Leaving the community

[Richard Hertz]

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Peter Duniho" > wrote:
>
>> Legalized abortion has in the long-run made our country safer, not less
>> so.
>
> not for the children killed during the abortion.

What is the definition of a child? (from a legal standpoint)


>
> --
> Bob Noel

[Richard Hertz]

"Nomen Nescio" ]> wrote in message
...
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> From: "Jay Honeck" >
>
>>If it were a "science" there would be "facts" and "truth" in economics.
>>Instead, we have "Keynesian" theory, and "Supply Side" theory, and
>>"Trickle
>>Down" theory, and a hundred other theories, all attempting to provide some
>>sort of plausible explanation for why the very human creation called an
>>"economy" actually behaves the way it does.
>>
>>And this is as the macro-economic level, where things are a bit closer to
>>science. It's a far cry from physics, chemistry or pure mathematics.
>>
>>And a the micro-economic level, you might as well toss the bones, or read
>>your tea leaves -- you'll be just as accurate at predicting the future.
>
>
> Einstein dies and goes to heaven only to be informed that his room is
> not yet ready. "I hope you will not mind waiting in a dormitory. We
> are very sorry, but it's the best we can do and you will have to share
> the room with others." he is told by the doorman (say his name is
> Pete). Einstein says that this is no problem at all and that there is
> no need to make such a great fuss. So Pete leads him to the dorm.
> They enter and Albert is introduced to all of the present
> inhabitants. "See, Here is your first room mate. He has an IQ of
> 180!"
> "Why that's wonderful!" Says Albert. "We can discuss mathematics!"
> "And here is your second room mate. His IQ is 150!"
> "Why that's wonderful!" Says Albert. "We can discuss physics!"
> "And here is your third room mate. His IQ is 100!"
> "That Wonderful! We can discuss the latest plays at the theater!"
> Just then another man moves out to capture Albert's hand and shake it.
> "I'm your last room mate and I'm sorry, but my IQ is only 80."
> Albert smiles back at him and says, "So, where do you think interest
> rates are headed?"
>

outstanding.


> (author unknown)
>
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: 2.6.2
>
> iQCVAwUBQZMVLpMoscYxZNI5AQE+ygP/QRRaCUpu0o37LarPt8U+w/lByYqrZ5LI
> /n5+JHPG36u/IRERJJtaayEHo+z+AKQ2KHu0Zf7JCIHfNLeS4sq3Ml2LO+ff1x Tc
> sEdZqP7YJLGO420qlGszp1LnoXTB5r5qbOpA+dChS7AIeHGktV I0J0Cbp/MJImVw
> ytKTrxlYxP8=
> =ceRT
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
>

[Thomas Borchert]

Morgans,

> I have been unable to find any reports on the internet, on this subject.
> Anyone have any more info?
>

Nothing at all. Don't believe all you hear on the internet...

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Morgans,

> Oh, kinda like Clinton telling us under oath, that he did not have sexual
> relations with Monica?
>

Tell us again how many American citizens got killed or maimed by Clinton
doing that?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Matt Whiting]

Richard Hertz wrote:

> "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>But regardless, none of this is even required to show that you don't
>>
>>require
>>
>>>religion to justify happiness. A simple global desire to be happy is
>>>sufficient (if you have no such desire to be happy, you may have a hard
>>
>>time
>>
>>>comprehending this, but it sure would explain some other things). That's
>>>why large groups of humans get together and agree to try to be happy
>>>together, rather than killing and stealing from each other all the time.
>>>
>>
>>I think a good argument can be made that one reason people kill and steal
>>stems from the desire to be happy. In this respect happiness (or the
>>desire
>>for happiness) could be a negative trait.
>
>
> It makes no difference why they do it. Unless it is self defense it is
> criminal. That has nothing to do with religion.

Criminal by whose standard? What if the majority decided that stealing
and killing were OK?

Matt

[Jay Honeck]

>> I have been unable to find any reports on the internet, on this subject.
>> Anyone have any more info?
>>
>
> Nothing at all. Don't believe all you hear on the internet...

Interesting, isn't it? The sarin find was reported by NPR's female
correspondent (whose name escapes me), who is embedded with a Marine unit in
Fallujah. I heard it myself on NPR's "All Things Considered," which airs in
the afternoons.

Now, it's no where to be found.

Either the report has been discredited, or it's being suppressed.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[jls]

"Richard Hertz" <no one@no one.com> wrote in message
. net...
>
> "Bob Noel" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "Peter Duniho" > wrote:
> >
> >> Legalized abortion has in the long-run made our country safer, not less
> >> so.
> >
> > not for the children killed during the abortion.
>
> What is the definition of a child? (from a legal standpoint)
>
>
> >
> > --
> > Bob Noel

He doesn't know, obviously, but at common law the foetus or embryo has never
been treated as a child. In some cases the foetus when "quickened," i. e.,
capable of living outside of the uterus, has been viewed as a human being
within the purview of the homicide laws.

There is a movement among religious pharmacists to refuse to fill
prescriptions for the morning-after pill. Watch this absurdity grow and
fester, including the belief of many religious that a human life begins at
the instant of conception.

My lawgivers are Erasmus and Montaigne, not Moses and St. Paul. (E. M.
Forster)

[C J Campbell]

"Frank" > wrote in message ...
> Peter Duniho wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > My main point was simply that the electorate in general believes what
they
> > want to believe, regardless of what the actual truth is. This is true
of
> > all people, regardless of party affiliation. My secondary, much less
> > important point (especially now that the election is over), might be
that
> > I personally feel that lying to the public in order to justify a deadly
> > war is a much bigger transgression than has been witnessed in the
> > Executive branch since the Iran-Contra scandal.
> >
> > Pete
>
> Very well put Pete.
>
> I'd add that even if the Iraq invasion was justified it was bungled badly.
> The administration ignored its own experts and we lost lives because of
it.
> For that reason alone they don't merit being returned to office.

If it was bungled so badly, why do the military and veterans overwhelmingly
support Bush instead of Kerry?

Why did Kerry participate in this supposed lie? For a long time, there, he
was Bush's biggest critic for not invading Iraq sooner than he did. Kerry
was the biggest hawk in the country. How come you do not think Kerry was
lying?

[Corky Scott]

On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 19:56:38 -0500, "Morgans"
> wrote:

>Oh, kinda like Clinton telling us under oath, that he did not have sexual
>relations with Monica?
>--
>Jim in NC

Oh please.

The Bush White House's selective use of information took us to war
where many thousands have now died (yes, I'm including Iraqi
civilians). Let me repeat that, they took us to war, and they took us
there by manipulating the only information that we and the rest of the
world had.

Whatever Clinton did, it FOR SURE did not result in war or the death
of anyone. Sure, he showed a lack of fidelity towards his marriage,
but that's IT and it's his and Hillarie's problem, not the nations'.

Death, destruction, misery, torture, refusal to abide by the Geneva
Convention and world condemnation, not to mention the cost in money,
which we the citizens have to pay. And we could be just getting
started here. There's no telling how this will play out with the rest
of the world eventually. Versus an oddball use of a cigar and a
stained dress. Yup, I sure can see the comparison.

Corky Scott

[Trent Moorehead]

"Corky Scott" > wrote in message
...

<snip>
> Whatever Clinton did, it FOR SURE did not result in war or the death
> of anyone. Sure, he showed a lack of fidelity towards his marriage,
> but that's IT and it's his and Hillarie's problem, not the nations'.
<snip>

I don't agree. He lied under oath and that's pretty serious. The president
of the United States commited PERJURY. Especially serious since he was the
president of the United States at the time. It goes way deeper than a
marital problem, I think he shamed the office a la Nixon. I agree that what
he tried to cover up was more of a personal problem, but when he lied under
oath, he knew exactly what he was doing: lying to you and me and everyone
else. It didn't have to be a big deal, but he made it a huge one.

I was a Clinton supporter until I found out that he would lie under oath. It
showed and shows a serious flaw in character. It made me wonder what else he
had done or was willing to do. I don't blame him for trying to cover it up,
but commiting perjury crossed the line for me.

The issue of President Bush's lying is open to debate because no one has all
the facts here and only time will tell. The fact that President Clinton
perjured himself cannot be debated. I consider a sitting president commiting
perjury to be extremely serious, no matter what he is lying about.

-Trent
PP-ASEL

[Gig Giacona]

"Corky Scott" > wrote in message > Whatever
Clinton did, it FOR SURE did not result in war or the death
> of anyone. Sure, he showed a lack of fidelity towards his marriage,
> but that's IT and it's his and Hillarie's problem, not the nations'.
>


BULL$HIT Corky, Every time BC got in trouble he chucked a missle at someone.

[jls]

"Trent Moorehead" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Corky Scott" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> <snip>
> > Whatever Clinton did, it FOR SURE did not result in war or the death
> > of anyone. Sure, he showed a lack of fidelity towards his marriage,
> > but that's IT and it's his and Hillarie's problem, not the nations'.
> <snip>
>
> I don't agree. He lied under oath and that's pretty serious. The president
> of the United States commited PERJURY.
Oh, lordy, another evangelickle pantie-sniffer. He's being deposed in the
fabricated PJ case charging sex harassment and asked if he had sex with
Monica (whom he didn't harass) and he denies it. Give us all a break from
your sanctimony. He didn't have sex; he didn't screw her. He got a
blow-job. Aren't you envious, though? You don't know the definition of
perjury either. Lying under oath is not always perjury. Do you also get
off on Bob Livingston's crotchless leather panties and Henry Hyde's
homewrecking adultery?

[Gig Giacona]

I heard it between 6:20 and 6:30am CST 11/11/04 on NPR's Morning Edition.
I'm sure the archive is available at NPR.org.


"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Gig Giacona" > wrote
>
>>
>> And according to NPR this morning they find Sarin in Falluja. Sounds like
> a
>> WMD to me.
>>
> I have been unable to find any reports on the internet, on this subject.
> Anyone have any more info?
> --
> Jim in NC
>
>
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.788 / Virus Database: 533 - Release Date: 11/1/2004
>
>

[Gig Giacona]

" jls" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> "Richard Hertz" <no one@no one.com> wrote in message
> . net...
>>
>> "Bob Noel" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In article >,
>> > "Peter Duniho" > wrote:
>> >
>> >> Legalized abortion has in the long-run made our country safer, not
>> >> less
>> >> so.
>> >
>> > not for the children killed during the abortion.
>>
>> What is the definition of a child? (from a legal standpoint)
>>
>>
>> >
>> > --
>> > Bob Noel
>
> He doesn't know, obviously, but at common law the foetus or embryo has
> never
> been treated as a child. In some cases the foetus when "quickened," i.
> e.,
> capable of living outside of the uterus, has been viewed as a human being
> within the purview of the homicide laws.
>
> There is a movement among religious pharmacists to refuse to fill
> prescriptions for the morning-after pill. Watch this absurdity grow and
> fester, including the belief of many religious that a human life begins at
> the instant of conception.
>
> My lawgivers are Erasmus and Montaigne, not Moses and St. Paul. (E. M.
> Forster)
>
>

Well in the Peterson case in of all places the People's Republic of
California he is charged with the murder of his wife and unborn child. He is
hardly the forst to be charged with this. The law seems to be the
embryo/fetus is a human when the mother says it is.

[Corky Scott]

On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 09:33:22 -0600, "Gig Giacona"
> wrote:

>BULL$HIT Corky, Every time BC got in trouble he chucked a missle at someone.

Gig, you'll have to explain where you're going with this because I'm
not seeing the connection with what I've written.

Corky Scott

[Roger]

On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 17:47:26 -0800, "C J Campbell"
> wrote:

>
>"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
>> "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > If a belief in maximizing human happiness is not a religious belief,
>what
>> > is
>> > it?
>>
>> It's an innate desire, not a religious belief. It's basic biology. We
>come
>> pre-wired to desire happiness.
>
>Again, why? And please understand, I am not some wild-eyed creationist; I
>accept evolution as scientific fact. However, I fail to see a strong
>selective advantage in a sack of chemicals wanting to be happy.
>
Self aware and self determination; Being happy feels better than
unhappy. Hence we do our best to do the things that make us happy.
There is an ingrained force for like to band together and to shun or
destroy what is different. That is true throughout the animal kingdom.
Being happy, or content is a survival trait for the species.

Religion is basically a common belief. Having faith gives most people
comfort, be it in a god, God, or a pet rock. The definition of
religion has changed over the years, but in general is based on the
belief in a god, or the supernatural. If you have an old enough
dictionary (over 50 years) look up cult and occult. The definitions
were much broader back then and did not exclude orthodox religions.

If someone comes along with a different belief that makes them happy,
it threatens the belief of the other. When each says they are the
only way then one must be wrong. What once was making us feel good
now makes us feel threatened even if only at the subconscious level.
Some one who's belief system is strong can discuss opposing views
calmly. Those who get excited, argumentative, and even aggressive do
so because they feel threatened (Psychology 101)

It matters not what the differences, be it, or they, physical, or
philosophical. If they are different then they are perceived as a
threat to our happiness.

Whether it be the neighbors land, resources, car, wife, belief
system... What ever we see as desirable we want so we can be happy.
Sooo...The logical conclusion is we end up fighting wars mot because
we enjoy fighting, but because we want to be happy.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Matt Whiting]

jls wrote:

> "Richard Hertz" <no one@no one.com> wrote in message
> . net...
>
>>"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>In article >,
>>>"Peter Duniho" > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Legalized abortion has in the long-run made our country safer, not less
>>>>so.
>>>
>>>not for the children killed during the abortion.
>>
>>What is the definition of a child? (from a legal standpoint)
>>
>>
>>
>>>--
>>>Bob Noel
>
>
> He doesn't know, obviously, but at common law the foetus or embryo has never
> been treated as a child. In some cases the foetus when "quickened," i. e.,
> capable of living outside of the uterus, has been viewed as a human being
> within the purview of the homicide laws.

foetus??? You don't even know how to spell what you are talking about.


Matt

[G.R. Patterson III]

Gig Giacona wrote:
>
> I heard it between 6:20 and 6:30am CST 11/11/04 on NPR's Morning Edition.
> I'm sure the archive is available at NPR.org.

Yes. Check http://www.npr.org/rundowns/rundown.php?prgId=3&prgDate=11-Nov-2004 and
cycle down to the story "U.S. Forces Meeting Less Resistance in Fallujah". That's
audio, but the reference to Sarin is very early. They found vials labels "Sarin-V"
and thought, at first, that they had found vials of the gas itself. That's what
caused the early reports. Tests showed, however, that the vials are part of a test
kit to test for the presence of Sarin gas. There is, of course, speculation as to why
the insurgents would have test kits for a gas that isn't available.

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.

[jls]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> jls wrote:
>
> > "Richard Hertz" <no one@no one.com> wrote in message
> > . net...
> >
> >>"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>
> >>>In article >,
> >>>"Peter Duniho" > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Legalized abortion has in the long-run made our country safer, not
less
> >>>>so.
> >>>
> >>>not for the children killed during the abortion.
> >>
> >>What is the definition of a child? (from a legal standpoint)
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>--
> >>>Bob Noel
> >
> >
> > He doesn't know, obviously, but at common law the foetus or embryo has
never
> > been treated as a child. In some cases the foetus when "quickened," i.
e.,
> > capable of living outside of the uterus, has been viewed as a human
being
> > within the purview of the homicide laws.
>
> foetus??? You don't even know how to spell what you are talking about.
>
>
> Matt
>

Ah, my poor klutz, I was using the original uncorrupted Latin spelling:

fetus also foetus (fê´tes) noun
plural fetuses
1.The unborn young of a viviparous vertebrate having a basic structural
resemblance to the adult animal.
2.In human beings, the unborn young from the end of the eighth week after
conception to the moment of birth, as distinguished from the earlier embryo.

[Middle English, from Latin.]

[Frank]

C J Campbell wrote:

>
> "Frank" > wrote in message ...
<snip>
>> I'd add that even if the Iraq invasion was justified it was bungled
badly.
>> The administration ignored its own experts and we lost lives because of
it.
>> For that reason alone they don't merit being returned to office.
>
> If it was bungled so badly, why do the military and veterans
> overwhelmingly support Bush instead of Kerry?

Marketing.

>
> Why did Kerry participate in this supposed lie? For a long time, there, he
> was Bush's biggest critic for not invading Iraq sooner than he did. Kerry
> was the biggest hawk in the country. How come you do not think Kerry was
> lying?

I wasn't addressing Kerry's role. His role as a senator is largely
irrelevant to me. Nor did say anything about lying. In fact, my point was
that even if the necessity for the war is stipulated there is/was ample
reason not to re-elect Bush.

Kerry's truthfulness has nothing to do with Bush's bungling.
--
Frank....H

[Richard Hertz]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Richard Hertz wrote:
>
>> "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>>But regardless, none of this is even required to show that you don't
>>>
>>>require
>>>
>>>>religion to justify happiness. A simple global desire to be happy is
>>>>sufficient (if you have no such desire to be happy, you may have a hard
>>>
>>>time
>>>
>>>>comprehending this, but it sure would explain some other things).
>>>>That's
>>>>why large groups of humans get together and agree to try to be happy
>>>>together, rather than killing and stealing from each other all the time.
>>>>
>>>
>>>I think a good argument can be made that one reason people kill and steal
>>>stems from the desire to be happy. In this respect happiness (or the
>>>desire
>>>for happiness) could be a negative trait.
>>
>>
>> It makes no difference why they do it. Unless it is self defense it is
>> criminal. That has nothing to do with religion.
>
> Criminal by whose standard? What if the majority decided that stealing
> and killing were OK?

Majority has nothing to do with it, you are violating my right to my body
and property. If you accept the premise of laws, then certainly you must
accept that those two are the fundamental basis for government. Without
those it is anarchy.

Again, the point is that it has nothing to do with religion.

>
> Matt
>

[Frank]

C J Campbell wrote:

<snip>
>
> The Constitutional amendment would never have been needed if a small
> number of judges had not decided, on their own and against the wishes of
> the general public, to create a right where none had existed before. Now,
> these judges are often elected by no one; they are political appointees.
> They answer to no one. They simply have decided that no matter what the
> laws or the Constitution say, they can simply order anything they want. I
> happen to think that this is very dangerous to the rule of law.

This is a red herring. Judges rule on cases brought before them. This whole
'activist judges' argument makes it sound like these guys are making it up
in traffic court.

That judge with the ten commandment fetish (I can't remember his name), now
there's an activist judge.

<snip>
--
Frank....H

[Richard Hertz]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> jls wrote:
>
>> "Richard Hertz" <no one@no one.com> wrote in message
>> . net...
>>
>>>"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>>In article >,
>>>>"Peter Duniho" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Legalized abortion has in the long-run made our country safer, not less
>>>>>so.
>>>>
>>>>not for the children killed during the abortion.
>>>
>>>What is the definition of a child? (from a legal standpoint)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>--
>>>>Bob Noel
>>
>>
>> He doesn't know, obviously, but at common law the foetus or embryo has
>> never
>> been treated as a child. In some cases the foetus when "quickened," i.
>> e.,
>> capable of living outside of the uterus, has been viewed as a human being
>> within the purview of the homicide laws.
>
> foetus??? You don't even know how to spell what you are talking about.
>
>

You are truly an idiot


> Matt
>

[Frank]

Matt Whiting wrote:

> Frank wrote:
<snip>

>
> Sure, certain things about the invasion and aftermath were bungled, but
> you don't fire people for making a mistake or two. If that was the
> case, then not a single congressman would survive more than one term.

You do when peoples lives are at stake. In fact, honorable men resign in
such situations.

--
Frank....H

[jls]

"Frank" > wrote in message ...
> C J Campbell wrote:
>
> <snip>
> >
> > The Constitutional amendment would never have been needed if a small
> > number of judges had not decided, on their own and against the wishes of
> > the general public, to create a right where none had existed before.
Now,
> > these judges are often elected by no one; they are political appointees.
> > They answer to no one. They simply have decided that no matter what the
> > laws or the Constitution say, they can simply order anything they want.
I
> > happen to think that this is very dangerous to the rule of law.
>
> This is a red herring. Judges rule on cases brought before them. This
whole
> 'activist judges' argument makes it sound like these guys are making it up
> in traffic court.

Here we are in a con law forum discussing aircraft piloting. Wild. Ah,
well, then let's consider this fluke Campbell guy who doesn't understand con
law,which, among other things, is designed to protect the minority from the
majority. He just doesn't understand that this is not a pure democracy, as
in 2 sheep and 3 wolves taking a vote on what is to be eaten for dinner.
He should read less Joseph Smith (called chloroform in print by Twain, btw)
and more of the _Federalist_ by Madison and Hamilton.

Federal judges, whose job is to interpret and apply the Constitution, are
appointed for reasons thoroughly explained by Madison and Hamilton. We
don't have a parliamentary, plebiscite, theocratic, or plutarchy form of
government, Campbell. It is constitutional. See the Constitution for
details. YOUR rather heathen and seditious ideas of government represent
dangers to the rule of law.
>

What harm is it to you that 2 gay partners should want rights of
survivorship and other confidential rights similar to spouses? They didn't
ask to be born gay. What could be more harmful to marriage than the red
states' goshawfully high divorce rate where more than 50% end in messy
divorces?
> That judge with the ten commandment fetish (I can't remember his name),
now
> there's an activist judge.

Roy Moore who was defrocked and kicked out of the Alabama Supreme Court
building along with his tacky (and unconstitutional) 2-ton decalogue.
>
> <snip>
> --
> Frank....H

[Matt Whiting]

Richard Hertz wrote:

> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Richard Hertz wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>But regardless, none of this is even required to show that you don't
>>>>
>>>>require
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>religion to justify happiness. A simple global desire to be happy is
>>>>>sufficient (if you have no such desire to be happy, you may have a hard
>>>>
>>>>time
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>comprehending this, but it sure would explain some other things).
>>>>>That's
>>>>>why large groups of humans get together and agree to try to be happy
>>>>>together, rather than killing and stealing from each other all the time.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I think a good argument can be made that one reason people kill and steal
>>>>stems from the desire to be happy. In this respect happiness (or the
>>>>desire
>>>>for happiness) could be a negative trait.
>>>
>>>
>>>It makes no difference why they do it. Unless it is self defense it is
>>>criminal. That has nothing to do with religion.
>>
>>Criminal by whose standard? What if the majority decided that stealing
>>and killing were OK?
>
>
> Majority has nothing to do with it, you are violating my right to my body
> and property. If you accept the premise of laws, then certainly you must
> accept that those two are the fundamental basis for government. Without
> those it is anarchy.

What rights? Who gave you these rights? Who said that we need
government? Who said anarchy was bad?


> Again, the point is that it has nothing to do with religion.

Sure it does. Religion is nothing more than a belief system. You
believe that you have rights and need government. That is your religion.

The difference is that Christians base their beliefs on the Bible and
you base yours on .... what?


Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Richard Hertz wrote:

> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> jls wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Richard Hertz" <no one@no one.com> wrote in message
. net...
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>In article >,
>>>>>"Peter Duniho" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Legalized abortion has in the long-run made our country safer, not less
>>>>>>so.
>>>>>
>>>>>not for the children killed during the abortion.
>>>>
>>>>What is the definition of a child? (from a legal standpoint)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>--
>>>>>Bob Noel
>>>
>>>
>>>He doesn't know, obviously, but at common law the foetus or embryo has
>>>never
>>>been treated as a child. In some cases the foetus when "quickened," i.
>>>e.,
>>>capable of living outside of the uterus, has been viewed as a human being
>>>within the purview of the homicide laws.
>>
>>foetus??? You don't even know how to spell what you are talking about.
>>
>>
>
>
> You are truly an idiot

Does writing this make you feel better? Superior?

Matt

[Dan Luke]

"C J Campbell" wrote:
> If it was bungled so badly, why do the military and veterans
> overwhelmingly
> support Bush instead of Kerry?

They are as susceptible as most Americans to the right wing propaganda
machine.

> Why did Kerry participate in this supposed lie?

He was too spineless to resist a popular president riding a wave of war
hysteria.
--
Dan

"There ought to be limits to freedom."
-George W. Bush

[AES/newspost]

In article <Hw2ld.24237$V41.3744@attbi_s52>,
"Jay Honeck" > wrote:

> Interesting, isn't it? The sarin find was reported by NPR's female
> correspondent (whose name escapes me), who is embedded with a Marine unit in
> Fallujah. I heard it myself on NPR's "All Things Considered," which airs in
> the afternoons.
>
> Now, it's no where to be found.
>
> Either the report has been discredited, or it's being suppressed.

I heard the follow-up within the past 24 hours, probably on NRP, which
is where I think I heard the original report.

The original report from the female NRP reporter, as I recall hearing
it, was that troops entering some area had found containers which were
labelled in some way, in English, with the word Sarin, and that since
the troops who found this stuff didn't have the expertise to tell what
the contents were, more expert people were being brought in to assess
what it was.

The follow-up was that the materials were not sarin weapons but
protective gear for sarin weapons.

[Which, taken together, means that your final sentence above is
incorrect, right? -- that is, the original report, at least as I recall
it, was neither discredited nor is it being suppressed.]

[On the other hand, it's certainly an interesting question as to what
that particular stuff was doing there? Did Iraqis have it because they
either thought or knew that they or other Iraqi forces had sarin? (I
recall a report some time back claiming that certain captured or
interviewed Iraqi generals said that they didn't have chemical weapons
but believed that other Iraqi forces did.) Or did they have it because
they believed _we_ would use it? Or did outside insurgents bring the
stuff in from elsewhere? Will we ever know?]

[Tlewis95]

I am sure there is a politicaiants form out there online somewhere, go use it!

Trace Lewis'

age 13

www.cafepress.com/iwanttofly

[Richard Hertz]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Richard Hertz wrote:
>
>> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>Richard Hertz wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>But regardless, none of this is even required to show that you don't
>>>>>
>>>>>require
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>religion to justify happiness. A simple global desire to be happy is
>>>>>>sufficient (if you have no such desire to be happy, you may have a
>>>>>>hard
>>>>>
>>>>>time
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>comprehending this, but it sure would explain some other things).
>>>>>>That's
>>>>>>why large groups of humans get together and agree to try to be happy
>>>>>>together, rather than killing and stealing from each other all the
>>>>>>time.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I think a good argument can be made that one reason people kill and
>>>>>steal
>>>>>stems from the desire to be happy. In this respect happiness (or the
>>>>>desire
>>>>>for happiness) could be a negative trait.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>It makes no difference why they do it. Unless it is self defense it is
>>>>criminal. That has nothing to do with religion.
>>>
>>>Criminal by whose standard? What if the majority decided that stealing
>>>and killing were OK?
>>
>>
>> Majority has nothing to do with it, you are violating my right to my body
>> and property. If you accept the premise of laws, then certainly you
>> must accept that those two are the fundamental basis for government.
>> Without those it is anarchy.
>
> What rights? Who gave you these rights? Who said that we need
> government? Who said anarchy was bad?

I never said anarchy was bad. So you suggest that it is acceptable to
kill/steal?

>
>
>> Again, the point is that it has nothing to do with religion.
>
> Sure it does. Religion is nothing more than a belief system. You believe
> that you have rights and need government. That is your religion.

Bull****. That is not my religion. Go look up religion in a dictionary.
Also, nowhere in my post did I say that I need a government. However, you
must be an idiot if you really feel that anarchy is a suitable way to live
given the nature of people.

This has nothing to do with religion.

>
> The difference is that Christians base their beliefs on the Bible and you
> base yours on .... what?

What are you using for the definition of Christians? Certainly not one that
many people would agree with as there as far too many parts of the new
testament that are completely ignored by supposed "christians"

A good start would be Ayn Rand's work, though I am not as violently opposed
to religion as she is.

the word 'religion' here is being tossed about to mean any passing interest
or affinity. That is not its meaning and cannot be in spite of yours and
others' attempts to make it so.


>
>
> Matt
>

[Richard Hertz]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Richard Hertz wrote:
>
>> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>> jls wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Richard Hertz" <no one@no one.com> wrote in message
. net...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>In article >,
>>>>>>"Peter Duniho" > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Legalized abortion has in the long-run made our country safer, not
>>>>>>>less
>>>>>>>so.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>not for the children killed during the abortion.
>>>>>
>>>>>What is the definition of a child? (from a legal standpoint)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>--
>>>>>>Bob Noel
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>He doesn't know, obviously, but at common law the foetus or embryo has
>>>>never
>>>>been treated as a child. In some cases the foetus when "quickened," i.
>>>>e.,
>>>>capable of living outside of the uterus, has been viewed as a human
>>>>being
>>>>within the purview of the homicide laws.
>>>
>>>foetus??? You don't even know how to spell what you are talking about.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> You are truly an idiot
>
> Does writing this make you feel better? Superior?
>

No. You blasted the poster and you were incorrect, so perhaps that
accusation/question should be directed at yourself.

> Matt
>

[Roger]

On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 08:23:46 -0500, " jls" >
wrote:

>
>"Richard Hertz" <no one@no one.com> wrote in message
. net...
>>
>> "Bob Noel" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In article >,
>> > "Peter Duniho" > wrote:
>> >
>> >> Legalized abortion has in the long-run made our country safer, not less
>> >> so.
>> >
>> > not for the children killed during the abortion.
>>
>> What is the definition of a child? (from a legal standpoint)

I always thought it was 21, at least for some. Higher for others.

Roger
>>
>>
>> >
>> > --
>> > Bob Noel
>
>He doesn't know, obviously, but at common law the foetus or embryo has never
>been treated as a child. In some cases the foetus when "quickened," i. e.,
>capable of living outside of the uterus, has been viewed as a human being
>within the purview of the homicide laws.
>
>There is a movement among religious pharmacists to refuse to fill
>prescriptions for the morning-after pill. Watch this absurdity grow and
>fester, including the belief of many religious that a human life begins at
>the instant of conception.
>
>My lawgivers are Erasmus and Montaigne, not Moses and St. Paul. (E. M.
>Forster)
>

[C J Campbell]

"Gig Giacona" > wrote in message
...
> >
> >
>
> Well in the Peterson case in of all places the People's Republic of
> California he is charged with the murder of his wife and unborn child. He
is
> hardly the forst to be charged with this. The law seems to be the
> embryo/fetus is a human when the mother says it is.

Peterson was, in fact, convicted of second degree murder of his unborn son.

Personally, I would not like to see a general prohibition against abortions.
I think at some point, though, you have to say that you know, you had plenty
of opportunity to terminate the pregnancy up until now. But now the child,
if it was born, has some viability of a human being, and you begin to have a
duty to protect and care for it. In particular, I would like to see a ban on
partial birth abortions.

[C J Campbell]

"Frank" > wrote in message ...
> C J Campbell wrote:
>
> <snip>
> >
> > The Constitutional amendment would never have been needed if a small
> > number of judges had not decided, on their own and against the wishes of
> > the general public, to create a right where none had existed before.
Now,
> > these judges are often elected by no one; they are political appointees.
> > They answer to no one. They simply have decided that no matter what the
> > laws or the Constitution say, they can simply order anything they want.
I
> > happen to think that this is very dangerous to the rule of law.
>
> This is a red herring. Judges rule on cases brought before them. This
whole
> 'activist judges' argument makes it sound like these guys are making it up
> in traffic court.

To be honest, I think some of them are.

But I think in controversial issues such as abortion or homosexual marriage,
it would be nice if judges were relying on some sort of law. Abortion in
particular was declared a constitutional right without any precedent
whatsoever, no written law to support it, and contrary to what was public
policy and all legal precedent before it. It is no wonder that a significant
portion of the population was outraged.

Similarly, much of tort law was created out of thin air by judges who defied
all precedent before them and who by fiat simply invalidated many state and
federal laws without even bothering to claim a constitutional right. The
harm that did to the aviation industry, among others, is very well known.

[C J Campbell]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
>
> > Again, the point is that it has nothing to do with religion.
>
> Sure it does. Religion is nothing more than a belief system. You
> believe that you have rights and need government. That is your religion.
>
> The difference is that Christians base their beliefs on the Bible and
> you base yours on .... what?

The belief that there is no God is in fact a religious belief. These people
who want to disenfranchise those who have religious beliefs would do well to
remember that. I do not try to prevent those who do not believe in God from
participating in the political system. However, I have found that it is too
much to expect that those who disagree with me would extend the same
courtesy to me.

[C J Campbell]

"Richard Hertz" <no one@no one.com> wrote in message
. net...
>
> A good start would be Ayn Rand's work, though I am not as violently
opposed
> to religion as she is.
>

Ms. Rand, although I admire much of her thought, was wrong about many
things. The least she could have done was to check her own premises once in
awhile.

[Jay Honeck]

>>I think a good argument can be made that one reason people kill and steal
>>stems from the desire to be happy. In this respect happiness (or the
>>desire
>>for happiness) could be a negative trait.
>
> Rather than happiness as the motivation for killing and stealing, it's
> likely survival is the reason for that behavior.

Clearly you've not met many common criminals.

In this country no one steals for "survival". They're stealing because they
have no morals -- period.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Matt Whiting]

Richard Hertz wrote:

> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Richard Hertz wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Richard Hertz wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>But regardless, none of this is even required to show that you don't
>>>>>>
>>>>>>require
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>religion to justify happiness. A simple global desire to be happy is
>>>>>>>sufficient (if you have no such desire to be happy, you may have a
>>>>>>>hard
>>>>>>
>>>>>>time
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>comprehending this, but it sure would explain some other things).
>>>>>>>That's
>>>>>>>why large groups of humans get together and agree to try to be happy
>>>>>>>together, rather than killing and stealing from each other all the
>>>>>>>time.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I think a good argument can be made that one reason people kill and
>>>>>>steal
>>>>>>stems from the desire to be happy. In this respect happiness (or the
>>>>>>desire
>>>>>>for happiness) could be a negative trait.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>It makes no difference why they do it. Unless it is self defense it is
>>>>>criminal. That has nothing to do with religion.
>>>>
>>>>Criminal by whose standard? What if the majority decided that stealing
>>>>and killing were OK?
>>>
>>>
>>>Majority has nothing to do with it, you are violating my right to my body
>>>and property. If you accept the premise of laws, then certainly you
>>>must accept that those two are the fundamental basis for government.
>>>Without those it is anarchy.
>>
>>What rights? Who gave you these rights? Who said that we need
>>government? Who said anarchy was bad?
>
>
> I never said anarchy was bad. So you suggest that it is acceptable to
> kill/steal?

Not to me, but it obviously is to a lot of people. I'm making the point
that Christians believe there is an absolute standard of right and
wrong. Most liberals believe it is all relative - situation ethics and
all that crap.


>>>Again, the point is that it has nothing to do with religion.
>>
>>Sure it does. Religion is nothing more than a belief system. You believe
>>that you have rights and need government. That is your religion.
>
>
> Bull****. That is not my religion. Go look up religion in a dictionary.
> Also, nowhere in my post did I say that I need a government. However, you
> must be an idiot if you really feel that anarchy is a suitable way to live
> given the nature of people.

I never said that. Read it again, Sam.


> This has nothing to do with religion.
>
>>The difference is that Christians base their beliefs on the Bible and you
>>base yours on .... what?
>
>
> What are you using for the definition of Christians? Certainly not one that
> many people would agree with as there as far too many parts of the new
> testament that are completely ignored by supposed "christians"

Such as?

Matt

[Thomas Borchert]

Trent,

> I don't agree. He lied under oath and that's pretty serious.
>

Well, in that case, I just have to wonder what you think about the
current president?

> The issue of President Bush's lying is open to debate because no one
> has all the facts here and only time will tell.

You've got to be kidding...

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Trent Moorehead]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:4qnld.401624$D%.242701@attbi_s51...
> Clearly you've not met many common criminals.
>
> In this country no one steals for "survival". They're stealing because
they
> have no morals -- period.

This reminds of something I heard a few months ago. On a local radio show, a
caller called in and stated that his radio had been stolen from his car.
Then he stated that he wasn't too angry because he was sure that the thief
was poor. The host of the show asked, "OK, what's your point?"

The caller said, "Well, poverty is the cause of crime."

I was and am amazed that someone could be that confused.

-Trent
PP-ASEL

[Peter Duniho]

"Trent Moorehead" > wrote in message
...
> [...]
> The caller said, "Well, poverty is the cause of crime."
>
> I was and am amazed that someone could be that confused.

It's no more amazing than that someone could be so confused as to think that
the ONLY reason someone steals, in this country or anywhere, is "because
they have no morals -- period".

Theft and other crimes occur for a wide variety of reasons, even here in the
US. You'd have to be a blockhead to actually *condone* crime, but a person
who is as ignorant as to the reasons for it as Jay is has no hope of ever
contributing to reducing or eliminating crime.

There are, in fact, plenty of thefts that happen every day in this country
motivated strictly by survival.

Pete

[Gig Giacona]

"Corky Scott" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 09:33:22 -0600, "Gig Giacona"
> > wrote:
>
>>BULL$HIT Corky, Every time BC got in trouble he chucked a missle at
>>someone.
>
> Gig, you'll have to explain where you're going with this because I'm
> not seeing the connection with what I've written.
>
> Corky Scott

Damn Corky you're going to make me remeber what we talked about last week.
But from my response I'd be willing to bet that yyou said something to the
effect that Bush, unlike Clinton, likes to kill people with the military and
my statement refers to Clinton ordering Cruise Missle attacks on asprin
factories.

[Jay Honeck]

> Theft and other crimes occur for a wide variety of reasons, even here in
> the US. You'd have to be a blockhead to actually *condone* crime, but a
> person who is as ignorant as to the reasons for it as Jay is has no hope
> of ever contributing to reducing or eliminating crime.
>
> There are, in fact, plenty of thefts that happen every day in this country
> motivated strictly by survival.

What a load of crap.

If you steal, you are scum. There is no justification for stealing, and
society should extend no forgiveness.

It's attitudes like yours that continue to screw up our world.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Peter Duniho]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:Ctfmd.101119$R05.21179@attbi_s53...
> What a load of crap.

I don't know who's load of crap you replied to, but it wasn't mine. Your
reply had nothing to do with what I actually wrote (other than the topic
being theft).

In other words, quit putting words in my mouth.

For someone who was so eager to get back to flying topics, you sure haven't
changed your habits much.

Pete

[Thomas Borchert]

Jay,

> If you steal, you are scum. There is no justification for stealing, and
> society should extend no forgiveness.
>

That's exactly the simplified view of the world that makes certain big
countries in this world a problem.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Jay Honeck]

>> If you steal, you are scum. There is no justification for stealing, and
>> society should extend no forgiveness.
>>
>
> That's exactly the simplified view of the world that makes certain big
> countries in this world a problem.

And your "there is no right or wrong" view of the world is exactly why it's
so screwed up.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

I'm sorry, Pete, my newsreader shows that you wrote:

> Theft and other crimes occur for a wide variety of reasons, even here in
> the US. You'd have to be a blockhead to actually *condone* crime, but a
> person who is as ignorant as to the reasons for it as Jay is has no hope
> of ever contributing to reducing or eliminating crime.
>
> There are, in fact, plenty of thefts that happen every day in this country
> motivated strictly by survival.

To which I replied:

>> What a load of crap.

To which YOU replied:

> I don't know who's load of crap you replied to, but it wasn't mine. Your
> reply had nothing to do with what I actually wrote (other than the topic
> being theft).

I'm confused here -- did you NOT write that top paragraph?

If not, I apologize. (Although it's STILL a load of crap -- it's just not
yours! :-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[jls]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:Ctfmd.101119$R05.21179@attbi_s53...
> > Theft and other crimes occur for a wide variety of reasons, even here in
> > the US. You'd have to be a blockhead to actually *condone* crime, but a
> > person who is as ignorant as to the reasons for it as Jay is has no hope
> > of ever contributing to reducing or eliminating crime.
> >
> > There are, in fact, plenty of thefts that happen every day in this
country
> > motivated strictly by survival.
>
> What a load of crap.
>
> If you steal, you are scum. There is no justification for stealing, and
> society should extend no forgiveness.
>
> It's attitudes like yours that continue to screw up our world.
> --
Well, let's see here. The court didn't find these people to be scum:

There was a shipwreck and a crowded lifeboat and no food or water. The
passengers stole the life of one of their fellow passengers in order to
survive. The case came before a judge on the charge of murder and
cannibalism but was dismissed. Defense of necessity.

You can read about it in Holmes, _The Common Law_ although I doubt you do
much reading or thinking and maybe are a little hotheaded.

There have been other cases in which someone stole food in order to survive.
That someone was neither scum nor criminal. Did someone steal a towel or
silverware from your inn? Now *that* thief would in my opinion be, well,
maybe not scum but a little slimy. I kinda get the feeling you would cut
off his hand like the moozle-ums do, but that would be a little harsh and
our Constitution forbids cruel and inhuman punishment.

[Thomas Borchert]

Jay,

> And your "there is no right or wrong" view of the world is exactly why it's
> so screwed up.
>

And you, of course, are the one who knows and gets to decide just what is
"right" and what is "wrong"?

So, just for starters, who again owned that land you now live on before your
ancestors STOLE it from them? And during building that oh so great country,
whose labor did they STEAL by enslaving a whole race? Let me quote you again:

"If you steal, you are scum."

The world isn't simple. Anyone trying to make it so is dumb or trying to trick
you. And there is certainly no ultimate authority on what is right or wrong.
BTW, ironically your view would probably be shared by islamic fundamentalists.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Gene Seibel]

http://pad39a.com/gene/pusa.html
--
Gene Seibel
Hangar 131 - http://pad39a.com/gene/plane.html
Because I fly, I envy no one.


David Brooks" > wrote in message >...
> One thing - one of so very many things - I learned in my five years of
> flying is that partisan politics does not fit into the cockpit. Most of my
> flight instructors have, I know, been to the right of me politically. I had
> a most enjoyable flight with CJ - although he has since earned my undying
> enmity by unapologetically using the term "Final Solution" in connection
> with me and people like me, an astonishing thought coming from an avowedly
> religious man, but telling and apt.
>
> But now it seems the nation has, albeit by a slim margin, re-elected a weak,
> hypocritical, murderous coward. Three years ago, when some writers on the
> left started talking about fascism, I thought that an absurd stretch. No
> longer. The parallels are not precise - they never are - but the broad sweep
> and many of the components of a new fascist state are in place. The 48% who
> didn't vote for this disaster keep knocking on my consciousness, but they
> are now feeble and impotent. The thugs are in charge.
>
> That being so, and despite what should be an apolitical setting, I can no
> longer in good faith keep company with a group of which the majority, I
> know, has elected to deliver the country I love, and chose as my home, into
> the hands of Bush and his repressive, regressive masters.
>
> So long. Thanks for all the conversations. You guys have made me a better
> pilot.
>
> -- David Brooks

[Richard Russell]

On Fri, 5 Nov 2004 22:06:13 -0700, "Jay Beckman" >
wrote:

>"Richard Russell" > wrote in message
...
>> On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 12:27:25 -0600, Frank > wrote:
>>
>>>Jay Beckman wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Giuliani-Rice might work, but howzabout Colin Powell - Elizabeth Dole?
>>>>
>>>> Either ticket would probably make the loyal oppositon's heads explode.
>>>
>>>I would never vote for Bush but I have nothing but respect for Colin
>>>Powell,
>>>he is the best asset this administration has (had?). If Powell had led the
>>>ticket in 2000 I doubt it would have been even remotely close.
>>
>> I had (past tense) great respect for Colin Powell and was pleased when
>> he became secretary of state. My respect for him was lost when he
>> became the lapdog of the administration and was not allowed to
>> function as anything other than a conduit for policies that he did not
>> believe in. If he had resigned, and maintained his integrity I would
>> still respect him. I was often embarrassed for him and he should have
>> been embarrassed for himself.
>> Rich Russell
>
>How do you know what Gen Powell personally believes?
>
>It's quite possible, is it not, that his military training begat someone who
>is a team player and follows orders?
>
>Isn't the SecState supposed to be the spokesperson/conduit for his/her
>administrations policies?
>
>Jay Beckman
>Chandler, AZ
>PP-ASEL
>
You are absolutely correct. I'm certain that his military training is
what kept him from "abandoning" his post. That doesn't, however,
change my original statement that he should have resigned. That is my
opinion, nothing more. I don't "know" what he thinks any more than
any of the other posters in this thread and many others "know" for a
fact that their opinions are correct. I have seen Secretary Powell on
TV and read enough of his statements to believe that my assessment is
correct. I've never seen anyone hedge his comments or look so pained,
at times, as he did.
Rich Russell

[Jay Honeck]

> So, just for starters, who again owned that land you now live on before
> your
> ancestors STOLE it from them? And during building that oh so great
> country,
> whose labor did they STEAL by enslaving a whole race? Let me quote you
> again:

That's crazy. By your definition of "stolen" there isn't a race of people
on this planet that "should" be where they are today.

And slave-owners WERE scum, BTW.

> BTW, ironically your view would probably be shared by islamic
> fundamentalists.

There will always be conflicting versions of "right" and "wrong."

But I'll give the Islamo-Fascists this much -- at least they believe in
*something*, unlike folks who simply throw up their hands and explain away
evil by denying that right and wrong exist.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Corky Scott]

On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 16:06:25 -0600, "Gig Giacona"
> wrote:

>Damn Corky you're going to make me remeber what we talked about last week.
>But from my response I'd be willing to bet that yyou said something to the
>effect that Bush, unlike Clinton, likes to kill people with the military and
>my statement refers to Clinton ordering Cruise Missle attacks on asprin
>factories.

In this sir, you err. The discussion at the time was regarding
missinformation. Bush's missinformation took us to war, Clinton's
missinformation got him in big trouble with his wife, and some
extremely uptight Republican's. Granted, fondling a young intern in
the Oval Office is a bit uncouth, even if she did initiate the
relationship by raising her skirt to show off her thong underware. No
question, he demonstrated a woeful lack of decorum and insulted his
wife and their marriage publically.

It was a comparison of grande scale, war versus a yucky stained dress.

Corky Scott

[Jay Honeck]

> Well, let's see here. The court didn't find these people to be scum:
>
> There was a shipwreck and a crowded lifeboat and no food or water. The
> passengers stole the life of one of their fellow passengers in order to
> survive. The case came before a judge on the charge of murder and
> cannibalism but was dismissed. Defense of necessity.

If they actually killed the guy in order to eat him, they were guilty of
murder. It would seem that they apparently had the jury from the OJ Simpson
trial judge this case?

If they ate the guy *after* he died, they were guilty of nothing -- although
I suspect they might be warped for life after such an incident?

> You can read about it in Holmes, _The Common Law_ although I doubt you do
> much reading or thinking and maybe are a little hotheaded.

You must be new here. Do some googling if you'd like to know my educational
background.

> There have been other cases in which someone stole food in order to
> survive.
> That someone was neither scum nor criminal. Did someone steal a towel or
> silverware from your inn? Now *that* thief would in my opinion be, well,
> maybe not scum but a little slimy. I kinda get the feeling you would cut
> off his hand like the moozle-ums do, but that would be a little harsh and
> our Constitution forbids cruel and inhuman punishment.

You obviously haven't lived or worked in a lawless environment. I spent
seven years working in the inner city, doing (among other things)
collections. Until you've seen the way people live (and die) in an utterly
immoral, nearly lawless society, you are in no way qualified to discuss this
issue.

I can't comment about the desperately poor corners of the world, but in
America there is NO excuse for being a thief. Americans who steal are scum,
and deserve whatever maximum punishment society can arrange for them.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Allen]

"Corky Scott" > wrote in message
...
>Bush's missinformation took us to war, Clinton's
> missinformation got him in big trouble with his wife, and some
> extremely uptight Republican's. Granted, fondling a young intern in
> the Oval Office is a bit uncouth, even if she did initiate the
> relationship by raising her skirt to show off her thong underware. No
> question, he demonstrated a woeful lack of decorum and insulted his
> wife and their marriage publically.
>
> It was a comparison of grande scale, war versus a yucky stained dress.
>
> Corky Scott

Yes, and Rome burned while Nero fiddled (or Clinton diddled, whatever).
Nobody knows what the results of his activities were on the world stage.

Allen

[jls]

"Gene Seibel" > wrote in message
om...
> http://pad39a.com/gene/pusa.html
> --
> Gene Seibel
> Hangar 131 - http://pad39a.com/gene/plane.html
> Because I fly, I envy no one.
>
>
> David Brooks" > wrote in message
>...
> > One thing - one of so very many things - I learned in my five years of
> > flying is that partisan politics does not fit into the cockpit. Most of
my
> > flight instructors have, I know, been to the right of me politically. I
had
> > a most enjoyable flight with CJ - although he has since earned my
undying
> > enmity by unapologetically using the term "Final Solution" in connection
> > with me and people like me, an astonishing thought coming from an
avowedly
> > religious man, but telling and apt.
> >
> > But now it seems the nation has, albeit by a slim margin, re-elected a
weak,
> > hypocritical, murderous coward. Three years ago, when some writers on
the
> > left started talking about fascism, I thought that an absurd stretch. No
> > longer. The parallels are not precise - they never are - but the broad
sweep
> > and many of the components of a new fascist state are in place. The 48%
who
> > didn't vote for this disaster keep knocking on my consciousness, but
they
> > are now feeble and impotent. The thugs are in charge.
> >
> > That being so, and despite what should be an apolitical setting, I can
no
> > longer in good faith keep company with a group of which the majority, I
> > know, has elected to deliver the country I love, and chose as my home,
into
> > the hands of Bush and his repressive, regressive masters.
> >
> > So long. Thanks for all the conversations. You guys have made me a
better
> > pilot.
> >
> > -- David Brooks
This is shocking. Could somebody send me the entire post by David Brooks. I
could not find it in Google.

A few days before the election I worked for the Democrats trying to get out
the vote here in NC. My partner in this effort was a retired screenwriter
who had escaped Germany before the shooting began. His parents foresaw what
was coming and sent him to the USA. They later died at Auschwitz. We talked
at length as we drove around distributing literature. He was in his teens,
he said, when Hitler began to rattle swords. He went on at great length
telling of parallels he now sees in this country --- the churches meddling
in politics and the great power of the evangelicals, unprovoked declaration
of war, the so-called Patriot Act, divisiveness and patriotic fervor, and on
and on. He was so convincing and so eloquent in his argument I thought a
couple of times I was going to gag.

Now I'd like to comment on the following words without regard to identity of
their writers:



..R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
... > > > Frank Stutzman wrote: >> >> In
rec.aviation.ifr Jim Fisher > wrote: >> >> >
Ahh, but it is a truism if one accept the absolute fact that "marraige" >> >
has >> > been recognized for thousands of years as a religous tenant. >> >>
So True. But arn't we supposed to have a separation of church and state?

Yes, and putting the clergy in charge of marriages is a violation of the
Establishment Clause. The marriage contract should be secular, not
religious. All enforceable contracts are matters of the state, not
religion. Some states even license "secular" ministers to perform marriage
ceremonies.

On the subject of marriages I cannot understand why the majoritarians who
voted for those stupid resolutions or state constitutional amendments
against gay marriages think it is so harmful to the institution of marriage
for gay partners to have rights of survivorship and other rights like
spouses have. What business is it of theirs? So, don't call it a
marriage. Call it something else but at least let gay people enjoy the
equal protection of the laws. They didn't ask to be gay. I cannot believe
the bigotry and hatred spewing out over this country like molten lava.




? > Not as far as the Constitution goes. The Constitution simply forbids >
Congress from > passing any laws related to religion. The actual wording is
"Congress > shall make no > law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free > exercise > thereof;". >

This is a misstatement of the law and represents the typical evangelical
buzzwords misinterpreting the First Amendment's Establishment Clause. It
contravenes Jefferson's Letter to the Baptists at Danville, the Federalist
Papers, and a long line of recent Supreme Court decisions. It contradicts
the 14th Amendment which applies the First Amendment's prohibitions against
each and every state in this country and every subdivision thereof. If you
want citations I can provide them to show this poster is badly mistaken.
Take a look at the cases on religion and the Constitution's Establishment
Clause at findlaw.com if you need further understanding.

[Thomas Borchert]

Allen,

> Nobody knows what the results of his activities were on the world stage.
>

Huh? We were all there to witness it.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Jay,

> That's crazy. By your definition of "stolen" there isn't a race of people
> on this planet that "should" be where they are today.

There are some. Not all nations were founded on outright genocide. And the
notion isn't that crazy. Look up "humble" in a dictionary.

> unlike folks who simply throw up their hands and explain away
> evil by denying that right and wrong exist.
>

Which, just to take care of possibly hidden allegations, no one in this
thread did. You're thinking simplistic "right and wrong" again. The world is
more complex.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Trent Moorehead]

> The world isn't simple. Anyone trying to make it so is dumb or trying to
trick
> you. And there is certainly no ultimate authority on what is right or
wrong.
> BTW, ironically your view would probably be shared by islamic
fundamentalists.
>
> --
> Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Thomas,

You are correct that the world isn't simple and you have to examine
mitigating circumstances when making a judgement. The point I was trying to
make is this: to say that poverty causes crime is a huge insult to poor
people who don't commit crimes.

Also, "poor" can be a relative term (poverty level notwithstanding). I'm
poor compared to lots of people, rich to others. If I wandered onto Bill
Gates' estate and stole something, would it be alright?

By the way, what does (EDDH) mean? Is it the airport in Hamburg?

-Trent
PP-ASEL

[Gig Giacona]

"Corky Scott" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 16:06:25 -0600, "Gig Giacona"
> > wrote:
>
>>Damn Corky you're going to make me remeber what we talked about last week.
>>But from my response I'd be willing to bet that yyou said something to the
>>effect that Bush, unlike Clinton, likes to kill people with the military
>>and
>>my statement refers to Clinton ordering Cruise Missle attacks on asprin
>>factories.
>
> In this sir, you err. The discussion at the time was regarding
> missinformation. Bush's missinformation took us to war, Clinton's
> missinformation got him in big trouble with his wife, and some
> extremely uptight Republican's. Granted, fondling a young intern in
> the Oval Office is a bit uncouth, even if she did initiate the
> relationship by raising her skirt to show off her thong underware. No
> question, he demonstrated a woeful lack of decorum and insulted his
> wife and their marriage publically.
>
> It was a comparison of grande scale, war versus a yucky stained dress.
>
> Corky Scott


The point was that Clinton shot cruise missles at an asprin factory to move
the attention of the public from the "yucky stained dress." Last time I
checked shooting cruise missles at someone was an act of war.

[Thomas Borchert]

Gig,

> Last time I
> checked shooting cruise missles at someone was an act of war.
>

Well, if that was a war, then what do you call the mess in Iraq now?
While technically, you are correct, it doesn't really compare.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Trent,

> to say that poverty causes crime is a huge insult to poor
> people who don't commit crimes.

And you're right.

>
> By the way, what does (EDDH) mean? Is it the airport in Hamburg?
>

Yes, it is.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Trent Moorehead]

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message

> > By the way, what does (EDDH) mean? Is it the airport in Hamburg?
> >
>
> Yes, it is.

Cool. I had been wondering what it stood for for some time now. Finally got
smart and did a little googlin'. :)

-Trent

[Corky Scott]

On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 11:06:17 -0600, "Gig Giacona"
> wrote:

>The point was that Clinton shot cruise missles at an asprin factory to move
>the attention of the public from the "yucky stained dress." Last time I
>checked shooting cruise missles at someone was an act of war.

Oh. Ok I did not see how you were connecting things. I doubt that
Clinton thought up attacking the terrorist targets all by himself.
I'll bet he discussed things with his security advisors and the JCS
and asked them for some options to consider. This was in response to
the information that terrorist cells were discovered, right? One was
a direct attack on Bin Laden?

Have you noticed the number of revelatory books written by people who
worked for Bush and left that employment that have come out during
Bush's first term? Revelations like the Bush White House ignored
repeated warnings about El Qaida and that they were focused on
attacking Iraq long before the attacks of 9/11, and that after the
attack Bush specifically asked for evidence linking Iraq to the
attacks? That's what happens in a free society, news like that leaks
out.

But I don't recall anyone in the Clinton administration, or any
journalist coming up with hard facts confirming the missile attacks as
mere diversions from Clinton's infidelity in the Oval Office. I do
recall a lot of smirking "wag the dog" allegations from journalists,
but no confirmation, just speculation, and a movie that got people
thinking.

Can you point to hard evidence that Clinton lobbed missiles as a
diversion?

Thanks, Corky Scott

[Newps]

Trent Moorehead wrote:


>
> Also, "poor" can be a relative term (poverty level notwithstanding).

No kidding. We have the richest poor people in the world.

[Thomas Borchert]

Trent,

European airfields tend to start with E and L (in the south) where the
US ones start with K. The German ones start with ED, D being
Deutschland.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Peter Duniho]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:NZmmd.344440$wV.223588@attbi_s54...
> I'm confused here -- did you NOT write that top paragraph?

You replied to that message. But I never wrote anything like what you
accused me of writing.

> If not, I apologize. (Although it's STILL a load of crap -- it's just not
> yours! :-)

What I wrote is NOT a load of crap. What you wrote had nothing to do with
what I wrote, and put words into my mouth that I never said. I choose not
to address what you wrote in the interest of "helping" you stay true to your
claim that you want to chat about piloting, not politics. Suffice to say,
your response was inflammatory and irrelevant.

Pete

[Peter Duniho]

"Trent Moorehead" > wrote in message
...
> You are correct that the world isn't simple and you have to examine
> mitigating circumstances when making a judgement. The point I was trying
> to
> make is this: to say that poverty causes crime is a huge insult to poor
> people who don't commit crimes.

IMHO, scandals like those regarding Enron, Worldcom, and the Iraq War are
proof enough that you don't need to be poor to be a criminal.

But to suggest that there's NO statistical correlation between poverty and
crime, and *especially* between poverty and property crimes (like theft), is
just plain incorrect.

Perhaps saying it out loud is an insult to the poor people who don't commit
crimes. But that's a matter for the PC police, not people who are
interested in factual statements.

Pete

[Frank]

C J Campbell wrote:

>
> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> > Again, the point is that it has nothing to do with religion.
>>
>> Sure it does. Religion is nothing more than a belief system. You
>> believe that you have rights and need government. That is your religion.
>>
>> The difference is that Christians base their beliefs on the Bible and
>> you base yours on .... what?
>
> The belief that there is no God is in fact a religious belief. These
> people who want to disenfranchise those who have religious beliefs would
> do well to remember that. I do not try to prevent those who do not believe
> in God from participating in the political system. However, I have found
> that it is too much to expect that those who disagree with me would extend
> the same courtesy to me.

I would never exclude you and your opinions from the political debate.

Where the line is crossed is when the 'religious' attempt to codify some of
their beliefs in law. Too often nowadays the debate is focused on a
particular issue as 'right vs. wrong' when it really is a question of what
is the appropriate role of a 'religion neutral' government. It leads to the
great polarization we see today because there is no room to compromise on
'core' beliefs. It also implies that one set of religious beliefs are being
favored over another.

Abortion and gay rights are the big ones today and they are perfect
examples.

No one, not even the most liberal, believes that abortion is a good thing.
Yet they are often portrayed as being "for abortion". The appropriate
question is should the government be involved in medical decisions and/or
can the government decide what a woman can or can't do to her own body?

In the gay marriage issue we should be debating whether or not the
government should be involved in deciding who one can marry and if it
should even be in the marriage business at all.

When I was growing up Catholics weren't allowed to eat meat on Fridays.
Would anyone suggest that the government step in and close all the steak
houses? Of course not. But not because it is a trivial matter. Rather it is
readily apparent that not all religions share this view and the government
would be seen as favoring one religion over another if it were to try to
intervene.

I believe that life doesn't begin until you can breathe on your own and that
if two consenting adults want to marry then that's the way "God" wanted it.
I expect my government to give equal weight to my 'religious' beliefs as
yours.

Who was the wise man that said 'You can't legislate morality'?

--
Frank....H

[Newps]

Thomas Borchert wrote:
> Trent,
>
> European airfields tend to start with E and L (in the south) where the
> US ones start with K. The German ones start with ED, D being
> Deutschland.

Yes and Alaska and Hawaii start with a P.

[Allen]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
>
> IMHO, scandals like those regarding Enron, Worldcom, and the Iraq War are
> proof enough that you don't need to be poor to be a criminal.
>

I know who the criminals are at Enron and Worldcom, who are the ones in the
Iraq War?

Allen

[Peter Duniho]

"Allen" > wrote in message
om...
> I know who the criminals are at Enron and Worldcom, who are the ones in
> the
> Iraq War?

The fact that you even have to ask the question makes it clear that you are
in the "never to change one's mind pro-Bush" camp. I seriously doubt you're
prepared to read my answer without prejudice.

However, it's clear to me that the President and his administration
committed fraud against Congress and the American people, in claiming to
have evidence that they did not, and in proceeding to war before fulfilling
promises made by the President.

Last I checked, fraud was still a crime.

Pete

[Matt Barrow]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:Agomd.413413$D%.3751@attbi_s51...
> > So, just for starters, who again owned that land you now live on before
> > your
> > ancestors STOLE it from them? And during building that oh so great
> > country,
> > whose labor did they STEAL by enslaving a whole race? Let me quote you
> > again:
>
> That's crazy. By your definition of "stolen" there isn't a race of people
> on this planet that "should" be where they are today.

How do you steal something from someone who didn't own it in the first
place?

>
> And slave-owners WERE scum, BTW.

Easily said with a hundred and some years of hindsight.


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

[Dave Stadt]

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> Allen,
>
> > Nobody knows what the results of his activities were on the world stage.
> >
>
> Huh? We were all there to witness it.

Good grief I hope not. That had to be a god awfull ugly picture.

>
> --
> Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
>

[Thomas Borchert]

Matt,

> How do you steal something from someone who didn't own it in the first
> place?
>

You're kidding, right?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Matt Barrow]

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> Matt,
>
> > How do you steal something from someone who didn't own it in the first
> > place?
> >
>
> You're kidding, right?

Nope. How do you steal something neither owned, nor possessed?

[Thomas Borchert]

Matt,

> How do you steal something neither owned, nor possessed?
>

You're claiming the land now called the US was not "owned or
possessed"? You claim Native Americans somehow "don't count" because
they didn't have any ownership contracts to show? Jeeze!


--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Jay Honeck]

>> How do you steal something neither owned, nor possessed?
>>
>
> You're claiming the land now called the US was not "owned or
> possessed"? You claim Native Americans somehow "don't count" because
> they didn't have any ownership contracts to show? Jeeze!

Well, I don't want to put words in his mouth, but he may be coming at this
from this angle:

Native Americans, by their own beliefs, made no claim on the land, in fact
denying that it *could* be owned. It's hard to imagine "stealing" land from
people who make no claim on it.

To which I would add this: Native Americans are still here, and are a
welcome part of American society. To say that they were all killed is, in
fact, wrong.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[jls]

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> Matt,
>
> > How do you steal something neither owned, nor possessed?
> >
>
> You're claiming the land now called the US was not "owned or
> possessed"? You claim Native Americans somehow "don't count" because
> they didn't have any ownership contracts to show? Jeeze!
>
>
> --
> Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
>
Thomas, you're arguing with nuts who believe their titles are from God, who,
filled with the holy spirit, believe that ownership of this continent, and
perhaps even world domination, is manifest destiny ordained by gawd
awlmighty.

But be my guest, go ahead and argue with them. It's good theater worth
more than a few chuckles. Of course,they should be sentenced to community
service as well as reading all those treaties with the Indians the USA
violated or declared to be null and void, again because of the express will
of gawd.

[Newps]

Jay Honeck wrote:

>>>How do you steal something neither owned, nor possessed?
>>>
>>
>>You're claiming the land now called the US was not "owned or
>>possessed"? You claim Native Americans somehow "don't count" because
>>they didn't have any ownership contracts to show? Jeeze!
>
>
> Well, I don't want to put words in his mouth, but he may be coming at this
> from this angle:
>
> Native Americans, by their own beliefs, made no claim on the land, in fact
> denying that it *could* be owned. It's hard to imagine "stealing" land from
> people who make no claim on it.

The Indians were in a near constant state of war with each other over
land and other issues. Read Lewis and Clarks account of their trip. The
white man comes in and is better at war and outright deception. That's
life.


>
> To which I would add this: Native Americans are still here, and are a
> welcome part of American society. To say that they were all killed is, in
> fact, wrong.

Now if the Indians would wake up and get rid of those stupid
reservations they could be as successful as the rest of us.

[Fidel Perez]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "Trent Moorehead" > wrote in message
> ...
>> You are correct that the world isn't simple and you have to examine
>> mitigating circumstances when making a judgement. The point I was trying
>> to
>> make is this: to say that poverty causes crime is a huge insult to poor
>> people who don't commit crimes.
>
> IMHO, scandals like those regarding Enron, Worldcom, and the Iraq War are
> proof enough that you don't need to be poor to be a criminal.
>
> But to suggest that there's NO statistical correlation between poverty and
> crime, and *especially* between poverty and property crimes (like theft),
> is just plain incorrect.
>
> Perhaps saying it out loud is an insult to the poor people who don't
> commit crimes. But that's a matter for the PC police, not people who are
> interested in factual statements.
>
> Pete

Pete:

When I grow up, I want to be just like you (I just turned 48!). Would it be
possible that you put the cart in front of the horse? Would it be possible
that, say, the same factor or factors that cause poverty also cause crime?
This, in my opinion, would show up as an statistical correlation, wouldn't
it?

And one day I want to worship at the altar of the "facts", like you do now.
The big problem is: facts are sometimes in the eyes of the beholder. To wit,
special theory of relativity, not even the concept of simultaneity survives
different points of view.

Fidel

[Allen]

> "Allen" > wrote in message
> om...
> > I know who the criminals are at Enron and Worldcom, who are the ones in
> > the Iraq War?

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> The fact that you even have to ask the question makes it clear that you
are
> in the "never to change one's mind pro-Bush" camp. I seriously doubt
you're
> prepared to read my answer without prejudice.
>
> However, it's clear to me that the President and his administration
> committed fraud against Congress and the American people, in claiming to
> have evidence that they did not, and in proceeding to war before
fulfilling
> promises made by the President.
>
> Last I checked, fraud was still a crime.
>
> Pete
>

Pete,

I am forwarding this information to the Waco police department. President
Bush is due to arrive here in Waco tomorrow and with any luck they can nab
him as he gets off the plane! Thanks for the heads-up.

{:>)

Allen

[Gary Drescher]

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
> The Indians were in a near constant state of war with each other over land
> and other issues.

Yes, Native Americans (like Europeans, Asians, etc.) did fight wars among
themselves.

> The white man comes in and is better at war and outright deception.
> That's life.

When others attack and slaughter *us*, that's monstrous, incomprehensible
evil.

But when we do it to others--shrug, "that's life"; whether it's right or
wrong apparently isn't even worth thinking about.

Once you've internalized that double standard, you can rationalize
*anything*.

--Gary

[Matt Barrow]

" jls" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> "Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Matt,
> >
> > > How do you steal something neither owned, nor possessed?
> > >
> >
> > You're claiming the land now called the US was not "owned or
> > possessed"? You claim Native Americans somehow "don't count" because
> > they didn't have any ownership contracts to show? Jeeze!
> >
> >
> > --
> > Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
> >
> Thomas, you're arguing with nuts who believe their titles are from God,
who,
> filled with the holy spirit, believe that ownership of this continent, and
> perhaps even world domination, is manifest destiny ordained by gawd
> awlmighty.

As an atheist, I find that to be a ROTFLMAO remark.

>
> But be my guest, go ahead and argue with them. It's good theater worth
> more than a few chuckles. Of course,they should be sentenced to
community
> service as well as reading all those treaties with the Indians the USA
> violated or declared to be null and void, again because of the express
will
> of gawd.

So, nutbar, want to shove your foot even deeper into your mouth?
--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

[Matt Barrow]

"Fidel Perez" > wrote in message
...
>
> When I grow up, I want to be just like you (I just turned 48!). Would it
be
> possible that you put the cart in front of the horse? Would it be possible
> that, say, the same factor or factors that cause poverty also cause crime?

It would...but that would be putting the cart before the horse (in your
words).

Consider economic opportunities. Who would hire someone with a criminal
mindset to handle their economic transactions?

> This, in my opinion, would show up as an statistical correlation, wouldn't
> it?

It does. Now consider CAUSATION.


>
> And one day I want to worship at the altar of the "facts", like you do
now.

Evidently, it would be a decisive change for you.

> The big problem is: facts are sometimes in the eyes of the beholder.

How wonderfully postmodern. Thing is, PM denies that facts exist. It denies
reality exists. It's a modified form of schizophrenia.

>To wit,
> special theory of relativity, not even the concept of simultaneity
survives
> different points of view.

Have a happy multiple lives.


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

[Matt Barrow]

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> Matt,
>
> > How do you steal something neither owned, nor possessed?
> >
>
> You're claiming the land now called the US was not "owned or
> possessed"?

How do namadc tribes "own" land that they inhabit for a few week or months
at a time? How do they "own" land that they took from prior "owners"? How
do they "own" huge tracts of land on which they occupy a few acres and only
for a season at a time?


>You claim Native Americans somehow "don't count" because
> they didn't have any ownership contracts to show? Jeeze!

Not only didn't they have ownership contracts, they had no concept of land
ownership at all.

Try looking at things from beyond the perspective of Hollywood.

--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

[jls]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Matt,
> >
> > > How do you steal something neither owned, nor possessed?
> > >
> >
> > You're claiming the land now called the US was not "owned or
> > possessed"?
>
> How do namadc tribes "own" land that they inhabit for a few week or months
> at a time? How do they "own" land that they took from prior "owners"? How
> do they "own" huge tracts of land on which they occupy a few acres and
only
> for a season at a time?
>
>
> >You claim Native Americans somehow "don't count" because
> > they didn't have any ownership contracts to show? Jeeze!
>
> Not only didn't they have ownership contracts, they had no concept of land
> ownership at all.
>
> Try looking at things from beyond the perspective of Hollywood.
>
> --
> Matt

Ah, but my shallow manifest destinarian atheist, the natives were
territorial. They may have moved from place to place like the Floridians
who come here in summer, but always came back to their hunting grounds.
Until white eyes took them.

Using the logical extension of your rather simplistic argument, wouldn't I
be justified in confiscating a Floridian's land when he comes here in
summer?

[leslie]

Matt Barrow ) wrote:
:
: Not only didn't they have ownership contracts, they had no concept of
: land ownership at all.
:

Some had the concept of owning people...

http://www.coax.net/people/lwf/slave_rv.htm
CHEROKEE SLAVE REVOLT OF 1842

"CHEROKEE SLAVE REVOLT OF 1842

by Art T. Burton
Copyright 1996. Art T. Burton

Black slavery in America usually evokes images of the antebellum
South, but few realize that members of the Five Civilized Tribes--the
Cherokees, Choctaws, Chickasaws, Creeks, and Seminoles--in Indian
Territory, today's Oklahoma, also had slaves. Like their counterparts
in the South, Indian slaveholders feared slave revolts. Those fears
came true in 1842 when slaves in the Cherokee Nation made a daring
dash for freedom.

In the 1830s and 1840s, initially at the insistence of President
Andrew Jackson, the United States government forcibly removed the Five
Civilized Tribes from their homes in Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee,
North Carolina, Georgia, and Florida to Indian Territory west of the
Mississippi River. Their removal opened the lands to white settlers
and planters..."


This defines the term "Five Civilized Tribes":

http://www.sff.net/people/Rion.Wilhelm/five_tribes.html
The Five Civilized Tribes

--Jerry Leslie
Note: is invalid for email

[Peter Duniho]

"Fidel Perez" > wrote in message
...
> When I grow up, I want to be just like you (I just turned 48!).

Whatever.

> Would it be possible that you put the cart in front of the horse?

No.

> Would it be possible that, say, the same factor or factors that cause
> poverty also cause crime?

Yes.

> This, in my opinion, would show up as an statistical correlation, wouldn't
> it?

Yes.

I never said poverty was the ONLY cause of crime. But it's pretty dumb to
think that there's NO causal relationship.

Pete

[Jay Honeck]

>> Thomas, you're arguing with nuts who believe their titles are from God,
> who,
>> filled with the holy spirit, believe that ownership of this continent,
>> and
>> perhaps even world domination, is manifest destiny ordained by gawd
>> awlmighty.
>
> As an atheist, I find that to be a ROTFLMAO remark.

And as a come-and-go agnostic, I'm right there with ya!

In my book, "God's will" wouldn't even be mentioned as justification for
America's existence.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> When others attack and slaughter *us*, that's monstrous, incomprehensible
> evil.

Which is why many of our ancestors came to America.

> But when we do it to others--shrug, "that's life"; whether it's right or
> wrong apparently isn't even worth thinking about.

"We" didn't do anything to the Indians -- and no amount of hand-wringing is
going to change their fate, or our lack of guilt.

I'm sure my great-great-great grandfather would have preferred staying in
Germany, but sometimes life sucks.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> I never said poverty was the ONLY cause of crime. But it's pretty dumb to
> think that there's NO causal relationship.

I don't believe anyone ever claimed that there was NO causal relationship
between crime and poverty.

What I implied, however, is that we shouldn't care if there is.

In America, theft is a moral problem, not an economic one. No one needs to
steal to survive here. Therefore, no one "needs" to steal.

And, thus, to restate the obvious, the people that *do* steal here are truly
scum.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> Black slavery in America usually evokes images of the antebellum
> South, but few realize that members of the Five Civilized Tribes--the
> Cherokees, Choctaws, Chickasaws, Creeks, and Seminoles--in Indian
> Territory, today's Oklahoma, also had slaves.

Fascinating stuff, Jerry. Thanks for sharing it.

Alas, no number of contrarian facts will serve to change people's minds
about how "noble" the Indians were, nor how "cruel" our white ancestors were
to "drive them off their land."

The Robert Redford version of history just plays so much better than
yours...

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

[Peter Duniho]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:aSTmd.351017$wV.228537@attbi_s54...
> I don't believe anyone ever claimed that there was NO causal relationship
> between crime and poverty.

So what? I wasn't replying to your post.

> What I implied, however, is that we shouldn't care if there is.

I certainly believe that you don't care, and that you believe you shouldn't
care. Definitely fits what little I know about you and your sort of
"thinking".

> In America, theft is a moral problem, not an economic one. No one needs
> to steal to survive here.

I don't know which America you're talking about, but it's not the one I live
in. People die every day from poverty. People who, had they stolen, would
have survived. People whose ONLY REMAINING OPTION was to steal.

Pete

[Thomas Borchert]

> Thomas, you're arguing with nuts who believe their titles are from God, who,
> filled with the holy spirit, believe that ownership of this continent, and
> perhaps even world domination, is manifest destiny ordained by gawd
> awlmighty.
>

I am fully aware of that. But sometimes it is fun to jerk the chain. If only
to confirm my judgements about wide parts of the US...

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Leslie,

> : Not only didn't they have ownership contracts, they had no concept of
> : land ownership at all.
> :
>
> Some had the concept of owning people...
>

Any excuse for a clear conscience, huh?

"Oh, if THEY did it, it's ok if we do it, too" What kind of morals are
that?

"He's dead now" (quote courtesy of the US Marines Corps)

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Jay,

> how "cruel" our white ancestors were
> to "drive them off their land."
>

Nobody said anything about the nobility of Native Americans. But there
simply can be no debate that they were subjected to systematic genocide
by people who greedily wanted the land they lived on. People whose
descendants now comprise the majority of the people living in the US.
And no matter the details of ownership - it destroyed their life style
and thus their society and subsequently their excistence. To claim that
"the Indians are still well and alive among us" is utterly cynical at
best.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[jls]

"leslie" > wrote in message
...
> Matt Barrow ) wrote:
> :
> : Not only didn't they have ownership contracts, they had no concept of
> : land ownership at all.
> :
>
> Some had the concept of owning people...
>
> http://www.coax.net/people/lwf/slave_rv.htm
> CHEROKEE SLAVE REVOLT OF 1842

The poorly written piece at this link without footnotes or source citations
tells more than you read. It tells that the slavery was learned by
half-Indian offspring of white *christian* slaveholders, who obviously took
their justifications for slavery from the Old and New Testaments of the Holy
Bible. The Bible is clear that slavery is approved. The slave is
admonished in both testaments to behave himself and be docile or be lashed
or killed.

So what is the purpose of this post, to demonize all Indians, including
Sioux and Pawnee, 200 years after the fact of stealing their lands? Some
of the white settlers attempted to enslave Indians but found it was about as
easy as herding cats.

[leslie]

Thomas Borchert ) wrote:
: Leslie,
:
: > : Not only didn't they have ownership contracts, they had no concept of
: > : land ownership at all.
: > :
: >
: > Some had the concept of owning people...
: >
:
: Any excuse for a clear conscience, huh?
:

What's your excuse for your accusatory tone, low morals ? ;-)

I don't condone slavery in any way, shape or form, unlike some members
of Congress, e.g. Tom DeLay, who wanted to keep abusive sweatshops open
in Saipan, where pregnant workers were fired if they didn't get abortions:

http://www.globalexchange.org/economy/corporations/saipan/abc040100.html
Pregnant garment workers on Saipan are forced to have abortions...

or U.S. corporations that prefer dictatorships:

http://www.globalexchange.org/economy/econ101/survey.html
Globalization Survey Reveals U.S. Corporations Prefer Dictatorships

: "Oh, if THEY did it, it's ok if we do it, too" What kind of morals are
: that?
:

The American Indians held other Indians as slaves long before white people
came here. Those slaves were the surviving losers of a battle.

If you want to know about my morals, I donated $ 25.00 to Malden Mills
when my monthly income was less than $ 1,000/month. in support of Aaron
Feuerstein:

http://sitesearch.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3963-2001Dec19.html
A CEO Who Lives by What's Right (washingtonpost.com)

Mr. Feuerstein was kind enough to send a personal "thank you" note:

http://clio.rice.edu/leslie/feuerstein.jpg
http://clio.rice.edu/leslie/feuerstein.txt


--Jerry Leslie
Note: is invalid for email

[Jay Honeck]

> I don't know which America you're talking about, but it's not the one I
> live in. People die every day from poverty. People who, had they stolen,
> would have survived. People whose ONLY REMAINING OPTION was to steal.

You're either lying, or just plain ignorant of what is available in America.

I defy you to produce even ONE person in this country that fits your
description.

Find me ONE person who had no government program to avail themselves of, no
homeless shelter to live in, no church to feed them, and no Medicaid-paid
drug, alcohol, or mental health services to assuage their ills.

Find me ONE, and you've got a free night in the Pan Am Clipper suite.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> Nobody said anything about the nobility of Native Americans. But there
> simply can be no debate that they were subjected to systematic genocide
> by people who greedily wanted the land they lived on. People whose
> descendants now comprise the majority of the people living in the US.
> And no matter the details of ownership - it destroyed their life style

And they truly need to get over it.

Being driven to emigrate to America in 1852 utterly destroyed my family's
agrarian lifestyle. In fact, my entire family spent several generations in
economic and social flux because of being driven from their ancestral lands.

Should I be seeking reparations from Germany?

Your logic is flawed, and cannot survive scrutiny in the real world.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> So what is the purpose of this post, to demonize all Indians, including
> Sioux and Pawnee, 200 years after the fact of stealing their lands?

No one is trying to demonize Indians. (How typical of the PC police to
interpret a counterpoint as an attack.)

The point (for those who refuse to see it) is that the American Indians lost
the wars, as so many have before (and since), and it's time for them to
either become integrated in American society, or shut the hell up.

Cuz no amount of whining is going to change their fate.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Thomas Borchert]

Jay,

> Your logic is flawed, and cannot survive scrutiny in the real world.
>

How convenient for you!

Again, all I'd expect is some sense humility in the face of, what?,
about four millions "Indians" killed in the process of building the
"land of the free". Here in Germany, most decent people try to show
that humility, in the face of 6 million Jews having been killed by our
ancestors. But, to each his own...

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Jay,

> it's time for them to
> either become integrated in American society, or shut the hell up.
>

"Them" are gone. "Them" are dead. That's the point.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Corky Scott]

On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 02:33:42 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote:

>I don't believe anyone ever claimed that there was NO causal relationship
>between crime and poverty.
>
>What I implied, however, is that we shouldn't care if there is.
>
>In America, theft is a moral problem, not an economic one. No one needs to
>steal to survive here. Therefore, no one "needs" to steal.
>
>And, thus, to restate the obvious, the people that *do* steal here are truly
>scum.

From what I've picked up in reading over the years, theft is a baby
that has many fathers. Poverty is certainly one causal factor. A
lack of a strongly bonded nuclear family is another. The existance of
gangs is one more. Drugs may be the biggest causal factor of all:
once the user is hooked, if their income cannot support the habit,
theft is the only alternative. But the use of drugs may be related to
the lack of a nuclear family and the existance of extreme poverty.

"Fixing" the problem(s) is not easy. Here is a really radical idea:
Make narcotic drugs legal and free, or at least very inexpensive.
Making drugs legal and free would go a LONG way towards reducing
theft, if that is considered to be the **BIG** problem.

Corky (notice I have not touched on the morality issue) Scott

[Peter Duniho]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:lC2nd.422928$D%.59195@attbi_s51...
> You're either lying, or just plain ignorant of what is available in
> America.
>
> I defy you to produce even ONE person in this country that fits your
> description.

I'm a little confused by your reply. What is it about all of the poor
people (many of them homeless) who die every year because they didn't have
the necessary resources to survive that you just don't get?

Do various social welfare programs exist to try to minimize the problem?
Sure. But are those programs sufficient to protect every single poor
person? Not even close. After all of the publicly available resources are
used up, there still remain a large number of people for whom the only
recourse is steal or die.

> Find me ONE person who had no government program to avail themselves of,
> no homeless shelter to live in, no church to feed them, and no
> Medicaid-paid drug, alcohol, or mental health services to assuage their
> ills.

They are everywhere. Even in your little college town, and especially in
every major city across the country. They die every day as a result of
their poverty and unwillingness to steal.

> Find me ONE, and you've got a free night in the Pan Am Clipper suite.

Please. If you are too set in your determined ignorance to simply look
around you, or to look up the mortality statistics yourself and think I
ought to do your homework for you, you ought to at least offer something
that is of value to me.

Pete

[Jay Honeck]

> Again, all I'd expect is some sense humility in the face of, what?,
> about four millions "Indians" killed in the process of building the
> "land of the free". Here in Germany, most decent people try to show
> that humility, in the face of 6 million Jews having been killed by our
> ancestors. But, to each his own...

The differences between the two events are so vast, it's hard to imagine
anyone not grasping them.

Your statement only proves that Germans really *haven't* learned their
lessons yet.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> "Them" are gone. "Them" are dead. That's the point.

That would come as quite a shock to the 2.8 million Americans who identified
themselves as "Native American" in the most recent census.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

>> Find me ONE, and you've got a free night in the Pan Am Clipper suite.
>
> Please. If you are too set in your determined ignorance to simply look
> around you, or to look up the mortality statistics yourself and think I
> ought to do your homework for you, you ought to at least offer something
> that is of value to me.

As I suspected.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> "Fixing" the problem(s) is not easy. Here is a really radical idea:
> Make narcotic drugs legal and free, or at least very inexpensive.
> Making drugs legal and free would go a LONG way towards reducing
> theft, if that is considered to be the **BIG** problem.

While I actually agree with your approach (and would have REALLY supported
it in my early 20s :-), I wonder about the social costs of such an action.

If drugs were freely available (or nearly so), would the stigma of addiction
diminish? Would it become "okay" to lay around stoned all day long, as it
is in some Caribbean cultures?

Is being non-productive a bad thing, as a society? Or would drugs simply
diminish and die, over time, must like cigarettes are doing now?

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

[G.R. Patterson III]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>
> If drugs were freely available (or nearly so), would the stigma of addiction
> diminish? Would it become "okay" to lay around stoned all day long, as it
> is in some Caribbean cultures?

I did a study for Sociology long ago for this sort of situation. When the
Harrison narcotics act was passed in the 30s, it was partially at the
instigation of the AMA. The AMA said that, based on the available evidence,
roughly 10% of the U.S. population was addicted to morphine. Their general idea
was to get this act passed and set up clinics to treat the addicts.

It turned out that over 25% of the population was addicted to morphine. The vast
majority of the addicts were fully functioning members of society -- as long as
they got their "fix". Now, heroin addicts are rarely productive members of
society -- they can't make enough money legally.

I interviewed my grandmother for this project. She said that the president of
the local bank had to leave town for treatment after the act passed. She also
said that "nobody suspected" that he was a user. Since the gossips pretty much
ran society in that town (Waynesville, NC), I believe her.

I certainly agreed with Corky at that time. The cost of crimes committed in NYC
alone to support heroin habits was astronomical in the early 70s, and I'm sure
it's worse now. I still feel that we would eliminate the traffic in this drug,
reduce crime by significant amounts, and allow many people who are criminals
today to be productive. I'm not sure the same results would be produced by
legalizing cocaine, however. Cocaine users are likely to become the
stereotypical "dope fiend with a knife" if they keep it up long enough.

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.

[Morgans]

"Corky Scott" > wrote

> "Fixing" the problem(s) is not easy. Here is a really radical idea:
> Make narcotic drugs legal and free, or at least very inexpensive.
> Making drugs legal and free would go a LONG way towards reducing
> theft, if that is considered to be the **BIG** problem.
>
> Corky (notice I have not touched on the morality issue) Scott

Ooh, scary idea. I was in Amsterdam, at the peak of their experiment with
legal drugs, and prostitution, and I never wanted to get out of a city
quicker, than there. Stoners sitting around everywhere, shooting up in
public, women naked in store windows, filth everywhere....

I shudder to think about it. I believe they decided it was a failure, also.
--
Jim in NC


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.797 / Virus Database: 541 - Release Date: 11/15/2004

[Matt Barrow]

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> Jay,
>
> > Your logic is flawed, and cannot survive scrutiny in the real world.
> >
>
> How convenient for you!
>
> Again, all I'd expect is some sense humility in the face of, what?,
> about four millions "Indians" killed in the process of building the
> "land of the free". Here in Germany, most decent people try to show
> that humility, in the face of 6 million Jews having been killed by our
> ancestors. But, to each his own...

And, with the Oil-for-Food information coming out, it's evident that Germany
still hasn't learned their lesson.

BTW, your "facts" seem more Hollyweird than reality. Contemplate a
wilderness and how settlement can occur.

[Matt Barrow]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:F88nd.50084$V41.45850@attbi_s52...
> > "Them" are gone. "Them" are dead. That's the point.
>
> That would come as quite a shock to the 2.8 million Americans who
identified
> themselves as "Native American" in the most recent census.

And that the best estimates is that the peak North American aborigine
population prior to the arrival of the white man on North America is around
300,000, they've done pretty well since then, with a 900% increase.

If you can find a copy, read "The Indian Myths" by Robert Hendrick, which
dispels so many popular notions of the American Indian culture, such as
being ecologically pure, preserving wildlife, etc.

Up until 1800, life expectancy for American Indians was about the late 30's
for males and late 20's for females. Between tribal wars and diseases
(dysentery is believed to have killed more Indians by far than the white man
could have hoped to) life was short, brutal and harsh. Of course, Rousseau
thought that was a great life style.


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

[Matt Barrow]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:aSTmd.351017$wV.228537@attbi_s54...
> > I never said poverty was the ONLY cause of crime. But it's pretty dumb
to
> > think that there's NO causal relationship.
>
> I don't believe anyone ever claimed that there was NO causal relationship
> between crime and poverty.
>
> What I implied, however, is that we shouldn't care if there is.
>
> In America, theft is a moral problem, not an economic one. No one needs
to
> steal to survive here. Therefore, no one "needs" to steal.

THe notion that people steal to survive is patently bogus. Stealing for food
is maybe 1% of theft. Stealing for drugs or "toys" is far more prevalent.

(Jay, would you hire some gang member to work in your hotel? Why not?)

--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

[Matt Barrow]

"Corky Scott" > wrote in message
...
> From what I've picked up in reading over the years, theft is a baby
> that has many fathers. Poverty is certainly one causal factor.

And a criminal mindset is more a massive factor in CAUSING poverty.

As one person wrote.

"It's said that criminals behave as they do
because of their lack of economic opportunities.
It's more that they have no economic
opportunities BECAUSE they are criminals."

[Jay Honeck]

> (Jay, would you hire some gang member to work in your hotel? Why not?)

I assume this is a rhetorical question.

Obviously a gang-banger would be a poor mix with an aviation theme, all
suites hotel!

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

[Thomas Borchert]

Corky,

> Make narcotic drugs legal and free, or at least very inexpensive.
> Making drugs legal and free would go a LONG way towards reducing
> theft, if that is considered to be the **BIG** problem.
>

Fully agree. FWIW, the really problematic drugs (alcohol and nicotine)
ARE freely available - and the government makes A LOT of money taxing
them. There might be a connection...

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Jay,

> Would it become "okay" to lay around stoned all day long, as it
> is in some Caribbean cultures?
>

You been to any?

it is ok to be drunk all day in our society, or totally addicted to
nicotine. Where's the difference?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Jay Honeck]

> Fully agree. FWIW, the really problematic drugs (alcohol and nicotine)
> ARE freely available - and the government makes A LOT of money taxing
> them. There might be a connection...

Nicotine is hardly as problematic as heroin or cocaine. It may kill you, as
a by-product of burning tobacco, but according to at least one study its
short-term effects are actually beneficial.

And alcohol, in moderation, has been proven to actually prolong life.

I dare say nothing of the sort has been proven with any currently illegal
drugs, with the possible exception of marijuana. (Although I suspect the
risk of lung cancer from using the smoked form of marijuana far outweighs
any possible medical benefits.)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Matt Barrow]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:budnd.425450$D%.183312@attbi_s51...
> > (Jay, would you hire some gang member to work in your hotel? Why not?)
>
> I assume this is a rhetorical question.
>
> Obviously a gang-banger would be a poor mix with an aviation theme, all
> suites hotel!
>
> ;-)

Okay, there's one opportunity shot.

Let's see: what legitimate endeavor would a gang-banger fit into?

Anyone? NO, we need you to give him a job in your company or your home, not
someone else's. And the job has to be significant, otherwise they continue
in poverty.

Anyone? (....sounds of cricket's chirping.....)


Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

[Corky Scott]

On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 12:55:50 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote:

>Nicotine is hardly as problematic as heroin or cocaine. It may kill you, as
>a by-product of burning tobacco, but according to at least one study its
>short-term effects are actually beneficial.

Jay, are you aware of the study that characterized nicotine as being
as addictive if not more addictive than heroine?

Corky Scott

[Morgans]

>
> >Nicotine is hardly as problematic as heroin or cocaine. It may kill you,
as
> >a by-product of burning tobacco, but according to at least one study its
> >short-term effects are actually beneficial.
>
> Jay, are you aware of the study that characterized nicotine as being
> as addictive if not more addictive than heroine?
>
> Corky Scott

And I *DO* believe it.
--
Jim in NC


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.797 / Virus Database: 541 - Release Date: 11/16/2004

[Roger]

On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 16:13:09 -0500, "Morgans"
> wrote:

>
>>
>> >Nicotine is hardly as problematic as heroin or cocaine. It may kill you,
>as
>> >a by-product of burning tobacco, but according to at least one study its
>> >short-term effects are actually beneficial.
>>
>> Jay, are you aware of the study that characterized nicotine as being
>> as addictive if not more addictive than heroine?
>>
>> Corky Scott
>
>And I *DO* believe it.

I'm not advocating tobacco as it has too many adverse side effects
such as reduced oxygen levels in the blood. According to one flight
surgeon a heavy smoker is already at the equivalent of 5000, or 6000
feet before he leaves sea level. That also affects your night vision.

OTOH as far as addiction, I often wonder is it's more of a
psychological addiction than chemical. In the 70s I smoked 2 1/2
packs of Camels a day. I smoked them right down till I was burning my
fingers and inhaled clear to my toes. I quit cold turkey and had no
noticeable side effects. No cravings, no hunger, and I've never had
one since. I just kept telling myself they weren't good for me, I
enjoyed them, but I wanted to quit and I was going to quit. I went
through that litany every time I took out a cigarette for several
weeks. One day I ran out, but was in a hurry so I said, "I'll get some
on the way to work tomorrow". It was three days later when I realized
I hadn't had a craving for a cigarette. Never had one since. I don't
even like the smell now.

Of course there is little worse than a reformed smoker, unless it's
non believer who just got religion.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Morgans]

"Roger" > wrote

> OTOH as far as addiction, I often wonder is it's more of a
> psychological addiction than chemical. In the 70s I smoked 2 1/2
> packs of Camels a day. I smoked them right down till I was burning my
> fingers and inhaled clear to my toes. I quit cold turkey and had no
> noticeable side effects. No cravings, no hunger, and I've never had
> one since.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)

I suppose there are as many different reactions as there are people. For
me, when I quit, my skin "crawled", and I felt like I had a big case of the
"jitters". Goes on about 3 days, about all day, every minute. After that,
I agree that staying quit is all psychological.
--
Jim in NC


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.797 / Virus Database: 541 - Release Date: 11/15/2004

[Jay Honeck]

> I suppose there are as many different reactions as there are people. For
> me, when I quit, my skin "crawled", and I felt like I had a big case of
> the
> "jitters". Goes on about 3 days, about all day, every minute. After
> that,
> I agree that staying quit is all psychological.

Man, I'm with Jim on this one. I smoked 2.5 packs of Marlboros a day for
years, and quit cold-turkey in 1986, while watching my father-in-law die a
horrible death due to lung cancer.

Man, I punched walls till my knuckles bled, and was just a total ******* to
be around. After three days the physical symptoms were gone, but the
psychological addiction persisted for many years.

To this day, I still love the THOUGHT of having a smoke -- although I really
can't stand the smell anymore, and being in a smoky bar gives me a sore
throat and sticky eyes... And I've never had another cigarette -- not even
one -- knowing how horribly addicting they are.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

>>Nicotine is hardly as problematic as heroin or cocaine. It may kill you,
>>as
>>a by-product of burning tobacco, but according to at least one study its
>>short-term effects are actually beneficial.
>
> Jay, are you aware of the study that characterized nicotine as being
> as addictive if not more addictive than heroine?

Absolutely. Quitting smoking was the hardest thing I've ever done.

But that doesn't change the fact that nicotine has been "proven" (by yet
another highly suspect government study) to make the synapses fire faster.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Philip Sondericker]

in article dJSnd.364649$wV.255877@attbi_s54, Jay Honeck at
wrote on 11/20/04 6:04 PM:


> To this day, I still love the THOUGHT of having a smoke -- although I really
> can't stand the smell anymore, and being in a smoky bar gives me a sore
> throat and sticky eyes... And I've never had another cigarette -- not even
> one -- knowing how horribly addicting they are.

I quit about a year ago, cold turkey. Like you, the physical cravings are
long gone, but dammit, I LIKED smoking. I allow myself to cheat occasionally
with a big, stinky cigar--I find that, at least for me, they're
non-addictive, and I'm generally good for a few weeks after having one. And
they at least satisfy that strange desire to smoke something (legal).

[G.R. Patterson III]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>
> Man, I'm with Jim on this one.

Same here.

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.

[Dan Luke]

"Jay Honeck" wrote:
> Man, I'm with Jim on this one. I smoked 2.5 packs of Marlboros a day
> for years, and quit cold-turkey in 1986, while watching my
> father-in-law die a horrible death due to lung cancer.
>
> Man, I punched walls till my knuckles bled, and was just a total
> ******* to be around. After three days the physical symptoms were
> gone, but the psychological addiction persisted for many years.

Ditto. I smoked from age 13 to 30; quitting was one of the toughest
things I've ever done.

> To this day, I still love the THOUGHT of having a smoke --

Not I. Do you still have "the smoking dream?" The one where you're
smoking again and realize you've re-addicted yourself? Aaaagghhh!

> although I really can't stand the smell anymore, and being in a smoky
> bar gives me a sore throat and sticky eyes...

Ditto again. It took about two years for cigarette smoke to stop
smelling delicious to me.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Philip Sondericker]

in article , Dan Luke at
wrote on 11/21/04 8:16 AM:

>
> "Jay Honeck" wrote:
>> Man, I'm with Jim on this one. I smoked 2.5 packs of Marlboros a day
>> for years, and quit cold-turkey in 1986, while watching my
>> father-in-law die a horrible death due to lung cancer.
>>
>> Man, I punched walls till my knuckles bled, and was just a total
>> ******* to be around. After three days the physical symptoms were
>> gone, but the psychological addiction persisted for many years.
>
> Ditto. I smoked from age 13 to 30; quitting was one of the toughest
> things I've ever done.
>
>> To this day, I still love the THOUGHT of having a smoke --
>
> Not I. Do you still have "the smoking dream?" The one where you're
> smoking again and realize you've re-addicted yourself? Aaaagghhh!

Yeah, but waking up and realizing that you haven't really backslid is always
a relief.

[Dan Luke]

> Yeah, but waking up and realizing that you haven't really backslid is
> always
> a relief.

Truly.

[mike regish]

Morality is doing the right thing just because you know it's the right thing
to do, not because you think some magical being is going to strike you down
from above or send you to some imaginary hell.

That's morality and it doesn't involve religion. It only involves evolution,
something we evidently have a long way to go on. Some more than others.

mike regish

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
news:vqadnZi1WJDNtw_cRVn-
>>
>> No. Moral, yes, but religious, no. This is not the same thing at all.
>
> Really? Explain to me, please, the difference.
>
>

[Peter Duniho]

"mike regish" > wrote in message
news:r29od.79682$5K2.21834@attbi_s03...
> Morality is doing the right thing just because you know it's the right
> thing > to do, not because you think some magical being is going to strike
> you down from above or send you to some imaginary hell.

For what it's worth, not all religious convictions are based on fear of
retribution from God either.

It's fine to say that you have moral conviction without religion, but don't
be confused about what religion is or is not. You'll need a better argument
if you want your distinction to "stick".

Pete

[Jay Honeck]

> Not I. Do you still have "the smoking dream?" The one where you're
> smoking again and realize you've re-addicted yourself? Aaaagghhh!

Rarely. But I did for years!

That's funny -- I thought I was the only one that had that stupid dream!
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Matt Whiting]

mike regish wrote:

> Morality is doing the right thing just because you know it's the right thing
> to do, not because you think some magical being is going to strike you down
> from above or send you to some imaginary hell.

Who determines what the "right things" are?


> That's morality and it doesn't involve religion. It only involves evolution,
> something we evidently have a long way to go on. Some more than others.

Now that is funny. Morality results from evolution. Best one I've
heard in a long time.


Matt

[Dan Luke]

"Matt Whiting" wrote:
>> That's morality and it doesn't involve religion. It only involves
>> evolution, something we evidently have a long way to go on. Some more
>> than others.
>
> Now that is funny. Morality results from evolution. Best one I've
> heard in a long time.

What's funny about it?
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[mike regish]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> mike regish wrote:
>
>> Morality is doing the right thing just because you know it's the right
>> thing to do, not because you think some magical being is going to strike
>> you down from above or send you to some imaginary hell.
>
> Who determines what the "right things" are?

In my case, I do. Duh.
>
>
>> That's morality and it doesn't involve religion. It only involves
>> evolution, something we evidently have a long way to go on. Some more
>> than others.
>
> Now that is funny. Morality results from evolution. Best one I've heard
> in a long time.

Learning right from wrong comes from evolution. Or better said, learning
better ways of doing things...like talking rather than fighting.

mike regish

[mike regish]

Yep.

mike

> wrote in message
...
> So very true.
>
> The world is overrunning with immoral religious types.
>
>

[Brooks Hagenow]

wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 15:01:41 -0800, "Peter Duniho"
> > wrote:
>
>
>>"mike regish" > wrote in message
>>news:r29od.79682$5K2.21834@attbi_s03...
>>
>>>Morality is doing the right thing just because you know it's the right
>>>thing > to do, not because you think some magical being is going to strike
>>>you down from above or send you to some imaginary hell.
>>
>>For what it's worth, not all religious convictions are based on fear of
>>retribution from God either.
>
>
> No, some are based on the reward of 70 virgins and such.
>
>>It's fine to say that you have moral conviction without religion, but don't
>>be confused about what religion is or is not. You'll need a better argument
>>if you want your distinction to "stick".
>>
>>Pete
>
>
> What distinction? Moral vs religious?
>
> There is little, if any, connection o the two. More immoral acts have
> been committed by the religious than probably any other identifiable
> group.
>

That sounds like something you made up. Care to name a source?

Although you might get lucky because a quick check on the net shows that
only 2.5% of the world's population are athiests in the year 2000. The
rest believe is some higher power.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/worldrel.htm

[Brooks Hagenow]

Dan Luke wrote:

> "Matt Whiting" wrote:
>
>>>That's morality and it doesn't involve religion. It only involves
>>>evolution, something we evidently have a long way to go on. Some more
>>>than others.
>>
>>Now that is funny. Morality results from evolution. Best one I've
>>heard in a long time.
>
>
> What's funny about it?

Depends on what kind of evolution you are talking about. Biological
evolution, then thats a good laugh. Societal evolution, maybe. But
what drives societal evolution? How about the beliefs of those with
influence. If those people are religious or had grown up with religious
influences, then maybe that also deserves a chuckle because then the
non-religious are ignorant to the fact they are living under religious law.

[Matt Barrow]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Matt Whiting" wrote:
> >> That's morality and it doesn't involve religion. It only involves
> >> evolution, something we evidently have a long way to go on. Some more
> >> than others.
> >
> > Now that is funny. Morality results from evolution. Best one I've
> > heard in a long time.
>
> What's funny about it?

It's inverted...that's what's funny about it.


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

[Bill Denton]

Yea, those early Christians were influential as hell, weren't they?



"Brooks Hagenow" > wrote in message
. com...
> Dan Luke wrote:
>
> > "Matt Whiting" wrote:
> >
> >>>That's morality and it doesn't involve religion. It only involves
> >>>evolution, something we evidently have a long way to go on. Some more
> >>>than others.
> >>
> >>Now that is funny. Morality results from evolution. Best one I've
> >>heard in a long time.
> >
> >
> > What's funny about it?
>
> Depends on what kind of evolution you are talking about. Biological
> evolution, then thats a good laugh. Societal evolution, maybe. But
> what drives societal evolution? How about the beliefs of those with
> influence. If those people are religious or had grown up with religious
> influences, then maybe that also deserves a chuckle because then the
> non-religious are ignorant to the fact they are living under religious
law.

[Brooks Hagenow]

Bill Denton wrote:

> Yea, those early Christians were influential as hell, weren't they?
>

I did not say the Christians were funny.

[Dan Luke]

"Brooks Hagenow" wrote:
>>>Now that is funny. Morality results from evolution. Best one I've
>>>heard in a long time.
>>
>>
>> What's funny about it?
>
> Depends on what kind of evolution you are talking about. Biological
> evolution, then thats a good laugh.

Why?

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Dan Luke]

"Matt Barrow" wrote:
>> > Now that is funny. Morality results from evolution. Best one
I've
>> > heard in a long time.
>>
>> What's funny about it?
>
> It's inverted...that's what's funny about it.

Sorry, I don't know what you mean by that; please explain.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[jls]

"Brooks Hagenow" > wrote in message
om...
> wrote:
> > On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 15:01:41 -0800, "Peter Duniho"
> > > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>"mike regish" > wrote in message
> >>news:r29od.79682$5K2.21834@attbi_s03...
> >>
> >>>Morality is doing the right thing just because you know it's the right
> >>>thing > to do, not because you think some magical being is going to
strike
> >>>you down from above or send you to some imaginary hell.
> >>
> >>For what it's worth, not all religious convictions are based on fear of
> >>retribution from God either.
> >
> >
> > No, some are based on the reward of 70 virgins and such.
> >
> >>It's fine to say that you have moral conviction without religion, but
don't
> >>be confused about what religion is or is not. You'll need a better
argument
> >>if you want your distinction to "stick".
> >>
> >>Pete
> >
> >
> > What distinction? Moral vs religious?
> >
> > There is little, if any, connection o the two. More immoral acts have
> > been committed by the religious than probably any other identifiable
> > group.
> >
>
> That sounds like something you made up. Care to name a source?
>
> Although you might get lucky because a quick check on the net shows that
> only 2.5% of the world's population are athiests in the year 2000. The
> rest believe is some higher power.
>
> http://www.religioustolerance.org/worldrel.htm

Well, isn't this the most cosmopolitan newsgroup. I was (pleasantly)
surprised to find so many freethinkers here, but not surprised at this
poster. My friend, priests practice intolerance and commit murders, not
philosophers. Be a philosopher, not a priest. Most philosophers are
freethinkers, anyway.

Don't believe everything you read on the net about "athiests," my friend,
whatever THEY are. Some of us are atheists, some agnostic, some just
freethinkers.
*****************
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
---Epicurus

[Roger]

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 02:42:14 GMT, "mike regish" >
wrote:

>Yep.
>
>mike
>

Because they know they are the only ones in the right and must either
convert of destroy the opposition.

Roger

> wrote in message
...
>> So very true.
>>
>> The world is overrunning with immoral religious types.
>>
>>
>

[[email protected]]

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 02:59:17 GMT, Brooks Hagenow
> wrote:

wrote:
>> On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 15:01:41 -0800, "Peter Duniho"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"mike regish" > wrote in message
>>>news:r29od.79682$5K2.21834@attbi_s03...
>>>
>>>>Morality is doing the right thing just because you know it's the right
>>>>thing > to do, not because you think some magical being is going to strike
>>>>you down from above or send you to some imaginary hell.
>>>
>>>For what it's worth, not all religious convictions are based on fear of
>>>retribution from God either.
>>
>>
>> No, some are based on the reward of 70 virgins and such.
>>
>>>It's fine to say that you have moral conviction without religion, but don't
>>>be confused about what religion is or is not. You'll need a better argument
>>>if you want your distinction to "stick".
>>>
>>>Pete
>>
>>
>> What distinction? Moral vs religious?
>>
>> There is little, if any, connection o the two. More immoral acts have
>> been committed by the religious than probably any other identifiable
>> group.
>>
>
>That sounds like something you made up. Care to name a source?

Sure. Try this one:

Holy Horrors
An Illustrated History of Religious Murder and Madness

James A. Haught





If you want something more immediate, here's a sample"





HOLY HORROR--ATROCITIES IN THE NAME OF GOD.

ONE OF THE PIECES WHICH ACCOUNTS FOR WHY ALL PEOPLE WITH THE SPIRIT OF
PHILOSOPHY FIND THE RELIGIONS OF THE MASSES OFFENSIVE.

Library: Modern: James A. Haught: Holy Horrors (1990)
Order books by James A. Haught now
[This article was originally published in Penthouse, August 1990.]


A pig caused hundreds of Indians to kill one another in 1980. The
animal walked through a Muslim holy ground at Moradabad, near New
Delhi. Muslims, who think pigs are an embodiment of Satan, blamed
Hindus for the defilement. They went on a murder rampage, stabbing and
clubbing Hindus, who retaliated in kind. The pig riot spread to a
dozen cities and left more than 200 dead.
This swinish episode tells a universal tale. It typifies religious
behavior that has been recurring for centuries.

Ronald Reagan often called religion the world's mightiest force for
good, "the bedrock of moral order." George Bush said it gives people
"the character they need to get through life." This view is held by
millions. But the truism isn't true. The record of human experience
shows that where religion is strong, it causes cruelty. Intense
beliefs produce intense hostility. Only when faith loses its force can
a society hope to become humane.
The history of religion is a horror story. If anyone doubts it, just
review this chronicle of religion's gore during the last 1,000 years
or so:

-- The First Crusade was launched in 1095 with the battle cry "Deus
Vult" (God wills it), a mandate to destroy infidels in the Holy Land.
Gathering crusaders in Germany first fell upon "the infidel among us,"
Jews in the Rhine valley, thousands of whom were dragged from their
homes or hiding places and hacked to death or burned alive. Then the
religious legions plundered their way 2,000 miles to Jerusalem, where
they killed virtually every inhabitant, "purifying" the symbolic city.
Cleric Raymond of Aguilers wrote: "In the temple of Solomon, one rode
in blood up to the knees and even to the horses' bridles, by the just
and marvelous judgment of God."

-- Human sacrifice blossomed in the Mayan theocracy of Central America
between the 11th and 16th centuries. To appease a feathered-serpent
god, maidens were drowned in sacred wells and other victims either had
their hearts cut out, were shot with arrows, or were beheaded.
Elsewhere, sacrifice was sporadic. In Peru, pre-Inca tribes killed
children in temples called "houses of the moon." In Tibet, Bon shamans
performed ritual killings. In Borneo builders of pile houses drove the
first pile through the body of a maiden to pacify the earth goddess.
In India, Dravidian people offered lives to village goddesses, and
followers of Kali sacrificed a male child every Friday evening.

-- In the Third Crusade, after Richard the Lion-Hearted captured Acre
in 1191, he ordered 3,000 captives -- many of them women and children
-- taken outside the city and slaughtered. Some were disemboweled in a
search for swallowed gems. Bishops intoned blessings. Infidel lives
were of no consequence. As Saint Bernard of Clairvaux declared in
launching the Second Crusade: "The Christian glories in the death of a
pagan, because thereby Christ himself is glorified."

-- The Assassins were a sect of Ismaili Shi'ite Muslims whose faith
required the stealthy murder of religious opponents. From the 11th to
13th centuries, they killed numerous leaders in modern-day Iran, Iraq
and Syria. They finally were wiped out by conquering Mongols -- but
their vile name survives.

-- Throughout Europe, beginning in the 1100s, tales spread that Jews
were abducting Christian children, sacrificing them, and using their
blood in rituals. Hundreds of massacres stemmed from this "blood
libel." Some of the supposed sacrifice victims -- Little Saint Hugh of
Lincoln, the holy child of LaGuardia, Simon of Trent -- were beatified
or commemorated with shrines that became sites of pilgrimages and
miracles.

-- In 1209, Pope Innocent III launched an armed crusade against
Albigenses Christians in southern France. When the besieged city of
Beziers fell, soldiers reportedly asked their papal adviser how to
distinguish the faithful from the infidel among the captives. He
commanded: "Kill them all. God will know his own." Nearly 20,000 were
slaughtered -- many first blinded, mutilated, dragged behind horses,
or used for target practice.

-- The Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 proclaimed the doctrine of
transubstantiation: that the host wafer miraculously turns into the
body of Jesus during the mass. Soon rumors spread that Jews were
stealing the sacred wafers and stabbing or driving nails through them
to crucify Jesus again. Reports said that the pierced host bled, cried
out, or emitted spirits. On this charge, Jews were burned at the stake
in 1243 in Belitz, Germany -- the first of many killings that
continued into the 1800s. To avenge the tortured host, the German
knight Rindfliesch led a brigade in 1298 that exterminated 146
defenseless Jewish communities in six months.

-- In the 1200s the Incas built their empire in Peru, a society
dominated by priests reading daily magical signs and offering
sacrifices to appease many gods. At major ceremonies up to 200
children were burned as offerings. Special "chosen women" -- comely
virgins without blemish -- were strangled.

-- Also during the 1200s, the hunt for Albigensian heretics led to
establishment of the Inquisition, which spread over Europe. Pope
Innocent IV authorized torture. Under interrogation by Dominican
priests, screaming victims were stretched, burned, pierced and broken
on fiendish pain machines to make them confess to disbelief and to
identify fellow transgressors. Inquisitor Robert le Bourge sent 183
people to the stake in a single week.

-- In Spain, where many Jews and Moors had converted to escape
persecution, inquisitors sought those harboring their old faith. At
least 2,000 Spanish backsliders were burned. Executions in other
countries included the burning of scientists such as
mathematician-philosopher Giordano Bruno, who espoused Copernicus's
theory that the planets orbit the sun.

-- When the Black Death swept Europe in 1348-1349, rumors alleged that
it was caused by Jews poisoning wells. Hysterical mobs slaughtered
thousands of Jews in several countries. In Speyer, Germany, the burned
bodies were piled into giant wine casks and sent floating down the
Rhine. In northern Germany Jews were walled up alive in their homes to
suffocate or starve. The Flagellants, an army of penitents who whipped
themselves bloody, stormed the Jewish quarter of Frankfurt in a
gruesome massacre. The prince of Thuringia announced that he had
burned his Jews for the honor of God.

-- The Aztecs began their elaborate theocracy in the 1300s and brought
human sacrifice to a golden era. About 20,000 people were killed
yearly to appease gods -- especially the sun god, who needed daily
"nourishment" of blood. Hearts of sacrifice victims were cut out, and
some bodies were eaten ceremoniously. Other victims were drowned,
beheaded, burned or dropped from heights. In a rite to the rain god,
shrieking children were killed at several sites so that their tears
might induce rain. In a rite to the maize goddess, a virgin danced for
24 hours, then was killed and skinned; her skin was worn by a priest
in further dancing. One account says that at King Ahuitzotl's
coronation, 80,000 prisoners were butchered to please the gods.

-- In the 1400s, the Inquisition shifted its focus to witchcraft.
Priests tortured untold thousands of women into confessing that they
were witches who flew through the sky and engaged in sex with the
devil -- then they were burned or hanged for their confessions. Witch
hysteria raged for three centuries in a dozen nations. Estimates of
the number executed vary from 100,000 to 2 million. Whole villages
were exterminated. In the first half of the 17th century, about 5,000
"witches" were put to death in the French province of Alsace, and 900
were burned in the Bavarian city of Bamberg. The witch craze was
religious madness at its worst.

-- The "Protestant Inquisition" is a term applied to the severities of
John Calvin in Geneva and Queen Elizabeth I in England during the
1500s. Calvin's followers burned 58 "heretics," including theologian
Michael Servetus, who doubted the Trinity. Elizabeth I outlawed
Catholicism and executed about 200 Catholics.

-- Protestant Huguenots grew into an aggressive minority in France in
the 15OOs -- until repeated Catholic reprisals smashed them. On Saint
Bartholomew's Day in 1572, Catherine de Medicis secretly authorized
Catholic dukes to send their soldiers into Huguenot neighborhoods and
slaughter families. This massacre touched off a six-week bloodbath in
which Catholics murdered about 10,000 Huguenots. Other persecutions
continued for two centuries, until the French Revolution. One group of
Huguenots escaped to Florida; in 1565 a Spanish brigade discovered
their colony, denounced their heresy, and killed them all.

-- Members of lndia's Thuggee sect strangled people as sacrifices to
appease the bloodthirsty goddess Kali, a practice beginning in the
1500s. The number of victims has been estimated to be as high as 2
million. Thugs were claiming about 20,000 lives a year in the 1800s
until British rulers stamped them out. At a trial in 1840, one Thug
was accused of killing 931 people. Today, some Hindu priests still
sacrifice goats to Kali.

-- The Anabaptists, communal "rebaptizers," were slaughtered by both
Catholic and Protestant authorities. In Munster, Germany, Anabaptists
took control of the city, drove out the clergymen, and proclaimed a
New Zion. The bishop of Munster began an armed siege. While the
townspeople starved, the Anabaptist leader proclaimed himself king and
executed dissenters. When Munster finally fell, the chief Anabaptists
were tortured to death with red-hot pincers and their bodies hung in
iron cages from a church steeple.

-- Oliver Cromwell was deemed a moderate because he massacred only
Catholics and Anglicans, not other Protestants. This Puritan general
commanded Bible-carrying soldiers, whom he roused to religious fervor.
After decimating an Anglican army, Cromwell said, "God made them as
stubble to our swords." He demanded the beheading of the defeated King
Charles I, and made himself the holy dictator of England during the
1650s. When his army crushed the hated Irish Catholics, he ordered the
execution of the surrendered defenders of Drogheda and their priests,
calling it "a righteous judgment of God upon these barbarous
wretches."

-- Ukrainian Bogdan Chmielnicki was a Cossack Cromwell. He wore the
banner of Eastern Orthodoxy in a holy war against Jews and Polish
Catholics. More than 100,000 were killed in this 17th-century
bloodbath, and the Ukraine was split away from Poland to become part
of the Orthodox Russian empire.

-- The Thirty Years' War produced the largest religious death toll of
all time. It began in 1618 when Protestant leaders threw two Catholic
emissaries out of a Prague window into a dung heap. War flared between
Catholic and Protestant princedoms, drawing in supportive religious
armies from Germany, Spain, England, Holland, Denmark, Sweden, France
and Italy. Sweden's Protestant soldiers sang Martin Luther's "Ein
'Feste Burg" in battle. Three decades of combat turned central Europe
into a wasteland of misery. One estimate states that Germany's
population dropped from 18 million to 4 million. In the end nothing
was settled, and too few people remained to rebuild cities, plant
fields, or conduct education.

-- When Puritans settled in Massachusetts in the 1600s, they created a
religious police state where doctrinal deviation could lead to
flogging, pillorying, hanging, cutting off ears, or boring through the
tongue with a hot iron. Preaching Quaker beliefs was a capital
offense. Four stubborn Quakers defied this law and were hanged. In the
1690s fear of witches seized the colony. Twenty alleged witches were
killed and 150 others imprisoned.

-- In 1723 the bishop of Gdansk, Poland, demanded that all Jews be
expelled from the city. The town council declined, but the bishop's
exhortations roused a mob that invaded the ghetto and beat the
residents to death.

-- Islamic jihads (holy wars), mandated by the Koran, killed millions
over 12 centuries. In early years, Muslim armies spread the faith
rapidly: east to India and west to Morocco. Then splintering sects
branded other Muslims as infidels and declared jihads against them.
The Kharijis battled Sunni rulers. The Azariqis decreed death to all
"sinners" and their families. In 1804 a Sudanese holy man, Usman dan
Fodio, waged a bloody jihad that broke the religious sway of the
Sultan of Gobir. In the 1850s another Sudanese mystic, 'Umar al-Hajj,
led a barbaric jihad to convert pagan African tribes -- with
massacres, beheadings and a mass execution of 300 hostages. In the
1880s a third Sudanese holy man, Muhammad Ahmed, commanded a jihad
that destroyed a 10,000-man Egyptian army and wiped out defenders of
Khartoum led by British general Charles "Chinese" Gordon.

-- In 1801 Orthodox priests in Bucharest, Romania, revived the story
that Jews sacrificed Christians and drank their blood. Enraged
parishioners stormed the ghetto and cut the throats of 128 Jews

-- When the Baha'i faith began in Persia in 1844, the Islamic regime
sought to exterminate it. The Baha'i founder was imprisoned and
executed in 1850. Two years later, the religious government massacred
20,000 Baha'is. Streets of Tehran were soaked with blood. The new
Baha'i leader, Baha'ullah, was tortured and exiled in foreign Muslim
prisons for the rest of his life.

-- Human sacrifices were still occurring in Buddhist Burma in the
1850s. When the capital was moved to Mandalay, 56 "spotless" men were
buried beneath the new city walls to sanctify and protect the city.
When two of the burial spots were later found empty, royal astrologers
decreed that 500 men, women, boys, and girls must be killed and buried
at once, or the capital must be abandoned. About 100 were actually
buried before British governors stopped the ceremonies.

-- In 1857 both Muslim and Hindu taboos triggered the Sepoy Mutiny in
India. British rulers had given their native soldiers new paper
cartridges that had to be bitten open. The cartridges were greased
with animal tallow. This enraged Muslims, to whom pigs are unclean,
and Hindus, to whom cows are sacred. Troops of both faiths went into a
crazed mutiny, killing Europeans wantonly. At Kanpur, hundreds of
European women and children were massacred after being promised safe
passage.

-- Late in the 19th century, with rebellion stirring in Russia, the
czars attempted to divert public attention by helping anti-Semitic
groups rouse Orthodox Christian hatred for Jews. Three waves of
pogroms ensued -- in the 1880s, from 1903 to 1906, and during the
Russian Revolution. Each wave was increasingly murderous. During the
final period, 530 communities were attacked and 60,000 Jews were
killed.

-- In the early 1900s, Muslim Turks waged genocide against Christian
Armenians, and Christian Greeks and Balkans warred against the Islamic
Ottoman Empire.

-- When India finally won independence from Britain in 1947, the
"great soul" of Mahatma Gandhi wasn't able to prevent Hindus and
Muslims from turning on one another in a killing frenzy that took
perhaps 1 million lives. Even Gandhi was killed by a Hindu who thought
him too pro-Muslim.

-- In the 1950s and 1960s, combat between Christians, animists and
Muslims in Sudan killed more than 500,000.

-- In Jonestown, Guyana, in 1978, followers of the Rev. Jim Jones
killed a visiting congressman and three newsmen, then administered
cyanide to themselves and their children in a 900-person suicide that
shocked the world.

-- Islamic religious law decrees that thieves shall have their hands
or feet chopped off, and unmarried lovers shall be killed. In the
Sudan in 1983 and 1984, 66 thieves were axed in public. A moderate
Muslim leader, Mahmoud Mohammed Taha, was hanged for heresy in 1985
because he opposed these amputations. In Saudi Arabia a teen-age
princess and her lover were executed in public in 1977. In Pakistan in
1987, a 25-year-old carpenter's daughter was sentenced to be stoned to
death for engaging in unmarried sex. In the United Arab Emirates in
1984, a cook and a maid were sentenced to stoning for adultery -- but,
as a show of mercy, the execution was postponed until after the maid's
baby was born.

-- In 1983 in Darkley, Northern Ireland, Catholic terrorists with
automatic weapons burst into a Protestant church on a Sunday morning
and opened fire, killing three worshipers and wounding seven. It was
just one of hundreds of Catholic-Protestant ambushes that have taken
2,600 lives in Ulster since age-old religious hostility turned violent
again in 1969.

-- Hindu-Muslim bloodshed erupts randomly throughout India. More than
3,000 were killed in Assam province in 1983. In May 1984 Muslims hung
dirty sandals on a Hindu leader's portrait as a religious insult. This
act triggered a week of arson riots that left 216 dead, 756 wounded,
13,000 homeless, and 4,100 in jail.

-- Religious tribalism -- segregation of sects into hostile camps --
has ravaged Lebanon continuously since 1975. News reports of the civil
war tell of "Maronite Christian snipers," "Sunni Muslim suicide
bombers," "Druze machine gunners," "Shi'ite Muslim mortar fire," and
"Alawite Muslim shootings." Today 130,000 people are dead and a
once-lovely nation is laid waste.

-- In Nigeria in 1982, religious fanatic followers of Mallam Marwa
killed and mutilated several hundred people as heretics and infidels.
They drank the blood of some of the victims. When the militia arrived
to quell the violence, the cultists sprinkled themselves with blessed
powder that they thought would make them impervious to police bullets.
It didn't.

-- Today's Shi'ite theocracy in Iran -- "the government of God on
earth" -- decreed that Baha'i believers who won't convert shall be
killed. About 200 stubborn Baha'is were executed in the early 1980s,
including women and teenagers. Up to 40,000 Baha'is fled the country.
Sex taboos in Iran are so severe that: (1) any woman who shows a lock
of hair is jailed; (2) Western magazines being shipped into the
country first go to censors who laboriously black out all women's
photos except for faces; (3) women aren't allowed to ski with men, but
have a separate slope where they may ski in shrouds.

-- The lovely island nation of Sri Lanka has been turned hellish by
ambushes and massacres between Buddhist Sinhalese and Hindu Tamils.

-- In 1983 a revered Muslim leader, Mufti Sheikh Sa'ad e-Din el'Alami
of Jerusalem, issued a fatwa (an order of divine deliverance)
promising an eternal place in paradise to any Muslim assassin who
would kill President Hafiz al-Assad of Syria.

-- Sikhs want to create a separate theocracy, Khalistan (Land of the
Pure), in the Punjab region of India. Many heed the late extremist
preacher Jarnail Bhindranwale, who taught his followers that they have
a "religious duty to send opponents to hell." Throughout the 1980s
they sporadically murdered Hindus to accomplish this goal. In 1984,
after Sikh guards riddled prime minister Indira Gandhi with 50
bullets, Hindus went on a rampage that killed 5,000 Sikhs in three
days. Mobs dragged Sikhs from homes, stores, buses and trains,
chopping and pounding them to death. Some were burned alive; boys were
castrated.

-- In 1984 Shi'ite fanatics who killed and tortured Americans on a
hijacked Kuwaiti airliner at Tehran Airport said they did it "for the
pleasure of God."

Obviously, people who think religion is a force for good are looking
only at Dr. Jekyll and ignoring Mr. Hyde. They don't see the
superstitious savagery pervading both history and current events.
During the past three centuries, religion gradually lost its power
over life in Europe and America, and church horrors ended in the West.
But the poison lingered. The Nazi Holocaust was rooted in centuries of
religious hate. Historian Dagobert Runes said the long era of church
persecution killed three and a half million Jews -- and Hitler's Final
Solution was a secular continuation. Meanwhile, faith remains potent
in the Third World, where it still produces familiar results.
It's fashionable among thinking people to say that religion isn't the
real cause of today's strife in Lebanon, Sri Lanka, Northern Ireland,
India and Iran -- that sects merely provide labels for combatants. Not
so. Religion keeps the groups in hostile camps. Without it, divisions
would blur with passing generations; children would adapt to new
times, mingle, intermarry, forget ancient wounds. But religion keeps
them alien to one another.
Anything that divides people breeds inhumanity. Religion serves that
ugly purpose.
"Holy Horrors" is copyright © 1990 by James A. Haught. All rights
reserved.
The electronic version is copyright © 1997 by Internet Infidels with
the written permission of James A. Haught. All rights reserved.

End of quote-----------

I challenge you to come up with a list of more atrocities by any other
single group, and I'll give you the Nazis and the Communists
(although the Nazis were mostly christians.)



>
>Although you might get lucky because a quick check on the net shows that
>only 2.5% of the world's population are athiests in the year 2000. The
>rest believe is some higher power.


So what?




>
>http://www.religioustolerance.org/worldrel.htm

[[email protected]]

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 02:41:47 GMT, "mike regish" >
wrote:

>
>"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
>> mike regish wrote:
>>
>>> Morality is doing the right thing just because you know it's the right
>>> thing to do, not because you think some magical being is going to strike
>>> you down from above or send you to some imaginary hell.
>>
>> Who determines what the "right things" are?
>
>In my case, I do. Duh.
>>
>>
>>> That's morality and it doesn't involve religion. It only involves
>>> evolution, something we evidently have a long way to go on. Some more
>>> than others.
>>
>> Now that is funny. Morality results from evolution. Best one I've heard
>> in a long time.
>
>Learning right from wrong comes from evolution. Or better said, learning
>better ways of doing things...like talking rather than fighting.
>
>mike regish
>
Talk about amusing...

It used to be our government thought of war as a last resort.

No more...

[[email protected]]

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 01:40:54 -0500, Roger
> wrote:

>On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 02:42:14 GMT, "mike regish" >
>wrote:
>
>>Yep.
>>
>>mike
>>
>
>Because they know they are the only ones in the right and must either
>convert of destroy the opposition.
>
>Roger

Correct. It's their validation.


>
> wrote in message
...
>>> So very true.
>>>
>>> The world is overrunning with immoral religious types.
>>>
>>>
>>

[Matt Barrow]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Matt Barrow" wrote:
> >> > Now that is funny. Morality results from evolution. Best one
> I've
> >> > heard in a long time.
> >>
> >> What's funny about it?
> >
> > It's inverted...that's what's funny about it.
>
> Sorry, I don't know what you mean by that; please explain.

Think: cause vs. effect.
--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

[Matt Barrow]

"mike regish" > wrote in message
news:Llcod.373844$wV.236352@attbi_s54...
>
>
> Learning right from wrong comes from evolution.

Evolution comes from learning right from wrong.

> Or better said, learning
> better ways of doing things...like talking rather than fighting.

That's called "progress" and "building on foundations of knowledge".

--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

[Matt Barrow]

> > wrote in message
> ...
> > So very true.
> >
> > The world is overrunning with immoral religious types.

Sort of, but the proper term is "ethics" (pertaining to others), not
"morality" (pertaining to self).


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

[[email protected]]

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 06:03:09 -0700, "Matt Barrow" >
wrote:

>> > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > So very true.
>> >
>> > The world is overrunning with immoral religious types.
>
>Sort of, but the proper term is "ethics" (pertaining to others), not
>"morality" (pertaining to self).


You may consider blowing another person up in the name of
(jesus,allah,yahweh,god,...insert your own supreme being of preference
here) unethical, I consider it immoral.

[Jay Honeck]

> ONE OF THE PIECES WHICH ACCOUNTS FOR WHY ALL PEOPLE WITH THE SPIRIT OF
> PHILOSOPHY FIND THE RELIGIONS OF THE MASSES OFFENSIVE.

(Big Snip)

Wow.

I've seen few Usenet posts worthy of getting saved on my hard drive.

This is one of them.

Thanks for sharing that.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Dan Luke]

"Matt Barrow" wrote:
> > Learning right from wrong comes from evolution.
>
> Evolution comes from learning right from wrong.

Both are correct. Populations of organisms "learn" the right way to survive
in their environments or they perish. The ability to do this is coded into
their genes. The coding changes over time due to a combination of mutation
and natural selection, i.e., by evolution.

Humans have evolved complex behaviors that allow successful, large-scale
tribal organization. Simpler analogues of these behaviors are seen among
animals, particulary the other apes. In groups of chimps, means to settle
disputes without violence exist but are not always followed, and murder has
been observed, just as in human society.

> > Or better said, learning
> > better ways of doing things...like talking rather than fighting.
>
> That's called "progress" and "building on foundations of knowledge".

It's just using what evolution gave us. "Progress" in terms of human
behavior is ephemeral, and quickly reverts to savagery given the proper
circumstances. It will require some more biological evolution to change
human nature; Homo Sapiens will have to give way to Homo Something Else.
--
Dan
C-172RG at BFM

[Bill Denton]

What you said was: "Depends on what kind of evolution you are talking about.
Biological evolution, then that's a good laugh. Societal evolution, maybe.
But what drives societal evolution? How about the beliefs of those with
influence. If those people are religious or had grown up with religious
influences, then maybe that also deserves a chuckle because then the
non-religious are ignorant to the fact they are living under religious law."

I focused on this portion, which I made sure I was not taking out of
context: "But what drives societal evolution? How about the beliefs of
those with influence."

My point was, the early Christians, who had almost no influence, drove a
great deal of societal change. And it was this societal change that later
drove an increase in influence of Christians.

"Funny" wasn't involved in my end of the discussion...





"Brooks Hagenow" > wrote in message
om...
> Bill Denton wrote:
>
> > Yea, those early Christians were influential as hell, weren't they?
> >
>
> I did not say the Christians were funny.

[Bill Denton]

RE: You sig, attributed to "Epicurus"...

When my son was young and learning how to ride a two-wheel bicycle

I was ABLE to keep him from falling over on his bicycle

I was WILLING to keep him from falling over on his bicycle

Many times I kept him from falling over on his bicycle

But sometimes, I let him fall over, so he could learn




" jls" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "Brooks Hagenow" > wrote in message
> om...
> > wrote:
> > > On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 15:01:41 -0800, "Peter Duniho"
> > > > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >>"mike regish" > wrote in message
> > >>news:r29od.79682$5K2.21834@attbi_s03...
> > >>
> > >>>Morality is doing the right thing just because you know it's the
right
> > >>>thing > to do, not because you think some magical being is going to
> strike
> > >>>you down from above or send you to some imaginary hell.
> > >>
> > >>For what it's worth, not all religious convictions are based on fear
of
> > >>retribution from God either.
> > >
> > >
> > > No, some are based on the reward of 70 virgins and such.
> > >
> > >>It's fine to say that you have moral conviction without religion, but
> don't
> > >>be confused about what religion is or is not. You'll need a better
> argument
> > >>if you want your distinction to "stick".
> > >>
> > >>Pete
> > >
> > >
> > > What distinction? Moral vs religious?
> > >
> > > There is little, if any, connection o the two. More immoral acts have
> > > been committed by the religious than probably any other identifiable
> > > group.
> > >
> >
> > That sounds like something you made up. Care to name a source?
> >
> > Although you might get lucky because a quick check on the net shows that
> > only 2.5% of the world's population are athiests in the year 2000. The
> > rest believe is some higher power.
> >
> > http://www.religioustolerance.org/worldrel.htm
>
> Well, isn't this the most cosmopolitan newsgroup. I was (pleasantly)
> surprised to find so many freethinkers here, but not surprised at this
> poster. My friend, priests practice intolerance and commit murders, not
> philosophers. Be a philosopher, not a priest. Most philosophers are
> freethinkers, anyway.
>
> Don't believe everything you read on the net about "athiests," my friend,
> whatever THEY are. Some of us are atheists, some agnostic, some just
> freethinkers.
> *****************
> Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
> Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
> Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
> Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
> ---Epicurus
>
>

[Dan Luke]

"Matt Barrow" wrote:
> > >> > Now that is funny. Morality results from evolution. Best one
> > I've
> > >> > heard in a long time.
> > >>
> > >> What's funny about it?
> > >
> > > It's inverted...that's what's funny about it.
> >
> > Sorry, I don't know what you mean by that; please explain.
>
> Think: cause vs. effect.

That's not much of an explanation.

A couple of posters have written that the idea of morality arising from
evolution is funny, but no one's been able to give a reason why that should
be so.

Still curious,

Dan
C-172RG at BFM

[Brooks Hagenow]

jls wrote:

> "Brooks Hagenow" > wrote in message
> om...
>
wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 15:01:41 -0800, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>"mike regish" > wrote in message
>>>>news:r29od.79682$5K2.21834@attbi_s03...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Morality is doing the right thing just because you know it's the right
>>>>>thing > to do, not because you think some magical being is going to
>
> strike
>
>>>>>you down from above or send you to some imaginary hell.
>>>>
>>>>For what it's worth, not all religious convictions are based on fear of
>>>>retribution from God either.
>>>
>>>
>>>No, some are based on the reward of 70 virgins and such.
>>>
>>>
>>>>It's fine to say that you have moral conviction without religion, but
>
> don't
>
>>>>be confused about what religion is or is not. You'll need a better
>
> argument
>
>>>>if you want your distinction to "stick".
>>>>
>>>>Pete
>>>
>>>
>>>What distinction? Moral vs religious?
>>>
>>>There is little, if any, connection o the two. More immoral acts have
>>>been committed by the religious than probably any other identifiable
>>>group.
>>>
>>
>>That sounds like something you made up. Care to name a source?
>>
>>Although you might get lucky because a quick check on the net shows that
>>only 2.5% of the world's population are athiests in the year 2000. The
>>rest believe is some higher power.
>>
>>http://www.religioustolerance.org/worldrel.htm
>
>
> Well, isn't this the most cosmopolitan newsgroup. I was (pleasantly)
> surprised to find so many freethinkers here, but not surprised at this
> poster. My friend, priests practice intolerance and commit murders, not
> philosophers. Be a philosopher, not a priest. Most philosophers are
> freethinkers, anyway.
>
> Don't believe everything you read on the net about "athiests," my friend,
> whatever THEY are. Some of us are atheists, some agnostic, some just
> freethinkers.
> *****************
> Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
> Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
> Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
> Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
> ---Epicurus
>
>

I am hardly a priest. I would like to make a correction though.
Revisiting that site I found showing only 2.5% of the world's population
were athiests I realized I don't actually know what an athiest is.
Athiest is a religion. Reading further into the stats on that site they
say 15% of the world's population have no religion and that number is
falling, which I find surprising.

You said you were not surprised by my post. May I ask you to clarify
that? Was it based on previous posts I have made or did you think it
was more in line with what you thought people in this group would post?
Good or bad I am womdering now how my posts come across to people.

I am told I can seem very cold at first. One interesting event was when
I was at a bar with a friend of many years and a couple of his other
friends I had never met before. Out of the blue one of the "new guys"
says to me, "You don't like me, do you?" I was a little shocked by that
and only said, "excuse me?" before my friend jumped in saying, "if he
didn't like you, you would know..." and continued to explain my
personnality. It was interesting to say the least. But I have had no
further misunderstandings with them since. I am just glad I have a
friend that can explain myself to others.


By the way, regarding your sig, Scott Adams has an interesting take on
God in his books. Not his Dilbert books but the ones you find the
business and philosophy sections of book stores. "God's Debris" is a
pretty good one found under philosophy. He goes into exactly what your
sig is about.

[[email protected]]

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 17:21:10 GMT, Brooks Hagenow
> wrote:


>>
>>
>
>I am hardly a priest. I would like to make a correction though.
>Revisiting that site I found showing only 2.5% of the world's population
>were athiests I realized I don't actually know what an athiest is.
>Athiest is a religion. Reading further into the stats on that site they
>say 15% of the world's population have no religion and that number is
>falling, which I find surprising.
>


I don't know what your point is, but I do know that the percentage of
atheists in the U. S. is said generally to be about 10%, or 4 times
the world percentage, assuming both numbers to be correct (an
assertion of which I am uncertain)

I'm curious to know what conclusions one can draw with either of these
facts (assuming they are both correct).

I also am curious about your assertion that "atheism is a religion".

As far as I know, there are no atheistic altars, no stone buildings,no
holy books, no wailing walls, no ceremonies, no prayers, no hymns,
indeed, none of the things that are generally associated with
religion..

Personally, I think it is an attempt by the religious to label
atheists and secular humanists s "religious" in order to validate
themselves, ( as they continually strive to do), even as they contend
that atheism is anathema to them.

A curious contradiction, to say the least.

[Gig Giacona]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Not I. Do you still have "the smoking dream?" The one where you're
> smoking again and realize you've re-addicted yourself? Aaaagghhh!
>

I stopped smoking almost 5 years ago after 24 years of smoking 1.5 - 2
packs/day. My smoking dream is always the same. I stop and get gas and go
into pay and get a pack of smokes. I get in the car and light up and smoke
pretty much the entire cigarette before I realize that I have quit and
shouldn't be smoking.

Now the strange part. I the dream I'm driving the car that I own at the time
of the dream. I've changed cars twice since I quit. I have the dream about
every 2 weeks or so.

[Corky Scott]

On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 02:06:25 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote:

>Quitting smoking was the hardest thing I've ever done.

There is an old line attributed to Mark Twain that went: "Quitting
smoking is the easiest thing in the world to do - pause for effect -
I've done it a thousand times."

Corky Scott

[Howard Nelson]

<> >Athiest is a religion. Reading further into the stats on that site they
> >say 15% of the world's population have no religion and that number is
> >falling, which I find surprising.

Probably so. Religion and revolution always rise when existence becomes too
harsh to rationally accept.

> I also am curious about your assertion that "atheism is a religion".
>
> As far as I know, there are no atheistic altars, no stone buildings,no
> holy books, no wailing walls, no ceremonies, no prayers, no hymns,
> indeed, none of the things that are generally associated with
> religion..

If one were to define religion as a "belief a theory which cannot be proven
by scientific inquiry (i.e.. a faith) then atheism would qualify as a
religion since you can no more prove the absence of GOD then one can prove
the existence of GOD.

Now agnosticism is not a religion especially if the agnostic doesn't know
and doesn't care.

Couple of quotes to top off this IFR discussion:

"Are you familiar with the theory that mankind has invented myths of all
kinds - romantic, religious, transcendental, and mystical - to deny the
bleak, unmitigated horror of biological life: that human beings no less than
other living creatures are simply part of an immense food chain."

"We hope that technological innovation will do what Western political and
social thought can no longer do -- rescue the Western world from its
spiritual and moral paralysis to prove its superiority in material terms.
Through technology the Western world is free to reinvent itself,
unfortunately we cannot reinvent the people."

"Not every god has to exist in order to do his job."

Cheers
Howard


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.796 / Virus Database: 540 - Release Date: 11/13/2004

[[email protected]]

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 18:32:55 GMT, "Howard Nelson"
> wrote:

>
><> >Athiest is a religion. Reading further into the stats on that site they
>> >say 15% of the world's population have no religion and that number is
>> >falling, which I find surprising.
>
>Probably so. Religion and revolution always rise when existence becomes too
>harsh to rationally accept.
>
>> I also am curious about your assertion that "atheism is a religion".
>>
>> As far as I know, there are no atheistic altars, no stone buildings,no
>> holy books, no wailing walls, no ceremonies, no prayers, no hymns,
>> indeed, none of the things that are generally associated with
>> religion..
>
>If one were to define religion as a "belief a theory which cannot be proven
>by scientific inquiry (i.e.. a faith) then atheism would qualify as a
>religion since you can no more prove the absence of GOD then one can prove
>the existence of GOD.


My definition of a real, authentic religion is that it requires at
least a few people who are willing to kill others who don't believe as
they do. Christianity, Islam, Hindu, Sikh, even Buddhism, (I
believe), all qualify.

Other than that, it's just a belief system.

As far as I know, no atheist has ever killed anybody simply because he
didn't believe what the atheist believed. Stalin probably came close,
but I think his persecution of Jews and christians was political
rather than religious.

But I suppose that's arguable as well.

At any rate, religion is indeed the opiate of the masses, used by
leaders all throughtout history to sedate their followers. Never been
truer than today.


>
>Now agnosticism is not a religion especially if the agnostic doesn't know
>and doesn't care.
>
>Couple of quotes to top off this IFR discussion:
>
>"Are you familiar with the theory that mankind has invented myths of all
>kinds - romantic, religious, transcendental, and mystical - to deny the
>bleak, unmitigated horror of biological life: that human beings no less than
>other living creatures are simply part of an immense food chain."
>
>"We hope that technological innovation will do what Western political and
>social thought can no longer do -- rescue the Western world from its
>spiritual and moral paralysis to prove its superiority in material terms.
>Through technology the Western world is free to reinvent itself,
>unfortunately we cannot reinvent the people."
>
>"Not every god has to exist in order to do his job."
>
>Cheers
>Howard
>
>
>---
>Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>Version: 6.0.796 / Virus Database: 540 - Release Date: 11/13/2004
>

[Roger]

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 10:04:12 -0600, "Dan Luke" > wrote:

>
>"Matt Barrow" wrote:
>> > >> > Now that is funny. Morality results from evolution. Best one
>> > I've
>> > >> > heard in a long time.
>> > >>
>> > >> What's funny about it?
>> > >
>> > > It's inverted...that's what's funny about it.
>> >
>> > Sorry, I don't know what you mean by that; please explain.
>>
>> Think: cause vs. effect.
>
>That's not much of an explanation.
>
>A couple of posters have written that the idea of morality arising from
>evolution is funny, but no one's been able to give a reason why that should
>be so.
>
You can find the following in virtually any good introductory
sociology book.

As a specis evolves it aquires instinctual survival traits.
Like tends to join together and those different are either shunned or
destroyed. It's a standard across the entire animal kingdom of which
humans are a part.

As the specis develops (evolves) socially the same survival traits
apply. Whether consciously or not, we develop social survival rules
that follow the same structure as the specis survival traits. Like
tends to join together and shun or destroy what is different.

As a specis becomes widely spread across the world they slowly
diversify in both physical and social traits.
As we evolved we had another trait, which is also a survival trait.
We keep asking, "why". We have a driving need to know why things
happen. What causes them?
Society also developed survival rules to further aid the survival of
the species. These rules in general, were to reduce conflict and
promote the well being of the individual and the specis as a whole.
A well ordered society stands a much better chance of survival than
one where there are no rules.

Morals, or more correctly the mores of society developed along these
lines. It should come as no surprise that morals vary from society to
society and each believes its own mores are absolutes. This holds
true for religions as well. Although religions teach morality, the
morailty developed as a survival trait.

When there is not enough knowledge to supply an answer we invent one.
Superstitions developed around happenings, we invented gods who
controlled the weather, the harvest, war, love, hate, life, and death.
As the harvest, seasons, weather, war, love, hate...etc are common
where ever we exist each group developed their own names for the gods
controlling these events. The superstitions developed into the
primitive religions. With each group having gods of different names
for the same things they inevitably argued and fought over which was
right although they were basically arguing over names.

As society developed the religions became powerful and controlling. As
science developed it came up with ansers to questions that differed
from the religions. Religion had the power, science was the new kid
on the block. Science was relagated to herresy with its
practitioners being persecuted unless they went along with the
teachings of the church.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>Still curious,
>
>Dan
>C-172RG at BFM
>

[Matt Whiting]

wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 15:01:41 -0800, "Peter Duniho"
> > wrote:
>
>
>>"mike regish" > wrote in message
>>news:r29od.79682$5K2.21834@attbi_s03...
>>
>>>Morality is doing the right thing just because you know it's the right
>>>thing > to do, not because you think some magical being is going to strike
>>>you down from above or send you to some imaginary hell.
>>
>>For what it's worth, not all religious convictions are based on fear of
>>retribution from God either.
>
>
> No, some are based on the reward of 70 virgins and such.
>
>>It's fine to say that you have moral conviction without religion, but don't
>>be confused about what religion is or is not. You'll need a better argument
>>if you want your distinction to "stick".
>>
>>Pete
>
>
> What distinction? Moral vs religious?
>
> There is little, if any, connection o the two. More immoral acts have
> been committed by the religious than probably any other identifiable
> group.
>
>

Except for cowardly anonymous internet ng posters...

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Dan Luke wrote:

> "Matt Whiting" wrote:
>
>>>That's morality and it doesn't involve religion. It only involves
>>>evolution, something we evidently have a long way to go on. Some more
>>>than others.
>>
>>Now that is funny. Morality results from evolution. Best one I've
>>heard in a long time.
>
>
> What's funny about it?

I just find really stupid statements humorous.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

mike regish wrote:

> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>mike regish wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Morality is doing the right thing just because you know it's the right
>>>thing to do, not because you think some magical being is going to strike
>>>you down from above or send you to some imaginary hell.
>>
>>Who determines what the "right things" are?
>
>
> In my case, I do. Duh.

Better check the definition again.


>>>That's morality and it doesn't involve religion. It only involves
>>>evolution, something we evidently have a long way to go on. Some more
>>>than others.
>>
>>Now that is funny. Morality results from evolution. Best one I've heard
>>in a long time.
>
>
> Learning right from wrong comes from evolution. Or better said, learning
> better ways of doing things...like talking rather than fighting.

If that was the case, then every human would be born with an innate
sense of right and wrong and every generation would have an even more
refined sense of morality at birth. Sorry, doesn't work that way.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

wrote:

> On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 17:21:10 GMT, Brooks Hagenow
> > wrote:
>
>
>
>>>
>>I am hardly a priest. I would like to make a correction though.
>>Revisiting that site I found showing only 2.5% of the world's population
>>were athiests I realized I don't actually know what an athiest is.
>>Athiest is a religion. Reading further into the stats on that site they
>>say 15% of the world's population have no religion and that number is
>>falling, which I find surprising.
>>
>
>
>
> I don't know what your point is, but I do know that the percentage of
> atheists in the U. S. is said generally to be about 10%, or 4 times
> the world percentage, assuming both numbers to be correct (an
> assertion of which I am uncertain)
>
> I'm curious to know what conclusions one can draw with either of these
> facts (assuming they are both correct).
>
> I also am curious about your assertion that "atheism is a religion".

Definition #4 in the following:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=religion


> As far as I know, there are no atheistic altars, no stone buildings,no
> holy books, no wailing walls, no ceremonies, no prayers, no hymns,
> indeed, none of the things that are generally associated with
> religion..

Most of these aren't mentioned in any definition of religion with which
I'm familiar. Religion is a system of beliefs, not artifacts. Atheism,
even modern philosophy, are all religious in nature despite the claims
of the believers in these belief systems.


> Personally, I think it is an attempt by the religious to label
> atheists and secular humanists s "religious" in order to validate
> themselves, ( as they continually strive to do), even as they contend
> that atheism is anathema to them.
>
> A curious contradiction, to say the least.

I find it equally curious that atheists, philosophers and others try so
hard to avoid the term religion. Why are they so ashamed of their beliefs?


Matt

[Matt Whiting]

wrote:

> On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 18:32:55 GMT, "Howard Nelson"
> > wrote:
>
>
>><> >Athiest is a religion. Reading further into the stats on that site they
>>
>>>>say 15% of the world's population have no religion and that number is
>>>>falling, which I find surprising.
>>
>>Probably so. Religion and revolution always rise when existence becomes too
>>harsh to rationally accept.
>>
>>
>>>I also am curious about your assertion that "atheism is a religion".
>>>
>>>As far as I know, there are no atheistic altars, no stone buildings,no
>>>holy books, no wailing walls, no ceremonies, no prayers, no hymns,
>>>indeed, none of the things that are generally associated with
>>>religion..
>>
>>If one were to define religion as a "belief a theory which cannot be proven
>>by scientific inquiry (i.e.. a faith) then atheism would qualify as a
>>religion since you can no more prove the absence of GOD then one can prove
>>the existence of GOD.
>
>
>
> My definition of a real, authentic religion is that it requires at
> least a few people who are willing to kill others who don't believe as
> they do. Christianity, Islam, Hindu, Sikh, even Buddhism, (I
> believe), all qualify.

That is the dumbest definition I've ever heard.


> Other than that, it's just a belief system.

That is precisely what it is. Killing has nothing to do with it and is
an abomination to most true believers. However, it is more fun to look
at the fringe elements and ascribe their behaviour to the broader group.
Cowardly, but fun. Then again, folks that hide behind anonymous names
understand that all too well.


> As far as I know, no atheist has ever killed anybody simply because he
> didn't believe what the atheist believed. Stalin probably came close,
> but I think his persecution of Jews and christians was political
> rather than religious.
>
> But I suppose that's arguable as well.
>
> At any rate, religion is indeed the opiate of the masses, used by
> leaders all throughtout history to sedate their followers. Never been
> truer than today.

Except that the religions of philosophy and blind/false science are
gaining fast in popularity. I suspect in another 50-100 years more of
the masses will be controlled by philosophers and junk scientists than
by more traditional religions.


Matt

[Frank]

Roger wrote:

<snip>

>
> OTOH as far as addiction, I often wonder is it's more of a
> psychological addiction than chemical. In the 70s I smoked 2 1/2
> packs of Camels a day. I smoked them right down till I was burning my
> fingers and inhaled clear to my toes. I quit cold turkey and had no
> noticeable side effects. No cravings, no hunger, and I've never had
> one since. I just kept telling myself they weren't good for me, I
> enjoyed them, but I wanted to quit and I was going to quit. I went
> through that litany every time I took out a cigarette for several
> weeks. One day I ran out, but was in a hurry so I said, "I'll get some
> on the way to work tomorrow". It was three days later when I realized
> I hadn't had a craving for a cigarette. Never had one since. I don't
> even like the smell now.
>
> Of course there is little worse than a reformed smoker, unless it's
> non believer who just got religion.
>


I had a similar experience. I smoked a pack a day from the early 70s until I
quit in 1997. I tried to quit twice before but they were half hearted
attempts and within a week I was smoking again.

Then I made up my mind that I was not going to give any more money to the
cigarette companies. It was embarrassingly easy. I did experience some
cravings but they were mild and easily ignored. The fact that I would
occasionally have one months, even years later tells me that that they were
largely psychological.

While I am convinced that quitting is really a matter of motivation I also
recognize that there is a physiological basis for cravings, and even if
they are psychological they are just as real. Therefore I offer my
experience to those quitting as a way of encouragement but I refrain from
preaching to anyone else. I am determined not to be a stereotypical
reformed smoker.

--
Frank....H

[[email protected]]

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 16:09:44 -0500, Matt Whiting
> wrote:

wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 18:32:55 GMT, "Howard Nelson"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>>><> >Athiest is a religion. Reading further into the stats on that site they
>>>
>>>>>say 15% of the world's population have no religion and that number is
>>>>>falling, which I find surprising.
>>>
>>>Probably so. Religion and revolution always rise when existence becomes too
>>>harsh to rationally accept.
>>>
>>>
>>>>I also am curious about your assertion that "atheism is a religion".
>>>>
>>>>As far as I know, there are no atheistic altars, no stone buildings,no
>>>>holy books, no wailing walls, no ceremonies, no prayers, no hymns,
>>>>indeed, none of the things that are generally associated with
>>>>religion..
>>>
>>>If one were to define religion as a "belief a theory which cannot be proven
>>>by scientific inquiry (i.e.. a faith) then atheism would qualify as a
>>>religion since you can no more prove the absence of GOD then one can prove
>>>the existence of GOD.
>>
>>
>>
>> My definition of a real, authentic religion is that it requires at
>> least a few people who are willing to kill others who don't believe as
>> they do. Christianity, Islam, Hindu, Sikh, even Buddhism, (I
>> believe), all qualify.
>
>That is the dumbest definition I've ever heard.
>
>
>> Other than that, it's just a belief system.
>
>That is precisely what it is. Killing has nothing to do with it and is
>an abomination to most true believers.

Are you kidding?

It takes a true believer to blow himself up for his god. Organized
religion has been killing people for hundreds, no, make that thousands
of years.

Even today, your organized religious leaders prefer to see people die
a ghastly, ugly death from AIDS rather than see them to put a little
rubber thingy on their John Williamses.

If that's not killing by religion, it's a damn good second.


> However, it is more fun to look
>at the fringe elements and ascribe their behaviour to the broader group.
>Cowardly, but fun. Then again, folks that hide behind anonymous names
>understand that all too well.
>
>
>> As far as I know, no atheist has ever killed anybody simply because he
>> didn't believe what the atheist believed. Stalin probably came close,
>> but I think his persecution of Jews and christians was political
>> rather than religious.
>>
>> But I suppose that's arguable as well.
>>
>> At any rate, religion is indeed the opiate of the masses, used by
>> leaders all throughtout history to sedate their followers. Never been
>> truer than today.
>
>Except that the religions of philosophy and blind/false science are
>gaining fast in popularity.

May I remind you that every religion but one must be a false religion,
and we're not too sure about that one.


> I suspect in another 50-100 years more of
>the masses will be controlled by philosophers and junk scientists than
>by more traditional religions.

Let's hope so.
>
>


Let's hope so.

[[email protected]]

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 16:04:56 -0500, Matt Whiting
> wrote:

wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 17:21:10 GMT, Brooks Hagenow
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>I am hardly a priest. I would like to make a correction though.
>>>Revisiting that site I found showing only 2.5% of the world's population
>>>were athiests I realized I don't actually know what an athiest is.
>>>Athiest is a religion. Reading further into the stats on that site they
>>>say 15% of the world's population have no religion and that number is
>>>falling, which I find surprising.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I don't know what your point is, but I do know that the percentage of
>> atheists in the U. S. is said generally to be about 10%, or 4 times
>> the world percentage, assuming both numbers to be correct (an
>> assertion of which I am uncertain)
>>
>> I'm curious to know what conclusions one can draw with either of these
>> facts (assuming they are both correct).
>>
>> I also am curious about your assertion that "atheism is a religion".
>
>Definition #4 in the following:
>http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=religion
>
>
>> As far as I know, there are no atheistic altars, no stone buildings,no
>> holy books, no wailing walls, no ceremonies, no prayers, no hymns,
>> indeed, none of the things that are generally associated with
>> religion..
>
>Most of these aren't mentioned in any definition of religion with which
>I'm familiar. Religion is a system of beliefs, not artifacts.

That's why the image of the virgin mary on a grilled cheese sandwich
was bid up to $69,000 on eBay.

>> Atheism,
>even modern philosophy, are all religious in nature despite the claims
>of the believers in these belief systems.
>
>
>> Personally, I think it is an attempt by the religious to label
>> atheists and secular humanists s "religious" in order to validate
>> themselves, ( as they continually strive to do), even as they contend
>> that atheism is anathema to them.
>>
>> A curious contradiction, to say the least.
>
>I find it equally curious that atheists, philosophers and others try so
>hard to avoid the term religion. Why are they so ashamed of their beliefs?
>
>

They're not. They are ashamed to be associated with what you call
religion, and the inhumane acts committed in its name.

[[email protected]]

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 15:51:59 -0500, Matt Whiting
> wrote:


>>
>
>Except for cowardly anonymous internet ng posters...
>
>Matt


Sticks in the old craw a litttle bit, doesn't it?

[Morgans]

"Gig Giacona" > wrote

I get in the car and light up and smoke
> pretty much the entire cigarette before I realize that I have quit and
> shouldn't be smoking.
>
> Now the strange part. I the dream I'm driving the car that I own at the
time
> of the dream. I've changed cars twice since I quit. I have the dream
about
> every 2 weeks or so.

Man, am I ever glad that I don't ever have dreams that I remember!
--
Jim in NC


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.799 / Virus Database: 543 - Release Date: 11/19/2004

[Matt Whiting]

wrote:

> On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 16:09:44 -0500, Matt Whiting
> > wrote:
>
>
wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 18:32:55 GMT, "Howard Nelson"
> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>><> >Athiest is a religion. Reading further into the stats on that site they
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>say 15% of the world's population have no religion and that number is
>>>>>>falling, which I find surprising.
>>>>
>>>>Probably so. Religion and revolution always rise when existence becomes too
>>>>harsh to rationally accept.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I also am curious about your assertion that "atheism is a religion".
>>>>>
>>>>>As far as I know, there are no atheistic altars, no stone buildings,no
>>>>>holy books, no wailing walls, no ceremonies, no prayers, no hymns,
>>>>>indeed, none of the things that are generally associated with
>>>>>religion..
>>>>
>>>>If one were to define religion as a "belief a theory which cannot be proven
>>>>by scientific inquiry (i.e.. a faith) then atheism would qualify as a
>>>>religion since you can no more prove the absence of GOD then one can prove
>>>>the existence of GOD.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>My definition of a real, authentic religion is that it requires at
>>>least a few people who are willing to kill others who don't believe as
>>>they do. Christianity, Islam, Hindu, Sikh, even Buddhism, (I
>>>believe), all qualify.
>>
>>That is the dumbest definition I've ever heard.
>>
>>
>>
>>>Other than that, it's just a belief system.
>>
>>That is precisely what it is. Killing has nothing to do with it and is
>>an abomination to most true believers.
>
>
> Are you kidding?

No.


> It takes a true believer to blow himself up for his god. Organized
> religion has been killing people for hundreds, no, make that thousands
> of years.

I meant true believer as in believing in the truth, not as in fanatic.
A person who blows himself up is a fanatic. Apparently you haven't
known enough people of faith to tell the difference.

I don't know much about Islam, but I've heard a number of pretty
intelligent folks say that it does not advocate what is being done by
the terrorists in the middle east.


> Even today, your organized religious leaders prefer to see people die
> a ghastly, ugly death from AIDS rather than see them to put a little
> rubber thingy on their John Williamses.

Wrong again. No, they'd rather see them have a 100% chance of not
becoming infected rather than a 90-something chance. Folks that suggest
condoms as the HIV prevention are the one's that are happy to condemn
5-10% of the population to death.


> If that's not killing by religion, it's a damn good second.

It's not even close to what you suggest. Are you really this deluded?


>>However, it is more fun to look
>>at the fringe elements and ascribe their behaviour to the broader group.
>>Cowardly, but fun. Then again, folks that hide behind anonymous names
>>understand that all too well.
>>
>>
>>
>>>As far as I know, no atheist has ever killed anybody simply because he
>>>didn't believe what the atheist believed. Stalin probably came close,
>>>but I think his persecution of Jews and christians was political
>>>rather than religious.
>>>
>>>But I suppose that's arguable as well.
>>>
>>>At any rate, religion is indeed the opiate of the masses, used by
>>>leaders all throughtout history to sedate their followers. Never been
>>>truer than today.
>>
>>Except that the religions of philosophy and blind/false science are
>>gaining fast in popularity.
>
>
> May I remind you that every religion but one must be a false religion,
> and we're not too sure about that one.

Possible, but we don't know that for sure. It could be that many are
variations on the same thing. However, it may be that all philosophers
are wrong... I'll take my chances with at least having one chance of
being right.


>>I suspect in another 50-100 years more of
>>the masses will be controlled by philosophers and junk scientists than
>>by more traditional religions.
>
>
> Let's hope so.
>
>>
>
>
> Let's hope so.

Repeating the message won't make it right. Why would you hope for such
an early end to civilization?


Matt

[Matt Whiting]

wrote:

> On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 15:51:59 -0500, Matt Whiting
> > wrote:
>
>
>
>>Except for cowardly anonymous internet ng posters...
>>
>>Matt
>
>
>
> Sticks in the old craw a litttle bit, doesn't it?

Not at all. I just don't understand cowards. Never have and probably
never will. I guess though that if I was weak in my convictions and had
low self-esteem, I'd hide as well.


Matt

[Matt Whiting]

wrote:

> On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 16:04:56 -0500, Matt Whiting
> > wrote:
>
>
wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 17:21:10 GMT, Brooks Hagenow
> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>I am hardly a priest. I would like to make a correction though.
>>>>Revisiting that site I found showing only 2.5% of the world's population
>>>>were athiests I realized I don't actually know what an athiest is.
>>>>Athiest is a religion. Reading further into the stats on that site they
>>>>say 15% of the world's population have no religion and that number is
>>>>falling, which I find surprising.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>I don't know what your point is, but I do know that the percentage of
>>>atheists in the U. S. is said generally to be about 10%, or 4 times
>>>the world percentage, assuming both numbers to be correct (an
>>>assertion of which I am uncertain)
>>>
>>>I'm curious to know what conclusions one can draw with either of these
>>>facts (assuming they are both correct).
>>>
>>>I also am curious about your assertion that "atheism is a religion".
>>
>>Definition #4 in the following:
>>http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=religion
>>
>>
>>
>>>As far as I know, there are no atheistic altars, no stone buildings,no
>>>holy books, no wailing walls, no ceremonies, no prayers, no hymns,
>>>indeed, none of the things that are generally associated with
>>>religion..
>>
>>Most of these aren't mentioned in any definition of religion with which
>>I'm familiar. Religion is a system of beliefs, not artifacts.
>
>
> That's why the image of the virgin mary on a grilled cheese sandwich
> was bid up to $69,000 on eBay.

You keep confusing fanatics with people who hold a genuine faith in a
higher being. It really isn't that complicated. It is obvious that
you've had a bad experience with organized religion at some point, but
that is no reason to paint the whole world with your brush. Since we're
in a flying forum, have you ever had a bad experience while flying? Do
you even fly? If so, did you give up on flying because of one bad
experience ... or one bad controller ... or one bad fellow pilot?



>>>Atheism,
>>
>>even modern philosophy, are all religious in nature despite the claims
>>of the believers in these belief systems.
>>
>>
>>
>>>Personally, I think it is an attempt by the religious to label
>>>atheists and secular humanists s "religious" in order to validate
>>>themselves, ( as they continually strive to do), even as they contend
>>>that atheism is anathema to them.
>>>
>>> A curious contradiction, to say the least.
>>
>>I find it equally curious that atheists, philosophers and others try so
>>hard to avoid the term religion. Why are they so ashamed of their beliefs?
>>
>>
>
>
> They're not. They are ashamed to be associated with what you call
> religion, and the inhumane acts committed in its name.

Committed by a very few on the fringes. If the atheists and
philosophers did any research at all, they would know this. If every
person in the world who professes a religious belief or affiliation was
a wanton killer as you suggest, the world would have long ago ceased to
be inhabited by humans. Since the majority of the population claim some
religious belief, if each person killed even one other person, there'd
be nobody left in less than a year.


Matt

[mike regish]

At least that's what Bush tried to sell the ignorant masses.

mike regish

> wrote in message
...
>>
> Talk about amusing...
>
> It used to be our government thought of war as a last resort.
>
> No more...

[mike regish]

It would if we didn't have religion indoctrinating hatred and bigotry from
day 1.

mike regish

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
>
> If that was the case, then every human would be born with an innate sense
> of right and wrong and every generation would have an even more refined
> sense of morality at birth. Sorry, doesn't work that way.
>
> Matt
>

[jls]

"Brooks Hagenow" > wrote in message
om...
> wrote:
> > On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 15:01:41 -0800, "Peter Duniho"
> > > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>"mike regish" > wrote in message
> >>news:r29od.79682$5K2.21834@attbi_s03...
> >>
> >>>Morality is doing the right thing just because you know it's the right
> >>>thing > to do, not because you think some magical being is going to
strike
> >>>you down from above or send you to some imaginary hell.
> >>
> >>For what it's worth, not all religious convictions are based on fear of
> >>retribution from God either.
> >
> >
> > No, some are based on the reward of 70 virgins and such.
> >
> >>It's fine to say that you have moral conviction without religion, but
don't
> >>be confused about what religion is or is not. You'll need a better
argument
> >>if you want your distinction to "stick".
> >>
> >>Pete
> >
> >
> > What distinction? Moral vs religious?
> >
> > There is little, if any, connection o the two. More immoral acts have
> > been committed by the religious than probably any other identifiable
> > group.
> >
>
> That sounds like something you made up. Care to name a source?
>
> Although you might get lucky because a quick check on the net shows that
> only 2.5% of the world's population are athiests in the year 2000. The
> rest believe is some higher power.
>
> http://www.religioustolerance.org/worldrel.htm

Brooks, I don't know that this website is entitled to credibility. It
calls atheism a religion, but atheism is the absence of religion. If you
look at the etymology of the word, atheism means "without theism" or
"without a god." That circumstance, i.e.,being without a god is hardly a
religion. It's the "un-religion." The huge faction pushing that
definition is intent on using it to prevent the USA from establishing an
official stance "without god." If this faction can spin that proposition
in enough channels across the land it can then make the argument that by
being a government either indifferent to religion in the sense it embraces
the no-god (as Madison, Jefferson, Hamilton and many of the other founders
meant the federal government to be) or is in effect atheist,then it must be
violating the First Amendment's Establishment Clause.

No offense to you personally, of course, and I think you are arguing
reasonably about it. Maybe wrong, but still civil and reasonable.
Consequently, we are on amicable terms.

[jls]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 15:51:59 -0500, Matt Whiting
> > > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >>Except for cowardly anonymous internet ng posters...
> >>
> >>Matt
> >
> >
> >
> > Sticks in the old craw a litttle bit, doesn't it?
>
> Not at all. I just don't understand cowards. Never have and probably
> never will. I guess though that if I was weak in my convictions and had
> low self-esteem, I'd hide as well.
>
>
> Matt
>

An old brahma bull has high self-esteem. He's bold and blustery, full of
esteem, but still stupid.

[jls]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 16:04:56 -0500, Matt Whiting
> > > wrote:
> >
> >
> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 17:21:10 GMT, Brooks Hagenow
> > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>I am hardly a priest. I would like to make a correction though.
> >>>>Revisiting that site I found showing only 2.5% of the world's
population
> >>>>were athiests I realized I don't actually know what an athiest is.
> >>>>Athiest is a religion. Reading further into the stats on that site
they
> >>>>say 15% of the world's population have no religion and that number is
> >>>>falling, which I find surprising.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>I don't know what your point is, but I do know that the percentage of
> >>>atheists in the U. S. is said generally to be about 10%, or 4 times
> >>>the world percentage, assuming both numbers to be correct (an
> >>>assertion of which I am uncertain)
> >>>
> >>>I'm curious to know what conclusions one can draw with either of these
> >>>facts (assuming they are both correct).
> >>>
> >>>I also am curious about your assertion that "atheism is a religion".
> >>
> >>Definition #4 in the following:
> >>http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=religion
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>As far as I know, there are no atheistic altars, no stone buildings,no
> >>>holy books, no wailing walls, no ceremonies, no prayers, no hymns,
> >>>indeed, none of the things that are generally associated with
> >>>religion..
> >>
> >>Most of these aren't mentioned in any definition of religion with which
> >>I'm familiar. Religion is a system of beliefs, not artifacts.
> >
> >
> > That's why the image of the virgin mary on a grilled cheese sandwich
> > was bid up to $69,000 on eBay.
>
> You keep confusing fanatics with people who hold a genuine faith in a
> higher being. It really isn't that complicated. It is obvious that
> you've had a bad experience with organized religion at some point, but
> that is no reason to paint the whole world with your brush. Since we're
> in a flying forum, have you ever had a bad experience while flying? Do
> you even fly? If so, did you give up on flying because of one bad
> experience ... or one bad controller ... or one bad fellow pilot?
>
>
>
> >>>Atheism,
> >>
> >>even modern philosophy, are all religious in nature despite the claims
> >>of the believers in these belief systems.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>Personally, I think it is an attempt by the religious to label
> >>>atheists and secular humanists s "religious" in order to validate
> >>>themselves, ( as they continually strive to do), even as they contend
> >>>that atheism is anathema to them.
> >>>
> >>> A curious contradiction, to say the least.
> >>
> >>I find it equally curious that atheists, philosophers and others try so
> >>hard to avoid the term religion. Why are they so ashamed of their
beliefs?
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > They're not. They are ashamed to be associated with what you call
> > religion, and the inhumane acts committed in its name.
>
> Committed by a very few on the fringes. If the atheists and
> philosophers did any research at all, they would know this.

Where is your authority for this contention? For every one you can
provide, I can provide you a counter-authority.

If every
> person in the world who professes a religious belief or affiliation was
> a wanton killer as you suggest, the world would have long ago ceased to
> be inhabited by humans. Since the majority of the population claim some
> religious belief, if each person killed even one other person, there'd
> be nobody left in less than a year.
>
>
> Matt

Yet,no matter what religion or denomination you belong to, in all likelihood
it has engaged in persecution, violence, and religious intolerance. And
that's the reason why the Founders wanted religion (knowing its gory
history) out of government and government out of religion.
*********

By the time a boy has been two years in a church school he is immunized
against religion.
-- Colin Gordon

[Matt Whiting]

mike regish wrote:

> It would if we didn't have religion indoctrinating hatred and bigotry from
> day 1.

Nice excuse, but lacks creativity. I'll give it a D+. There are
cultures that have virtually no organized religion, but engage in things
such as cannibalism. Is that one of the moral values that evolution
produces?


Matt

[Matt Whiting]

jls wrote:

> "Brooks Hagenow" > wrote in message
> om...
>
wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 15:01:41 -0800, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>"mike regish" > wrote in message
>>>>news:r29od.79682$5K2.21834@attbi_s03...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Morality is doing the right thing just because you know it's the right
>>>>>thing > to do, not because you think some magical being is going to
>
> strike
>
>>>>>you down from above or send you to some imaginary hell.
>>>>
>>>>For what it's worth, not all religious convictions are based on fear of
>>>>retribution from God either.
>>>
>>>
>>>No, some are based on the reward of 70 virgins and such.
>>>
>>>
>>>>It's fine to say that you have moral conviction without religion, but
>
> don't
>
>>>>be confused about what religion is or is not. You'll need a better
>
> argument
>
>>>>if you want your distinction to "stick".
>>>>
>>>>Pete
>>>
>>>
>>>What distinction? Moral vs religious?
>>>
>>>There is little, if any, connection o the two. More immoral acts have
>>>been committed by the religious than probably any other identifiable
>>>group.
>>>
>>
>>That sounds like something you made up. Care to name a source?
>>
>>Although you might get lucky because a quick check on the net shows that
>>only 2.5% of the world's population are athiests in the year 2000. The
>>rest believe is some higher power.
>>
>>http://www.religioustolerance.org/worldrel.htm
>
>
> Brooks, I don't know that this website is entitled to credibility. It
> calls atheism a religion, but atheism is the absence of religion. If you
> look at the etymology of the word, atheism means "without theism" or
> "without a god." That circumstance, i.e.,being without a god is hardly a
> religion. It's the "un-religion." The huge faction pushing that
> definition is intent on using it to prevent the USA from establishing an
> official stance "without god." If this faction can spin that proposition
> in enough channels across the land it can then make the argument that by
> being a government either indifferent to religion in the sense it embraces
> the no-god (as Madison, Jefferson, Hamilton and many of the other founders
> meant the federal government to be) or is in effect atheist,then it must be
> violating the First Amendment's Establishment Clause.

You are ignoring all of the definitions of religion. Not all require
belief in a supernatural entity. Look it up, it is easy.


Matt

[Matt Whiting]

jls wrote:

> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 15:51:59 -0500, Matt Whiting
> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Except for cowardly anonymous internet ng posters...
>>>>
>>>>Matt
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Sticks in the old craw a litttle bit, doesn't it?
>>
>>Not at all. I just don't understand cowards. Never have and probably
>>never will. I guess though that if I was weak in my convictions and had
>>low self-esteem, I'd hide as well.
>>
>>
>>Matt
>>
>
>
> An old brahma bull has high self-esteem. He's bold and blustery, full of
> esteem, but still stupid.

You seem an expert on bull, so I'll take your word on this.

Matt

[[email protected]]

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 19:05:56 -0500, Matt Whiting
> wrote:

>> It takes a true believer to blow himself up for his god. Organized
>> religion has been killing people for hundreds, no, make that thousands
>> of years.
>
>I meant true believer as in believing in the truth, not as in fanatic.


I'm sure you mean the truth as you see it.

And I'm sure these guys are blowing themselves up for the truth as
they see it.

And I'm sure the christians who burned the heretics did it for the
truth as they saw it.

That's the trouble and the danger with all you guys. You all know the
"truth".

[[email protected]]

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 19:12:23 -0500, Matt Whiting
> wrote:

>Committed by a very few on the fringes. If the atheists and
>philosophers did any research at all, they would know this. If every
>person in the world who professes a religious belief or affiliation was
>a wanton killer as you suggest, the world would have long ago ceased to
>be inhabited by humans. Since the majority of the population claim some
>religious belief, if each person killed even one other person, there'd
>be nobody left in less than a year.
>
>
>Matt


Hitler was only one person. He was responsible for the death of 6
million Jews.

It's not the number of people who commit the atrocities that's
significant, it's the number who die.

Millions upon millions have died thanks to religious beliefs, in
barbaric fashion for the most part.

And it's happening today.

But hose with their heads buried in the religious sands (or in
anatomical locations where the sun don't shine) just never see it.

[[email protected]]

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 20:15:31 -0500, " jls" >
wrote:

>Yet,no matter what religion or denomination you belong to, in all likelihood
>it has engaged in persecution, violence, and religious intolerance. And
>that's the reason why the Founders wanted religion (knowing its gory
>history) out of government and government out of religion.
>*********


Amen to that, brother.

[[email protected]]

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 19:07:20 -0500, Matt Whiting
> wrote:

>Not at all. I just don't understand cowards. Never have and probably
>never will. I guess though that if I was weak in my convictions and had
>low self-esteem, I'd hide as well.
>
>
>Matt

Now here we actually get into a perfect microcosm of religion.

Your belief system says that everyone who posts here should post under
his real name (or a name that LOOKS like a real name,at least, since I
am sure you have not verified that every name used here is actually a
given name of the poster)..

My belief system, on the other hand, says that it don't make a whit's
difference what the poster's name is, but the idea expressed is what
is important, agree with it or not.

The difference between my belief system and yours is this:

I couldn't care less what name you use. Use Matt Whiting or
Whistlindixie, it don't make a whit's difference to me. Your
preference and beliefs are yours, do what you will. It's no skin off
my nose.

Your belief about posting, however, requires that I behave as you do
and think the way you do, otherwise you are compelled to attempt to
intimidate and insult me by calling me a coward, weak in my
convictions, and having low self esteem, even though you know nothing
of me other than what you know through half a dozen postings.

And that gets to the nub of religion. The religious are usually so
unsure of their positions, and unable to offer any evidence of their
convictions, that they must have the agreement of others to validate
their beliefs. If they cannot get it any other way, they begin to use
whatever force they can use to compel others to behave as they do.
And suddenly they are on that slippery slope of religious bigotry and
intolerance, exactly the same kind of bigotry and intolerance you are
showing for my free choice of using whatever name I wish to post with,
by using name-calling and insults, the only real forms of intimidation
available to you here, to validate your belief.

So thanks for the help in proving my point.

[[email protected]]

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 21:42:24 -0500, Matt Whiting
> wrote:

>mike regish wrote:
>
>> It would if we didn't have religion indoctrinating hatred and bigotry from
>> day 1.
>
>Nice excuse, but lacks creativity. I'll give it a D+. There are
>cultures that have virtually no organized religion, but engage in things
>such as cannibalism. Is that one of the moral values that evolution
>produces?
>
>
>Matt

And there is a recent christian culture that gassed and burned 6
million human beings.

Is that one of the moral values that religion produces?

[MC]

Matt Whiting wrote:
> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 18:32:55 GMT, "Howard Nelson"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>>> <> >Athiest is a religion. Reading further into the stats on that
>>> site they say 15% of the world's population have no religion and
>>> that number is falling, which I find surprising.
>>>
>>> Probably so. Religion and revolution always rise when existence
>>> becomes too harsh to rationally accept.
>>>
>>>> I also am curious about your assertion that "atheism is a religion".
>>>>
>>>> As far as I know, there are no atheistic altars, no stone buildings,no
>>>> holy books, no wailing walls, no ceremonies, no prayers, no hymns,
>>>> indeed, none of the things that are generally associated with
>>>> religion..
>>>
>>>
>>> If one were to define religion as a "belief a theory which cannot
>>> be proven by scientific inquiry (i.e.. a faith) then atheism would
>>> qualify as a religion since you can no more prove the absence of
>>> GOD then one can prove the existence of GOD.
>
>> My definition of a real, authentic religion is that it requires at
>> least a few people who are willing to kill others who don't believe as
>> they do. Christianity, Islam, Hindu, Sikh, even Buddhism, (I
>> believe), all qualify.
>
>
> That is the dumbest definition I've ever heard.

Actually, it is the essence of a true believer..
"True Believers" *know* that they *are* right and
therefore anybody who has any dissenting view is a
non-believer and must to be killed because they are
obviously influenced by spirits/devil(s)/etc and
cannot be allowed to spread their contagion.

AFAIK and history bears it out, atheists, agnostics
and people with non-fanatical religious beliefs don't
go around killing people who hold contrary views.

[Jay Honeck]

> AFAIK and history bears it out, atheists, agnostics
> and people with non-fanatical religious beliefs don't
> go around killing people who hold contrary views.

Didn't Stalin kill over 10 million people for holding views that were
contrary to his?

Murder is not generally considered a religious trait.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[[email protected]]

On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 12:55:10 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote:

>> AFAIK and history bears it out, atheists, agnostics
>> and people with non-fanatical religious beliefs don't
>> go around killing people who hold contrary views.
>
>Didn't Stalin kill over 10 million people for holding views that were
>contrary to his?
>
>Murder is not generally considered a religious trait.


Well, murder is not the ONLY religious trait, anyway.

But there has been enough religious carnage throughout history that it
might be reasonably called a trait.

Could we call it a feature of the institution, perhaps? A hallmark?

[Blanche]

> wrote:
>And there is a recent christian culture that gassed and burned 6
>million human beings.
>
>Is that one of the moral values that religion produces?

Actually, it was closer to 11 million. The 6M number refers to
a single religious group. There were other "undesireable" groups
that were "removed" in the interest of Purity.

[[email protected]]

On 23 Nov 2004 06:22:50 -0700, Blanche >
wrote:

> > wrote:
>>And there is a recent christian culture that gassed and burned 6
>>million human beings.
>>
>>Is that one of the moral values that religion produces?
>
>Actually, it was closer to 11 million. The 6M number refers to
>a single religious group. There were other "undesireable" groups
>that were "removed" in the interest of Purity.
>


Well, look who's here.

Killfile not working?

[Matt Whiting]

wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 19:05:56 -0500, Matt Whiting
> > wrote:
>
>
>>>It takes a true believer to blow himself up for his god. Organized
>>>religion has been killing people for hundreds, no, make that thousands
>>>of years.
>>
>>I meant true believer as in believing in the truth, not as in fanatic.
>
>
>
> I'm sure you mean the truth as you see it.
>
> And I'm sure these guys are blowing themselves up for the truth as
> they see it.
>
> And I'm sure the christians who burned the heretics did it for the
> truth as they saw it.

christians may have done these things, but Christians didn't.


> That's the trouble and the danger with all you guys. You all know the
> "truth".

And how are you any different?


Matt

[Matt Whiting]

wrote:

> On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 19:07:20 -0500, Matt Whiting
> > wrote:
>
>
>>Not at all. I just don't understand cowards. Never have and probably
>>never will. I guess though that if I was weak in my convictions and had
>>low self-esteem, I'd hide as well.
>>
>>
>>Matt
>
>
> Now here we actually get into a perfect microcosm of religion.
>
> Your belief system says that everyone who posts here should post under
> his real name (or a name that LOOKS like a real name,at least, since I
> am sure you have not verified that every name used here is actually a
> given name of the poster)..
>
> My belief system, on the other hand, says that it don't make a whit's
> difference what the poster's name is, but the idea expressed is what
> is important, agree with it or not.
>
> The difference between my belief system and yours is this:
>
> I couldn't care less what name you use. Use Matt Whiting or
> Whistlindixie, it don't make a whit's difference to me. Your
> preference and beliefs are yours, do what you will. It's no skin off
> my nose.
>
> Your belief about posting, however, requires that I behave as you do
> and think the way you do, otherwise you are compelled to attempt to
> intimidate and insult me by calling me a coward, weak in my
> convictions, and having low self esteem, even though you know nothing
> of me other than what you know through half a dozen postings.
>
> And that gets to the nub of religion. The religious are usually so
> unsure of their positions, and unable to offer any evidence of their
> convictions, that they must have the agreement of others to validate
> their beliefs. If they cannot get it any other way, they begin to use
> whatever force they can use to compel others to behave as they do.
> And suddenly they are on that slippery slope of religious bigotry and
> intolerance, exactly the same kind of bigotry and intolerance you are
> showing for my free choice of using whatever name I wish to post with,
> by using name-calling and insults, the only real forms of intimidation
> available to you here, to validate your belief.
>
> So thanks for the help in proving my point.

Likewise.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

wrote:

> On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 21:42:24 -0500, Matt Whiting
> > wrote:
>
>
>>mike regish wrote:
>>
>>
>>>It would if we didn't have religion indoctrinating hatred and bigotry from
>>>day 1.
>>
>>Nice excuse, but lacks creativity. I'll give it a D+. There are
>>cultures that have virtually no organized religion, but engage in things
>>such as cannibalism. Is that one of the moral values that evolution
>>produces?
>>
>>
>>Matt
>
>
> And there is a recent christian culture that gassed and burned 6
> million human beings.

I'm not sure what a christian culture is, but a Christian culture didn't
do that. It was a Christian culture that came to the defense of the Jews.


> Is that one of the moral values that religion produces?

Not any religion that I'm aware of. That was the moral value of a
tyrant, pure and simple. It is really easy to understand if you drop
your prejudice against religion and look at the facts.


Matt

[G.R. Patterson III]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>
> Murder is not generally considered a religious trait.

That's only because religious people don't regard it as murder if they kill
someone who doesn't belong to their faith. More people have been killed over
religion than anything else.

George Patterson

[Matt Whiting]

MC wrote:

> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 18:32:55 GMT, "Howard Nelson"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> <> >Athiest is a religion. Reading further into the stats on that
>>>> site they say 15% of the world's population have no religion and
>
> >>> that number is falling, which I find surprising.
>
>>>>
>>>> Probably so. Religion and revolution always rise when existence
>>>> becomes too harsh to rationally accept.
>>>>
>>>>> I also am curious about your assertion that "atheism is a religion".
>>>>>
>>>>> As far as I know, there are no atheistic altars, no stone buildings,no
>>>>> holy books, no wailing walls, no ceremonies, no prayers, no hymns,
>>>>> indeed, none of the things that are generally associated with
>>>>> religion..
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If one were to define religion as a "belief a theory which cannot
>
> >>> be proven by scientific inquiry (i.e.. a faith) then atheism would
> >>> qualify as a religion since you can no more prove the absence of
> >>> GOD then one can prove the existence of GOD.
>
>>
>>> My definition of a real, authentic religion is that it requires at
>>> least a few people who are willing to kill others who don't believe as
>>> they do. Christianity, Islam, Hindu, Sikh, even Buddhism, (I
>>> believe), all qualify.
>>
>>
>>
>> That is the dumbest definition I've ever heard.
>
>
> Actually, it is the essence of a true believer..
> "True Believers" *know* that they *are* right and
> therefore anybody who has any dissenting view is a
> non-believer and must to be killed because they are
> obviously influenced by spirits/devil(s)/etc and
> cannot be allowed to spread their contagion.
>
> AFAIK and history bears it out, atheists, agnostics
> and people with non-fanatical religious beliefs don't
> go around killing people who hold contrary views.

Neither do people who belong to legitimate and mainstream religions. It
is fun to watch folks like you try to lump fanatic nut cases like Hitler
with religion. I'm sorry you don't have a legitimate issue and have to
fabricate issues like this to try to support your prejudices.


Matt

[[email protected]]

On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 14:19:02 GMT, "G.R. Patterson III"
> wrote:

>
>
>Jay Honeck wrote:
>>
>> Murder is not generally considered a religious trait.
>
>That's only because religious people don't regard it as murder if they kill
>someone who doesn't belong to their faith. More people have been killed over
>religion than anything else.
>
>George Patterson


Or even those that do belong to their own faith, but not in quite the
"right" way.

[Dan Girellini]

== cfeyeeye > writes:

> But hose with their heads buried in the religious sands (or in anatomical
> locations where the sun don't shine) just never see it.

Why are you picking on the prostitutes? What do they have to do with it?


--
PGP key at http://www.longhands.org/drg-pgp.txt Key Id:0x507D93DF

[jls]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> MC wrote:
>
> > Matt Whiting wrote:
> >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 18:32:55 GMT, "Howard Nelson"
> >>> > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> <> >Athiest is a religion. Reading further into the stats on that
> >>>> site they say 15% of the world's population have no religion and
> >
> > >>> that number is falling, which I find surprising.
> >
> >>>>
> >>>> Probably so. Religion and revolution always rise when existence
> >>>> becomes too harsh to rationally accept.
> >>>>
> >>>>> I also am curious about your assertion that "atheism is a religion".
> >>>>>
> >>>>> As far as I know, there are no atheistic altars, no stone
buildings,no
> >>>>> holy books, no wailing walls, no ceremonies, no prayers, no hymns,
> >>>>> indeed, none of the things that are generally associated with
> >>>>> religion..
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> If one were to define religion as a "belief a theory which cannot
> >
> > >>> be proven by scientific inquiry (i.e.. a faith) then atheism would
> > >>> qualify as a religion since you can no more prove the absence of
> > >>> GOD then one can prove the existence of GOD.
> >
> >>
> >>> My definition of a real, authentic religion is that it requires at
> >>> least a few people who are willing to kill others who don't believe as
> >>> they do. Christianity, Islam, Hindu, Sikh, even Buddhism, (I
> >>> believe), all qualify.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> That is the dumbest definition I've ever heard.
> >
> >
> > Actually, it is the essence of a true believer..
> > "True Believers" *know* that they *are* right and
> > therefore anybody who has any dissenting view is a
> > non-believer and must to be killed because they are
> > obviously influenced by spirits/devil(s)/etc and
> > cannot be allowed to spread their contagion.
> >
> > AFAIK and history bears it out, atheists, agnostics
> > and people with non-fanatical religious beliefs don't
> > go around killing people who hold contrary views.
>
> Neither do people who belong to legitimate and mainstream religions. It
> is fun to watch folks like you try to lump fanatic nut cases like Hitler
> with religion. I'm sorry you don't have a legitimate issue and have to
> fabricate issues like this to try to support your prejudices.

During Hitler's ascendancy and power, millions did not view him as a
"fanatic nut case." Matter of fact he visited regularly with his close
friend Pope Pius in Rome.

[[email protected]]

On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 09:16:34 -0500, Matt Whiting
> wrote:

>> And there is a recent christian culture that gassed and burned 6
>> million human beings.
>
>I'm not sure what a christian culture is, but a Christian culture didn't
>do that. It was a Christian culture that came to the defense of the Jews.


You need to pick up a good history book and spend a little time with
it.

[Matt Whiting]

wrote:

> On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 12:55:10 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> > wrote:
>
>
>>>AFAIK and history bears it out, atheists, agnostics
>>>and people with non-fanatical religious beliefs don't
>>>go around killing people who hold contrary views.
>>
>>Didn't Stalin kill over 10 million people for holding views that were
>>contrary to his?
>>
>>Murder is not generally considered a religious trait.
>
>
>
> Well, murder is not the ONLY religious trait, anyway.

It isn't a trait at all, so it can't be even ONLY a trait.


> But there has been enough religious carnage throughout history that it
> might be reasonably called a trait.

Only by one who has no reason.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

G.R. Patterson III wrote:

>
> Jay Honeck wrote:
>
>>Murder is not generally considered a religious trait.
>
>
> That's only because religious people don't regard it as murder if they kill
> someone who doesn't belong to their faith. More people have been killed over
> religion than anything else.

Where is your data? I think far more have been killed over greed than
religion. Unfortunately, my data is about as good as yours. :-)


Matt

[Matt Whiting]

jls wrote:

> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>MC wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Matt Whiting wrote:
>>>
>>>
wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 18:32:55 GMT, "Howard Nelson"
> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>><> >Athiest is a religion. Reading further into the stats on that
>>>>>>site they say 15% of the world's population have no religion and
>>>
>>> >>> that number is falling, which I find surprising.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>Probably so. Religion and revolution always rise when existence
>>>>>>becomes too harsh to rationally accept.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I also am curious about your assertion that "atheism is a religion".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>As far as I know, there are no atheistic altars, no stone
>
> buildings,no
>
>>>>>>>holy books, no wailing walls, no ceremonies, no prayers, no hymns,
>>>>>>>indeed, none of the things that are generally associated with
>>>>>>>religion..
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>If one were to define religion as a "belief a theory which cannot
>>>
>>> >>> be proven by scientific inquiry (i.e.. a faith) then atheism would
>>> >>> qualify as a religion since you can no more prove the absence of
>>> >>> GOD then one can prove the existence of GOD.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>My definition of a real, authentic religion is that it requires at
>>>>>least a few people who are willing to kill others who don't believe as
>>>>>they do. Christianity, Islam, Hindu, Sikh, even Buddhism, (I
>>>>>believe), all qualify.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>That is the dumbest definition I've ever heard.
>>>
>>>
>>>Actually, it is the essence of a true believer..
>>>"True Believers" *know* that they *are* right and
>>>therefore anybody who has any dissenting view is a
>>>non-believer and must to be killed because they are
>>>obviously influenced by spirits/devil(s)/etc and
>>>cannot be allowed to spread their contagion.
>>>
>>>AFAIK and history bears it out, atheists, agnostics
>>>and people with non-fanatical religious beliefs don't
>>>go around killing people who hold contrary views.
>>
>>Neither do people who belong to legitimate and mainstream religions. It
>>is fun to watch folks like you try to lump fanatic nut cases like Hitler
>>with religion. I'm sorry you don't have a legitimate issue and have to
>>fabricate issues like this to try to support your prejudices.
>
>
> During Hitler's ascendancy and power, millions did not view him as a
> "fanatic nut case." Matter of fact he visited regularly with his close
> friend Pope Pius in Rome.

I didn't say he was stupid. Most fanatics are pretty good a camoflaging
it until they have sufficient power to accomplish their goals.

Matt

[Jay Honeck]

>> Murder is not generally considered a religious trait.
>
> That's only because religious people don't regard it as murder if they
> kill
> someone who doesn't belong to their faith. More people have been killed
> over
> religion than anything else.

You know I agree with you, but my point is that murder is not restricted to
religions or religious people.

There have been plenty of people killed by atheists and agnostics.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[[email protected]]

On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 10:17:16 -0500, Matt Whiting
> wrote:

>> That's only because religious people don't regard it as murder if they kill
>> someone who doesn't belong to their faith. More people have been killed over
>> religion than anything else.
>
>Where is your data? I think far more have been killed over greed than
>religion. Unfortunately, my data is about as good as yours. :-)
>
>
>Matt


Religion is a form of greed.

As an example, when the rapture comes, only the born again will enjoy
the blessings of heaven, while the rest of us burn in a sea of fire.

Not really a good example of sharing the wealth, is it?

[[email protected]]

On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 10:18:38 -0500, Matt Whiting
> wrote:

>>>Neither do people who belong to legitimate and mainstream religions. It
>>>is fun to watch folks like you try to lump fanatic nut cases like Hitler
>>>with religion. I'm sorry you don't have a legitimate issue and have to
>>>fabricate issues like this to try to support your prejudices.
>>
>>
>> During Hitler's ascendancy and power, millions did not view him as a
>> "fanatic nut case." Matter of fact he visited regularly with his close
>> friend Pope Pius in Rome.
>
>I didn't say he was stupid. Most fanatics are pretty good a camoflaging
>it until they have sufficient power to accomplish their goals.
>
>Matt

I think the point is that Pius was quite willing to play footsies with
Hitler, not how smart Hitler was.

There was no question about Hitler's character when he was meeting
with his pals in the Vatican. Furthermore, the relationship was as
much about the power of the church as it was Hitler's.

[jls]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> G.R. Patterson III wrote:
>
> >
> > Jay Honeck wrote:
> >
> >>Murder is not generally considered a religious trait.
> >
> >
> > That's only because religious people don't regard it as murder if they
kill
> > someone who doesn't belong to their faith. More people have been killed
over
> > religion than anything else.
>
> Where is your data? I think far more have been killed over greed than
> religion. Unfortunately, my data is about as good as yours. :-)
>
>
> Matt

I think you have a point there, Matt. Religion, to quote Stendhal, is
founded on the fears of the many and the cleverness of the few. The greedy
few have slyly used religion to mobilize the masses to do their bidding over
the centuries. Kings, prelates, despots, corporate executives, charismatic
ministers, governors, even elected presidents have found religion useful in
their hunger for wealth and power.

The Bible's justification of slavery -- e. g., the story of Ham in the Old
Testament and Paul's and Timothy's letters in the New --- was quite helpful
for the Conquistadors, the Pilgrims, Tidewater Aristocrats, and the Southern
Planters when they settled the New World.

[Dan Luke]

Hilarious.

[Dan Luke]

"Matt Whiting" wrote:
> >
> > What's funny about it?
>
> I just find really stupid statements humorous.

You must really crack yourself up.

[Matt Whiting]

wrote:

> On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 09:16:34 -0500, Matt Whiting
> > wrote:
>
>
>>>And there is a recent christian culture that gassed and burned 6
>>>million human beings.
>>
>>I'm not sure what a christian culture is, but a Christian culture didn't
>>do that. It was a Christian culture that came to the defense of the Jews.
>
>
>
> You need to pick up a good history book and spend a little time with
> it.

Hardly. Show me one shred of evidence that says Hitler was a bona fide
Christian. Show me one shred of evidence that says Christianity
supports genocide of Jews.


Matt

[Matt Whiting]

wrote:

> On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 10:17:16 -0500, Matt Whiting
> > wrote:
>
>
>>>That's only because religious people don't regard it as murder if they kill
>>>someone who doesn't belong to their faith. More people have been killed over
>>>religion than anything else.
>>
>>Where is your data? I think far more have been killed over greed than
>>religion. Unfortunately, my data is about as good as yours. :-)
>>
>>
>>Matt
>
>
>
> Religion is a form of greed.
>
> As an example, when the rapture comes, only the born again will enjoy
> the blessings of heaven, while the rest of us burn in a sea of fire.
>
> Not really a good example of sharing the wealth, is it?

Certainly it is. Everyone has the opportunity to be part of the
rapture. Only those who choose not to participate will be left behind.
It doesn't get any more generous than that. It is entirely your
choice. What more could you ask for?

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

wrote:

> On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 10:18:38 -0500, Matt Whiting
> > wrote:
>
>
>>>>Neither do people who belong to legitimate and mainstream religions. It
>>>>is fun to watch folks like you try to lump fanatic nut cases like Hitler
>>>>with religion. I'm sorry you don't have a legitimate issue and have to
>>>>fabricate issues like this to try to support your prejudices.
>>>
>>>
>>>During Hitler's ascendancy and power, millions did not view him as a
>>>"fanatic nut case." Matter of fact he visited regularly with his close
>>>friend Pope Pius in Rome.
>>
>>I didn't say he was stupid. Most fanatics are pretty good a camoflaging
>>it until they have sufficient power to accomplish their goals.
>>
>>Matt
>
>
> I think the point is that Pius was quite willing to play footsies with
> Hitler, not how smart Hitler was.
>
> There was no question about Hitler's character when he was meeting
> with his pals in the Vatican. Furthermore, the relationship was as
> much about the power of the church as it was Hitler's.

I'm no supporter of the Catholic church, so I won't argue with you
there. The Catholic church doesn't follow the Bible in many ways and
much of what they believe in and do is simply not supported by scripture
and often outright condemned.

I know most Catholics would disagree, but I don't consider Catholicism
to be Christianity as they tend to elevate Mary to a level equal to or
even higher than Christ.

Matt

[jls]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 10:17:16 -0500, Matt Whiting
> > > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>>That's only because religious people don't regard it as murder if they
kill
> >>>someone who doesn't belong to their faith. More people have been killed
over
> >>>religion than anything else.
> >>
> >>Where is your data? I think far more have been killed over greed than
> >>religion. Unfortunately, my data is about as good as yours. :-)
> >>
> >>
> >>Matt
> >
> >
> >
> > Religion is a form of greed.
> >
> > As an example, when the rapture comes, only the born again will enjoy
> > the blessings of heaven, while the rest of us burn in a sea of fire.
> >
> > Not really a good example of sharing the wealth, is it?
>
> Certainly it is. Everyone has the opportunity to be part of the
> rapture. Only those who choose not to participate will be left behind.
> It doesn't get any more generous than that. It is entirely your
> choice. What more could you ask for?
>
> Matt

Ah, Matt, you don't even know your own holy book. Revelations describes
the dimensions of heaven and it is not unlimited. Hurry up and go, fella.
First come, first served. As soon as it is full (Hell,it may be full
a'ready), newcomers will be turned away. Matter of fact I have it on good
authority they'll be pushed over the balusters into the fiery brink below.

[Matt Whiting]

jls wrote:

> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 10:17:16 -0500, Matt Whiting
> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>That's only because religious people don't regard it as murder if they
>
> kill
>
>>>>>someone who doesn't belong to their faith. More people have been killed
>
> over
>
>>>>>religion than anything else.
>>>>
>>>>Where is your data? I think far more have been killed over greed than
>>>>religion. Unfortunately, my data is about as good as yours. :-)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Matt
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Religion is a form of greed.
>>>
>>>As an example, when the rapture comes, only the born again will enjoy
>>>the blessings of heaven, while the rest of us burn in a sea of fire.
>>>
>>>Not really a good example of sharing the wealth, is it?
>>
>>Certainly it is. Everyone has the opportunity to be part of the
>>rapture. Only those who choose not to participate will be left behind.
>> It doesn't get any more generous than that. It is entirely your
>>choice. What more could you ask for?
>>
>>Matt
>
>
> Ah, Matt, you don't even know your own holy book. Revelations describes
> the dimensions of heaven and it is not unlimited. Hurry up and go, fella.
> First come, first served. As soon as it is full (Hell,it may be full
> a'ready), newcomers will be turned away. Matter of fact I have it on good
> authority they'll be pushed over the balusters into the fiery brink below.
>
>

But it doesn't say how big the people there will be. :-)

At a few Angstroms in height, that cube will hold a LOT of us.


Matt

[Frank]

Matt Whiting wrote:

> wrote:
>

<snip>

>> Personally, I think it is an attempt by the religious to label
>> atheists and secular humanists s "religious" in order to validate
>> themselves, ( as they continually strive to do), even as they contend
>> that atheism is anathema to them.
>>
>> A curious contradiction, to say the least.
>
> I find it equally curious that atheists, philosophers and others try so
> hard to avoid the term religion. Why are they so ashamed of their
> beliefs?
>


Not ashamed of their beliefs, but perhaps reluctant to be lumped in with the
sheep mentality of the 'religious'?

It sounds like you would define religion as a belief system to explain that
which we do not _know_. By that definition certainly everyone must be
'religious'. It is only recently that I have heard of this definition (and
I find its timing a bit suspect). Previously it was belief in a higher
power and/or an afterlife that defined one as 'religious' or not.

But even using this new idea I still see atheism as different from religion
in the way faith is applied. Religious faith does not allow for much
critical thinking and certainly doesn't tolerate dissent. Whereas atheistic
'faith' accepts change as it happens.

There are certainly things I have to take on 'faith'. I don't _know_ the
universe was created by the big bang. But my acceptance of the theory will
be gladly changed in an instant if the physicists come up with something to
refute it tomorrow. I used to believe in the steady state universe and I
experienced no trauma in making the change. In fact I relish the thought of
learning new things about us.

Contrast that to the adherence to dogma required by 'religion' and perhaps
you can begin to understand why I wouldn't want to be associated with the
same group that put Galileo in jail and wouldn't admit their mistake for
_hundreds_ of years.


--
Frank....H

[Dan Luke]

"Matt Whiting" wrote:
> Hardly. Show me one shred of evidence that says Hitler was a bona fide
> Christian. Show me one shred of evidence that says Christianity
> supports genocide of Jews.

The Protestant leader, Martin Luther, himself, held a livid hatred for Jews
and their religion. In his book, _On the Jews and their Lies_, Luther set
the standard for anti-semitism in Protestant Germany up until World War 2.
Hitler expressed a great admiration for Martin Luther, often quoting his
works and beliefs.

"He who hears this name [God] from a Jew must inform the authorities, or
else throw sow dung at him when he sees him and chase him away."

"But what will happen even if we do burn down the Jews' synagogues and
forbid them publicly to praise God, to pray, to teach, to utter God's name?
They will still keep doing it in secret. If we know that they are doing this
in secret, it is the same as if they were doing it publicly. for our
knowledge of their secret doings and our toleration of them implies that
they are not secret after all and thus our conscience is encumbered with it
before God."

--Martin Luther (On the Jews and Their Lies)

[Matt Whiting]

Frank wrote:
> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>
wrote:
>>
>
>
> <snip>
>
>>>Personally, I think it is an attempt by the religious to label
>>>atheists and secular humanists s "religious" in order to validate
>>>themselves, ( as they continually strive to do), even as they contend
>>>that atheism is anathema to them.
>>>
>>> A curious contradiction, to say the least.
>>
>>I find it equally curious that atheists, philosophers and others try so
>>hard to avoid the term religion. Why are they so ashamed of their
>>beliefs?
>>
>
>
>
> Not ashamed of their beliefs, but perhaps reluctant to be lumped in with the
> sheep mentality of the 'religious'?
>
> It sounds like you would define religion as a belief system to explain that
> which we do not _know_. By that definition certainly everyone must be
> 'religious'. It is only recently that I have heard of this definition (and
> I find its timing a bit suspect). Previously it was belief in a higher
> power and/or an afterlife that defined one as 'religious' or not.

I didn't define it, I just posted a reference to the definitions. I
don't know how often the dictionary writers change the definition of
religion, but it has had multiple definitions for as long as I can
remember (35+ years).

Matt

[jls]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Frank wrote:
> > Matt Whiting wrote:
> >
> >
> wrote:
> >>
> >
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >>>Personally, I think it is an attempt by the religious to label
> >>>atheists and secular humanists s "religious" in order to validate
> >>>themselves, ( as they continually strive to do), even as they contend
> >>>that atheism is anathema to them.
> >>>
> >>> A curious contradiction, to say the least.
> >>
> >>I find it equally curious that atheists, philosophers and others try so
> >>hard to avoid the term religion. Why are they so ashamed of their
> >>beliefs?
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > Not ashamed of their beliefs, but perhaps reluctant to be lumped in with
the
> > sheep mentality of the 'religious'?
> >
> > It sounds like you would define religion as a belief system to explain
that
> > which we do not _know_. By that definition certainly everyone must be
> > 'religious'. It is only recently that I have heard of this definition
(and
> > I find its timing a bit suspect). Previously it was belief in a higher
> > power and/or an afterlife that defined one as 'religious' or not.
>
> I didn't define it, I just posted a reference to the definitions. I
> don't know how often the dictionary writers change the definition of
> religion, but it has had multiple definitions for as long as I can
> remember (35+ years).
>
> Matt

Here's the Am. Heritage definition:
rel., relig.
a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as
creator and governor of the universe. b. A personal or institutionalized
system grounded in such belief and worship.

You can define it as you wish; many unscrupulous people do.

Atheists are non-religious. They have no deity to worship; do not
ordinarily attend church or revere the priesthood; are not particularly
organized or split up into quarreling denominations; and don't take their
beliefs on faith but rather depend on their observations, especially
scientific observations.

I have never known an atheist who considered himself anything but
irreligious. Any atheist would consider himself slurred to be referred to
as a religious person.

So htf somebody can say atheism is a religion is to me incomprehensible.

[Matt Whiting]

Dan Luke wrote:

> "Matt Whiting" wrote:
>
>>Hardly. Show me one shred of evidence that says Hitler was a bona fide
>>Christian. Show me one shred of evidence that says Christianity
>>supports genocide of Jews.
>
>
> The Protestant leader, Martin Luther, himself, held a livid hatred for Jews
> and their religion. In his book, _On the Jews and their Lies_, Luther set
> the standard for anti-semitism in Protestant Germany up until World War 2.
> Hitler expressed a great admiration for Martin Luther, often quoting his
> works and beliefs.
>
> "He who hears this name [God] from a Jew must inform the authorities, or
> else throw sow dung at him when he sees him and chase him away."
>
> "But what will happen even if we do burn down the Jews' synagogues and
> forbid them publicly to praise God, to pray, to teach, to utter God's name?
> They will still keep doing it in secret. If we know that they are doing this
> in secret, it is the same as if they were doing it publicly. for our
> knowledge of their secret doings and our toleration of them implies that
> they are not secret after all and thus our conscience is encumbered with it
> before God."
>
> --Martin Luther (On the Jews and Their Lies)
>
>

OK, can you point out the passage that says you should kill Jews? I
read the above twice and just don't see it.

Matt

[Matt Barrow]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:Kimod.70165$V41.9053@attbi_s52...
> > ONE OF THE PIECES WHICH ACCOUNTS FOR WHY ALL PEOPLE WITH THE SPIRIT OF
> > PHILOSOPHY FIND THE RELIGIONS OF THE MASSES OFFENSIVE.
>

"Religion is a primitive form of philosophy, [the] attempt to offer a
comprehensive view of reality. Philosophy is the goal toward which religion
was only a helplessly blind groping." -- (Ayn Rand; The Objectivist Feb
1966)


> (Big Snip)
>
> Wow.
>
> I've seen few Usenet posts worthy of getting saved on my hard drive.
>
> This is one of them.
>
> Thanks for sharing that.

[Matt Barrow]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Matt Barrow" wrote:
> > > Learning right from wrong comes from evolution.
> >
> > Evolution comes from learning right from wrong.
>
> Both are correct. Populations of organisms "learn" the right way to
survive
> in their environments or they perish.

That's nice, but that's not "right from wrong" except on the most extreme
fringe. We're talking morality (self preservation) and ethics (conduct
towards others) which are intellectual pursuits, not biological (though they
are linked).

> The ability to do this is coded into
> their genes. The coding changes over time due to a combination of
mutation
> and natural selection, i.e., by evolution.

Animals have instincts that have developed from evolution. Humans have
reason and, from that, develop principles.

[mike regish]

Just so we're straight here, I'm not talking Darwinian evolution. Modern
civilized man is beyond survival of the fittest since everybody survives
(well, almost) due to advances in medicine. The only genetic evolutionary
steps we really have left are through genetic engineering.

There are no modern cultures (and by modern, I mean technically advanced)
that practice cannibalism that I know of. Any aboriginal cultures (removed
from technical advances) are still evolving both in the Darwinian sense and
intellectually.

Did you indoctrinate your kids in religion from the time they were born or
did you wait until they were old enough to make their own choices? I'm
betting that if you have kids, you raised them in your religion, like all
the middle eastern religions do. Don't want to risk them forming their own
opinions of reality now, do you?

mike regish
(and that IS my real name)

BTW, I don't really give a rats ass what grade you give me.

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> mike regish wrote:
>
>> It would if we didn't have religion indoctrinating hatred and bigotry
>> from day 1.
>
> Nice excuse, but lacks creativity. I'll give it a D+. There are cultures
> that have virtually no organized religion, but engage in things such as
> cannibalism. Is that one of the moral values that evolution produces?
>
>
> Matt
>

[Matt Whiting]

Matt Barrow wrote:
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> news:Kimod.70165$V41.9053@attbi_s52...
>
>>>ONE OF THE PIECES WHICH ACCOUNTS FOR WHY ALL PEOPLE WITH THE SPIRIT OF
>>>PHILOSOPHY FIND THE RELIGIONS OF THE MASSES OFFENSIVE.
>>
>
> "Religion is a primitive form of philosophy, [the] attempt to offer a
> comprehensive view of reality. Philosophy is the goal toward which religion
> was only a helplessly blind groping." -- (Ayn Rand; The Objectivist Feb
> 1966)

Ayn had it backwards, unfortunately.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

mike regish wrote:

> Just so we're straight here, I'm not talking Darwinian evolution. Modern
> civilized man is beyond survival of the fittest since everybody survives
> (well, almost) due to advances in medicine. The only genetic evolutionary
> steps we really have left are through genetic engineering.
>
> There are no modern cultures (and by modern, I mean technically advanced)
> that practice cannibalism that I know of. Any aboriginal cultures (removed
> from technical advances) are still evolving both in the Darwinian sense and
> intellectually.
>
> Did you indoctrinate your kids in religion from the time they were born or
> did you wait until they were old enough to make their own choices? I'm
> betting that if you have kids, you raised them in your religion, like all
> the middle eastern religions do. Don't want to risk them forming their own
> opinions of reality now, do you?

Sure. What did you indoctrinate your kids into?


> mike regish
> (and that IS my real name)
>
> BTW, I don't really give a rats ass what grade you give me.

Really? Then why does it bother you so much? I'll give you a B+ on
grammar, but you need to add an apostrophe to rat's.

Matt

[mike regish]

Not this one. In Texas, no less.

"Dena Schlosser, 35, was charged with capital murder Monday after calmly
telling a 911 operator that she had cut off the arms of 11-month old
Margaret. Police found Schlosser sitting in her living room, covered in
blood, a church hymn playing in the background."

See
http://www.comcast.net/News/DOMESTIC//XML/1110_AP_Online_Regional___National__US_/347b15af-01be-4960-a6be-8a1e5519814b.html

Ahhh...sweet religion.

mike regish

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:RLIod.382261$wV.315770@attbi_s54...

>
> There have been plenty of people killed by atheists and agnostics.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

[mike regish]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
>
> Sure. What did you indoctrinate your kids into?

Nothing. They can make their own choices whenever they wish. I give them all
the answers I can and find out the ones I can't. They are very curious kids
and I have always been a pretty curious and scientifically oriented person.
And I know how to say "I don't know." It has been a learning experience for
all of us. And their teachers and all their friends mothers have always
commented on how well behaved they are. I guess my athiestic morals can't be
all that bad.

>
>
>> mike regish
>> (and that IS my real name)
>>
>> BTW, I don't really give a rats ass what grade you give me.
>
> Really? Then why does it bother you so much?

I'm curious as to what makes you think it bothers me.

I'll give you a B+ on
> grammar, but you need to add an apostrophe to rat's.

The mark of the desperately wrong. Pointing out typos.

[Dan Luke]

"Matt Barrow" wrote:
in message ...
>> Both are correct. Populations of organisms "learn" the right way to
> survive
>> in their environments or they perish.
>
> That's nice, but that's not "right from wrong" except on the most
> extreme
> fringe. We're talking morality (self preservation) and ethics (conduct
> towards others) which are intellectual pursuits, not biological
> (though they
> are linked).

What's the difference? They are both behaviors. Behavior in all
animals is a combination of instinct and learning. It's all biological.

>> The ability to do this is coded into
>> their genes. The coding changes over time due to a combination of
> mutation
>> and natural selection, i.e., by evolution.
>
> Animals have instincts that have developed from evolution. Humans have
> reason and, from that, develop principles.

Humans have instincts; other animals can reason. It's only a matter of
degree. "Principles" is a fancy name for social behavior useful to the
species.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Dan Luke]

"Matt Whiting" wrote:

> OK, can you point out the passage that says you should kill Jews? I
> read the above twice and just don't see it.

"But what will happen even if we do burn down the Jews' synagogues and
forbid them publicly to praise God, to pray, to teach, to utter God's
name? They will still keep doing it in secret."

What do you suppose Luther is implying should be done about those nasty
Jews, if burning down their synagogues wasn't enough?

And just in case that lovely sentiment doesn't sufficiently impress you
that genocide marks many pages in Christian history, try this one:

(The following excerpt is from Las Casas' book _A Short Account Of The
Destruction Of the Indies_, Penguin Books, Edited and Translated by
Nigel Griffin.)

"They forced their way into native settlements, slaughtering everyone
they found there, including small children, old men, pregnant women, and
even women who had just given birth. ...They spared no one, erecting
especially wide gibbets on which they could string their victims up with
their feet just off the ground and then burn them alive thirteen at a
time, in honor of our Savior and the twelve Apostles, or tie dry straw
to their bodies and set fire to it. Some they chose to keep alive and
simply cut their wrists, leaving their hands dangling, saying to them:
'Take this letter' -- meaning that their sorry condition would as a
warning to those hiding in the hills...."

There's lots, lots more, if you care to look.

[Dan Luke]

"Matt Whiting" wrote:
> I'm no supporter of the Catholic church, so I won't argue with you
> there. The Catholic church doesn't follow the Bible in many ways and
> much of what they believe in and do is simply not supported by
> scripture and often outright condemned.
>
> I know most Catholics would disagree, but I don't consider Catholicism
> to be Christianity as they tend to elevate Mary to a level equal to or
> even higher than Christ.

In discussions like this it usually isn't long before the retreating
Christian pulls out the old "no true Scotsman" argument.

[Roger]

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 06:03:09 -0700, "Matt Barrow" >
wrote:

>> > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > So very true.
>> >
>> > The world is overrunning with immoral religious types.
>
>Sort of, but the proper term is "ethics" (pertaining to others), not
>"morality" (pertaining to self).

My dictionary doesn't quite see the distinction here.

Moral: Relating tot he principles or right and wrong in behavior.
conforming to a standard. Operating on one's conscience or *ethical*
judgment.

"Moral" implies conformity to established sanctioned codes or accepted
notions of right and wrong;

"Ethical" may suggest the involvement of more difficult or subtle
questions of rightness, fairness, or equity.

Ethical: of or relating to ethics. Involving or expressing moral
approval or disapproval.

Mores: The fixed morally binding customs of a particular group.

In essence, what is considered moral varies from group to group, but
those moral values tend to be fixed within the groups.
I would say that ethics is the performance to a moral standard.

For example. When doing business in many countries it is normal and
considered ethical to help out the favorite causes of the officials to
speed up or get things done (IE greasing the palms). In other areas
of the world such conduct is not considered unethical and even
criminal.

I once attended a seminar where those present were told that if they
accepted assignments in some areas of the world they would be expected
to conduct themselves according to the local ethics. If they had a
problem with that then they should either request they not be assigned
overseas assignments, or seek employment elsewhere. You should not go
into another country and expect your ethics to be considered normal.
Doing so can bring about a great deal of strife and even personal
discomfort.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Cub Driver]

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 11:57:51 -0600, "Gig Giacona"
> wrote:

>I have the dream about
>every 2 weeks or so.

It will go away eventually. (I quit about 25 years ago. Funny, I
remember the hour and the day but not the year.)

My dream was a bit different. I would be smoking a cigarette and
feeling quite smug, but I knew very well that I had quit, but nobody
else seemed to notice.

For a number of years after I quit, I'd follow people down the street
who were smoking, and sneak little sniffs of that ambrosia.

Now, however, it's entirely revolting.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
the blog www.danford.net

[Matt Whiting]

mike regish wrote:

> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Sure. What did you indoctrinate your kids into?
>
>
> Nothing. They can make their own choices whenever they wish. I give them all
> the answers I can and find out the ones I can't. They are very curious kids
> and I have always been a pretty curious and scientifically oriented person.
> And I know how to say "I don't know." It has been a learning experience for
> all of us. And their teachers and all their friends mothers have always
> commented on how well behaved they are. I guess my athiestic morals can't be
> all that bad.

So you indoctrinate them into the religion of "free thinking",
philosophy, etc. I was just curious.


>>>mike regish
>>>(and that IS my real name)
>>>
>>>BTW, I don't really give a rats ass what grade you give me.
>>
>>Really? Then why does it bother you so much?
>
>
> I'm curious as to what makes you think it bothers me.

Because you bothered to reply to it.


> I'll give you a B+ on
>
>>grammar, but you need to add an apostrophe to rat's.
>
>
> The mark of the desperately wrong. Pointing out typos.

The mark of the arrogantly wrong.


Matt

[Matt Whiting]

wrote:

> On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 14:05:20 -0500, Matt Whiting
> > wrote:
>
>
wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 09:16:34 -0500, Matt Whiting
> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>And there is a recent christian culture that gassed and burned 6
>>>>>million human beings.
>>>>
>>>>I'm not sure what a christian culture is, but a Christian culture didn't
>>>>do that. It was a Christian culture that came to the defense of the Jews.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>You need to pick up a good history book and spend a little time with
>>>it.
>>
>>Hardly. Show me one shred of evidence that says Hitler was a bona fide
>>Christian. Show me one shred of evidence that says Christianity
>>supports genocide of Jews.
>>
>>
>>Matt
>
>
>
>
>
> Take your pick.
>
>
>
>
> “I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so.”
>
> ( Adolf Hitler, from John Toland [Pulitzer Prize winner], Adolf
> Hitler, New York: Anchor Publishing, 1992, p. 507. )
>
> “The folkish-minded man, in particular, has the sacred duty, each in
> his own denomination, of making people stop just talking superficially
> of God's will, and actually fulfill God's will, and not let God's word
> be desecrated. For God's will gave men their form, their essence and
> their abilities. Anyone who destroys His work is declaring war on the
> Lord's creation, the divine will.”
>
> ( Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Ralph Mannheim, ed., New York: Mariner
> Books, 1999, p. 562. )
>
> “Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of
> the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am
> fighting for the work of the Lord.”
>
> ( Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Ralph Mannheim, ed., New York: Mariner
> Books, 1999, p. 65. )
>
> “My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a
> fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded
> only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and
> summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest
> not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian
> and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at
> last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the
> Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was his fight
> against the Jewish poison. Today, after two thousand years, with
> deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact
> that it was for this that He had to shed his blood upon the Cross. As
> a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have
> the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice. And as a man I have
> the duty to see to it that human society does not suffer the same
> catastrophic collapse as did the civilization of the ancient world
> some two thousand years ago — a civilization which was driven to its
> ruin through this same Jewish people.
>
> “Then indeed when Rome collapsed there were endless streams of new
> German bands flowing into the Empire from the North; but, if Germany
> collapses today, who is there to come after us? German blood upon this
> earth is on the way to gradual exhaustion unless we pull ourselves
> together and make ourselves free!
>
> “And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting
> rightly, it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I
> have also a duty to my own people. And when I look on my people I see
> them work and work and toil and labor, and at the end of the week they
> have only for their wages wretchedness and misery. When I go out in
> the morning and see these men standing in their queues and look into
> their pinched faces, then I believe I would be no Christian, but a
> very devil, if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord
> two thousand years ago, turn against those by whom today this poor
> people are plundered and exploited.”
>
> ( Adolf Hitler, in a speech delivered at Munich, April 12, 1922; from
> Norman H. Baynes, ed., The Speeches of Adolf Hitler: April 1922-August
> 1939, Vol. 1, New York: Oxford University Press, 1942, pp. 19-20. )
>
> “For this, to be sure, from the child's primer down to the last
> newspaper, every theater and every movie house, every advertising
> pillar and every billboard, must be pressed into the service of this
> one great mission, until the timorous prayer of our present parlor
> patriots: ‘Lord, make us free!’ is transformed in the brain of the
> smallest boy into the burning plea: ‘Almighty God, bless our arms when
> the time comes; be just as thou hast always been; judge now whether we
> be deserving of freedom; Lord, bless our battle!’”
>
> ( Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Ralph Mannheim, ed., New York: Mariner
> Books, 1999, pp. 632-633. )
>
> “I may not be a light of the church, a pulpiteer, but deep down I am a
> pious man, and believe that whoever fights bravely in defense of the
> natural laws framed by God and never capitulates will never be
> deserted by the Lawgiver, but will, in the end, receive the blessings
> of Providence.”
>
> ( Adolf Hitler, in a speech delivered on July 5, 1944; from Charles
> Bracelen Flood, Hitler: The Path to Power, Boston, Mass: Houghton
> Mifflin Company, 1989, p. 208. )
>
> “I say: my Christian feeling tells me that my lord and savior is a
> warrior. It calls my attention to the man who, lonely and surrounded
> by only a few supporters, recognized what they [the Jews] were, and
> called for a battle against them, and who, by God, was not the
> greatest sufferer, but the greatest warrior. . .
>
> “As a human being it is my duty to see to it that humanity will not
> suffer the same catastrophic collapse as did that old civilization two
> thousand years ago, a civilization which was driven to its ruin by the
> Jews. . . I am convinced that I am really a devil and not a Christian
> if I do not feel compassion and do not wage war, as Christ did two
> thousand years ago, against those who are steeling and exploiting
> these poverty-stricken people.
>
> “Two thousand years ago a man was similarly denounced by this
> particular race which today denounces and blasphememes all over the
> place. . . That man was dragged before a court and they said: he is
> arousing the people! So he, too, was an agitator!”
>
> ( Adolf Hitler, in a speech delivered on April 12, 1922; from Charles
> Bracelen Flood, Hitler: The Path to Power, Boston, Mass: Houghton
> Mifflin Company, 1989, pp. 261-262. )

Claiming something doesn't make it so. The Bible says that by their
works you will know them. Hitler's works clearly weren't Christian,
therefore he wasn't. I can claim to be the President of the United
States, but that doesn't make it so.


Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Dan Luke wrote:

> "Matt Whiting" wrote:
>
>>I'm no supporter of the Catholic church, so I won't argue with you
>>there. The Catholic church doesn't follow the Bible in many ways and
>>much of what they believe in and do is simply not supported by
>>scripture and often outright condemned.
>>
>>I know most Catholics would disagree, but I don't consider Catholicism
>>to be Christianity as they tend to elevate Mary to a level equal to or
>>even higher than Christ.
>
>
> In discussions like this it usually isn't long before the retreating
> Christian pulls out the old "no true Scotsman" argument.

You can believe whatever you want. But Baptists haven't agreed with
Catholic views for a lot longer than I've been around.


Matt

[Corky Scott]

On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 02:40:15 GMT, wrote:

>>>>>And there is a recent christian culture that gassed and burned 6
>>>>>million human beings.
>>>>
>>>>I'm not sure what a christian culture is, but a Christian culture didn't
>>>>do that. It was a Christian culture that came to the defense of the Jews.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> You need to pick up a good history book and spend a little time with
>>> it.
>>
>>Hardly. Show me one shred of evidence that says Hitler was a bona fide
>>Christian. Show me one shred of evidence that says Christianity
>>supports genocide of Jews.
>>
>>
>>Matt

*** Snip of 11 sentences or paragraphs from Hitlers writings or
speeches confirming his belief in God***

>Matt says:
>Claiming something doesn't make it so. The Bible says that by their
>works you will know them. Hitler's works clearly weren't Christian,
>therefore he wasn't. I can claim to be the President of the United
>States, but that doesn't make it so.

Matt this is pathetic. It's disingenuous to argue that recorded
authenticated evidence doesn't count just because you don't think it
should.

You asked the man to show you one shred of evidence. He did far more
than requested, he showed you a whole bundle, which by the way must
have taken some time to research and record. From his (Hitler's)
writings, it's obvious he professed to be a Christian. It doesn't
matter that you think he did not behave as a Christian, you have the
evidence you asked for.

History is replete with people who professed to be Christians and/or
believers in God, but behaved like apostles of evil. How they behaved
does not alter the fact that they thought of themselves as members of
a religion, believers in God.

Sure, you can say (paraphrasing): "well they did evil so obviously
they weren't true believers because true believers would not do evil".
But how do you know this? Is God omniscient or not? If He/She/It is,
then the centuries of slaughter in God's name, which continue to this
day, have been explicitly condoned by this holy being. But wait, the
sixth Commandment is: "Thou shalt not kill". Uh oh, how does that
work?

Corky (Oooohhh too much information!!!) Scott

PS, double Uh oh:
>Claiming something doesn't make it so. The Bible says that by their
>works you will know them. Hitler's works clearly weren't Christian,
>therefore he wasn't. I can claim to be the President of the United
>States, but that doesn't make it so.

Speaking of the president, does he profess to believe in God? Ok, ha
ha, retorical question we all know he REALLY believes in God, or,
going with your argument, says he does. But did he not sign the death
warrants for many people on death row in Texas? Did he not send
thousands of troops into harms way which resulted in hundreds of
thousands of deaths. If he did, then he was directly responsible for
their deaths. Is this ok? A little justifiable killing here and
there for protection's sake?

[Dan Luke]

"Matt Whiting" wrote:

"No true Scotsman..."

[Dan Luke]

"Matt Whiting" wrote:
> So you indoctrinate them into the religion of "free thinking",
> philosophy, etc. I was just curious.

Another tired argument commonly used by dogmatists. "Everything is
religion, so my religion makes just as much sense as anything else."

[[email protected]]

On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 07:20:43 -0500, Matt Whiting
> wrote:

>Claiming something doesn't make it so. The Bible says that by their
>works you will know them. Hitler's works clearly weren't Christian,
>therefore he wasn't. I can claim to be the President of the United
>States, but that doesn't make it so.
>
>
>Matt



"Show me a shred of evidence" he says, "that Hitler was a Christian".

So I shows him several shreds, I does.

"Evidence don't mean anything" he now says. "I believe what I want to
believe".

An essential trait for the religious, I think.

[Corky Scott]

On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 17:10:03 +0100 (CET), Nomen Nescio
]> wrote:

>Actually, It's "Thou shalt not MURDER" (Lost a little something in translation).
>There is no general prohibition of "killing" in the Bible, which also spells out the
>conditions in which killing a human is allowed.

No problem then, fire away...

Repeat of old Quaker joke: Old farmer hears a ruckus out in the barn
late one night. Climbs out of bed in his nightshirt, grabs the
blunderbuss over the mantle, lights a lantern and waddles out to the
barn.

He throws open the barn door to observe a thief in the middle of
attempting to steal his horse.

Leveling the blunderbuss at the would be thief, he portends: "Friend,
I would not hurt thee for all the world, but thee's standing where I'm
about to shoot."

Corky Scott

[[email protected]]

On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 08:49:32 -0600, "Dan Luke"
> wrote:

>
>"Matt Whiting" wrote:
>
>"No true Scotsman..."
>


You know, I don't know how we overlooked, in all this discussion, that
great American christian group known as the White Knights of the Ku
Klux Klan.

Now there's a fine collection of religious fellows if there ever was
one.

[Jay Honeck]

> I'm no supporter of the Catholic church, so I won't argue with you there.
> The Catholic church doesn't follow the Bible in many ways and much of what
> they believe in and do is simply not supported by scripture and often
> outright condemned.
>
> I know most Catholics would disagree, but I don't consider Catholicism to
> be Christianity as they tend to elevate Mary to a level equal to or even
> higher than Christ.

Whoo-whee!

Man, if only I had the guts to have said something like this to the nuns
back at good ol' St. Catherine's High School, in Racine, WI. (Class of '76)

Dang, I'd STILL be walking with a limp...

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

[Jay Honeck]

> Not this one. In Texas, no less.
>
> "Dena Schlosser, 35, was charged with capital murder Monday after calmly
> telling a 911 operator that she had cut off the arms of 11-month old
> Margaret. Police found Schlosser sitting in her living room, covered in
> blood, a church hymn playing in the background."

Now, come on. I think it's safe to say that people of ALL religions and
beliefs would classify this lady as mentally ill.

Although some might call it "possessed"?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"