At what point has the Israeli government EVER been unwilling to buy German products? Ever heard of the S-199? If it works, it will be used. Oh, wait...I forgot about Walter Mitty. NOT, CL.

Will the French,like the Spanish, cave in from the threat by Islamic fundermentalists

Islam had damned well respect us. If not, we can and will humiliate them until their egos are ground up and placed in pork sausages.

This is a classic conundrum that you apparently haven't run into or come up with a good answer to. Okay, so you've got Kant adherents, Spinzoa adherents, Aristolean absolutists, the various schools of the existentialists(who don't always agree. Kirkegaard, Nietzche, Heidegger etc., on up to Sartre). Sounds rather sectarian, don't it? Of course it 'seems' logical all the time, doesn't it. So how do the much more recent existentialists get along with the logically derived Absolutists? Hmm. YOu misuse a tool,logic. An example of the pitfalls of logic is the chestnut Asimov used in his robot stories: if you accept my claims/definitions I can logically prove the sky is red. And this is the key. Acceptance of a claim(or proem I believe is the term). That is in essence a matter of faith, as you're using the term 'faith.' Ex: Devout evolutionists claim that all of micronesia was settled by the same African descendents that went to Europe based on mitochondrial dna homology. Fine. But where's the proof? DNA(histone dna). Is it enough? Maybe, maybe not. Where's the physical evidence that shows that the micronesians crossed the Pacific from either Asia or Africa to the archipagelos? There isn't any. Here's the claim(are you paying attention, tosser of ad hominem attacks hellfire?): histone dna homology can only be the result of migration of a co-progenetor. Is it proven? Avoid tautologcial and circular arguments please. Is it proven? It follows logic, but it isn't proven because there isn't supporting evidence(only the theory). Accepting that claim is an act of faith since the provable to 9 decimal places, the hard, physical evidence is lacking(and yes, I have dealt with the question.). Or, how about this one from Sartre's Humanism of Existentialism: "In a sense we may say that there is a univerality of man; but it is not given, it is perpetually made. I build the universal in choosing myself; I build it in understanding the configuration of every other man, whatever age he might have lived in." "There is no difference between being an absolute temporarily localized, that is lovalized in history, and being universally comprehensible." Okay, right. If I accept Sartre's claims, which aren't rigorously proven by Sartre(they're just thrown out here, like Holy Scripture, to be understood or internalized). Logical? Yes. Proven, and ergo superior to religion which also lacks evidence? Only a partisan would say that..

First CL gets a wingman(actually wingmen, long story). Now OW has one too? Who do I have to kick in the nads around here to get one?.

I hope they don't cave. I never really supported their law on reasons on personal liberty, but the French should tell terrorists to go to hell..

I believe scholar said he was still feeling so inspired by the goings on at the Democratic National Convention that he decided to accept a position as Uchiita's wingperson. As far as I know, that was the last open wingman spot. I think AK might be looking for a sidekick, though. How are you at comic relief?

chemist: Who do I have to kick in the nads around here to get one? I'll be your wingman if you stop spouting all those Philosophical references. You have more Philosophers to reference than El Cid has anecdotes about his participation in critical world events. (Was Woody Allen's Zellig really about El Cid's life?).

While my understanding is not quite what Realpolitik asked, the Koran does indeed tell a very different version of the fate of Jesus than the New Testament does. Reminds me of a novel called The Passover Plot really. And the two stories are not completely irreconcilable either. There is some evidence in some of the Gospel accounts that Jesus was given something to dring ("viniger" is the usual translation). This could indicate use of a drug, and there is evidence this was occasionally done. I also gather that, under Roman law, if a person survived crucifixion, he was not then subject to later arrest and punishment - which might account for Jesus walking around and public speaking after the event. The Koran does seem to say Jesus was saved from what you would call biological death by a sort of plot. However, it does not use this as an argument that Jesus is not a real prophet: instead, he is one of only two "great prophets" - Muhammad being the other. Apparently Muhammad was very impressed with Jesus, and wanted to be seen in the context of his life and teachings.

There may indeed be some radicals who say this, but the Quran does not. I know an Islamic cleric who says you (if you are a Muslim) are bound to serve your neighbor, wether or not they believe in the Quran. There are certainly passages that seem to say that.