Re: ~ Bush: "I'm God's Delivery Boy" ~

[WalterM140]

>Separation of church and state, anyone?

The president doesn't speak for the state in the same way that the Queen of
England does, for instance.

Abraham Lincoln:

``I have often wished I was a more devout man. Nevertheless, amid the great
difficulties of my administration, when I could not see any other resort, I
would place my whole reliance in God, knowing all would go well and that He
would decide for the right.''


When asked if he believed ``the Lord was on the Union's side,'' he replied, ``I
am not at all concerned about that, for I know that the Lord is always on the
right side. It is my constant anxiety and prayer that I and this nation should
be on His side.''

Also consider:

"I have not forgotten--probably never shall forget--the very impressive
occasion when yourself and friends visited me on a Sabbath forenoon two years
ago. Nor has your kind letter, written nearly a year later, ever been
forgotten. In all, it has been your purpose to strengthen my reliance on God. I
am much indebted to the good Christian people of the country for their constant
prayers and consolations; and to no one of them, more than to yourself. The
purposes of the Almighty are perfect, and must prevail, though we erring
mortals may fail to accurately perceive them in advance.

We hoped for a happy termination of this terrible war long before this; but God
knows best, and has ruled otherwise. We shall yet acknowledge His wisdom and
our own error therein. Meanwhile we must work earnestly in the best light He
gives us, trusting that so working still conduces to the great ends He ordains.
Surely He intends some great good to follow this mighty convulsion, which no
mortal could make, and no mortal could stay."

Abraham Lincoln Letter to Eliza Gurney, September 4, 1864.

"We have been the recipients of the choicest bounties of heaven; we have been
preserved these many years in peace and prosperity; we have grown in numbers,
wealth and power as no nation has ever grown. But we have forgotten God.
Intoxicated with unbroken successes, we have become too self-sufficient to feel
the necessity of redeeming and preserving grace, too proud to pray to the God
that made us. It behooves us, then, to humble ourselves before the offended
power, to confess our national sins, and to pray for clemency and forgiveness."


--A. Lincoln March 30, 1863


The framers wanted Americans to have freedom -of- religion, not freedom -from-
religion.

Walt

[Guy Alcala]

WalterM140 wrote:

> >Separation of church and state, anyone?
>
> The president doesn't speak for the state in the same way that the Queen of
> England does, for instance.

<Lincoln quotes snipped>

> The framers wanted Americans to have freedom -of- religion, not freedom -from-
> religion.

In order to have freedom -of- religion, one must also have the option of freedom
-from- religion, or no freedom exists.

Guy (a life-long agnostic)

[WalterM140]

>In order to have freedom -of- religion, one must also have the option of
>freedom
>-from- religion, or no freedom exists.
>
>Guy (a life-long agnostic)

That simply didn't occur to the framers of the Constitution, no matter how near
and dear to your heart.

Every session of the Constitutional Convention began with prayer.

Walt

[[email protected]]

Guy Alcala > wrote:

>WalterM140 wrote:
>
>> >Separation of church and state, anyone?
>>
>> The president doesn't speak for the state in the same way that the Queen of
>> England does, for instance.
>
><Lincoln quotes snipped>
>
>> The framers wanted Americans to have freedom -of- religion, not freedom -from-
>> religion.
>
>In order to have freedom -of- religion, one must also have the option of freedom
>-from- religion, or no freedom exists.
>
>Guy (a life-long agnostic)
>
That's akin to saying that freedom doesn't exist unless everyone
is free to do whatever they wish. I don't think that I'd like to
live in a country where that was the case, would you?.
--

-Gord.

[Ed Rasimus]

On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 17:47:24 GMT, "Gord Beaman" )
wrote:

>Guy Alcala > wrote:
>
>>WalterM140 wrote:
>>
>>> >Separation of church and state, anyone?
>>>
>>> The president doesn't speak for the state in the same way that the Queen of
>>> England does, for instance.
>>
>><Lincoln quotes snipped>
>>
>>> The framers wanted Americans to have freedom -of- religion, not freedom -from-
>>> religion.
>>
>>In order to have freedom -of- religion, one must also have the option of freedom
>>-from- religion, or no freedom exists.
>>
>>Guy (a life-long agnostic)
>>
>That's akin to saying that freedom doesn't exist unless everyone
>is free to do whatever they wish. I don't think that I'd like to
>live in a country where that was the case, would you?.

Time for the ol' Political Science professor to drop in and point out
some things.

First, the president speaks for the state in a much greater way than
the Queen. The US President is both head of state and head of
government. That being said, however, when a President professes his
own faith and trust in divine providence, he isn't speaking for the
state. And, when an historic presidential statement is made it
reflects more on the sociology of the time than the politics. It
definitely does not speak to Constitutional interpretation.

Then, the oft-quoted conundrum of "freedom-of" versus "freedom from"
is found nowhere in Constitutional law. The religion guarantees in the
First Amendment are in two clauses--separate and not contradictory.

First, the "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion"--that means not only that the Congress shall not establish a
religion, i.e. a governmentally endorsed faith. But goes a step
further in specifiying that the law shall not "respect" a particular
establishment of religion. In other words, no favoritism for one
religion over another. This is a restriction on the government, not
the citizens. And, by virtue of the 14th Amendment's "equal
protection" provisions it applies to the lesser levels of government
in our federal system as well.

Second, the sentence goes on, "...or restricting the free exercise
thereof." That part applies to the citizens. Citizens are free to
practice the rituals of their individual faiths without governmental
interference. (Of course if that practice interferes with the rights
of others, or the 'general welfare" of society, we can constrain the
practice of religion--hence no more virgins in the volcanoes.)

As for the God-fearing attributes of the Framers, they were
politicians of the time and the custom was to express a level of
civility and piety in their public discourse. Many belonged to
Protestant denomination churches, but many were also agnostic or (as
in the case of Thomas Jefferson,) deists--believers in a Supreme Being
without espousal of a particular liturgy. There's little evidence to
link anything in the Constitution to Christianity.

Class dismissed.
Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[Tarver Engineering]

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 17:47:24 GMT, "Gord Beaman" )
> wrote:
>
> >Guy Alcala > wrote:
> >
> >>WalterM140 wrote:
> >>
> >>> >Separation of church and state, anyone?
> >>>
> >>> The president doesn't speak for the state in the same way that the
Queen of
> >>> England does, for instance.
> >>
> >><Lincoln quotes snipped>
> >>
> >>> The framers wanted Americans to have freedom -of- religion, not
freedom -from-
> >>> religion.
> >>
> >>In order to have freedom -of- religion, one must also have the option of
freedom
> >>-from- religion, or no freedom exists.
> >>
> >>Guy (a life-long agnostic)
> >>
> >That's akin to saying that freedom doesn't exist unless everyone
> >is free to do whatever they wish. I don't think that I'd like to
> >live in a country where that was the case, would you?.
>
> Time for the ol' Political Science professor to drop in and point out
> some things.
>
> First, the president speaks for the state in a much greater way than
> the Queen. The US President is both head of state and head of
> government. That being said, however, when a President professes his
> own faith and trust in divine providence, he isn't speaking for the
> state. And, when an historic presidential statement is made it
> reflects more on the sociology of the time than the politics. It
> definitely does not speak to Constitutional interpretation.

Following a Christian philosophy is not evangelization.

> Then, the oft-quoted conundrum of "freedom-of" versus "freedom from"
> is found nowhere in Constitutional law. The religion guarantees in the
> First Amendment are in two clauses--separate and not contradictory.

Wrong, "the free exercise theroef" eliminates any possibility of a "freedom
from" religion. The First Amendment is a powerful thing and I have used the
final delcaration myself, to improve regulation.

> First, the "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
> religion"--that means not only that the Congress shall not establish a
> religion, i.e. a governmentally endorsed faith. But goes a step
> further in specifiying that the law shall not "respect" a particular
> establishment of religion. In other words, no favoritism for one
> religion over another. This is a restriction on the government, not
> the citizens. And, by virtue of the 14th Amendment's "equal
> protection" provisions it applies to the lesser levels of government
> in our federal system as well.

And thus we can have a Southern Baptist Church on one corner and a Methodist
Curch catty corner to it and have no excessive exchange of gunfire.

None of that implys in any way that there is any right to "freedom from"
religion and a constructionist interpretation would need to conclude that an
insistance on "freedom from " religion is in fact a violation of the First
Amendment.

The Forteenth Amendment, it is intended as an enforcement mechanism for the
Thirteenth Amendment. One need only discover the Fifteenth Aendment and the
95 year delay in enacting enabling law to understand how the wind came out
of the Constitutional change sail once the enforcement of anti-slavery law
moved forward. (1869)

> Second, the sentence goes on, "...or restricting the free exercise
> thereof." That part applies to the citizens. Citizens are free to
> practice the rituals of their individual faiths without governmental
> interference. (Of course if that practice interferes with the rights
> of others, or the 'general welfare" of society, we can constrain the
> practice of religion--hence no more virgins in the volcanoes.)

Perhaps, but the Governement's expression of religion is part of our
buildings and money everywhere. It would seem that the general proclomation
of the Forteenth Amendment is being used to circumvent the "free exercise
thereof" explicitly guaranteed under the First.

> As for the God-fearing attributes of the Framers, they were
> politicians of the time and the custom was to express a level of
> civility and piety in their public discourse. Many belonged to
> Protestant denomination churches, but many were also agnostic or (as
> in the case of Thomas Jefferson,) deists--believers in a Supreme Being
> without espousal of a particular liturgy. There's little evidence to
> link anything in the Constitution to Christianity.

Even Ed is peddler of revisionionist PC bull****.

Notice how we began at Guy's desire to be "left alone", as guaranteed by
Fourth Amendment, to Ed's activist PC proclomation about it being OK to
attack Christianity.

[Robey Price]

After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, "Tarver
Engineering" confessed the following:

>Following a Christian philosophy is not evangelization.

And exactly what philosophy is that? I suspect many of the things
(rules of conduct among men/nations) you will claim as christian;
jews, muslims and secular humanists will claim as tenets of their
faith or lack there of.

>Wrong, "the free exercise theroef" eliminates any possibility of a "freedom
>from" religion.

All hail chief justice John Tarver...supreme arbiter of all things
constitutional.

A pedant could argue it I don't have the right of "freedom from"
religion then you are clearly implying I must observe some religion,
failure to do so would be a violation of your constitutional ruling.

Clearly you are wrong.

>Perhaps, but the Governement's expression of religion is part of our
>buildings and money everywhere.

Again which religion and which god does my government follow?

Ed posted thusly:
>> As for the God-fearing attributes of the Framers, they were
>> politicians of the time and the custom was to express a level of
>> civility and piety in their public discourse. Many belonged to
>> Protestant denomination churches, but many were also agnostic or (as
>> in the case of Thomas Jefferson,) deists--believers in a Supreme Being
>> without espousal of a particular liturgy. There's little evidence to
>> link anything in the Constitution to Christianity.

And JT concludes...

>Even Ed is peddler of revisionionist PC bull****.

Hmmm, my political science degree is 25 years old, and Ed's remarks
jibe with the books I read and the lectures I heard. So when exactly
did this "revisionism" start?

>Notice how we began at Guy's desire to be "left alone", as guaranteed by
>Fourth Amendment, to Ed's activist PC proclomation about it being OK to
>attack Christianity.

Whoa...I, like Guy would ask you to keep your religious myths to
yourself. Believe what you want, but don't expect any special
treatment because you think christianity is superior to what jews,
muslims, buddhists, hindus, or pagans follow.

Oh yeah, one more thing. When you die...POOF...you're gone, time's up,
no "do overs."

Juvat

[Tarver Engineering]

"Robey Price" > wrote in message
...
> After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, "Tarver
> Engineering" confessed the following:
>
> >Following a Christian philosophy is not evangelization.
>
> And exactly what philosophy is that? I suspect many of the things
> (rules of conduct among men/nations) you will claim as christian;
> jews, muslims and secular humanists will claim as tenets of their
> faith or lack there of.

Logos, Pathos and Ethos are a part of the religions I know of.

> >Wrong, "the free exercise theroef" eliminates any possibility of a
"freedom
> >from" religion.
>
> All hail chief justice John Tarver...supreme arbiter of all things
> constitutional.

An explicit right can not be cancelled through some vague generalized law.

> A pedant could argue it I don't have the right of "freedom from"
> religion then you are clearly implying I must observe some religion,
> failure to do so would be a violation of your constitutional ruling.

Failure to observe any religion leads directly to human psycosis and is
detrimental to society as a whole.

> Clearly you are wrong.

Clearly, human nature says I am correct.

> >Perhaps, but the Governement's expression of religion is part of our
> >buildings and money everywhere.
>
> Again which religion and which god does my government follow?

The government does not follow any religion.

> Ed posted thusly:
> >> As for the God-fearing attributes of the Framers, they were
> >> politicians of the time and the custom was to express a level of
> >> civility and piety in their public discourse. Many belonged to
> >> Protestant denomination churches, but many were also agnostic or (as
> >> in the case of Thomas Jefferson,) deists--believers in a Supreme Being
> >> without espousal of a particular liturgy. There's little evidence to
> >> link anything in the Constitution to Christianity.
>
> And JT concludes...
>
> >Even Ed is peddler of revisionionist PC bull****.
>
> Hmmm, my political science degree is 25 years old, and Ed's remarks
> jibe with the books I read and the lectures I heard. So when exactly
> did this "revisionism" start?

The removal of religion from the public square began in the 1970s.

> >Notice how we began at Guy's desire to be "left alone", as guaranteed by
> >Fourth Amendment, to Ed's activist PC proclomation about it being OK to
> >attack Christianity.
>
> Whoa...I, like Guy would ask you to keep your religious myths to
> yourself. Believe what you want, but don't expect any special
> treatment because you think christianity is superior to what jews,
> muslims, buddhists, hindus, or pagans follow.

As you might learn someday, it is all the same thing.

To call Luciffer by a differnet name does not change the messenger. (angel)
What we can learn is the difference in society where a different cure for
human psycosis is offered. In a society where the Hindi concept of
reincarnation is widely held, Shiva is renewal as opposed to destruction and
death, but still the same character.

> Oh yeah, one more thing. When you die...POOF...you're gone, time's up,
> no "do overs."

That is a Christian concept, but not a universal religious concept.

[Robey Price]

After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, "Tarver
Engineering" confessed the following:

>Failure to observe any religion leads directly to human psycosis and is
>detrimental to society as a whole.

Well...guys like Feynman, Sagan, Einstein, et al would smile and
suggest that religion might actually be a contributor to that
psycosis.

>The removal of religion from the public square began in the 1970s.

Quoi? Please enlighten me...what are you trying to say? Specifics. Not
that I would view such events as bad things, I'd be inclined to chant
"faster and funnier" if that would speed the process you're lamenting.

[note to lurker: faster and funnier is often heard in squadrons when
a briefer is boring the audience and delaying the participation in
Happy Hour].

>As you might learn someday, it is all the same thing.

Well they all have equal validity IMO.

>To call Luciffer by a differnet name does not change the messenger. (angel)
>What we can learn is the difference in society where a different cure for
>human psycosis is offered. In a society where the Hindi concept of
>reincarnation is widely held, Shiva is renewal as opposed to destruction and
>death, but still the same character.

Uhhh, mmmm okay. I guess you're saying that one mythical character
appears in various incarnations as part of diverse religious myths. I
can buy that.

>That is a Christian concept, but not a universal religious concept.

Actually I'm paraphrasing the secular humanist view, we'd never call
ourselves christians.

Juvat

[Tarver Engineering]

"Robey Price" > wrote in message
...
> After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, "Tarver
> Engineering" confessed the following:
>
> >Failure to observe any religion leads directly to human psycosis and is
> >detrimental to society as a whole.
>
> Well...guys like Feynman, Sagan, Einstein, et al would smile and
> suggest that religion might actually be a contributor to that
> psycosis.

Einstein's black box radiation work led directly to the discreditation of
evolution which continues today through DNA. The evolutionist was
confronted with "Jew science" by 1930 demonstrating a vacuum fluctuation
quite nicely. Attempting to use 20th century science to validate 19th
century "dog breeder science" can only demonstrate a paradox when taken to
it's conclusion.

Perhaps this is more along the lines of your line of :
It [charity] encourages the healthier and more normal sections of the world
to shoulder the burden of unthinking and indiscriminate fecundity of others;
which brings with it, as I think the reader must agree, a dead weight of
human waste. Instead of decreasing and aiming to eliminate the stocks that
are most detrimental to the future of the race and the world, it tends to
render them to a menacing degree dominant [emphasis added].11
Margaret Sanger
--

"To give certain dysgenic groups in our population their choice of
segregation [concentration camps] or sterilization", advocated the founder
of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger in April 1932 ("A Plan For Peace")

> >The removal of religion from the public square began in the 1970s.
>
> Quoi? Please enlighten me...what are you trying to say? Specifics. Not
> that I would view such events as bad things, I'd be inclined to chant
> "faster and funnier" if that would speed the process you're lamenting.

Archatecture and art that would be completely acceptable in the public
square in the 1960s is not acceptable in the public square today.

> [note to lurker: faster and funnier is often heard in squadrons when
> a briefer is boring the audience and delaying the participation in
> Happy Hour].

Is that the 2 for 1 happy hour, or the regualar kind?

> >As you might learn someday, it is all the same thing.
>
> Well they all have equal validity IMO.

All who call upon the name of God will be saved.

> >To call Luciffer by a differnet name does not change the messenger.
(angel)
> >What we can learn is the difference in society where a different cure for
> >human psycosis is offered. In a society where the Hindi concept of
> >reincarnation is widely held, Shiva is renewal as opposed to destruction
and
> >death, but still the same character.
>
> Uhhh, mmmm okay. I guess you're saying that one mythical character
> appears in various incarnations as part of diverse religious myths. I
> can buy that.

I find that fascinating bit quite useful in understanding a society.

> >That is a Christian concept, but not a universal religious concept.
>
> Actually I'm paraphrasing the secular humanist view, we'd never call
> ourselves christians.

Is it OK for Phil Miller to marry his pony?

Or is it a moral question.

[Robey Price]

After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, "Tarver
Engineering" confessed the following:

>Einstein's black box radiation work led directly to the discreditation of
>evolution which continues today through DNA.

Seriously? Do a google search and point me to a source, or cite your
source for this claim. I've never read that Einstein disproved
evolution. And what exactly continues today through DNA...discrediting
evolution or evolution?

> The evolutionist was confronted with "Jew science" by 1930
> demonstrating a vacuum fluctuation...

Umm, which evolutionist are you specifying when you say, "the
evoluntionist?" NASA seems to think the prediction of the vacuum
fluctuation or Zero Energy Point was in 1948. Which really makes me
wonder where it is you're going with whatever it is you're talking
about now...

>Attempting to use 20th century science to validate 19th
>century "dog breeder science" can only demonstrate a paradox when taken to
>it's conclusion.

Nah...Einstein had no problem validating Newton. The more man learns,
the more god-like he becomes.

>Perhaps this is more along the lines of your line of :

LOL...too funny, this is getting to be hysterical! JT you're such a
nutty guy.

>Archatecture and art that would be completely acceptable in the public
>square in the 1960s is not acceptable in the public square today.

Oh yeah, let's go back to the 1960's, "separate but equal." No thanks.
In the 1960s WHITE guys were making all the decisions for women,
minorities, you name it...some god-fearing white guy had the answer.
We've made a great deal of progress since then.

>All who call upon the name of God will be saved.

Ah yes, our buds the islamist ****s that hi-jacked those four jets.

>I find that fascinating bit quite useful in understanding a society.

Hey everybody thinks their way is THE way, it shouldn't come as a big
surprise that of the 5.8B people on planet earth, ROUGHLY 17% are
christian and the other 83% nod their craniums and mutter, "yeah,
whatever..."

>Is it OK for Phil Miller to marry his pony?

Hey if the pony has reached the age of majority, can repeat the vows
and sign the papers, go for it.

>Or is it a moral question.

Uhhh...moral IMO, something that can be decided without the benefit of
mythical characters. See that wasn't so hard, no psycosis.

Juvat

[Tarver Engineering]

"Robey Price" > wrote in message
...
> After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, "Tarver
> Engineering" confessed the following:
>
> >Einstein's black box radiation work led directly to the discreditation of
> >evolution which continues today through DNA.
>
> Seriously? Do a google search and point me to a source, or cite your
> source for this claim. I've never read that Einstein disproved
> evolution. And what exactly continues today through DNA...discrediting
> evolution or evolution?

The removal of Neanderthal as an ancestor of man using DNA fact is one way
modern science is discrediting evolution as science.

If you want to understand why "Jew Science" discredits the dog breeder's
religion you would need to read "In Search of Schrodinger's Cat" and "In
Search of Schrodinger's Kittens". It is the same basis upon which Einstein
proclaimed, "God does not play dice".

> > The evolutionist was confronted with "Jew science" by 1930
> > demonstrating a vacuum fluctuation...
>
> Umm, which evolutionist are you specifying when you say, "the
> evoluntionist?" NASA seems to think the prediction of the vacuum
> fluctuation or Zero Energy Point was in 1948. Which really makes me
> wonder where it is you're going with whatever it is you're talking
> about now...

I think you are trying to get by on bull****.

> >Attempting to use 20th century science to validate 19th
> >century "dog breeder science" can only demonstrate a paradox when taken
to
> >it's conclusion.
>
> Nah...Einstein had no problem validating Newton. The more man learns,
> the more god-like he becomes.

Do you know Darwin from Newton?

> >Perhaps this is more along the lines of your line of :
>
> LOL...too funny, this is getting to be hysterical! JT you're such a
> nutty guy.

> >Archatecture and art that would be completely acceptable in the public
> >square in the 1960s is not acceptable in the public square today.
>
> Oh yeah, let's go back to the 1960's, "separate but equal." No thanks.
> In the 1960s WHITE guys were making all the decisions for women,
> minorities, you name it...some god-fearing white guy had the answer.
> We've made a great deal of progress since then.

The Constitution didn't change.

> >All who call upon the name of God will be saved.
>
> Ah yes, our buds the islamist ****s that hi-jacked those four jets.

Quite possibly.

> >I find that fascinating bit quite useful in understanding a society.
>
> Hey everybody thinks their way is THE way, it shouldn't come as a big
> surprise that of the 5.8B people on planet earth, ROUGHLY 17% are
> christian and the other 83% nod their craniums and mutter, "yeah,
> whatever..."

Here in the US the numbers run a little different than the numbers you made
up.

> >Is it OK for Phil Miller to marry his pony?
>
> Hey if the pony has reached the age of majority, can repeat the vows
> and sign the papers, go for it.

Couldn't Phil just claim the pony agrees?

> >Or is it a moral question.
>
> Uhhh...moral IMO, something that can be decided without the benefit of
> mythical characters. See that wasn't so hard, no psycosis.

Lots of psycosis.

[Robey Price]

After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, "Tarver
Engineering" confessed the following:

>> >Einstein's black box radiation work led directly to the discreditation of
>> >evolution which continues today through DNA.

and this as a followup when he was asked to explain how Einstein's
work discredited/disproved evolution...

>The removal of Neanderthal as an ancestor of man using DNA fact is one way
>modern science is discrediting evolution as science.

OK, you have no response. No Problem.

>If you want to understand why "Jew Science" discredits the dog breeder's
>religion you would need to read "In Search of Schrodinger's Cat" and "In
>Search of Schrodinger's Kittens".

Nah...not interesting to me, I passed on both books.

>I think you are trying to get by on bull****.

Hey pot...meet kettle.

>Do you know Darwin from Newton?

Never met either guy.

>The Constitution didn't change.

True...but society does, and mostly for the better.

>Here in the US the numbers run a little different than the numbers you made
>up.

Not made up. I guessed 20% of the world is christian, a christian
co-worker told me the number is closer to 17%. The 5.8B population I
got from John Allan Paulos, or Michael Starbird...numbers guys.

>Couldn't Phil just claim the pony agrees?

Nope.

>Lots of psycosis.

Perhaps mostly in the great state of CA.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Robey Price" > wrote in message
...
> After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, "Tarver
> Engineering" confessed the following:
>
> >> >Einstein's black box radiation work led directly to the discreditation
of
> >> >evolution which continues today through DNA.
>
> and this as a followup when he was asked to explain how Einstein's
> work discredited/disproved evolution...
>
> >The removal of Neanderthal as an ancestor of man using DNA fact is one
way
> >modern science is discrediting evolution as science.
>
> OK, you have no response. No Problem.

I'd say the elimination of the "chain of life to man" as evolutionist dogma
is a major discreditation.

> >If you want to understand why "Jew Science" discredits the dog breeder's
> >religion you would need to read "In Search of Schrodinger's Cat" and "In
> >Search of Schrodinger's Kittens".
>
> Nah...not interesting to me, I passed on both books.

Denial is probably better for you.

[Guy Alcala]

" wrote:

> Guy Alcala > wrote:
>
> >WalterM140 wrote:
> >
> >> >Separation of church and state, anyone?
> >>
> >> The president doesn't speak for the state in the same way that the Queen of
> >> England does, for instance.
> >
> ><Lincoln quotes snipped>
> >
> >> The framers wanted Americans to have freedom -of- religion, not freedom -from-
> >> religion.
> >
> >In order to have freedom -of- religion, one must also have the option of freedom
> >-from- religion, or no freedom exists.
> >
> >Guy (a life-long agnostic)
> >
> That's akin to saying that freedom doesn't exist unless everyone
> is free to do whatever they wish. I don't think that I'd like to
> live in a country where that was the case, would you?.
> --
>
> -Gord.

It's saying nothing of the sort, Gord. If I am not free to _not_ profess a religion,
then I lack freedom of religion. If I am not guaranteed freedom from religion if I
so choose, then you are implying that the Constitution requires me to profess one.
That being the case, am I to be assigned a religion, since I don't have religious
beliefs? And who makes the decision which religion is acceptable for me? The
Government? No, they can't do that, that would run afoul of the 1st Amendment. Can
I be denied civil rights and be treated as a second class citizen? Nope, 14th
Amendment. But see my piggy-backed reply on Ed's post, as the author quoted therein
put the matter far better than I ever could.

Guy

[Guy Alcala]

Ed Rasimus wrote:

> On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 17:47:24 GMT, "Gord Beaman" )
> wrote:
>
> >Guy Alcala > wrote:
> >
> >>WalterM140 wrote:
> >>
> >>> >Separation of church and state, anyone?
> >>>
> >>> The president doesn't speak for the state in the same way that the Queen of
> >>> England does, for instance.
> >>
> >><Lincoln quotes snipped>
> >>
> >>> The framers wanted Americans to have freedom -of- religion, not freedom -from-
> >>> religion.
> >>
> >>In order to have freedom -of- religion, one must also have the option of freedom
> >>-from- religion, or no freedom exists.
> >>
> >>Guy (a life-long agnostic)
> >>
> >That's akin to saying that freedom doesn't exist unless everyone
> >is free to do whatever they wish. I don't think that I'd like to
> >live in a country where that was the case, would you?.
>
> Time for the ol' Political Science professor to drop in and point out
> some things.
>
> First, the president speaks for the state in a much greater way than
> the Queen. The US President is both head of state and head of
> government. That being said, however, when a President professes his
> own faith and trust in divine providence, he isn't speaking for the
> state. And, when an historic presidential statement is made it
> reflects more on the sociology of the time than the politics. It
> definitely does not speak to Constitutional interpretation.
>
> Then, the oft-quoted conundrum of "freedom-of" versus "freedom from"
> is found nowhere in Constitutional law. The religion guarantees in the
> First Amendment are in two clauses--separate and not contradictory.
>
> First, the "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
> religion"--that means not only that the Congress shall not establish a
> religion, i.e. a governmentally endorsed faith. But goes a step
> further in specifiying that the law shall not "respect" a particular
> establishment of religion. In other words, no favoritism for one
> religion over another. This is a restriction on the government, not
> the citizens. And, by virtue of the 14th Amendment's "equal
> protection" provisions it applies to the lesser levels of government
> in our federal system as well.
>
> Second, the sentence goes on, "...or restricting the free exercise
> thereof." That part applies to the citizens. Citizens are free to
> practice the rituals of their individual faiths without governmental
> interference. (Of course if that practice interferes with the rights
> of others, or the 'general welfare" of society, we can constrain the
> practice of religion--hence no more virgins in the volcanoes.)
>
> As for the God-fearing attributes of the Framers, they were
> politicians of the time and the custom was to express a level of
> civility and piety in their public discourse.

And very little has changed in that regard today, when even the most secular pols feel
a need to make a fetish of religious belief and piety (prayer breakfasts, well-covered
church attendance, etc.), at least when they're up for (re)election or involved in
some scandal.


> Many belonged to
> Protestant denomination churches, but many were also agnostic or (as
> in the case of Thomas Jefferson,) deists--believers in a Supreme Being
> without espousal of a particular liturgy. There's little evidence to
> link anything in the Constitution to Christianity.

Speaking of TJ, here's the text of his "Virginia Statute For Religious Freedom," which
he got adopted into that state's constitution (actually, Jefferson wrote it but
Madison handled the political maneuvering):

"Well aware that Almighty God hath created the mind free; that all
attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burdens, or by civil
incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness,
and are a departure from the plan of the Holy Author of our religion,
who being Lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by
coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do; that the
impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as
ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men
have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own
opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as
such endeavoring to impose them on others, hath established and
maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world, and
through all time; that to compel a man to furnish contributions of money
for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves is sinful and
tyrannical; that even the forcing him to support this or that teacher of his
own religious persuasion is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of
giving his contributions to the particular pastor whose morals he would
make his pattern, and whose powers he feels most persuasive to
righteousness, and is withdrawing from the ministry those temporal
rewards, which proceeding from an approbation of their personal
conduct, are an additional incitement to earnest and unremitting labors
for the instruction of mankind; that our civil rights have no dependence
on our religious opinions, more than our opinions in physics or
geometry; that, therefore, the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the
public confidence by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to
offices of trust and emolument unless he profess or renounce this or that
religious opinion is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and
advantages to which in common with his fellow citizens he has a natural
right.; that it tends also to corrupt the principles of that very religion it is
meant to encourage, by bribing, with emoluments, those who will
externally profess and conform to it; that though indeed these are
criminal who do not withstand such temptation, yet neither are those
innocent who lay the bait in their way; that to suffer the civil magistrate
to intrude his powers into the field of opinion and to restrain the
profession and propagation of principles, on the supposition of their ill
tendency is a dangerous fallacy, which at once destroys all religious
liberty , because he being of course judge of that tendency, will make his
opinions the rule of judgement, and approve or condemn the sentiments
of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own; that it is
time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government for its officers
to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and
good order; and finally, that truth is great and will prevail if left to
herself, that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has
nothing to fear from the conflict, unless by human interposition
disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate, errors
ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them.

"Be it therefore enacted by the General Assembly, That no man shall be
compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place or
ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or
burdened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of
his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess,
and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and
that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil
capacities.

"And though we all know this Assembly, elected by the people for the
ordinary purposes of legislation only, have no power to restrain the acts
of succeeding Assemblies, constituted with the powers equal to our
own, and that therefore to declare this act irrevocable would be of no
effect in law, yet we are free to declare, and do declare, that the rights
hereby asserted are of the natural rights of mankind, and that if any act
shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present or to narrow its operation,
such act will be an infringement of natural right."

The bill was introduced in 1779, and becamepart of Virginia's consitution on January
16, 1786, i.e. three years before the Constitution went into effect. The 1st
Amendment was based on the view expressed in it. Jefferson considered it one of his
three greatest accomplishments, and made sure his epitaph read:

"Here was buried Thomas Jefferson, Author of the Declaration of American Independence,
of the Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom, And Father of the University of
Virginia."

Guy

[Tarver Engineering]

"Guy Alcala" > wrote in message
. ..
> " wrote:
>
> > Guy Alcala > wrote:
> >
> > >WalterM140 wrote:
> > >
> > >> >Separation of church and state, anyone?
> > >>
> > >> The president doesn't speak for the state in the same way that the
Queen of
> > >> England does, for instance.
> > >
> > ><Lincoln quotes snipped>
> > >
> > >> The framers wanted Americans to have freedom -of- religion, not
freedom -from-
> > >> religion.
> > >
> > >In order to have freedom -of- religion, one must also have the option
of freedom
> > >-from- religion, or no freedom exists.
> > >
> > >Guy (a life-long agnostic)
> > >
> > That's akin to saying that freedom doesn't exist unless everyone
> > is free to do whatever they wish. I don't think that I'd like to
> > live in a country where that was the case, would you?.
> > --
> >
> > -Gord.
>
> It's saying nothing of the sort, Gord. If I am not free to _not_ profess
a religion,
> then I lack freedom of religion. If I am not guaranteed freedom from
religion if I
> so choose, then you are implying that the Constitution requires me to
profess one.

The Constitution guarantees the "free expression thereof" and what you are
claiming as a right is the repression of the constitutional rights of
others, Guy.

> That being the case, am I to be assigned a religion, since I don't have
religious
> beliefs? And who makes the decision which religion is acceptable for me?
The
> Government?

No, but you do have to put up with "the free exercise thereof".

> No, they can't do that, that would run afoul of the 1st Amendment.

No, you have run afoul of the first Amendment.


> Can
> I be denied civil rights and be treated as a second class citizen?

It is you that is attacking the civil rights of others, Guy.


> Nope, 14th
> Amendment. But see my piggy-backed reply on Ed's post, as the author
quoted therein
> put the matter far better than I ever could.

Ed is pretty funny.

[Robey Price]

After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, "Tarver
Engineering" confessed the following:

>The Constitution guarantees the "free expression thereof" and what you are
>claiming as a right is the repression of the constitutional rights of
>others, Guy.

You are one seriously f*cked up dude. You have the right to watch gay
porn...I have the right NOT to watch. You have the right to worship as
you choose...I have the right NOT to worship.

>It is you that is attacking the civil rights of others, Guy.

It bears repeating...you are one seriously f*cked up dude. Funny, but
mo' debly f*cked up.

Juvat

[Guy Alcala]

Robey Price wrote:

<snip>

> Actually I'm paraphrasing the secular humanist view, we'd never call
> ourselves christians.

Or, as the televangelists would have it, "Sekoolar Hoomanist," with roughly the
same intonation they use when saying "Spawn of Satan" ;-)

Guy

[Stephen Harding]

Guy Alcala wrote:

> Ed Rasimus wrote:
>
>>As for the God-fearing attributes of the Framers, they were
>>politicians of the time and the custom was to express a level of
>>civility and piety in their public discourse.
>
> And very little has changed in that regard today, when even the most secular pols feel
> a need to make a fetish of religious belief and piety (prayer breakfasts, well-covered
> church attendance, etc.), at least when they're up for (re)election or involved in
> some scandal.

I think it's interesting that any politician publicly embracing
religion seems always portrayed as either partaking in demagoguery
or attempting to create a state religion.

Seems secularists want religion strictly confined within the walls
of church, temple, mosque, whatever, not be seen in public on pain
of "promoting religion".

Allowing nativity scenes on public commons is NOT "promoting
religion", and is actually suppressing it! The founding fathers
were keenly aware of all the problems that resulted from government
promoting religion. On the other hand, they were deeply religious
and were not prone to create an agnostic or atheist US either.

Bush has every right as an individual to make the religious based
statements he has. He apparently is sort of "born again" and his
words more than likely aren't pandering to a religious audience.

Until he starts giving a particular religious group tax breaks or
government funding, I'm not too concerned that the important
Constitutional principle of church/state separation is being
violated.


SMH

[Guy Alcala]

Stephen Harding wrote:

> Guy Alcala wrote:
>
> > Ed Rasimus wrote:
> >
> >>As for the God-fearing attributes of the Framers, they were
> >>politicians of the time and the custom was to express a level of
> >>civility and piety in their public discourse.
> >
> > And very little has changed in that regard today, when even the most secular pols feel
> > a need to make a fetish of religious belief and piety (prayer breakfasts, well-covered
> > church attendance, etc.), at least when they're up for (re)election or involved in
> > some scandal.
>
> I think it's interesting that any politician publicly embracing
> religion seems always portrayed as either partaking in demagoguery
> or attempting to create a state religion.

I'm unaware of that being the case. I think I can tell the difference between political
humbug and true belief. I have no doubt about, say, the sincerity of Senator Lieberman's
beliefs, nor do I (generally) doubt the sincerity of President Bush's. But when they start
making a big public deal out of it and mentioning God at every (politically) opportune
moment, it starts to smell.

> Seems secularists want religion strictly confined within the walls
> of church, temple, mosque, whatever, not be seen in public on pain
> of "promoting religion".

How do you figure that? You can decorate your house, you car, or yourself with Crosses,
Stars of David, Crescents, Ankhs, Prayer wheels or Pentagrams all you want. You can spend
every waking minute of every day praising your god(s) as much as you chose. Just don't try
and force me to agree with you, and don't try to force me to listen to you in a public
building/space that I'm constrained to be in. You want to stand on your soapbox in the
park and tell everyone _who wants to listen_ about the wonders of your religion, knock
yourself out. But don't do it at the top of your lungs to people who have no interest in
what you're saying, and who can't move out of earshot while still enjoying the location.

> Allowing nativity scenes on public commons is NOT "promoting
> religion", and is actually suppressing it!

No, it's saying that government can not favor one religion over another, nor can they
sponsor one or many. You want a nativity scene, feel free to pay for it (or get like-minded
individiuals to do so) and put it up on your lawn. Which is pretty much what happens
around here. You want to have a stone sculpture monument of the Ten Commandments? Be my
guest, and mount it in your yard, home or (in some cases) business. But it doesn't belong
in the Courthouse.

> The founding fathers
> were keenly aware of all the problems that resulted from government
> promoting religion. On the other hand, they were deeply religious
> and were not prone to create an agnostic or atheist US either.

Some were deeply religious, some went through the motions because it was expected, some were
agnostic or atheist. You'd be pretty hard-pressed to describe Benjamin Franklin as "deeply
religious." The important thing is that they all had the legal right to be of whatever
religion they chose (including no religion) without any effect on their rights (well, in
theory; practice was obviously often different, if you were Catholic, Jewish, etc.), after
the passage of the 1st Amendment

> Bush has every right as an individual to make the religious based
> statements he has.

Sure does, if he's speaking for himself and not for me.

> He apparently is sort of "born again" and his
> words more than likely aren't pandering to a religious audience.

He has pandered to his religious base quite a lot, in the last election and now this one.
Sometimes he's sincere, but in some cases he's throwing them a bone after making a political
calculation. The hesitation about coming out and saying he'd support a constitutional
amendment banning gay marriage being a case in point. The decision itself, and the timing
of it, was a political calculation through and through.

> Until he starts giving a particular religious group tax breaks or
> government funding, I'm not too concerned that the important
> Constitutional principle of church/state separation is being
> violated.

And fortunately the Supreme Court has just found against the guy who sued the state of
Washington (IIRR), because they refused to pay the scholarship they had awarded him when he
wanted to use it to attend theology school. He seemed like a decent sort, but I certainly
don't want my taxes to pay to support his particular faith (or any other). If his
denomination needs ministers and he can't afford it himself, they can pay his way if they
choose, but it shouldn't be coming out of my pocket.

Guy

[Tarver Engineering]

"Guy Alcala" > wrote in message
. ..
> Robey Price wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > Actually I'm paraphrasing the secular humanist view, we'd never call
> > ourselves christians.
>
> Or, as the televangelists would have it, "Sekoolar Hoomanist," with
roughly the
> same intonation they use when saying "Spawn of Satan" ;-)

All I have done is shown Price the limitations of his 150 year outdated
"science".

[Tarver Engineering]

"Robey Price" > wrote in message
...
> After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, "Tarver
> Engineering" confessed the following:
>
> >The Constitution guarantees the "free expression thereof" and what you
are
> >claiming as a right is the repression of the constitutional rights of
> >others, Guy.
>
> You are one seriously f*cked up dude. You have the right to watch gay
> porn...I have the right NOT to watch. You have the right to worship as
> you choose...I have the right NOT to worship.

But you have no right to interfere in the "free exercise thereof" WRT
religion. Your gay tendancies are of no interest to me.

> >It is you that is attacking the civil rights of others, Guy.
>
> It bears repeating...you are one seriously f*cked up dude. Funny, but
> mo' debly f*cked up.

Geological evidence indicates that if evolution occurs at all it must do so
within a single generation, completely falsifying the entire notion of a
slow emergence of a new species over time.

[Robey Price]

After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, "Tarver
Engineering" confessed the following:

>All I have done is shown Price the limitations of his 150 year outdated
>"science".

LOL...you have distilled Richard Dawkins v Stephen Jay Gould to your
terms, i.e. four or five sentences. Too funny, they could never have
done that...

Juvat

[Tarver Engineering]

"Robey Price" > wrote in message
...
> After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, "Tarver
> Engineering" confessed the following:
>
> >All I have done is shown Price the limitations of his 150 year outdated
> >"science".
>
> LOL...you have distilled Richard Dawkins v Stephen Jay Gould to your
> terms, i.e. four or five sentences. Too funny, they could never have
> done that...

Jay Gould, the pope of the church of darwin, is apropriatly dead.

Geological evidence demonstrates that species are created through some
mechanism following a global cataclysim, completely in contrast to darwinian
dogma.

[Robey Price]

After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, "Tarver
Engineering" confessed the following:

>But you have no right to interfere in the "free exercise thereof" WRT
>religion.

I'm not...Guy's not...believe what you want, worship as you want. Be
my guest. My lack of faith, my desire to be free from religion,
doesn't interfere with you right to worship.

JT you're just being silly.

>Your gay tendancies are of no interest to me.

Actually that'd be your gay tendencies...and that's okay with me too.
Whatever you do with another consenting adult is your business.

>Geological evidence indicates that if evolution occurs at all it must do so
>within a single generation, completely falsifying the entire notion of a
>slow emergence of a new species over time.

What's it gonna be JT. Stop waffling and pick a position. "If"
evolution occurs?

You've already told us evolution has been discredited by Einstein (the
gentleman of Quantum physics and relativity) now you're suggesting
there may be something to, as you called it, "dog breeder science."

You're just being silly. I could care less if you choose Dawkins or
Gould, they disagree about the details of evolution, but they both
support evolution over creationism. I have no problem with that. Those
differing opinions are interesting, but I don't care about the
specifics. There is so much out there I find more interesting and the
autodidact in me has a limited amount of time to spend on "finding
things out."

Which all goes back to the point, your religious beliefs are your
beliefs. I don't want to take those away from you or anybody. Trying
to transform this great country into some christian state would be as
dangerous to the world as a proliferation of islamist states. So keep
religion out of government.

Juvat

[Tarver Engineering]

"Robey Price" > wrote in message
...
> After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, "Tarver
> Engineering" confessed the following:
>
> >But you have no right to interfere in the "free exercise thereof" WRT
> >religion.
>
> I'm not...Guy's not...believe what you want, worship as you want. Be
> my guest. My lack of faith, my desire to be free from religion,
> doesn't interfere with you right to worship.
>
> JT you're just being silly.

Sure, but I made you laugh.

> >Your gay tendancies are of no interest to me.
>
> Actually that'd be your gay tendencies...and that's okay with me too.
> Whatever you do with another consenting adult is your business.

Such projection.

> >Geological evidence indicates that if evolution occurs at all it must do
so
> >within a single generation, completely falsifying the entire notion of a
> >slow emergence of a new species over time.
>
> What's it gonna be JT. Stop waffling and pick a position. "If"
> evolution occurs?

Hey, I'm just presenting science.

> You've already told us evolution has been discredited by Einstein (the
> gentleman of Quantum physics and relativity) now you're suggesting
> there may be something to, as you called it, "dog breeder science."

No, I am pointing out that the notional hypothesis of species occuring over
a long peoriod of natural selection is disputed by physical geological
evidence. The quantum physics stuff is just experimenatally demonstrable
and repeatable.

> You're just being silly. I could care less if you choose Dawkins or
> Gould, they disagree about the details of evolution, but they both
> support evolution over creationism. I have no problem with that. Those
> differing opinions are interesting, but I don't care about the
> specifics. There is so much out there I find more interesting and the
> autodidact in me has a limited amount of time to spend on "finding
> things out."

Fast evolution rapidly approaches creation, to a casual observer.

Jay Gould believes in God now.

> Which all goes back to the point, your religious beliefs are your
> beliefs. I don't want to take those away from you or anybody. Trying
> to transform this great country into some christian state would be as
> dangerous to the world as a proliferation of islamist states. So keep
> religion out of government.

I am not posting religion, you are.

[Robey Price]

After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, "Tarver
Engineering" confessed the following:

>Hey, I'm just presenting science.

According to Michael Denton?

>> You've already told us evolution has been discredited by Einstein (the
>> gentleman of Quantum physics and relativity) now you're suggesting
>> there may be something to, as you called it, "dog breeder science."
>
>No, I am pointing out that the notional hypothesis of species occuring over
>a long peoriod of natural selection is disputed by physical geological
>evidence.

This is a hoot!

Too funny, this is actually hilarious. You are summarizing part of
Gould's position between Punctuated Equilibrium and his concept of
"phyletic gradualism."

Apparently you think the crux of evolution is "the notional hypothesis
of species occuring over a long period of natural selection." I'm
guessing your emphasis in "long period." That would only be an
aspect/theory of a mechanism of evolution, but...evolution is still a
fact.

>Fast evolution rapidly approaches creation, to a casual observer.

Fast evolution? You mean Gould's & Eldredge's Punctuated Equilibrium
that:

PE postulates that speciation events comprise most of the evolutionary
change seen in adaptation.

PE explains the abrupt appearance of new species in the fossil record.

PE explains the relative stasis of most species.

PE asserts "species selection" as the way in which major adaptive
trends proceed.

PE also makes a statement concerning the pattern of fossils found.

>Jay Gould believes in God now.

Too funny, sounds like you believe in Jay Gould and Punctuated
Equilibrium.

>I am not posting religion, you are.

Well alert your ISP 'cause somebody posting with your IP adress
asserted in this thread that society without religion leads to
psycosis; and our (Guy and me) freedom FROM religion in the US is a
violation of the 1st Amendment rights of believers.

Juvat

[Tarver Engineering]

"Robey Price" > wrote in message
...
> After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, "Tarver
> Engineering" confessed the following:
>
> >Hey, I'm just presenting science.
>
> According to Michael Denton?
>
> >> You've already told us evolution has been discredited by Einstein (the
> >> gentleman of Quantum physics and relativity) now you're suggesting
> >> there may be something to, as you called it, "dog breeder science."
> >
> >No, I am pointing out that the notional hypothesis of species occuring
over
> >a long peoriod of natural selection is disputed by physical geological
> >evidence.
>
> This is a hoot!
>
> Too funny, this is actually hilarious. You are summarizing part of
> Gould's position between Punctuated Equilibrium and his concept of
> "phyletic gradualism."

Gould's attempts to band aid together a plausable mechanism to replace
Darwin's impossible one is what was hillarious.

> Apparently you think the crux of evolution is "the notional hypothesis
> of species occuring over a long period of natural selection." I'm
> guessing your emphasis in "long period." That would only be an
> aspect/theory of a mechanism of evolution, but...evolution is still a
> fact.

Once the period becomes short enough it is Creation.

> >Fast evolution rapidly approaches creation, to a casual observer.
>
> Fast evolution? You mean Gould's & Eldredge's Punctuated Equilibrium
> that:

> PE postulates that speciation events comprise most of the evolutionary
> change seen in adaptation.

> PE explains the abrupt appearance of new species in the fossil record.
>
> PE explains the relative stasis of most species.
>
> PE asserts "species selection" as the way in which major adaptive
> trends proceed.
>
> PE also makes a statement concerning the pattern of fossils found.

Nice band aids, but evolution becomes creation when explaining the fosil
record that way.

> >Jay Gould believes in God now.
>
> Too funny, sounds like you believe in Jay Gould and Punctuated
> Equilibrium.

I believe Jay Gould made a frantic attempt to bring evolution into line with
the fosil record, due to physical evidence proving Dariwin's notional
hypotesis WRT the origin of species was false. Even in the evolutionist's
odd world where the scientific method has a different definition than all of
the rest of science, the criterion of "falsability" is demonstrated in that
Darwin's idea is undoubtably false.

> >I am not posting religion, you are.
>
> Well alert your ISP 'cause somebody posting with your IP adress
> asserted in this thread that society without religion leads to
> psycosis; and our (Guy and me) freedom FROM religion in the US is a
> violation of the 1st Amendment rights of believers.

My assertion is a concept directly from Freudian psycology and is science,
not religion.

[Robey Price]

After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, "Tarver
Engineering" confessed the following:

>Gould's attempts to band aid together a plausable mechanism to replace
>Darwin's impossible one is what was hillarious.

Gould's "The Structure of Evolutionary Theory" at 1474 pages, some
band-aid.

>Once the period becomes short enough it is Creation.

This is too funny. How short is this period? And when did creation
occur?

[snip the short strokes of punctuated equilibrium]

>Nice band aids, but evolution becomes creation when explaining the fosil
>record that way.

Quoi? JT are you trying to tell us you believe in "creation science?"

A simple Yes or No will do.

>Even in the evolutionist's odd world where the scientific method
> has a different definition than all of the rest of science,
> the criterion of "falsability" is demonstrated in that
>Darwin's idea is undoubtably false.

JT evolution is a fact...we see evidence all around us every day. The
specific mechanisms of natural selection and evolution are debated all
the time.

>My assertion is a concept directly from Freudian psycology and is science,
>not religion.

OK...Frued.

Again please clarify for me, are you implying you believe the
so-called "creation science?" An answer would go a long way in
understanding your posts.

Juvat

[Tarver Engineering]

"Robey Price" > wrote in message
...
> After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, "Tarver
> Engineering" confessed the following:
>
> >Gould's attempts to band aid together a plausable mechanism to replace
> >Darwin's impossible one is what was hillarious.
>
> Gould's "The Structure of Evolutionary Theory" at 1474 pages, some
> band-aid.

The notional hypothesis of evolution as an origin of species has been
hemmorraging severely since about 1930. The band aid failed.

[Robey Price]

After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, "Tarver
Engineering" confessed the following:

>The notional hypothesis of evolution as an origin of species has been
>hemmorraging severely since about 1930. The band aid failed.

IOW you are a believer of creation science...OK

[Stephen Harding]

Guy Alcala wrote:

> I'm unaware of that being the case. I think I can tell the difference between political humbug
> and true belief. I have no doubt about, say, the sincerity of Senator Lieberman's beliefs, nor
> do I (generally) doubt the sincerity of President Bush's. But when they start making a big
> public deal out of it and mentioning God at every (politically) opportune moment, it starts to
> smell.

Well if you're at a convention of xylophonists, you tend to talk
about xylophones, so I don't think it's terribly smelly to have
Bush talk religion at a religious convention (I believe that was
the context of his "God's delivery boy" statement).

Yet at least around here, there seems to be a belief he's promoting
born-again christianity, and the division between church and state
is being narrowed.

> How do you figure that? You can decorate your house, you car, or yourself with Crosses, Stars of
> David, Crescents, Ankhs, Prayer wheels or Pentagrams all you want. You can spend every waking
> minute of every day praising your god(s) as much as you chose. Just don't try and force me to
> agree with you, and don't try to force me to listen to you in a public building/space that I'm
> constrained to be in. You want to stand on your soapbox in the park and tell everyone _who wants
> to listen_ about the wonders of your religion, knock yourself out. But don't do it at the top of
> your lungs to people who have no interest in what you're saying, and who can't move out of
> earshot while still enjoying the location.

"Public space" is supposed to be for the public. You can't get a
more "public space" in New England than a town common. In Amherst,
the town common is the location for all sorts of stuff people put
up to display.

Try and put up a nativity scene there. You can't. "Separation of
church and state" ya know. But the UMass pagans can put up their
wooden whatever commemorating various spirits of "Mother Earth".

Christians should be able to put up their nativity scene. Jews
should be able to (and somehow do) put up their menorah or star of
David, Islam...

Placing these symbols in town space is NOT promoting religion.
It's allowing public expression. It's not "forcing" views on people
any more than having a flag waving on a flag pole (which I might add,
have also been objected to).

> No, it's saying that government can not favor one religion over another, nor can they sponsor one
> or many. You want a nativity scene, feel free to pay for it (or get like-minded individiuals to
> do so) and put it up on your lawn. Which is pretty much what happens around here. You want to
> have a stone sculpture monument of the Ten Commandments? Be my guest, and mount it in your yard,
> home or (in some cases) business. But it doesn't belong in the Courthouse.

It most certainly can belong on the courthouse lawn, if that is a
convenient public place. Religion is a part of national life. It
should not be excluded from the courthouse any more than "In God
we Trust" removed from coinage. It's a cultural expression as well
as religious.

Separation of church and state simply means you can not say OK to
the nativity scene while excluding a Menorah during Chanukha.

> Some were deeply religious, some went through the motions because it was expected, some were
> agnostic or atheist. You'd be pretty hard-pressed to describe Benjamin Franklin as "deeply
> religious." The important thing is that they all had the legal right to be of whatever religion

Actually, I'd call Ben and Thomas Jefferson quite religious
individuals, just not in an "organized" way.


[i]
> He has pandered to his religious base quite a lot, in the last election and now this one.
> Sometimes he's sincere, but in some cases he's throwing them a bone after making a political
> calculation. The hesitation about coming out and saying he'd support a constitutional amendment
> banning gay marriage being a case in point. The decision itself, and the timing of it, was a
> political calculation through and through.

I don't think that's entirely the case. Bush is President so
there is going to be political context in whatever he does or says.
"Calculation" for me implies a sort of insincerity that may not
always be the case. Virtually any political action can be labeled
"calculating" I suppose.

Fundamentalist, and sometimes non-fundamentalist Christians such
as myself, don't particularly like the idea of gay marriage.
I live in the People's Republic of Massachusetts, so my right
wing thinking on this has been moderated into a willingness to
accept "civil union" for gays...or polygamists...or almost whatever.

Whether you believe an amendment to obtain "correct" constitutional
interpretation of the issue on the part of judges, or some other
way, may or may not be a pandering to a political group.

I personally don't like adding constitutional amendments whenever
a new "interpretation" of something comes up, but, what else can
you do besides be careful about the judges you appoint?

> And fortunately the Supreme Court has just found against the guy who sued the state of Washington
> (IIRR), because they refused to pay the scholarship they had awarded him when he wanted to use it
> to attend theology school. He seemed like a decent sort, but I certainly don't want my taxes to
> pay to support his particular faith (or any other). If his denomination needs ministers and he
> can't afford it himself, they can pay his way if they choose, but it shouldn't be coming out of
> my pocket.

I'm torn on this example. I don't want government funding the
development of religious "professionals". Yet education is a
primary and just use of government funds, and discrimination on
the type of professional perhaps isn't warranted. Biology,
electrical engineering, Italian Renaissance art, theology?
Perhaps shouldn't rally matter.

Producing an actual minister? A bit shaky, but as long as
the government isn't promoting the production of only Episcopal
ministers, perhaps not entirely wrong.

For a slightly more benign example (IMO), I have no problem
with public vouchers for Catholic schools of choice, as long
as students who wish can opt out of any of the religious
components of such education. This is not be promoting
religion. It's promoting education!


SMH

[Tarver Engineering]

"Robey Price" > wrote in message
...
> After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, "Tarver
> Engineering" confessed the following:
>
> >The notional hypothesis of evolution as an origin of species has been
> >hemmorraging severely since about 1930. The band aid failed.
>
> IOW you are a believer of creation science...OK

If you buy into Jay Gould's band aid and go with the physical geological
evidence, you are a Creationist too. The only question beomes one of a
causal observer, or probabilistic chance. (as delta T becomes small)

If you are a believer in Darwin's notional hypotehsis of origin of species,
you are in complete denial. It is false and has caused more death and
destruction than any other religion.

From the founder of Planned Parenthood:

It [charity] encourages the healthier and more normal sections of the world
to shoulder the burden of unthinking and indiscriminate fecundity of others;
which brings with it, as I think the reader must agree, a dead weight of
human waste. Instead of decreasing and aiming to eliminate the stocks that
are most detrimental to the future of the race and the world, it tends to
render them to a menacing degree dominant [emphasis added].11
Margaret Sanger
--

"To give certain dysgenic groups in our population their choice of
segregation [concentration camps] or sterilization", advocated the founder
of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger in April 1932 ("A Plan For Peace")

[Guy Alcala]

Stephen Harding wrote:

> Guy Alcala wrote:
>
> > I'm unaware of that being the case. I think I can tell the difference between political humbug
> > and true belief. I have no doubt about, say, the sincerity of Senator Lieberman's beliefs, nor
> > do I (generally) doubt the sincerity of President Bush's. But when they start making a big
> > public deal out of it and mentioning God at every (politically) opportune moment, it starts to
> > smell.
>
> Well if you're at a convention of xylophonists, you tend to talk
> about xylophones, so I don't think it's terribly smelly to have
> Bush talk religion at a religious convention (I believe that was
> the context of his "God's delivery boy" statement).

>

> Yet at least around here, there seems to be a belief he's promoting
> born-again christianity, and the division between church and state
> is being narrowed.

His religious base certainly is trying to do that, and at the very least, he's pandering to them.

> > How do you figure that? You can decorate your house, you car, or yourself with Crosses, Stars of
> > David, Crescents, Ankhs, Prayer wheels or Pentagrams all you want. You can spend every waking
> > minute of every day praising your god(s) as much as you chose. Just don't try and force me to
> > agree with you, and don't try to force me to listen to you in a public building/space that I'm
> > constrained to be in. You want to stand on your soapbox in the park and tell everyone _who wants
> > to listen_ about the wonders of your religion, knock yourself out. But don't do it at the top of
> > your lungs to people who have no interest in what you're saying, and who can't move out of
> > earshot while still enjoying the location.
>
> "Public space" is supposed to be for the public. You can't get a
> more "public space" in New England than a town common. In Amherst,
> the town common is the location for all sorts of stuff people put
> up to display.
>
> Try and put up a nativity scene there. You can't. "Separation of
> church and state" ya know. But the UMass pagans can put up their
> wooden whatever commemorating various spirits of "Mother Earth".

And shouldn't be able to, for the same reason you can't put up a nativity scene. Alternatively,
anything goes, and anyone can put up anything they want, provided they pay for it. The problem is, at
some point someone is going to object to something that's there or say that there's not enough space
for something new, a public official will try to decide what's okay and what isn't or what is more
worthy of space, and the line has been crossed. Can Satan worshippers put up what they want? How
about followers of Santeria; nothing like a nice animal sacrifice to help you solve big problems.

> Christians should be able to put up their nativity scene. Jews
> should be able to (and somehow do) put up their menorah or star of
> David, Islam...

And they are able to do so on their own property, just as much as they wish.

> Placing these symbols in town space is NOT promoting religion.
> It's allowing public expression. It's not "forcing" views on people
> any more than having a flag waving on a flag pole (which I might add,
> have also been objected to).

As long as anything goes, no problem. But anything _doesn't_ go, now does it?

>
> > No, it's saying that government can not favor one religion over another, nor can they sponsor one
> > or many. You want a nativity scene, feel free to pay for it (or get like-minded individiuals to
> > do so) and put it up on your lawn. Which is pretty much what happens around here. You want to
> > have a stone sculpture monument of the Ten Commandments? Be my guest, and mount it in your yard,
> > home or (in some cases) business. But it doesn't belong in the Courthouse.
>
> It most certainly can belong on the courthouse lawn, if that is a
> convenient public place. Religion is a part of national life.

For some (most), at the moment. It's no part of my life, and it has no business in civil, secular
government.

> It
> should not be excluded from the courthouse any more than "In God
> we Trust" removed from coinage. It's a cultural expression as well
> as religious.

"In God We Trust" may be part of your culture, but it's no part of mine since I'm not religious. Are
you saying that your culture is officially approved? And no, it doesn't belong on the money, any more
than the Masonic symbols do.

> Separation of church and state simply means you can not say OK to
> the nativity scene while excluding a Menorah during Chanukha.

The problem is, someone always wants to exclude something, and as soon as you start picking and
choosing, you're over the line.

> > Some were deeply religious, some went through the motions because it was expected, some were
> > agnostic or atheist. You'd be pretty hard-pressed to describe Benjamin Franklin as "deeply
> > religious." The important thing is that they all had the legal right to be of whatever religion
>
> Actually, I'd call Ben and Thomas Jefferson quite religious
> individuals, just not in an "organized" way.

It's a bit hard to say about Jefferson. I'm not sure how much of his supposed deism was just an
acceptable eccentricity for a politician, and how much of it was real. Franklin, no, I don't think
so. He felt religion could be useful and supported many churches across the spectrum, but his personal
beliefs seem to bepretty agnostic.

>
>[i]
> > He has pandered to his religious base quite a lot, in the last election and now this one.
> > Sometimes he's sincere, but in some cases he's throwing them a bone after making a political
> > calculation. The hesitation about coming out and saying he'd support a constitutional amendment
> > banning gay marriage being a case in point. The decision itself, and the timing of it, was a
> > political calculation through and through.
>
> I don't think that's entirely the case. Bush is President so
> there is going to be political context in whatever he does or says.
> "Calculation" for me implies a sort of insincerity that may not
> always be the case. Virtually any political action can be labeled
> "calculating" I suppose.

If the timing of the decision, and whther to make it at al, is made primarily for political
considerations, you bet it's calculating. Do I think Bush's speech at Ground Zero, when he said, off
the cuff, "the people who brought down these buildings will be hearing from us all real soon," was
calculating? Nope, that was what he felt.

> Fundamentalist, and sometimes non-fundamentalist Christians such
> as myself, don't particularly like the idea of gay marriage.
> I live in the People's Republic of Massachusetts, so my right
> wing thinking on this has been moderated into a willingness to
> accept "civil union" for gays...or polygamists...or almost whatever.

Living in the SF Bay Area, and having spent a lot of time (while growing up) in the People's Republic
of Berkeley, I early came to the conclusion that what consenting adults wish to do is their business,
provided I'm not forced to participate. I dislike many things that my fellow human beings choose to
do, but if it doesn't injure me, what business is it of mine? I've got gay friends, relatives of
friends, co-workers, acquaintances, etc. I judge them on what kind of human being they are; why should
I care what gender they sleep with?

Personally, I think the simplest solution would be for government to get out of the marriage business
altogether, and just perform civil unions for everyone. The civil benefits of 'marriage' should apply
to all who wish to take it on, regardless of what it's called. If marriage is primarily a religious
exercise, then religions should be the ones to conduct them, and they can set any standards for what is
and is not a marriage that they choose, as they do now; parishioners will vote with their feet to find
a religion that suits them best, just as they always have (when not forced to adhere to a particular
one).


> Whether you believe an amendment to obtain "correct" constitutional
> interpretation of the issue on the part of judges, or some other
> way, may or may not be a pandering to a political group.

That wasn't the pandering. The pandering was making a political calculation about whether to come out
and openly support such an amendment, or whether to just continue to make vague statements that could
be interpreted to mean anything or nothing, because it was felt the latter was politically safer.
Given the catalyst of the marriages in SF, and their clear understanding that the equal protection
clauses of both the California and Federal Constitutions will toss out defense of marriage acts (as
happened in Mass.), His religious base really put the pressure on for Bush to take an unequivocal
stand. The political calculation was clearly made that he'd lose a lot of his base if he didn't do so,
and not gain many converts on the other side, so he did it despite his obvious wish to finesse the
whole issue (much as the democratic leadership also wished to do). That is totally separate from his
personal beliefs on the subject, which seem to be fairly live and let live.

> I personally don't like adding constitutional amendments whenever
> a new "interpretation" of something comes up, but, what else can
> you do besides be careful about the judges you appoint?

Avoid trying to legislate purely personal behavior, no matter how much the majority may disapprove of
it.


> > And fortunately the Supreme Court has just found against the guy who sued the state of Washington
> > (IIRR), because they refused to pay the scholarship they had awarded him when he wanted to use it
> > to attend theology school. He seemed like a decent sort, but I certainly don't want my taxes to
> > pay to support his particular faith (or any other). If his denomination needs ministers and he
> > can't afford it himself, they can pay his way if they choose, but it shouldn't be coming out of
> > my pocket.
>
> I'm torn on this example. I don't want government funding the
> development of religious "professionals". Yet education is a
> primary and just use of government funds, and discrimination on
> the type of professional perhaps isn't warranted. Biology,
> electrical engineering, Italian Renaissance art, theology?
> Perhaps shouldn't rally matter.

> Producing an actual minister? A bit shaky, but as long as
> the government isn't promoting the production of only Episcopal
> ministers, perhaps not entirely wrong.

I had to think about this one for some time myself. Originally, I felt that it should be up to the
student to spend their scholarship money on any education they chose. But after further thought, I
decided that civil government has no business paying for a purely _religious_ education. I also felt
that sooner or later the civil government would find itself involved by having to make value judgements
of what is or is not an acceptable_religious_ education, and government just doesn't belong in that
arena. If cult X decides that the appropriate eligious training for their prospective ministers is to
send their students on a three year binge in Paris, is the government going to say, "whoa, we don't
think that's religious enough"? An extreme example, I agree, but it illustrates the problem.

> For a slightly more benign example (IMO), I have no problem
> with public vouchers for Catholic schools of choice, as long
> as students who wish can opt out of any of the religious
> components of such education. This is not be promoting
> religion. It's promoting education!

I feel the same way myself, but try and find a Catholic school that lets you to opt out. A friend of
mine's parents sent him to a Catholic high school instead of a public one, despite them being
protestant, so he could get a better education. But opting out most definitely wasn't an option. Even
if it was, I tend to doubt that it would be practical to do so, as the whole environment is saturated
by the prevailing dogma. That could possibly be fixed, although it would tend to remove the religious
from religious schools, turning them into just another private school, and that's unlikely to be
acceptable to the parents who send their children their for that precise purpose.

Nevertheless, I'm a cautious fan of vouchers, provided that admittance and participation is completely
non-discriminatory, and the only other qualification for a school being acceptable for vouchers is its
educational standards. In other words, I don't want public funds going to support, say, Bob Jones'
University. This brings me back to the same dilemma as in the case of the theological grad school
above, but for whatever reason it seems more acceptable to me. I'm not saying that my drawing of the
line there can be defended on any strictly logical basis, because you really are splitting hairs.

Guy

[Robey Price]

After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, "Tarver
Engineering" confessed the following:

>If you buy into Jay Gould's band aid and go with the physical geological
>evidence, you are a Creationist too.

JT you're a hoot...evolution is NOT creation. Exactly where in ANY
body of scientific work has ANY peer reviewed scientific study/tract
made such a claim?

What is the specific physical geological evidence you keep posting?
Specific! Not just you're claim, cite your evidence...or not as you
are wont to do. You sound like Joe McCarthy, "I have in my possession
a list of..." but he never produced the list for review.

Point me toward ANY article published in a scientific magazine
(Nature, Scientific American, Discovery, Playboy, Penthouse...) in the
last year or two (or ten) that has "debunked" evolution...JUST ONE!

>The only question beomes one of a causal observer,
> or probabilistic chance. (as delta T becomes small).

Now you're just being silly again,

>If you are a believer in Darwin's notional hypotehsis of origin of species,
>you are in complete denial. It is false and has caused more death and
>destruction than any other religion.

Quoting from Richard Dawkins on the BBC site
http://www.bbc.co.uk/education/darwin/leghist/dawkins.htm

It was Charles Darwin (Erasmus's grandson) who, spurred into print by
Alfred Russel Wallace's independent discovery of his principle of
natural selection, finally established the theory of evolution by the
publication, in 1859, of the famous book whose title is usually
abbreviated to the Origin of Species.

We should distinguish two quite distinct parts of Darwin's
contribution. He amassed an overwhelming quantity of evidence for the
fact that evolution has occurred, and, together with Wallace
(independently) he thought up the only known workable theory of the
reason why it leads to adaptive improvement – natural selection.

In general the evidence for the fact that evolution has occurred
consists of an enormous number of detailed observations which all make
sense if we assume the theory of evolution, but which can be explained
by the creation theory only if we assume that the creator elaborately
set out to deceive us. Modern molecular evidence has boosted the
evidence for evolution beyond Darwin's wildest dreams, and the FACT OF
EVOLUTION IS NOW AS SECURELY ATTESTED AS ANY IN SCIENCE.

JT evolution is a fact, the mechanisms of evolution are debated,
refined as new evidence is understood...peer reviewed research...open
for scrutiny.

I'm not denying anything...evolution works!

>From the founder of Planned Parenthood:

Uhhh, OK...got no friggin' clue what it is you're trying to say.

Sorry if you feel defensive about declaring your fundamentalist
christian outlook (by choosing to make bogus claims of geological
evidence and quoting Margaret Sanger)

Juvat

[Stephen Harding]

Guy Alcala wrote:

A few final responses to your comments.

> And shouldn't be able to, for the same reason you can't put up a nativity scene. Alternatively,
> anything goes, and anyone can put up anything they want, provided they pay for it. The problem
> is, at some point someone is going to object to something that's there or say that there's not
> enough space for something new, a public official will try to decide what's okay and what isn't
> or what is more worthy of space, and the line has been crossed. Can Satan worshippers put up
> what they want? How about followers of Santeria; nothing like a nice animal sacrifice to help
> you solve big problems.

Neonazi's can put up their flags and go goose stepping through
neighborhoods in Milwaukee. KKK types have their little public
exercises. Why not satan worshipers (if they don't already)?

Sacrifices? Well I'm not in favor of such a thing, but I'm
apparently not allowed to think poorly of gays on a religious
basis, and the social basis is currently under modification from
its previous definition. Perhaps sacrifice will gain social
acceptance too with proper argument and effort?

Every group pushes its rights. I personally feel any of the above
are not good things for society, both on a social basis, and on a
religious one. The "rights" issue in justifying behavior, or
promoting it, is a slippery slope environment. But it has always
been so, and the dynamics of pro and con are part of the political
discourse of the nation. Nothing to be feared or avoided.

> "In God We Trust" may be part of your culture, but it's no part of mine since I'm not religious.
> Are you saying that your culture is officially approved? And no, it doesn't belong on the money,
> any more than the Masonic symbols do.

You do not have the constitutional right to be free of offense.
"In God We Trust" has gone beyond pure religious meaning. It's
now cultural, just like no one should prohibit Christmas trees or
Santa Claus images simply because they have christian origins or
bindings. It's like a cross on top of a church. It's in the
public space, but anyone who doesn't like christianity (or religion)
and is offended by the symbol just has to live with it.
(Personally, anyone "offended" by any of the major religious
symbols of the world is in need of a civility or diversity course!)

> Living in the SF Bay Area, and having spent a lot of time (while growing up) in the People's
> Republic of Berkeley, I early came to the conclusion that what consenting adults wish to do is
> their business, provided I'm not forced to participate. I dislike many things that my fellow
> human beings choose to do, but if it doesn't injure me, what business is it of mine? I've got
> gay friends, relatives of friends, co-workers, acquaintances, etc. I judge them on what kind of
> human being they are; why should I care what gender they sleep with?

Well we all judge people by different criteria. If you are seriously
religious, homosexuality is abomination and not to be tolerated.

How do you feel about polygamy? How do you feel about sex between
a 14 year old girl and a 30 year old man (or two 14 year olds for
that matter)? Are they bad humans? Is their behavior bothering
you? Why limit them on your definition of social appropriateness
any more than a religious one? In much of the world, humans are
adults at 13-15 and can marry. Our 18 and 21 year old definitions
are wholly arbitrary and artificial.

> Personally, I think the simplest solution would be for government to get out of the marriage
> business altogether, and just perform civil unions for everyone. The civil benefits of
> 'marriage' should apply to all who wish to take it on, regardless of what it's called. If
> marriage is primarily a religious exercise, then religions should be the ones to conduct them,
> and they can set any standards for what is and is not a marriage that they choose, as they do
> now; parishioners will vote with their feet to find a religion that suits them best, just as they
> always have (when not forced to adhere to a particular one).

My views are similar. I feel "marriage" is already "copyrighted",
if you will, by religion. City Hall should only give out civil union
licenses (perhaps to polygamists as well???). However a certificate
of union should not be easy to undo. It should take all the legal
effort and expense of a divorce.

> That wasn't the pandering. The pandering was making a political calculation about whether to
> come out and openly support such an amendment, or whether to just continue to make vague
> statements that could be interpreted to mean anything or nothing, because it was felt the latter
> was politically safer. Given the catalyst of the marriages in SF, and their clear understanding
> that the equal protection clauses of both the California and Federal Constitutions will toss out
> defense of marriage acts (as happened in Mass.), His religious base really put the pressure on
> for Bush to take an unequivocal stand. The political calculation was clearly made that he'd lose
> a lot of his base if he didn't do so, and not gain many converts on the other side, so he did it
> despite his obvious wish to finesse the whole issue (much as the democratic leadership also
> wished to do). That is totally separate from his personal beliefs on the subject, which seem to
> be fairly live and let live.

Nothing the democrats aren't doing. This is treacherous political
stuff, especially for dems. You need to pay lip service to gay
rights, but polls tell you majorities aren't in favor of it and
feel rather strongly about it. What to do?

I define pandering as a sort of demagoguery, waiting to figure out
what direction is politically best for you before acting. No
personal beliefs or ideals involved whatsoever. Just telling
people what they want to hear.

I just checked the Webster definition of "pander". It's catering
to or exploiting the weaknesses of others, so I feel confident
that Bush isn't doing this, on this particular issue, as it is
truly his own personal conviction AFAICT.

> Avoid trying to legislate purely personal behavior, no matter how much the majority may
> disapprove of it.

We legislate personal behavior *all the time*. In fact that's
pretty much what our body of laws is all about!

Guess I've overstayed my welcome on this issue here at r.a.m, so
I'll close by saying I've enjoyed reading your comments. You've
made me think a bit, even though my attitudes haven't really
changed. Thanks for the comments.


SMH

[Tarver Engineering]

"Glenfiddich" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 21 Mar 2004 11:04:21 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> > wrote:
> ...
> >If you are a believer in Darwin's notional hypotehsis of origin of
species,
> >you are in complete denial. It is false and has caused more death and
> >destruction than any other religion.
>
> Evolution does not deny the Creation.

Evolution is false.

> It just means that God wanted to show off a bit,
> and did Creation the _hard_ way!

Geological evidence proves God did not do it that way.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Robey Price" > wrote in message
...
> After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, "Tarver
> Engineering" confessed the following:
>
> >If you buy into Jay Gould's band aid and go with the physical geological
> >evidence, you are a Creationist too.
>
> JT you're a hoot...evolution is NOT creation. Exactly where in ANY
> body of scientific work has ANY peer reviewed scientific study/tract
> made such a claim?

Evolution is false.

What Jay Gould did is move Darwin's fairy tale a long way toward being
Creation, in order to reconsile evolution with hard physical geological
evidence that it is false.

<snip of peer review childishness>

[Robey Price]

After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, "Tarver
Engineering" confessed the following:

>Evolution is false.

OK...how about this...

"In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is
all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve.
Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of
organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The
ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual
organisms do not evolve.

The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those
that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to
the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it
embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different
alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to
the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to
snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions."

- Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986

>What Jay Gould did is move Darwin's fairy tale a long way toward being
>Creation, in order to reconsile evolution with hard physical geological
>evidence that it is false.

Darwin's evidence, Gregor Mendel's genetic research...fairy tales..OK,
unspecified physical evidence you cannot site is proof...OK

><snip of peer review childishness>

Peer review is childish? If peer review is childish how were
Einstein's relativity and Quantum physics verified? I guess cold
fussion works in your world.

Come on JT...just cite some bible passage as your proof that evolution
does not occur and be done with it.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Robey Price" > wrote in message
...
> After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, "Tarver
> Engineering" confessed the following:
>
> >Evolution is false.
>
> OK...how about this...

You are completely missing the point here, Robey.

The scientific method everywhere except evolutionists is:
That which is "experimentally demonstrable and repeatable" is a theory.

But inside evolutionist land:
"Falsability" is the major criterion of their own special "scientific
method".
Evolution as an origin of species fails even the evolutionist's own very low
standard.

> "In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is
> all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve.
> Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of
> organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The
> ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual
> organisms do not evolve.

In fact, geological evidence proves in a hard physical way that if evolution
occurs at all it must do so in a single generation. Or more logically, an
already existing species replaces the previous dominant species in a
locality.

> The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those
> that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to
> the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it
> embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different
> alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to
> the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to
> snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions."

Natural selection is a valid theory, but evolution as an origin of species
is a leap of faith.

> - Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986
>
> >What Jay Gould did is move Darwin's fairy tale a long way toward being
> >Creation, in order to reconsile evolution with hard physical geological
> >evidence that it is false.
>
> Darwin's evidence, Gregor Mendel's genetic research...fairy tales..OK,
> unspecified physical evidence you cannot site is proof...OK
>
> ><snip of peer review childishness>
>
> Peer review is childish? If peer review is childish how were
> Einstein's relativity and Quantum physics verified? I guess cold
> fussion works in your world.

Is Jay Gould peer reviewed?

Then you can know for a fact that it takes a 1300 page band aid with very
major changes in the process leading to a new species to prevent evolution
as an origin of species from being demonstrably false.

> Come on JT...just cite some bible passage as your proof that evolution
> does not occur and be done with it.

You have been blown out here Robey, but thanks for playing.

Religion and the "free exercise thereof" is essential to a mentally balanced
society.

[Harry Andreas]

In article >, "Tarver Engineering"
> wrote:

> "Robey Price" > wrote in message
> ...
> > After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, "Tarver
> > Engineering" confessed the following:
> >
> > >Failure to observe any religion leads directly to human psycosis and is
> > >detrimental to society as a whole.
> >
> > Well...guys like Feynman, Sagan, Einstein, et al would smile and
> > suggest that religion might actually be a contributor to that
> > psycosis.
>
> Einstein's black box radiation work led directly to the discreditation of
> evolution which continues today through DNA. The evolutionist was
> confronted with "Jew science" by 1930 demonstrating a vacuum fluctuation
> quite nicely. Attempting to use 20th century science to validate 19th
> century "dog breeder science" can only demonstrate a paradox when taken to
> it's conclusion.
>
> Perhaps this is more along the lines of your line of :
> It [charity] encourages the healthier and more normal sections of the world
> to shoulder the burden of unthinking and indiscriminate fecundity of others;
> which brings with it, as I think the reader must agree, a dead weight of
> human waste. Instead of decreasing and aiming to eliminate the stocks that
> are most detrimental to the future of the race and the world, it tends to
> render them to a menacing degree dominant [emphasis added].11
> Margaret Sanger


The Marching Morons
C.M. Kornbluth, 1951

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

[Robey Price]

After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, "Tarver
Engineering" confessed the following:

>You are completely missing the point here, Robey.
>
>The scientific method everywhere except evolutionists is:
>That which is "experimentally demonstrable and repeatable" is a theory.

So please tell us what experiements Einstein conducted to explain his
theory of quantum physics? None...nothing in the lab, it was all brain
power. Yet Einstein's work was scientific in 1905.

Darwin could NOT provide traditional scientific proof. He never
claimed he could, but he did assemble considerable nay overwhelming
circumstantial evidence for evolution. You will not see evolution in a
single creature...but you will see it between successive generations.

From the end of his Beagle voyage, Darwin spent six years working on
his theory before his first draft and a total of 22 years elapsed
before Darwin even published ANYTHING about evolution. In 1858 he read
Alfred Russel Wallace's own work on natural selection and finally
published his"On the Origin of Species."

Darwin wrote to persuade scientists and educated folks that evolution
was a BETTER explanation of the origin of a species than creationism.
To wit, natural selection was the plausible explanation. The book was
a direct assault on the Genesis myth.

>Evolution as an origin of species fails even the evolutionist's own very low
>standard.

Man oh man, don't know where you come up with that. Evolution is
change...as permutation and combinations of alleles occur species
evolve. The Westminster Dog show is proof species evolve.

>In fact, geological evidence proves in a hard physical way that if evolution
>occurs at all it must do so in a single generation. Or more logically, an
>already existing species replaces the previous dominant species in a
>locality.

You sound like an adherent of Georges Cuvier or perhaps Charles Lyell
uniformitarianism. Which is it, evolution is false or it occurs due to
geological/geographic isolation. I guess the notion that successive
generations of folks in our country are getting taller (median height)
is coincidence or creation.

Darwin's view of natural selection (new species evolving through
chance variation and a struggle to survive) suggested that if nature
was a reflection of its creator, then that creator was NOT just or
loving.

According to Edward J Larson BA Williams College, JD Harvard, MA & PhD
U of WI (Professor of History, Professor of Law U of GA) by 1875
virtually all biologists in Europe and America adopted evolutionary
views of origins. BTW I encourage you to listen/watch his course, "The
Theory of Evolution: A History of Controversy" available here
http://www.teach12.com/store/courseInfo.asp?id=174&d=Theory+of+Evolution%3A+A+History+of+Controversy+

>Natural selection is a valid theory, but evolution as an origin of species
>is a leap of faith.

Uhh, not to scientists it isn't.

>Is Jay Gould peer reviewed?

****ing A bubba...Richard Dawkins is famous for his heated arguments
with Gould in PUBLIC. Man JT, there is debate about the mechanisms (eg
geographic isolation, genentic mutation, artificial selection etc) of
evolution all the time.

Evolution science doesn't run away from criticism.

>Then you can know for a fact that it takes a 1300 page band aid with very
>major changes in the process leading to a new species to prevent evolution
>as an origin of species from being demonstrably false.

Gould was nothing if not a prolific writer, lots of artwork, lots of
rational thought, vice your non-specific claim "geological evidence
proves in a hard physical way..." You are fuzzy with the details or
citation of your proof... and that's OK too.

>> Come on JT...just cite some bible passage as your proof that evolution
>> does not occur and be done with it.
>
>You have been blown out here Robey, but thanks for playing.

JT, don't hurt yuorself as you try to pat you own back. I havn't even
broken a sweat refuting your strawman argument. You posit that natural
selection is a valid theory, and yet fail to grasp the BASIC notion
that natural selection is a mechanism of evolution. Evolution is
change, natural selection is a mechanism of change, ergo natural
selection is a mechanism of evolution.

>Religion and the "free exercise thereof" is essential to a mentally balanced
>society.

From a PBS program, Closer to Truth: Will Technology Topple
Religion... http://www.pbs.org/kcet/closertotruth/explore/show_14.html

Donald E. Miller [Ph.D, is a professor of religion and a social
scientist] stated...
"Well actually there are even more people going to church, temple or
synagogue now [2004] than in the early years of this republic. We tend
to romanticize the past and think, oh, back then people were so much
more religious. But as a matter of fact we are probably, as measured
by church attendance, three times more religious now, with about 40
percent of the population in a typical week attending a church,
temple, or synagogue than if we go back 200 years."

To which Michael Shermer [ Ph.D, is the founding publisher of Skeptic
magazine and the director of the Skeptics Society] astutely
observed...
"…this is very interesting, conservative pundits argue that America is
going to hell in a hand basket and we are…less moral than we've ever
been, and we have to get America back to the Christian nation it used
to be. They have it bass-ackwards, we've never been so religious, and
if that's the case, is there some correlation between us being so
religious and America going to hell in a hand basket?"

I'd guess our european friends would say Shermer is correct.

Juvat

[Tarver Engineering]

"Robey Price" > wrote in message
...
> After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, "Tarver
> Engineering" confessed the following:
>
> >You are completely missing the point here, Robey.
> >
> >The scientific method everywhere except evolutionists is:
> >That which is "experimentally demonstrable and repeatable" is a theory.
>
> So please tell us what experiements Einstein conducted to explain his
> theory of quantum physics? None...nothing in the lab, it was all brain
> power. Yet Einstein's work was scientific in 1905.

Study up, Robby.

> Darwin could NOT provide traditional scientific proof. He never
> claimed he could, but he did assemble considerable nay overwhelming
> circumstantial evidence for evolution. You will not see evolution in a
> single creature...but you will see it between successive generations.

Darwin's followers made up their own "scientific method" which cased them to
engage in the worst kind of racism based on scientifically unsound ideas.

> From the end of his Beagle voyage, Darwin spent six years working on
> his theory before his first draft and a total of 22 years elapsed
> before Darwin even published ANYTHING about evolution. In 1858 he read
> Alfred Russel Wallace's own work on natural selection and finally
> published his"On the Origin of Species."

Darwin has no theory, only a hypothesis that is experimentally demontrable
and repeatable can be scientific theory. Darwin's origin of species was
bull**** from the get go, but now we can know it is false. (geological
evidence)

> Darwin wrote to persuade scientists and educated folks that evolution
> was a BETTER explanation of the origin of a species than creationism.
> To wit, natural selection was the plausible explanation. The book was
> a direct assault on the Genesis myth.

Natural selection leading to species is bull****, false, not true.

> >Evolution as an origin of species fails even the evolutionist's own very
low
> >standard.
>
> Man oh man, don't know where you come up with that. Evolution is
> change...as permutation and combinations of alleles occur species
> evolve. The Westminster Dog show is proof species evolve.

And here we are full circle to "the dog breeder's science".

[Robey Price]

After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, "Tarver
Engineering" confessed the following:

> Darwin's origin of species was bull**** from the get go,
>but now we can know it is false. (geological evidence)

Ahh yes...full circle...un-cited, non-specific, shadowy not for
attribution geological evidence...OK.

I await the publication of your proof.

>Natural selection leading to species is bull****, false, not true.

Clearly you are the embodiment of "don't confuse me with the facts, my
mind is made up."

Have a nice day...

[Tarver Engineering]

"Robey Price" > wrote in message
...
> After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, "Tarver
> Engineering" confessed the following:
>
> > Darwin's origin of species was bull**** from the get go,
> >but now we can know it is false. (geological evidence)
>
> Ahh yes...full circle...un-cited, non-specific, shadowy not for
> attribution geological evidence...OK.

Why did you suppose Jay Gould created his 1300 page band aid? :)

> I await the publication of your proof.
>
> >Natural selection leading to species is bull****, false, not true.
>
> Clearly you are the embodiment of "don't confuse me with the facts, my
> mind is made up."

Jay Gould's 1300 page band aid is an admission that Darwin's origin of
species through evolution does not happen. The hard physical geological
evidence discredited Darwin's fairy tale long before Gould attempted to
reconcile the two. By the 1930s quantum physics had proven that a vacuum
fluctuation might very well be Creation, from a human perspective.
Cosmology has tabbed on to some quantum origin of the universe, as there are
big problems with the big bang. Hubble has provided photographic evidence
that the genesis of the universe is an ongoing process.

So onward marches the Church of Darwin, in denile over all of science having
moved on from their dog breeder science.

[Robey Price]

After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, "Tarver
Engineering" confessed the following:

>Why did you suppose Jay Gould created his 1300 page band aid? :)

Asked and answered...Gould was a prolific writer, he was trying to
educate and entertain that is why one particular work was 1474 pages
long.

Why is Stephen Wolfram's "A New Kind of Science" 1100+ pages long?
Answer: 200 pages was insufficient.

>Jay Gould's 1300 page band aid is an admission that Darwin's origin of
>species through evolution does not happen.

Really? I missed that in the preface, I'll go back to the library and
look for that admission. Guess the book could have been a magazine
article then.

> The hard physical geological evidence discredited Darwin's fairy tale...

JT, sincerely I have no opposition to looking at the evidence you keep
referencing. For all I know you could be using the biblical flood myth
as your cite. Honest, cite for me...let me be the skeptic to your
claim. And just so you understand, I have ZERO problem with your
skepticism (denial) of biological evolution, I'm simply trying to get
you to cough up your evidence.

For me (and biologists, paleontologists, geologists etc) evolution and
natural selection offer the BEST, most logical explanation, based upon
the evidence gathered thus far.

> By the 1930s quantum physics had proven that a vacuum
>fluctuation might very well be Creation, from a human perspective.

This is an interesting statement. If not from human perspective (we
are human afterall) what other perspective would you reference (in
realtivistic terms)...I'm currently watching the relativity/quantum
physics lectures by Richard Wolfson PhD.

>Cosmology has tabbed on to some quantum origin of the universe, as there are
>big problems with the big bang. Hubble has provided photographic evidence
>that the genesis of the universe is an ongoing process.

Considering the time it has taken the light to reach the Hubble
telescope, the redshift currently noted (expansion) can be in the past
or the "elsewhere". The universe could be contracting at the edges by
now, but our sun will have gone supernova (more than likely) by the
time the light (evidence) reaches our part of the galaxy. Of course
Prof Wolfson could be fabricating that.

>So onward marches the Church of Darwin, in denile over all of science having
>moved on from their dog breeder science.

Sorry JT, it would appear that ALL OF SCIENCE has not gotten the memo
that Darwin's theory has been disproven (and replaced by a BETTER
model). It all goes to a lack of supporting evidence, to say nothing
of some ulterior motive you seem to be placing on proponents of
evolution.

Why would a "darwinian evolutionist" (as a label for discussion)
object to adopting a better explanation? There is no reward to
clinging to a disproven theory. That is illogical.

Bottom line...I have nothing further to dispute your claims of
geological evidence. Nor do I understand how you have mentioned spurts
(for lack of better word) of biological change (which incidently
sounds a great deal like Gould's notion of Punctuated Equilibrium) and
said that natural selection is viable, but say evolution does not
occur.

I finally figured out your reference to Sanger had something to do
with social Darwinism and eugenics. Allow me to point out that the
abuse/application of science does not nullify the science. IOW, Nazi
claims about dirty jews and arayan superiority or KKK attitudes toward
blacks does not nullify evolution.

Juvat