Bible-beater pilots

[Matthew P. Cummings]

On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 09:22:35 +0100, Martin Hotze wrote:

> Ah. I see. This is new to me. Thanks for the info.

I thought you were an expert on our failings?

[Andrew Gideon]

G.R. Patterson III wrote:


> Isn't there something in the Christian faith to the extent of "the Lord
> helps those as helps themselves"?

Trust in Allah, but tether the camels.

- Andrew

[randall g]

On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 17:08:08 GMT, Robert Perkins
> wrote:

>On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 10:31:05 +0100, Thomas Borchert
> wrote:
>
>>Robert,
>>
>>> Experimentation is based on faith.
>>>
>>
>>Huh?
>
>Most of the diatribe against faith posted around here is directed
>against what those in my church call "blind faith", or faith without
>submitting the subject matter to a test. But it isn't at all what I've
>meant by "faith" since about the age of 15.

Since you have admittedly invented your own definition, you should post
it here.

>In scientific method, you advance your hypothesis and propose a test.
>Publish it. Anyone who acts to submit your hypothesis to that test is
>acting on faith in that hypothesis.

That has nothing to do with faith, in that the outcome of the experiment
is not assumed before it is carried out. If someone said "Hey, that
sounds like a neat experiment, but I don't need to perform it because I
know what the result will be" - that is faith.

>If it's proven out, that faith becomes knowledge.

There was never any faith in the first place. Unless you mean the faith
that the experimenter had in his own ability to perform the experiment
correctly?

>If not, toss the
>hypothesis on the scrap heap and wait for or formulate refinements.

Well sure, but there is still no faith involved.

>Rob





randall g =%^)> - PPASEL+Night - #320 only 346 short
http://www.telemark.net/~randallg
Lots of aerial photographs of British Columbia at:
http://www.telemark.net/~randallg/photos.htm

[Matthew P. Cummings]

On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 10:31:02 +0100, Thomas Borchert wrote:

> Uh, yes? Look at what state the world is in because of people believing
> in God, Allah and Buddha. Seems to me it's pretty important how we deal
> with these myths.

Out of curiosity, what has Budda done to hurt the world? Starvation? I
don't remember off the top of my head bad things from that belief system.

I think you're missing the point that it's not religion that's caused
trouble by itself, look at what Hitler managed all by himself. Check out
Cambodia, lots of bad things have happened to the world without religion
being the fault, so your theory that the world is in the shape it's in now
due to religion does not ring completely true.

I'm a believer in humanity doing it's best to kill itself off with
whatever means they can. It's the selfish that will lead the way, those
who want it because I'm stronger, the strong will attack the weak and take
it from them.

Look at a baby. A baby does not know religion right? Yet a baby will
fight another baby for a toy that the other one takes away, could you
imagine adults behaving that way, only now they have guns, tanks, bombs
and will use them to take what they want. There is no way the human race
is where it is due to religion, it's there because of how humanity is from
birth to death. In between we hope to learn manners, but not all do.

[Don Tuite]

On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 20:58:36 -0500, "G.R. Patterson III"
> wrote:
>
>Isn't there something in the Christian faith to the extent of "the Lord helps
>those as helps themselves"?
>
My uncle tried that line out on officer O'Reilly the night he got his
hand stuck in the Poor Box.

"Uncle Eight Fingers,"* we called him.

Don
*Well, ya see, he tried it a couple a times.

[Tom S.]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> "H. Adam Stevens" wrote:
> >
> > "G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
>
> > > Correct. Now. Who's claiming that Congress has made such a law and
what
> > law is
> > > it that they made?
> >
> > Placing "Under God" in the pledge of alliegance.
>
> They passed a *law* to do that?
>
Yes...in 1954, I believe.

[David Johnson]

There is nothing like religion or politics to get the juices
flowing. This thread, and the one on JFK drew more responses
than anything in recent memory. However, neither has much
relevance to rec.aviation.piloting - IMHO.

[H. Adam Stevens]

Solo in '67 at 17 years old; I trust in me.
The universe I live in is13.7 billion years old, or thereabouts.
I have no idea why the universe exists, but I have a very clear picture how
it works.
There are countries and histories older than all religions.
Public education has failed miserably.
But tether the camels anyway.
;^))))))))

"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
online.com...
> G.R. Patterson III wrote:
>
>
> > Isn't there something in the Christian faith to the extent of "the Lord
> > helps those as helps themselves"?
>
> Trust in Allah, but tether the camels.
>
> - Andrew
>

[Thomas Borchert]

Robert,

> If they trusted in God, they wouldn't have taken matters into their
> own hands, IMO.
>

that's ridiculous! Look back in history! Look at all the harm religious
people have brought over the world.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Robert,

> in scientific method, you advance your hypothesis and propose a test.
>

Yep.

In religion, that's never done.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Steve,

> > I never realized there were so many religion nuts in aviation. Amazing!
>
> I never realized there were so many atheist nuts in aviation. Amazing!
>

After looking at all the harm religion has brought over mankind, how can one
not fight it whereever it rears its ugly head - if one wants to remain a
halfway moral being.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Mike,

> If they really believed in
> allah, and we were really that bad, wouldn't some allah induced terror
> befall us?
>

That argument is old hat even in Christian circles, where a supposedly
benevolent God couldn't possibly allow wars, famine et cetera. The easy
answer: This is God's/Allah's/The Great Pumpkin's way to test us and our
faith.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

H.,

> I have no idea why the universe exists,
>

and we don't even have any idea why there needs to be a reason it
exists.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Matthew,


Agreed on Buddhaism.

> so your theory that the world is in the shape it's in now
> due to religion does not ring completely true.
>

Not exclusively because of religion, but looking back, it is one of the
primary propaganda machines to bring evil over the world. Of course it
is still humans killing humans, but religion seems to work
exceptionally well as a motivator.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Trent Moorehead]

> After looking at all the harm religion has brought over mankind, how can
one
> not fight it whereever it rears its ugly head - if one wants to remain a
> halfway moral being.

I guess I should cancel my plans to deliver Thanksgiving dinner to the needy
tomorrow. Since it's on behalf of my church.

[Andrew Gideon]

H. Adam Stevens wrote:


> But tether the camels anyway.

I suppose our version would be:

Trust in the FAA, but preflight anyway.

Or...maybe not <grin>.

- Andrew

[Frank]

G.R. Patterson III wrote:

>
>
> Wdtabor wrote:
>>
>> This is a fight I have with my fellow LP members often. TO me, it is more
>> important that libertarian ideas prevail, not Libertarian candidates. If
>> that means gently persuading Republicans and even some Democrats to
>> become more libertarian, then so be it.
>
> Let's see if I understand you correctly. Your theory is that, if enough
> people vote Libertarian, the other candidates will start to adopt some of
> the LP views in an attempt to siphon off some of those votes?
>

That's exactly what third parties have always done for our system. They
introduce radical ideas into the mix and the ones that have merit are
eventually embraced by the mainstream. Perot's Independent party was the
last one in recent history to have such an impact.


> I would like to be able to agree, but I think that Dems and Reps would
> simply be afraid of losing votes they already have and afraid of losing
> the support of the main party.
>
> In any case, a vote is never "wasted" if you vote for the candidate you
> prefer.

Absolutley. Although sometimes I wish you could check a box next to a
candidate's name that's labeled "Against".

--
Frank....H

[Frank]

John T wrote:

> "Teacherjh" > wrote in message
>
>>
>>>> But...if that's the bias of the majority of the Members, where's
>>>> the harm?
>>
>> The harm is that the whole point of the constitution is to protect
>> the minority against the tyranny of the majority.
>
> My statement was specifically regarding the prayer offered at the opening
> of
> sessions of Congress. Nothing more. Such a prayer can hardly be
> considered
> "tyranny of the majority." :)

We were taught the principle as 'the will of the people with protection of
the rights of the minority". So it need not be 'tyranny' to be harmful.

But what happens all too often is that non-participation is used against
those of different faiths.

Any members that feel the need to pray before going to work can do so
anytime and with anyone outside the chamber. If they were sensitive to the
role they play in government and their agenda is not to promote religion
then they would have got their praying done before hand and have no need of
risking offending anyone.


>> That said, I'll spend money no matter what is printed on it. So send
>> me some if you don't like what it says. :)
>
> Completely agreed! :)
>
Amen!
--
Frank....H

[David Brooks]

> >> That said, I'll spend money no matter what is printed on it. So send
> >> me some if you don't like what it says. :)
> >
> > Completely agreed! :)
> >
> Amen!

Some of us are figuring out how to boycott the $10s when they start to
appear with Reagan's mug on them (how many days after he dies, I wonder).
But I must admit it is the turn of the other side of the aisle; the most
recent new Presidential faces on currency begin JFK and FDR.

-- David Brooks

[Rob Perkins]

On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 20:58:36 -0500, "G.R. Patterson III"
> wrote:

>
>
>mike regish wrote:
>>
>> I guess, in a way, they're saying they're not satisfied with allah's job
>> performance.
>
>Isn't there something in the Christian faith to the extent of "the Lord helps
>those as helps themselves"?

Yes, but it's there to prevent people from becoming lazy mystics, not
to justify brutish behavior.

Rob

[Rob Perkins]

On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 08:46:11 +0100, Thomas Borchert
> wrote:

>that's ridiculous! Look back in history!

I have. The worst regimes are the "godless" ones.

> Look at all the harm religious
>people have brought over the world.

We going to have that argument again?

I guess people really aren't listening to me. Or they don't study
history.

Rob

[Rob Perkins]

On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:16:57 +0100, Thomas Borchert
> wrote:

>> so your theory that the world is in the shape it's in now
>> due to religion does not ring completely true.
>>
>
>Not exclusively because of religion, but looking back, it is one of the
>primary propaganda machines to bring evil over the world.

Agreed. What you've identified is the tool of the demagogue, not his
motivation, which is far more primal.

Rob

[Rob Perkins]

On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 22:35:38 GMT, Don Tuite
> wrote:

>Testing a hypothesis is what got Moses' ass in trouble -- whacking the
>rock with his stick, when the Big Guy had just told him to order it
>verbally to gush water. No Promised Land for poor Moe.

One: Moses was on face-to-face speaking terms with God. There is
enough in the text of the pentateuch to suggest that the God he saw
looked human in form. ("Moses spoke to God face to face." "I'll show
you my back parts only", and so forth. I'll look it all up if anyone
cares.)

Whacking the rock was not scientific inquiry; the guy had been through
bringing down seven plagues, lifting up his arms to keep his side on
the winning side of a battle, parting (or drying up, you take your
pick) the Red (Reed) Sea. Conversing with a bush. He had a consistent
picture of God. No need for Moe to have faith; he'd been through the
fire already, so to speak. He knew. And then did the wrong thing
anyway.

In my church, we hold this story up as a lesson in *pride*, not faith.

>Thus is Faith defined in Exodus.

Two: You're using what you commonly hold as an untrue myth to bolster
a point about faith. How that supports your point, when the premise is
to reject the book altogether and out of hand, sits a bit beyond me.

Rob

[Rob Perkins]

On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 22:02:40 -0500, Andrew Gideon >
wrote:

>Where do you find faith defined as "interested in the outcome"?

In Mormonism, which rejects much of the common definitions of various
liturgical terms, in favor of stuff that makes a different kind of
sense. Because Mormonism is a minority religion worldwide (something
like 0.1% of the world population) you're not likely to find its
usages in the dictionary, unless the terms are exclusive to it.

One example, if you can get past the 19th-century scriptural-sounding
English, is here:

http://scriptures.lds.org/alma/32/21#21

And another, here, which proposes an experiment of sorts on "the
word", interpreted by Mormons to mean pretty much any proposition, but
especially the stuff found in scriptures:

http://scriptures.lds.org/alma/32/26-30#26

Rob

[Peter Gottlieb]

"Wdtabor" > wrote in message
...
> That is not to say that state licensing boards are evil, but they really
don't
> serve a purpose that the insurance industry cannot fulfill just as well,
at
> lower cost.

I gather that presently dentists must be licensed by the state board, and
that is a requirement with legal penalties for non-compliance. If this
changes to a system where insurance companies determine who is competent to
practice, then to have some protections for the public (liability and
competence) there would need to be a way for the public to know which
dentists carry insurance. If there was no legal requirement to carry
insurance and no way for the public to know whether or not their
practicioner carried it the public would suddenly be at a major
disadvantage. How would you propose to set this up?

[Rob Perkins]

On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 08:46:31 -0500, "Trent Moorehead"
> wrote:

>> After looking at all the harm religion has brought over mankind, how can
>one
>> not fight it whereever it rears its ugly head - if one wants to remain a
>> halfway moral being.
>
>I guess I should cancel my plans to deliver Thanksgiving dinner to the needy
>tomorrow. Since it's on behalf of my church.

I guess you better. After all, according to the atheists here, if your
motivation is religious, you must not be moral.

Rob

[Thomas Borchert]

Rob,

> I guess people really aren't listening to me. Or they don't study
> history.
>

or they don't agree with you ;-)

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Dylan Smith]

In article >, Chris W wrote:
> Religion is very personal, there are ways to

Indeed. My personal beliefs are that Usenet posts should be <=80
characters wide, but evidently not everybody accepts that particular
belief or practise :-)

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[Andrew Gideon]

Thomas Borchert wrote:

> Rob,
>
>> I guess people really aren't listening to me. Or they don't study
>> history.
>>
>
> or they don't agree with you ;-)
>

Really. It's tough to have a discussion with someone that makes up
definitions for words. If he's not even willing to use a language
properly, what chance is there for logic or history? It's too easy to make
things up, and arguing against that is a fool's game.

When I realized that he'd countered my dictionary citation with some
referenced scripture...well, there's little point to this.

- Andrew

[Rob Perkins]

On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 11:51:46 -0500, Andrew Gideon >
wrote:

>Really. It's tough to have a discussion with someone that makes up
>definitions for words.

What?! Point to the spot where *I* made up a definition for a word.

I gave you a whole alternate worldview, embraced by millions of
people, even if they are a significant minority. I gave you its
source, not written by me, and therefore not my contrivance. I gave
you its fundamentals. I gave you the reason why the definition is not
found in a dictionary.

Therefore, I didn't make up definitions for words, and the remainder
of your reasoning on that line is a really simplistic straw man. And
alleging so in this thread is ad hominem. "He's religious, therefore
we must not take any of his ideas seriously, no matter what."

It seems you'd rather attack a popular straw man than consider what a
different outlook might do to the fundamentals of a belief system
which is *not* atheism. I agree that that makes a good discussion very
difficult, but it is not I who has a problem with reason and logic
this time.

>When I realized that he'd countered my dictionary citation with some
>referenced scripture...well, there's little point to this.

You ask what source contains my notion, and I tell you. You dismiss
the notion because the idea is contained in scripture (a word whose
etymology reduces to "stuff written down", by the way). [1]

I didn't claim for you that the scripture was divine. I didn't swoon
about its heavenly source. I have no expectation that you'll click the
link and have a conversion experience of any kind.

I explained that that was the source of the *idea*. That was the
answer to your question:

>I don't follow your definition of faith, as used here. Would you be so kind
>as to provide that definition (instead of an example)?

And you answer that kindness by calling me the player in a fool's
game.

Address the *idea* on its *merits*, and you have the basis for arguing
the point of it. But if you apparantly can't stomach a proposition
because of its source, (which is basic logical fallacy; so much for
the atheist's worship of human reason) then and only then will there
be little point.

In any case, did you actually read the sentences which convey the
idea, or not? If not, what the hell are you afraid of?

Rob, who *has* read Rand, and rejected it on the merits

[1] At any rate, ask a "traditional" Christian minister whether or not
that particular reference is scripture, and why, and watch the
vitriolic denials fly.

[Jay Honeck]

> >I guess I should cancel my plans to deliver Thanksgiving dinner to the
needy
> >tomorrow. Since it's on behalf of my church.
>
> I guess you better. After all, according to the atheists here, if your
> motivation is religious, you must not be moral.

Jeez, I turn my attention away from this thread for a day or two, and look
what happens! Talk about bitter dissension!

I am thankful that there are those who deliver dinner to the needy --
whatever their motivation. If your religion commands you to help the
hungry, house the homeless, and generally help humanity, I certainly will
not argue with you. In fact, I thank you.

However, I believe some posters have been trying to state the obvious, which
is: Religion is a powerful force for both good and evil. Gullible people
can be misled easily with the whole "fear of eternal damnation" threat.

And it works the other way, too! Just look how many fools have been
recruited by the fundamentalist, radical "Islamo-Fascists" in the Middle
East! These dupes are lured into doing the ultimate evil, simply by having
"eternity in paradise" promised to them. How many more children and
innocents must be blown to smithereens so that this sick, parasitic version
of Islam can flourish?

Does anyone honestly think there would be suicide attacks WITHOUT religion
assuring them of "eternal life"? THAT is the evil side of religion, ladies
and gentlemen -- and it must be addressed in any serious discussion of
religion.

Anyhow, I only meant to comment on the rudeness of the religious zealots
Mary and I ran into, and on the interesting way in which they were
apparently able to self-justify their bizarre, unseemly behavior. I did not
mean for this thread to pick on any particular religion, as these guys could
just have easily have been Muslims, Hare Krishnas, or Believers in the
Force.

It's sad that this thread -- probably the longest I've ever seen -- ended up
the way it did. I guess pilots are no different than the rest of the world
in this regard...

Happy Thanksgiving, everyone!
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Rob Perkins]

On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 18:32:07 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote:

>Jeez, I turn my attention away from this thread for a day or two, and look
>what happens! Talk about bitter dissension!

Jay, it always comes to this when people start calling others' belief
systems delusional and amoral.

>However, I believe some posters have been trying to state the obvious, which
>is: Religion is a powerful force for both good and evil. Gullible people
>can be misled easily with the whole "fear of eternal damnation" threat.

They can be misled more easily through the basic peer pressure of
"conform, or else we won't like you very much". Any middle school is a
breeding ground for that. So was Russian Communism, for that matter.

>And it works the other way, too! Just look how many fools have been
>recruited by the fundamentalist, radical "Islamo-Fascists" in the Middle
>East! These dupes are lured into doing the ultimate evil, simply by having
>"eternity in paradise" promised to them. How many more children and
>innocents must be blown to smithereens so that this sick, parasitic version
>of Islam can flourish?

Well, a couple of points of order: Islamofascism isn't flourishing;
all the people under its boot are doing rather poorly, including
(thanks in no small part to U.S. intervention) the leaders of the
movement.

I mean, think about it: Their hatred is so pure, that if they had the
means, they'd have attacked a second time. So far the best they can do
since 9/11/01 seems to be to sneak explosives in, disguised as
innocent civilian traffic, and detonate it.

Second, I don't think you'd have the suicide bombers without the
desparate poverty of the common people in those areas, especially
Palestine. But the same thugs who foment Islamofascism are largely
responsible for keeping those people impoverished anyway, precisely
because they take hopeless people and brainwash them with a very false
interpretation of an otherwise peaceful religious belief system.

>Does anyone honestly think there would be suicide attacks WITHOUT religion
>assuring them of "eternal life"?

Yes. A charismatic person reasoning under a humanistic belief system
could tell hopeless people that their sacrifices are for the "good of
Mankind", (or the "Good of the Fatherland", or "the Motherland") and
that they must spend their lives to ensure it.

Train 'em from age three or so, (heck, you could probably start at age
seven and still pull it off) and you'll have your warriors.

> THAT is the evil side of religion, ladies
>and gentlemen -- and it must be addressed in any serious discussion of
>religion.

How many suicide attackers have come out of Catholicism, Shinto,
Buddhaism, any Protestant denomination, Sikh, Baha'i, Mormonism, any
pagan system, or Scientology?

I tell you three times: it's not the source of evil acts, even if it
is the excuse.

>Anyhow, I only meant to comment on the rudeness of the religious zealots

Yeah, I know. Again, the best approach to those types is to a) ignore
them, or b) stand your ground and watch them make a public scene. The
crowd will sympathize with *you*.

>It's sad that this thread -- probably the longest I've ever seen -- ended up
>the way it did. I guess pilots are no different than the rest of the world
>in this regard...

It's said of the military that it's composed of a proportional
sampling of all of America. I don't see why the private pilots in the
United States or anyplace else would have outlooks any different than
the rest of the population.

Rob

[Montblack]

("Rob Perkins" wrote)
<snip>
> How many suicide attackers have come out of Catholicism, Shinto,
> Buddhaism, any Protestant denomination, Sikh, Baha'i, Mormonism, any
> pagan system, or Scientology?


Islamic nut-job. After I blow myself up, I will be accepted into (wherever)
and have 70 virgins, bla, bla, bla.

Catholic (IRA?) nut-job - Got a date with a virgin tonight. But for now,
let's see - light fuse. Run like hell!!


Yes, suicide bombers are especially unsettling. But in the end - Bombs is
Bombs, especially to the young couple sitting at a cafe when said bombs go
off.

Scary bomb story. Friend went to London on an IcelandAir (winter) special.
The group decide to meet, later, on a street corner (near the subway and the
hotel and the pub) was why they picked that corner. Corner was well off the
beaten path. Two days later a bomb blows up on that corner. I think it was
the bomb that blew up on the bus - prematurely.

They *all* belong to the Church of the Insane Nut-Jobs when bombs are
involved.

--
Montblack
http://lumma.de/mt/archives/bart.gif

[Peter Gottlieb]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:Hqrxb.128107$Dw6.561599@attbi_s02...
> However, I believe some posters have been trying to state the obvious,
which
> is: Religion is a powerful force for both good and evil. Gullible people
> can be misled easily with the whole "fear of eternal damnation" threat.

Yes, a belief system is a very powerful motivator. It is worse than
unfortunate that there are those who exploit this for their own ends and to
the detriment of humanity. Perhaps in the future there will need to be
stricter limits on religious freedoms, who knows.

I think this thread has played itself out. Have a happy Thanksgiving
everyone!

[Wdtabor]

In article >, "Peter Gottlieb"
> writes:

>If there was no legal requirement to carry
>insurance and no way for the public to know whether or not their
>practicioner carried it the public would suddenly be at a major
>disadvantage. How would you propose to set this up?
>

Litigation being what it is, you have to have insuarnce to practice, or you
risk losong everything you own. Further, most banks and dental insurance
companies will not do business with you if you are not insured.

Aside from which, I could forge a license just as easily as as I could forge a
certificate of insurance. No one checks validity except the dental insurance
companies you contract with. They verify it with the carrier.

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

[L Smith]

Rob Perkins wrote:

> Second, I don't think you'd have the suicide bombers without the
>
>desparate poverty of the common people in those areas, especially
>Palestine. But the same thugs who foment Islamofascism are largely
>responsible for keeping those people impoverished anyway, precisely
>because they take hopeless people and brainwash them with a very false
>interpretation of an otherwise peaceful religious belief system.
>
>
>
>>Does anyone honestly think there would be suicide attacks WITHOUT religion
>>assuring them of "eternal life"?
>>
>>
>
>Yes. A charismatic person reasoning under a humanistic belief system
>could tell hopeless people that their sacrifices are for the "good of
>Mankind", (or the "Good of the Fatherland", or "the Motherland") and
>that they must spend their lives to ensure it.
>
Reading this suggests that you are making the assumption that the
suicide bombers
come from the down-trodden, hopeless members of Islamic society. I've
seen several
reports recently, though, that challenge this idea. I don't have any
citations handy, but
from what I remember it's the more affluent segment of the society
that's providing the
zealots.

This actually makes sense, looking back at this countries own
turbulent history. There
were the occasional riots (like Watts) where most of the participants
were from the
"oppressed" segments of our society, but the real "outlaw" groups (SDS,
Weather
Underground, etc) were made up mostly of middle-class kids who felt the
country
was wrong, and that violence was the only answer.

When you think about it, the down-trodden really don't have a lot of
opportunity to
become revolutionaries. They're too busy just trying to stay alive. They
might go into
crime, but they don't have the time, energy, or education to become
revolutionaries.
The middle class kids, though, have lots of free time to "think grand
thoughts" since
"mommy and daddy" are footing the bill. They also have the education to
know that
a successful revolution is possible, and to figure out how to carry if off.

Rich Lemert

[L Smith]

Wdtabor wrote:

>Litigation being what it is, you have to have insuarnce to practice, or you
>risk losong everything you own.
>
Actually, you don't have to have insurance to practice. Like you say,
you do risk losing
everything, but then again there are many people willing to take that
risk - some because
they "know" it will never happen to them, some because they're trying to
make as much
money as fast as they can, and some because they can't get insurance.

> Further, most banks and dental insurance
>companies will not do business with you if you are not insured.
>
But then again, if your unscrupulous enough to run an uninsured
dentistry practice,
what makes you think you'll have any trouble finding equally
unscrupulous banks and
insurance companies.

>Aside from which, I could forge a license just as easily as as I could forge a
>certificate of insurance. No one checks validity except the dental insurance
>companies you contract with. They verify it with the carrier.
>
I'm sorry, but this looks like your trying to make a circular
argument. It sounds like
your saying that the only people that check for your license are the
insurance companies,
and they only check with themselves.

Rich Lemert

>
>
>

[Rob Perkins]

On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 01:16:21 GMT, L Smith >
wrote:

> Reading this suggests that you are making the assumption that the
>suicide bombers
>come from the down-trodden, hopeless members of Islamic society.

Your ideas are thought-provoking; I was thinking specifically of the
suiciders who come out of Palestine. As with many things, I could be
wrong, but I don't think there's much of a middle class left there.

As a counter idea, though, I'll offer that "hopeless people" doesn't
necessarily mean "poor people", and that one can be downtrodden in
ideas without suffering from material want.

Rob

[Brian Burger]

On Thu, 27 Nov 2003, Rob Perkins wrote:

> It's said of the military that it's composed of a proportional
> sampling of all of America. I don't see why the private pilots in the
> United States or anyplace else would have outlooks any different than
> the rest of the population.

It's also worth remembering that UseNet is also a very international
forum, and that most of the rest of the western world is significantly
less religious that the USA.

For example, Canada's (outgoing) Prime Minister has been leading for over
eight years; it wasn't until about a year ago I finally learned he's
Catholic. It really is less of an issue here, and in Europe.

<shrug> In any case, it was an interesting thread.

Brian.

[Matthew P. Cummings]

On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 21:45:58 +0000, Peter Gottlieb wrote:

> I think this thread has played itself out. Have a happy Thanksgiving
> everyone!

See this is where I have a problem. People who claim to not be religious
celebrate holidays such as Christmas, Easter, and yes Thanksgiving.

Do some research into the origins of Thanksgiving, and also that of our
Country and you'll see a religious connection.

As for me, I do not observe those holidays since they have been corrupted
by the Catholics trying to sway the belief system of pagans. For those
that care to check it out most of our current religions holidays have been
based on dates the pagans observed their festivals. There is a lot of
crap organized religion has shoved down our throats and until recently
most held it as true. Now they say we know what it means, but we don't
celebrate it like that so it's ok. It's NOT OK!

For my biggest gripe with organized religion look at Halloween, why would a
Church allow it's members to observe a pagan ritual, and actively
encourage it's members to observe it in their sanctuary when it's
expressly forbidden to partake of evil? Something is mighty screwed up
there and should be fixed, yet the attitude of we've always done it this
way and it's not hurt anybody is what keeps it going and is also why it's
wrong.

[Jay Honeck]

> See this is where I have a problem. People who claim to not be religious
> celebrate holidays such as Christmas, Easter, and yes Thanksgiving.

Oh, come on. On the one hand you say that these holidays pre-date their
current religious overtones, in some cases by thousands of years. Then, in
the next breath, you wonder why the religions allow their members to
celebrate them.

Well, it's pretty obvious to me -- people LIKE to celebrate. Even the
harshest religion probably learned long ago that you tamper with people's
traditional holidays at your own peril.

Christmas is a good example. Jesus' birthday was almost certainly NOT in
December -- but there was a pagan Winter Solstice holiday that needed to be
co-opted. Bingo! -- just add Jesus!

It's also eminently practical to add a celebration at the deepest, darkest,
coldest time of year. Most humans are naturally in a funk -- some
seriously -- at this time of years, and need a "pick-me-up" to get through
the long winter. Christmas and New Years Eve fit the bill perfectly.

Halloween is an even better example. Even the Catholic church knows not to
screw with a pagan holiday that allows little kids to get free candy! You
think their ranks are dwindling NOW -- just watch what happens to them if
they try to take away free candy! ;-)

Religions must be pragmatic to a certain degree or they will cease to
exist -- and their leaders know it.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Earl Grieda]

"Matthew P. Cummings" > wrote in message
ray.net...
> On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 21:45:58 +0000, Peter Gottlieb wrote:
>
> > I think this thread has played itself out. Have a happy Thanksgiving
> > everyone!
>
> See this is where I have a problem. People who claim to not be religious
> celebrate holidays such as Christmas, Easter, and yes Thanksgiving.
>

Just as an earlier poster said he would spend money with religious symbols,
I will certainly take a day off for whatever reason. I think in the
interest of fairness we need at least a holiday a month from each of the
categories (Christian, Islam, Judisim, Agnostic, Athiestism, Satanism,
Buddism, Beerism, Lazyism, anything else).

Earl G.

[Thomas Borchert]

Brian,

> and that most of the rest of the western world is significantly
> less religious that the USA.

Didn't someone quote research in this thread that the US is the most
religious country in the world? Wonder how to measure that...


> <shrug> In any case, it was an interesting thread.
>

I think so, too. Of course, many (including myself) expressed their views
in an extreme way for the benefit of the discussion (I like to think, at
least). But it was/is a very interesting thread, I think.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Rob Perkins]

On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 09:00:52 +0100, Thomas Borchert
> wrote:

>Didn't someone quote research in this thread that the US is the most
>religious country in the world? Wonder how to measure that...

I don't think you can. Noone seems to have a good definition of
"religious".

>> <shrug> In any case, it was an interesting thread.
>I think so, too. Of course, many (including myself) expressed their views
>in an extreme way for the benefit of the discussion (I like to think, at
>least). But it was/is a very interesting thread, I think.

Agreed.

Rob

[Wdtabor]

In article >, Rob Perkins
> writes:

>
>Your ideas are thought-provoking; I was thinking specifically of the
>suiciders who come out of Palestine. As with many things, I could be
>wrong, but I don't think there's much of a middle class left there.
>

The one of the recent suicide bombers in Israel was a successful pharmacist who
had delayed his martydom until he had set aside enough to raise and educate his
children.

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

[Wdtabor]

In article .net>, L Smith
> writes:

>>Aside from which, I could forge a license just as easily as as I could forge
>a
>>certificate of insurance. No one checks validity except the dental insurance
>>companies you contract with. They verify it with the carrier.
>>
> I'm sorry, but this looks like your trying to make a circular
>argument. It sounds like
>your saying that the only people that check for your license are the
>insurance companies,
>and they only check with themselves.
>

Perhaps I was unclear.

Dental insurance companies are not the same companies that sell dental
professional liability insurance.

The dental insurance companies who enter into managed care agreements like PPO
plans wish to avoid secondary liability, so they require dentist who contract
with them to be insured for liability, and verify that coverage with the
liability insurers.

Aside from which, if licensing were eliminated, it would be to my advantage to
have proof of insurance on display and easily verified, just like home repair
companies include the fact that they are bonded in their advertising.

There just really isn't anything accomplished *for the public good* by
licensing that the private sector cannot do better. Licensing only serves to
restrain trade by preventing dentists from moving from one state to another to
follow demand. Florida is famous for that in the profession, getting a Florida
license is almost impossible if you are not from there. The Florida dentists
fear an influx of semi-retired older dentists coming to the state and flooding
the market, lowering fees. The result is that dentistry in FLorida is far more
expensive than unrestrained supply and demand would dictate. (Same thing for
Texas and Hawaii)


--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

[Teacherjh]

>>
Noone seems to have a good definition of "religious".
<<

Basing one's life (the little decisions as well as the big one) on fundamental
precepts which are by nature unprovable and undisprovable, and holding forth
that these precepts represent TRUTH (and any competing precepts represent evil,
or at least folly)

Jose



--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Teacherjh]

>>
There just really isn't anything accomplished *for the public good* by
licensing that the private sector cannot do better.
<<

To the presmise that the insurance companies evaluate risk better than the
licensing agencies and the public, how do you account for the fact that to
insure a club with a twin costs upwards of five times as much as a club that
has only single engine airplanes that fly IFR at night with one pilot.

Seems somebody hasn't a clue, and I'm not sure which it is.

Jose



--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[H. Adam Stevens]

And a Happy Thanksgiving to you, too, Jay.
H.
N502TB

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:Hqrxb.128107$Dw6.561599@attbi_s02...
> > >I guess I should cancel my plans to deliver Thanksgiving dinner to the
> needy
> > >tomorrow. Since it's on behalf of my church.
> >
> > I guess you better. After all, according to the atheists here, if your
> > motivation is religious, you must not be moral.
>
> Jeez, I turn my attention away from this thread for a day or two, and look
> what happens! Talk about bitter dissension!
>
> I am thankful that there are those who deliver dinner to the needy --
> whatever their motivation. If your religion commands you to help the
> hungry, house the homeless, and generally help humanity, I certainly will
> not argue with you. In fact, I thank you.
>
> However, I believe some posters have been trying to state the obvious,
which
> is: Religion is a powerful force for both good and evil. Gullible people
> can be misled easily with the whole "fear of eternal damnation" threat.
>
> And it works the other way, too! Just look how many fools have been
> recruited by the fundamentalist, radical "Islamo-Fascists" in the Middle
> East! These dupes are lured into doing the ultimate evil, simply by
having
> "eternity in paradise" promised to them. How many more children and
> innocents must be blown to smithereens so that this sick, parasitic
version
> of Islam can flourish?
>
> Does anyone honestly think there would be suicide attacks WITHOUT religion
> assuring them of "eternal life"? THAT is the evil side of religion,
ladies
> and gentlemen -- and it must be addressed in any serious discussion of
> religion.
>
> Anyhow, I only meant to comment on the rudeness of the religious zealots
> Mary and I ran into, and on the interesting way in which they were
> apparently able to self-justify their bizarre, unseemly behavior. I did
not
> mean for this thread to pick on any particular religion, as these guys
could
> just have easily have been Muslims, Hare Krishnas, or Believers in the
> Force.
>
> It's sad that this thread -- probably the longest I've ever seen -- ended
up
> the way it did. I guess pilots are no different than the rest of the
world
> in this regard...
>
> Happy Thanksgiving, everyone!
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>
>

[Wdtabor]

In article >,
(Teacherjh) writes:

>>>
>There just really isn't anything accomplished *for the public good* by
>licensing that the private sector cannot do better.
><<
>
>To the presmise that the insurance companies evaluate risk better than the
>licensing agencies and the public, how do you account for the fact that to
>insure a club with a twin costs upwards of five times as much as a club that
>has only single engine airplanes that fly IFR at night with one pilot.
>

Perhaps actuarial experience differs from what you are expecting?

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

[G.R. Patterson III]

L Smith wrote:
>
> Reading this suggests that you are making the assumption that the
> suicide bombers
> come from the down-trodden, hopeless members of Islamic society. I've
> seen several
> reports recently, though, that challenge this idea. I don't have any
> citations handy, but
> from what I remember it's the more affluent segment of the society
> that's providing the
> zealots.

From what I've read, it's the affluent segment that's providing the money. The
lower classes still provide the bombers. The surviving family of a bomber then
moves into the middle class.

George Patterson
Some people think they hear a call to the priesthood when what they really
hear is a tiny voice whispering "It's indoor work with no heavy lifting".

[G.R. Patterson III]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>
> Happy Thanksgiving, everyone!

It certainly was!

George Patterson
Some people think they hear a call to the priesthood when what they really
hear is a tiny voice whispering "It's indoor work with no heavy lifting".

[Matthew P. Cummings]

On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 05:05:14 +0000, Jay Honeck wrote:

> Religions must be pragmatic to a certain degree or they will cease to
> exist -- and their leaders know it.

You see, that's my point. Why bother to go through the charade of being
pius if you're going to ignore what the scripture says anyhow? Doesn't
that make it a bit hard to stomach?

I mean, it's like getting married and continuing to sleep with other
women, I mean why even bother getting married if you're not going to abide
by the covenant?

That's what I have against many organized religions, they allow the
membership to break their own covenants and continue on as if nothing ever
happened.

[Peter Gottlieb]

"Matthew P. Cummings" > wrote in message >
> I mean, it's like getting married and continuing to sleep with other
> women, I mean why even bother getting married if you're not going to abide
> by the covenant?
>

You are defining marriage by a religiously determined set of rules.
Different marriages, under different or possibly no religion, may have
different customs. Same applies to non marriage related behaviors.

Each individual's belief system should be a private matter. When "church"
officials begin to interpret then demand compliance and the government
supports this is when things get messy.

[Jay Honeck]

> That's what I have against many organized religions, they allow the
> membership to break their own covenants and continue on as if nothing ever
> happened.

Agree 100%. In fact, one of the main problems we had with Catholicism was
the fact that every Catholic church in America seemed to interpret the laws
of the church differently.

For example, if you are Catholic, you are forbidden from using birth
control -- period. No ifs, ands or buts about it, you are FORBIDDEN from
taking the Pill, or using a condom. Yet the vast majority of American
"Catholic" women admit to using birth control.

Worse, the churches themselves do this little "nudge-nudge, wink-wink" thing
around the issue, allowing their members to continue in the church even
thought they know about the transgressors.

Not that I have anything against birth control -- I don't -- but if you want
to call yourself a "Catholic", follow their rules. If you want to use the
Pill, fine -- just don't make a sham of the church and call yourself a
"Catholic".

It's this kind of utter hypocrisy that drove Mary and me away from organized
religion.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"
>

[Jim Weir]

"More and more people are leaving the Church and going back to God."

(Lenny Bruce)


Jim


"Jay Honeck" >
shared these priceless pearls of wisdom:

->
->It's this kind of utter hypocrisy that drove Mary and me away from organized
->religion.

Jim Weir (A&P/IA, CFI, & other good alphabet soup)
VP Eng RST Pres. Cyberchapter EAA Tech. Counselor
http://www.rst-engr.com

[Rob Perkins]

On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 13:38:47 -0600, "Matthew P. Cummings"
> wrote:

>That's what I have against many organized religions, they allow the
>membership to break their own covenants and continue on as if nothing ever
>happened.

As with so many other things, I have to say that that's a real issue,
but it isn't with my own church.

Rob

[David Dyer-Bennet]

"Peter Gottlieb" > writes:

> "Matthew P. Cummings" > wrote in message >
> > I mean, it's like getting married and continuing to sleep with other
> > women, I mean why even bother getting married if you're not going to abide
> > by the covenant?
> >
>
> You are defining marriage by a religiously determined set of rules.

And rules specific to one religion, and not even all branches of that
(remember the Mormons).

> Different marriages, under different or possibly no religion, may have
> different customs. Same applies to non marriage related behaviors.
>
> Each individual's belief system should be a private matter. When "church"
> officials begin to interpret then demand compliance and the government
> supports this is when things get messy.

Yep.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, >, <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <noguns-nomoney.com> <www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Photos: <dd-b.lighthunters.net> Snapshots: <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <dragaera.info/>

[Jules Beaudoin]

Hey, you lemon sucking puke, we ain't all religion nuts.

[Richard Hertz]

And that is precisely why you should respect these folks you had a hard time
with - they were at least acting consistently with their religion. Instead
of bad-mouthing them you should recognize at least that they were not being
hypocrites like you feel that all the rest of organized religion.


"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:vYPxb.338356$HS4.2896996@attbi_s01...
> > That's what I have against many organized religions, they allow the
> > membership to break their own covenants and continue on as if nothing
ever
> > happened.
>
> Agree 100%. In fact, one of the main problems we had with Catholicism was
> the fact that every Catholic church in America seemed to interpret the
laws
> of the church differently.
>
> For example, if you are Catholic, you are forbidden from using birth
> control -- period. No ifs, ands or buts about it, you are FORBIDDEN from
> taking the Pill, or using a condom. Yet the vast majority of American
> "Catholic" women admit to using birth control.
>
> Worse, the churches themselves do this little "nudge-nudge, wink-wink"
thing
> around the issue, allowing their members to continue in the church even
> thought they know about the transgressors.
>
> Not that I have anything against birth control -- I don't -- but if you
want
> to call yourself a "Catholic", follow their rules. If you want to use the
> Pill, fine -- just don't make a sham of the church and call yourself a
> "Catholic".
>
> It's this kind of utter hypocrisy that drove Mary and me away from
organized
> religion.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
> >
>
>

[Jay Honeck]

> And that is precisely why you should respect these folks you had a hard
time
> with - they were at least acting consistently with their religion.
Instead
> of bad-mouthing them you should recognize at least that they were not
being
> hypocrites like you feel that all the rest of organized religion.

Augh! Talk about "damned if you do, damned if you don't"...

I don't think a person has to be rude to be true to ones faith.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[John Ousterhout]

Yesterday evening was the weekly church supper, and my partner and I
decided to go.

After a beautiful drive we arrived and went inside. While waiting in
line we met two older gentlemen. The usual introductions were made,
and standard church talk ensued. It turned out that both guys were
retired and in their mid-70s. One had been a Sears store manager for
many years, and other was a successful real estate developer. The
conversation flowed smoothly, and the line went moved quickly.

After finishing the buffet line as we were looking for a table, we ran
into them again. The Sears manager asked me if we cared to join them
for lunch. Since we were sans kids, and they seemed like nice
company, we decided that joining them was a good idea, and proceeded
to a table.

Once we were all seated with our food, we all prayed, then began our
meal. The real estate guy announced that he and his friends were
pilots and asked if we could all recite High Flight together. I
frankly found this a bit odd, in a church buffet, but to be polite we
just agreed. My partner and I exchanged the old "uh-oh" glance, but
we still hoped that things would progress normally.

It was not to be.

As lunch proceeded, began asking questions and soon asked what type of
plane we flew. My partner struggled bravely to answer that question
in a way that wouldn't offend these obviously zealous pilots, but
there was simply no way to hide the fact that we didn't fly, nor were
we urging out children to. I then proceeded to explain that we had
both been raised by hyper-Aviation parents, and had been bludgeoned to
death with our heavy-handed upbringings. We were going to let our
children decide about aviation when they reached the age of reason.

This was a mistake. I might as well have tossed blood into
shark-infested
water.

The next question, after a pause, was from the Sears guy, asking
whether we had Aviation magazines in our hotel suites. I chuckled,
and allowed that we did. I then went on to say how we'd even seen some
competition amongst the various alphabet groups in town, with the EAA
trying to get us to put their "Sport Aviation" magazines in all the
suites along with AOPA Pilot. Still chuckling, I remarked that we had
to draw the line somewhere, or we'd have to put US Aviator magazine in
the suites, too.

This was another mistake. The Sears guy turned out to be an EAA
member, and he didn't warm to the notion that I was equating his
beloved Sport Aviation magazine with US Aviator.

Soon, both men were quoting the FAR-AIM to us, chapter and verse,
"proving" how "easy" it was to be "saved" by the aviation lifestyle",
as opposed to the unhealthful other lifestyles. By now we were both
growing incredibly uncomfortable, and I had that horrible "this must
be a nightmare" feeling rising in the pit of my stomach. Not knowing
whether to bolt or tell them to go to hell, I just sat there silently,
dumbly smiling at them in disbelief.

Then the Sears guy asked me if I knew how "truly easy" it was to
become an aviator? I replied, quite honestly, "no". (ANOTHER
mistake!) He then told me that I didn't have to close my eyes, nor
did I even have to be in the air -- I only had to recite High Flight
along with him, giving myself over to aviation. He then asked,
directly, "Would I be willing to say this little verse aloud with
him?"

The heat in my face was really rising now, and I felt like everyone in
that church was staring DIRECTLY at the back of my head. What could I
say to someone so earnest, yet so incredibly rude? I smiled, placed
my hand firmly on his shoulder, and told him that I most certainly was
NOT going to recite that verse with him in church. I then went back
to eating, trying to think of some way -- ANY way -- to escape this
insane situation.

My partner finally came up with the answer -- she bolted, and went to
the bathroom! Abandoned, I was a helpless target for their zeal, and
felt myself being carried along by their verbal diarrhea. There was
simply no escape, and I politely listened while they explained to me
everything from everlasting aviation, to the advantages of sending
hundreds of dollars of my income to the alphabet groups...

At last my partner returned, and announced that we were late to get
back to pick up the kids from school. Never had I been so grateful
for bad news in my life, and I quickly jumped up, shook both their
hands, thanked them for an "interesting" lunch, and headed toward the
door, on the double.

Until yesterday I had run into fanatics in every other walk of life.
I GUESS I HAD ASSUMED THAT ANYONE NICE ENOUGH TO ATTEND CHURCH
COULDN'T BE SO RUDE AS TO GO AROUND TRYING TO "CONVERT" PERFECT
STRANGERS.

[Dan Luke]

"Richard Hertz" wrote:
> And that is precisely why you should respect these folks you had
> a hard time with - they were at least acting consistently with their
> religion.

What is that, an excuse? We should respect rude, aggressive
proselytizers because they are able to convince themselves God wants
them to behave that way? Islamic terrorists use that exact
rationalization.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Dan Luke]

"John Ousterhout" wrote:
[attempted turnabout lesson snipped]

What's your point, John? That anyone can be rude and overbearing? Does
that excuse it?
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Jay Honeck]

Until yesterday I had run into fanatics in every other walk of life.
> I GUESS I HAD ASSUMED THAT ANYONE NICE ENOUGH TO ATTEND CHURCH
> COULDN'T BE SO RUDE AS TO GO AROUND TRYING TO "CONVERT" PERFECT
> STRANGERS.

This is GREAT, John! I'm still crying!

I think I've found my new religion...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[G.R. Patterson III]

Richard Hertz wrote:
>
> And that is precisely why you should respect these folks you had a hard time
> with - they were at least acting consistently with their religion.

I suppose you have a great deal of respect for telemarketers too?

George Patterson
Some people think they hear a call to the priesthood when what they really
hear is a tiny voice whispering "It's indoor work with no heavy lifting".

[Dave Stadt]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Richard Hertz wrote:
> >
> > And that is precisely why you should respect these folks you had a hard
time
> > with - they were at least acting consistently with their religion.
>
> I suppose you have a great deal of respect for telemarketers too?

He probably is one.

> George Patterson
> Some people think they hear a call to the priesthood when what they
really
> hear is a tiny voice whispering "It's indoor work with no heavy
lifting".

[Richard Hertz]

Um, no - he was free to leave any time. He joined them for a meal, they
chatted about stuff, then the topic came to religion. What is rude? Just
say "Sorry, bye." and go on your way. No need to make fun of people or name
call.

I think the terrorism thing is a bit overstated, don't you? Not at all the
same thing. What was aggressive? Jay could have walked away any time, or
asked to drop the subject.

I think the religion thing is a waste of time, however I am at least
respectful of people's religions - especially the ones that are consistent.


"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
> "Richard Hertz" wrote:
> > And that is precisely why you should respect these folks you had
> > a hard time with - they were at least acting consistently with their
> > religion.
>
> What is that, an excuse? We should respect rude, aggressive
> proselytizers because they are able to convince themselves God wants
> them to behave that way? Islamic terrorists use that exact
> rationalization.
> --
> Dan
> C172RG at BFM
>
>

[Richard Hertz]

No. Totally different. Jay agreed to joint them for lunch. He even said
they asked if he wouldn't mind them saying a prayer. He could have left the
conversation at any time.

He makes it sound like they followed him and hounded him. From what I read
it was not rude behavior. I find it a bit odd that some people to talk to
strangers about religion, but what is rude about it?

People just seem to want to be isolated and not have to deal with anyone
different than they are. Clearly Jay's reaction (as others have pointed
out) seem to stem more from his own issues with religions than anything the
two people he met did.

Makes me wonder what would happen if I (or anyone) stayed at his little
hotel and he found something about us odd. What would be posted on this
newsgroup the following week?


"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Richard Hertz wrote:
> >
> > And that is precisely why you should respect these folks you had a hard
time
> > with - they were at least acting consistently with their religion.
>
> I suppose you have a great deal of respect for telemarketers too?
>
> George Patterson
> Some people think they hear a call to the priesthood when what they
really
> hear is a tiny voice whispering "It's indoor work with no heavy
lifting".

[Richard Hertz]

No. Not even close. I also don't practice any religion.

You probably are one.


"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
.com...
>
> "G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >
> > Richard Hertz wrote:
> > >
> > > And that is precisely why you should respect these folks you had a
hard
> time
> > > with - they were at least acting consistently with their religion.
> >
> > I suppose you have a great deal of respect for telemarketers too?
>
> He probably is one.
>
> > George Patterson
> > Some people think they hear a call to the priesthood when what they
> really
> > hear is a tiny voice whispering "It's indoor work with no heavy
> lifting".
>
>

[Matthew P. Cummings]

On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 14:26:49 +0000, Jay Honeck wrote:

> This is GREAT, John! I'm still crying!
>
> I think I've found my new religion...

Well, before we leap we best make sure he walks the walk. You think you
know somebody and then whammo, they drop the bigun on you...

[Jay Honeck]

> Makes me wonder what would happen if I (or anyone) stayed at his little
> hotel and he found something about us odd. What would be posted on this
> newsgroup the following week?

I promise not to use real names! :-)

Incredibly, we were eating brunch in Janesville, WI today when that very
same beautiful blood-red Mooney came taxiing in!

Staring at each other in disbelief, Mary and I were grabbing the kids and
heading toward the door when, much to our relief, they taxied on by...

The last time I felt that good was when I evaded the truant officer in 10th
grade!

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> The last time I felt that good was when I evaded the truant officer in
10th
> grade!

By the way -- the truant officer was a Catholic nun! (Nothing ever really
changes, does it? :-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Chris W]

Teacherjh wrote:
>
> >>
> Noone seems to have a good definition of "religious".
> <<
>
> Basing one's life (the little decisions as well as the big one) on fundamental
> precepts which are by nature unprovable and undisprovable, and holding forth
> that these precepts represent TRUTH (and any competing precepts represent evil,
> or at least folly)
>

Seems you are doing a good job of proving Rob's point.

--
Chris W

"They that can give up essential liberty
to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin, 1759 Historical Review of Pennsylvania

[Teacherjh]

>> Seems you are doing a good job of proving Rob's point.

....which is what?

You say that as if it were an error. I reread Rob's )
posts, I tend to agree with them. I don't know that he was trying to =make= a
point, just refuting other people's claims and correcting misconceptions
(especially about math).

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Chris W]

Teacherjh wrote:
>
> >> Seems you are doing a good job of proving Rob's point.
>
> ...which is what?

Rob said; "Noone seems to have a good definition of "religious"."

You offered a definition of religious, and I am saying that your attempt
at a definition goes to prove Rob's statement that no one has a good
definition of religious, since your definition is very far from a good
one.

--
Chris W

[Andrew Gideon]

Rob Perkins wrote:

> On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 11:51:46 -0500, Andrew Gideon >
> wrote:
>
>>Really. It's tough to have a discussion with someone that makes up
>>definitions for words.
>
> What?! Point to the spot where *I* made up a definition for a word.

In message >, you cite scripture
instead of dictionary as a source of a definition. It was to this I
referred with the text (which you didn't include in your citation):

When I realized that he'd countered my dictionary citation
with some referenced scripture...well, there's little point
to this.

You'd do as well to cite a Spanish dictionary for the definition of an
English word. It's about as meaninful.

- Andrew

[Andrew Gideon]

G.R. Patterson III wrote:

>
>
> Jay Honeck wrote:
>>
>> Happy Thanksgiving, everyone!
>
> It certainly was!

Bah!

100' VV at my destination airport.

- Andrew

[mike regish]

It can be uncomfortable to leave in that situation. Especially after one has
already started eating. Some might feel they are being rude to leave. (I
wouldn't in this situation) And you've already got your food started, you
silverware being used, your drink on the table. You napkin unfolded or
whatever. It's just plain a pain in the ass to have to move. However, after
asking once to change the subject, if it didn't change I'd make as many
trips as necessary to get as far away from them as possible. And I'd
probably (now this is me talking) make as big a production as I could of it.
Might just embarass them enough to knock it off next time. Probably not,
though.

mike regish

"Richard Hertz" > wrote in message
t...
> Um, no - he was free to leave any time. He joined them for a meal, they
> chatted about stuff, then the topic came to religion. What is rude?
Just
> say "Sorry, bye." and go on your way. No need to make fun of people or
name
> call.
>
> I think the terrorism thing is a bit overstated, don't you? Not at all
the
> same thing. What was aggressive? Jay could have walked away any time, or
> asked to drop the subject.
>
> I think the religion thing is a waste of time, however I am at least
> respectful of people's religions - especially the ones that are
consistent.
>
>
> "Dan Luke" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Richard Hertz" wrote:
> > > And that is precisely why you should respect these folks you had
> > > a hard time with - they were at least acting consistently with their
> > > religion.
> >
> > What is that, an excuse? We should respect rude, aggressive
> > proselytizers because they are able to convince themselves God wants
> > them to behave that way? Islamic terrorists use that exact
> > rationalization.
> > --
> > Dan
> > C172RG at BFM
> >
> >
>
>

[Jay Honeck]

> whatever. It's just plain a pain in the ass to have to move. However,
after
> asking once to change the subject, if it didn't change I'd make as many
> trips as necessary to get as far away from them as possible. And I'd
> probably (now this is me talking) make as big a production as I could of
it.
> Might just embarass them enough to knock it off next time. Probably not,
> though.

In my younger days (and if Mary was not with me), I most certainly would
have done exactly THAT.

Nowadays, I'm so danged mellow, I'll put up with just about anything --
especially if there's an all-you-can-eat buffet nearby.... ;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Rob Perkins]

On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 14:00:25 -0500, Andrew Gideon >
wrote:

>In message >, you cite scripture
>instead of dictionary as a source of a definition. It was to this I
>referred with the text (which you didn't include in your citation):
>
> When I realized that he'd countered my dictionary citation
> with some referenced scripture...well, there's little point
> to this.
>
>You'd do as well to cite a Spanish dictionary for the definition of an
>English word. It's about as meaninful.

!!

The first dictionaries *were* descriptions of the meanings of foreign
words. Are you even aware what a modern dictionary is and how it's
compiled?

Beside the point. You're moving the goalposts, and committing ad
hominem: "He used a 'scripture' so therefore can't be relied upon."
It's not reasonable.

Rob

[Andrew Gideon]

Rob Perkins wrote:

[...]
> Beside the point. You're moving the goalposts, and committing ad
> hominem: "He used a 'scripture' so therefore can't be relied upon."
> It's not reasonable.

Ah, but it is reasonable. It isn't merely that you "used a scripture". If
you were discussing some religious detail, that would be reasonable.

However, you used one in place of a dictionary. That is not a reasonable
act, any more than citing a Spanish dictionary would be for claiming proper
use of English words would be so.

What point is there in having a discussion with a person where that person
feels free to use unreasonable sources for citation? If we cannot even
agree upon something as basic as the lexicon, discussion isn't even truly
possible. You can make claims like "experiments require faith", and never
even "know" (or "care", more likely) that you're using at least one word in
a grossly nonstandard way.

In your language, perhaps you're even correct. But I'm not using your
language. I'm using English.

It would be akin to someone saying "the rudder turns the airplane". Many
here would leap to correct this. But if the poster of such a statement
cited different definitions for either "rudder" (those things on the
trailing edge of the wings outboard of the flaps) or "turn" (rotate around
an axis) or "airplane" (a waterbound vehicle), then the statement would be
correct in the speaker's lexicon.

But that wouldn't be English.

Of course, you can define "English" however you want in your own lexicon.
That's just how pointless such a discussion becomes.

- Andrew

[Rob Perkins]

On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 12:17:06 -0500, Andrew Gideon >
wrote:

>Ah, but it is reasonable. It isn't merely that you "used a scripture". If
>you were discussing some religious detail, that would be reasonable.

And, here's where I get off the ride. If I can't explain my point of
view and cite the source of the ideas without the sources being
dismissed out of hand, then I agree, there is no point to it.
Especially if you won't repair your own fallacies, Andrew.

And in any case, the idea that "faith" is not a "religious detail"
strikes me as patently absurd. You're still moving the goalposts.

Rob

[Andrew Gideon]

Rob Perkins wrote:

> And, here's where I get off the ride.

You can get yourself off whereever you like.

> If I can't explain my point of
> view and cite the source of the ideas without the sources being
> dismissed out of hand, then I agree, there is no point to it.

We're speaking not of "ideas" but "words". There's a significant
difference. Ideas can be created, evolved, and rejected by individuals.
Words are a part of the consensual communication protocol.

> Especially if you won't repair your own fallacies, Andrew.

Any fallacies you think you see are the result of the difference between our
two languages. I'm using English. You're using something else. As I
wrote before, as long as we're not using the same language, communication
isn't possible.

> And in any case, the idea that "faith" is not a "religious detail"
> strikes me as patently absurd. You're still moving the goalposts.

The goalposts are where they've always been. You're just trying to redefine
the language - and therefore the discussion - and are perturbed about being
denied this sophistic ploy.

I don't really see that I can add anything more to this game - until/unless
you submit to the use of English - and so you'll just have to play with
yourself.

- Andrew

[Rob Perkins]

On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 17:53:38 -0500, Andrew Gideon >
wrote:

>Rob Perkins wrote:
>
>> And, here's where I get off the ride.
>
>You can get yourself off whereever you like.

Y'know, sexual innuendo doesn't really help win arguments.

>We're speaking not of "ideas" but "words". There's a significant
>difference. Ideas can be created, evolved, and rejected by individuals.
>Words are a part of the consensual communication protocol.

You've got to be kidding. Look, at times I've been entertained doing
epistemology with novices; it can be fun and usually a lurker writes
to me thanking me for the insights. But I'm just not interested this
time, it's the holiday season and I've got to get my day job
accomplished sometime.

One more time, then, as denouement:

http://www.mormon.org/learn/0,8672,835-1,00.html

....defines "faith" in my context. If you want to have a protracted
conversation with someone, take it to soc.religion.mormon or
something.

I'm done!

<plonk>
Rob

[Mike Z.]

Maybe that is why we aren't using it anymore.

Mike Z

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message ...
> Martin,
>
> > Just check what is printed on your money.
> >
>
> And then check the constitution. VERY disturbing.
>
> --
> Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
>