the moral ugliness of New Orleans

Why has this statement been allowed to stand? I thought it is against the rules to question someone's salvation? I guess when the person being questioned is "liberal" in their politics, they are the exception to the rule. </font>[/QUOTE]It was allowed to stand because those responsible for moderating this board realize what a thing called "context" really is.

You need to get a grip, Terry.

BTW You are also an "infidel" as I am in the context CMG used it. I wouldn't have it any other way.

 

Why has this statement been allowed to stand? I thought it is against the rules to question someone's salvation? I guess when the person being questioned is "liberal" in their politics, they are the exception to the rule. </font>[/QUOTE]What is wrong with calling someone an Islamic infidel? Or isn't it politically correct to observe that Islam considers all non-moslems as infidels? I am an infidel, but I don't know about you two lot. </font>[/QUOTE]Your post was fine CMG - in the context you used it I think the vast majority of us are infidels.

 

Okay, back to work. Daisy pointed out that it was impossible to walk out of New Orleans because the police blocked the bridge out and the authorities failed to use what buses they had or provide other buses. And Daisy pointed out that law enforcement is needed everywhere, even after public events such as sports games so that it should have been obvious that a natural disaster would bring on lawlessness.

But Hillclimber's source, a journalist named Robert Tracinski blames the welfare state for institutionalizing people and making them even more cold=hearted than normal. There is something to that in my personal opinion although I think that the church should try to evangelize the poor more and should emphasize the teaching of doctrine and the reasons behind doctrine because even the poor are able to deal with these issues. Let's put the cookies on the bottom shelf please.

But let's look at the point of the article cited by Hillclimber:

...What Hurricane Katrina exposed was the psychological consequences of the welfare state. What we consider "normal" behavior in an emergency is behavior that is normal for people who have values and take the responsibility to pursue and protect them. People with values respond to a disaster by fighting against it and doing whatever it takes to overcome the difficulties they face. They don't sit around and complain that the government hasn't taken care of them. And they don't use the chaos of a disaster as an opportunity to prey on their fellow men.

But what about criminals and welfare parasites?...

Hillclimber's reference source:

http://tiadaily.com/php-bin/news/showArticle.php?id=1026

 

The bars owners are among the first persons to receive business owner permits from the Mayor to return to the city! Plain old residents can wait until it's "safe".

 

Ofcourse as I pointed out the last time this article was posted, other countries with welfarestates that have had natural disasters didn't have orgies of anarchy NO style afterwards.
Clearly the theory is lacking

 

Then the one time I said someone was a racist (who made many racist comments) was just peachy as well. Glad we agree.

 

Cultural diversity in the USA has tried to say that every culture has their own values and that there is no absolute. Since man is made in the image of God, every man deserves the protection of the state but the state cannot function without the goodwill of the citizens. The church only can solve this problem of cooperation because only the church has the answer, right?

 

Right cmg...but which church?

 

Being back in business for Mardi Gras is the goal for the City of New Orleans. How many of you have witnessed Mardi Gras in recent years? How many of you remember it the way it was 50 years ago?