Leaving the community

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...

"David Brooks" wrote in message
...
One thing - one of so very many things - I learned in my five years of
flying is that partisan politics does not fit into the cockpit. Most of
my
flight instructors have, I know, been to the right of me politically. I
had
a most enjoyable flight with CJ - although he has since earned my
undying
enmity by unapologetically using the term "Final Solution" in connection
with me and people like me, an astonishing thought coming from an
avowedly
religious man, but telling and apt.

It is too bad that Mr. Brooks took seriously what was an obvious parody. I
would never seriously advocate extermination of Democrats.

However, he may have a point -- he may have taken me seriously because so
many others on these forums appear to genuinely believe that anyone who has
religious beliefs should at least be disenfranchised, if not eliminated
altogether. The advocacy of genocide is a modern liberal trait, but the
liberal reasons that if he thinks genocide is a viable option, then his
conservative opponents must, too. If liberals think that religion must be
exterminated, who can blame them for believing that their opponents think
like they do?

Even then, I did not advocate killing anyone. I suggested in that post that
they violate TFRs, similar to the joke that was making the rounds that
Republicans should drive at night with their lights on to show solidarity,
while Democrats should drive with their lights off. It is astonishing that
anyone claiming intelligence would take such a joke seriously, but it is
telling and apt that Mr. Brooks would.

On Sun, 7 Nov 2004 23:14:02 -0800, "C J Campbell"
wrote:


"David Brooks" wrote in message
...
One thing - one of so very many things - I learned in my five years of
flying is that partisan politics does not fit into the cockpit. Most of my
flight instructors have, I know, been to the right of me politically. I
had
a most enjoyable flight with CJ - although he has since earned my undying
enmity by unapologetically using the term "Final Solution" in connection
with me and people like me, an astonishing thought coming from an avowedly
religious man, but telling and apt.

It is too bad that Mr. Brooks took seriously what was an obvious parody. I
would never seriously advocate extermination of Democrats.

If the gain of the religious fundamentalists in the Republican party
continues at its present pace, they'll be extinct in 10 years anyway,
or about as potent as a neutered tom cat. :-)) They are definitely
going to have to change their approach so they are not identified with
rich society.



Roger (some of my best friends are religious) Halstead (K8RI & ARRL
life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

"Roger" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 7 Nov 2004 23:14:02 -0800, "C J Campbell"
wrote:


"David Brooks" wrote in message
...
One thing - one of so very many things - I learned in my five years of
flying is that partisan politics does not fit into the cockpit. Most of
my
flight instructors have, I know, been to the right of me politically. I
had
a most enjoyable flight with CJ - although he has since earned my
undying
enmity by unapologetically using the term "Final Solution" in
connection
with me and people like me, an astonishing thought coming from an
avowedly
religious man, but telling and apt.

It is too bad that Mr. Brooks took seriously what was an obvious parody.
I
would never seriously advocate extermination of Democrats.

If the gain of the religious fundamentalists in the Republican party
continues at its present pace, they'll be extinct in 10 years anyway,
or about as potent as a neutered tom cat. :-)) They are definitely
going to have to change their approach so they are not identified with
rich society.

I think this claim that the "religious fundamentalists" control the agenda
of the Republican Party is about as big a canard as claiming that the
Chinese Communists control the Democrats.

On Mon, 8 Nov 2004 20:53:13 -0800, "C J Campbell"
wrote:


"Roger" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 7 Nov 2004 23:14:02 -0800, "C J Campbell"
wrote:


"David Brooks" wrote in message
...
One thing - one of so very many things - I learned in my five years of
flying is that partisan politics does not fit into the cockpit. Most of
my
flight instructors have, I know, been to the right of me politically. I
had
a most enjoyable flight with CJ - although he has since earned my
undying
enmity by unapologetically using the term "Final Solution" in
connection
with me and people like me, an astonishing thought coming from an
avowedly
religious man, but telling and apt.

It is too bad that Mr. Brooks took seriously what was an obvious parody.
I
would never seriously advocate extermination of Democrats.

If the gain of the religious fundamentalists in the Republican party
continues at its present pace, they'll be extinct in 10 years anyway,
or about as potent as a neutered tom cat. :-)) They are definitely
going to have to change their approach so they are not identified with
rich society.

I think this claim that the "religious fundamentalists" control the agenda
of the Republican Party is about as big a canard as claiming that the
Chinese Communists control the Democrats.

I'm not so sure. According to the news the other night that element
was a major voting block for Bush. How much control they have over
the party platform, I don't know, but they are a force with which to
recon and they are growing all the time.

The two things the article pointed out was they are growing rapidly
and *currently* are Republican.

I think possibly Kathleen Parker (Orlando Sentinel) may have written a
column on it as well.

Roger

"Roger" wrote in message
...
I'm not so sure. According to the news the other night that element
was a major voting block for Bush. How much control they have over
the party platform, I don't know, but they are a force with which to
recon and they are growing all the time.

Technically, they have no control. But honestly, why would a party that
claims to be "conservative" (it was the Radical Republicans that argued for
ending slavery, for crying out loud..."conservativism" in its purest form,
IMHO) all of the sudden swing around and start wanting to restrict
individual's behavior?

The Republican Party is strongly against legalizing gay marriage and
abortion, is strongly in favor of prayer and religious references in schools
and government (but only Christian prayer and references, naturally), and
there's even a pretty good movement that's been going for the last couple of
decades to teach the book of Genesis in science classes.

For a party that claims to be "conservative", they have swung about as far
way out the other direction as is possible, on several issues, all of which
directly related to personal liberties. Of course, they are still in favor
of businesses being able to do whatever they want.

Basically, the Republican Party is only "conservative" when there's money in
it for them and their own. Otherwise, they've been whoring themselves out
to the Bible Belt for a long while already.

The correlation between the Republican Party's faith-based lawmaking and
Christian evangelical and fundamentalist groups is well-documented. Anyone
who thinks it's just some old canard has their head in the sand.

Pete

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


David Brooks" wrote in message ...
One thing - one of so very many things - I learned in my five years of
flying is that partisan politics does not fit into the cockpit. Most of my
flight instructors have, I know, been to the right of me politically. I had
a most enjoyable flight with CJ - although he has since earned my undying
enmity by unapologetically using the term "Final Solution" in connection
with me and people like me, an astonishing thought coming from an avowedly
religious man, but telling and apt.

But now it seems the nation has, albeit by a slim margin, re-elected a weak,
hypocritical, murderous coward. Three years ago, when some writers on the
left started talking about fascism, I thought that an absurd stretch. No
longer. The parallels are not precise - they never are - but the broad sweep
and many of the components of a new fascist state are in place. The 48% who
didn't vote for this disaster keep knocking on my consciousness, but they
are now feeble and impotent. The thugs are in charge.

That being so, and despite what should be an apolitical setting, I can no
longer in good faith keep company with a group of which the majority, I
know, has elected to deliver the country I love, and chose as my home, into
the hands of Bush and his repressive, regressive masters.

So long. Thanks for all the conversations. You guys have made me a better
pilot.

-- David Brooks

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


David Brooks" wrote in message
...
One thing - one of so very many things - I learned in my five years of
flying is that partisan politics does not fit into the cockpit. Most of
my
flight instructors have, I know, been to the right of me politically. I
had
a most enjoyable flight with CJ - although he has since earned my
undying
enmity by unapologetically using the term "Final Solution" in connection
with me and people like me, an astonishing thought coming from an
avowedly
religious man, but telling and apt.

But now it seems the nation has, albeit by a slim margin, re-elected a
weak,
hypocritical, murderous coward. Three years ago, when some writers on
the
left started talking about fascism, I thought that an absurd stretch. No
longer. The parallels are not precise - they never are - but the broad
sweep
and many of the components of a new fascist state are in place. The 48%
who
didn't vote for this disaster keep knocking on my consciousness, but
they
are now feeble and impotent. The thugs are in charge.

That being so, and despite what should be an apolitical setting, I can
no
longer in good faith keep company with a group of which the majority, I
know, has elected to deliver the country I love, and chose as my home,
into
the hands of Bush and his repressive, regressive masters.

So long. Thanks for all the conversations. You guys have made me a
better
pilot.

-- David Brooks
This is shocking. Could somebody send me the entire post by David Brooks. I
could not find it in Google.

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

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



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

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

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




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

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