dutch Reformed are as personally uptight as the next Protestant, but they were still too tolerant for the Pilgrims. Second, the Dutch West India company needed suckers to make money for their investors. These were the first venture capitalist to export jobs.

But anyway, the Pilgrims themselves lost their battle against assimilation here in the long run. However, those of the purest strain of Dutch Reformed established colonies in South Africa.

It is their culture - the culture of the Afrikaners - which finally bloomed into its glory as the ruling culture of South Africa in the 20th Century.

And I well remember at the time when we responded to the call of Anglican Bishop Desmond Tutu and others to use economic action to effect social change in South Africa.

And do you know who the chief opponents of ending apartheid were, here in the US?

The remnants of the Calvinistic heritage of the Pilgrims. Not by descent, but in the spiritual sense.

South Africa is one of two historical examples of where things go when "literalist" Bible believers get their hands on the wheels of power.

(note to hosts - this is not a religion thread. It is a thread about the political impact of a particular religious mindset, its political manifestation in South Africa, and what that might imply about our political future)

Today's Sunday Morning Hymn


Please rise for the Mormon Tabernacle Choir singing "Onward Christian Soldiers"

Who is crazier?

Which person is crazier?

And does your answer depend on whether the second one gives money to the first one?

Inconsistent application of "free speech" principles

Since the following has been locked as "off topic" for GD, I have been requested to post it in Meta..

----
Okay, so what I see on the news are a lot of people demonstrating their displeasure with something someone said.

A few of them, as with any angry mass demonstrations do destructive things. Now, when that happens in protests we like, "they must be agitators, provocateurs, etc."

But we have quite a few folks here taking the position "what's wrong with these people is that they don't understand freedom of speech."

That is true to a large extent, because they didn't grow up with it. But this criticism misses the the elephant in the room.

By and large, the protests consist of people gathering, chanting, carrying banners and signs, and not doing any harm to anyone.

In others, they are engaging, exercising, and thus expanding their own freedom of speech.

The ones doing violent things cannot be a majority of the thousands upon thousands who, by and large are simply walking down a street, shouting and gesticulating.

The outstanding hypocrisy here is that the simple observable fact of the overhelming preponderance of non-destructive protestors, is the folks here who say:

"These people need to understand free speech!"

Uh... Wtf do you think most of them are DOING?

The Outstanding Hypocrisy Here At DU


Okay, so what I see on the news are a lot of people demonstrating their displeasure with something someone said.

A few of them, as with any angry mass demonstrations do destructive things. Now, when that happens in protests we like, "they must be agitators, provocateurs, etc."

But we have quite a few folks here taking the position "what's wrong with these people is that they don't understand freedom of speech."

That is true to a large extent, because they didn't grow up with it. But this criticism misses the the elephant in the room.

By and large, the protests consist of people gathering, chanting, carrying banners and signs, and not doing any harm to anyone.

In others, they are engaging, exercising, and thus expanding their own freedom of speech.

The ones doing violent things cannot be a majority of the thousands upon thousands who, by and large are simply walking down a street, shouting and gesticulating.

The outstanding hypocrisy here is that the simple observable fact of the overhelming preponderance of non-destructive protestors, is the folks here who say:

"These people need to understand free speech!"

Uh... Wtf do you think most of them are DOING?

"Mitt Romney makes my ______ hurt!"


I'm looking for a noun or noun phrase here.....

Do you know who kills over symbolic offenses?

Gangs. Criminal gangs.

If you wear the wrong color shirt on the wrong street. If you insult the honor of a gang member.

These kinds of gangs are not unique to the Middle East. You can find the same kinds of gangs in LA, NY and a lot of places in between.

It's not as if we don't have people in the US who kill over symbolic insults.

I will bet you $10,000

That both Romney and Ryan are each cooking up some kind of "debate zinger" which is going to go over like a lead balloon.

It'll top "Can I call you Joe?" as the worst fail ever in needing to set up a contrived "spontaneous" line.

The GOP is going to cry it was unfair to put Barack Obama behind the podium that Mitt wanted to debate.
Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next »