Something Different
Here's something from an Australian newspaper, to see how your brain works. Look at the spinning lady and see which way you think she's going around.
Here's what The Herald-Sun says about it:
It seems obvious to me that she's going around clockwise. What do you see?
Here's what The Herald-Sun says about it:
THE Right Brain vs Left Brain test ... do you see the dancer turning clockwise or anti-clockwise?
If clockwise, then you use more of the right side of the brain and vice versa.
Most of us would see the dancer turning anti-clockwise though you can try to focus and change the direction; see if you can do it.
LEFT BRAIN FUNCTIONS
uses logic
detail oriented
facts rule
words and language
present and past
math and science
can comprehend
knowing
acknowledges
order/pattern perception
knows object name
reality based
forms strategies
practical
safe
RIGHT BRAIN FUNCTIONS
uses feeling
"big picture" oriented
imagination rules
symbols and images
present and future
philosophy & religion
can "get it" (i.e. meaning)
believes
appreciates
spatial perception
knows object function
fantasy based
presents possibilities
impetuous
risk taking
It seems obvious to me that she's going around clockwise. What do you see?
posted by JimK at 3:34 PM
42 Comments:
Man, Obama's made a real mess out his first real task. No wonder his approval ratings are declining.
When the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal agree on economics, you know we better pay attention.
The Democratically controlled CBO says his "stimulus bill" won't stimulate much of anything.
Suddenly, the Republican lawmakers urging caution look pretty smart:
"The stimulus bill currently steaming through Congress looks like a legislative freight train, but given last week's analysis by the Congressional Budget Office, it is more accurate to think of it as a time machine.
That may be the only way to explain how spending on public works in 2011 and beyond will help the economy today.
According to Congressional Budget Office estimates, a mere $26 billion of the House stimulus bill's $355 billion in new spending would actually be spent in the current fiscal year, and just $110 billion would be spent by the end of 2010.
This is highly embarrassing given that Congress's justification for passing this bill so urgently is to help the economy right now, if not sooner.
And the red Congressional faces must be very red indeed, because CBO's analysis has since vanished into thin air after having been posted early last week on the Appropriations Committee Web site.
Officially, the committee says this is because the estimates have been superseded as the legislation has moved through committee. No doubt.
In addition to suppressing the CBO analysis, Democrats have derided it.
Appropriations Chairman David Obey (D., Wis.) called it "off the wall," never mind that CBO is now run by Democrats.
Mr. Obey also suggested that it would be a mistake to debate the stimulus "until the cows come home."
We'd settle for a month or two, so at least the voters can inspect the various Congressional cattle they're buying with that $355 billion.
The stimulus bill is also a time machine in the sense that it's based on an old, and largely discredited, economic theory.
As Harvard economist Robert Barro pointed out on these pages last Thursday, the "stimulus" claim is based on something called the Keynesian "multiplier," which is that each $1 of spending the government "injects" into the economy yields 1.5 times that in greater output.
There's little evidence to support this theory, but you have to admire its beauty because it assumes the government can create wealth out of thin air.
If it were true, the government should spend $10 trillion and we'd all live in paradise.
The problem is that the money for this spending boom has to come from somewhere, which means it is removed from the private sector as higher taxes or borrowing.
For every $1 the government "injects," it must take $1 away from someone else -- either in taxes or by issuing a bond.
In either case this leaves $1 less available for private investment or consumption.
Mr. Barro wrote about this way back in 1974 in his classic article, "Are Government Bonds Net Wealth?", in the Journal of Political Economy. Larry Summers and Paul Krugman must have missed it.
The government spending will be a net stimulus only if its $1 goes to more productive purposes than those to which private investors would have put that same $1.
There are some ways we may want the government to spend money -- on national defense, say -- but that doesn't mean it's a stimulus.
A similar analysis applies to the tax cuts that are part of President Obama's proposal.
In contrast to the spending, at least the tax cuts will take effect immediately.
But the problem is that Mr. Obama wants them to be temporary, which means taxpayers realize they will see no permanent increase in their after-tax incomes.
Not being fools, Americans may either save or spend the money but they aren't likely to change their behavior in ways that will spur growth.
For Exhibit A, consider the failure of last February's tax rebate stimulus, which was a bipartisan production of George W. Bush and Mr. Summers, who is now advising Mr. Obama.
To be genuinely stimulating, tax cuts need to be immediate, permanent and on the "margin," meaning that they apply to the next dollar of income that an individual or business earns.
This was the principle behind the Kennedy tax cuts of 1964, as well as the Reagan tax cuts of 1981, which finally took full effect on January 1, 1983.
If the Obama Democrats can't abide this because it's a "tax cut for the rich," as an alternative they could slash the corporate tax to spur business incentives.
The revenue cost of eliminating the corporate tax wouldn't be any more than their proposed $355 billion in new spending, and we guarantee its "multiplier" effects on growth would be far greater.
Research by Mr. Obama's own White House chief economist, Christina Romer, has shown that every $1 in tax cuts can increase output by as much as $3.
As for all of that new spending, CBO will release an updated analysis this week.
And we anticipate that the budget analysts will in the interim have discovered that much more of that $355 billion will somehow find its way to "shovel-ready" projects that the Obama Administration can start building before the crocuses bloom.
But in the real world, the CBO's first estimate is likely to prove closer to the truth.
The spending portion of the stimulus, in short, isn't really about the economy.
It's about promoting long-time Democratic policy goals, such as subsidizing health care for the middle class and promoting alternative energy.
The "stimulus" is merely the mother of all political excuses to pack as much of this spending agenda as possible into a single bill when Mr. Obama is at his political zenith.
Apart from the inevitable waste, the Democrats are taking a big political gamble here.
Congress and Mr. Obama are promoting this stimulus as the key to economic revival.
Americans who know nothing about multipliers or neo-Keynesians expect it to work.
The Federal Reserve is pushing trillions of dollars of monetary stimulus into the economy, and perhaps that along with a better bank rescue strategy will make the difference.
But if spring and then summer arrive, and the economy is still in recession, Americans are going to start asking what they bought for that $355 billion."
Well Jim, at first she was clearly going anti-clockwise. I couldn't see how it could appear to be any other way. Then I scrolled down a bit and when the screen moved, she changed direction. I instantly lost track of how she looked. By focusing on the shadow of her foot, I can reverse the movement of her image.
Right brained? Left Brained? Integrated brain function? Or simply too used to seeing special interest groups' attempts to control "spin"?
I had the same experience as Tish. Being ambidextrous, my that shouldn't surprise me.
I had the same experience as Tish and Dana. Very interesting.
I saw her turning clockwise. She seemed to be leading back with her right arm and shoulder.
Did you catch Rachel Maddow's show last night, Anon? Here's an excerpt you might be interested in:
Starting at 5:48
Throughout much of last week, Republicans cited a Congressional Budget Office report as evidence that Obama's stimulus plan would not work They said the report showed that most of the money in the stimulus bill wouldn't be spent quickly enough, it wouldn't get into the economy until after next year. One awkward but very important detail about this CBO report is that it doesn't exist. Yeah. The CBO says they ran some numbers on a small portion of an earlier version of the bill, but they did no report like what the Republicans are talking about. They did no report on the current bill that is anything like what the Republicans are alleging. It doesn't exist! It isn't there! Hasn't ever been in existence, ever. That minor detail did not stop the Wall Street Journal's right wing editorial page today, from citing the non-existent report in an editorial against President Obama's stimulus bill. The Journal called the report's non-existent findings quote highly embarrassing for those in Congress, AKA Democrats trying to push the bill through. You know it is highly embarrassing but I wouldn't say it's the Democrats in Congress who ought to be embarrassed here.
You really ought to broaden your new sources beyond two newspaper's editorial pages every day.
Well, there seems to be a dispute of facts then, Bea. I must admit, I don't watch those cable news shows much when there's not something big going on. We'll see what the new report says but the point was true even before the report. Way too much of the bill, being rushed through because of the crisis need for "stimulus", won't provide any stimulus at all.
Meanwhile, Obama will probably not have unanimous black support in the next election. This is a positive sign that we are moving into a post-racial era in America. Still, I know Democrats will be disappointed. They love racism.
Here's some reaction from blacks to Obama's inuagural comments:
"Not everyone was happy with President Barack Obama's nod to nonbelievers and non-Christians in his inaugural address. And some of the stiff criticism about Obama’s religious inclusiveness is coming from African-American Christians who maintain that no, all faiths were actually not created equal.
"For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness," the new president said. "We are shaped by every language and culture, drawn from every end of this earth," he also said.
Nothing too controversial, proclaiming that America's strength lies in its diversity.
But between those two statements, the new president got specific: "We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus, and nonbelievers."
By mentioning, for the first time in an inaugural address, the 16.1 percent of Americans who check "no"’ when asked about religion, Obama turned it into the most controversial line in his speech -- praised by The New York Times editorial board and cited by some Christians as evidence that he is a heretic, and in his well-spoken way, a serious threat.
With that one line, the president "seems to be trying to redefine American culture, which is distinctively Christian," said’ Bishop E.W. Jackson of the Exodus Faith Ministries in Chesapeake, Va. "The overwhelming majority of Americans identify as Christians, and what disturbs me is that he seems to be trying to redefine who we are.’"
Earlier this week, Jackson was a guest on the popular conservative Christian radio show 'Janet Parshall's America,' where a succession of callers, many of whom identified themselves as African-American, said they shared the concern, and were perplexed and put off by the president’s shout-out to nonbelievers.
Parshall noted that atheists were celebrating the unexpected mention, and indeed they were: "In his inaugural address … President Barack Obama did what many before him should have done, rightly citing the great diversity of America as part of the nation's great strength, and including 'nonbelievers'’ in that mix,’" said Ed Buckner of American Atheists.
"His mother would have been proud,"’ Buckner said, referring to the fact that Obama’s mother was not a church-goer. "And so are we."
Jackson said he and others have no problem acknowledging that "this country is one in which everybody has the freedom to think what they want.’"
Yet Obama crossed the line, in his view, in suggesting that all faiths (and none) were different roads to the same destination: "He made similar remarks in the campaign, and said, 'We are no longer a Christian nation, if we ever were. We are a Jewish, Hindu and non-believing nation.'"
Not so, Jackson says: "Obviously, Jewish heritage is very much a part of Christianity; the Jewish Bible is part of our Bible. But Hindu, Muslim, and nonbelievers? I don't think so. We are not a Muslim nation or a nonbelieving nation."’
With all the focus on Obama as the first African-American president, the succession of black callers to Janet Parshall's show was a reminder that the "community"’ is not a monolith, and that many socially conservative black Americans are at odds with Obama's views, particularly on abortion and gay rights. Nor do they all define civil rights in the same way.
The Rev. Cecil Blye, pastor of More Grace Ministries Church in Louisville, Ky., said the president's reference to nonbelievers also set off major alarm bells for him. "It's important to understand the heritage of our country, and it's a Judeo-Christian tradition,"’ period.
But his even bigger beef with the president, he said, is that a disproportionate number of "black kids are dying each day through abortion. President Obama is supportive of abortion, and that's a genocide on black folks. Nobody wants to talk about that as a civil rights issue.""
Oh, I forgot to mention that Obama's first TV interview was given yesterday and was with a Muslim station.
We certainly want to have dialogue with everyone and, to the extent possible, be at peace with Muslim nations.
Still, to make them the first carries some symbolism and this is yet another symbolic flub from our new President.
"Anonymous" Troll...for crying out loud, do you find it totally impossible to stick to the topic of Jim's posts? Are you H.D.D. or something? I think you are just so ego-centric that you cannot sort reality from your own little world, which - of course - centers on you and your own blather and how much of your "intellect" you can smother us with.
Get your own blogsite and blather on and on to your heart's content! We are SO tired of your presence here.
Diogenes
Who's changing the subject now?
Bishop Jackson's fear that the President "is trying to redefine who we are" tells me he has forgotten that part of America's greatness rests in its religious liberty and freedom every citizen has to be whatever religion we want to be, even non-believers if we so choose.
Oh, I forgot to mention that Obama's first TV interview was given yesterday and was with a Muslim station...another symbolic flub...
Poor Anon. You are so blind I almost feel sorry for you. It's no longer "my way or the highway" ruling the day in the White House. The change the majority of Americans voted for from President to Congress to State Houses includes seeking common ground especially with those who hate us for what the Bushleague neocons have done, from invading Iraq under false pretenses to enabling the terrorist organization Hamas to become the "democratically elected government" in Palestine. Obama's interview with Dubai-based Al-Arabiya news channel was a brilliant signal telling the entire world that long overdue change has come to the White House at last.
AOL news reports: ...Obama said the U.S. had made mistakes in the past but "that the same respect and partnership that America had with the Muslim world as recently as 20 or 30 years ago, there's no reason why we can't restore that."
During his presidency, former President George W. Bush gave several interviews to Al-Arabiya but the wars he launched in Iraq and Afghanistan prompted a massive backlash against the U.S. in the Muslim world.
...The new president said he felt it was important to "get engaged right away" in the Middle East and had directed Mitchell to talk to "all the major parties involved." His administration would craft an approach after that, he said in the interview.
"What I told him is start by listening, because all too often the United States starts by dictating," Obama told the interviewer.
The president reiterated the U.S. commitment to Israel as an ally and to its right to defend itself. But he suggested that both Israel and the Palestinians have hard choices to make.
"I do believe that the moment is ripe for both sides to realize that the path that they are on is one that is not going to result in prosperity and security for their people," he said, calling for a Palestinian state that is contiguous with internal freedom of movement and can trade with neighboring countries...
What do you expect "anonymous" when you cite extreme right-wing Christianists in your criticism of President Obama? One can only imagine what you, and they, would be saying if the President just happened to be a Jew, or heaven forbid a Moslem (or worse yet, an Atheist)!
Your other statements suggest such rigidity of religious thought as to expose your hatred of others who do not believe as you do, such as: "Still, I know Democrats will be disappointed. They love racism." Abhorrent
"By mentioning, for the first time in an inaugural address, the 16.1 percent of Americans who check "no"’ when asked about religion, Obama turned it into the most controversial line in his speech... cited by some Christians as evidence that he is a heretic, and in his well-spoken way, a serious threat." At least you recognized that only "some" Christians feel this way (including, no doubt, you).
Quoting Bishop Jackson (whoever he is), you said, "The overwhelming majority of Americans identify as Christians, and what disturbs me is that he seems to be trying to redefine who we are.’". You failed to mention what Jackson's sources are in making that ridiculous statement. Evangelicals believe that tripe but I have seen no national polls supporting that parochial view.
You continued: "Jackson said he and others have no problem acknowledging that "this country is one in which everybody has the freedom to think what they want.’" but then you contradict that by saying: "Obama crossed the line, in his view, in suggesting that all faiths (and none) were different roads to the same destination." and then you go on to say: Jewish heritage is very much a part of Christianity; the Jewish Bible is part of our Bible. But Hindu, Muslim, and nonbelievers? I don't think so. We are not a Muslim nation or a nonbelieving nation."
Whether you like it or not...we are not a Christian nation, either. We do not define our democracy as "Christian". We do not have a state-sponsored religion. We are indeed a nation of diversity and President hit the nail on the head: "'We are no longer a Christian nation, if we ever were. We are a Jewish, Hindu and non-believing nation.'"
The days of attemnpting to use the resources and power of the government to force your narrow and bigoted religious views on the American people are over. Get used to it.
While it's true that the majority of Americans don't attend church weekly, the majority either consider themselves Christian or Jewish. As a matter of fact, only Jews and Christians have delivered prayers during inaugural ceremonies and the President and VP place their hands on Bibles when taking their oaths. You could find scores of similar examples througout our governmental practices. This is because, from a viewpoint of heritage, we are a Judeo-Christian country.
Furthermore, our founding documents are based on four basic concepts that were introduced to the world by Judeo-Christianity:
1. all men are equal before God
2. servant leadership
3. seperation of church and state
4. checks and balances through seperation of powers
It's great if Obama affirms that everyone is free to believe and say what they choose. It's great if we try to be at peace, if possible, with all people. But we don't need him to redefine us as a people with no religious heritage.
Black religious people believe thsi as strongly as white religious people. If Obama pursues this course, he will find himself in 2012 without this solid bloc that Democrats have been relying on for decades.
I first saw her rotating counter-clockwise, looked away and then I could see her rotating clockwise. Dana mentioned the same thing but said she was ambidexterous which would be in keeping with having neither side of your brain dominant. I on the other hand am extremely right handed so I'm getting contradictory messages.
You all are more versatile than me! I can't see her going counterclockwise no matter how hard I try.
JimK
"Poor Anon. You are so blind I almost feel sorry for you. It's no longer "my way or the highway" ruling the day in the White House. The change the majority of Americans voted for from President to Congress to State Houses includes seeking common ground especially with those who hate us for what the Bushleague neocons have done, from invading Iraq under false pretenses to enabling the terrorist organization Hamas to become the "democratically elected government" in Palestine. Obama's interview with Dubai-based Al-Arabiya news channel was a brilliant signal telling the entire world that long overdue change has come to the White House at last."
No one has any complaint against Obama trying to make peace with Muslims. Making them the first target audience for a TV interview was bad symbolism though. We have sharp divergences with the Muslim world, even the moderates.
You may notice that we have many mosques operating openly in America. In the few churches allowed in the Muslim countries, congregants are in constant grave danger. Discussing Judeo-Christian beliefs with Muslims is illegal and the leaders of all major Muslim groups now agree that any Muslim who converts to another religion deserves the death penalty.
Bad anonymous said "Furthermore, our founding documents are based on four basic concepts that were introduced to the world by Judeo-Christianity:
1. all men are equal before God".
You couldn't have more profoundly contradicted the bible if you'd have tried to intentionally do so. The bible makes it clear that all are not equal
1. Jews are this god's "chosen people".
2. Your god commanded the Jews to invade peaceful people's lands, make no convenant with them even if they wanted peace and to "utterly destroy them" - all men, women, children, babies, and animals. Obviously your god didn't consider all men equal.
3. Not only didn't your god consider all men equal he didn't consider men and women equal. The bible values women at half the sheckles of men, and babies under one year old at no sheckles at all. Women are to remain silent in places of worship and not to usurp authority over men nor to teach them. Your god created woman to be a servant to Adam.
Bad anonymous said "Furthermore, our founding documents are based on four basic concepts that were introduced to the world by Judeo-Christianity:
2. servant leadership"
You couldn't be more wrong. Your imaginary god is defined as an unchallenged leader to be worshipped and feared, not as any sort of servant. Man is subservient to god, man is to serve god, not vice versa.
Bad anonymous said "Furthermore, our founding documents are based on four basic concepts that were introduced to the world by Judeo-Christianity:
3. seperation of church and state
4. checks and balances through seperation of powers ".
There is neither concept in the bible. The bible clearly states that god's law is superior to man's law and one is to follow god's law and ignore man's law. This trumps the statment by Jesus to "give to Ceaser what is Ceaser's". There is no checks and balances through seperation of powers either - the imaginary god is the supreme dictator of all.
on the spinning girl, I have the same experience as Jim
her upper leg is constantly going clockwise so I don't get it
Bad anonymous said "You may notice that we have many mosques operating openly in America.".
Operating openly! My god, have they no shame!
This post has been removed by the author.
Bad anonymous said "Bad anonymous said "Furthermore, our founding documents are based on four basic concepts that were introduced to the world by Judeo-Christianity:
1. all men are equal before God".
I forgot the most obvious proof of all that that isn't the case - bad anonymous's god's approval of slavery. Slavery is condoned over and over throughout the bible:
Old Testament
Exodus 20:17"Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbor's."
Deuteronomy 5:21"Neither shalt thou desire thy neighbor's wife, neither shalt thou covet thy neighbor's house, his field, or his manservant, or his maidservant, his ox, or his ass, or any thing that is thy neighbor's.
Exodus 21:20-21 "And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money [property]."
Exodus 21:26-27 "And if a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, that it perish; he shall let him go free for his eye's sake. And if he smite out his manservant's tooth, or his maidservant's tooth; he shall let him go free for his tooth's sake."
Exodus 21:1-4: "If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself."
Deuteronomy 15:12-18: "And if thy brother, an Hebrew man, or an Hebrew woman, be sold unto thee, and serve thee six years; then in the seventh year thou shalt let him go free from thee.And when thou sendest him out free from thee, thou shalt not let him go away empty: Thou shalt furnish him liberally out of thy flock, and out of thy floor, and out of thy winepress: of that wherewith the LORD thy God hath blessed thee thou shalt give unto him."
Exodus 21:7: "And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do."
Leviticus 25:44-46: "Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly." (NIV)
Leviticus 25:48-53: "After that he is sold he may be redeemed again; one of his brethren may redeem him: Either his uncle, or his uncle's son, may redeem him, or any that is nigh of kin unto him of his family may redeem him; or if he be able, he may redeem himself. And he shall reckon with him that bought him from the year that he was sold to him unto the year of jubilee: and the price of his sale shall be according unto the number of years, according to the time of an hired servant shall it be with him."
Exodus 21:8: "If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her.And if he have betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters. If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish. And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free without money."
Leviticus 19:20-22: "And whosoever lieth carnally with a woman, that is a bondmaid, betrothed to an husband, and not at all redeemed, nor freedom given her; she shall be scourged; they shall not be put to death, because she was not free. And he shall bring his trespass offering unto the LORD, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, even a ram for a trespass offering. And the priest shall make an atonement for him with the ram of the trespass offering before the LORD for his sin which he hath done: and the sin which he hath done shall be forgiven him."
Leviticus 25:39: "And if thy brother that dwelleth by thee be waxen poor, and be sold unto thee; thou shalt not compel him to serve as a bondservant: But as an hired servant, and as a sojourner, he shall be with thee, and shall serve thee unto the year of jubilee: And then shall he depart from thee, both he and his children with him, and shall return unto his own family, and unto the possession of his fathers shall he return."
http://www.religioustolerance.org/sla_bibl1.htm
New Testament
Matthew 18:25: "But forasmuch as he had not to pay, his lord commanded him to be sold, and his wife, and children, and all that he had, and payment to be made."
Mark 14:66: "And as Peter was beneath in the palace, there cometh one of the maids of the high priest:"
Luke 12:45-48: "The lord [owner] of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder, and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers. And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more."
Ephesians 6:5-9: "Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ; Not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart; With good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men: Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free. And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him."
Colossians 4:1: "Masters, give unto your servants that which is just and equal; knowing that ye also have a Master in heaven."
1 Timothy 6:1-3 "Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honor, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed. And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren; but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit. These things teach and exhort. If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;"
http://www.religioustolerance.org/sla_bibl2.htm
Genesis 9
Genesis 12
Genesis 16
Genesis 24
Genesis 26
Exodus 21:
Joshua 9:23
1 Kings 8:2,6
1 Kings 9:20-21
2 Kings 4:1
Job 1:15-17
Job 3:19
Job 4:18
Job 7:2
Job 31:13
Job 42:8
Isaiah 50:1
1 Peter 2:18-20
1 Timothy 6:1
Ephisians 6:5-6
Luke 12:47
Revelations 6:15
Revelations 13:16
Revelations 18:13
Revelations 19:18
Priya has deeply entrenched bitterness toward religious belief. Unfortunately, needs counseling.
Nevertheless, our founding documents are based on four basic concepts that were introduced to the world by Judeo-Christianity:
1. all men are equal before God
2. servant leadership
3. seperation of church and state
4. checks and balances through seperation of powers
Unfortunately for you bad anonymous your bible itself proves the opposite of what you claim. You're in denial about reality. You think those who harm no one should be eternally punished - you don't know the meaning of justice.
No one has any complaint against Obama trying to make peace with Muslims. Making them the first target audience for a TV interview was bad symbolism though.
None of my friends and acquaintences have voiced any complaints about the symbolism of Obama's interview on Al-Arabiya. But I sure have heard plenty of people complain that Bush took too many vacations and let his Administration allow oil companies to dictate their energy policy in 2001, all the while ignoring Presidential Daily Briefings, especially the one entitled, "Bin Laden Determined To Strike in US." Bush's first year set the tone that persisted throughout his reign: his rich campaign contributors would be the only beneficiaries of his government and the rest of the world, including non-Bush-crony Americans could fend for themselves. Obama's first week has corrected that disasterous course and set the tone of the Obama Adminstration, namely that America will prove "once more that the true strength of our nation comes not from the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth but from the enduring power of our ideals – democracy, liberty, opportunity and unyielding hope.”
Well, trying to buddy up with nations where converting to another religion carries the death penalty is not a good way to start.
His primary focus should be on Americans not those who want to destroy America.
Ever see what is taught to school children about America in "moderate" Muslim nations?
Talk about "my way or the highway". Go spend some time in Saudi Arabia and you'll get a new perspective on that phrase.
I see her rotating one way, then the other, then back again.
I myself have never put much faith in the "left brain-right brain" analysis of cognitive function and personality. It seems far too general and simple to cover something so complex as brain function.
On another note, I feel a loss that anonymous is clarifying his bigotry based on religion, as well as that based on sexual orientation and gender identity; it makes me feel less loved by him/her.
Bad anonymous said "His primary focus should be on Americans not those who want to destroy America.".
No, his primary focus should be on the serious threat first. Americans can for the most part take care of themselves in the meantime. If the U.S. is destroyed because he's looking the other way it'll matter little that he focused primarily on U.S. citizens.
You're not too bright.
Bad anonymous said "By mentioning, for the first time in an inaugural address, the 16.1 percent of Americans who check "no"’ when asked about religion...With that one line, the president "seems to be trying to redefine American culture, which is distinctively Christian," said’ Bishop E.W. Jackson of the Exodus Faith Ministries in Chesapeake, Va. "The overwhelming majority of Americans identify as Christians, and what disturbs me is that he seems to be trying to redefine who we are.’"
If that line of thought is valid than by the same token the overwhelming majority of Americans identify as white and the U.S. is a white nation and we should be disturbed if Obama mentions blacks.
skin color is irrelevant
religious beliefs, as you so often remind us, are not
As long as people aren't using their religious beliefs to hurt others those beliefs are just as irrelevant as skin colour.
Certainly to many Americans skin colour is highly relevant and they are terrified at the changing demographics and the trend showing that in the future the U.S. will no longer be a white nation. If your atheist hater has a right to insist the U.S. be defined as a "christian nation" they have a right to insist it be defined as a "white nation".
I might add that in terms of Obama recognizing Americans, religion is just as irrelevant as skin colour. Anyone suggesting otherwise is simply a bigot.
"As long as people aren't using their religious beliefs to hurt others those beliefs are just as irrelevant as skin colour."
Actually, they're also relevant if they make a contribution to society as Judeo-Christianity clearly has.
Anyone who thinks religion is irrelevant just hasn't been paying attention. That's why your boys, Dawkins and Hitchens keep writing about it. They don't like it but they'd never be foolish enough to call it irrelevant.
That would take a certain Canadian fool.
"Certainly to many Americans skin colour is highly relevant and they are terrified at the changing demographics and the trend showing that in the future the U.S. will no longer be a white nation."
Priya, on Inauguration Day polls showed an 80% approval rating. That's higher than most Presidents and we didn't know much about him. It's sunk a little this week as he's begun to act but there is no evidence of systematic racism.
Your views of Americans are stereotyped fanatasies.
You should better attention to the leader of the free world!
Bishop Jackson's anger at the recogniztion of atheists is just as inapropriate as some people's anger at the recognition of non-whites in the U.S.
From Pam's house blend:
A Brockton man accused in a rape and double murder allegedly told police he intended to kill as many non-whites as possible, then kill himself, in what he called a fight "for a dying race."
Keith Luke, 22, pleaded not guilty Thursday in Brockton District Court, where he was ordered held without bail and sent to Bridgewater State Hospital for evaluation.
According to a police report, Luke told police he was "fighting extinction" of the white race and had stockpiled 200 rounds of ammunition to kill blacks, Hispanics and Jews. He told police he planned to eventually go to a synagogue or school near his home and "kill as many Jews as possible during bingo night," the report said.
Despite the claims of a post-racial America, the presidential campaign of Barack Obama did more than stir latent racism out into the open. Cries of 'kill him' and 'terrorist' during the McCain/Palin rallies, effigies of Obama hanging by a noose, and general noose imagery surfacing across the country suggest something more pernicious is rising out of the muck stirred by those persons antagonistic about an African American President taking root in the White House. White racists (and some non-white) apparently see Obama's presidential win as an attack on their way of life and so they're responding in-kind.
Its a slippery slope from the attitudes towards atheists of people like Bishop Jackson and the eventual murder of non-christians. The inclusivity of the Obama administration is enraging bigots of all sorts.
What in the world is "Judeo-Christianity?"
Who nominated Hitchens and Dawkins as representatives of non-evangelicals and non-Catholics? They are simply straw men, raised by empy pseudo-intellectuals to make pretend arguments with people with genuine ideas.
Robert bad anonymous likes to pretend there is such a thing as "judeo-Christianity" but the fact is that the majority of jews are accepting of gays and supporters of equal marriage. He's actually an adherent of Islamic-christianity which is the sect that hates gays and wants to oppress them.
Bad anonymous said "Actually, they're also relevant if they make a contribution to society as Judeo-Christianity clearly has. "
Religion has only held back society. Scientific study has demonstrated that the less religion there is the better off society is:
http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html
Atheists, being a moderate proportion of the USA population (about 8-16%) are disproportionately less in the prison populations (0.21%).
http://www.holysmoke.org/icr-pri.htm
Stephen McPherson, a former assistant dean at the religiously based Regent University law school, pleaded guilty Friday in Chesapeake Circuit Court to sexually abusing children.
McPherson, 39, of Chesapeake entered guilty pleas to two counts of forcible sodomy and two counts of object sexual penetration. He is set to be sentenced May 22.
McPherson faces five years to life on each count. Assistant Commonwealth's Attorneys Karen Brown and Minna Sandwich agreed to withdraw nine other felonies against McPherson in return for his pleas.
"having historical roots in both Judaism and Christianity"
That's the dictionary definition of Judeo-Christian, Robert.
I mention Dawkins and Hitchens not as straw men but because Priya has often quoted them and expressed reverence for them.
The point, and it doesn't need that example to make it, is that to consider religion "irrelevant" is just plain ignorant, regardless of how you judge its impact.
btw, Robert, since you live here, have you noticed this anger that whites in America feel about the election of our new President?
I don't remember having a conversation about the guy with anyone who even mentioned his race. That's the amazing thing, how far we've come in the last few decades. Notwithstanding the few random nuts that Priya cites, racism long ago became episodic rather than systemic in the leading country in the free world.
Honestly, America has been ready for a black President for decades. There was a time when Colin Powell could have had it for the asking and that was a while ago.
Unfortunately, not fading as fast as the racists are nuts like Priya that so desire to keep racism alive because they've gotten so much mileage out of it in the past.
Note that in a poll on MLK Day this year, the majority of African Americans said that King's dream had been realized.
Observers of bizarre behavior will note that Priya and her multiple personalities have posted 5 of the last 7 comments.
Observers of bizarre behavior will note that Priya and her multiple personalities have posted 5 of the last 7 comments.
Having additional thoughts and posting additional commentary is not "bizarre behavior." We remember you complaining about Robert doing the same thing not too long ago, and we also note how often you have another thought or two or more that you post shortly after some of your comments. You hypocritically label posting follow-up thoughts as "bizarre behavior" for others but not yourself, even when you talk to yourself as if there's an "anon" and a "deluxe anon." That's bizarre.
According to Congressional Budget Office estimates, a mere $26 billion of the House stimulus bill's $355 billion in new spending would actually be spent in the current fiscal year, and just $110 billion would be spent by the end of 2010.
The CBO did release a report on the stimulus package on 01-26-09, the same day as this based-on-a-lie-WSJ editorial came out. It states that the actual spending in 2009 will be $92 billion, $225 billion in 2010, and $159 billion in 2011. In addition to this spending, taxes will be cut by $76 billion in 2009 and another $131 in 2010, with a net of $212 billion in tax cuts from 2009-2019.
Per Anon, The Democratically controlled CBO says his "stimulus bill" won't stimulate much of anything.
Boehner and other GOP Congressional leaders are complaining the Stimulus bill contains too much spending.
Suddenly, the Republican lawmakers urging caution look pretty smart
Actually, GOP **suddenly not wanting to spend money** to save the economy after years of being willing to throw a trillion dollars into the quagmire of Iraq, reducing Clinton's budget surplus to Bush's budget deficit, makes them look like misguided arrogant neocon warmongers who do not care about their own constituents. Realizing that might help them understand why so many of them were swept out of office last November.
Bad anonymous said "I mention Dawkins and Hitchens not as straw men but because Priya has often quoted them and expressed reverence for them.".
To the best of my recollection I've never quoted either Hitchens or Dawkins, certainly not often and I've definitely never expressed reverence for them. You on the other hand continually express reverence for the most vile character in all of fiction.
Oh yes, honey, I know some white people who are furious that a man of color is president. I'm related to some. Of course, some of those people are frightened because a muslim or a terrorist is now president.
Go figure. Let me tell you honey, if you were just silent for a few minutes, you'd all sorts of things.
That said, most Americans are pleased that race is no longer a barrier to the highest political office. Some folks are waiting on gender still.
All that aside, this man is incredible. I just hope he doesn't work to hard and burn out, or become cynical by working with our political establishment. He's my hero.
Post a Comment
<< Home