CBS and 60 Minutes- Modern Day Benedict Arnolds
Marge
NewsMax
Monday, May 24, 2004
Recently, entertainer Pat Boone wrote NewsMax editor Christopher Ruddy
a letter regarding his feelings on Abu Ghraib and Iraq, the contents
of which are published here with permission:
Mr. Christopher Ruddy Editor, NewsMax
Dear Chris,
Hasn't anybody got the guts to accuse the worst perpetrator in this
whole Abu Ghraib prison debacle - CBS and 60 Minutes II?
What do you call it when, in time of war, someone takes military
intelligence and turns it over to the enemy, who in turn uses it to
kill Americans?
Isn't that the definition of treason? Did Benedict Arnold do worse?
Did Julias and Ethel Rosenberg pay with their lives for something like
this?
It has already been well established, and CBS certainly knew, that the
military announced to the press back in January that allegations had
been made concerning treatment of prisoners and were being
investigated.
In March there was another announcement that the allegations were
still being investigated and certain service personnel at Abu Ghraib
were relieved of their duties and might be court marshaled.
In other words, while America was fighting a war, the military had
already taken the allegations seriously, were investigating them and
were taking steps to correct the situation. In other words, it was
being handled, and handled well.
These things happen in war on all sides, and though they are not
excusable, they are kindergarten exercises compared to car bombs,
ambushes, rocket launchings and dangling burning bodies over bridges -
and this is what the interrogators at Abu Ghraib were trying to find
ways to stop.
Freedom of the press is precious to us, but you can abuse any liberty
and stretch it out of shape until it becomes license, and concerned
citizens will call for limitations.
In this case, if CBS had really cared about the country, about our
military, about doing the right thing, they would have taken these
pictures, (which they had illegally) and asked the military and the
Pentagon what was being done about the abuses (Although they most
likely knew it, they would have been told that the matter was in hand
and being taken care of).
Indeed, a general implored them not to publish the pictures because of
what he knew would happen as a result.
CBS could have cared less.
In their mad competition for rating points, dollars, and seeing a
great way to blast the President and the war effort in Iraq which they
have continually denigrated and opposed, they broadcast they abhorrent
pictures - and not just to the United States, BUT TO THE WORLD!
Knowing full well that we were walking a tight rope, trying to fight a
war, quell disturbances and build a republic for Iraq in the midst of
all the terrorist resistance, CBS published these abhorrent pictures
knowing they would destroy completely our image and standing in the
Muslim world.
And what about Osama bin Laden? What about the terrorists? What about
America's image with all our allies around the world? And what about
America's own self image and confidence in their leaders?
And what did the beheaders of Nick Berg say, just before they
callously sawed his head off while he screamed, "This is in
retaliation for what you Americans did to our people at Abu Ghraib!"
And how did they know about these interrogation abuses?
Though poor Mr. Berg blames George Bush and Donald Rumsefld, it is
incontrovertible that his son would be home with him right now had it
not been for the publication of those pictures. Mr. Berg is pointing
his finger in the wrong direction.
And as a direct result of CBS callous and patently unpatriotic action,
America is suffering great loss of prestige around the world, and will
for decades.
America has lost credibility with Muslims and the Arab world
internationally, perhaps forever; and every American life is in far
greater danger from terrorist reprisal, no matter who and where we
are!
Freedom of the press is a cherished commodity, guaranteed by our
Constitution. But freedoms, if they are to be maintained and to have
the original meaning, must be treated with grave responsibility and
restraint.
For me, CBS has become "the enemy within", and I hope never to watch
the network again. I think most Americans ought to reflect on the
results of their irresponsible and unpatriotic behavior and perhaps
narrow their viewing options by one network. The next time America or
Americans suffer at the hands of terrorists, thank CBS.
Pat Boone
Vince Brannigan
Marge wrote:goe
Sounds like it comes direct from the Minsitry of propaganda. Truth is
bad, coverups are good
sheesh
Vince
news
"Vince Brannigan" <vbranni...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:EbmdndoYgfT...@comcast.com...
And providing "Aid or Comfort to the emeny is treason"
But you can report the news honestly and with class, and without hurting
people or your nation.
However the current generation of Ratings whores (broadcasters) care far
more for the money then the people they serve.
I will note all braodcast networks ABC,CBS,NBC, Fox operate over public
airwayes as a service to the public.
Maybe it is time to revoke their license as they are no longer acting in the
public interest.
Just becuase you have film footage of a rape, dosn't mean you need to show
the footage to report the rape...
Jim
Jim Yanik
The real reason this was publicized at this time was to aid in getting
Kerry elected,by making Bush look bad.
It's not just CBS/Viacom,it's the entire liberal media.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net
Jim Yanik
news:40c89c3d$1...@news.qgraph.com:
Revoke their licenses and you would hear the screams of "censorship".
Look at what happened with Michael Moore and Disney over his new movie's
distribution.(really just a scuzzy publicity play.)
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net
Prof. Vincent Brannigan
news wrote:
> "Vince Brannigan" <vbranni...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:EbmdndoYgfT...@comcast.com...
>
> And providing "Aid or Comfort to the emeny is treason"
>
But such iad and comfort does not include routine journalism. not here not now
not ever.
its what makes us different form totalitarian states
>
> But you can report the news honestly and with class, and without hurting
> people or your nation.
you mean by supressing the truth ?
>
> However the current generation of Ratings whores (broadcasters) care far
> more for the money then the people they serve.
> I will note all braodcast networks ABC,CBS,NBC, Fox operate over public
> airwayes as a service to the public.
> Maybe it is time to revoke their license as they are no longer acting in the
> public interest.
perhaps by the Dpt of truth and prpaganda whihc decides what truth is
acceptable?
> Just becuase you have film footage of a rape, dosn't mean you need to show
> the footage to report the rape...
but you dont make the decsion on wheter or not it makes the rapist look bad
your concer in for the victim.
in this case, your concern is for the rapist and his superiors.
pardon if i dont share it.
Vince
Prof. Vincent Brannigan
Jim Yanik wrote:
> >
>
> Revoke their licenses and you would hear the screams of "censorship".
correct.
and if i point out that that type of censorship was a nzi tactic im sure
that the screams of palying the nazi card will also be heard.
but it was a nazi tactic
vince
Peter H. Granzeau
wrote:
>The real reason this was publicized at this time was to aid in getting
>Kerry elected,by making Bush look bad.
>
>It's not just CBS/Viacom,it's the entire liberal media.
No, the press would have done exactly the same if there were a liberal
president. The press has only one object: to sell newspapers. They
don't give a damn who is in power in Washington.
news
"Prof. Vincent Brannigan" <fir...@umd.edu> wrote in message
news:40C8A1CD...@umd.edu...
> you mean by supressing the truth ?
Truth and truth...
Well truth could be aunt martha looks like a pig in her Mumu... Or truth can
be that you perfer aunt martha to weath her ping sweater and jean
(without calling her a pig)
Truth, and truth...
A reporter can report an accident or a reporter can report an accident and
shoving the mic into the face of a greaving mother for shock value.
> > However the current generation of Ratings whores (broadcasters) care
far
> > more for the money then the people they serve.
> > I will note all braodcast networks ABC,CBS,NBC, Fox operate over public
> > airwayes as a service to the public.
> > Maybe it is time to revoke their license as they are no longer acting in
the
> > public interest.
>
> perhaps by the Dpt of truth and prpaganda whihc decides what truth is
> acceptable?
Well at one time the was a seal of good broadcasting i beleive and
broadcasters had some class and decency.
Today they no longer care to serve the public intrest only the the private
intrest (stico holders)
> > Just becuase you have film footage of a rape, dosn't mean you need to
show
> > the footage to report the rape...
>
> but you dont make the decsion on wheter or not it makes the rapist look
bad
Well who does have the right? The elitest press corps? Are they unbiased?
Whom we see so often
telling us what we should think...
> your concer in for the victim.
>
> in this case, your concern is for the rapist and his superiors.
Well I can't resist.
I am suprised Vince, I would have though as a esteamed member of the bar,
would especally understand that every man (woman) is inocent untill proven
guilty by a jury of his peers, and that he/she deserves an untamperd with
jury.. So in that idea I have no issue with the media reporting the
conviction of a rapist I have every issue with the media accusing a person
as a rapist and trying him in the media...
In this case they could have easly reported the truth, there was a abuse
problem (minus the pictures) and that there was an ongoing investagation,
that severial persons were being detained and were expected to be charged...
Of course that isn't as scandalious,,,
Jim
news
To you everything was a NAZI tactic...
Serving beer and Brats was a NAZI habit as well...
Jim
news
"Peter H. Granzeau" <pgr...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:Lw2yc.713$qg.449@lakeread06...
now this i agree with...
The Press is 1st and formost about increasing the money and power of the
press...
Jim
Jack Linthicum
> Sounds like it comes direct from the Minsitry of propaganda. Truth is
> bad, coverups are good
>
>
> sheesh
>
> Vince
>
>
Did anyone see Senator Biden's statement to Attorney General Ashcroft
yesterday? He said "the reason we sign treaties like the Geneva
Convention is so that when our soldiers get captured they aren't
tortured."
Anyone miss his point?
Prof. Vincent Brannigan
news wrote:
>
>
> Well who does have the right? The elitest press corps? Are they unbiased?
> Whom we see so often
> telling us what we should think...
>
> > your concer in for the victim.
> >
> > in this case, your concern is for the rapist and his superiors.
>
> Well I can't resist.
> I am suprised Vince, I would have though as a esteamed member of the bar,
> would especally understand that every man (woman) is inocent untill proven
> guilty by a jury of his peers, and that he/she deserves an untamperd with
> jury.. So in that idea I have no issue with the media reporting the
> conviction of a rapist I have every issue with the media accusing a person
> as a rapist and trying him in the media...
Sure but you don't solve the problem by spressing the press.
> In this case they could have easly reported the truth, there was a abuse
> problem (minus the pictures) and that there was an ongoing investagation,
> that severial persons were being detained and were expected to be charged...
>
> Of course that isn't as scandalious,,,
and of coure it woudl prevent any pressure to find out what really happened.
all true believers must accept the official line hook line and sinker
nixon would have loved it.
supress all that distasteful watergate coverage that implied that it was more
than a
third rate burglary
Vince
Prof. Vincent Brannigan
news wrote:
no, it was a nazi habit, like using toilets.
a nazi tactic is one adopted to further their totalitarian agenda and unsuited
to those who believe in freedom
e.g. locking people up as enemies of the state without trial on the say so of
the leader is a nazi tactic
Vince
news
>
> Sure but you don't solve the problem by spressing the press.
No doubt... However, the Telivision/Radio Media who use the public
airwaves, (not cable, newprints etc) Are liscensed to do so at no cost
becuase they serve the public intrest. Which is why they can do Xrated
movies (while cable can) When they no longer are serving the public intrest
and are only serving their own intrest we have a problem.
> In this case they could have easly reported the truth, there was a abuse
> > problem (minus the pictures) and that there was an ongoing
investagation,> > that severial persons were being detained and were
expected to be charged...
> >
> > Of course that isn't as scandalious,,,
> and of coure it woudl prevent any pressure to find out what really
happened.
No true, the media has applied pressure from the beginning of this country
and still applying good judgment, taste and balincing the right to know with
the right to protect the inocent and powerless...
The media used to pratice this, unfortunatly, they no longer do. The media
no longer serves the people they only serve themselves...
Jim
Peter Skelton
<jim.nosp...@qtiworld.com> wrote:
>
>"Prof. Vincent Brannigan" <fir...@umd.edu> wrote in message
>news:40C8C9DE...@umd.edu...
>>
>> Sure but you don't solve the problem by spressing the press.
>
>
>No doubt... However, the Telivision/Radio Media who use the public
>airwaves, (not cable, newprints etc) Are liscensed to do so at no cost
>becuase they serve the public intrest. Which is why they can do Xrated
>movies (while cable can) When they no longer are serving the public intrest
>and are only serving their own intrest we have a problem.
>
The real problem, of course, is to define the public interest.
>
>> In this case they could have easly reported the truth, there was a abuse
>> > problem (minus the pictures) and that there was an ongoing
>investagation,> > that severial persons were being detained and were
>expected to be charged...
>> >
>> > Of course that isn't as scandalious,,,
>
>
>
>> and of coure it woudl prevent any pressure to find out what really
>happened.
>
>No true, the media has applied pressure from the beginning of this country
>and still applying good judgment, taste and balincing the right to know with
>the right to protect the inocent and powerless...
>
>The media used to pratice this, unfortunatly, they no longer do. The media
>no longer serves the people they only serve themselves...
>
This is not quite true. A Chicago paper, for example, got away
with publishing some reasonably important war plans during WWII.
Major newspapers opposed American rearmament in 1939-41. Others
were violently against civil rights in the '50's.
The media has served the media since before Hearst. They're
businesses maximizing their profits. The system has its faults,
but I've not heard of a better one.
Plus ca change. . . .
(One can find extreme examples of hate literature in the Montreal
press of the 1930's and 40's (probably true in other places, but
I haven't checked.) Irrelevant but I don't want to be accused of
being anti-American.)
Peter Skelton
Jim Yanik
Except that most media people vote DemocRAT,I believe.
The big Question is: why did the media WAIT until this time period to make
this public? (when they knew about it,what,a YEAR ago?)
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net
Eystein Roll Aarseth
> Did anyone see Senator Biden's statement to Attorney General Ashcroft
> yesterday? He said "the reason we sign treaties like the Geneva
> Convention is so that when our soldiers get captured they aren't
> tortured."
I'm torn between yelling "Give that man a cigar!" and asking the
naive "Huh? I thought nations signed treaties like that because
it's the proper thing to do for democratic nations with respect
for human rights?"
> Anyone miss his point?
Far too many, I'm afraid. Possibly including me, depending on
in which context it was said. Got a URL for it?
EAa
--
'To be sure I lose the fruits of the Earth,
but then I am gathering the flowers of the Sea.'
-- Admiral Boscawen, 1756
Jack Love
Linthicum) wrote:
You mean that if we fight the Brits things will be fine? They would
be anyway. No one else we've fought or are likely to fight follows
any variant of the GC.
In case you hadn't noticed they recently gave medals to the 'other
guy' Donald Waters in the Lynch affair.
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0528SoldierAmbush28-ON.html
Because he was executed by those Iraqi charmers, no doubt following
every jot and tittle of the GC.
ZZBunker
But's there's plenty of counter money to be made there.
So, the best option is still class action lawsuits against
Washington and California as the beginning and end of all things that
are stupid, and should be exported to France.
>
> Jim
Jack Linthicum
> On 2004-06-10, Jack Linthicum <jackli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > Did anyone see Senator Biden's statement to Attorney General Ashcroft
> > yesterday? He said "the reason we sign treaties like the Geneva
> > Convention is so that when our soldiers get captured they aren't
> > tortured."
>
> I'm torn between yelling "Give that man a cigar!" and asking the
> naive "Huh? I thought nations signed treaties like that because
> it's the proper thing to do for democratic nations with respect
> for human rights?"
>
> > Anyone miss his point?
>
> Far too many, I'm afraid. Possibly including me, depending on
> in which context it was said. Got a URL for it?
>
>
This is the first quote I came across on google, I have seen the
speech on MSNBC many times. Irony here which no one will realize until
the shoe falls, Ashcroft's son is due to return to Iraq soon.
http://www.straitstimes.com.sg/world/story/0,4386,255397,00.html
"Mr Biden suggested that American military personnel could be in
greater danger of torture because of the US mistreatment. 'That is why
we have these treaties. So when Americans are captured, they are not
tortured. That is the reason, in case anybody forgets it,' said Mr
Biden."
and, Jack Love, no the Senator didn't mean we should fight Britain or
anyone else, he is reminding the chief law enforement officer of the
country that he and his little group of weasels are not above the law,
national, Constiutional or international. By the way, one of the side
effects of invading and occupying a country is that someone may not
love you for it.
news
So is the medias tactic of publicly trashing a person as Guilty minus the
judge, Jury, ability of rebuttal, cross examination.
Any unchecked power is bad for a free state, that includes the unchecked
power of the media.
The Executive,, legislative, and Judicial branches have checks and
balances...
Unfortunately there is not a check or balance over the 4th estate... ..
Jim
Vince Brannigan
news wrote:
>
>>to those who believe in freedom
>>
>>e.g. locking people up as enemies of the state without trial on the say so
>
> of
>
>>the leader is a nazi tactic
>>
>>Vince
>
>
> So is the medias tactic of publicly trashing a person as Guilty minus the
> judge, Jury, ability of rebuttal, cross examination.
>
> Any unchecked power is bad for a free state, that includes the unchecked
> power of the media.
> The Executive,, legislative, and Judicial branches have checks and
> balances...
> Unfortunately there is not a check or balance over the 4th estate... ..
>
>
Actually no, its a captalist tactic. Freedom of the press belongs to
those rich enough to own the press.
perhaps you prefer the French system?
BARDOT FINED FOR BOOK
Former film star Brigitte Bardot escaped a jail sentence after being
convicted of inciting racial hatred against Muslims.
The French animal rights campaigner had complained at the ritual
slaughter of sheep during Muslim religious ceremonies.
She also criticised the "infiltration" of France by Islamic extremists
in what she called the "Islamization of France".
The court said her negative comments in a best-selling book portrayed
Muslims as "invaders, cruel and barbaric".
France's five million-strong Muslim community is the largest in Europe.
Bardot and her publisher were fined £3,000 each by a Paris court, to be
paid to two anti-racism groups who had filed the complaint.
She had faced a possible year in jail.
The 1960s film star, was not present for the verdict.
At a hearing in May the 69-year-old had told the court she never meant
to harm anyone with her book, A Cry In The Silence, published last year.
"I never knowingly wanted to hurt anybody," she said.
"It is not in my character. If I did hurt someone, I'm sorry."
Bardot had previously been found guilty on similar charges.
http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30200-13125638,00.html
vince
news
> Actually no, its a captalist tactic. Freedom of the press belongs to
> those rich enough to own the press.
>
>
> perhaps you prefer the French system?
Actually I would prefer the media would dig down and find some class and at
least attempt to be impartial and report the news instead of trying to spin
the news.
If and when they find they can't i wish they would recuse themselves for
conflict of intrest.
A little cless and decency would be nice as well...
I would also perfer an eductaion system who educates and trains our youth
(including reporters) would be balanced as well.
Tell me Why do liberials fear teaching both sides of the story. I though
being liberial was supposed to mean the following
(Liberial, showing or characterized by broad-mindedness; "a broad political
stance"; "generous and broad sympathies";
"a liberal newspaper"; "tolerant of his opponent's opinions"). Tell me What
is wrong with teaching the Bible along with teaching evolution for example?
Let the student think and make up his own mind.
However modern liberals are extremely narrow-minded and intolerant of any
view not their own.
I don't agree with liberals, but I do believe they have the right to their
opinion (even if it is wrong)...
I would just prefer the same courtesy.
Jim
Jim Yanik
news:40c9e6aa$1...@news.qgraph.com:
>
> "Vince Brannigan" <vbranni...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:l-OdnSqOfrP...@comcast.com...
>> Actually no, its a captalist tactic. Freedom of the press belongs to
>> those rich enough to own the press.
>>
>>
>> perhaps you prefer the French system?
>
> Actually I would prefer the media would dig down and find some class
> and at least attempt to be impartial and report the news instead of
> trying to spin the news.
> If and when they find they can't i wish they would recuse themselves
> for conflict of intrest.
>
> A little cless and decency would be nice as well...
>
> I would also perfer an eductaion system who educates and trains our
> youth (including reporters) would be balanced as well.
> Tell me Why do liberials fear teaching both sides of the story. I
> though being liberial was supposed to mean the following
> (Liberial, showing or characterized by broad-mindedness; "a broad
> political stance"; "generous and broad sympathies";
> "a liberal newspaper"; "tolerant of his opponent's opinions"). Tell
> me What is wrong with teaching the Bible along with teaching evolution
> for example?
Because school is for EDUCATING children,not for indoctrinating them in any
religion(mysticism)or instilling any 'moral code'.
(that's -your- job for -your- children.)
See,school time is "state time",and the State is supposed to stay out of
the religion business("make no establishment OF religion").
If you want your kid 'educated' about religion,send them to a church of
your choice,on your own time and money.
Besides,what about all the OTHER religions besides the Christian Bible?
How about Satanism,Wicca,or Santaria,want your kids taught about those?
> Let the student think and make up his own mind.
They can do that on their own time,WRT religion.
IMO,children should not have "religious 'education'" until they are old
enough to decide for themselves. Let them be educated first.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net
Vince Brannigan
news wrote:
> "Vince Brannigan" <vbranni...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:l-OdnSqOfrP...@comcast.com...
>
>>Actually no, its a captalist tactic. Freedom of the press belongs to
>>those rich enough to own the press.
>>
>>
>>perhaps you prefer the French system?
>
>
> Actually I would prefer the media would dig down and find some class and at
> least attempt to be impartial and report the news instead of trying to spin
> the news.
You mean shut down the Washington Times?
> If and when they find they can't i wish they would recuse themselves for
> conflict of intrest.
>
> A little cless and decency would be nice as well...
always
>
> I would also perfer an eductaion system who educates and trains our yois not evil in somparts of the coujnuth
> (including reporters) would be balanced as well.
if we could only agree on what was balanced sure
> Tell me Why do liberials fear teaching both sides of the story. I though
> being liberial was supposed to mean the following
> (Liberial, showing or characterized by broad-mindedness; "a broad political
> stance"; "generous and broad sympathies";
> "a liberal newspaper"; "tolerant of his opponent's opinions").
I studied under some of the most bigoted conservative catholic ultra
right wing franco lovers you could ever find. They had zero tolerance
for any deviation in thinking from the official Catholic line
Try teaching that homosexuals should have equal rights if you want to
see how fast "balanced and liberal" goes down the drain.
Tell me What
> is wrong with teaching the Bible along with teaching evolution for example?
> Let the student think and make up his own mind.
>
I have no problem teaching the bible as literary fantasy and evolution
as the product of what we call the scientific method. I don't expect
Watson and Crick to be Rogers and Hammerstein. Teach them both but not
in the same class
> However modern liberals are extremely narrow-minded and intolerant of any
> view not their own.
>
I fight daily to make sure that speakers have their say even if I
consider their opinion wrong. i don't insult people myself, but I
certainly support the rights of to be insulting. i even give them
credit for it
From my syllabus
ACADEMIC FREEDOM This class is committed to the highest level of
academic freedom and open discussion of controversial topics. We are
discussing life and death, socially acceptable and unacceptable
behavior and ethical issues of right and wrong. In accordance with both
university regulations and academic traditions anyone connected with the
class is entitled to think the unthinkable or mention the unmentionable
in discussions or paper. Any and all ideas are fair game for the
class. The benefit to society of the free exchange of ideas in the
academic environment is overwhelming. I will occasionally act as
moderator, or suggest outrageous ideas in order to stimulate
discussions. You are expected to do the same. Ideas are to be attacked,
challenged and if necessary, abused. Individuals are always to be
respected both in their own right and as participants in this class.
....
Participation points are awarded for special contribution to
discussions, especially sticking your neck out to argue the logic of a
class topic with me. Pointing out a significant error in my logic or
facts gets extra credit.
> I don't agree with liberals, but I do believe they have the right to their
> opinion (even if it is wrong)...
> I would just prefer the same courtesy.
>
>
Absolutely feel free to point out if I am ever personally insulting or
ad hominem instead of attacking the idea.
Vince
news
"Jim Yanik" <jya...@abuse.gov> wrote in message
news:Xns95058DF68AA...@204.117.192.21...
I would agree execpt that in case you didn't realize it EDUCATING is
INDOCTRINATING...
Today in the schools they have removed any vestage of religion (execpt that
athesism is a religion too)
There is Sex ED, Gay/lesbian Acceptance /political correctness (what you
called a -Moral Code)
(site: http://family.org/cforum/fosi/education/nac/a0029442.cfm)
> See,school time is "state time",and the State is supposed to stay out of
> the religion business("make no establishment OF religion").
Actually it says: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF...
Liberals seem to forget about the second part... This means government
can't start a religion (AKA Anglican church) but it can not stop one either.
However teaching something exists doesn't establish a religion. It is a
fact that numerous religions exist. Teaching the existence no more creates
a religion then teaching that racism has existed(s) creates racists.
> If you want your kid 'educated' about religion,send them to a church of
> your choice,on your own time and money.
But excuse me I pay taxes, the public school system is using my time and my
money... also by your definition if you wish your child taught drawinsim
(or Sex Ed etc) it should do be done it on your time and your money not in
my public school...
> Besides,what about all the OTHER religions besides the Christian Bible?
> How about Satanism,Wicca,or Santaria,want your kids taught about those?
Well actually I took a class in religion (no longer allowed) that was very
good, covered most of the larger religions inclusive of Islam and Budest,
Hindu.
> They can do that on their own time,WRT religion.
Same can be said for Sex Ed, the Gay rights crapola, and Darwinism can it
not...
> IMO,children should not have "religious 'education'" until they are old
> enough to decide for themselves. Let them be educated first.
And exactly how are they to make an educated decide if they are kept
ignorant?
IMO forcing an education denying the existence god(s) on my kids is no
different then if the school forced your kids to join my Methodist church...
Jim
Vince Brannigan
news wrote:
>
> I would agree execpt that in case you didn't realize it EDUCATING is
> INDOCTRINATING...
sometimes, sometimes not.
> Today in the schools they have removed any vestage of religion (execpt that
> athesism is a religion too)
> There is Sex ED, Gay/lesbian Acceptance /political correctness (what you
> called a -Moral Code)
>
> (site: http://family.org/cforum/fosi/education/nac/a0029442.cfm)
>
neither tolerance nor Sex d are "religious" beliefs. Tolerance is what
we call a civic virtue, like honesty. People do debate which actions are
civic virtues. Having large families was once commonly thought a civic
virtue It is not generally thoughts any longer.
>
>
>
>>See,school time is "state time",and the State is supposed to stay out of
>>the religion business("make no establishment OF religion").
>
> Actually it says: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
> religion, OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF...
> Liberals seem to forget about the second part...
no w don't. we strongly suggest noninvolvement between government and
religion.
This means government
> can't start a religion (AKA Anglican church) but it can not stop one either.
sure
> However teaching something exists doesn't establish a religion. It is a
> fact that numerous religions exist. Teaching the existence no more creates
> a religion then teaching that racism has existed(s) creates racists.
sure but so what?
>
>
>>If you want your kid 'educated' about religion,send them to a church of
>>your choice,on your own time and money.
>
>
> But excuse me I pay taxes, the public school system is using my time and my
> money...
Many state universities have religion departments. its no big deal.
also by your definition if you wish your child taught drawinsim
> (or Sex Ed etc) it should do be done it on your time and your money not in
> my public school...
>
no, we have made a social decision to teach secular subjects in school
>
>>B
>
> And exactly how are they to make an educated decide if they are kept
> ignorant?
> IMO forcing an education denying the existence god(s) on my kids is no
> different then if the school forced your kids to join my Methodist church...
>
>
it does o deny the existence of god it simply says that it is not a
secular question
vince
William Wright
So you are arguing that evidence of a crime should be made public even if it
harms the case and causes emotional harm to the victims. I guess you are in
favor then of the Laci Peterson autopsy photos being posted on the internet.
>
> supress all that distasteful watergate coverage that implied that it was
more
> than a
> third rate burglary
No, you are over reacting (as usual).It just means that graphic crime
evidence would not be splattered all over the media for other people's
puerile interests. How about asking the victims if they wanted those
pictures published.
>
> Vince
Jim Yanik
news:40ca07ba$1...@news.qgraph.com:
>
> "Jim Yanik" <jya...@abuse.gov> wrote in message
> news:Xns95058DF68AA...@204.117.192.21...
>> "news" <jim.nosp...@qtiworld.com> wrote in
>> news:40c9e6aa$1...@news.qgraph.com:
> Tell me What is wrong with teaching the Bible along with teaching
>> > evolution for example?
>>
>> Because school is for EDUCATING children,not for indoctrinating them
>> in
> any
>> religion(mysticism)or instilling any 'moral code'.
>> (that's -your- job for -your- children.)
>
> I would agree execpt that in case you didn't realize it EDUCATING is
> INDOCTRINATING...
No,it's not.Education is teaching how to read,write,do math,and there's no
indoctrination in any of those.(no 'beliefs')
Then there's teaching *scientific method*,the process of theorizing and
proving/disproving that theory.There's no indoctrination in the scientific
process.
> Today in the schools they have removed any vestage of religion
> (execpt that athesism is a religion too)
No,it's the ABSCENCE of religious belief.The abscence of religious belief
cannot be a religion in itself.
> There is Sex ED, Gay/lesbian Acceptance /political correctness (what
> you called a -Moral Code)
Ok,I'll admit to that,although none of that was done while I was in school.
Although SexEd is merely teaching about the human body,and very necessary
in these times.
The gay/PC crap should be eliminated.
>
> (site: http://family.org/cforum/fosi/education/nac/a0029442.cfm)
>
>
>
>> See,school time is "state time",and the State is supposed to stay out
>> of the religion business("make no establishment OF religion").
> Actually it says: Congress shall make no law respecting an
> establishment of religion, OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF...
Yes,but not during school classes.That free exercise does not include
interrupting people in their private businesses,nor in public schools or
courtrooms.Freedom has it's limits.
> Liberals seem to forget about the second part... This means
> government can't start a religion (AKA Anglican church) but it can not
> stop one either.
>
> However teaching something exists doesn't establish a religion.
You missed or ignored the point about "establishment OF religion",not 'A'
religion.There's a BIG difference.
"Of religion" means anything of any religion.It means the State must not
push any religion.That would include not teaching it in public school,or
making children endure classroom prayers that they may not want to be part
of,and having to be in the room during those prayers forces them to be part
of them,along with the typical pressures kids put on others different from
themselves.Plain and simple,church business(what religion is) does not
belong in public schools.You don't sell Amway on company time.
"free exercise" does not allow you to do it on company time,either.
Try it and you can be fired.
> It is
> a fact that numerous religions exist. Teaching the existence no more
> creates a religion then teaching that racism has existed(s) creates
> racists.
>
>> If you want your kid 'educated' about religion,send them to a church
>> of your choice,on your own time and money.
>
> But excuse me I pay taxes, the public school system is using my time
> and my money... also by your definition if you wish your child
> taught drawinsim (or Sex Ed etc) it should do be done it on your time
> and your money not in my public school...
Darwinism is the currently accepted science theory,with supporting
evidence.There's no religion about it.It's supported by facts.
(facts you disallow,based solely on religious beliefs)
>
>> Besides,what about all the OTHER religions besides the Christian
>> Bible? How about Satanism,Wicca,or Santaria,want your kids taught
>> about those?
>
> Well actually I took a class in religion (no longer allowed) that was
> very good, covered most of the larger religions inclusive of Islam
> and Budest, Hindu.
>
But still skipped the "evil" ones.Fair and balanced,no.
>> They can do that on their own time,WRT religion.
>
> Same can be said for Sex Ed, the Gay rights crapola, and Darwinism
> can it not...
Darwin's Theory of Evolution is SCIENCE.And it IS presented as THEORY.
>
>> IMO,children should not have "religious 'education'" until they are
>> old enough to decide for themselves. Let them be educated first.
>
> And exactly how are they to make an educated decide if they are kept
> ignorant?
No,they have to have the basic education of reading,writing,and scientific
process before they can make an educated decision about any religion.
Fact is,most kids would not accept religion if they were unindoctrinated
until their majority.They would not be brainwashed.And the proof of a "God"
would not be there.
> IMO forcing an education denying the existence god(s) on my kids is
> no different then if the school forced your kids to join my Methodist
> church...
>
>
> Jim
>
>
>
No,it's not,as you are free to indoctrinate them as you wish.You can even
send them to private schools that are religion-based.School vouchers allow
that freedom without penalizing you WRT taxes.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net
Vince Brannigan
William Wright wrote:
>>and of coure it woudl prevent any pressure to find out what really
>
> happened.
>
>>all true believers must accept the official line hook line and sinker
>>
>>nixon would have loved it.
>
>
> So you are arguing that evidence of a crime should be made public even if it
> harms the case and causes emotional harm to the victims. I guess you are in
> favor then of the Laci Peterson autopsy photos being posted on the internet.
>
ham o h victim is a lgitimate issue. has nothign to do with the case at
hand. t cant ahrm the case either. the only reason to suppress the
photos is political.
>
>>supress all that distasteful watergate coverage that implied that it was
>
> more
>
>>than a
>>third rate burglary
>
>
> No, you are over reacting (as usual).It just means that graphic crime
> evidence would not be splattered all over the media for other people's
> puerile interests. How about asking the victims if they wanted those
> pictures published.
>
sure but suprssion of theimags of war such as the vicitms coffins by the
adminstraion is clealry an attempt to spin the news]
vince
Steven James Forsberg
: Recently, entertainer Pat Boone wrote NewsMax editor Christopher Ruddy
: a letter regarding his feelings on Abu Ghraib and Iraq, the contents
: of which are published here with permission:
Pat Boone? You mean the satanic heavy metal "artist" Pat Boone?
Don't you know he is now among the fallen, no longer welcome by the
God-fearing Christian community? Just see:
http://www.rossetta.com/patboone.htm
;-)
regards,
------------------------------------------------------------------
sjfo...@bayou.uh.edu
Jack Linthicum
You don't have a legit e-mail address so I have to use the public
forum for this: The French call Bush 41 a 'cowboy' because he wears
cowboy boots to what to them would more formal occasions, sports a
cowboy hat on cue, talks with a fake Texas accent (Kansas), has a
ranch he bought just as he got the nomination, on which he put a
10,000 square foot house with the modern points covered by convenient
hay bales, loves to cut cedar brush carefully planted over night by
the secert service in emulation of his hero, whom he never met.
My dad would call this man a 'drugstore' cowboy, but the phrase is now
out of date.
Jack Love
Linthicum) wrote:
And let me mention how glad I am not to have my email account spammed
by you.
>The French call Bush 41 a 'cowboy' because he wears
>cowboy boots to what to them would more formal occasions, sports a
>cowboy hat on cue, talks with a fake Texas accent (Kansas), has a
>ranch he bought just as he got the nomination, on which he put a
>10,000 square foot house with the modern points covered by convenient
>hay bales, loves to cut cedar brush carefully planted over night by
>the secert service in emulation of his hero, whom he never met.
>My dad would call this man a 'drugstore' cowboy, but the phrase is now
>out of date.
Do you have a point? The French call ERCIANS cowboys and
'simplisme'...and Bush is merely the current example of somebody who
actually behaves in the national interest as opposed to slithering
around sucking up to the Europeans.
Your catalog is undoubtedly a result of your deep research on
MoveOn.org, all of which is a who cares. You taint yourself by
enumerating the irrelevancies.
I'm sure your dad was a fine fellow. A shame it went so badly in you.
Bob McKellar
Jack Linthicum wrote:
Has anybody ever seen a picture of GWB on a horse?
Rumor has it that he will not ride.
(The actual rumor is a little nastier, but I'm a kind person.)
Bob McKellar, who thinks cowboy boots are appropriate for any occasion, although it is better if said boots have
once touched horse flesh
Jack Linthicum
http://www.democrats.com/view.cfm?id=6687 No I got most of it from
here and some of the French things you don't like. By the way did you
know Bush 43 can't sit a horse? More drugstore. You are the one that
brought up the 'cowboy' image, saying it was a sign the French didn't
think much of him.
By the way there are those who say Bush 43 never met Reagan, ever.
jim
> no, we have made a social decision to teach secular subjects in school
"We" what do you have a frog (4 kegged kind not frenchy) in your pocket.
There are a signnificant portion of the population who havn't made this
decision (it was made for them) and who in fact object to it..
Be it denying the existance of god, acceptance of homosexuality as an
lifestyle, teaching contraception, to name 3 such hot topics...
A simple simple reading of the news will tell you that I am speaking the
truth.
Now I am not for say a public run catholic school (as an example or baptist
for that matter). However, if they are going to teach theories of
beginning I would just prefer that the school give equal time to the
several theories commonly out there. If they are going to teach morallity,
Sex ed, Homosexuality (2 hot buttion topics) I would also like to see equal
time and effort from other sources as counter argument showing that is
maynot be morally acceptable as well.
Jim
Vince Brannigan
jim wrote:
> "Vince Brannigan" <vbranni...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:mJWdnbfm3MM...@comcast.com...
>
>>no, we have made a social decision to teach secular subjects in school
>
>
>
> "We" what do you have a frog (4 kegged kind not frenchy) in your pocket.
>
> There are a signnificant portion of the population who havn't made this
> decision (it was made for them) and who in fact object to it..
>
democracy is a bitch isn't it
I mean the government actually does things at times that individuals
don't like.
> Be it denying the existance of god, acceptance of homosexuality as an
> lifestyle, teaching contraception, to name 3 such hot topics...
> A simple simple reading of the news will tell you that I am speaking the
> truth.
Add the war in Iraq, homeland security , unlicensed handgun ownership,
and lots of others
>
> Now I am not for say a public run catholic school (as an example or baptist
> for that matter). However, if they are going to teach theories of
> beginning I would just prefer that the school give equal time to the
> several theories commonly out there.
i have no problem with theories that met the test of science. I have n
problem with teaching the ;limitations of science, but teaching
religious beliefs as on the same plane as science is simply nonsense.
If they are going to teach morallity,
> Sex ed, Homosexuality (2 hot buttion topics) I would also like to see equal
> time and effort from other sources as counter argument showing that is
> maynot be morally acceptable as well.
>
Civic virtue is a statement of widely accepted secular virtues. I teach
ethics to engineers. your religion may tell you that Alzheimer's is
gods curse on conservative republican presidents but don't expect me to
teach that nonsense to my class.
Vince
jim
> "news" <jim.nosp...@qtiworld.com> wrote in
> news:40ca07ba$1...@news.qgraph.com:
>
> >
> > "Jim Yanik" <jya...@abuse.gov> wrote in message
> > news:Xns95058DF68AA...@204.117.192.21...
> >> "news" <jim.nosp...@qtiworld.com> wrote in
> >> news:40c9e6aa$1...@news.qgraph.com:
>
> > Tell me What is wrong with teaching the Bible along with teaching
> >> > evolution for example?
> >>
> >> Because school is for EDUCATING children,not for indoctrinating them
> >> in
> > any
> >> religion(mysticism)or instilling any 'moral code'.
> >> (that's -your- job for -your- children.)
> >
> > I would agree execpt that in case you didn't realize it EDUCATING is
> > INDOCTRINATING...
>
>
> No,it's not.Education is teaching how to read,write,do math,and there's no
> indoctrination in any of those.(no 'beliefs')
No issue there for me being the reading matterial is neutral and
appropreate.
However when my 1st grader brings home a book where Ben is married to Bill,
well Huston we have a problem.
> Then there's teaching *scientific method*,the process of theorizing and
> proving/disproving that theory.There's no indoctrination in the scientific
> process.
Well I wouln't go that far. There are Facts and there is therioes...
Theories are not the same as facts.
Difenation of Theroy - a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of
the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in
a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena;
Religion-could be called a theroy by the above difination. as it explains
naturail world, and it is widly accepted that applies to a variety of
circumstances...It cannot be proven so it isn't a fact. Someday however it
might be proven and wouldn't that be a gas!...
However a good portion of science has not been proven as well and is just as
therotical, so until such time as one or the other is proven fact
I see no reason why in an open forum (education) both cannot be equally
tought.
> > Today in the schools they have removed any vestage of religion
> > (execpt that athesism is a religion too)
>
> No,it's the ABSCENCE of religious belief.The abscence of religious belief
> cannot be a religion in itself.
But you are so very wrong. Let me spell it out for you, the key word in
this all this is BELIEF!
To quote from the Atheist web site... "Atheism is characterized by an
absence of BELIEF in the existence of gods".
"Atheism is an explicitly held BELEIF that God does not exist".
Absence of BELIEF in the existence of gods (religion) is the core BELIEF
(religion) of the Atheist.
Religion- religion is a system of BELIEFS and practices by means of which a
group of people struggles with the ultimate problems of human life
So excuse me Atheism is a system of BELIEFS and thus is a RELIGION.
Schools forcing out any vestage of Religion or deity are in fact teaching
the Atheist's Religion now do you get my point!
> > There is Sex ED, Gay/lesbian Acceptance /political correctness (what
> > you called a -Moral Code)
>
> Ok,I'll admit to that,although none of that was done while I was in
school.
> Although SexEd is merely teaching about the human body,and very necessary
> in these times.
>
> The gay/PC crap should be eliminated.
Thank you,
> >> See,school time is "state time",and the State is supposed to stay out
> >> of the religion business("make no establishment OF religion").
No the federial Goverment must Stay out of religion... 1st amendment
excerpt... Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion....
However 10th admendment says The powers not delegated to the United States
by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the
states respectively, or to the people. You will note no-where in the
constution does it prohibit the states from establishing a religion, Only
congress and the fed.
Thus the Power to establish religion is therefore a power left to the State
or People the state or local school board is fully empowered to establish if
that is the will of the people.. Additionally congress cannot prohibit
prayer in school as that would be de facto establishing a religion
(Athesism).
> Yes,but not during school classes.That free exercise does not include
> interrupting people in their private businesses, nor in public schools or
> courtrooms.Freedom has it's limits.
Excuse me the constitution doesn't guarantee freedom from being interrupted,
insulted or annoyed... It does however guarantee freedom of speech, press,
religion and assembly... Interruptions happen all the time in public
schools and business, they are called protests and liberals always seem to
be protesting something or another and these cannot be banned. However to
ensure your freedom from religion (that is not a right by the way), my right
to exercise religion is censored?
Now Why is religion treated as a red headed step child I ask. Explain your
logic.
Now what is wrong with a voluntary Baccalaureate service so long as your not
forced to attend?
What is wrong with voluntary prayer? What is wrong with Voluntary religious
classes? Your denying these is
Establishing Athiesim which is a religion too.
The current educational pratice is to: de facto and de jour to teach the
Atheist religious philosophy (absence of religion)
Both are wrong, I only ask that we have equal time here.
>
> You missed or ignored the point about "establishment OF religion",not 'A'
> religion.There's a BIG difference.
> "Of religion" means anything of any religion.It means the State must not
> push any religion.
The seperation clause comes from the Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury
Baptists and it is the only know use of the seperation clause.
here is the relevent passage from the original draft...
Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive
authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from prescribing
even those occasional performances of devotion, practiced indeed by the
Executive of another nation as the legal head of its church, (my comment:
you will note he was talking about the king of england as head of the church
of england) but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary
regulations and discipline of each respective sect,
http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpost.html
So no it means the State as in Federial goverment (congress) cannot
establish A religion (i.e. church of england, athesism ) There is no such
prohibition on the states (i.e. Virginia ) from doing so.
>That would include not teaching it in public school,or making children
endure classroom prayers that they may not want to be part
> of,and having to be in the room during those prayers forces them to be
part of them,along with the typical pressures kids put on others different
from
> themselves.Plain and simple,church business(what religion is) does not
belong in public schools.You don't sell Amway on company time.
And the lack of religion is the Atheist religion and as you put so well
don't sell your Amway on company time.
> "free exercise" does not allow you to do it on company time,either.
> Try it and you can be fired.
Actually it does at least to some degree... i.e in Virginia you cannot
force working on Sunday fire them and they will own a good chunk of said
company when the suit is done, need i remind you it is against the law to
descrimanate for religious pratices... I.e. at work we have a moslem who
prays severial times a day,
and he must be allowed to do so, or we could be sued for religious
descrimition... .
>
> Darwinism is the currently accepted science theory,with supporting
> evidence.There's no religion about it.It's supported by facts.
> (facts you disallow,based solely on religious beliefs)
The world was once flat, bleeding was once the way to treat a patient, if
the heart stopped you were dead, bad air cuased the plague, all accepted
science theories, with supporting evidence. Science has a long and
illustrious history of being wrong more often then being right.
> Darwin's Theory of Evolution is SCIENCE.And it IS presented as THEORY.
Darwin is a theory no more no less. Not fact... When it is fact we can
talk. However, personally, I don't have issue with
evolution for the most part. God said be created he never did spell out how
he did it or leave us his cook book now did he.
theroy a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world;
an organized system of ACCEPTED KNOWLEDGE that applies in a variety of
circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena
so blonds are dumb right, Women can't drive, are all correct becuase they
are accepted knowledge...
> >> IMO,children should not have "religious 'education'" until they are
> >> old enough to decide for themselves. Let them be educated first.
> >
> > And exactly how are they to make an educated decide if they are kept
> > ignorant?
>
> No,they have to have the basic education of reading,writing,and scientific
> process before they can make an educated decision about any religion.
> Fact is,most kids would not accept religion if they were unindoctrinated
> until their majority.They would not be brainwashed.And the proof of a
"God"
> would not be there.
So you are insisting they are indoctronated in the Athiest manifesto...how
quaint.
I will also note many people turn from religion and then return, and many
athiest become believers..
So your arugment is all wet IMO...
>
> > IMO forcing an education denying the existence god(s) on my kids is
> > no different then if the school forced your kids to join my Methodist
> > church...
> >
> >
> > Jim
> >
> >
> >
>
> No,it's not,as you are free to indoctrinate them as you wish.You can even
> send them to private schools that are religion-based.School vouchers allow
> that freedom without penalizing you WRT taxes.
Ahhh I wish I could get a voutcher... If it was just that easy... It should
be and we wouldn't have this discussion. non the need for it!
But for your education, In wisconsin, Only Milwaukee Public school has a
voutcher program, only 15000 vouchers can be given out from a population of
105,000 students, and only if you are low income and only if your from a
failing school...
Not so cut an dry...
Jim
jim
Or maybe to save the families more grief and pain... at what expense, Tom
Broke Jaws ratings? Good!
The casultiy rate is public news every day. There is no spin, there is
however someone who has good judgement to spare the families further injury
and that is more then i can say for the netwit (network) news services...
Jim
Jim
Jim
jim
"Jack Linthicum" <jackli...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:7164002b.0406...@posting.google.com...
And the frogs must be what, they cross their legs like a woman, are into
fashion like a woman, wear colone like women,
wear womans hats, carry a purse... And that means exactly what? Their
pussies? No (can't believe i am giving a from credit) just culturally
diffrent.
Bush lived in Texas and well perfection starts rubbing off after while...
if you moved to France you would probably start looking like a frenchy
too...
Jim
Oh I have 3 stetsons, boots, a truck, etc (don't have a horse anymore
however) and it is a dimestore coyboy...
jim
>
>
> jim wrote:
>
> > "Vince Brannigan" <vbranni...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> > news:mJWdnbfm3MM...@comcast.com...
> >
> >>no, we have made a social decision to teach secular subjects in school
> >
> >
> >
> > "We" what do you have a frog (4 kegged kind not frenchy) in your
pocket.
> >
> > There are a signnificant portion of the population who havn't made this
> > decision (it was made for them) and who in fact object to it..
> >
>
> democracy is a bitch isn't it
>
> I mean the government actually does things at times that individuals
> don't like.
At times but we are a Constitutional republic
Democracy is 3 wolves and a lamb discussing Lunch
a Constitutional republic is a well armed lamb contesting the vote...
republic >
>
> > Be it denying the existance of god, acceptance of homosexuality as an
> > lifestyle, teaching contraception, to name 3 such hot topics...
> > A simple simple reading of the news will tell you that I am speaking the
> > truth.
>
> Add the war in Iraq, homeland security , unlicensed handgun ownership,
> and lots of others
>
> >
> > Now I am not for say a public run catholic school (as an example or
baptist
> > for that matter). However, if they are going to teach theories of
> > beginning I would just prefer that the school give equal time to the
> > several theories commonly out there.
>
>
> i have no problem with theories that met the test of science. I have n
> problem with teaching the ;limitations of science, but teaching
> religious beliefs as on the same plane as science is simply nonsense.
Ahhhh but science has the history of being wrong more often then right...
Dosn't have to be on the same plane. But with your believing in the free
flow of though and information
religionis a philosophy and should have its place as well... I am sure you
would agree...
besides I don't have an issue with evolution and God, Bible never said how
he created just that he did...
> If they are going to teach morallity,
> > Sex ed, Homosexuality (2 hot buttion topics) I would also like to see
equal
> > time and effort from other sources as counter argument showing that is
> > maynot be morally acceptable as well.
> >
>
> Civic virtue is a statement of widely accepted secular virtues. I teach
> ethics to engineers. your religion may tell you that Alzheimer's is
> gods curse on conservative republican presidents but don't expect me to
> teach that nonsense to my class.
Easy boy your hitting close to home, My Grandmother died of Alzheimer's. No
I believe it is a disease just like so many others...
Hint the bible recognized disease and illnesses you might note and there was
a gift of healing as one of the 7 talents so I have read...
And science may say Clinton had a mential disorder concerning ugly interns.I
sure i could find a DSM-IV symptom that would fit... :)
JIm
> Vince
>
Jack Love
Linthicum) wrote:
>>
>> Your catalog is undoubtedly a result of your deep research on
>> MoveOn.org, all of which is a who cares. You taint yourself by
>> enumerating the irrelevancies.
>>
>> I'm sure your dad was a fine fellow. A shame it went so badly in you.
>
>http://www.democrats.com/view.cfm?id=6687
No doubt a superb source of truth, for the gullible.
>No I got most of it from
>here and some of the French things you don't like. By the way did you
>know Bush 43 can't sit a horse? More drugstore. You are the one that
>brought up the 'cowboy' image, saying it was a sign the French didn't
>think much of him.
>By the way there are those who say Bush 43 never met Reagan, ever.
Ah...still beating the not only dead but irrelevant horse. Who cares?
Did they teach you to shout "Die Babe Ruth" in your kamikaze classes
as well?
Jack Linthicum
Drugstore, they didn't have dime stores in New Mexico and Arizona,
they did have drugstores where the young men would go to impress the
young girls at the soda fountain. Origins. Who can you impress in a
five and ten?
Vince Brannigan
jim wrote:
>
> > Then there's teaching *scientific method*,the process of theorizing and
>
>>proving/disproving that theory.There's no indoctrination in the scientific
>>process.
>
>
> Well I wouln't go that far. There are Facts and there is therioes...
> Theories are not the same as facts.
>
> Difenation of Theroy - a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of
> the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in
> a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena;
>
That is not "scientific theory" It Is not enough the the knowledge be
accepted. its has to be "objectively" accepted.i.e. accepted in a way
that does not depend on personal belief. Also there are rules for the
theory itself, in particular that there has to be some kind of
scientific method for disproving the hypotheses that support the theory
. Testable hypotheses are the building blocks of scientific theories
> Religion-could be called a theroy by the above difination.
AS could politics. Which is why they are not science. Lets say that
53% of the population don't believe in global warming. Doesn't make
that belief structure science.
You are confusing "theory" and "doctrine" An organized system of belief
is a doctrine. Doctrine is taught in Military "Science" class Its also
taught in the law. It is the staple of theology
It is not "theory" in the same sense that science has theory
as it explains
> naturail world, and it is widly accepted that applies to a variety of
> circumstances...It cannot be proven so it isn't a fact. Someday however it
> might be proven and wouldn't that be a gas!...
It dos not explain the natural worlds "scientifically" i.e. it cannot be
objectively tested. so it is not a scientific theory
> However a good portion of science has not been proven as well and is just as
> therotical, so until such time as one or the other is proven fact
> I see no reason why in an open forum (education) both cannot be equally
> tought.
nonsense, hey are simply not the same thing. You are making the
toxonomical mistake that if two things can be described by the same word
, or even by a twisted version of the same word they must be the same
concept . this is simply nonsense.
you are also confusing Theories and hypotheses Well run experiments on
Hypotheses create observations which are logically integrated into
theories. You cant prove a theory. you can only dispove it by a well
run experiment. A theroy whcih does not have the possbility of disproof
is not scienific.
>
>>>Today in the schools they have removed any vestage of religion
>>>(execpt that athesism is a religion too)
>>
>>No,it's the ABSCENCE of religious belief.The abscence of religious belief
>>cannot be a religion in itself.
>
>
> But you are so very wrong. Let me spell it out for you, the key word in
> this all this is BELIEF!
no the key phaase is belief in god.
there are secualr belifs and religious beliefs.
>
> To quote from the Atheist web site... "Atheism is characterized by an
> absence of BELIEF in the existence of gods".
> "Atheism is an explicitly held BELEIF that God does not exist".
>
as racismis a belif and so is patriotism. Theses are scualr beliefs.
> Absence of BELIEF in the existence of gods (religion) is the core BELIEF
> (religion) of the Atheist.
>
so what?
> Religion- religion is a system of BELIEFS and practices by means of which a
> group of people struggles with the ultimate problems of human life
no, that is no a definition of religion. religion is a set of belifs in
powers that are beyond the natural world.
Peopl wihout religion also have beliefs and pracices to cope witht he
ultimate problems of human life.
> So excuse me Atheism is a system of BELIEFS and thus is a RELIGION.
>
Taxonomic error alert
racism is a belief, doesn't make it a religion.
a belief that people are better off being cannibals is not a religion.
> Schools forcing out any vestage of Religion or deity are in fact teaching
> the Atheist's Religion now do you get my point!
>
your point is a taxonomic error.
I have snipped the rst since it jsut repeats the same error.
beliefs do nto equal religion etc.
vince
Vince Brannigan
jim wrote:
>>sure but suprssion of theimags of war such as the vicitms coffins by the
>>adminstraion is clealry an attempt to spin the news]
>>
>>vince
>
>
> Or maybe to save the families more grief and pain... at what expense, Tom
> Broke Jaws ratings? Good!
> The casultiy rate is public news every day. There is no spin, there is
> however someone who has good judgement to spare the families further injury
> and that is more then i can say for the netwit (network) news services...
>
This claim is just thenews n the 'dont tell people what war is rally
like " hat has been around since Brady set up his camera
how do you think the families fel abou Owens poem
Dulce Et Decorum Est
Bent double, like old beggars under sacks,
Knock-kneed, coughing like hags, we cursed through sludge,
Till on the haunting flares we turned our backs
And towards our distant rest began to trudge.
Men marched asleep. Many had lost their boots
But limped on, blood-shod. All went lame; all blind;
Drunk with fatigue; deaf even to the hoots
Of disappointed shells that dropped behind.
GAS! Gas! Quick, boys!-- An ecstasy of fumbling,
Fitting the clumsy helmets just in time;
But someone still was yelling out and stumbling
And floundering like a man in fire or lime.--
Dim, through the misty panes and thick green light
As under a green sea, I saw him drowning.
In all my dreams, before my helpless sight,
He plunges at me, guttering, choking, drowning.
If in some smothering dreams you too could pace
Behind the wagon that we flung him in,
And watch the white eyes writhing in his face,
His hanging face, like a devil's sick of sin;
If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood
Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs,
Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud
Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues,--
My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
To children ardent for some desperate glory,
The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est
Pro patria mori.
suprssing the images of war is jsut spin and the families arejust a
handy excuse
Vince
jim
> suprssing the images of war is jsut spin and the families arejust a
> handy excuse
Using the images for Ratings is explotation, using them for political impact
is spin unfortuantly both are the refered tacitics of the left...
The only excuse being made here is yours...
Jim
Vince Brannigan
jim wrote:
O right "top gun" feel good moments aren't spin
why dont you just say that you are afraid that if people really
understand the human cost of this (or any) war they might not be so gung
ho for it?
Ever look at Brady's photographs?
Visual images teach people
Why do you hink thy show kids in high school the wrecked cars and broken
bodies of dunk divers?
why do you think in "america Burning " we showd imags of burned children?
Why do you thnik demonstrators chanted "the whole world is watching"
sheesh
vince
>
jim
> > > Then there's teaching *scientific method*,the process of theorizing
and
> >
> >>proving/disproving that theory. There's no indoctrination in the
scientific process.
Isn't there, It is well documented where people (scientists) whom have
bucked conventional
scientific wisdom have been treated quite badly because there were not
preaching the current dogma.
This generally occurs right up until current science practitioners are
forced to admit they were wrong or face complete loss of
credability.
It wasn't my definition... I relied on the scholars to do that.
> That is not "scientific theory" It Is not enough the the knowledge be
> accepted. its has to be "objectively" accepted.i.e. accepted in a way
> that does not depend on personal belief.
Ahhhh really many theroys have been proved false and many proponents fought
tooth and nail to maintain the status quo
(and there status) based on their beleif in in their opinion.
>
> > Religion-could be called a theroy by the above difination.
>
> AS could politics. Which is why they are not science.
I would hazard a guiess that is why political science is a BS (batcholor of
science) and not a BA (batchlor of arts)...
Now i would grant that parting the red sea or walking on water is hard to
duplicate... However there were witnesses to both events,
in the case the Old terstamate was written by Mosas (who parted the sea)
and the new testamate the apostiles,
directly observed what they wrote about.. It seem to me much of science
theroy is exactly, documenting what has been observed...
> >>>Today in the schools they have removed any vestage of religion
> >>>(execpt that athesism is a religion too)
> >>
> >>No,it's the ABSCENCE of religious belief.The abscence of religious
belief
> >>cannot be a religion in itself.
> >
> >
> > But you are so very wrong. Let me spell it out for you, the key word
in
> > this all this is BELIEF!
>
> no the key phaase is belief in god. there are secualr belifs and
religious beliefs.
No that is in-correct, there are godless religions i.e. scientology an it is
a religion,
and there isn't a god in it.
> >
> > To quote from the Atheist web site... "Atheism is characterized by an
> > absence of BELIEF in the existence of gods".
> > "Atheism is an explicitly held BELEIF that God does not exist".
> >
>
> as racismis a belif and so is patriotism. Theses are scualr beliefs.
They can be or they can just as easly be a component of a religious beleif
ie. the German Nazi's Of WWII fame is classific cult-religion
with stiking components of racismis and patriotism as part of the dogma...
Additionally many religions as a pratice include components of racism,
politics etc.
So while racismis and patriotismthey can be secular beliefs they can be
religious as well.
>
> > Absence of BELIEF in the existence of gods (religion) is the core BELIEF
> > (religion) of the Atheist.
> >
>
> so what?
>
> > Religion- religion is a system of BELIEFS and practices by means of
which a
> > group of people struggles with the ultimate problems of human life
>
> no, that is no a definition of religion. religion is a set of belifs in
> powers that are beyond the natural world.
It can be, but it dosn't have to be... an excellent example of a religion
without said belief in power "beyound" is scientology, another is
atherism.
The Advertiser, February 12, 1999
Samela Harris
Among the many obituaries to our compassionate and humanitarian former
premier Don Dunstan was one which described him as "dogmatically atheist". I
am not sure if this was the case. However, it prompted me to look at the
concept of atheist "dogma", a concept which originally struck me as
something of oxymoron.
There is no handbook: for atheism, no bible of rules and rituals. However,
on reflection I realised that there is a form of atheist dogma in the
writings of the rationalists, the humanists and even science. There are
lots. Atheists do not believe in God because they find the concept
untestable, a false notion or simply meaningless. Theirs is a clear-cut and
defined view. Their belief that there is no God is as much a commitment as
the Christian or Muslim belief that there is a God. It is a firm belief. And
a belief is a religion.
I understand you wife works for the VA... it might suprise you that the VA
lists Athism as a religon and even has a symbol for headsones.
> racism is a belief, doesn't make it a religion.
>
> a belief that people are better off being cannibals is not a religion.
no it could be socialolocical or it could be part of the religious system of
the people.
> > Schools forcing out any vestage of Religion or deity are in fact
teaching
> > the Atheist's Religion now do you get my point!
> >
>
> your point is a taxonomic error.
to digress that is the third time i have seen this word, is it a typo I had
to look it up, I fail to see what classifying organisms has to do with the
topic at hand...
the science and methodology of classifying organisms based on physical and
other similarities. Taxonomists classify all organisms into a hierarchy, and
give them standardized Latin or Latinized names. There are seven main levels
of classification in the hierarchy. They are, from most to least inclusive:
Kingdom; Phylum (or Division for algae, fungi, and plants); Class; Order;
Family; Genus; and Species. Taxonomists describe new species, classify
organisms, and study speciation, the evolution of new species >
and >
> I have snipped the rst since it jsut repeats the same error.
>
> beliefs do nto equal religion etc.
Always no... Never also no...
And atheism is a dogma and a set of beliefs about those who lead and pratice
it and is as such as much a religion is as christanity is.
Jim
jim
>
> O right "top gun" feel good moments aren't spin
Damn right they are and the issue is.
> why dont you just say that you are afraid that if people really
> understand the human cost of this (or any) war they might not be so gung
> ho for it?
Well I first let me say this, I was previously carrer military person. I am
well aware of the oath i took and the potential sacrafice that oath might
require,
As such I beleive I know this cost a tad better then you who has never stood
a post rifle in hand and as such I am not Pro-War per say.
I know no career military person who is by definition Pro-war, I know many
who would advocating fighting when it is right and makes sense and will in
the long haul save lives.
I am also well aware of the cost of appeasment, procrastionation, and
ignoring problem hoping they will go away. In every case I know of standing
tall and meeting the threat is perfered to quiting and surrendering. After
all War is the extention of politics when other methiods have failed.
I beleive R.E. Lee after fredricksburg said "It is well that war is so
terrible -- lest we should grow too fond of it"
RE.Lee wasn't a war monger, he also didn't shirk his duty to fight when it
was right to do so.
Winston churchill said the following ...
If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without
bloodshed, if you will not fight when victory will be sure and not so
costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the
odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may be a
worse case. You may have to fight when there is no chance of victory,
because it is better to perish than to live as slaves
>
> Ever look at Brady's photographs?
The brady of civil war fame yes. I have.
Jim
Vince Brannigan
jim wrote:
> "Vince Brannigan" <vbranni...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:FpGdnTd_0Pg...@comcast.com...
>
>
>>> > Then there's teaching *scientific method*,the process of theorizing
>
> and
>
>>>>proving/disproving that theory. There's no indoctrination in the
>
> scientific process.
>
> Isn't there, It is well documented where people (scientists) whom have
> bucked conventional
> scientific wisdom have been treated quite badly because there were not
> preaching the current dogma.
> This generally occurs right up until current science practitioners are
> forced to admit they were wrong or face complete loss of
> credability.
This is inherant in scienc. Science poceeds by falsification of xisting
belifs. Its not a quesion of indoctrination, its simply the process at
work. You can defend your theory by logic and argument and attempt to
disprove the attemtp at falssification. what you cannot do is propose a
scientific theory that is incpable of being poved wrong. that's not
science.
>
> It wasn't my definition... I relied on the scholars to do that.
>
>>That is not "scientific theory" It Is not enough the the knowledge be
>>accepted. its has to be "objectively" accepted.i.e. accepted in a way
>>that does not depend on personal belief.
>
>
> Ahhhh really many theroys have been proved false and many proponents fought
> tooth and nail to maintain the status quo
> (and there status) based on their beleif in in their opinion.
As i said above, this is how science advances. it advances by testing
theoris and showing aspects that are false. Over ime the process
produces a sold base of what can be called "conventional wisdom" but
any part of it is subject to falsification at any time.
continental drift is an excellent example.
>
>>>Religion-could be called a theroy by the above difination.
>>
>>AS could politics. Which is why they are not science.
>
>
> I would hazard a guiess that is why political science is a BS (batcholor of
> science) and not a BA (batchlor of arts)...
politics is not political science. All social sciences are
observational. They still advance by testing hypothoses. if a
hypothesis is not testable it is not scientific.
>
> Now i would grant that parting the red sea or walking on water is hard to
> duplicate... However there were witnesses to both events,
Says who? alkd o anyone who was there?
> in the case the Old terstamate was written by Mosas (who parted the sea)
> and the new testamate the apostiles,
> directly observed what they wrote about..
OFCS have you ever taken a serious couse in ancinet literature? Ive
been to temples in Egypt were the texts on the walls are far far older
hhan any biblical text. They will tll the most amazing storis, none of
which can be corroborated.
It seem to me much of science
> theroy is exactly, documenting what has been observed...
>
>
no in science w have to be able to repeat the experiment. We dont jsut
take some old writng and say its true.
>
>>>>>Today in the schools they have removed any vestage of religion
>>>>>(execpt that athesism is a religion too)
>>>>
>>>>No,it's the ABSCENCE of religious belief.The abscence of religious
>
> belief
>
>>>>cannot be a religion in itself.
>>>
>>>
>>>But you are so very wrong. Let me spell it out for you, the key word
>
> in
>
>>>this all this is BELIEF!
>>
>>no the key phaase is belief in god. there are secualr belifs and
>
> religious beliefs.
>
> No that is in-correct, there are godless religions i.e. scientology an it is
> a religion,
> and there isn't a god in it.
>
nonsese. patriotism is a belief. luck is a belief. that the red sx
can overcome the curse of the Bambino is a belief. none of them are
science or religion.
well, maybe the red sox
>>>To quote from the Atheist web site... "Atheism is characterized by an
>>>absence of BELIEF in the existence of gods".
>>>"Atheism is an explicitly held BELEIF that God does not exist".
>>>
>>
>>as racismis a belif and so is patriotism. Theses are scualr beliefs.
>
>
> They can be or they can just as easly be a component of a religious beleif
> ie. the German Nazi's Of WWII fame is classific cult-religion
> with stiking components of racismis and patriotism as part of the dogma...
> Additionally many religions as a pratice include components of racism,
> politics etc.
> So while racismis and patriotismthey can be secular beliefs they can be
> religious as well.
>
sure any wacko set of beliefs can be moulded into a religion for the
gullible. ome egypt greece etc were full of such religions.
he fact that beliefs can be converted into relgins dos not mak them belifs
any more than the fact that any building can be converted to achurch
maks every building a church
> >
>
>>>Absence of BELIEF in the existence of gods (religion) is the core BELIEF
>>>(religion) of the Atheist.
>>>
>>
>>so what?
>>
>>
>>>Religion- religion is a system of BELIEFS and practices by means of
>
> which a
>
>>>group of people struggles with the ultimate problems of human life
>>
>>no, that is no a definition of religion. religion is a set of belifs in
>>powers that are beyond the natural world.
>
>
> It can be, but it dosn't have to be... an excellent example of a religion
> without said belief in power "beyound" is scientology, another is
> atherism.
nonsense atheism is a belief, but not a religion.
>
>>racism is a belief, doesn't make it a religion.
>>
>>a belief that people are better off being cannibals is not a religion.
>
>
> no it could be socialolocical or it could be part of the religious system of
> the people.
as with chrches. you can convert a belief ino a religion bu until you
do its just a belief.
>
>
>>>Schools forcing out any vestage of Religion or deity are in fact
>
> teaching
>
>>>the Atheist's Religion now do you get my point!
>>>
>>
>>your point is a taxonomic error.
>
>
> to digress that is the third time i have seen this word, is it a typo I had
> to look it up, I fail to see what classifying organisms has to do with the
> topic at hand...
taxonomy applis o concepts also. Is a neutral word. It simply means
seting up an orgianzed system of classification and applying it to a
variety of real or virtual objects
cfTaxonomy
Taxonomy may refer to either a hierarchical classification of things, or
the principles underlying the classification. Almost anything—animate
objects, inanimate objects, places, and events—may be classified
according to some taxonomic scheme.
In recent years taxonomic classification has gained support from
molecular systematics Molecular systematics is a product of the
traditional field of systematics and the growing field of
bioinformatics. It is the process of using data on the molecular
constitution of biological organisms' DNA, RNA, or both, in order to
resolve questions in systematics, i.e. about their correct scientific
classification or taxonomy from the point of view of evolutionary
biology.http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Taxonomy
FWIW my late Mother In Law DR. Margaret Dayhoff was a pioneer inthis
field.
>
>>I have snipped the rst since it jsut repeats the same error.
>>
>>beliefs do nto equal religion etc.
>
>
> Always no... Never also no...
>
> And atheism is a dogma and a set of beliefs about those who lead and pratice
> it and is as such as much a religion is as christanity is.
>
it is a set of belifs but i is no the same as beifs in the supernatural
Vince
Vince Brannigan
jim wrote:
>
> I am also well aware of the cost of appeasment, procrastionation, and
> ignoring problem hoping they will go away. In every case I know of standing
> tall and meeting the threat is perfered to quiting and surrendering. After
> all War is the extention of politics when other methiods have failed.
>
So the romans were right to crush the jews ?
and the Japanese in 1941 surely stood all against the americans
And the Bris were jsut appeasers in 1783?
might is right?
Id like o see something about the cause being just and war being the
only alternative .
vince
Jack Linthicum
anybody want an analysis of 43's style?
http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2004/07/press-preview/fallows.htm
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/13/arts/13RICH.html
The Times' article is a comparison of Bush and Reagan, title "First
Reagan, Now his Stunt Double" which is harsh on W. The Atlantic
article is 19 pages and compares the debate styles of 43 and Kerry. It
may astonish some that the Bush style was actually adapted about 1998,
when he had decided to run for President. Before that his was an
articulate, reasoning, smart speaker. The NASCAR Joe bit is partially
to make his opponent think he is an idiot and partially to make his
simple answer seem like the wisdom of a man suffering from dyslexia.
He isn't.
Howard Berkowitz
<jeh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> There are a signnificant portion of the population who havn't made this
> decision (it was made for them) and who in fact object to it..
There is a significant portion of the population that haven't made many
decisions, and to which they object.
>
> Be it denying the existance of god
Two questions:
1. Which God?
2. What about people who don't deny a deity, but also cannot state
firmly they believe in one,
If they are going to teach
> morallity,
Are they? Or are they teaching certain health topics?
> Sex ed, Homosexuality (2 hot buttion topics) I would also like to see
> equal
> time and effort from other sources as counter argument showing that is
> maynot be morally acceptable as well.
But if they aren't teaching "morality"?
And which counter-sources? Is there one definitive one?
Howard Berkowitz
<jeh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> "Vince Brannigan" <vbranni...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:4smdnae0Iur...@comcast.com...
> > suprssing the images of war is jsut spin and the families arejust a
> > handy excuse
>
>
> Using the images for Ratings is explotation, using them for political
> impact
> is spin unfortuantly both are the refered tacitics of the left...
Historically, this is simply not the case. While "Left" and "Right" are
rather imprecise when applied to the American political system, it was
characteristic of European movements of the right to spin war casualties
as the focus of revenge.
Howard Berkowitz
Jim and Vince may be the closest thing we may see to the irresistable
force meeting the immovable object?
Vince Brannigan
Howard Berkowitz wrote:
I resemble that remark
vince
jim
>
>
> jim wrote:
>
> >
> > I am also well aware of the cost of appeasment, procrastionation, and
> > ignoring problem hoping they will go away. In every case I know of
standing
> > tall and meeting the threat is perfered to quiting and surrendering.
After
> > all War is the extention of politics when other methiods have failed.
> >
>
> So the romans were right to crush the jews ?
I can't answer that since I wasn't there..
> and the Japanese in 1941 surely stood all against the americans
>
> And the Bris were jsut appeasers in 1783?
Well no they were soundly defeated at Yorktown...
jim
>
>
> jim wrote:
>
> >
> > I am also well aware of the cost of appeasment, procrastionation, and
> > ignoring problem hoping they will go away. In every case I know of
standing
> > tall and meeting the threat is perfered to quiting and surrendering.
After
> > all War is the extention of politics when other methiods have failed.
> >
>
>
> and the Japanese in 1941 surely stood all against the americans
that was a error in judgment, on there part. I would say, however I
understand why they did it.
without materials and oil there were hard pressed to continue...
. > And the Bris were jsut appeasers in 1783?
Well generally loosing a war isn't appeasement it is simple called loosing.
..
Brett
> So the romans were right to crush the jews ?
The jews understood the punishment for failure when they took up arms
against Rome and its laws.
jim
"Howard Berkowitz" <h...@gettcomm.com> wrote in message
news:hcb-93EF51.1...@text.giganews.com...
> Has anyone else noticed that a debate, which involves spelling, between
> Jim and Vince may be the closest thing we may see to the irresistable
> force meeting the immovable object?
Howard ,
Yes I know my spelling is a problem as is my typing... I do use a spell
checker and try hard not to mis-spell however it has always been my Achilles
heel ...
Verbally I am much better. It doesn't help in pasinote discussions when my
mind works faster then my fingers can type.
To those who must read my works of literary disasters, you hvae my sincere
appoligy
Jim
Howard Berkowitz
<jeh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
No problem, Jim. Vince's spelling, or lack thereof, is such a
long-standing joke that it's amusing to see the two of you go at it.
Both of you manage to get the message through. I may disagree with some
of your points, but I think I understand what you are saying.
Jim Yanik
18E9D4.184...@text.giganews.com:
> In article <vJOyc.135$DZ7...@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com>, "jim"
><jeh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>> Be it denying the existance of god
>
> Two questions:
>
> 1. Which God?
Hey,if there can be one God,then why not more than one?
Maybe that's the problem,all those gods working at cross-purposes to each
other.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net
John S. Shinal
>I would also perfer an eductaion system who educates and trains our youth
>(including reporters) would be balanced as well.
>Tell me Why do liberials fear teaching both sides of the story. I though
>being liberial was supposed to mean the following
>(Liberial, showing or characterized by broad-mindedness; "a broad political
>stance"; "generous and broad sympathies";
>"a liberal newspaper"; "tolerant of his opponent's opinions"). Tell me What
>is wrong with teaching the Bible along with teaching evolution for example?
>Let the student think and make up his own mind.
>
>However modern liberals are extremely narrow-minded and intolerant of any
>view not their own.
Jim you are using a definition of 'liberal' that is sadly
archaic - not as a reflection on you - but a shame that the original
meaning of the word has been lost. What passes for liberalism these
days is merely socialism as it was incarnated in the 1930's.
It is a shame that so few people can identify bias either
leftward or rightward, or see the skewed questions that pass for
"surveys" today. We are mis-educating several generations straight
into incompetence.
----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
John S. Shinal
>Darwinism is the currently accepted science theory,with supporting
>evidence.There's no religion about it.It's supported by facts.
>(facts you disallow,based solely on religious beliefs)
It also does not seriously impinge on Creationism as a belief
or theory. I am amazed by fellow Christians who think it does. The
story in Genesis is told as a series of simplified parables. The first
few days of Creation appear to correspond pretty well to the age and
theorized creation of the universe, and PreCambrian era Earth. The
rise of life and man is similarly outlined. Who am I to say that a
"day" in the story isn't an allegory for 4 billion years of physics
and biology ? Darwin doesn't contradict Creationism. Never has.
Howard Berkowitz
> Jim Yanik wrote:
> >Darwinism is the currently accepted science theory,with supporting
> >evidence.There's no religion about it.It's supported by facts.
> >(facts you disallow,based solely on religious beliefs)
>
> It also does not seriously impinge on Creationism as a belief
> or theory. I am amazed by fellow Christians who think it does. The
> story in Genesis is told as a series of simplified parables. The first
> few days of Creation appear to correspond pretty well to the age and
> theorized creation of the universe, and PreCambrian era Earth. The
> rise of life and man is similarly outlined. Who am I to say that a
> "day" in the story isn't an allegory for 4 billion years of physics
> and biology ? Darwin doesn't contradict Creationism. Never has.
>
I have always cherished a story of God watching over the Earth, assisted
by a staff of angels. God spied a robed man doing odd things, and
inquired of the Angel with the Book, "who is that man and what is he
doing?"
"He is the monk, Gregor Mendel, and he is attempting to discover an
order in the ways in which green peas breed."
"That fool! Doesn't he know there is no order among green peas...wait a
minute? Did you say monk? As in one of ours?"
"Yes, God."
And God raised his hands and decreed, "LET THERE BE ORDER AMONG GREEN
PEAS!"
Dr. George O. Bizzigotti
<jim.nosp...@qtiworld.com> wrote:
>No true, the media has applied pressure from the beginning of this country
>and still applying good judgment, taste and balincing the right to know with
>the right to protect the inocent and powerless...
Someone must have been asleep in history class.
Benjamin Franklin Bache was the grandson of Ben Franklin and founder
of a Philadelphia newspaper, "The Aurora. " Among the tasteful and
balanced things he wrote during the 1790s was: "If ever a nation was
debauched by a man, the American nation has been debauched by George
Washington." Bache referred to Adams as "old, querulous, bald, blind,
crippled, toothless Adams." The Federalists were just as tasteful and
balanced when writing of Jefferson and his allies as "the refuse, the
sweepings of the most depraved part of mankind from the most corrupt
nations on earth." Whether these quotations reflect good judgment is
left as an exercise to the reader.
Bache was one of the reasons that the 1798 Sedition Act was enacted:
"That if any person shall, by writing, printing, publishing or
speaking, attempt to defame or weaken the government...or defame the
President of the United States...[he] shall be punished by fine...and
imprisonment." Fortunately, the Sedition Act contained a sunset
provision, and expired on 3 March 1801, although it appears that some
posters appear to wish to re-enact what may been among the largest
mistakes of the early Republic.
>The media used to pratice this, unfortunatly, they no longer do.
When, precisely, was this golden age? I've observed recently that
supporters of President Bush are making comparisons to Lincoln, who
was drawn as an ape and called a butcher by the opposition press
during most of the Civil War. Father Charles Coughlin described
President Franklin D. Roosevelt (in a radio broadcast, I believe) as
"the world's chief war-monger." He also wrote in his newspaper, "Many
people are beginning to wonder who they should fear most - the
Roosevelt-Churchill combination or the Hitler-Mussolini combination."
That's a particularly fine example of good judgment, isn't it?
The media have been unbalanced, tasteless, and flat-out wrong in the
18th century, the 19the century, and the 20th century. Still, as the
experience of the Sedition Act showed the young United States,
abridging the right of the media to be unbalanced, tasteless, and
insulting is by far the worse alternative.
>The media
>no longer serves the people they only serve themselves...
Plus ca change....
Regards,
George
**********************************************************************
Dr. George O. Bizzigotti Telephone: (703) 610-2115
Mitretek Systems, Inc. Fax: (703) 610-1558
3150 Fairview Park Drive South E-Mail: gbiz...@mitretek.org
Falls Church, Virginia, 22042-4519
**********************************************************************
news
"John S. Shinal" <jshinal_REMO...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:40d1ba04....@text-east.newsfeeds.com...
> Jim Yanik wrote:
> >Darwinism is the currently accepted science theory,with supporting
> >evidence.There's no religion about it.It's supported by facts.
> >(facts you disallow,based solely on religious beliefs)
>
> It also does not seriously impinge on Creationism as a belief
> or theory. I am amazed by fellow Christians who think it does. The
> story in Genesis is told as a series of simplified parables. The first
> few days of Creation appear to correspond pretty well to the age and
> theorized creation of the universe, and PreCambrian era Earth. The
> rise of life and man is similarly outlined. Who am I to say that a
> "day" in the story isn't an allegory for 4 billion years of physics
> and biology ? Darwin doesn't contradict Creationism. Never has.
Concur soundly!
I have never read it specified what a day for god would be in (mans terms).
As I have read it it said he created not how he created...
Jim
news
> "news" wrote:
>
> >I would also perfer an eductaion system who educates and trains our youth
> >(including reporters) would be balanced as well.
> >Tell me Why do liberials fear teaching both sides of the story. I though
> >being liberial was supposed to mean the following
> >(Liberial, showing or characterized by broad-mindedness; "a broad
political
> >stance"; "generous and broad sympathies";
> >"a liberal newspaper"; "tolerant of his opponent's opinions"). Tell me
What
> >is wrong with teaching the Bible along with teaching evolution for
example?
> >Let the student think and make up his own mind.
> >
> >However modern liberals are extremely narrow-minded and intolerant of any
> >view not their own.
>
>
> Jim you are using a definition of 'liberal' that is sadly
> archaic -
Well I used to be liberial when it that definition applied, now I am
considered to be somewhat conseritive
By those as opposed to a socialist whom have hijacted the term liberial ...
> not as a reflection on you - but a shame that the original
> meaning of the word has been lost. What passes for liberalism these
> days is merely socialism as it was incarnated in the 1930's.
>
> It is a shame that so few people can identify bias either
> leftward or rightward, or see the skewed questions that pass for
> "surveys" today. We are mis-educating several generations straight
> into incompetence.
Yes it is.... That is what we get when we allow goverment to control
Education.
Jim
news
"Dr. George O. Bizzigotti" <gbiz...@mitretek.org> wrote in message
news:iqhrc01fs5potaohj...@4ax.com...
I stand corretced , Thank you, It appears the media has always been and
continues to be bottom dwelling scupper scum suckers...
Jim
Paul J. Adam
<jeh...@sbcglobal.net> writes>news:orSdnSChutl...@comcast.com...
>> i have no problem with theories that met the test of science. I have n
>> problem with teaching the ;limitations of science, but teaching
>> religious beliefs as on the same plane as science is simply nonsense.
>
>Ahhhh but science has the history of being wrong more often then right...
If you're sick, do you go to a doctor or a priest?
When you get in your car, would you prefer it was designed by engineers
according to 'science' or by theologians in accordance with the Bible?
(which, to the best of my knowledge, contains no guidance whatsoever on
the design, construction, maintenance or use of the automobile)
Newtonian "science" is wrong in the details, for example, but it's right
as far as everyday life is concerned. The Aristotlean theories it
replaced were also reasonably accurate for day-to-day life: after all,
isn't it blindingly obvious that a rock falls faster than a feather?
(Newton demonstrated that 'big rocks' fell no faster than 'small rocks':
Einstein got into complicated relativity that doesn't impinge on daily
life)
>Dosn't have to be on the same plane. But with your believing in the free
>flow of though and information
>religionis a philosophy and should have its place as well... I am sure you
>would agree...
Philosophy and science are different beasts. Science you can test,
philosophy you can only argue. (There's a blurring point in some of the
more abtruse high-energy physics, I'm told, where we don't have big
enough particle smashers Yet to actually do the experiments and so can
only argue about what we expect to find: that makes it philosophy IMO.
Once you can produce results, it's science.)
--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2
Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk
Paul J. Adam
<jeh...@sbcglobal.net> writes
>Isn't there, It is well documented where people (scientists) whom have
>bucked conventional
>scientific wisdom have been treated quite badly because there were not
>preaching the current dogma.
>This generally occurs right up until current science practitioners are
>forced to admit they were wrong or face complete loss of
>credability.
Key point - they were *able* to force their case, because they had
repeatable evidence. The problems come when claims are made that can't
be reproduced. Cold fusion died a death because nobody could replicate
it, for example.
>Ahhhh really many theroys have been proved false and many proponents fought
>tooth and nail to maintain the status quo
>(and there status) based on their beleif in in their opinion.
True: but experimental proof ends up winning.
>Now i would grant that parting the red sea or walking on water is hard to
>duplicate... However there were witnesses to both events,
> in the case the Old terstamate was written by Mosas (who parted the sea)
>and the new testamate the apostiles,
>directly observed what they wrote about.. It seem to me much of science
>theroy is exactly, documenting what has been observed...
And being able to repeat it.
If I tell you that I lifted a ten-pound weight into the air, let go, and
it just hung there... do you believe me? After all, if *you* do that,
the weight crashes to the floor and you need to make sure your feet
weren't in its way.
That's the difference between science and religion. Anyone can lift a
weight and let go, just as anyone can demand that the sea part for them.
But science tells us that the weight will, as soon as we let go,
accelerate groundwards at 32 feet per second per second: regardless of
who's holding it, what words they incant or how many Israelites they're
leading.
Nobody is currently able to part the waves on demand, therefore we must
conclude that it cannot be done: even the Bible admits it needed divine
intervention (not a factor that science can deal with, even if you
accept it) and was something of a one-off. (Wouldn't it have given the
Israelites tremendous flexibility in later wars?)
(this is a quote by Jim, not Jim himself)
>Atheists do not believe in God because they find the concept
>untestable, a false notion or simply meaningless. Theirs is a clear-cut and
>defined view. Their belief that there is no God is as much a commitment as
>the Christian or Muslim belief that there is a God. It is a firm belief. And
>a belief is a religion.
I believe the sky is blue, when it's not clouded over. I believe that
missing a nail and hitting my thumb with the hammer really hurts. I
believe that picking up hot pans is also painful. I believe that there
is a United States of America, because I've visited it. I believe that
it's better to be alive, free, in credit and happy than the
alternatives. All those views are clear-cut and defined. Do any of them
constitute a religion?
I know of no repeatable test that proves the existence or non-existence
of God. I don't know His phone number and He doesn't choose to speak to
me. So, while I can smack a hammer into my thumb and confirm that it
hurts, and look up on a clear day to see blue sky, I can't do a quick
test to be sure that God is still around.
That's the difference between science and religion. Religion depends on
who's asking and who's listening: science doesn't care (though its
practicioners might)
>And atheism is a dogma and a set of beliefs about those who lead and pratice
>it and is as such as much a religion is as christanity is.
Where do atheists gather to worship and what's their Holy Writ?
And what's the atheist equivalent of "Kill everyone! God will know His
own!"
Peter Skelton
<ne...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In message <SERyc.185$DZ7...@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com>, jim
><jeh...@sbcglobal.net> writes
>>"Vince Brannigan" <vbranni...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>news:orSdnSChutl...@comcast.com...
>>> i have no problem with theories that met the test of science. I have n
>>> problem with teaching the ;limitations of science, but teaching
>>> religious beliefs as on the same plane as science is simply nonsense.
>>
>>Ahhhh but science has the history of being wrong more often then right...
>
>If you're sick, do you go to a doctor or a priest?
>
>When you get in your car, would you prefer it was designed by engineers
>according to 'science' or by theologians in accordance with the Bible?
>(which, to the best of my knowledge, contains no guidance whatsoever on
>the design, construction, maintenance or use of the automobile)
>
I beg to differ. The Bible defines Pi as 3. I think that alone
would produce an interesting vehicle.
Peter Skelton
Howard Berkowitz
<inv...@spamtrap.dev.null> wrote:
> In message <SERyc.185$DZ7...@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com>, jim
> <jeh...@sbcglobal.net> writes
> >"Vince Brannigan" <vbranni...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> >news:orSdnSChutl...@comcast.com...
> >> i have no problem with theories that met the test of science. I have n
> >> problem with teaching the ;limitations of science, but teaching
> >> religious beliefs as on the same plane as science is simply nonsense.
> >
> >Ahhhh but science has the history of being wrong more often then
> >right...
>
> If you're sick, do you go to a doctor or a priest?
>
> When you get in your car, would you prefer it was designed by engineers
> according to 'science' or by theologians in accordance with the Bible?
> (which, to the best of my knowledge, contains no guidance whatsoever on
> the design, construction, maintenance or use of the automobile)
Oh, I don't know...there's probably guidance for ark welding the frame.
Howard Berkowitz
<inv...@spamtrap.dev.null> wrote:
> In message <SERyc.185$DZ7...@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com>, jim
> <jeh...@sbcglobal.net> writes
> >"Vince Brannigan" <vbranni...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> >news:orSdnSChutl...@comcast.com...
> >> i have no problem with theories that met the test of science. I have n
> >> problem with teaching the ;limitations of science, but teaching
> >> religious beliefs as on the same plane as science is simply nonsense.
> >
> >Ahhhh but science has the history of being wrong more often then
> >right...
>
> If you're sick, do you go to a doctor or a priest?
>
Sorry -- meant to answer this as well. I go to a doctor.
But I've also watched the monitors on a patient in an ICU when they
received a sacrament, and seen them improve for a time. I can only say
that I observed this with patients aware of the ritual.
While I am quite opposed to forcing any religious observance on a
patient, it's reasonable to include clerics in an overall treatment
program. I've seen some useful interdisciplinary things, such as
religiously-oriented visualization/meditation as part of a pain
management program.
At Georgetown, for example, they have Jesuits on the bioethics
committee, not so much in their theological role as being very smart
about ethical problems.
Howard Berkowitz
<inv...@spamtrap.dev.null> wrote:
>
> Nobody is currently able to part the waves on demand, therefore we must
> conclude that it cannot be done: even the Bible admits it needed divine
> intervention (not a factor that science can deal with, even if you
> accept it) and was something of a one-off. (Wouldn't it have given the
> Israelites tremendous flexibility in later wars?)
There is the tale of Moses' publicity man, who was said to have said,
"Moses, old man, I don't believe, for one New York second, that you can
do it. But IF...I say IF...you can part the waves, I guar-an-tee I can
get you three pages of media ink in the Old Testament."
>
> >And atheism is a dogma and a set of beliefs about those who lead and
> >pratice
> >it and is as such as much a religion is as christanity is.
>
> Where do atheists gather to worship and what's their Holy Writ?
>
> And what's the atheist equivalent of "Kill everyone! God will know His
> own!"
There is also the middle ground that rarely gets recognized, of those
that don't deny a deity might exist, but that they have no personal
experience of one. That isn't atheism.
Indeed, there is a spectrum from specific religions, to deism, to
agnosticism, side branches to animism, to atheism.
Andrew Chaplin
<snip>
>
> At Georgetown, for example, they have Jesuits on the bioethics
> committee, not so much in their theological role as being very smart
> about ethical problems.
Playing the Devil's advocate?
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)
news
"Paul J. Adam" <ne...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:IWUoxNQE...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk...
> In message <SERyc.185$DZ7...@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com>, jim
> <jeh...@sbcglobal.net> writes
> >"Vince Brannigan" <vbranni...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> >news:orSdnSChutl...@comcast.com...
> >> i have no problem with theories that met the test of science. I have n
> >> problem with teaching the ;limitations of science, but teaching
> >> religious beliefs as on the same plane as science is simply nonsense.
> >
> >Ahhhh but science has the history of being wrong more often then right...
>
> If you're sick, do you go to a doctor or a priest?
Well that depends...
I would likely do both actually. There are numerous cases where Doctors
determined they could not cure the patient, and somehow a miracle happened
and the patient was restored to full health... So if I was terminal I
would be likely be talking to my pastor significantly more then my Dr..
However in most cases I think both can peacefull co-exist... (except among
atheists)
Jim
Howard Berkowitz
<abch...@yourfinger.rogers.com> wrote:
> Howard Berkowitz wrote:
>
> <snip>
> >
> > At Georgetown, for example, they have Jesuits on the bioethics
> > committee, not so much in their theological role as being very smart
> > about ethical problems.
>
> Playing the Devil's advocate?
They would remind you, Sir, that the correct term for that role is
Defender of the Faith.
news
> If I tell you that I lifted a ten-pound weight into the air, let go, and
> it just hung there... do you believe me? After all, if *you* do that,
> the weight crashes to the floor and you need to make sure your feet
> weren't in its way.
>
>
> That's the difference between science and religion. Anyone can lift a
> weight and let go, just as anyone can demand that the sea part for them.
> But science tells us that the weight will, as soon as we let go,
> accelerate groundwards at 32 feet per second per second: regardless of
> who's holding it, what words they incant or how many Israelites they're
> leading.
>
> Nobody is currently able to part the waves on demand, therefore we must
> conclude that it cannot be done:
>even the Bible admits it needed divine
> intervention (not a factor that science can deal with, even if you
> accept it) and was something of a one-off. (Wouldn't it have given the
> Israelites tremendous flexibility in later wars?)
That is faulty logic
Because man cannot do it dosn't mean it cannot be accomplished by god...
Now The Atheiasts cannot conceive there is someone more powerfull, more
knowledgeable them (pridefull, arrogant basterds that they are...) However
if it did happen as written, either Mosas was the Luckiest SOB in the
History of the mankind or a higher power (as was written) did it. Paul the
whole point of mircules is that someone did the impossable... (walking on
water, splitting the red sea, calming the waters, raising the dead) The
only argument the Atheist can use is the events just didn't happen, they
are myth.
Because if they did in fact happen, then a higher power then man did it.
and their theroy is all wet.
I will also note I cannot make Mt St Helens erupt either but it does erupt
for time to time.
No Scientist has re-createed life from nothing, but I doubt you would state
equvically
that there is no life and it cannot happen... I have read that it is
impossable for a bumble bee to fly, but that
hasn't stopped the bumble bee as of late...
> I believe the sky is blue, when it's not clouded over. I believe that
> missing a nail and hitting my thumb with the hammer really hurts. I
> believe that picking up hot pans is also painful. I believe that there
> is a United States of America, because I've visited it. I believe that
> it's better to be alive, free, in credit and happy than the
> alternatives. All those views are clear-cut and defined. Do any of them
> constitute a religion?
However none of these above beliefs has anything to do with or without a
supreme being (god).
Now concerning Atheism, the only reason for the existence of Atheism
(Atheism - The absence of belief in a god. The prefix "a" means "without".
The term "theo" (or thei) means "god".
So, a-theism literally means "without god-ism")
is to counter the existence of theism.
Theism is derived from the Greek Qeo/j(Theos) meaning "God" plus -ism.
Theism for our intents and purposes is
the belief in the true and living God who is Creator and sovereign Ruler of
the universe and known by voluntary revelation.
In effect they are both dogmas, and both are religions or more
specificallty one is a religion and the other is an Anti-religion
however anti-religion isn't the same as secular...
Jim
Larry C. Lyons
> "Jim Yanik" <jya...@abuse.gov> wrote in message
> news:Xns95058DF68AA...@204.117.192.21...
>
>>"news" <jim.nosp...@qtiworld.com> wrote in
>>news:40c9e6aa$1...@news.qgraph.com:
>>
>>
>>>"Vince Brannigan" <vbranni...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>news:l-OdnSqOfrP...@comcast.com...
>>>
>>>>Actually no, its a captalist tactic. Freedom of the press belongs to
>>>>those rich enough to own the press.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>perhaps you prefer the French system?
>>>
>>>Actually I would prefer the media would dig down and find some class
>>>and at least attempt to be impartial and report the news instead of
>>>trying to spin the news.
>>>If and when they find they can't i wish they would recuse themselves
>>>for conflict of intrest.
>>>
>>>A little cless and decency would be nice as well...
>>>
>>>I would also perfer an eductaion system who educates and trains our
>>>youth (including reporters) would be balanced as well.
>>>Tell me Why do liberials fear teaching both sides of the story. I
>>>though being liberial was supposed to mean the following
>>>(Liberial, showing or characterized by broad-mindedness; "a broad
>>>political stance"; "generous and broad sympathies";
>>>"a liberal newspaper"; "tolerant of his opponent's opinions"). Tell
>>>me What is wrong with teaching the Bible along with teaching evolution
>>>for example?
>>
>>Because school is for EDUCATING children,not for indoctrinating them in
>
> any
>
>>religion(mysticism)or instilling any 'moral code'.
>>(that's -your- job for -your- children.)
>
>
> I would agree execpt that in case you didn't realize it EDUCATING is
> INDOCTRINATING...
> Today in the schools they have removed any vestage of religion (execpt that
> athesism is a religion too)
> There is Sex ED, Gay/lesbian Acceptance /political correctness (what you
> called a -Moral Code)
>
> (site: http://family.org/cforum/fosi/education/nac/a0029442.cfm)
>
>
>
>
>>See,school time is "state time",and the State is supposed to stay out of
>>the religion business("make no establishment OF religion").
>
> Actually it says: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
> religion, OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF...
> Liberals seem to forget about the second part... This means government
> can't start a religion (AKA Anglican church) but it can not stop one either.
>
> However teaching something exists doesn't establish a religion. It is a
> fact that numerous religions exist. Teaching the existence no more creates
> a religion then teaching that racism has existed(s) creates racists.
>
>
>>If you want your kid 'educated' about religion,send them to a church of
>>your choice,on your own time and money.
>
>
> But excuse me I pay taxes, the public school system is using my time and my
> money... also by your definition if you wish your child taught drawinsim
> (or Sex Ed etc) it should do be done it on your time and your money not in
> my public school...
>
So I take it that science education is optional then. Given the large
empirical support for the current theories of evolution, I cannot see
anything else having the same scientific support? Intelligent Design,
fails on falsifiability and being a better model. Creatinism, pardon
Creationism, the Supreme Court has always considered teaching
creationism in any form in a state supported institution is an
unacceptable breach of the separation of church and state.
>
>>Besides,what about all the OTHER religions besides the Christian Bible?
>>How about Satanism,Wicca,or Santaria,want your kids taught about those?
>
>
> Well actually I took a class in religion (no longer allowed) that was very
> good, covered most of the larger religions inclusive of Islam and Budest,
> Hindu.
>
>
>>They can do that on their own time,WRT religion.
>
>
> Same can be said for Sex Ed, the Gay rights crapola, and Darwinism can it
> not...
Gay rights crapola, I guess that equal protection only applies to some.
A matter of All Animals are Equal, Some are More Equal Than Others.
>
>
>>IMO,children should not have "religious 'education'" until they are old
>>enough to decide for themselves. Let them be educated first.
>
>
> And exactly how are they to make an educated decide if they are kept
> ignorant?
> IMO forcing an education denying the existence god(s) on my kids is no
> different then if the school forced your kids to join my Methodist church...
How about this if you want to preach your religious rants in science
education classes, like biology, then are you also prepared for me to
give a lecture on punctuated equilibrium from your church's pulpit next
Sunday>
--
Larry C. Lyons
========================================================
Life is Complex. It has both real and imaginary parts.
========================================================
Chaos, Panic and Disorder. My work here is done.
Jim Yanik
news:40ce01b5$1...@news.qgraph.com:
Wouldn't it be the same day as the person recording the info "God" told
him? Why would "God" try to mislead him/her? Does "God" lie?
"God" ought to know what references the human recording his words would
have for a "day",and not screw up the translation.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net
Jim Yanik
news:40cf3fa3$1...@news.qgraph.com:
>
> "Paul J. Adam" <ne...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:GWxrhIRQ...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk...
>> In message <OY1zc.1166$Pt....@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com>, jim
>> <jeh...@sbcglobal.net> writes
>
>
>> If I tell you that I lifted a ten-pound weight into the air, let go,
>> and it just hung there... do you believe me? After all, if *you* do
>> that, the weight crashes to the floor and you need to make sure your
>> feet weren't in its way.
>>
>>
>> That's the difference between science and religion. Anyone can lift a
>> weight and let go, just as anyone can demand that the sea part for
>> them. But science tells us that the weight will, as soon as we let
>> go, accelerate groundwards at 32 feet per second per second:
>> regardless of who's holding it, what words they incant or how many
>> Israelites they're leading.
>>
>> Nobody is currently able to part the waves on demand, therefore we
>> must conclude that it cannot be done:
>>even the Bible admits it needed divine
>> intervention (not a factor that science can deal with, even if you
>> accept it) and was something of a one-off. (Wouldn't it have given
>> the Israelites tremendous flexibility in later wars?)
>
>
> That is faulty logic
> Because man cannot do it dosn't mean it cannot be accomplished by
> god... Now The Atheiasts cannot conceive there is someone more
> powerfull, more knowledgeable them
But who still could not relate the number of 'days' he took to create the
Earth and it's species in the same referents that the humans he was
communicating the story to. Either that or he lies.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net
news
"Larry C. Lyons" <Larry...@someoneElse.Invalid> wrote in message
news:EvNzc.49124$TR1....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> So I take it that science education is optional then. Given the large
> empirical support for the current theories of evolution, I cannot see
> anything else having the same scientific support? Intelligent Design,
> fails on falsifiability and being a better model. Creatinism, pardon
> Creationism, the Supreme Court has always considered teaching
> creationism in any form in a state supported institution is an
> unacceptable breach of the separation of church and state.
I don't consider science and religion to be at odds with each other for the
most part.
One says it was done, one explains how it was done. no problem...
When I read the constitution, the restriction (per the consutitution) was
only on the federial goverment not to creat a state religion (like the
church of england)
State Goverment was never so restricted and per the X amend this would then
be a power reserved to the state or people. So unless the state consitution
prohibits a seperate issue, Schools are state / locally run, so where is
the federial issue.
Oh as for the USSC, NO it wasn't "always that way", only since the
activist Warren court decided it was unacceptable to them and made law from
the bench.
And I seems deniging the right to pratice religion in a public school sems
to breach of the freedom of religion clause...
> Gay rights crapola, I guess that equal protection only applies to some.
> A matter of All Animals are Equal, Some are More Equal Than Others.
Well the Gays/lesbos can do what ever they wish as far as I am concerned so
long as they don't promote it, or discuss their foul perverted crap around
my kids.
I think my kids should be equally protected from the fruits nuts and flakes.
And no there is no constutional right to hump your buddy
As for anamials and the constitution, the constitution doesn't address
animial equialty at all. I personally find some anamials greatly superior
to others as a matter of fact. For example Deer tenderloin over the grill
is vastly superior to rabbit...
> >>IMO,children should not have "religious 'education'" until they are old
> >>enough to decide for themselves. Let them be educated first.
> >
> >
> > And exactly how are they to make an educated decide if they are kept
> > ignorant?
> > IMO forcing an education denying the existence god(s) on my kids is no
> > different then if the school forced your kids to join my Methodist
church...
>
> How about this if you want to preach your religious rants in science
> education classes, like biology, then are you also prepared for me to
> give a lecture on punctuated equilibrium from your church's pulpit next
> Sunday>
well you are alreadying doing so in school. I just want equil time for my
dime...
But if you want a pulpet....
No problem Larry Buy your church, build you pulpet and preach to you hearts
content. pass you plate.
But here you can't use goverment money...
> Larry C. Lyons
news
> "news" <jim.nosp...@qtiworld.com> wrote in
> news:40ce01b5$1...@news.qgraph.com:
>
> >
> > "John S. Shinal" <jshinal_REMO...@mindspring.com> wrote in
> > message news:40d1ba04....@text-east.newsfeeds.com...
> >> Jim Yanik wrote:
> >> >Darwinism is the currently accepted science theory,with supporting
> >> >evidence.There's no religion about it.It's supported by facts.
> >> >(facts you disallow,based solely on religious beliefs)
> >>
> >> It also does not seriously impinge on Creationism as a belief
> >> or theory. I am amazed by fellow Christians who think it does. The
> >> story in Genesis is told as a series of simplified parables. The
> >> first few days of Creation appear to correspond pretty well to the
> >> age and theorized creation of the universe, and PreCambrian era
> >> Earth. The rise of life and man is similarly outlined. Who am I to
> >> say that a "day" in the story isn't an allegory for 4 billion years
> >> of physics and biology ? Darwin doesn't contradict Creationism. Never
> >> has.
> >
> > Concur soundly!
> >
> > I have never read it specified what a day for god would be in (mans
> > terms). As I have read it it said he created not how he created...
> >
> > Jim
> >
> >
> >
>
> Wouldn't it be the same day as the person recording the info "God" told
> him? Why would "God" try to mislead him/her? Does "God" lie?
I am not a theologian, but from my farthers semenary books in the original
Hebrew the word was Yom, this in Hebrew means a period of time...
(Not specifically 24 hours) so in the first yom (period of time) x was
accomplished. A yom can also be used to mean an "age" as in the ice age.
> "God" ought to know what references the human recording his words would
> have for a "day",and not screw up the translation.
Well he might well have understood the humans would have issue with this and
hoped his creations would use their heads for something beside a hat rack
and figure it out.
Of course he may have also used it to weed out unbelivers after all somebody
needs to stoke the furnace... ;)
Jim
news
No Jim in Hebrew the term was Yom (not day), The Hebrew word yom has three
literal meanings - a 12-hour period of time (sunrise to sunset), a 24-hour
period of time from sunset to sunset (the Hebrew day), and an indefinite
period of time (Age i.e Ice age). The day-age interpretation of Genesis does
not require the use of symbolism to explain the creation account.
Jim
Jim Yanik
news:40d07bab$1...@news.qgraph.com:
Since the Jewish and Christian religions both say DAY(six days,and then
'God' rested),and base their religions on it,teach it,that's what it must
be;a day,not an eon,or whatever makes your argument work.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net
Jim Yanik
news:40d07973$1...@news.qgraph.com:
So,then he's trying to confuse his believers,and make it more difficult for
doubters to believe. What a guy.
Wouldn't it be more logical to make it plain and certain?
>
> Of course he may have also used it to weed out unbelivers after all
> somebody needs to stoke the furnace... ;)
>
> Jim
>
>
Amazing how the religious are willing to accept such loose definitions so
as to not shake their faith.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net
Jim Yanik
news:40d0758a$1...@news.qgraph.com:
>
> "Larry C. Lyons" <Larry...@someoneElse.Invalid> wrote in message
> news:EvNzc.49124$TR1....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
>> So I take it that science education is optional then. Given the large
>> empirical support for the current theories of evolution, I cannot see
>> anything else having the same scientific support? Intelligent Design,
>> fails on falsifiability and being a better model. Creatinism, pardon
>> Creationism, the Supreme Court has always considered teaching
>> creationism in any form in a state supported institution is an
>> unacceptable breach of the separation of church and state.
>
> I don't consider science and religion to be at odds with each other
> for the most part.
> One says it was done, one explains how it was done. no problem...
>
> When I read the constitution, the restriction (per the consutitution)
> was only on the federial goverment not to creat a state religion (like
> the church of england)
No,it clearly says "make no establishment OF religion"(not A religion).That
can mean establishing school prayers,prayers being distinctly "OF
religion".And states have to follow the rights protected by the Bill of
Rights just as the Feds do.They cannot abrogate the 4th amendment
individual rights.they are not supposed to violate the 2nd right to keep
and bear arms.(the USSC is falling down on the job on this one)
> State Goverment was never so restricted and per the X amend this
> would then be a power reserved to the state or people. So unless the
> state consitution prohibits a seperate issue, Schools are state /
> locally run, so where is the federial issue.
>
> Oh as for the USSC, NO it wasn't "always that way", only since the
> activist Warren court decided it was unacceptable to them and made
> law from the bench.
>
> And I seems deniging the right to pratice religion in a public school
> sems to breach of the freedom of religion clause...
No,as it's not the time or place for religion to be taught.School is
specifically for teaching children how to learn.
Not for teaching/practicing hocus-pocus.School time is State time.
You don't sell Amway on company time.Nor do you teach religion on company
time.Try it,and you will rightfully be fired if you persist.Same for
reading the Bible;you do it on your own time,not company time;same goes for
school.The whole thing about prayer in school is to put forth their
religion to a trapped audience,it's not about worship,that they can do just
about any place,any time other than school.They could do it before
school,not during.
>
>
>> Gay rights crapola, I guess that equal protection only applies to
>> some. A matter of All Animals are Equal, Some are More Equal Than
>> Others.
>
> Well the Gays/lesbos can do what ever they wish as far as I am
> concerned so long as they don't promote it, or discuss their foul
> perverted crap around my kids.
Sure;do it on their own time (and private place),just like for religion.
> I think my kids should be equally protected from the fruits nuts and
> flakes. And no there is no constutional right to hump your buddy
Nor marry same-sex.Marriage is husband-wife. Of course,homos are free to
marry,provided that they marry the opposite sex,same as the rest of us.
(thus not a "civil-rights" matter.)
>
> As for anamials and the constitution, the constitution doesn't address
> animial equialty at all. I personally find some anamials greatly
> superior to others as a matter of fact. For example Deer tenderloin
> over the grill is vastly superior to rabbit...
>
>> >>IMO,children should not have "religious 'education'" until they are
>> >>old enough to decide for themselves. Let them be educated first.
>> >
>> >
>> > And exactly how are they to make an educated decide if they are
>> > kept ignorant?
Well,it's proper to teach children how to reason along with
reading,writing,and 'rithmatics.Putting religion in there teaches them how
to avoid reasoning.(religion depends on blind faith)
>> > IMO forcing an education denying the existence god(s) on my kids
>> > is no different then if the school forced your kids to join my
>> > Methodist
> church...
>>
>> How about this if you want to preach your religious rants in science
>> education classes, like biology, then are you also prepared for me to
>> give a lecture on punctuated equilibrium from your church's pulpit
>> next Sunday>
>
> well you are alreadying doing so in school. I just want equil time
> for my
> dime...
>
> But if you want a pulpet....
> No problem Larry Buy your church, build you pulpet and preach to you
> hearts content. pass you plate.
> But here you can't use goverment money...
>
>
>> Larry C. Lyons
>
>
>
>
>
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net
news
> > somebody needs to stoke the furnace... ;)
> >
> > Jim
> >
> >
>
> Amazing how the religious are willing to accept such loose definitions so
> as to not shake their faith.
I don't see it as a loose difinition, however I can see why an athiest would
, anything that could impeed there making the world godless, is evil...
In some ways they are like liberilas, hey maybe they are liberials, Let see
elitist check, Arrogant check, no faith check, morals of a goat check,
no integerity check...
Yup just like a liberals...
I really don't wish to waste any further breath trying to explain things to
you... Someday you will be the one trying to explain things...and that will
be your problem not mine...
Jim
Brian Sharrock
> "news" <jim.nosp...@qtiworld.com> wrote in
> news:40d07973$1...@news.qgraph.com:
>
> >
> > "Jim Yanik" <jya...@abuse.gov> wrote in message
> > news:Xns9509E3E06EA...@204.117.192.21...
> >> "news" <jim.nosp...@qtiworld.com> wrote in
> >> news:40ce01b5$1...@news.qgraph.com:
> >>big snip
> >
> > I am not a theologian, but from my farthers semenary books in the
Slightly confused here.. :)
is that the seminary book of your father
or
is it the farthest (earliest) book form _your_ seminary days ..?
Enquiring minds :)
> > original Hebrew the word was Yom, this in Hebrew means a period of
> > time... (Not specifically 24 hours) so in the first yom (period of
> > time) x was accomplished. A yom can also be used to mean an "age" as
> > in the ice age.
> >
> >> "God" ought to know what references the human recording his words
> >> would have for a "day",and not screw up the translation.
> >
> > Well he might well have understood the humans would have issue with
> > this and hoped his creations would use their heads for something
> > beside a hat rack and figure it out.
>
> So,then he's trying to confuse his believers,and make it more difficult
for
> doubters to believe. What a guy.
> Wouldn't it be more logical to make it plain and certain?
>
If God _had_ given precisly detailed account of his
activities in plain and certain terms so as not to confuse
his believers or make it less difficult for doubters ... who'd
you expect to attest to the accuracy? Lucifer?
> >
> > Of course he may have also used it to weed out unbelivers after all
> > somebody needs to stoke the furnace... ;)
> >
> > Jim
Tea break over, back on your heads!
--
Brian
Paul J. Adam
<jim.nosp...@qtiworld.com> writes
>"Paul J. Adam" <ne...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:GWxrhIRQ...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk...
>> weight and let go, just as anyone can demand that the sea part for them.
>> But science tells us that the weight will, as soon as we let go,
>> accelerate groundwards at 32 feet per second per second: regardless of
>> who's holding it, what words they incant or how many Israelites they're
>> leading.
>>
>> Nobody is currently able to part the waves on demand, therefore we must
>> conclude that it cannot be done:
>>even the Bible admits it needed divine
>> intervention (not a factor that science can deal with, even if you
>> accept it) and was something of a one-off. (Wouldn't it have given the
>> Israelites tremendous flexibility in later wars?)
>
>
>That is faulty logic
>Because man cannot do it dosn't mean it cannot be accomplished by god...
Completely and absolutely true. Now, when will God agree to sit down and
allow His abilities to be measured?
Science doesn't say "God cannot do this". If there is a God, then
presumably He can do whatever He wants. What science _does_ do is
predict the real world when God does _not_ get involved.
Trouble is, God isn't renowned for showing Himself or taking an active
part in proceedings recently.
>Now The Atheiasts cannot conceive there is someone more powerfull, more
>knowledgeable them (pridefull, arrogant basterds that they are...)
Can certainly conceive of such a person. (But technically I'm an
agnostic rather than an atheist)
Now, apparently he won't talk to me, won't show himself, can't be
detected by any means known to man and His intervention cannot be
predicted or relied upon. So, this person may exist but there's no way
to know where they are, what they're doing and where they're
intervening. Makes them sort of irrelevant to any rational calculation,
doesn't it?
There's a notion that "enough faith" is all you need, but there's a long
history of wars where both sides fought with horrible brutality based on
the conviction that God was on *their* side and fighting against the
enemy... is God Protestant or Catholic, for instance?
>However
>if it did happen as written, either Mosas was the Luckiest SOB in the
>History of the mankind or a higher power (as was written) did it.
So we have three possibilities already: the tale grew in the telling,
Moses was very lucky, or God intervened.
>Paul the
>whole point of mircules is that someone did the impossable... (walking on
>water, splitting the red sea, calming the waters, raising the dead) The
>only argument the Atheist can use is the events just didn't happen, they
>are myth.
Sure - but if they happened, it was direct divine intervention. No way
for Man to do it, those required God.
Doesn't say anything bad about "science" that a God can overrule it when
He wants to.
>Because if they did in fact happen, then a higher power then man did it.
>and their theroy is all wet.
You keep looking for a fight when there is none.
>I will also note I cannot make Mt St Helens erupt either but it does erupt
>for time to time.
I can't make the tide turn before or after its appointed time: a point
King Knut was much misrepresented for telling his advisers.
>No Scientist has re-createed life from nothing, but I doubt you would state
>equvically
>that there is no life and it cannot happen... I have read that it is
>impossable for a bumble bee to fly, but that
>hasn't stopped the bumble bee as of late...
The bumblebee point is interesting. *Basic* aerodynamics says it can't
fly: but then *basic* aerodynamics assume the bumblebee's wings are
flat, rigid slabs.
Go into more detail, and realise how the bumblebee continually reshapes
its wings as it flaps them (see many aircraft that flap their wings to
fly?) and you find that it's a remarkably well-evolved flying machine.
Trouble is, "basic" theories are just that. Just because my car will go
from 0 to 60 in about six seconds (or would, when it was new... :) )
doesn't mean it'll be doing 120 in twelve seconds, or 600mph after a
minute at full throttle. The extra detail is important, but often folks
don't bother looking for it.
>> I believe the sky is blue, when it's not clouded over. I believe that
>> missing a nail and hitting my thumb with the hammer really hurts. I
>> believe that picking up hot pans is also painful. I believe that there
>> is a United States of America, because I've visited it. I believe that
>> it's better to be alive, free, in credit and happy than the
>> alternatives. All those views are clear-cut and defined. Do any of them
>> constitute a religion?
>
>However none of these above beliefs has anything to do with or without a
>supreme being (god).
Why not? If there is a God, why won't He stop the hammer hitting my
thumb? Or at least stop it hurting when it does?
Of course, He may choose to let me learn to be less careless in future.
Okay - but now we're into someone who *can* break the rules, but only
when He chooses to.
Which means we're stuck with learning the rules.
news
> "news" <jim.nosp...@qtiworld.com> wrote in
> news:40d0758a$1...@news.qgraph.com:
>
> >
> > "Larry C. Lyons" <Larry...@someoneElse.Invalid> wrote in message
> > news:EvNzc.49124$TR1....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> > for the most part.
> > One says it was done, one explains how it was done. no problem...
> >
> > When I read the constitution, the restriction (per the consutitution)
> > was only on the federial goverment not to creat a state religion (like
> > the church of england)
>
> No,it clearly says "make no establishment OF religion"(not A religion)
Actually it says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
3 points.
1 This restriction is only on congress That means the US congress (and
the Federal government).
not the Virginia legislature, Wisconsin legislature etc etc since it isn't
specifically prohibited to the states it is reserved to the states...
2. If you would ever read the historical record (Danbury Baptist letter BY
JEFFERSON) concerning the only reference by a founder to separation of
church question it specifically makes reference to a head of state also
being head of the church... IE church of England.
3 So in this case a student can they desired can bring up the topic of
creation in any science class they wish to under the free exercice clause
and of course under freedom of speach right? ... Even though schools seem to
say they can't.
> that can mean establishing school prayers, prayers being distinctly "OF
> religion".
It also means the cannot stop prayes being the free exercise thereof
>Obiviously being the And states have to follow the rights protected by the
Bill of
> Rights just as the Feds do.
Not unless you wish to declare the commerce clause. and insist schools are
involved in interstae commerace.
now wait a secound seems we have that little ditty known as the 10th
ammendment it says
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or
to the people.
There is no prohibition on the state so it is a power reserved for the
state...
>They cannot abrogate the 4th amendment
> individual rights.they are not supposed to violate the 2nd right to keep
> and bear arms.(the USSC is falling down on the job on this one)
Well once you look to take away a one all are in danger... I will agree
with you here...
> > State Goverment was never so restricted and per the X amend this
> > would then be a power reserved to the state or people. So unless the
> > state consitution prohibits a seperate issue, Schools are state /
> > locally run, so where is the federial issue.
> > Oh as for the USSC, NO it wasn't "always that way", only since the
> > activist Warren court decided it was unacceptable to them and made
> > law from the bench.
> >
> > And I seems deniging the right to pratice religion in a public school
> > sems to breach of the freedom of religion clause...
>
> No,as it's not the time or place for religion to be taught.School is
> specifically for teaching children how to learn.
That is an opinion not a fact...
> Not for teaching/practicing hocus-pocus.
Another opinion not based in fact.
>School time is State time.
> You don't sell Amway on company time.Nor do you teach religion on company
> time.Try it,and you will rightfully be fired if you persist.
Excuse me, my employer pays me...
In the case of the State/school I pay them.
I don't like in a dictatorship/monarcy. I am a citicen, not a subject.
Sorry...
I pay for that school, the school dosn't pay me. Public shcool are full of
public servants.
Meaning they work for THE PEOPLE... we are the Boss!
> reading the Bible;you do it on your own time,not company time;same goes
for
> school.The whole thing about prayer in school is to put forth their
> religion to a trapped audience,it's not about worship,that they can do
just
> about any place,any time other than school.They could do it before
> school,not during.
Actuall you can do it anytime any place including school... as congress is
prohibited from prohibiting the free exercise thereof
remember.
Now I do agree that the athiest wish to use school time to preach there
godless crap to a captured auidance..
and I am rightfull pissed that they do so.
..
> >> Gay rights crapola, I guess that equal protection only applies to
> >> some. A matter of All Animals are Equal, Some are More Equal Than
> >> Others.
> >
> > Well the Gays/lesbos can do what ever they wish as far as I am
> > concerned so long as they don't promote it, or discuss their foul
> > perverted crap around my kids.
>
> Sure;do it on their own time (and private place),just like for religion.
So I you agree I have a right to be pissed (by your diffinition) that my 7
year old
brough home a book from school where 2 men were married to each other in the
story?
I well also note being a gay or Lesbo isn't covered by the bill of rights.
> Nor marry same-sex.Marriage is husband-wife. Of course,homos are free to
> marry,provided that they marry the opposite sex,same as the rest of us.
> (thus not a "civil-rights" matter.)
that is correct. being a gay or Lesbo isn't covered by the bill of rights.
Frankly the answer is school vouchers and total free choice. Then those who
with thir children to be be raised godless can be
and those who wish their children to be raised with God can be. how about
that freedom.
Unforatnatky the worthless teachers union wishes to call the shots.
Jim
news
"Brian Sharrock" <b.sha...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:Hi1Ac.3$77...@newsfe5-gui.server.ntli.net...
>
> Slightly confused here.. :)
> is that the seminary book of your father
My departed (deceased ) Father (Dad) graduated from seminary school and was
ordained, though he never went on to preach (outside the family)
the family still has many of his books.
I was a sailor not a preacher...
>
> If God _had_ given precisly detailed account of his
> activities in plain and certain terms so as not to confuse
> his believers or make it less difficult for doubters ... who'd
> you expect to attest to the accuracy? Lucifer?
Well corroborating witnesses are hard to find...
jim
news
> >Because man cannot do it dosn't mean it cannot be accomplished by god...
>
> Completely and absolutely true. Now, when will God agree to sit down and
> allow His abilities to be measured?
Well, we answer to him, not the other way around.
> Science doesn't say "God cannot do this". If there is a God, then
> presumably He can do whatever He wants. What science _does_ do is
> predict the real world when God does _not_ get involved.
I also beleive science does measure what god has done every time we measure
the expansion of space.
or everytime we discover somethoing new we are reveailing his handiwork.
> Trouble is, God isn't renowned for showing Himself or taking an active
> part in proceedings recently.
Well yes and no. He isn't big on getting involved on our timetable that is
true.
However miracles that can't be explained via science happen all around us.
My aunt had full blown Non-Hoskins lymphoma, the node on her neck was the
size of a ruby red grapefruit.
Her medical team gave her 6 months because it was so aggressive. After they
fried it with everything they had (Chemo and Radiation) it slowed it but
didn't stop... Well 8 months latter she was still kicking, a year later the
DR noted it looked to be smaller, 2 years latter she was listed in full
remission (that was in 1978) My aunt passed away 26 years later (last
fall) at 92 years old...
.
> Now, apparently he won't talk to me, won't show himself, can't be
> detected by any means known to man and His intervention cannot be
> predicted or relied upon. So, this person may exist but there's no way
> to know where they are, what they're doing and where they're
> intervening. Makes them sort of irrelevant to any rational calculation,
> doesn't it?
Well do you listen?
Also many people get this part messed up... God works on his time-line not
ours.
Will he walk up and hand you a beer and sit and chat I don't thnk so,
However, and I seriouls beleive this to be true, When he wishes to get your
attention he will do so.
If you ask and listen and are open to it, you will more then liky get an
answer.
Now it isn't in a convential way (like a phone call) but you may just come
upon the answer and it will have a strange calm effect...
It is very hard to explain.
> There's a notion that "enough faith" is all you need,
will it has been said faith need be no greater then the size of a mustard
seed...
ut there's a long
> history of wars where both sides fought with horrible brutality based on
> the conviction that God was on *their* side and fighting against the
> enemy... is God Protestant or Catholic, for instance?
Well there are men of god and men who would like to be god...
you will know them by their works...
> >However
> >if it did happen as written, either Mosas was the Luckiest SOB in the
> >History of the mankind or a higher power (as was written) did it.
>
> So we have three possibilities already: the tale grew in the telling,
> Moses was very lucky, or God intervened.
>
> >Paul the
> >whole point of mircules is that someone did the impossable... (walking
on
> >water, splitting the red sea, calming the waters, raising the dead)
The
> >only argument the Atheist can use is the events just didn't happen, they
> >are myth.
>
> Sure - but if they happened, it was direct divine intervention. No way
> for Man to do it, those required God.
>
> Doesn't say anything bad about "science" that a God can overrule it when
> He wants to.
Actually i believe science is the reveiling of his handiwork...
I have no issue with creation and Science with a tad of an open mind.
For exapmle the yom isn't not difinition 1 (day) but is meaning 3, An age.
Jim
Jim Yanik
news:40d08478$1...@news.qgraph.com:
>
> "Jim Yanik" <jya...@abuse.gov> wrote in message
> news:Xns950A8723D9D...@204.117.192.21...
>> "news" <jim.nosp...@qtiworld.com> wrote in
>> news:40d07973$1...@news.qgraph.com:
>>
>>> >
>> > Of course he may have also used it to weed out unbelivers after all
>> > somebody needs to stoke the furnace... ;)
>> >
>> > Jim
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Amazing how the religious are willing to accept such loose
>> definitions so as to not shake their faith.
>
> I don't see it as a loose difinition, however I can see why an athiest
> would , anything that could impeed there making the world godless,
I never said I wanted to make the world godless,all I want is to separate
religion from government.Practice all you want on your own time and nickel.
There's plenty of examples of religion taking over government,oppressing
those who don't believe the same thing.People like you are exactly what we
need to guard against.Freedom of religion also means freedom from religion.
And religion certainly does not have a monopoly on all the morality in the
world. Half of the 10 C is just common sense.
One other item;
if the 10C says "thou shall not kill",why in the Bible does it say it's OK
to kill in self-defense?
"Thou shall not kill" would seem to be an absolute.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net
Jim Yanik
Wouldn't he make it that ordinary physical evidence would agree with his "6
days" to create the Earth?
And why can there be only one 'God"?
If there's one,it's possible there could be more than one.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net
Jim Yanik
news:40d0...@news.qgraph.com:
>
> "Jim Yanik" <jya...@abuse.gov> wrote in message
> news:Xns950A89C3FA0...@204.117.192.21...
>> "news" <jim.nosp...@qtiworld.com> wrote in
>> news:40d0758a$1...@news.qgraph.com:
>>
>> >
>> > "Larry C. Lyons" <Larry...@someoneElse.Invalid> wrote in message
>> > news:EvNzc.49124$TR1....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
>> > I don't consider science and religion to be at odds with each other
>> > for the most part.
>> > One says it was done, one explains how it was done. no problem...
>> >
>> > When I read the constitution, the restriction (per the
>> > consutitution) was only on the federial goverment not to creat a
>> > state religion (like the church of england)
>>
>> No,it clearly says "make no establishment OF religion"(not A
>> religion)
>
> Actually it says "Congress shall make no law respecting an
> establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
>
> 3 points.
>
> 1 This restriction is only on congress
Bull.It's been tried,and failed.Lots of state laws have been overturned as
unconstitutional,violating the 1st Amendment's prohibition of
"establishment OF religion".
> That means the US congress
> (and the Federal government).
> not the Virginia legislature, Wisconsin legislature etc etc since it
> isn't specifically prohibited to the states it is reserved to the
> states...
>
> 2. If you would ever read the historical record (Danbury Baptist
> letter BY JEFFERSON) concerning the only reference by a founder to
> separation of church question it specifically makes reference to a
> head of state also being head of the church... IE church of England.
>
> 3 So in this case a student can they desired can bring up the topic
> of creation in any science class they wish to under the free exercice
> clause and of course under freedom of speach right? ... Even though
> schools seem to say they can't.
>
>> that can mean establishing school prayers, prayers being distinctly
>> "OF religion".
>
> It also means the cannot stop prayes being the free exercise thereof
They sure can.I recall that kid who prayed out loud in the middle of his
classes,they stopped HIM from doing it.He of course was free to pray on his
own free time,silently,to not be disruptive.
Freedom is not absolute.(otherwise it would be anarchy)
>
>>And states have to follow the rights protected by
>>the
> Bill of
>> Rights just as the Feds do.
>
> Not unless you wish to declare the commerce clause. and insist
> schools are involved in interstae commerace.
>
> now wait a secound seems we have that little ditty known as the 10th
> ammendment it says
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
> prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States
> respectively, or to the people.
>
> There is no prohibition on the state so it is a power reserved for the
> state...
>
>
>>They cannot abrogate the 4th amendment
>> individual rights.they are not supposed to violate the 2nd right to
>> keep and bear arms.(the USSC is falling down on the job on this one)
>
> Well once you look to take away a one all are in danger... I will
> agree with you here...
>
That states are NOT free to abrogate the "Bill of Rights"(any of them,any
part of them) using the 10th amendment as justification?
>
>> > State Goverment was never so restricted and per the X amend this
>> > would then be a power reserved to the state or people. So unless
>> > the state consitution prohibits a seperate issue, Schools are
>> > state / locally run, so where is the federial issue.
>
>
>
>> > Oh as for the USSC, NO it wasn't "always that way", only since
>> > the activist Warren court decided it was unacceptable to them and
>> > made law from the bench.
>> >
>> > And I seems deniging the right to pratice religion in a public
>> > school sems to breach of the freedom of religion clause...
>>
>> No,as it's not the time or place for religion to be taught.School is
>> specifically for teaching children how to learn.
>
>
> That is an opinion not a fact...
Oh,school is NOT specifically for teaching children how to learn? Please
explain this one in detail.
>
>> Not for teaching/practicing hocus-pocus.
>
> Another opinion not based in fact.
>
>>School time is State time.
>> You don't sell Amway on company time.Nor do you teach religion on
>> company time.Try it,and you will rightfully be fired if you persist.
>
> Excuse me, my employer pays me...
Yes,and if he doesn't like you wasting time on religious things when you
should be doing work he pays for,then you are gone.
>
> In the case of the State/school I pay them.
We ALL pay them.
> I don't like in a dictatorship/monarcy. I am a citicen, not a
> subject. Sorry...
> I pay for that school, the school dosn't pay me. Public shcool are
> full of public servants.
> Meaning they work for THE PEOPLE... we are the Boss!
Yes,and that means school gets used for what it was intended for,and not
for nonsense like religion.You still are free to teach or learn it on your
own time and nickel.
>
>
I certainly do.
The only part of homosexuality they should be teaching is the negative
health aspects of it.
Sex ed -is- necessary,though,if only from a health standpoint.
Too many parents fail to do their part here,just as they do for ordinary
education. Too many teen pregnancies,too many kids getting diseases(STDs).
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net
Jim Yanik
news:40d0c220$1...@news.qgraph.com:
>
> However miracles that can't be explained via science happen all around
> us. My aunt had full blown Non-Hoskins lymphoma, the node on her neck
> was the size of a ruby red grapefruit.
> Her medical team gave her 6 months because it was so aggressive.
> After they fried it with everything they had (Chemo and Radiation) it
> slowed it but didn't stop... Well 8 months latter she was still
> kicking, a year later the DR noted it looked to be smaller, 2 years
> latter she was listed in full remission (that was in 1978) My aunt
> passed away 26 years later (last fall) at 92 years old...
>
> .
More likely they damaged the tumor enough her own natural defenses were
able to deal with it.Note that a person's own mental state has a tremendous
effect on one's ability to fight off illnesses.
Eventually,those 'miracles' get explained by science.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net
J.T. McDaniel
it doesn't. What it says is "Don't murder." Yet one
more reason the KJV is wonderful, poetic literature,
but a lousy translation.
--
Jack