World Trade Center
SAMcCown
in court the way a civilized nation would?
Brian Thorn
>How does this make us better than they are? When do we grow up and handle it
>in court the way a civilized nation would?
My vote would be for "right after we nuke Kabul and Baghdad". They
want a war of terror, let's give them one.
Brian
Marc Passy
once.
Wake up and smell the roasted flesh. That namby-pamby attitude the baby
boomers have infected this country with is what has turned us into a
laughing stock. This is not a schoolyard spat. This is war, plain and
simple. The only thing these people respect is the point of a gun.
Restraint == weakness.
As Konrad Adenauer once said:
"An infallible method of conciliating a tiger is to allow oneself to be
devoured."
or, as General MacArthur once said:
"In war, there is no substitute for victory."
and finally, the source of this last is left as an exercise for the
student:
"The only thing we have to fear is fear itself -- nameless, unreasoning,
unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat
into advance."
SAMcCown wrote:
>
> How does this make us better than they are? When do we grow up and handle it
> in court the way a civilized nation would?
--
To reply, remove two pounds of spam-proofing.
My Opinions are all my own. Nobody else, especially the
people I work for, wants to claim them.
"At the core of the risk-free society is a self-indulgent failure of
nerve."
Edwin "Buzz" Aldrin, 1999
John Bean
<samc...@aol.com> wrote:
> How does this make us better than they are? When do we grow up and handle it
> in court the way a civilized nation would?
It is not about being "right" it is about being safe. A live terrorist
is a threat, a dead one is not. Presenting a writ ordering someone to
turnover a criminal is useless without the power to enforce that writ.
It is naive to believe that justice and court systems are effective
because of the good qualities of man. That is simply not true. In the
end they are only as effective as the amount of force that can be
implemented in order to carry out the orders of that court.
Justice and Court are a wonderful concept for civilized people. But
both are useless for those for dealing with those who are not
civilized.
John
Frank Dodge
listen to the crazies of all political persuasions debate their instant "solutions"
to the problem. There is not going to be an easy solution -- ask the Israelis. I
don't know the solution either but it is not going to be some simple-minded "nuke
em" or "bring them to court." Maybe we need to find where the terrorists money is
banked, for example, (supposedly in excess of $300 million) and confiscate it to
help re-build New York?That would pretty much put that group of terrorists out of
business. But whatever we do as a country, we better be prepared for the
consequences, they're not likely to be pleasant. So why don't we quit adding to the
problem.
Fred Garvin
> How does this make us better than they are? When do we grow up and handle it
> in court the way a civilized nation would?
We tried that, it DOESN'T work, like all the other LAME penalties we
give to criminals in this country. It's time to stop fucking around and
go after these bastards. Remember 8 years ago when they bombed the WTC?
One guy got life. This means NOTHING to these bastards, it's a slap on
the wrist to them. These scumbags are willing to die for their causes.
Let's help them....RIGHT NOW. It's time to show the world that WE WILL
NO LONGER TAKE ANY MORE OF THIS KIND OF BULLSHIT. George W. HAS GOT to
let us go and POUND THEIR PUSSY ASSES INTO THE GROUND.
Fred Garvin
Rick C
...and encourage *more* of them to suicide bomb? Nah, locking 'em up for
life makes much more sense, actually. Keeps 'em from being martyrs, if
*nothing* else. Certainly can't be a less effective punishment to the
one locked up.
--
2542 HE Clean
RC2 Pro over RC1 Pro
WPA highlights Microsoft's DISRESPECT for its customers. They just
don't seem to get it.
Windows XP Product Keys: 411Y0-URB45-34R3B-310N6-70U51
WHYD0-3541R-B0RN3-5UCK5-0MUCH
Gregg Germain
: ...and encourage *more* of them to suicide bomb? Nah, locking 'em up for
: life makes much more sense, actually. Keeps 'em from being martyrs,
Oh I don't know about that......Mandela was considered a
martyr when he was locked up. So were other jailed political
prisoners. They simply point to the daily suffering of the live martyr
and ask the faithful if they shoudl suffer any less.
--- Gregg
"Eschew surplusage."
gr...@head-cfa.harvard.edu
Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics Mark Twain
Phone: (617) 496-7237
John P. Kerslake
<URL:mailto:vaugh...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
> 1. Positivly prove who, who helped.
> 2. Close their borders.
> 3. Give them two days to remove civilian populations.
> 3. Take out the total infrastructure.
> 4. Give no aid or relief.
>
5. Waite 2 years for the survivors to come to the us / europe and blow
somthing else up.
Rember the us has been funding terriosts to attack afrendly goverment
for years ( the IRA in the uk)
--
J.P. Kerslake B.Sc., F.B.I.S. Pager 07626 - 235878,
e-mail Home = john...@kerslakej2.freeserve.co.uk,
Dyslexia Rules KO. RiscStation 64 meg 50 ns RAM. 9G HD, Ant INS.
Tom Clarke
Does Bush's National Day or Remembrance and Prayer
bother anyone else?
It's only been 4 days since religious fanatics flew planes
into WTC and Pentagon, no doubt praying "God is great" as
they murdered thousands of people.
Now we are girding our loins for retribution, having
prayer services in the National Cathedral...
Sounds like the Crusades all over again.
Hasn't mankind outgrown religion yet?
Tom Clarke
Gregg Germain
: I'm sure this is not the right newsgroup, but there is a thread ...
: Does Bush's National Day or Remembrance and Prayer
: bother anyone else?
: It's only been 4 days since religious fanatics flew planes
: into WTC and Pentagon, no doubt praying "God is great" as
: they murdered thousands of people.
: Now we are girding our loins for retribution, having
: prayer services in the National Cathedral...
better to have prayer in a cathedral than in other places
woudln't you say?
: Sounds like the Crusades all over again.
: Hasn't mankind outgrown religion yet?
Fortunately, our Constitution prevents government from making
laws concerning religion so if people want to be religious, they have
the perfect right to do so.
I'm not religious in any way, but I don't begrudge other people the
right to peaceable religious observance.
Tom Clarke
> Tom Clarke <tcl...@ist.ucf.edu> wrote:
> : I'm sure this is not the right newsgroup, but there is a thread ...
>
> : Does Bush's National Day or Remembrance and Prayer
> : bother anyone else?
>
> : It's only been 4 days since religious fanatics flew planes
> : into WTC and Pentagon, no doubt praying "God is great" as
> : they murdered thousands of people.
>
> : Now we are girding our loins for retribution, having
> : prayer services in the National Cathedral...
>
> better to have prayer in a cathedral than in other places
> woudln't you say?
Considering the National Cathedral has "National" in its name,
I have my reservations.
> : Sounds like the Crusades all over again.
>
> : Hasn't mankind outgrown religion yet?
>
> Fortunately, our Constitution prevents government from making
> laws concerning religion so if people want to be religious, they have
> the perfect right to do so.
But I'm not sure that the President (or Congress) has any place
leading people in religious observance.
If nothing else this just fuels the fires of hate for the US.
"See the US prays to the Christian god, they are intolerant
of our god." or words to that effect.
> I'm not religious in any way, but I don't begrudge other people the
> right to peaceable religious observance.
I usually don't either.
But the thought of one group doing mass murder in the name of God
and then the murderee's asking God for solace just boggles my mind.
Kill the bastards, for sure. They are dangerous animals.
But leave religion out of it - invoking religion will just help
breed more of the scum.
The other day a co-worker sent an e-mail with the golden rule
expressed by 8 different religions - that annoyed me -
fat lot of good such rules do.
I responded with quotes from the
Notebooks of Lazarus Long by Robert Heinlein:
Your enemy is never a villain in his own eyes. Keep this in mind;
it may offer a way to make him your friend. If
not, you can kill him without hate - and quickly.
A brute kills for pleasure. A fool kills from hate.
Tom Clarke
Gregg Germain
: Gregg Germain wrote:
:> better to have prayer in a cathedral than in other places
:> woudln't you say?
: Considering the National Cathedral has "National" in its name,
: I have my reservations.
I understand your point. That is a little troublesome.
:> : Sounds like the Crusades all over again.
:>
:> : Hasn't mankind outgrown religion yet?
:>
:> Fortunately, our Constitution prevents government from making
:> laws concerning religion so if people want to be religious, they have
:> the perfect right to do so.
: But I'm not sure that the President (or Congress) has any place
: leading people in religious observance.
Why not? They have the same rights as you and I do. The First
Ammendment talks about making laws regarding religion - not practicing
it. The Founding Fathers practiced it a lot.
: If nothing else this just fuels the fires of hate for the US.
: "See the US prays to the Christian god, they are intolerant
: of our god." or words to that effect.
That's their problem. It becomes are problem if they use that
as an excuse to blow us up. In which case, it rapidly becomes their
problem again.
:> I'm not religious in any way, but I don't begrudge other people the
:> right to peaceable religious observance.
: I usually don't either.
: But the thought of one group doing mass murder in the name of God
: and then the murderee's asking God for solace just boggles my mind.
Perhaps it might seem clearer to you if you remember that the
"religion" they use as justification for the attack is no more really
important than 'Communism" was to the Soviet Union:
For both it's a means to an end - not THE end. It's a means to take
dictatorial power.
: Kill the bastards, for sure. They are dangerous animals.
: But leave religion out of it - invoking religion will just help
: breed more of the scum.
Nah.
: The other day a co-worker sent an e-mail with the golden rule
: expressed by 8 different religions - that annoyed me -
: fat lot of good such rules do.
Why? It says do unto others as you would have them do unto
you. A decent rule regardless of religion.
but it doesn't mean that you can't kick their ass if they hurt you ;^)
Rand Simberg
wrote:
>: Considering the National Cathedral has "National" in its name,
>: I have my reservations.
>
> I understand your point. That is a little troublesome.
No more than National Rental Car.
The National Cathedral is not a government facility--it is an
Episcopalian church, and was paid for with private contributions.
While this was a religious service, it was multi-denominational, and
not even exclusively Christian.
And we're not engaging in a religious war. Our fight is with
terrorists--not Muslims or Islam.
--
simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org
"Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..."
Replace first . with @ and throw out the "@trash." to email me.
Here's my email address for autospammers: postm...@fbi.gov
Tom Clarke
> Tom Clarke <tcl...@ist.ucf.edu> wrote:
> : But I'm not sure that the President (or Congress) has any place
> : leading people in religious observance.
>
> Why not? They have the same rights as you and I do.
But we are paying their salary. They are public employees.
Hence while acting as President-qua-president Bush should be
religion neutral. Ditto Congresspeople.
I guess if they make some disclaimer - I am doing this a private
citizen or some such ... but in truth that is hard to do as the
President is on stage 24-7.
> The First
> Ammendment talks about making laws regarding religion - not practicing
> it. The Founding Fathers practiced it a lot.
Fine. Do as Christ said then. Go into you closet and pray to your Father
in secrete who will award you openly. Do not be as the pharisees wo
pray on the street corner .... [pretty close to that if I remember]
> : If nothing else this just fuels the fires of hate for the US.
> : "See the US prays to the Christian god, they are intolerant
> : of our god." or words to that effect.
>
> That's their problem.
No. The US Constitution established that no law will be made respecting
an establishment of religion. I think that should mean that no person
given an official capacity by law should in that official capacity act
so as to seem to favor one establishment of religion or another.
If the US Constitution were followed - which I don't think it is, then
I would agree that it was their problem. Since it is not followed it
is in part our problem.
> It becomes are problem if they use that
> as an excuse to blow us up. In which case, it rapidly becomes their
> problem again.
The US Constitution was designed to avoid problems of
the state favoring one religion or another and the all the difficulties
that that brings. It should be followed.
> :> I'm not religious in any way, but I don't begrudge other people the
> :> right to peaceable religious observance.
>
> : I usually don't either.
> : But the thought of one group doing mass murder in the name of God
> : and then the murderee's asking God for solace just boggles my mind.
>
> Perhaps it might seem clearer to you if you remember that the
> "religion" they use as justification for the attack is no more really
> important than 'Communism" was to the Soviet Union:
And the typical US religion is no more than a opiate to the people :-/
But seriously, religion is not supposed to influence the state,
nor the state religion. Under the US Constitution they are
seperate. So in the US religion is not important either - as
far as matters of state go.
> For both it's a means to an end - not THE end. It's a means to take
> dictatorial power.
I cannot but think, though that the psychology of suicide bombing is
not somehow aided by the rhetoric of religion and paradise etc.
Without this rhetoric, it would be more difficult to talk someone
into driving a plane into a building.
> : Kill the bastards, for sure. They are dangerous animals.
> : But leave religion out of it - invoking religion will just help
> : breed more of the scum.
>
> Nah.
We disagree.
> : The other day a co-worker sent an e-mail with the golden rule
> : expressed by 8 different religions - that annoyed me -
> : fat lot of good such rules do.
>
> Why? It says do unto others as you would have them do unto
> you. A decent rule regardless of religion.
But it is a rule that has no effect. Religion is powerless as you
in effect point out. Religion is only used as rhetoric to back up
what people would do anyway, perhaps even twisted to give
a psychological sap to the suicide bomber.
Forget religion. It is irrelevant.
I especially expect the Presidnet of the United States serving
under the Constitution to not push any religion.
Tom Clarke
Gregg Germain
: On 14 Sep 2001 15:11:25 -0500, Gregg Germain <gr...@elway.harvard.edu>
: wrote:
:>: Considering the National Cathedral has "National" in its name,
:>: I have my reservations.
:>
:> I understand your point. That is a little troublesome.
: No more than National Rental Car.
: The National Cathedral is not a government facility--it is an
: Episcopalian church, and was paid for with private contributions.
: While this was a religious service, it was multi-denominational, and
: not even exclusively Christian.
Is that the origin of the "National"? That it's multi-denominational?
If the "National" doesn't bear the imprimatur of th eUS governemnt
then, like you, I have no trouble with it.
: And we're not engaging in a religious war. Our fight is with
: terrorists--not Muslims or Islam.
My point exactly.
Rand Simberg
wrote:
>: The National Cathedral is not a government facility--it is an
>: Episcopalian church, and was paid for with private contributions.
>: While this was a religious service, it was multi-denominational, and
>: not even exclusively Christian.
>
> Is that the origin of the "National"? That it's multi-denominational?
No, it's called that because it's in Washington, and it's the largest
religious edifice there. There's no law against calling your
cathedral anything you want, and the name hadn't been taken by anyone
else at the time they decided to build it. It's Episcopalian--not
multi-denominational, but it's often used for multi-denominational
services like this.
It's kind of a quasi-official imprimatur, as I understand it. It's
just become a traditional place for events like this, because of its
location and beauty.
Tom Clarke
> On 14 Sep 2001 15:11:25 -0500, Gregg Germain <gr...@elway.harvard.edu>
> wrote:
>
> >: Considering the National Cathedral has "National" in its name,
> >: I have my reservations.
> >
> > I understand your point. That is a little troublesome.
>
> No more than National Rental Car.
There is nothing in the Constitution of the United States, however,
about not making any laws respecting an establishment of rental.
> The National Cathedral is not a government facility--it is an
> Episcopalian church, and was paid for with private contributions.
> While this was a religious service, it was multi-denominational, and
> not even exclusively Christian.
Fine then call it the First Episcopalian Church or some such.
> And we're not engaging in a religious war. Our fight is with
> terrorists--not Muslims or Islam.
I'm not sure they can be seperated unless we make the
effort to seperate religion from the war - something that
President Bush is not doing.
Tom Clarke
Tom Clarke
> On 14 Sep 2001 15:43:52 -0500, Gregg Germain <gr...@elway.harvard.edu>
> wrote:
>
> >: The National Cathedral is not a government facility--it is an
> >: Episcopalian church, and was paid for with private contributions.
> >: While this was a religious service, it was multi-denominational, and
> >: not even exclusively Christian.
> >
> > Is that the origin of the "National"? That it's multi-denominational?
>
> No, it's called that because it's in Washington, and it's the largest
> religious edifice there. There's no law against calling your
> cathedral anything you want,
I'm sure that Walt Disney would probably object if you
called it the Mickey Mouse Cathedral. I would think that
the national government would have the same sort of basis
for objection.
> and the name hadn't been taken by anyone
> else at the time they decided to build it. It's Episcopalian--not
> multi-denominational, but it's often used for multi-denominational
> services like this.
I guess the government was asleep at the switch then.
I visited the place last time I was in DC and I picked up a
brochure - I don't know if I still have it.
Odd that an ordinary Episcopalian church has a brochure.
> It's kind of a quasi-official imprimatur, as I understand it. It's
> just become a traditional place for events like this, because of its
> location and beauty.
Quasi-official is too close to official for me.
Tom Clarke
Rand Simberg
wrote:
>There is nothing in the Constitution of the United States, however,
>about not making any laws respecting an establishment of rental.
There is also nothing in the Constitution of the United States
prohibiting a church from calling itself the National Cathedral.
>> The National Cathedral is not a government facility--it is an
>> Episcopalian church, and was paid for with private contributions.
>> While this was a religious service, it was multi-denominational, and
>> not even exclusively Christian.
>
>Fine then call it the First Episcopalian Church or some such.
They can call it whatever they want. It's called the First Amendment.
>> And we're not engaging in a religious war. Our fight is with
>> terrorists--not Muslims or Islam.
>
>I'm not sure they can be seperated unless we make the
>effort to seperate religion from the war - something that
>President Bush is not doing.
Nonsense.
Rand Simberg
wrote:
>I'm sure that Walt Disney would probably object if you
>called it the Mickey Mouse Cathedral.
Yes, they've trademarked that. The government doesn't have a
trademark on the word "National."
>I would think that
>the national government would have the same sort of basis
>for objection.
If they did, then National Rental Car and First National Bank would
have the same problem.
Tom Clarke
> On Fri, 14 Sep 2001 15:56:09 -0400, Tom Clarke <tcl...@ist.ucf.edu>
> wrote:
>
> >There is nothing in the Constitution of the United States, however,
> >about not making any laws respecting an establishment of rental.
>
> There is also nothing in the Constitution of the United States
> prohibiting a church from calling itself the National Cathedral.
I think that could be argued in court, were the government so
inclined.
> >> The National Cathedral is not a government facility--it is an
> >> Episcopalian church, and was paid for with private contributions.
> >> While this was a religious service, it was multi-denominational, and
> >> not even exclusively Christian.
>
> >Fine then call it the First Episcopalian Church or some such.
>
> They can call it whatever they want. It's called the First Amendment.
You are ignoring a major part of the First Amendment.
> >> And we're not engaging in a religious war. Our fight is with
> >> terrorists--not Muslims or Islam.
>
> >I'm not sure they can be seperated unless we make the
> >effort to seperate religion from the war - something that
> >President Bush is not doing.
>
> Nonsense.
I call it like I see it.
What do you think motivates the terrorists?
Tom Clarke
Tom Clarke
> On Fri, 14 Sep 2001 15:59:12 -0400, Tom Clarke <tcl...@ist.ucf.edu>
> wrote:
>
> >I'm sure that Walt Disney would probably object if you
> >called it the Mickey Mouse Cathedral.
>
> Yes, they've trademarked that. The government doesn't have a
> trademark on the word "National."
If that is the only way to prevent a church being by implication
the "National" church. Then maybe the government should
trademark "National". The DoD did trademark "Ada" to
get control over what versions of the Ada language were
certified, after all.
> >I would think that
> >the national government would have the same sort of basis
> >for objection.
>
> If they did, then National Rental Car and First National Bank would
> have the same problem.
Small price to pay for upholding the Constitution.
They could use words like "universal", or "general" or
"cosmic" or "global" or ....
But no church should call itself the Nation-al church,
in my opinion.
Tom Clarke
Rand Simberg
wrote:
>> There is also nothing in the Constitution of the United States
>> prohibiting a church from calling itself the National Cathedral.
>
>I think that could be argued in court, were the government so
>inclined.
Anything can be argued in court. The question is whether or not the
argument would be laughed out of court. It almost certainly would.
>> They can call it whatever they want. It's called the First Amendment.
>
>You are ignoring a major part of the First Amendment.
No, I'm not. This is not in any way government establishment of
religion. To think it is is paranoid.
>What do you think motivates the terrorists?
Religious fanaticism and hatred. It isn't what motivates us.
Rand Simberg
wrote:
>If that is the only way to prevent a church being by implication
>the "National" church.
It is not the "National church." It is the National Cathedral. A
cathedral is not a "church," in the sense of being a religion. It's
just a building, where religious services (among other activities)
occur.
>> >I would think that
>> >the national government would have the same sort of basis
>> >for objection.
>>
>> If they did, then National Rental Car and First National Bank would
>> have the same problem.
>
>Small price to pay for upholding the Constitution.
There's nothing unconstitutional about it.
If your fruit of the looms are in such a wad about it, why don't you
march down to the ACLU and do something about it? I'll watch. And
laugh. It's most certainly the most important thing we should be
worrying about right now...
<rolling eyes>
>They could use words like "universal", or "general" or
>"cosmic" or "global" or ....
>
>But no church should call itself the Nation-al church,
>in my opinion.
Learn the difference between church (religion) and cathedral.
Tom Clarke
> On Fri, 14 Sep 2001 16:09:17 -0400, Tom Clarke <tcl...@ist.ucf.edu>
> wrote:
>
> >> There is also nothing in the Constitution of the United States
> >> prohibiting a church from calling itself the National Cathedral.
> >
> >I think that could be argued in court, were the government so
> >inclined.
>
> Anything can be argued in court. The question is whether or not the
> argument would be laughed out of court. It almost certainly would.
All I can say is that I disagree.
Actually the argument would probably go in court. That is after all
where Madaline Ohare managed to get prayer banned from school.
Many politicians have been trying ever since then to overcome the legal
arguments and get prayer put back into schools.
> >> They can call it whatever they want. It's called the First Amendment.
>
> >You are ignoring a major part of the First Amendment.
>
> No, I'm not. This is not in any way government establishment of
> religion. To think it is is paranoid.
You are reading the First Amendment wrong, I think.
It says"
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"
not
Congress shall not establish a religion.
"an establishment of religion" is just a flowery way of saying
a formal religion.
So paranoia is not the issue.
I sometimes think that government exemption of churches from taxation
is a "law respecting an establishment of religion", but then I am
reminded that the taxation exemption is for non-profit/charitable
establishments not for religious establishments.
> >What do you think motivates the terrorists?
>
> Religious fanaticism and hatred. It isn't what motivates us.
So we must take into account that fanaticism and not
be fanatics ourselves.
Tom Clarke
Rand Simberg
wrote:
>You are reading the First Amendment wrong, I think.
>It says"
>"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"
>not
>Congress shall not establish a religion.
>"an establishment of religion" is just a flowery way of saying
>a formal religion.
>So paranoia is not the issue.
To allow a church to call a building "National Cathedral" does not in
any way represent government establishment of religion.
>> >What do you think motivates the terrorists?
>>
>> Religious fanaticism and hatred. It isn't what motivates us.
>
>So we must take into account that fanaticism and not
>be fanatics ourselves.
So? You think that it's fanatical to believe in God?
Tom Clarke
> On Fri, 14 Sep 2001 16:13:32 -0400, Tom Clarke <tcl...@ist.ucf.edu>
> wrote:
>
> >If that is the only way to prevent a church being by implication
> >the "National" church.
>
> It is not the "National church." It is the National Cathedral.
Whatever. It is called "the" National religious building.
> A
> cathedral is not a "church," in the sense of being a religion. It's
> just a building, where religious services (among other activities)
> occur.
So is a church when considered as a building.
Possibly I am oversensitive to issues of seperation of
church and state, I do admit.
> [regarding trademarkind "national"]
> >Small price to pay for upholding the Constitution.
>
> There's nothing unconstitutional about it.
We disagree.
> If your fruit of the looms are in such a wad about it, why don't you
> march down to the ACLU and do something about it? I'll watch. And
> laugh. It's most certainly the most important thing we should be
> worrying about right now...
Yes it is not all that important right now.
Except - I do think one iota of what has made these terrorists into
such fanatical haters of the US is the failure of the US to follow the
letter of the Constitution with regard to religion.
As I said, and still think.
> >But no church should call itself the Nation-al church,
> >in my opinion.
>
> Learn the difference between church (religion) and cathedral.
Main Entry: cathedral
1 : a church that is the official seat of a diocesan bishop
2 : something that resembles or suggests a cathedral
Tom Clarke
Rand Simberg
wrote:
>> Learn the difference between church (religion) and cathedral.
>
>Main Entry: cathedral
> 1 : a church that is the official seat of a diocesan bishop
> 2 : something that resembles or suggests a cathedral
There are two meanings of "church." This definition uses the more
restricted one (a building). A cathedral is not a religion.
Rand Simberg
wrote:
>Except - I do think one iota of what has made these terrorists into
>such fanatical haters of the US is the failure of the US to follow the
>letter of the Constitution with regard to religion.\
You're mistaken. One of the things that they hate most about us is
the fact that we are a secular society.
David Higgins
Tom Clarke wrote:
> Possibly I am oversensitive to issues of seperation of
> church and state, I do admit.
You think?
Could you and Rand that this to email, please?
Rand Simberg
Sorry, I've been doing a lot of posting to s.s.p, and wasn't making
the distinction. Anyway, I think we've exhausted the argument.
Paul F. Dietz
> > Anything can be argued in court. The question is whether or not the
> > argument would be laughed out of court. It almost certainly would.
>
> All I can say is that I disagree.
Well, you have a right to your opinion, however inane
it may be.
Paul
Jorge R. Frank
news:MPG.160be3f4c...@news.cis.dfn.de:
> Fred Garvin wrote:
>
>> WE WILL NO LONGER TAKE ANY MORE OF THIS KIND OF BULLSHIT. George W.
>> HAS GOT to let us go and POUND THEIR PUSSY ASSES INTO THE GROUND.
>
> ...and encourage *more* of them to suicide bomb? Nah, locking 'em up
> for life makes much more sense, actually. Keeps 'em from being
> martyrs, if *nothing* else. Certainly can't be a less effective
> punishment to the one locked up.
Nope. I've got a long enough memory to remember terrorists who would take
hostages in order to win the release of their jailed colleagues.
--
JRF
Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.
Jorge R. Frank
news:ant1317550b0=C...@kerslakej2.freeserve.co.uk:
> Rember the us has been funding terriosts to attack afrendly goverment
> for years ( the IRA in the uk)
The US government has done nothing of the sort. If you have documentation
to the contrary, I'd love to see it. *Some* *individual* Americans have
provided funding to the IRA, but that type of activity is very hard to
stop.
Dennis Gregorio
> But we are paying their salary. They are public employees.
> Hence while acting as President-qua-president Bush should be
> religion neutral. Ditto Congresspeople.
You really have a bug up your ass about religion don't you? Get over it.
I didn't see anyone being FORCED to participate in any religious
observance. I didn't see Bush using his authority as President to
endorse any specific religion. Like it or not, most Americans have some
sort of religious affiliation, and as the leader of our country, it was
poignant for the President to attend such a service, if for nothing else
than to demonstrate his support and empathy for those who have suffered
in this latest tragedy.
I have no problems with religious people, agnostics, or atheists, but I
get annoyed by fanatics who can't tolerate different religions, and just
as annoyed by fanatics that can't tolerate ANY religions. Ethnic and
religious diversity are some of the things that make our nation great.
These things should be acknowledged by our leaders, not shunned and
avoided.
This thread has gone on to long, and doesn't even belong on this
newsgroup. Get over it, there's more important things to be indignant
about.
Dennis
Dan Hartung
> Gregg Germain wrote:
> > Tom Clarke <tcl...@ist.ucf.edu> wrote:
> > : Now we are girding our loins for retribution, having
> > : prayer services in the National Cathedral...
> >
> > better to have prayer in a cathedral than in other places
> > woudln't you say?
>
> Considering the National Cathedral has "National" in its name,
> I have my reservations.
"National" doesn't mean it's part of the government. The National
Cathedral is an Episcopalian church in the Diocese of Washington with a
particular mission to serve the entire country as a place of prayer in
just such times, as well as to operate as a regular church on Sundays.
(The Clintons and Gores were regular attendees, though other presidents
have usually found local churches closer to their own tradition.)
> But I'm not sure that the President (or Congress) has any place
> leading people in religious observance.
He didn't. In fact, he merely attended; he did not speak.
> If nothing else this just fuels the fires of hate for the US.
> "See the US prays to the Christian god, they are intolerant
> of our god." or words to that effect.
Prayers were offered by Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, and Muslim clerics.
It's probably the most ecumenical religious ceremony that's ever been
seen by so many people.
> > I'm not religious in any way, but I don't begrudge other people the
> > right to peaceable religious observance.
>
> I usually don't either.
> But the thought of one group doing mass murder in the name of God
> and then the murderee's asking God for solace just boggles my mind.
Please. Your logic is offensive, and intolerant. My religious observance
has nothing to do with the religious observance of evil men, nor with
your choice of non-observance.
As far as I'm concerned this thread has turned into a needless trollage
that will attract anti-agnostic and anti-atheistic people. Please take it
elsewhere.
--
Dan Hartung * dan [at] dhartung [dot] com
Lake Effect weblog: http://www.lakefx.nu/
CHICAGOSTORIES: post yours @ chicagostories.org
Dan Hartung
> Rand Simberg wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 14 Sep 2001 15:56:09 -0400, Tom Clarke <tcl...@ist.ucf.edu>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >There is nothing in the Constitution of the United States, however,
> > >about not making any laws respecting an establishment of rental.
> >
> > There is also nothing in the Constitution of the United States
> > prohibiting a church from calling itself the National Cathedral.
>
> I think that could be argued in court, were the government so
> inclined.
What, are you now going to bring a lawsuit against the National Council
of Churches? What about the National Atheist Ombuds, are they allowed to
use the word? What about the National Biscuit Company, or National Car
Rental, or The National Network? If they can use the word, so can a
church.
Incidentally, take a look at THEIR page (NAO):
http://ombudsman.secular.ws/
It's a quiet memorial page to the victims.
Rand Simberg
wrote:
>He didn't. In fact, he merely attended; he did not speak.
Actually, he did. It was a very nice speech...
pat
"Jorge R. Frank" <jrf...@ibm-pc.borg> wrote in message
news:Xns911CDA5F...@204.52.135.10...
> Rick C <pixe...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:MPG.160be3f4c...@news.cis.dfn.de:
>
> > Fred Garvin wrote:
> >
> >> WE WILL NO LONGER TAKE ANY MORE OF THIS KIND OF BULLSHIT. George W.
> >> HAS GOT to let us go and POUND THEIR PUSSY ASSES INTO THE GROUND.
> >
> > ...and encourage *more* of them to suicide bomb? Nah, locking 'em up
> > for life makes much more sense, actually. Keeps 'em from being
> > martyrs, if *nothing* else. Certainly can't be a less effective
> > punishment to the one locked up.
>
> Nope. I've got a long enough memory to remember terrorists who would take
> hostages in order to win the release of their jailed colleagues.
if you refuse to negotiate, and take even more off to jail,,,,
however, i suspect with these people, simple measures of justice won't work
very well.
pat
"Gregg Germain" <gr...@elway.harvard.edu> wrote in message
news:3ba25...@cfanews.harvard.edu...
> Tom Clarke <tcl...@ist.ucf.edu> wrote:
> : Gregg Germain wrote:
>
>
> :> better to have prayer in a cathedral than in other places
> :> woudln't you say?
>
> : Considering the National Cathedral has "National" in its name,
> : I have my reservations.
"It's a nickname", the real name is "The cathedral of st peter and st paul
in washington dc"....