aaron hernandez

[warriorchick]

I'm sorry, but what absolute garbage. You think that might have made its way into discovery if it could stand up as something other than slander? One thing they didn't have (other than a gun) in Odin's murder is a really clear motive. The fact that this is coming out now tells me all I need to know.

Now, the circumstantial evidence leads me to #respecttheprocess and believe his guilt in the first murder, but this still amounts to slander.

We'll see.  Last I checked, Newsweek was considered a pretty reputable news source.

[real chili 83]

Michelle Tafoya was reporting this story today on the radio.  Her spin on it was that it was leaked as kind of a smear campaign to provide cover for the prison administration that were on guard when he committed suicide.

Oh, and in before the lock.  This isn't going to end well. 

[4everwarriors]

Lenny, what's your problem? I've never had any beefs with you, and I don't know where this is coming from.

I don't like inferences that only religious people have morals and ethics - which is exactly what rocket was doing. And out of that, somehow you get that I have feelings of moral superiority? Jeesh. Nowhere did I say I was more moral than all Christians or even most Christians. I would have no way of determining that. What I said was that I, despite being a dreaded atheist, am more "Christian" than a lot of people who claim to be. I stand by that.

As for including our so-called president in my comment ... I admit it is a weakness of mine. He is a horrible person and it bothers me that people who care about their fellow man (and woman) would vote for a dreadful human being like him. I should keep it off this board, yes. We all have our weaknesses ... except maybe you, I guess.




LXXXII, ya had yo one vote. Didn't work out yo wey dis time 'round. Had da public erupted like you are wit hour last potus, you'd be labelled a racist. Butt, now its ok, hey? So, deel wit it and if it ain't ta yo liking, den yo get another shot in fore years. Dats da wey wee roll in dis country. Its called democracy. Utterwise, no one wants to hear yo nonsense, ai na?

[Jay Bee]

As for including our so-called president in my comment ... I admit it is a weakness of mine. He is a horrible person and it bothers me that people who care about their fellow man (and woman) would vote for a dreadful human being like him. I should keep it off this board, yes. We all have our weaknesses ... except maybe you, I guess.

MU82 isn't dealing with his "weakness" well, even though he claims to know better. This BEGS for the BAN HAMMER.

[MU82]

MU82 isn't dealing with his "weakness" well, even though he claims to know better. This BEGS for the BAN HAMMER.

Wow, JB.

[Plaque Lives Matter!]

Ah the offseason

[Anti-Dentite]

MU82 isn't dealing with his "weakness" well, even though he claims to know better. This BEGS for the BAN HAMMER.

Well, he is a pompous ass, so he has that going for him.

[MU82]

Well, he is a pompous ass, so he has that going for him.

Have some respect.

That's Mr. Pompous Ass, to you.

[Pakuni]

I'm sorry, but what absolute garbage. You think that might have made its way into discovery if it could stand up as something other than slander? One thing they didn't have (other than a gun) in Odin's murder is a really clear motive. The fact that this is coming out now tells me all I need to know.

Now, the circumstantial evidence leads me to #respecttheprocess and believe his guilt in the first murder, but this still amounts to slander.

Is suggesting someone might have been homosexual slanderous?

[jsglow]

Slipped in before the lock. 

[Lennys Tap]

Lenny, what's your problem? I've never had any beefs with you, and I don't know where this is coming from.

I don't like inferences that only religious people have morals and ethics - which is exactly what rocket was doing. And out of that, somehow you get that I have feelings of moral superiority? Jeesh. Nowhere did I say I was more moral than all Christians or even most Christians. I would have no way of determining that. What I said was that I, despite being a dreaded atheist, am more "Christian" than a lot of people who claim to be. I stand by that.

As for including our so-called president in my comment ... I admit it is a weakness of mine. He is a horrible person and it bothers me that people who care about their fellow man (and woman) would vote for a dreadful human being like him. I should keep it off this board, yes. We all have our weaknesses ... except maybe you, I guess.

Mike, "my problem(s)" are many, and I'll readily stipulate to that. I think you're a nice, funny and talented guy and will stipulate to that also.

You're not flawless however. When you preach you often preface your sermons with assertions of your goodness, morality, happiness, etc. as if these assertions give your opinions on religion, politics, etc., more heft. They don't - instead they sound like someone looking down on others. Your comments in the last paragraph of this response reinforce that - they sound decidedly "un christian".

[MU82]

Mike, "my problem(s)" are many, and I'll readily stipulate to that. I think you're a nice, funny and talented guy and will stipulate to that also.

You're not flawless however. When you preach you often preface your sermons with assertions of your goodness, morality, happiness, etc. as if these assertions give your opinions on religion, politics, etc., more heft. They don't - instead they sound like someone looking down on others. Your comments in the last paragraph of this response reinforce that - they sound decidedly "un christian".

Thanks, Lenny. Never claimed to be flawless. I'll try to use this constructive criticism to be better.

[Lennys Tap]

Thanks, Lenny. Never claimed to be flawless. I'll try to use this constructive criticism to be better.

No sweat, Mike. Truth told, I'm best at seeing imperfections in areas where I've been most guilty.

[brewcity77]

Again, I think it would be pretty easy to discuss all of the heinous acts done in the name of a higher power.

Disagree. Discussing all the heinous acts done in the name of a higher power would be the most difficult, time consuming endeavor in the history of mankind.

What war didn't start in the name of a higher power? Religion is responsible for more death, destruction, and war than any other force on earth. It's not close, it's not debatable, and nothing is comparable.

[MU82]

Disagree. Discussing all the heinous acts done in the name of a higher power would be the most difficult, time consuming endeavor in the history of mankind.

What war didn't start in the name of a higher power? Religion is responsible for more death, destruction, and war than any other force on earth. It's not close, it's not debatable, and nothing is comparable.

Mostly true.

Religion isn't really "responsible." Religion is just a man-made thing, like lugnuts or belt buckles.

Religious zealots have been responsible.

[Lennys Tap]

Disagree. Discussing all the heinous acts done in the name of a higher power would be the most difficult, time consuming endeavor in the history of mankind.

What war didn't start in the name of a higher power? Religion is responsible for more death, destruction, and war than any other force on earth. It's not close, it's not debatable, and nothing is comparable.

The Encyclopedia of Wars (2008) chronicles 1763 wars throughout human history. 123 (7%) are considered "religious in nature". In 2013, The Institute for Economics and Peace looked at all the conflicts from that year. A total of 35 "wars" are listed. In 14 (40%), religion played no role at all. In 5 (14%) it was the main cause. Every one of the wars had multiple causes, the most common being opposition to a government's ideology or economic system (main cause in 67% of conflicts).

Your assertions make for great bumper stickers but don't stand up to scrutiny. The answer to "what war didn't start in the name of a higher power?" is the vast majority of them.

The world would be a lot more peaceful if regimes were not fanatical - like Iran (religious) and N Korea (atheist). Blaming the world's woes on religion (or lack of it) is fatuous.

[rocket surgeon]

MU82 isn't dealing with his "weakness" well, even though he claims to know better. This BEGS for the BAN HAMMER.

how about a 2nd opinion...yo, chico's!  whusup dog? 

[Plaque Lives Matter!]

The Encyclopedia of Wars (2008) chronicles 1763 wars throughout human history. 123 (7%) are considered "religious in nature". In 2013, The Institute for Economics and Peace looked at all the conflicts from that year. A total of 35 "wars" are listed. In 14 (40%), religion played no role at all. In 5 (14%) it was the main cause. Every one of the wars had multiple causes, the most common being opposition to a government's ideology or economic system (main cause in 67% of conflicts).

Your assertions make for great bumper stickers but don't stand up to scrutiny. The answer to "what war didn't start in the name of a higher power?" is the vast majority of them.

The world would be a lot more peaceful if regimes were not fanatical - like Iran (religious) and N Korea (atheist). Blaming the world's woes on religion (or lack of it) is fatuous.

Good call out. Events cited like the crusades are about 1-3 million and a primary example but wwI alone was 35 million. Assuming you might have read the same blurb as I did but this is counting the 100 million genocide in the USSR and China in the 20th century alone. Just mind boggling numbers by the communist regimes with zero religious implications. Not to say religious rationalistion of war is ok though clearly.

[Lennys Tap]

Good call out. Events cited like the crusades are about 1-3 million and a primary example but wwI alone was 35 million. Assuming you might have read the same blurb as I did but this is counting the 100 million genocide in the USSR and China in the 20th century alone. Just mind boggling numbers by the communist regimes with zero religious implications. Not to say religious rationalistion of war is ok though clearly.

Right - lots of reasons listed for WWI - 14 on one site I visited. Religion didn't make the cut. Again, if you want to take a bumper sticker view of history, so be it. Uninformed opinions are a protected privilege. But they aren't facts.

[GB Warrior]

Is suggesting someone might have been homosexual slanderous?

Thank you, that's an important clarification. On its face, no it isn't, and I certainly don't believe that it is. But intent matters here. If this is meant to distract from (purely speculation here) a lapse in protocol, or to inflict emotional harm on his family. So while in a silo this isn't, you have to look at it in its totality and why this is coming out.

Speculating is irresponsible, and again, if this relationship was known to law enforcement during his incarceration but before his conviction, it would have been entered into evidence. ESPECIALLY since we don't have a murder weapon and only have evidence he was present (blunt at the scene).

I'm not a lawyer, and I will not pretend to play one on the internet. And I would never mean to suggest that homosexuality is pejorative. But that is how it is often used and how it feels that it's being used here.

Thanks for forcing me to clarify my statement.

[real chili 83]

Right - lots of reasons listed for WWI - 14 on one site I visited. Religion didn't make the cut. Again, if you want to take a bumper sticker view of history, so be it. Uninformed opinions are a protected privilege. But they aren't facts.

Ok, back on topic.  I hope for whirrled peas some day. 

[rocket surgeon]

Ok, back on topic.  I hope for whirrled peas some day.

and last time i checked-aaron is still dead, eyhn'a?

[brewcity77]

The Encyclopedia of Wars (2008) chronicles 1763 wars throughout human history. 123 (7%) are considered "religious in nature". In 2013, The Institute for Economics and Peace looked at all the conflicts from that year. A total of 35 "wars" are listed. In 14 (40%), religion played no role at all. In 5 (14%) it was the main cause. Every one of the wars had multiple causes, the most common being opposition to a government's ideology or economic system (main cause in 67% of conflicts).

Your assertions make for great bumper stickers but don't stand up to scrutiny. The answer to "what war didn't start in the name of a higher power?" is the vast majority of them.

The world would be a lot more peaceful if regimes were not fanatical - like Iran (religious) and N Korea (atheist). Blaming the world's woes on religion (or lack of it) is fatuous.

That's nice, but it's not true.

http://davidmschell.com/religious-wars-only-123-of-1763/

There may be other motivations that initiate the wars, but religion is what sells it to the combatants and the population.

And WWI wasn't religious? When the Russians were telling their soldiers that Kaiser Wilhelm was the Antichrist? When English clergy were calling on the nation to support the new crusade?

I won't deny other factors, but religion most certainly played a massive part of how WWI was sold to its combatants.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2014/june/wwi-philip-jenkins-great-and-holy-war-review.html

[Lennys Tap]

That's nice, but it's not true.

http://davidmschell.com/religious-wars-only-123-of-1763/

There may be other motivations that initiate the wars, but religion is what sells it to the combatants and the population.

And WWI wasn't religious? When the Russians were telling their soldiers that Kaiser Wilhelm was the Antichrist? When English clergy were calling on the nation to support the new crusade?

I won't deny other factors, but religion most certainly played a massive part of how WWI was sold to its combatants.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2014/june/wwi-philip-jenkins-great-and-holy-war-review.html

People may disagree with how the book classifies the causes of wars, at least on the margins.

But let me remind you or your initial patently false statement:

"What war DIDN"T start in the name of a higher power?...blah,blah, blah"

The correct answer, according to the article YOU cite, is most of them.

From your article: "The claim...that religion is solely responsible for wars is over simplistic rubbish" and "wars have always arisen, and arise today, from territorial disputes, military rivalries, conflicts of ethnicity, and striving for commercial and economic advantage, and they have always depended on, and depend upon today, pride, prejudice, coercion, envy, cupidity, envy, competitiveness and a sense of injustice" - IOW, the basic failings of human beings. Further on, "But for much of the world BEFORE THE 17TH CENTURY, these reasons for war were explained and justified, at least for the participants, by religion. Then around the middle of the 17th century, Europeans began to think of war as a legitimate means of furthering the interests of individual sovereigns." So 375 years ago religion as a reason for and a justification of war became basically extinct in much of the world.

So no, WWI wasn't a religious war. Nor was the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, the Civil War, WWII, the Korean War, Viet Nam, the Gulf War, Iraq or Afghanistan. Claiming that all wars start because of religion flat out, patently false. Until and unless you admit that fact, it's impossible to have a discussion on the subject.

[Pakuni]

I won't deny other factors, but religion most certainly played a massive part of how WWI was sold to its combatants.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2014/june/wwi-philip-jenkins-great-and-holy-war-review.html

There's a huge difference between what causes those in power to engage in war and how those in power sell the war to the poor slobs who fight and die on their behalf.

The "higher power" that motivates nearly all wars isn't religion or faith, it's greed for domination and resources, whether those resources be land, oil, gold or some other measure of wealth and influence.
Of course, since the masses very rarely benefit from the acquisition of wealth and influence by those in power, something else has to be concocted to persuade them that there's a greater cause that makes their lives expendable. Sometimes it's nationalism.  Sometimes it's ethnic identity or tribalism. And, yes, sometimes it's religion.
But that makes the existence of religion no more to blame for war than the fact that some choose to identify themselves as Irish or Polish or Italian is to blame for war.