Antireligious action
Steve Marshall
them when suicide bombers murder people or terrorist groups plant their
bombs. Roman Catholics abuse boys and hardly a murmer !
But get an RE teacher that fails to represent non religious views and
they're all up in arms ! (Should potters teach oil painting ?)
Sometimes I feel like the reason the antireligious object to the religious
is just because they think differently and they don't want them behaving a
certain way, which is just what the religious do which upsets the
antireligous which is just the same thing that upset people about blacks
that upset people about gays and so on and so on. ......
Maybe it's just me though ... ... ...
Steve M
Ron Peterson
> The thing I find curious about antireligious is that you don't hear from
> them when suicide bombers murder people or terrorist groups plant their
> bombs. Roman Catholics abuse boys and hardly a murmer !
I have seen anti-religious publications criticise the sexual actions
of priests. Most know that it's only a small minority that engage in
those actions.
> But get an RE teacher that fails to represent non religious views and
> they're all up in arms ! (Should potters teach oil painting ?)
A teacher should be responsible and represent the major views in a
fair manner.
> Sometimes I feel like the reason the antireligious object to the religious
> is just because they think differently and they don't want them behaving a
> certain way, which is just what the religious do which upsets the
> antireligous which is just the same thing that upset people about blacks
> that upset people about gays and so on and so on. ......
Maybe the religious won't burn the non-religious at the stake anymore,
but they are still trying to impose their views on others. The stem
cell situation is a good example of that imposition.
> Maybe it's just me though ... ... ...
A person can be religious and still discuss the issues in a secular
manner.
Ron
James A. Temple
"Steve Marshall" <48ka...@freNoSpaMeuk.com> wrote in message
news:k_Xd7.202613$cc1.10...@nnrp3.clara.net...
> The thing I find curious about antireligious is that you don't hear from
> them when suicide bombers murder people or terrorist groups plant their
> bombs. Roman Catholics abuse boys and hardly a murmer !
And what major forum is available to the "antireligious" on which they may
denounce such atrocities? My "Secular Humanist" periodical is full of such
criticism in each issue. It is not that the "antireligious" voice is quiet;
the problem is that the media here in the U. S. ignore it.
Love from Texas,
Jim Temple
Peter Ashby
I am similarly apalled as are most of my workmates. But who do the media
go to on religious matters? yes, you guessed it, religious people. I
think they assume the secularists/atheist's views will be predictable so
not worth pursuing.
Peter
--
Peter Ashby
Wellcome Trust Biocentre
University of Dundee
Dundee, Scotland
Reverse the spam and remove to email me.
Steve Marshall
"James A. Temple" <bev...@netzero.net> wrote
> And what major forum is available to the "antireligious" on which they may
> denounce such atrocities?
What do you want , a pedastal ? Hell, build the man a pulpit, that's what
the other lot did !
Come of it Jim, what do you need ? Look here at this newgroup. Some of the
folk here choose to keep harping on about minor annoyances, but when do they
condemn such attrocities as seen in Isreal and as performed by the Irish ?
> My "Secular Humanist" periodical is full of such
> criticism in each issue.
I thought that was more areligous (?)
> It is not that the "antireligious" voice is quiet;
> the problem is that the media here in the U. S. ignore it.
Do they, or do the humanists not know how to use the press ? I've seen here
such well known people as Clare Raynor and Richard Dawkins appear in the
media, but do they mention Humanism ?
Clare seem to represent secularism when on religious programs and Dawkins is
the 'militant atheist.
But still these people may abject to the attitude of the religious but not
too often , it seems, the actions they take.
Steve M
James A. Temple
"Steve Marshall" <48ka...@freNoSpaMeuk.com> wrote in message
> "James A. Temple" <bev...@netzero.net> wrote
> > And what major forum is available to the "antireligious" on which they
> > may denounce such atrocities?
> What do you want , a pedastal ?
Nah, I'm a bit afraid of heights. I don't even like bein' this tall.
> Hell, build the man a pulpit, ...
What man? Me? We've already got a Texan in the "bully pulpit".
> ...that's what the other lot did !
Whatcha talkin' about?
> Come of it Jim, what do you need ?
Nothin' more than I have, Steve. I decry abominable behavior to everyone
that listens down at the ol' guitar store.
> Look here at this newgroup. Some of the folk here choose to keep harping >
on about minor annoyances, but when do they condemn such attrocities as >
seen in Isreal and as performed by the Irish ?
Do you consider this little NG a national forum? If our pals raise hell
about various atrocities to humans and wildlife, do you think that anything
will come of it beyond heightened blood pressure? What are you suggesting?
Periodically our pal, Peter, will roast this entire country because of its
trade sanctions against Iraq, speakin' out in the loudest terms possible
against the U. S. murderin' children. Has his occasional outburst on our
tiny NG resulted in anything except an argument?
> > My "Secular Humanist" periodical is full of such
> > criticism in each issue.
> I thought that was more areligous (?)
No sir. It contains many articles and essays on the atrocities committed in
the name of religion.
> > It is not that the "antireligious" voice is quiet;
> > the problem is that the media here in the U. S. ignore it.
> Do they, or do the humanists not know how to use the press ?
I couldn't say whether they do or not.
> I've seen here such well known people as Clare Raynor and Richard
> Dawkins appear in the media, but do they mention Humanism ?
Now, you're confusin' me. Do you want such folks to condemn certain
behavior or to promote humanism?
> Clare seem to represent secularism when on religious programs and
> Dawkins is the 'militant atheist.
Okay....?
> But still these people may abject to the attitude of the religious but not
> too often , it seems, the actions they take.
Why in the world would you object to the action of an individual for any
other reason than the detrimental affect of such action? Who cares if the
perpetrator claims that he acted upon the basis of his religion, hearing
"voices", or readin' a message in a plate of spaghetti? I won't condemn an
entire people or their religion because of the action of some extremist.
But I would, and do, point out (to no avail) that they should examine some
portion of their philosophy that would allow detrimental behavior.
Peter H.M. Brooks
James A. Temple <bev...@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:9lcmkr$8j8un$1...@ID-98985.news.dfncis.de...
>
> Periodically our pal, Peter, will roast this entire country because of
its
> trade sanctions against Iraq, speakin' out in the loudest terms
possible
> against the U. S. murderin' children. Has his occasional outburst on
our
> tiny NG resulted in anything except an argument?
>
Yes, I think it has. I think it has caused some other people to think of
the matter and maybe talk about it a little more.
Lots of people doing that has indeed led to an International objection
to the sanctions that has led to the discussion of so-called 'smart
sanctions'.
--
Want of variety leads to satiety.
James A. Temple
"Peter H.M. Brooks" <pe...@new.co.za> wrote in message
news:9lcu9t$qsb$1...@ctb-nnrp1.saix.net...
Of course, Peter. Certainly heightened awareness may result from any
discussion. I admit to "poetic license" merely to make some small point to
our pal, Steve.
edvard_k
> The thing I find curious about antireligious is that you don't hear from
> them when suicide bombers murder people or terrorist groups plant their
> bombs. Roman Catholics abuse boys and hardly a murmer !
All perfectly good examples of the type of
actions the love of God inspires in its
believers.
> But get an RE teacher that fails to represent non religious views and
> they're all up in arms !
Passing on the disease to the next
generation - yep I object to that to.
> (Should potters teach oil painting ?)
No. Should a Government and Politics lecturer
only teach from one ideological standpoint
or teach all views relevant to the topic in
an objective and unbiased manner?
> Sometimes I feel like the reason the antireligious object to the religious
> is just because they think differently
Aren’t you objecting to the way the
anti-religious think?
> and they don't want them behaving a
> certain way,
Like planting bombs, brainwashing large
groups of people into committing suicide,
burning heretics, knocking on my door
early in the morning and yelling their
heads off in pedestrian precincts?
> which is just what the religious do which upsets the
> antireligous which is just the same thing that upset people about blacks
> that upset people about gays and so on and so on. ......
WTF are you on about! Are you saying
that objecting to what someone thinks
and how they act is as wrong as racism
and homophobia?!
> Maybe it's just me though ... ... ...
Maybe.
> Steve M
e. kardelj
Peter H.M. Brooks
edvard_k <notho...@gotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d7a5a4e7.01081...@posting.google.com...
> WTF are you on about! Are you saying
> that objecting to what someone thinks
> and how they act is as wrong as racism
> and homophobia?!
>
Homophobia is only a problem if twins are upset about being feared. I am
only homophobic about supper - I have no fear of my breakfasts being the
same, in fact I rather like it if they are!
Steve Marshall
Yes this is a forum in which we can discuss or condemn such actions.
Yes the antireligous want to promote humanism as much as they decry such
actions - I think.
Yes we have discussed some of the issues here but it seems that they keep
getting back to the point that they are religious which as you rightly point
out, has got nothing to do with it whatsoever.
Hell Jim, sit down, you've never been so right !
;-)
So keep plugging away and posting and get the guitar guys find me an easy
way to play barred chords, will you ?
OK, forget the last bit.
Steve M
"James A. Temple" <bev...@netzero.net> wrote in
Steve Marshall
"edvard_k" <notho...@gotmail.com> wrote
>
> > (Should potters teach oil painting ?)
>
> No. Should a Government and Politics lecturer
> only teach from one ideological standpoint
> or teach all views relevant to the topic in
> an objective and unbiased manner?
OK so the campaign should be to establish Humanism and such views to have an
equal status as that of religion, right ? Just objecting to religion won't
help !
> Aren’t you objecting to the way the
> anti-religious think?
Well not exactly. I'm trying to point out the futility of their position and
hopefully se if we can find a way forward rather than a means of finding a
war.
>
> Like planting bombs, brainwashing large
> groups of people into committing suicide,
> burning heretics, knocking on my door
> early in the morning and yelling their
> heads off in pedestrian precincts?
All these things are done by non-religious people. Well, I'm not sure about
the yelling bit. I haven't witnessed that yet. Condemn an action because it
is wrong not for some other reason.
I'm sure you can argue the toss about their motives, but people with faith
will find any number of reasons to escape reality. Trying to make them not
believe is terribly difficult.
> WTF are you on about! Are you saying
> that objecting to what someone thinks
> and how they act is as wrong as racism
> and homophobia?!
I'm saying presupposing you know who someone thinks and acts is.
I would guess many here were brought up in a religous household and may have
considered themselves religious at some point. Your putting them in the camp
of shouting, murdering, brainwashing (etc) that you referred to earlier.
I've met many religous people and there have been quite a number that it is
hard to find any fault with, as far as their actions are concerned. They
don't try to impose their ideas on others or have any violent intent.
So yes, it is as bad as racism as it is the same unthinking attitude.
Steve M
edvard_k
> "edvard_k" <notho...@gotmail.com> wrote
> >
> > > (Should potters teach oil painting ?)
> >
> > No. Should a Government and Politics lecturer
> > only teach from one ideological standpoint
> > or teach all views relevant to the topic in
> > an objective and unbiased manner?
>
> OK so the campaign should be to establish Humanism and such views to have an
> equal status as that of religion, right ?
Or something like - so I'll go with that. But
isn't that a case of what you have described
as 'potters teach oil painting'?
> Just objecting to religion won't help !
Whether it does or doesn't help anything doesn't
matter - isn't it only natural that people should
object to what they find objectional?
> > Aren’t you objecting to the way the
> > anti-religious think?
>
> Well not exactly. I'm trying to point out the futility of their position and
> hopefully se if we can find a way forward rather than a means of finding a
> war.
Where is the futility? If you hold a position
you can't or don't act on then it is useless
or no use is being made of it. If you can and
do act on it then some kind of conflict/war
with those of opposing views is likely or may
be necessery.
> > Like planting bombs, brainwashing large
> > groups of people into committing suicide,
> > burning heretics, knocking on my door
> > early in the morning and yelling their
> > heads off in pedestrian precincts?
>
> All these things are done by non-religious people. Well, I'm not sure about
> the yelling bit. I haven't witnessed that yet. Condemn an action because it
> is wrong not for some other reason.
You wouldn't condemn what causes the action?
> I'm sure you can argue the toss about their motives,
You wouldn't necesserily need to, you could
refer to their stated aims.
> but people with faith
> will find any number of reasons to escape reality. Trying to make them not
> believe is terribly difficult.
But not impossible - so?
> > WTF are you on about! Are you saying
> > that objecting to what someone thinks
> > and how they act is as wrong as racism
> > and homophobia?!
>
> I'm saying presupposing you know who someone thinks and acts is.
And is this what you suppose the anti-religious do?
How do you suppose this?
> I would guess many here were brought up in a religous household and may have
> considered themselves religious at some point. Your putting them in the camp
> of shouting, murdering, brainwashing (etc) that you referred to earlier.
No I'm not. I deliberatly avoided refering to
all religious persons because I knew you would
make that point.
> I've met many religous people and there have been quite a number that it is
> hard to find any fault with, as far as their actions are concerned. They
> don't try to impose their ideas on others or have any violent intent.
Ha! So you've been suckered by their overall
niceness! Just because they give all the
appearance of being nice you shouldn't be
fooled into thinking that they are! Why do
you think the Vicker of Dibley is so large?
She's not fat! She's packed full of explosives!
> So yes, it is as bad as racism as it is the same unthinking attitude.
Is being anti-religious an 'unthinking
attitude'. Does anything I've said here
examplify this 'unthinking attitude'?
> Steve M
e. kardelj
Steve Marshall
"edvard_k" <notho...@gotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> Or something like - so I'll go with that. But
> isn't that a case of what you have described
> as 'potters teach oil painting'?
Not if you bring it under the realm of pottery.
> > Just objecting to religion won't help !
> Whether it does or doesn't help anything doesn't
> matter - isn't it only natural that people should
> object to what they find objectional?
It depends on whether you are trying to achieve something or not , doesn't
it ?
> Where is the futility? If you hold a position
> you can't or don't act on then it is useless
> or no use is being made of it. If you can and
> do act on it then some kind of conflict/war
> with those of opposing views is likely or may
> be necessery.
The futility is in engaging in an unresolvable conflict. Ever heard the
saying, 'fight the battles you can win' ?
> You wouldn't condemn what causes the action?
What causes the action is people. Humans misleading others. Sometimes
religion is used, sometimes not. If religious people stuick to the rules
then there would be less trouble. e.g. thou shalt not kill.
One way of tackling religion is not to dismiss it, but to find a way to use
it against those people wishing to undertake violent actions.
>
> And is this what you suppose the anti-religious do?
> How do you suppose this?
OK , some that are against religion just don't act in that way and offer a
sensible objection. Others try and make out that all religons are evil and
all that engage in them are equally warped sensless sheep.
>
> [...]
> No I'm not. I deliberatly avoided refering to
> all religious persons because I knew you would
> make that point.
You have refered to them by stating what wrong they do.
> Ha! So you've been suckered by their overall
> niceness! Just because they give all the
> appearance of being nice you shouldn't be
> fooled into thinking that they are! Why do
> you think the Vicker of Dibley is so large?
> She's not fat! She's packed full of explosives!
No that's just wind - it's all the chocalte and stuff ...Besides she aint a
real vicar !!!
> > So yes, it is as bad as racism as it is the same unthinking attitude.
>
> Is being anti-religious an 'unthinking
> attitude'. Does anything I've said here
> examplify this 'unthinking attitude'?
Yep. Those bits that say religious people do X. Only some of them do and
just as many no-religious do.
Steve M
edvard_k
<pe...@new.co.za> wrote:
>Homophobia is only a problem if twins are upset about being feared. I am
>only homophobic about supper - I have no fear of my breakfasts being the
>same, in fact I rather like it if they are!
With such a wide ranging choice of breakfast materials
available on the market it would be difficult to choose
one above all others. You can even buy variety packs
of single portions of cereals instead of one large packet
of the same kind. In this way each morning you can fill
yourself with a different breakfast for each day of the
week. But then perhaps *want* of variety does lead to
satiety.
edvard_k
<48ka...@freNoSpaMeuk.com> wrote:
>
>"edvard_k" <notho...@gotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> Or something like - so I'll go with that. But
>> isn't that a case of what you have described
>> as 'potters teach oil painting'?
>
>Not if you bring it under the realm of pottery.
So which 'non religious views' were you refering
to in: "But get an RE teacher that fails to represent
non religious views and they're all up in arms !
(Should potters teach oil painting ?)". Atheistic
pottery?! And who is up in arms about it not being
taught in RE?
>> > Just objecting to religion won't help !
>>
>> Whether it does or doesn't help anything doesn't
>> matter - isn't it only natural that people should
>> object to what they find objectional?
>
>It depends on whether you are trying to achieve something or not , doesn't
>it ?
Fairy snuff - objecting doesn't achieve much by itself.
>> Where is the futility? If you hold a position
>> you can't or don't act on then it is useless
>> or no use is being made of it. If you can and
>> do act on it then some kind of conflict/war
>> with those of opposing views is likely or may
>> be necessery.
>
>The futility is in engaging in an unresolvable conflict. Ever heard the
>saying, 'fight the battles you can win' ?
Unresolvable? Religion is on the decline - we
are winning.
>> You wouldn't condemn what causes the action?
>
>What causes the action is people. Humans misleading others. Sometimes
>religion is used, sometimes not.
That same bad arguement is made for guns - it's
not guns, it's not heroin, it's not atomic bombs...
that kill people it's the people that use them. But
if there are fewer means by which people can hurt
other people then fewer people are likely to get
hurt.
>If religious people stuick to the rules
>then there would be less trouble. e.g. thou shalt not kill.
Realy? Thou shalt not suffer a whitch to live.
Gays should be put to death. In the Bible. Will
will find where if you don't believe me. So if all
Christians stuck to the rules would there be
less trouble?
>One way of tackling religion is not to dismiss it, but to find a way to use
>it against those people wishing to undertake violent actions.
Is that your advice to the anti-religious! 'not to dismiss it,
but to find a way to use it against those people wishing
to undertake violent actions.'! It makes as much sense
as advising pacifists to declare war on all non-pacifists!
>> And is this what you suppose the anti-religious do?
>> How do you suppose this?
>
>OK , some that are against religion just don't act in that way and offer a
>sensible objection. Others try and make out that all religons are evil and
>all that engage in them are equally warped sensless sheep.
I wouldn't use the word 'evil' - it has religious
overtones, and I wouldn't say that about all
religious people - millions voted for the National
Socialists before the war. It's unlikely that they
were all equally warped sensless sheep, most
were just ordinary people. So who are these
anti-religious people you talk about? It no longer
seems to be the anti-religious - just some. Cite
examples! - or are you making this up?
>> [...]
>> No I'm not. I deliberatly avoided refering to
>> all religious persons because I knew you would
>> make that point.
>
>You have refered to them by stating what wrong they do.
I didn't refer to all religious people, I didn't even
refer to religious people.
>> Ha! So you've been suckered by their overall
>> niceness! Just because they give all the
>> appearance of being nice you shouldn't be
>> fooled into thinking that they are! Why do
>> you think the Vicker of Dibley is so large?
>> She's not fat! She's packed full of explosives!
>
>No that's just wind - it's all the chocalte and stuff ...Besides she aint a
>real vicar !!!
Not a real vicar! Oh. In that case I take back
everything I've said on religion.
>> > So yes, it is as bad as racism as it is the same unthinking attitude.
>>
>> Is being anti-religious an 'unthinking
>> attitude'. Does anything I've said here
>> examplify this 'unthinking attitude'?
>
>Yep. Those bits that say religious people do X. Only some of them do and
>just as many no-religious do.
I didn't refer to all religious people, I didn't even
refer to religious people.
>Steve M
e. kardelj
Steve Marshall
"edvard_k" <notho...@gotmail.com> wrote in message
> Fairy snuff - objecting doesn't achieve much by itself.
So ???
>
>
> >The futility is in engaging in an unresolvable conflict. Ever heard the
> >saying, 'fight the battles you can win' ?
>
> Unresolvable? Religion is on the decline - we
> are winning.
No you are not winning !!! People don't leave religion because of a
anti-religous Vs religious argument that rages unresolvedly. Check out the
recent article in Fortean Times 'War of Words' which largely agrees that the
debate is a pointless one.
People don't engage in religion for many reason, science, lack of proof of
God. Being let down because God fails to perform in their time of need,
despite constant reassurances that God will meet their needs.
Telling people they are wrong rarely works because it brings about a defence
mechanism. They defend their point of view even if they then realise they
are wrong. Once the argument is lost they start trying to attack the person
or their creditability. Go look at some of the other newsgroups and see the
flame wars !!!
It's futile !
> That same bad arguement is made for guns - it's
> not guns, it's not heroin, it's not atomic bombs...
> that kill people it's the people that use them. But
> if there are fewer means by which people can hurt
> other people then fewer people are likely to get
> hurt.
No, guns kill people and so does misuse of heroin. I don't think people
should have the right to own a gun.
> >If religious people stuick to the rules
> >then there would be less trouble. e.g. thou shalt not kill.
>
> Realy? [..]
Oh for goodnes sake get sensible. You use the Bible against them doesn't
mean you start saying gyas should die does it ? It means that if THEY do
then you get the bit that says 'thou shalt not kill' out and show them that.
God commands you not to kill - don't kill gays ! Get it ?
> >One way of tackling religion is not to dismiss it, but to find a way to
use
> >it against those people wishing to undertake violent actions.
>
> Is that your advice to the anti-religious! 'not to dismiss it,
> but to find a way to use it against those people wishing
> to undertake violent actions.'! It makes as much sense
> as advising pacifists to declare war on all non-pacifists!
No that's the opposite. It works believe me. It sets doubt in their mind.
Just pushing against them causes them to defend their views as I've said
before.
>
> I wouldn't use the word 'evil'
> I didn't refer to all religious people, I didn't even
> refer to religious people.
>
I didn't say you did.
> Not a real vicar! Oh. In that case I take back
> everything I've said on religion.
I thought you said you didn't ???
>
Steve M
edvard_k
<48ka...@freNoSpaMeuk.com> wrote:
>
>"edvard_k" <notho...@gotmail.com> wrote in message
>
>
>> Fairy snuff - objecting doesn't achieve much by itself.
>
>So ???
So I'm conceding a point to you. Yes, you are right
objecting doesn't achieve anything by itself.
>> >The futility is in engaging in an unresolvable conflict. Ever heard the
>> >saying, 'fight the battles you can win' ?
>>
>> Unresolvable? Religion is on the decline - we
>> are winning.
>
>No you are not winning !!! People don't leave religion because of a
>anti-religous Vs religious argument that rages unresolvedly. Check out the
>recent article in Fortean Times 'War of Words' which largely agrees that the
>debate is a pointless one.
>People don't engage in religion for many reason, science, lack of proof of
>God. Being let down because God fails to perform in their time of need,
>despite constant reassurances that God will meet their needs.
>Telling people they are wrong rarely works because it brings about a defence
>mechanism. They defend their point of view even if they then realise they
>are wrong. Once the argument is lost they start trying to attack the person
>or their creditability. Go look at some of the other newsgroups and see the
>flame wars !!!
>It's futile !
Religion is on the decline so we are winning.
Making the religious look silly in public when
they resort to ad homien, rationalisation etc.
is not pointless. If it doesn't achieve anything
else then at least for some it's entertaining.
>> That same bad arguement is made for guns - it's
>> not guns, it's not heroin, it's not atomic bombs...
>> that kill people it's the people that use them. But
>> if there are fewer means by which people can hurt
>> other people then fewer people are likely to get
>> hurt.
>
>No, guns kill people and so does misuse of heroin. I don't think people
>should have the right to own a gun.
You said that 'What causes the action is people.
Humans misleading others. Sometimes religion is
used, sometimes not.' Well sometimes guns are
used. You would have one banned but not the
other presumably.
>> >If religious people stuick to the rules
>> >then there would be less trouble. e.g. thou shalt not kill.
>>
>> Realy? [..]
>
>Oh for goodnes sake get sensible. You use the Bible against them doesn't
>mean you start saying gyas should die does it ? It means that if THEY do
>then you get the bit that says 'thou shalt not kill' out and show them that.
>God commands you not to kill - don't kill gays ! Get it ?
This would be an unlikely scenario. Most will
rationalise away those laws by saying that they
are no longer necessery since the new convenant
despite the fact that Jesus is quoted as saying that
he has not come to take away the law, but fulfil it,
not one iota not one jot is to be removed he says.
Many have some inkling that what the Bible has to
say on homosexuality is irrational bigotry. It's one
crack into which you can force a crowbar to prise
the religion away from the religionist.
>> >One way of tackling religion is not to dismiss it, but to find a way to
>use
>> >it against those people wishing to undertake violent actions.
>>
>> Is that your advice to the anti-religious! 'not to dismiss it,
>> but to find a way to use it against those people wishing
>> to undertake violent actions.'! It makes as much sense
>> as advising pacifists to declare war on all non-pacifists!
>
>No that's the opposite. It works believe me. It sets doubt in their mind.
>Just pushing against them causes them to defend their views as I've said
>before.
That is one way. A good game is to not let on
that you are an atheist and ask gradually harder
questions. Pretend you are in an arguement
with an atheist to a priest or minister and need
counter-auguements - you can get some honest
replies!
>> I wouldn't use the word 'evil'
>> I didn't refer to all religious people, I didn't even
>> refer to religious people.
>
>I didn't say you did.
In answer to my question: 'Does anything I've
said here examplify this 'unthinking attitude'?'
You answered 'Yep. Those bits that say religious
people do X. Only some of them do and just as
many no-religious do.' So there are bits that say
'religious people do X'. I took 'religious people' to
mean all religious people otherwise you wouldn't
have then said 'Only some of them do'.
Also, in response to my 'No I'm not. I deliberatly
avoided refering to all religious persons because
I knew you would make that point.' You replied
'You have refered to them by stating what wrong
they do'. I took 'them' to be all religious people
given what you were replying to.
So you have said that I've refered to all
religious people. I try to make a habit of not
generalising about goups of people where
ever possible, it's not always possible.
>> Not a real vicar! Oh. In that case I take back
>> everything I've said on religion.
>
>I thought you said you didn't ???
Didn't what ??? ???
I'm off to Bosworth Field to fight a seemingly
pointless battle this weekend. But you never
know your luck - perhaps one year.
>Steve M
e. kardelj
wamccabe
"Ron Peterson" <ro...@earth.execpc.com> wrote in message
news:3b789bb9$0$93668$272e...@news.execpc.com...
> Maybe the religious won't burn the non-religious at the stake anymore,
> but they are still trying to impose their views on others. The stem
> cell situation is a good example of that imposition.
>
Maybe these are bad examples. Burnings at the stake tend to be reserved for
other religions rather than the non-religious. Most of what I've heard about
the stem-cell discussion seems to be non-secular morality rather than any
religious group.
> > Maybe it's just me though ... ... ...
>
> A person can be religious and still discuss the issues in a secular
> manner.
>
> Ron
>
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.265 / Virus Database: 137 - Release Date: 18/07/2001
Steve Marshall
are numbers of pagans.
There are two aspects that we're talking about here. One is an argument
which does not get resolved because netiher party accepts what the other
says. this is unresolvable and I suspect has no effect on numbers of
religious or non-religious.
Then there is a campaign to reduce the power of religion in our society. An
outcry against the religion having a preferential treatment. etc.
This sort of action against religion, targetting specific issues is
something that can bear fruit. This isn't the sort of thing I refer to as
futile.
> Making the religious look silly in public when
> they resort to ad homien, rationalisation etc.
> is not pointless. If it doesn't achieve anything
> else then at least for some it's entertaining.
It's easy to take the piss out of anyone. I'm sure it will entertain you.
>
> You said that 'What causes the action is people.
> Humans misleading others. Sometimes religion is
> used, sometimes not.' Well sometimes guns are
> used. You would have one banned but not the
> other presumably.
It isn't one or the other. People use religion to justify their use of guns,
just as other loonies justify their murderous intent.
I don't give a damn what people think. I've wanted to murder before, but I
haven't. Thinking about it isn't and shouldn't ever be a crime. The action
is and I deplore the action whether the people are religious or not. I don't
think religion is the problem, necessarily, when they do do it.
I think any religion should be non-agressive and extol the virtues of peace
adn treating others in a respectful sort of many rather than pointing out
their faults.
Most Humanists favour free-will. We should have the choice to decide if we
use drugs or have sex the way we want or whatever. Shouldn't this include
having the right to beleive in god ? I think so, but when they start
demanding others behave a certain way I think they are doing wrong.
>
> This would be an unlikely scenario. Most will
> rationalise away those laws [...]
Huh ? No they won't. I've known lots of religious people and they don't do
that.
> >> I wouldn't use the word 'evil'
> >> I didn't refer to all religious people, I didn't even
> >> refer to religious people.
[...snippety snip...]
It doesn't really matter what you said if we're talking about what others
say. You might be one of the group, but that doesn't mean you said x...
You get all sorts of comments from people that are non-religious. I met a
chap that knew I had links to Humanist website so he says" let's discuss why
all religions are evil". it's the sort of thing people say - even if it aint
what you say !
Steve M
edvard_k
> "edvard_k" <notho...@gotmail.com> wrote in message
> >
> > Religion is on the decline so we are winning.
>
> Numbers of Christians are going down, but numbers of Muslims are going up as
> are numbers of pagans.
But generaly, all the surveys I remember
seeing indicate that theism is on the
decline. Will look up if you like.
> There are two aspects that we're talking about here. One is an argument
> which does not get resolved because netiher party accepts what the other
> says. this is unresolvable and I suspect has no effect on numbers of
> religious or non-religious.
After a single debate a religionist isn't going
to walk away de-converted. In my experience it's
been a gradual effect. Eventually the emotional
attachment and flimsy apologetics can no longer
stand up to the growing weight of counter
argument and evidence bearing down on them. Half
interested bystanders may tend to think I am mad
to argue - as sensible as arguing with the insane
because it doesn't appear possible to change their
opinion, but they also may have formed a new
opinion - that religion is something akin to
insanity and so are less inclined to be suckered
by it in the future.
When religion is discussed in the media it is often
handled with kid gloves. Take Islam in this country
- you are made to feel a racist if you try to
criticise it. Take the age of consent issue. Certain
MPs were against giving equal rights to homosexuals
for religious reasons. But I never heard any
discussion on what those religious reasons are. I
never heard anyone on the radio or in parliament or
read in an editorial anyone crack open a bible and
expose those reasons. Those bits in Deuteronmy and/or
Leviticus where it says gays should be put to death
or quoted Pauls rather bigotted opinions from the NT,
and question those people with those religious views
about this. It's as if when someone says that their
opinion is based on religious reasons it's hands off
oh ok next point - when it would seem central to the
debate. The same with abortion and stem cell research
- we're told in the media that theologians are
considering the issues but that's it. It's as if
religion deserves some special 'respect' that puts
it beyond scrutiny. But if it's cover is blown then
it can be shown to be the irrational anachronism it
is.
So 'that argument that never gets resolved' as you
say, hasn't even started.
> Then there is a campaign to reduce the power of religion in our society. An
> outcry against the religion having a preferential treatment. etc.
> This sort of action against religion, targetting specific issues is
> something that can bear fruit. This isn't the sort of thing I refer to as
> futile.
Yes that too, and the targeting of those issues
also gives good opportunities to expose religion.
To poke about in their scriptures to show just
what a load of irrational barbaric anachronistic
bunkum the opponents views on these particular
target issues are based open. The two go together.
> > Making the religious look silly in public when
> > they resort to ad homien, rationalisation etc.
> > is not pointless. If it doesn't achieve anything
> > else then at least for some it's entertaining.
> It's easy to take the piss out of anyone. I'm sure it will entertain you.
Yes it is - but some things are easier to ridicule
than others, e.g. those things that are already
ridiculous. Yes it does, but the entertainment value
is a side benefit, it's not just the taking part
that matters the goal is to publicly expose religion
for what it is - ridiculous, to do away with it
completely.
> > You said that 'What causes the action is people.
> > Humans misleading others. Sometimes religion is
> > used, sometimes not.' Well sometimes guns are
> > used. You would have one banned but not the
> > other presumably.
>
> It isn't one or the other. People use religion to justify their use of guns,
> just as other loonies justify their murderous intent.
> I don't give a damn what people think. I've wanted to murder before, but I
> haven't. Thinking about it isn't and shouldn't ever be a crime. The action
> is and I deplore the action whether the people are religious or not.
What people think is important as regards how
people act. Don't you think, for example, if
there were fewer people with racist attitudes
there would be fewer instances of racist acts!
> I don't
> think religion is the problem, necessarily, when they do do it.
> I think any religion should be non-agressive and extol the virtues of peace
> adn treating others in a respectful sort of many rather than pointing out
> their faults.
Then steal what is true and useful to good from
the competition and use it. Humanism - just as
any other philosophy - is in the memetic market
place.
> Most Humanists favour free-will. We should have the choice to decide if we
> use drugs or have sex the way we want or whatever. Shouldn't this include
> having the right to beleive in god ? I think so, but when they start
> demanding others behave a certain way I think they are doing wrong.
I brought up the question of banning religion
to show that your argument - that it is not
religion that performs the violent action but
people - does not support your case. The same
argument is made about guns and could be made
about any number of other things that most
people and yourself agree should be banned. So
saying that it's the fault of people not religion
is not really saying anything at all. I wasn't
seriously suggesting that religion should be
banned and people should not have the right to
believe in god. Rather if there is more debate
about the content of religions and their
alternatives then people would generally be more
able to make better informed choices, this is for
choice not against it. So let them have their
Alpha courses on the tele as long as opposing
views are given equal airtime!
> > This would be an unlikely scenario. Most will
> > rationalise away those laws [...]
>
> Huh ? No they won't. I've known lots of religious people and they don't do
> that.
OK, that's your experience, but in my experience
whenever I've brought up the barbaric laws in
certain parts of the OT the standard reply is
something along the lines of those laws are not
valid anymore since Jesus and the new covenant.
This despite of the fact that Jesus is quoted as
saying that not one iota, not one jot, should be
taken away from the law. Yes, there are Christians
prepared to dismiss certain parts of the Bible
and the debate would take on a different course
in that case. But most of the Christians I know
believe every word of it is the direct and
intended word of God.
> > >> I wouldn't use the word 'evil'
> > >> I didn't refer to all religious people, I didn't even
> > >> refer to religious people.
>
> [...snippety snip...]
> It doesn't really matter what you said if we're talking about what others
> say. You might be one of the group, but that doesn't mean you said x...
It does matter when you tell me I've said
something I know I haven't.
It does matter that you can't point out what
particular people have said and argue against
their points. What you have done is to construct
a straw-man just to easily knock it down. You
tell us what the anti-religious think, what
their case is. But what you are telling us is
something you have constructed yourself in such
a way that you can easily knock down. A straw-man
argument.
> You get all sorts of comments from people that are non-religious. I met a
> chap that knew I had links to Humanist website so he says" let's discuss why
> all religions are evil". it's the sort of thing people say - even if it aint
> what you say !
If someone said that to me I would take it as
irony - 'evil' is a religious concept. If it
wasn't meant that way then I'd make that point
then go on to discuss how we can bring an end
to religion.
> Steve M
e. kardelj
Steve Marshall
like the drugs argument. Misuse of drugs kill but if they are use sensibly
then they can have few harmful effects.
Whilst I would ban guns I am under no illusion that it would prevent the use
of illegal weapons.
I would say it was misuse of religion were it calls for the death of gays.
Most of the people I nkow in religion would never consider killing people
even if it did say so in the Bible.
(If I remember rightly the Bible makes no reference to gays, but to sodomy,
so you're misusing the Bible just as others do ! )
Again I say I know people that live decent honest lives that do not press
their ideas on others and don't go round saying you should kill certain
people. Were is the problem there ? If you condemn 'religion' then you
condemn these people which is just as bad as condemning gays which you are
complaining so much about !
Steve M
BTW do your figures include the number of believers in Fung Shai, Crop
circles, (being formed by aliens), ley line hunters , crystal healers etc
etc ?
It seems people just move from one form of belif to another.
Ron Peterson
> I don't agree that the argument about guns is really relevant. It's more
> like the drugs argument. Misuse of drugs kill but if they are use sensibly
> then they can have few harmful effects.
> Whilst I would ban guns I am under no illusion that it would prevent the use
> of illegal weapons.
Where are the proper uses of religion elaborated?
> I would say it was misuse of religion were it calls for the death of gays.
> Most of the people I nkow in religion would never consider killing people
> even if it did say so in the Bible.
> (If I remember rightly the Bible makes no reference to gays, but to sodomy,
> so you're misusing the Bible just as others do ! )
When people follow dogma that is inconsistent, they can interpret it
anyway they want to.
> Again I say I know people that live decent honest lives that do not press
> their ideas on others and don't go round saying you should kill certain
> people. Were is the problem there ? If you condemn 'religion' then you
> condemn these people which is just as bad as condemning gays which you are
> complaining so much about !
Are people that vote for politicians that pass laws to imprison women
who have abortions decent?
Ron
Peter Ashby
"Steve Marshall" <48ka...@freNoSpaMeuk.com> wrote:
> I would say it was misuse of religion were it calls for the death of gays.
> Most of the people I nkow in religion would never consider killing people
> even if it did say so in the Bible.
> (If I remember rightly the Bible makes no reference to gays, but to sodomy,
> so you're misusing the Bible just as others do ! )
My copy of the bible has the words "and there was homosexuality
throughout the land" in several places in the old testament.
edvard_k
> I don't agree that the argument about guns is really relevant.
The arguement that guns should be banned
(if this is 'the argument about guns') is
relevant to your arguement that it is not
religion but people who harm.
> It's more
> like the drugs argument. Misuse of drugs kill but if they are use sensibly
> then they can have few harmful effects.
And the same could be said for guns. A
sensible use could be in sport or pest
control or as a decorative ornament.
> Whilst I would ban guns I am under no illusion that it would prevent the use
> of illegal weapons.
Wether it does or doesn't prevent the use
of illegal weapons is not relevant to the
point at issue. The arguement about guns
was brought up because it is relevant to
your arguement (the point at issue) that
it is not religion that harms but people.
It is relevant to that arguement of yours
because the same arguement can be made
about guns - that it is not guns that harm
but people. Yet you would have one banned
- namely guns - because, presumably you
disapprove of them, but on the other hand
you don't, or at least not appear to,
disapprove of the other - namely religion
- but disapprove of the actions of certain
people who use it.
That is the relevance. That it shows your
arguement as not supporting your case. I
am not advocating the banning of religion.
I am not argueing that guns should not be
banned.
> I would say it was misuse of religion were it calls for the death of gays.
Whether you want to call it misuse it is
still the use of. There have been enougth
instances of the use of religion that have
resulted in atrocitity over thousands of
years to the present day to be able to
justifiably disapprove of religion as a
whole and where better to look for the
harm in religion, rather than just in the
people who use it, than its instructions
for use - its scriptures.
> Most of the people I nkow in religion would never consider killing people
> even if it did say so in the Bible.
And I'm sure that many people who voted
for the National Socialists before the
war were decent ordinary people, after
all, enougth people voted for them.
> (If I remember rightly the Bible makes no reference to gays, but to sodomy,
> so you're misusing the Bible just as others do ! )
This is a quibble. Then everywhere I said
'homosexual' replace with 'practising
homosexual'.
> Again I say I know people that live decent honest lives that do not press
> their ideas on others and don't go round saying you should kill certain
> people. Were is the problem there ? If you condemn 'religion' then you
> condemn these people which is just as bad as condemning gays which you are
> complaining so much about !
Again I say there would have been many people
who voted National Socialist who lived decent
honest lives that did not commit atrocities.
Where is the problem there? If you condemn
'facicsm' then you condemn these people which
is just as bad as condemning gay, black,
disabled, old, overwieght, young.... people.
> Steve M
> BTW do your figures include the number of believers in Fung Shai, Crop
> circles, (being formed by aliens), ley line hunters , crystal healers etc
> etc ?
> It seems people just move from one form of belif to another.
So?
Steve Marshall
Which Bible, Which chapter ...
Steve M
"Peter Ashby" <p.r....@dundee.MAPS.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:p.r.ashby-7EC29...@dux.dundee.ac.uk...
Steve Marshall
"edvard_k" <notho...@gotmail.com> wrote
> The arguement that guns should be banned
> (if this is 'the argument about guns') is
> relevant to your arguement that it is not
> religion but people who harm.
No it isn't. Point a gun at someone and you will kill them or stand a good
chance of killing them. It doesn't matter what your reasoning is the outcome
is pretty clear. There isn't a safe way to use a gun.
>
>
> And the same could be said for guns. A
> sensible use could be in sport or pest
> control or as a decorative ornament.
>
Shot guns are used for killing pests and are still legal. Handguns are
designed to kill people.
>The arguement about guns
> was brought up because it is relevant to
> your arguement (the point at issue) that
> it is not religion that harms but people.
I think I made the point that religion should not harm people and I think it
is possible for it not to harm people and can be beneficial to some. I see
no reason to ban such a thing or act against it. Maybe we need action to
make it harmless. One way would be to sever the church from the state and
make it clear that the law of the land over-rides any religious ideas.
People should though have the right to be wrong. They should be able to
believe gays are evil if they want.
The dangers of pressing for Humanism etc to be taught in RE is that you must
then allow Creationism to be taught in biology.
If religion isn't harmless then I would seek to make it so.
Steve M
Steve Marshall
"Ron Peterson" <ro...@earth.execpc.com> wrote
>
> Where are the proper uses of religion elaborated?
>
> When people follow dogma that is inconsistent, they can interpret it
> anyway they want to.
You can follow life any way you want. You can interpret humanism seemingly
any way you want.
>
> Are people that vote for politicians that pass laws to imprison women
> who have abortions decent?
Perhaps they are, perhaps they aren't. They may be misguided or misinformed.
I certainly wouldn't agree with them, wouldn't vote for them .
Are you suggesting that the only people that vote that way are religious ?
Steve M
Peter Ashby
"Steve Marshall" <48ka...@freNoSpaMeuk.com> wrote:
> References ?
> Which Bible, Which chapter ...
The good news bible, probably somewhere in Exodus or Deuteronomy. I was
about 10 when I last read them. I was a horribly precocious child and
resolved to read the bible from cover to cover, I got most of the way
through the OT before giving up. I remember the passages because I had
to look up what homosexuality was in the dictionary.
edvard_k
> "edvard_k" <notho...@gotmail.com> wrote
>
> > The arguement that guns should be banned
> > (if this is 'the argument about guns') is
> > relevant to your arguement that it is not
> > religion but people who harm.
>
> No it isn't. Point a gun at someone and you will kill them or stand a good
> chance of killing them. It doesn't matter what your reasoning is the outcome
> is pretty clear. There isn't a safe way to use a gun.
Yes there is. Just don't point it loaded
at anyone.
> > And the same could be said for guns. A
> > sensible use could be in sport or pest
> > control or as a decorative ornament.
>
> Shot guns are used for killing pests and are still legal. Handguns are
> designed to kill people.
OK. This is a new arguement. Previously we had
something along the lines of: religion does no
harm it is the people who use it in harmfull
ways that do and so it is these people and/or
their actions that should be dissaproved of
rather than religion. This arguement failed
since the same can be said for guns. A gun by
itself does no harm - just a lump of mettle -
rather it is the people who use them. But you
presumably dissaprove of guns since you would
have them banned.
Your new arguement is that handguns should be
disapproved of and so banned because of their
intended purpose - to kill people. And you are
saying the same arguement applies to religion
- that it should not be disapproved of because
its intended purpose is for good or has other
uses for good that out wiegh its harmful uses.
Yes?
> > The arguement about guns
> > was brought up because it is relevant to
> > your arguement (the point at issue) that
> > it is not religion that harms but people.
>
> I think I made the point that religion should not harm people and I think it
> is possible for it not to harm people and can be beneficial to some.
Yes, I'm sure religion can be and has been
used for good. But I think I made the point
that if this is the case then what is useful
for good and true can be taken from religion
and religion dumped.
Also, using the arguement for dissaproving
of guns, its uses for good are out wieghed
by its harmful uses. Look at the history of
atrocities in its name.
> I see
> no reason to ban such a thing or act against it.
Who wants to ban religion? But act against
it, yes - here's an example:
> Maybe we need action to
> make it harmless. One way would be to sever the church from the state and
> make it clear that the law of the land over-rides any religious ideas.
Severing church from state is acting against
religion. And why should you say that the
law of the land should override religious
ideas? One good reason is for the most part
religious ideas are barbaric and irrelevant
to now or just plain crap.
> People should though have the right to be wrong. They should be able to
> believe gays are evil if they want.
Of course they should. But people act
according to what they believe. And when
those people have some form of influence
over the rest of us then those beliefs
are public business. Those beliefs should
be attacked by being shown in debate to be
what they are - crap.
> The dangers of pressing for Humanism etc to be taught in RE is that you must
> then allow Creationism to be taught in biology.
No, creationism should be taught in RE - it
is not a science but a religious belief. If
humanism is a religion then perhaps it should
be taught in RE also. But what should be
taught in RE are the arguements for and
against the major tenets of most religions
in an objective and unbiased way.
> If religion isn't harmless then I would seek to make it so.
Yes, by showing it to be unattractive and by
having a more attractive alternative. A
religion no one follows any more would be
harmless.
> Steve M
e. kardelj
Geoff Berrow
<p.r....@dundee.MAPS.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>> References ?
>> Which Bible, Which chapter ...
>
>The good news bible, probably somewhere in Exodus or Deuteronomy. I was
>about 10 when I last read them. I was a horribly precocious child and
>resolved to read the bible from cover to cover, I got most of the way
>through the OT before giving up. I remember the passages because I had
>to look up what homosexuality was in the dictionary.
1 Corinthians 6
9
Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God?
Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor
adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders
10
nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers
will inherit the kingdom of God.
Source:
http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=1COR+6:8-10&language=english&version=NIV&showfn=off
--
Geoff Berrow
[the poster formerly known as Geoff (Blade Runner)]
Peter Ashby
Geoff Berrow <$black-dog$@hten.org.uk> wrote:
> 1 Corinthians 6
> 9
> Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God?
> Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor
> adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders
> 10
> nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers
> will inherit the kingdom of God.
>
> Source:
> http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=1COR+6:8-10&language=english&
> version=NIV&showfn=off
Thanks for the URL Geoff, I've bookmarked that one. I used to have the
URL for an online concordance but my home bookmarks went pearshaped a
while ago.
Steve Marshall
"edvard_k" <notho...@gotmail.com> wrote
>
> Yes there is. Just don't point it loaded
> at anyone.
isn't religion that is the gun anyway, it is the Bible (in Christianity) and
the religous look to the scriptures as you say for their beliefs, to arm
themselves.
In this country they aren't so barmy as others though and I don't see any
demanding the deaths of gays. I'm well aware of the view that it is a sin to
be gay. I also know a lesbian that is campaigning to become a female priest
in the Catholic church so you can be sure that people don't follow every
word in the Bible.
I have yet to find this reference about gays being killed.
>
>
> OK. This is a new arguement. Previously we had
> something along the lines of: religion does no
> harm it is the people who use it in harmfull
> ways that do and so it is these people and/or
> their actions that should be dissaproved of
> rather than religion. This arguement failed
> since the same can be said for guns. A gun by
> itself does no harm - just a lump of mettle -
> rather it is the people who use them. But you
> presumably dissaprove of guns since you would
> have them banned.
I dissapprove of the innappropriate use of guns just as I disapprove of the
inappropriate use of religion. As I see it that includes all the sort of
things that you are against.
A bible does not wrong by itself - it is just a pile of paper.
>
> Your new arguement is that handguns should be
> disapproved of and so banned because of their
> intended purpose - to kill people. And you are
> saying the same arguement applies to religion
> - that it should not be disapproved of because
> its intended purpose is for good or has other
> uses for good that out wiegh its harmful uses.
> Yes?
Not exactly. I don't think there is cause to disapporve of religion where it
does no harm.
>
> Yes, I'm sure religion can be and has been
> used for good. But I think I made the point
> that if this is the case then what is useful
> for good and true can be taken from religion
> and religion dumped.
I would agree. One step at a time ! When was the last time Humanist got
together to build a hospital BTW ? This is the sort of thing religious
people do but I'm not aware of suich secular activity.
>
> Also, using the arguement for dissaproving
> of guns, its uses for good are out wieghed
> by its harmful uses. Look at the history of
> atrocities in its name.
Look at the historical attrocities done by the British. They invented
concentration camps, invade other countries etc etc. Should we seek to get
rid of the British - or Europeans ?
>
> Severing church from state is acting against
> religion. And why should you say that the
> law of the land should override religious
> ideas? One good reason is for the most part
> religious ideas are barbaric and irrelevant
> to now or just plain crap.
>
My reference to a religion that need not be acted against was one that made
no apparent wrongs. Where there is an injustice then I agree that we should
act against it. The important point is where there is a wrong doing. It
doesn't matter if it is religion. Religion should not be barbaric. It has
ever right to be irrelevant and crap.
You say you wouldn't ban religion but you would have people not use it which
ammounts to the same thing. You want it gone. I just want the bad stuff
gone.
> No, creationism should be taught in RE - it
> is not a science but a religious belief.
That isn't what is happening in America. There are states that teach
creationalism and they ignore Darwin.
I forgot to answer a previous point about Aliens and stuff. If you object to
religion on the grounds that it is ridiculous, crap and they shouldn't be
trying to press their ideas on others etc then doesn't the same apply to the
UFO hunters and ley line fanatics that try and alter history and our view
of the world ? What would you do with Graham Handcock ?
Steve M
Steve Marshall
"Geoff Berrow" <$black-dog$@hten.org.uk> wrote
Thanks you ! See easy really Peter.
OK, so I stand corrected. I had a vague notion that there was some
statistics about Homosexuality being mentioned twice in the Bible and that
there were no giraffes - or something like that.
You'll also see that it does not say homosexuals should die as was claimed.
Steve M
Peter Ashby
"Steve Marshall" <48ka...@freNoSpaMeuk.com> wrote:
>
> You'll also see that it does not say homosexuals should die as was claimed.
>
No, but you will detect strong disaproval and that as you well know is
sufficient for some fundamentalists.
Peter H.M. Brooks
> In article <lwdh7.235043$cc1.13...@nnrp3.clara.net>,
> "Steve Marshall" <48ka...@freNoSpaMeuk.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > You'll also see that it does not say homosexuals should die as was
claimed.
> >
> No, but you will detect strong disaproval and that as you well know is
> sufficient for some fundamentalists.
>
bugger a visiting angel certainly indicated fairly strong disapproval.
edvard_k
> "edvard_k" <notho...@gotmail.com> wrote
> >
> > Yes there is. Just don't point it loaded
> > at anyone.
>
> That's not using a gun.
There are plenty of uses that don't involve
pointing it loaded at anyone. Shoot at cans.
> I think this analogy is getting a bit silly.
You were the one who said it is people that do
harm not religion - or something like.
> It
> isn't religion that is the gun anyway, it is the Bible (in Christianity) and
> the religous look to the scriptures as you say for their beliefs, to arm
> themselves.
> In this country they aren't so barmy as others though and I don't see any
> demanding the deaths of gays. I'm well aware of the view that it is a sin to
> be gay.
Yes, most christers in any country will say something
along the lines of the laws in the Old Testament no
longer apply since Jesus and the new covenant. This
despite the fact that Jesus is quoted as saying that
not one jot or iota is to be taken away from the law
until all is completed. Those laws that the Bible say
no longer stand are laws on scrifice according to
Paul. So the death penalties for practicisg gays,
witches, disobedient children and lobster eaters etc
still stand.
> I also know a lesbian that is campaigning to become a female priest
> in the Catholic church so you can be sure that people don't follow every
> word in the Bible.
The Bible doesn't say anything about lesbians.
It was written mostly by blokes. God is a 'He'
and he likes to watch everything.
> I have yet to find this reference about gays being killed.
Leviticus 20:13 (RSV) "If a man lies with a male as with
a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they
shall be put to death, their blood is upon them."
Nice chapter - it puts homosexuality in the same bracket as
incest and bestiality.
Perhaps a case could be made for taking all the hatefull
racist and homophobic parts out of the Bible. We do have
laws against incitement to racial hatred. However, they
apply only to races living in this country now. The other
races of Israel, according to the Bible, were anihilated,
men women children and cattle, under Gods orders by Moses
or Joshua and their merry band of terrorists. Sometimes
the women were taken as sex slaves.
> > OK. This is a new arguement. Previously we had
> > something along the lines of: religion does no
> > harm it is the people who use it in harmfull
> > ways that do and so it is these people and/or
> > their actions that should be dissaproved of
> > rather than religion. This arguement failed
> > since the same can be said for guns. A gun by
> > itself does no harm - just a lump of mettle -
> > rather it is the people who use them. But you
> > presumably dissaprove of guns since you would
> > have them banned.
>
> I dissapprove of the innappropriate use of guns just as I disapprove of the
> inappropriate use of religion. As I see it that includes all the sort of
> things that you are against.
> A bible does not wrong by itself - it is just a pile of paper.
Yes, the same could be said of 'Mien Kampf'. In a
few thousand years time it may become another
Bible and Hitler another Jesus.
> > Your new arguement is that handguns should be
> > disapproved of and so banned because of their
> > intended purpose - to kill people. And you are
> > saying the same arguement applies to religion
> > - that it should not be disapproved of because
> > its intended purpose is for good or has other
> > uses for good that out wiegh its harmful uses.
> > Yes?
>
> Not exactly. I don't think there is cause to disapporve of religion where it
> does no harm.
Guns in holsters do no harm.
> > Yes, I'm sure religion can be and has been
> > used for good. But I think I made the point
> > that if this is the case then what is useful
> > for good and true can be taken from religion
> > and religion dumped.
>
> I would agree. One step at a time ! When was the last time Humanist got
> together to build a hospital BTW ? This is the sort of thing religious
> people do but I'm not aware of suich secular activity.
There are many secular hospitals and schools in
this country paid for by non-religious persons
such as ourselves. Admittedly we may get into
trouble if we didn't pay for these things. But I
don't begrudge it and think we should pay more.
It is a bad thing to rely on religious charities
for these things - they would use other peoples
misfortunes as a means of spreading the god
virus. It would be a bad thing to rely on any
charities for these things fullstop.
> > Also, using the arguement for dissaproving
> > of guns, its uses for good are out wieghed
> > by its harmful uses. Look at the history of
> > atrocities in its name.
>
> Look at the historical attrocities done by the British. They invented
> concentration camps, invade other countries etc etc. Should we seek to
> get rid of the British - or Europeans ?
No. We should do away with nationalism /
patriotism.
> > Severing church from state is acting against
> > religion. And why should you say that the
> > law of the land should override religious
> > ideas? One good reason is for the most part
> > religious ideas are barbaric and irrelevant
> > to now or just plain crap.
>
> My reference to a religion that need not be acted against was one that made
> no apparent wrongs. Where there is an injustice then I agree that we should
> act against it. The important point is where there is a wrong doing. It
> doesn't matter if it is religion. Religion should not be barbaric. It has
> ever right to be irrelevant and crap.
It has every right to be that. It should
also be attacked for being so.
> You say you wouldn't ban religion but you would have people not use it which
> ammounts to the same thing. You want it gone. I just want the bad stuff
> gone.
Yes, I would have people not use it, but out of
choice. So no, it is not the same as banning.
> > No, creationism should be taught in RE - it
> > is not a science but a religious belief.
>
> That isn't what is happening in America. There are states that teach
> creationalism and they ignore Darwin.
I know. But a case could be made that it should
be taught in RE. As long as the case against it
is also taught.
> I forgot to answer a previous point about Aliens and stuff. If you object to
> religion on the grounds that it is ridiculous, crap and they shouldn't be
> trying to press their ideas on others etc then doesn't the same apply to the
> UFO hunters and ley line fanatics that try and alter history and our view
> of the world ?
Yes, the same does apply. Most people recognise
these people as cranks. Hopefully, eventualy,
most people will recognise followers of our now
major religions as cranks.
> What would you do with Graham Handcock ?
Who?
Incidentaly, just heard a programme on Radio 4
where this gay Jamaican guy questions various
Jamaicans about a reggae song that has recently
become a hit in Jamaica and their views on
homsexuality. The lyrics advocate the burning of
gays. He questions a paster about what is wrong
with homosexuality. The paster seemed rasonably
intelligent. After his reasons for why
homosexuality is wrong were thoughly demolished
he was reduced to saying - cos the Bible tells
me so. Nice work.
> Steve M
e. kardelj
Peter Ashby
"Peter H.M. Brooks" <pe...@new.co.za> wrote:
Exactly, after all what word has the name Sodom lent us?
edvard_k
Leviticus 20:13 (RSV) "If a man lies with a male as with
a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they
shall be put to death, their blood is upon them."
>Steve M
e. kardelj
a.a #177
Peter H.M. Brooks
severed organ or a damaged testicle can't enter the house of the lord.
The god of leviticus was a severely nasty prude. Fortunately it has been
pointed out that he is dead.
Steve Marshall
Just goes to show how little I pay attention to the Bible !
I reckon most Christians would not consider this a commandment to murder
gays.
There may be a few that do, but then people will find an excuse when they
need to - they don't need the Bible.
Look at Hitler. He used a system based on Humanism to slaughter Jews. What
then should we do with Humanism ?
Steve M
"edvard_k" <notho...@gotmail.com> wrote
Steve Marshall
"Peter Ashby" <p.r....@dundee.MAPS.ac.uk> wrote
> No, but you will detect strong disaproval and that as you well know is
> sufficient for some fundamentalists.
>
Why shouldn't someone disapprove ? It is only very recently that homosexual
laws have been dropped. People still disapprove whether on religious grounds
or not. Is it then only the religious ones that are being objected to -
because that is what the antireligious focus on !
Steve M
Steve Marshall
"Peter Ashby" <p.r....@dundee.MAPS.ac.uk> wrote
>
> Exactly, after all what word has the name Sodom lent us?
>
Yes, we know that , thank you.
Steve M
edvard_k
But the stench of its bloated rotting corpse still lingers
on its followers.
Anyhow. Next chapter, Leviticus 21 (RSV): 16 And the
LORD said to Moses, 17 "Say to Aaron, None of your
descendants throughout their generations who has a
blemish may approach to offer the bread of his God. 18
For no one who has a blemish shall draw near, a man
blind or lame, or one who has a mutilated face or a limb
too long, 19 or a man who has an injured foot or an
injured hand, 20 or a hunchback, or a dwarf, or a man
with a defect in his sight or an itching disease or scabs
or crushed testicles; 21 no man of the descendants of
Aaron the priest who has a blemish shall come near to
offer the LORD's offerings by fire; since he has a
blemish, he shall not come near to offer the bread of his
God. 22 He may eat the bread of his God, both of the
most holy and of the holy things, 23 but he shall not
come near the veil or approach the altar, because he
has a blemish, that he may not profane my sanctuaries;
for I am the LORD who sanctify them." 24 So Moses
spoke to Aaron and to his sons and to all the people of
Israel.
So now we know its position on equal rights for the
disabled!
e. kardelj (bible quote bot)
a.a #177
edvard_k
<48ka...@freNoSpaMeuk.com> wrote:
>Thank you - at last !
>Just goes to show how little I pay attention to the Bible !
>
>I reckon most Christians would not consider this a commandment to murder
>gays.
>
>There may be a few that do, but then people will find an excuse when they
>need to - they don't need the Bible.
>Look at Hitler. He used a system based on Humanism to slaughter Jews. What
>then should we do with Humanism ?
Scrap/fix what ever can be used in this way so
it no longer can.
Hang on, 'system based on humanism', explain!
edvard_k
<48ka...@freNoSpaMeuk.com> wrote:
>
>"Peter Ashby" <p.r....@dundee.MAPS.ac.uk> wrote
>
>> No, but you will detect strong disaproval and that as you well know is
>> sufficient for some fundamentalists.
>>
>
>Why shouldn't someone disapprove ?
Where someone prefers to play hide the sausage
is a matter of taste, not morals. What consenting
adults, of the same species, do in the bedroom
(safe sex, not cheating on anyone else etc) is their
own business and harms no one.
>It is only very recently that homosexual
>laws have been dropped.
So.
>People still disapprove whether on religious grounds
>or not. Is it then only the religious ones that are being objected to -
>because that is what the antireligious focus on !
It is when I'm being anti-religious. That I object to
homophobia is one of the reasons I object to the
Bible. Tough on bigotry, tough on the causes of
bigotry!
Peter H.M. Brooks
>
> So now we know its position on equal rights for the
> disabled!
>
Why should the 'disabled' have equal rights?
Philip Preston
Peter H.M. Brooks wrote in message <9m6rb1$khs$1...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net>...
>
>Why should the 'disabled' have equal rights?
Why should anyone have equal rights?
Regards,
Philip.
Peter H.M. Brooks
Philip Preston <phi...@preston20.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:9m6usv$tbv$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> Peter H.M. Brooks wrote in message
<9m6rb1$khs$1...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net>...
> >
> >Why should the 'disabled' have equal rights?
>
> Why should anyone have equal rights?
>
in an Orwellian fashion - some are more equal than others. An amusing
article in the 'Spectator' a week or so ago talks of those in Yankland
who are trying to make bestiality legal, and those who practice it a
minority in need of enhanced 'rights'.
James A. Temple
news:9m6usv$tbv$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk...
"Peter H.M. Brooks" <pe...@new.co.za> wrote in message
news:9m7odg$2lo$1...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
> > Why should anyone have equal rights?
> Indeed that is the question. The problem is that 'equal' is interpreted
> in an Orwellian fashion - some are more equal than others.
Yep. The fact that a person exists, occupies space, and has mass doesn't
entitle him/her to be a brain surgeon. Folks of equal abiltity should have
equal opportunity for jobs, contracts, etc. But, to ignore training,
experience, and ability in favor or quotas is a serious and lamentable form
of discrimination.
> An amusing article in the 'Spectator' a week or so ago talks of those > in
Yankland ...
Where? I don't believe I've heard of the place. Must be west of Limeyland.
Surely neither is the true name of some sovereign country. Could be that
some insensitive cads have used such monikers to insult the citizens of
those respective countries. Then, it could be that constant usage by those
good men has made it a habit and the idea that those names could be
disrespectful has been lost to them. Maybe some humanist will come along
with a gentle reminder that the first thing a fellow does when he desires to
show disapproval for another is to abandon usage of the other's proper name.
> ...who are trying to make bestiality legal, and those who
> practice it a minority in need of enhanced 'rights'.
No kiddin'!? Wow, millions of sheep farmers vindicated at last! Wait 'til
I announce this breakthrough to my pals down at the ol' guitar store. I'll
be able to discern whom among them is affected by this pronouncement by the
color of their faces. You didn't report the name of the group supporting
this plan, Peter. Could it have been "United
Farmboys of Texas"?
Love from Texas,
Jim Temple
Peter Ashby
"Steve Marshall" <48ka...@freNoSpaMeuk.com> wrote:
What's the matter Steve, squeamish? I note you are not prepared to
concede the point (which you snipped), despite the evidence.
Peter H.M. Brooks
James A. Temple <bev...@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:9m7qv9$onip$1...@ID-98985.news.dfncis.de...
> Philip Preston <phi...@preston20.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:9m6usv$tbv$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> "Peter H.M. Brooks" <pe...@new.co.za> wrote in message
> news:9m7odg$2lo$1...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
>
> > > Why should anyone have equal rights?
>
> > Indeed that is the question. The problem is that 'equal' is
interpreted
> > in an Orwellian fashion - some are more equal than others.
>
> Yep. The fact that a person exists, occupies space, and has mass
doesn't
> entitle him/her to be a brain surgeon. Folks of equal abiltity should
have
> equal opportunity for jobs, contracts, etc. But, to ignore training,
> experience, and ability in favor or quotas is a serious and lamentable
form
> of discrimination.
>
as they left my brain alone.
The big confusion that the pinko fraternity has is with equality of
opportunity being different from equality of outcome - this is a point
that they simply can't understand.
>
> > An amusing article in the 'Spectator' a week or so ago talks of
those > in
> Yankland ...
>
> Where? I don't believe I've heard of the place. Must be west of
Limeyland.
>
It is west of Pom.
>
> Surely neither is the true name of some sovereign country. Could be
that
> some insensitive cads have used such monikers to insult the citizens
of
> those respective countries. Then, it could be that constant usage by
those
> good men has made it a habit and the idea that those names could be
> disrespectful has been lost to them. Maybe some humanist will come
along
> with a gentle reminder that the first thing a fellow does when he
desires to
> show disapproval for another is to abandon usage of the other's proper
name.
>
Is it? I tend to start showing disapproval in rather more direct way and
am quite partial to nicknames - usually, in my experience, they show
affection, though clearly not always. Were you not named (I would say
christened but some people might get the wrong idea) James rather than
Jim?
>
> > ...who are trying to make bestiality legal, and those who
> > practice it a minority in need of enhanced 'rights'.
>
> No kiddin'!? Wow, millions of sheep farmers vindicated at last! Wait
'til
> I announce this breakthrough to my pals down at the ol' guitar store.
I'll
> be able to discern whom among them is affected by this pronouncement
by the
> color of their faces. You didn't report the name of the group
supporting
> this plan, Peter. Could it have been "United
> Farmboys of Texas"?
>
It was a chap in Utah who felt that buggering chickens was rather cruel
but other farm animals were fine (apparently those who indulge in
chicken fucking wring the chickens neck at the cruical moment to improve
the sensation [amazing what you learn from the 'Spectator']). The author
pointed out that one bestiality was approved it wouldn't make much sense
to maintain the anti-polygamy laws that Utah had to agree to before
being admitted to the Union - I couldn't see the exact connection but I
think I got his drift.
I was reminded (again) of the true story of a man who got of a
bestiality charge, after being caught buggering a duck in the park, on
the grounds that it wasn't bestiality because ducks aren't beasts.
Steve Marshall
"Peter Ashby" <p.r....@dundee.MAPS.ac.uk>
>
> What's the matter Steve, squeamish? I note you are not prepared to
> concede the point (which you snipped), despite the evidence.
>
You've really got a problem there haven't you ? I in fact conceded that I
was wrong some time ago when evidence was provided, not by you. Practice
what you preach !
Steve M
Steve Marshall
"edvard_k" <notho...@gotmail.com> wrote
> >Why shouldn't someone disapprove ?
>
> Where someone prefers to play hide the sausage
> is a matter of taste, not morals. What consenting
> adults, of the same species, do in the bedroom
> (safe sex, not cheating on anyone else etc) is their
> own business and harms no one.
That's your opinion. Are others allowed an opinion ? Laws change because
people have contrary opinion and the popular view gets things changed. The
law is in favour of your position now but you still are against a different
view.
>
> >It is only very recently that homosexual
> >laws have been dropped.
>
> So.
So what is your point ? Surely you don't expect opinion to change overnight.
One day law obiding subjects say being gay is wrong, but the next day
everyone is to accept it with open arms ? Ridiculous !
Where is it that your objection lies ? Do you object to others of a
different opinion ? Is it where people call for the death of gays, which I
would say is something that rarely, if ever, happens in this country, or is
it that you see their position as immoral ? The fact here is that the state
used to consider being gay immoral, so your view would have been considered
wrong just a few years ago.
If your objection is to killing then why isn't the emphasis on that and you
are anti-terrorist etc rather than anti-religious ?
> >People still disapprove whether on religious grounds
> >or not. Is it then only the religious ones that are being objected to -
> >because that is what the antireligious focus on !
>
> It is when I'm being anti-religious. That I object to
> homophobia is one of the reasons I object to the
> Bible. Tough on bigotry, tough on the causes of
> bigotry!
So, it's the Bible that you object to ? I know, as I said, a lesbian
campaigning to become a RC priest. Now in the church she attended she was
accepted and the priests and congregation did not turn against her and
condemn her. This is the RC church that is strongly anti-gay. So, you are
saying they are anti-gay where they are not.
Frankly I think the Bible is full of many things. Much of it is
contradictory. Look at the various ways crime and punishment is dealt with
and there is many different views. If people want to be anti-gay, racist or
whatever, I think they will find a reason, whether they use the Bible or
not.
Steve M
Steve Marshall
"edvard_k" <notho...@gotmail.com> wrote
> Hang on, 'system based on humanism', explain!
Didn't you know ? The Nazi philosophy is from the German philosophers.
The romantic thinking of Marx supported the horrors of Stalinism whilst
Nietzsche influenced Nazi ideology.
Heidegger joined the Nazi party in the 1930s. After their defeat he never
renounced his Nazism.
It is something of a perversion of Humanism that the Nazis latched on to,
but it was based on Humanist ideas .
Steve M
edvard_k
<48ka...@freNoSpaMeuk.com> wrote:
>
>"edvard_k" <notho...@gotmail.com> wrote
>
>> >Why shouldn't someone disapprove ?
>>
>> Where someone prefers to play hide the sausage
>> is a matter of taste, not morals. What consenting
>> adults, of the same species, do in the bedroom
>> (safe sex, not cheating on anyone else etc) is their
>> own business and harms no one.
>
>That's your opinion.
Naturally, I wouldn't of posted it otherwise. So?
> Are others allowed an opinion ?
Did I say they aren't?
> Laws change because
>people have contrary opinion and the popular view gets things changed.
That's generaly the case. So?
>The
>law is in favour of your position now but you still are against a different
>view.
That's true as well. I'm sure most of us have
views on many different things and for most
of our views there are probably many people
with opposing views. This is generally the
case with views. So?
>> >It is only very recently that homosexual
>> >laws have been dropped.
>>
>> So.
>
>So what is your point ?
I could ask the same question of you.
>Surely you don't expect opinion to change overnight.
>One day law obiding subjects say being gay is wrong, but the next day
>everyone is to accept it with open arms ? Ridiculous !
If a good case is presented for changing ones
opinion then a reasonable person should.
Otherwise they wouldn't be a reasonable person.
>Where is it that your objection lies ? Do you object to others of a
>different opinion ? Is it where people call for the death of gays, which I
>would say is something that rarely, if ever, happens in this country, or is
>it that you see their position as immoral ?
In this particular part of the thread you asked a
very simple clear question - why shouldn't
someone object to homosexuality. I gave
very simple clear answer. Simple. Nothing you
have said so far in response to that answer
has addressed it.
>The fact here is that the state
>used to consider being gay immoral, so your view would have been considered
>wrong just a few years ago.
So? So? So? So? So? So? So? So? So?
Many people at one time believed the world
was flat, some still do, does that make the
world any flatter? Of course not. So there
are many people who have a different view
to me - whether the whole world aggrees or
disagrees with me doesn't make me any
more or less wrong or right does it?!
>If your objection is to killing then why isn't the emphasis on that and you
>are anti-terrorist etc rather than anti-religious ?
In this particular instance. In this particular
part of the thread. My objection is to the
point of view that homosexuality is immoral.
>> >People still disapprove whether on religious grounds
>> >or not. Is it then only the religious ones that are being objected to -
>> >because that is what the antireligious focus on !
>>
>> It is when I'm being anti-religious. That I object to
>> homophobia is one of the reasons I object to the
>> Bible. Tough on bigotry, tough on the causes of
>> bigotry!
>
>So, it's the Bible that you object to ?
Yes I object to that to, and religion, and terrorism
and a whole host of other things. Am I only
supposed to object to one thing only?
>I know, as I said, a lesbian
>campaigning to become a RC priest. Now in the church she attended she was
>accepted and the priests and congregation did not turn against her and
>condemn her. This is the RC church that is strongly anti-gay. So, you are
>saying they are anti-gay where they are not.
>Frankly I think the Bible is full of many things. Much of it is
>contradictory. Look at the various ways crime and punishment is dealt with
>and there is many different views. If people want to be anti-gay, racist or
>whatever, I think they will find a reason, whether they use the Bible or
>not.
And I addressed those points where you first made
them. Last I looked they were still waiting a reply.
There isn't much point in duplicating our discussion
in two places at the same time.
edvard_k
<pe...@new.co.za> wrote:
>
>edvard_k <notho...@gotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:3b86aec0...@news.ntlworld.com...
>>
>> So now we know its position on equal rights for the
>> disabled!
>>
>
>Why should the 'disabled' have equal rights?
A person should have the same rights to
education and employment opportuneties
as the rest of humanity within a given
society since a missing limb or two doesn't
make a person any less human.
James A. Temple
> > The fact that a person exists, occupies space, and has mass
> > doesn't entitle him/her to be a brain surgeon
> I wouldn't mind if everybody was entitled to be a brain surgeon as long
> as they left my brain alone.
Nor would I. In the absence of universal abililty, though, I'd want the
most qualified surgeon workin' on my pea-brain should I require such
activity.
> The big confusion that the pinko fraternity has is with equality of
> opportunity being different from equality of outcome - this is a point
> that they simply can't understand.
Seems simple enough, doesn't it?
> > Maybe some humanist will come along with a gentle reminder that
> > the first thing a fellow does when he desires to show disapproval for >
> another is to abandon usage of the other's proper name.
> Is it?
Of course. Such action attempts to dehumanize the adversary.
> I tend to start showing disapproval in rather more direct way ...
Yeah, I used to do so but I'm too old to do other than cuss and yell
anymore.
> ...and am quite partial to nicknames - ...
Quite acceptable when applied to folks for which you have some kind regard.
> ...usually, in my experience, they show affection, ...
Aw, you old charmer.
> ... though clearly not always.
Rats!
> Were you not named (I would say christened but some people might
> get the wrong idea) ...
Nothin' worse than a bunch of rag-tag humanists with the wrong ideas.
They'd argue with a fence post on things with which they agreed.
> (Were you not named) James rather than Jim?
Actually, I wasn't, Peter. You see, as our folks arrived on this continent
from the "old" country, they carried on as they had previously, naming their
children, towns, etc. But, as they removed themselves from the cities along
the eastern seaboard and began to explore the West, they were influenced
less and less with traditional practices. Particularly, in the southern
states, they began to name their children nicknames ~ Tommy, Bobby, Jimmy,
Bubba, Billy, etc. All my Virginian ancestors had traditional names until
my generation. When my grandfather, William Ryburn Alderson, homesteaded
360 acres of land in the New Mexico territory, he raised his family very far
from any cultural influence. His brother, James, was his favorite sibling,
whom he referred to as "Jim". My mom, not influenced by traditional customs
named me "Jimmy". I had it legally changed to "James" long after I was
grown.
> > > You didn't report the name of the group supporting this plan, Peter.
> > > Could it have been "United Farmboys of Texas"?
> It was a chap in Utah who felt that buggering chickens was rather cruel
> but other farm animals were fine (apparently those who indulge in
> chicken fucking wring the chickens neck at the cruical moment to
> improve the sensation ...
Hmmm, hence the expression, "chokin' your chicken", I reckon.
> I was reminded (again) of the true story of a man who got of a
> bestiality charge, after being caught buggering a duck in the park, on
> the grounds that it wasn't bestiality because ducks aren't beasts.
Hmmm, hence the expression, "well, fuck a duck", I suppose. Yet, I don't
quite understand his avoiding prosecution for "bestiality" since there is no
denying that there was a least one beast present at the act, even if the
duck is excluded.
Steve Marshall
"edvard_k" <notho...@gotmail.com> wrote
> A person should have the same rights to
> education and employment opportuneties
> as the rest of humanity within a given
> society since a missing limb or two doesn't
> make a person any less human.
>
No, but you wouldn't employ one as a juggler unless you were a damn fool.
You can't have equal rights because people are not equal.
Steve M
James A. Temple
"Steve Marshall" <48ka...@freNoSpaMeuk.com> wrote in message
> Didn't you know ?
I can't speak for edvard_k, but it's damn sure news to me!
> The Nazi philosophy is from the German philosophers.
A great deal of modern philosophy stems from the ideas of German
philosophers.
> The romantic thinking of Marx supported the horrors of
> Stalinism ...
"Romantic"? I'd rather think of it as "unpractically idealistic". Yet, I
should hardly describe the idealism of Marx as supporting "the horrors of
Stalinism". Communist dictators, like any others, require no philosophical
justification for atrocities.
> ...whilst Nietzsche influenced Nazi ideology.
Yet, I doubt that anyone would blame Nietzsche for the atrocities commited
by the Nazi's.
> It is something of a perversion of Humanism that the Nazis
> latched on to, ...
If it were perverted, it couldn't be called "Humanism".
> ... but it was based on Humanist ideas .
Sorry, Steve, that doesn't "wash". Though there may have been some similar,
perhaps even identical, precepts that the German Socialists and humanists
share, the resulting actions of each group belie any resemblance of
philosophy.
And, just to include Christianity into this thread, wasn't the highest
commendation of the Nazi government reflected with the presentation of an
"iron cross"?
James A. Temple
> A person should have the same rights to
> education ...
True, so long as such person's ability to learn is taken into account. I
don't think that you are suggesting that a society waste resources tryin' to
educate idiots, are you?
> ...and employment opportuneties as the rest of humanity
> within a given society
True, so long as such person's abilties, education and experience are
compared with those same attributes of others within the society where
several are competing for those opportunities.
> ...since a missing limb or two doesn't make a person any > less human.
Well.....uh.....it would certainly make that person a limb or two less
human. To my feeble thinkin', it would exclude that person from jobs
requirin' the use of all limbs.
edvard_k, my electronic pal, are you headed somewhere with these ideas or do
you just have a little extra time on your hands?
Peter H.M. Brooks
Steve Marshall <48ka...@freNoSpaMeuk.com> wrote in message
that are buggered - he wouldn't make a good stilt walker though.
Peter H.M. Brooks
>
> "edvard_k" <notho...@gotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3b880462...@news.ntlworld.com...
>
> > A person should have the same rights to
> > education ...
>
> True, so long as such person's ability to learn is taken into
account. I
> don't think that you are suggesting that a society waste resources
tryin' to
> educate idiots, are you?
>
for obvious reasons!
>
> > ...since a missing limb or two doesn't make a person any > less
human.
>
> Well.....uh.....it would certainly make that person a limb or two less
> human. To my feeble thinkin', it would exclude that person from jobs
> requirin' the use of all limbs.
>
>
> edvard_k, my electronic pal, are you headed somewhere with these ideas
or do
> you just have a little extra time on your hands?
>
Peter H.M. Brooks
>
> Quite acceptable when applied to folks for which you have some kind
regard.
>
> > ...usually, in my experience, they show affection, ...
>
> Aw, you old charmer.
>
>
> > ... though clearly not always.
>
> Rats!
>
> > Were you not named (I would say christened but some people might
> > get the wrong idea) ...
>
> Nothin' worse than a bunch of rag-tag humanists with the wrong ideas.
> They'd argue with a fence post on things with which they agreed.
>
expecting disagreement would there?
posts and 'Jim' at the bottom, I think my point still stands though.
>
> > > > You didn't report the name of the group supporting this plan,
Peter.
> > > > Could it have been "United Farmboys of Texas"?
>
> > It was a chap in Utah who felt that buggering chickens was rather
cruel
> > but other farm animals were fine (apparently those who indulge in
> > chicken fucking wring the chickens neck at the cruical moment to
> > improve the sensation ...
>
> Hmmm, hence the expression, "chokin' your chicken", I reckon.
>
>
> > I was reminded (again) of the true story of a man who got of a
> > bestiality charge, after being caught buggering a duck in the park,
on
> > the grounds that it wasn't bestiality because ducks aren't beasts.
>
> Hmmm, hence the expression, "well, fuck a duck", I suppose. Yet, I
don't
> quite understand his avoiding prosecution for "bestiality" since there
is no
> denying that there was a least one beast present at the act, even if
the
> duck is excluded.
>
prosecuted in that case - if ducks could be prosecuted.
Peter H.M. Brooks
>
> And, just to include Christianity into this thread, wasn't the highest
> commendation of the Nazi government reflected with the presentation of
an
> "iron cross"?
>
course) in future. Very nice.
Geoff Berrow
<bev...@netzero.net> wrote:
> His brother, James, was his favorite sibling,
>whom he referred to as "Jim". My mom, not influenced by traditional customs
>named me "Jimmy". I had it legally changed to "James" long after I was
>grown.
And you now prefer to be known as 'Jim'.
Er, yes, thank you for clearing that up.
Coming soon - the rules of cricket.
--
Geoff Berrow
[the poster formerly known as Geoff (Blade Runner)]
edvard_k
<bev...@netzero.net> wrote:
>
>"edvard_k" <notho...@gotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:3b880462...@news.ntlworld.com...
>
>> A person should have the same rights to
>> education ...
>
> True, so long as such person's ability to learn is taken into account. I
>don't think that you are suggesting that a society waste resources tryin' to
>educate idiots, are you?
>
>> ...and employment opportuneties as the rest of humanity
>> within a given society
>
>True, so long as such person's abilties, education and experience are
>compared with those same attributes of others within the society where
>several are competing for those opportunities.
>
>> ...since a missing limb or two doesn't make a person any > less human.
>
>Well.....uh.....it would certainly make that person a limb or two less
>human.
There would less human there but the person would be no
less human. Humanity isn't measured by body mass.
>To my feeble thinkin', it would exclude that person from jobs
>requirin' the use of all limbs.
Like I said 'employment and education *opportunities*'
This is equality of opportunity _aimed_ at equalising outcomes
in so far as they are consequences of causes beyond a
person’s control, but allow different outcomes in so far as
they result from autonomous choice. That is, as far as
_possible_, a just society should provide the resouces that
allow the disabled to compete for opportunities, have the
same opportunities of choice and so take part in society as if
they were not disabled - e.g. access resources. Now this is
tempered by the value to the recipient of the available
resources towards attaining that equality - or what is possible.
A place at the Rutherford Institute is of no value to an 'idiot'.
But an education is. Many downs-syndrome people have
been able make fuller use of the capabilities they have and
have been able to make a contribution to society, as the rest
of us should and should be given the opportunity to, from
recieving an education.
>edvard_k, my electronic pal, are you headed somewhere with these ideas or do
>you just have a little extra time on your hands?
Just answering a question.
>Love from Texas,
>Jim Temple
e. kardelj
a.a #177
James A. Temple
"Geoff Berrow" <$black-dog$@hten.org.uk> wrote in message
news:3higot8d7889uing4...@4ax.com...
> > I had it (my name) legally changed to "James" long after I was
> > grown.
> And you now prefer to be known as 'Jim'.
Since I'm only referred to as "Jim" by my closest friends, it is indeed my
preference. I've long felt "at home" on this little NG and encourage my
electronic pals to refer to me by my nickname.
> Er, yes, thank you for clearing that up.
Think nothin' of it, Geoff ~ or should I use Geoffery? Which do you prefer?
Somehow, the fact that I've never seen you post your name in any other
manner than "Geoff" provides me with a clue.
> Coming soon - the rules of cricket.
Crickets have rules? The only two that I know are: 1) chirp loudly and
irritatingly and, 2) try to get inside the house at any cost. I await your
elucidation with baited ....uh, abated, breath.
Love form Texas,
Jim Temple
edvard_k
In what way was it perverted or which humanist precepts
were perverted and how - explain!
One of the useful things about being anti anything is that
it can define what you are for as well as against. In this
case anti-religion. Religions for the most part are not very
good self-correcting systems. Rather the dogma is re-
interpreted in ever more cumbersome and absurd ways to
take into account new information. So which parts of
humanism were used and can they be fixed or scrapped?
edvard_k
See my reply to James A Temple.
>Steve M
>
>
James A. Temple
> James A. Temple <bev...@netzero.net> wrote in message
> news:9m97m7$vvm9$1...@ID-98985.news.dfncis.de...
> > Nothin' worse than a bunch of rag-tag humanists with the wrong ideas.
> > They'd argue with a fence post on things with which they agreed.
> That makes sense. There would be no sense in arguing with a fence post
> expecting disagreement would there?
The problem lies in the fact that, contrary to sensible expectation, the
typical humanist, bein' a person of independent thought and agressive
personality, expects disagreement from any source and will change
point-of-view if such disagreement isn't forthcoming. Heh, heh! I just
love that description. I wonder how accurate it is!
> Ah, I see, that is interesting. Since you put 'James' at the top of your
> posts and 'Jim' at the bottom, I think my point still stands though.
You had a point? Oh, yes. Yankland! Now I remember why I made original
post. Seems subtle hints don't get my message across, dear friend. May I
respectfully request that you refrain from usin' that term on this forum.
It has a much different connotation here and can be misinterpreted by the
good ol' boys to whom I often read your posts. And, in view of some of your
past posts that roundly condemn this country's policies, the use of the term
always appears to me to be a term of derision rather than affection. Now,
while you've gone to the trouble, out of kindness, to explain that you often
substitute some names for proper names as a sign of affection, you've never
deliberately stated that you use "Yankland" in such a manner.
Come to think of it, call this country anything you like! To ask you to do
anything else makes it appear that we're overly sensitive. And, we probably
are. After all, we're the "new kid" on the block; two-hundred thirty-six
years old; still "wet behind the ears". The extraordinary natural resources
of this continent, together with two oceans to separate it from the "old"
country provided opportunity and impetus to create a powerful state, guided
by minds from the "old" country that were determined to avoid what they
determined as errors of older governments.
> > Yet, I don't quite understand his avoiding prosecution for "bestiality"
since > > there is no denying that there was a least one beast present at
the act,
> > even if the duck is excluded.
> I think that a fine legal mind would argue that the duck could be
> prosecuted in that case - if ducks could be prosecuted.
Such a legal argument would fail in this country if the current environment
were to prevail. You see, no matter how suggestive the duck, not even an
outright expression of a desired tryst on the part of the duck, would keep
the minority-monopolized media from blamin' the fellow. The "fuckee" is
heralded, interviewed, and published as a victim of the
influentially-powerful "fuckor" without regard to the actions of the
"fuckee" that led to the involvement. That's particularly so if the
"fuckee" is a member of the same minority that monopolizes the media.
edvard_k
<pe...@new.co.za> wrote:
>
>Steve Marshall <48ka...@freNoSpaMeuk.com> wrote in message
>news:8xVh7.239163$cc1.13...@nnrp3.clara.net...
>>
>> No, but you wouldn't employ one as a juggler unless you were a damn
>fool.
>> You can't have equal rights because people are not equal.
>>
>I don't know, you can have a cripple as a juggler if it is just his legs
>that are buggered - he wouldn't make a good stilt walker though.
A person with no legs used to walking with artificial
legs would probably make a better stilt walker than
someone used only to walking with real legs.
e. kardelj
Peter H.M. Brooks
>
> "Peter H.M. Brooks" <pe...@new.co.za> wrote in message
> news:9m9erd$848$1...@ctb-nnrp1.saix.net...
>
> > James A. Temple <bev...@netzero.net> wrote in message
> > news:9m97m7$vvm9$1...@ID-98985.news.dfncis.de...
>
> > > Nothin' worse than a bunch of rag-tag humanists with the wrong
ideas.
> > > They'd argue with a fence post on things with which they agreed.
>
> > That makes sense. There would be no sense in arguing with a fence
post
> > expecting disagreement would there?
>
> The problem lies in the fact that, contrary to sensible expectation,
the
> typical humanist, bein' a person of independent thought and agressive
> personality, expects disagreement from any source and will change
> point-of-view if such disagreement isn't forthcoming. Heh, heh! I
just
> love that description. I wonder how accurate it is!
>
front.
>
>
> > Ah, I see, that is interesting. Since you put 'James' at the top of
your
> > posts and 'Jim' at the bottom, I think my point still stands though.
>
> You had a point? Oh, yes. Yankland! Now I remember why I made
original
> post. Seems subtle hints don't get my message across, dear friend.
May I
> respectfully request that you refrain from usin' that term on this
forum.
> It has a much different connotation here and can be misinterpreted by
the
> good ol' boys to whom I often read your posts. And, in view of some
of your
> past posts that roundly condemn this country's policies, the use of
the term
> always appears to me to be a term of derision rather than affection.
Now,
> while you've gone to the trouble, out of kindness, to explain that you
often
> substitute some names for proper names as a sign of affection, you've
never
> deliberately stated that you use "Yankland" in such a manner.
>
Australia as Oz, French as Wocabs etc. etc.. It would be quite
inconsistent of me to call inhabitants of the northern United States of
America Americans because that would leave out the inhabitants of the
southern United States of America and the rest of South America with no
name! At least with Yankland it is an unambiguous (to English speakers
anyway) description. I do note your objection to it, and, if it is
interefereing with proper communication in this particular forum will
try not to use it - though, since it is my habitual term (and has been
for many years), this will be difficult.
>
> Come to think of it, call this country anything you like! To ask you
to do
> anything else makes it appear that we're overly sensitive. And, we
probably
> are. After all, we're the "new kid" on the block; two-hundred
thirty-six
> years old; still "wet behind the ears". The extraordinary natural
resources
> of this continent, together with two oceans to separate it from the
"old"
> country provided opportunity and impetus to create a powerful state,
guided
> by minds from the "old" country that were determined to avoid what
they
> determined as errors of older governments.
>
children), to see that exactly the same mistakes are made all over
again!
>
> > > Yet, I don't quite understand his avoiding prosecution for
"bestiality"
> since > > there is no denying that there was a least one beast present
at
> the act,
> > > even if the duck is excluded.
>
> > I think that a fine legal mind would argue that the duck could be
> > prosecuted in that case - if ducks could be prosecuted.
>
> Such a legal argument would fail in this country if the current
environment
> were to prevail. You see, no matter how suggestive the duck, not even
an
> outright expression of a desired tryst on the part of the duck, would
keep
> the minority-monopolized media from blamin' the fellow. The "fuckee"
is
> heralded, interviewed, and published as a victim of the
> influentially-powerful "fuckor" without regard to the actions of the
> "fuckee" that led to the involvement. That's particularly so if the
> "fuckee" is a member of the same minority that monopolizes the media.
>
Peter H.M. Brooks
being true - it would be a comfort to me to know that, if my legs were
amputated in a train or bus accident a future career as a stilt walker
lay ahead of me.
On this sort of subject, I was delighted to find myself sitting next to
a one-armed man in cattle class on an aeroplane the other day - there
was none of that fighting over the arm-rest, no jogging me as I ate, it
was almost as if he wasn't there. Maybe the airlines might encourage
amputations to make their flying thrombosis machines less dangerous and
more comfortable.
Philip Preston
>
>Philip Preston <phi...@preston20.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:9m6usv$tbv$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk...
>>
><9m6rb1$khs$1...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net>...
>> >
>> >Why should the 'disabled' have equal rights?
>>
>>
>Indeed that is the question. The problem is that 'equal' is interpreted
>in an Orwellian fashion - some are more equal than others.
Orwell used the phrase to satirize lack of equality. If equality were not
considered to be a good thing then lack of it would not be a problem. So
clearly you do consider equal rights to be a good thing. If good for you,
why not for the disabled?
Regards,
Philip.
Peter H.M. Brooks
obviously from assistance with their disability. Clearly they won't have
access to the same jobs (as has been discussed) as a result of their
disability, but, if they can fly a fighter 'plane with no legs there is
no reason why they shouldn't.
Geoff Berrow
<pe...@new.co.za> wrote:
>Now,
>> while you've gone to the trouble, out of kindness, to explain that you
>often
>> substitute some names for proper names as a sign of affection, you've
>never
>> deliberately stated that you use "Yankland" in such a manner.
>>
>Well, no, I haven't. I do refer to England as Pom, Germans as Krauts,
>Australia as Oz, French as Wocabs etc. etc.. It would be quite
>inconsistent of me to call inhabitants of the northern United States of
>America Americans because that would leave out the inhabitants of the
>southern United States of America and the rest of South America with no
>name! At least with Yankland it is an unambiguous (to English speakers
>anyway) description. I do note your objection to it, and, if it is
>interefereing with proper communication in this particular forum will
>try not to use it - though, since it is my habitual term (and has been
>for many years), this will be difficult.
I must admit I'm finding it a bit hard to reconcile what Jim says
unless he's deliberately spoiling for an argument. He's right of
course about changing names being the first step in showing
disapproval, indeed I'm surprised he did not go a whole lot further
and say that it is often used as a way of encouraging hostility. But
in this instance I think he protests too much.
Here in the UK we vaguely know that there was a civil war between
North and South but that's about it. History gets tedious when you
have so much of it. So we call Americans, Yanks. Or worse. A
cockney might call you a septic in rhyming slang. Septic tank, yank,
geddit? Many Brits delight in calling Ya^H^H Americans, by the name
Merkins, ostensibly from Reagan's 'Ma fellow 'merkins' but really
it's because merkin is another name for a pubic wig. Playground stuff
I know, but it amuses us. And if Merkins, sorry, Yanks, sorry North
American,- oh fuck, - people from the United States of America get
shirty about it doubtless they will tell us how they saved our sorry
asses in the war and don't you forget it bubba.
I can't speak for anyone else Jim, but if I intentionally intended to
insult or offend, you'd know it.. Unless I was being ironic. Which
I'm not. Honest.
Peter H.M. Brooks
> Here in the UK we vaguely know that there was a civil war between
> North and South but that's about it. History gets tedious when you
> have so much of it. So we call Americans, Yanks. Or worse. A
> cockney might call you a septic in rhyming slang. Septic tank, yank,
> geddit? Many Brits delight in calling Ya^H^H Americans, by the name
> Merkins, ostensibly from Reagan's 'Ma fellow 'merkins' but really
> it's because merkin is another name for a pubic wig. Playground stuff
> I know, but it amuses us. And if Merkins, sorry, Yanks, sorry North
> American,- oh fuck, - people from the United States of America get
> shirty about it doubtless they will tell us how they saved our sorry
> asses in the war and don't you forget it bubba.
>
> I can't speak for anyone else Jim, but if I intentionally intended to
> insult or offend, you'd know it.. Unless I was being ironic. Which
> I'm not. Honest.
>
emphasise that 'people from the United States of America' is ambiguous
as the United States of America is the name of both the country just
south of Canada and also the name of Mexico.
I have been familiar with the term 'Septic' for a fairly long time, but
have felt it unkind and don't use it myself.
Geoff Berrow
<bev...@netzero.net> wrote:
>> And you now prefer to be known as 'Jim'.
>
>Since I'm only referred to as "Jim" by my closest friends, it is indeed my
>preference. I've long felt "at home" on this little NG and encourage my
>electronic pals to refer to me by my nickname.
>
Can't you feel the love in this group? ;o)
>> Er, yes, thank you for clearing that up.
>
>Think nothin' of it, Geoff ~ or should I use Geoffery? Which do you prefer?
I prefer Geoff to Geoffery but that may be because my given name is
Geoffrey. When I was younger I hated it but I really have no strong
feelings now. Except that sometimes the use of my full name makes me
feel I'm in trouble. I quite like Geoffrey with an American accent
though, as I recently found out...
>Somehow, the fact that I've never seen you post your name in any other
>manner than "Geoff" provides me with a clue.
Ah, that's just laziness. Less typing.
>
>> Coming soon - the rules of cricket.
>
>Crickets have rules? The only two that I know are: 1) chirp loudly and
>irritatingly and, 2) try to get inside the house at any cost. I await your
>elucidation with baited ....uh, abated, breath.
Well its quite simple. you have two teams - one is in and the other is
out. The team that out has to get the team that's in, out. When all
the members of the team that's in are out, the team that's out go in
and the team that was in try to get the team that was out (but who are
now in) out.
Clear?
edvard_k
<pe...@new.co.za> wrote:
>
>edvard_k <notho...@gotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:3b88e144...@news.ntlworld.com...
>> On Sun, 26 Aug 2001 02:03:08 +0200, "Peter H.M. Brooks"
>> <pe...@new.co.za> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Steve Marshall <48ka...@freNoSpaMeuk.com> wrote in message
>> >news:8xVh7.239163$cc1.13...@nnrp3.clara.net...
>> >>
>> >> No, but you wouldn't employ one as a juggler unless you were a damn
>> >fool.
>> >> You can't have equal rights because people are not equal.
>> >>
>> >I don't know, you can have a cripple as a juggler if it is just his
>legs
>> >that are buggered - he wouldn't make a good stilt walker though.
>>
>> A person with no legs used to walking with artificial
>> legs would probably make a better stilt walker than
>> someone used only to walking with real legs.
>>
>That is an interesting point. I wonder if there is any evidence for this
>being true -
I don't know if there is any evidence for this but it seems
reasonable given that stilts are just longer artificial legs.
>it would be a comfort to me to know that, if my legs were
>amputated in a train or bus accident a future career as a stilt walker
>lay ahead of me.
There is a long tradition of people with disabilities working
as circus performers - in freak shows. So that may be an
option.
>On this sort of subject, I was delighted to find myself sitting next to
>a one-armed man in cattle class on an aeroplane the other day - there
>was none of that fighting over the arm-rest, no jogging me as I ate, it
>was almost as if he wasn't there. Maybe the airlines might encourage
>amputations to make their flying thrombosis machines less dangerous and
>more comfortable.
They would use it as a means of packing in more bodies
cheek to cheek, or worse, limbless torsos in sacks
swinging from the cieling.
e. kardelj
a.a #177
edvard_k
<pe...@new.co.za> wrote:
<snip>
>I have been familiar with the term 'Septic' for a fairly long time, but
>have felt it unkind and don't use it myself.
How PC of you.
e. kardelj
a.a #177
wamccabe
there is no mention of your own children. Like I've said elsewhere, an odd
approach to sexual morality.news:3b86991f...@news.ntlworld.com...
> On Thu, 23 Aug 2001 21:11:55 +0100, "Steve Marshall"
> <48ka...@freNoSpaMeuk.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Geoff Berrow" <$black-dog$@hten.org.uk> wrote
> >
> >Thanks you ! See easy really Peter.
> >OK, so I stand corrected. I had a vague notion that there was some
> >statistics about Homosexuality being mentioned twice in the Bible and
that
> >there were no giraffes - or something like that.
> >
> >You'll also see that it does not say homosexuals should die as was
claimed.
>
> Leviticus 20:13 (RSV) "If a man lies with a male as with
> a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they
> shall be put to death, their blood is upon them."
>
>
> >Steve M
>
> e. kardelj
> a.a #177
>
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.265 / Virus Database: 137 - Release Date: 18/07/2001
wamccabe
6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God?
Be not
deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor
effeminate, nor abusers
of themselves with mankind,
6:10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor
extortioners, shall
inherit the kingdom of God.
It seems "Good News" has issues with "male prostitutes" but not "abusers
of themselves". Surprisingly the original has effeminate rather than
homosexual. Does this mean that they didn't care if you were gay so long as
you were butch?
Since this copy of the bible comes as part of a library of philosophy on
CD-ROM it's not too difficult to search for individual words in it.
"Homosexual" does not occur - not surprising since it's a recent term -
"sodomite" (small "s") occurs fairly often but is this related to
homosexuality?
I had heard that the sin that Sodom was destroyed for was not mentioned in
the bible but it is - Ezekiel 16:49 Behold, this was the iniquity of thy
sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and
abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she
strengthen the
hand of the poor and needy.
Not exactly sexual is it?
As to the desire of the locals to "bugger a visiting angel" causing the
destruction. This is the line from Genesis 19:5 "And they called unto Lot,
and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring
them out unto us, that we may know them." While this might be taken as
sexual desire ("know" in the biblical sense), it's also possible that they
were just suspicious of strangers sneaking in a twilight. As for Lot's
reaction by offering them his daughters ..... well, that's another matter.
Either way this is after God has decided to destroy the cities if the angels
don't find ten good people within them and, considering they spent all the
time in Lot's house, there wasn't much chance of that happening. That this
incident is followed with the conception of Lot's two sons (also grandsons)
shows that someone has a different approach to sexual morality.
"Peter Ashby" <p.r....@dundee.MAPS.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:p.r.ashby-A7EEB...@dux.dundee.ac.uk...
> In article <ggu9ots1kt8m15r42...@4ax.com>,
> Geoff Berrow <$black-dog$@hten.org.uk> wrote:
>
> > 1 Corinthians 6
> > 9
> > Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God?
> > Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor
> > adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders
> > 10
> > nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers
> > will inherit the kingdom of God.
> >
> > Source:
> >
http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=1COR+6:8-10&language=englis
h&
> > version=NIV&showfn=off
>
> Thanks for the URL Geoff, I've bookmarked that one. I used to have the
> URL for an online concordance but my home bookmarks went pearshaped a
> while ago.
>
> Peter
>
> --
> Peter Ashby
> Wellcome Trust Biocentre
> University of Dundee
> Dundee, Scotland
> Reverse the spam and remove to email me.
wamccabe
> disapproved of and so banned because of their
> intended purpose - to kill people. And you are
> saying the same arguement applies to religion
> - that it should not be disapproved of because
> its intended purpose is for good or has other
> uses for good that out wiegh its harmful uses.
> Yes?
>
Since the title of this ng begins with uk I should normally expect that you
are a uk resident / citizen or something similiar. Handguns are illegal in
the uk. Have been ever since some guy decided to go to a school and start
shooting kids. We don't need to argue that handguns "should be ...
anned" - they are. We seem to be getting along quite well without. The
argument would have to be that there is some intrinsic good in them to get
the ban lifted and, honestly, I don't see one.
Peter H.M. Brooks
>
> They would use it as a means of packing in more bodies
> cheek to cheek, or worse, limbless torsos in sacks
> swinging from the cieling.
>
Peter H.M. Brooks
I am happy with not to wish to adopt a cockney one (when I am not a
cockney).
Steve Marshall
"edvard_k" <notho...@gotmail.com> wrote
>
> There are plenty of uses that don't involve
> pointing it loaded at anyone. Shoot at cans.
Like I said this is getting silly. How does this apply to religion ? Guns
were not designed to shoot cans. Use a popgun for that !
> You were the one who said it is people that do
> harm not religion - or something like.
Yes, religion is the motivating factor. It may motivate people to do useful
things or to do bad things. You object , rightly so, to the bad things.
OK if the Bible, or religion can be used in either way then can it be what
is wrong, or is it the person that makes the decision to choose one course
of action over another ?
>
>
> The Bible doesn't say anything about lesbians.
> It was written mostly by blokes. God is a 'He'
> and he likes to watch everything.
I must remember that one :o)
>
>
> Nice chapter - it puts homosexuality in the same bracket as
> incest and bestiality.
I think they put it on a par. My dictionary state sodomy is anal sex with an
animal.
I think back then there were good reasons for some of the disapproval.
Disease etc. But now it just isn't relevant.
>
>
> Yes, the same could be said of 'Mien Kampf'. In a
> few thousand years time it may become another
> Bible and Hitler another Jesus.
I doubt it. I think people should be dissuaded from using books to base
their life around, whether it be the Bible or Von Daniken.
>
>
> Guns in holsters do no harm.
Not true. Many people have shot themselves with holstered weapons. Troops
are killed every year in training, cleaning there weapons and so on.
>
> There are many secular hospitals and schools in
> this country paid for by non-religious persons
> such as ourselves.
These tend to be hospitals that were already in existance that have been
bought out.
> It is a bad thing to rely on religious charities
> for these things - they would use other peoples
> misfortunes as a means of spreading the god
> virus. It would be a bad thing to rely on any
> charities for these things fullstop.
You're missing the point. I'm not suggesting for a moment that we should
rely on religion, just that I rarely see secular groups provide such things
as hospitals in other countries. I know religious people that have given up
a part of their life to go and build hospitals in projects organised by the
church.
I don't think we should have the need for charities never mind rely on them.
> No. We should do away with nationalism /
> patriotism.
Tell that to the Scotts !
The English probably wouldn't notice much change.
> Religion should not be barbaric. It has
> > ever right to be irrelevant and crap.
>
> It has every right to be that. It should
> also be attacked for being so.
So you attack something that is irrelevant and you don't think that is
futile ?
> Yes, the same does apply. Most people recognise
> these people as cranks. Hopefully, eventualy,
> most people will recognise followers of our now
> major religions as cranks.
Many people belive these sort of things. UFOs, ghosts, scientology. .The is
that I wonder if you treat others of the same ilk in the same way. You
object to crap in general so that is good. If you only targetted religion
then I think that would be wrong . Being against crap generally leaves you
on a moral highground.
> > What would you do with Graham Handcock ?
>
> Who?
Oh where have you been ? He's one of the best selling authors at the moment.
A modern day Erik von Daniken. He has combined several theories about past
cultures to produce a theory that the world suffered a catastrophy some
10,000 years ago killing offf the civilasation that built structures such as
the pyramids. They being a copy of Orions belt. The Sphynx should have a
lions had as it represents Leo and would have pointed towards the
constellation 10,000 years ago.
Other major structures are all linked to the stars and are aligned to
constellations.
He reckons there was some previous culture that were sailors that travelled
and influenced the other civilisations. He claims there was a flood which
the sailor race could predict - but it killed them all off.
He's written some stuff about Mars and the faces adn he likes to draw lines
on a page to show how things are joined.
People believe it. He's a hero to many.
Steve M
>
> Incidentaly, just heard a programme on Radio 4
> where this gay Jamaican guy questions various
> Jamaicans about a reggae song that has recently
> become a hit in Jamaica and their views on
> homsexuality. The lyrics advocate the burning of
> gays. He questions a paster about what is wrong
> with homosexuality. The paster seemed rasonably
> intelligent. After his reasons for why
> homosexuality is wrong were thoughly demolished
> he was reduced to saying - cos the Bible tells
> me so. Nice work.
>
> > Steve M
>
> e. kardelj
Steve Marshall
"edvard_k" <notho...@gotmail.com> wrote
>
> > Are others allowed an opinion ?
>
> Did I say they aren't?
Well you implied as much because you want to act against it and tell them
how wrong they are. Your 'going around telling people they are wrong' is
just the sort of 'going round telling people they are wrong' that religion
does that people object to. You think you are right just as they think they
are right.
Your opinion is you are more moral than they. Their opinion is that they are
more moral than you.
This is where it gets futile. I agree where religion is wrong, but I think
you have to attack the problem itself. (e.g. killing) not the cause so that
the people left behind learn that we won't stand for that sort of behaviour
and they will be less inclined to want to go round killing people.
> That's true as well. I'm sure most of us have
> views on many different things and for most
> of our views there are probably many people
> with opposing views. This is generally the
> case with views. So?
So views are established through more things than religion. The law was on
the side of religion as far as being gay was concerned but now it isn't.
That is going to make people rethink somewhat. They will be less happy to
push an unlawful position. It also establishes doubt in their minds.
Doing such things is not necessarily acting against religion but it is
dealing with a problem in an effective way rather than arguing who has the
moral highground.
>
>
> If a good case is presented for changing ones
> opinion then a reasonable person should.
> Otherwise they wouldn't be a reasonable person.
Not really true I'm afraid. People aren't so perfect !
>
> In this particular part of the thread you asked a
> very simple clear question - why shouldn't
> someone object to homosexuality. I gave
> very simple clear answer. Simple. Nothing you
> have said so far in response to that answer
> has addressed it.
I have - somewhat indirectly I admit. You said it was a matter of taste.
(irk!) not morals.
Not really true because the law stated homosexuality was illegal as was anal
sex. The opinion of the state was then that such things were not proper.
Only recently laws have changed and peoples opinions have helped to change
the law. But you cannot expect all people to change their mind at the same
time.
>
> >The fact here is that the state
> >used to consider being gay immoral, so your view would have been
considered
> >wrong just a few years ago.
> So there
> are many people who have a different view
> to me - whether the whole world aggrees or
> disagrees with me doesn't make me any
> more or less wrong or right does it?!
As far as morals are concerned I think it does, very much so. The gay
situation is a case in point. people used to think it was wrong, now opinion
has changed and we think you shoudn't treat people so badly so we now think
being gay is OK.
> In this particular instance. In this particular
> part of the thread. My objection is to the
> point of view that homosexuality is immoral.
OK, so how do you know which people think that. I couldn't tell. I know
Roman Catholics are normally dead against it. I know RC people with gay
children and quite a lot have changed their view as a result. Some have not
of course and have thrown their kids out of the house. It's dreadful. But
you object to the religious. My point is that it isn't 'the religious', only
certain people.
> Yes I object to that to, and religion, and terrorism
> and a whole host of other things. Am I only
> supposed to object to one thing only?
I hope not ! That is my objection to the antireligious, i.e. that they only
focus on religion not what they do wrong. It is the act of terrorism etc
that is wrong, the act of religion isn't.
I don't object to preaching. Of course I object to preaching hate and
violence. I also object to the anitreligious preaching hatred. That's my
standpoint.
Steve M
edvard_k
<pe...@new.co.za> wrote:
>
>Philip Preston <phi...@preston20.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:9mb5ts$4tl$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
>> Peter H.M. Brooks wrote in message
><9m7odg$2lo$1...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net>...
>> >
>> >Philip Preston <phi...@preston20.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
>> >news:9m6usv$tbv$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk...
>> >>
>> >> Peter H.M. Brooks wrote in message
>> ><9m6rb1$khs$1...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net>...
>> >> >
>> >> >Why should the 'disabled' have equal rights?
>> >>
>> >> Why should anyone have equal rights?
>> >>
>> >Indeed that is the question. The problem is that 'equal' is
>interpreted
>> >in an Orwellian fashion - some are more equal than others.
>>
>> Orwell used the phrase to satirize lack of equality. If equality were
>not
>> considered to be a good thing then lack of it would not be a problem.
>So
>> clearly you do consider equal rights to be a good thing. If good for
>you,
>> why not for the disabled?
>>
>Why should they have anything different from the rest of us? Apart,
>obviously from assistance with their disability.
And the aim of that assistance being to provide the
resources that allow the disabled to as far as possible
have the same opportunities they would otherwise
have if they were not disabled - for example access
resources. In this way equal rights to education and
employment etc are possible. A point I've being trying
to make admist the absurd PC strawmen being
constructed.
>Clearly they won't have
>access to the same jobs (as has been discussed) as a result of their
>disability,
Yeah armless arm wrestlers and brainless brain
surgeons - har har. Perhaps many disability activists
are angered by a lack of equality in outcomes
because they would, in most cases other than the
useful exceptions pointed out so far, expect equality
of opportunity to lead to equality of outcome and a
lack of the latter to be a consequence of a lack of
the former. And so in refering to one they would be
refering to both.
Peter H.M. Brooks
> >>
> >Why should they have anything different from the rest of us? Apart,
> >obviously from assistance with their disability.
>
> And the aim of that assistance being to provide the
> resources that allow the disabled to as far as possible
> have the same opportunities they would otherwise
> have if they were not disabled - for example access
> resources. In this way equal rights to education and
> employment etc are possible. A point I've being trying
> to make admist the absurd PC strawmen being
> constructed.
>
have the same access to education and, though they might be chosen as
referees and umpires by some, don't have such good job prospects. I am
not sure about 'etc', though.
>
> >Clearly they won't have
> >access to the same jobs (as has been discussed) as a result of their
> >disability,
>
> Yeah armless arm wrestlers and brainless brain
> surgeons - har har. Perhaps many disability activists
> are angered by a lack of equality in outcomes
> because they would, in most cases other than the
> useful exceptions pointed out so far, expect equality
> of opportunity to lead to equality of outcome and a
> lack of the latter to be a consequence of a lack of
> the former. And so in refering to one they would be
> refering to both
>
bright often do better than equally bright fellows because they have so
much more time to read and think. Of course thick children who are
bedridden may do a little better too, for the same reasons.
Since disability is so varied, how can you establish who ends up better
or worse and why? For one person being ugly might be a sufficient
disability for a hugely successful career to be built as a result of
frustrated sexual tension resultant from shyness brought about by the
disability - for another person it may make no difference to an
indifferent life.
Steve Marshall
"edvard_k" <notho...@gotmail.com> wrote
> This is equality of opportunity _aimed_ at equalising outcomes
> in so far as they are consequences of causes beyond a
> person’s control, but allow different outcomes in so far as
> they result from autonomous choice.
So a disabled person should be able to compete with an ablebodied one.
That's fine where they can. I tune pianos and that is a field with many
disabled people. I was trained by a blind guy - wonderful fellow that
started a blind golfing association in Scotland.
He could do that sort of thing but if he chose something he couldn't do is
the onus then on us to make it possible for him ?
>That is, as far as
> _possible_, a just society should provide the resouces that
> allow the disabled to compete for opportunities, have the
> same opportunities of choice and so take part in society as if
> they were not disabled - e.g. access resources.
A bit of a contenscious issue this. A recent development here was forced to
put in disabled toilets. How many were to attend the building ? None !
If I attend a theatre I pay X pounds. A disabled person gets a discount and
often gets a position up front. Call that equal rights ?
I'm all for education. We had a lot of schools and colleges for the disabled
and they have largely been closed down. "Care in the Community" is supposed
to take the place of some of it but it fails miserably. Other schools are
expected to start building access for the disabled and all the facilities
necessary at extra cost when there were purpose built places available.
Some of these places are looked down on now, but the residents liked them.
There was a community and things to do . My partner taught music at one such
place that has closed down. Some are now terribly lonely and others are in
old folks homes which have suitable facilities, but a load of old people
which isn't such a good environment for disabled people with active minds.
My partner went on to attend courses so she could be properly trained to
deal with the disabled and spent many hours learning what you shouldn't call
them, how not to mention wheel chairs. To cut a long story short she never
completed the course and so there is fewer people to educate the disabled.
Steve M
Steve Marshall
"James A. Temple" <bev...@netzero.net> wrote
> I can't speak for edvard_k, but it's damn sure news to me!
Read a few philosophy books and you'll find the info.
>
> > The romantic thinking of Marx supported the horrors of
> > Stalinism ...
>
> "Romantic"? I'd rather think of it as "unpractically idealistic". Yet,
I
> should hardly describe the idealism of Marx as supporting "the horrors of
> Stalinism". Communist dictators, like any others, require no
philosophical
> justification for atrocities.
That was a direct quote from a book on philosophy which refers to romantic
thinking as far as philosophy is concerned.
> > ...whilst Nietzsche influenced Nazi ideology.
>
> Yet, I doubt that anyone would blame Nietzsche for the atrocities commited
> by the Nazi's.
So can you blame the Bible in the same way ?
> > It is something of a perversion of Humanism that the Nazis
> > latched on to, ...
>
> If it were perverted, it couldn't be called "Humanism".
It wasn't.
>
> Sorry, Steve, that doesn't "wash". Though there may have been some
similar,
> perhaps even identical, precepts that the German Socialists and humanists
> share, the resulting actions of each group belie any resemblance of
> philosophy.
It does I'm afraid. It's all the stuff about a human being the most
important thing.
Ever heard of 'Also sprach Zarathrustra' ? Characterized by a passionate
individualism it calls for a race of 'supermen' to replace 'slave morality'
of Christianity. Such ideas led to the Nazi thinking to produce their master
race.
Steve M
edvard_k
<pe...@new.co.za> wrote:
>
>edvard_k <notho...@gotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:3b893664...@news.ntlworld.com...
>> On Sun, 26 Aug 2001 19:31:40 +0200, "Peter H.M. Brooks"
>> <pe...@new.co.za> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> >I have been familiar with the term 'Septic' for a fairly long time,
>but
>> >have felt it unkind and don't use it myself.
>>
>> How PC of you.
>>
>No, it isn't. It is simply polite -
Of course it is. But it sometimes seems to me that
when people whine about political correctness it is
a whine about not being able to be rude.
>besides I have sufficient terms that
>I am happy with not to wish to adopt a cockney one (when I am not a
>cockney).
What can one call a USAian without offending the
rest of the American continent?
e. kardelj
a.a #177
Geoff Berrow
wrote:
>Curiously, in all the list of people that you are not supposed to "lie with"
>there is no mention of your own children. Like I've said elsewhere, an odd
>approach to sexual morality.
Well would you Adam and Eve it?
James A. Temple
> On Sun, 26 Aug 2001 16:38:48 +0200, "Peter H.M. Brooks"
> <pe...@new.co.za> wrote:
> I must admit I'm finding it a bit hard to reconcile what Jim says
> unless he's deliberately spoiling for an argument. He's right of
> course about changing names being the first step in showing
> disapproval, indeed I'm surprised he did not go a whole lot further
> and say that it is often used as a way of encouraging hostility. But
> in this instance I think he protests too much.
Yeah, I know. I quit protestin' in the middle of my own response. On
reflection, it was ridiculous.
> Here in the UK we vaguely know that there was a civil war between
> North and South but that's about it.
My great-grandfather's plantation and those of my great-uncles were burned
to the ground by the Yankees. When I was a child, no male member of our
family would venture to use the term without puttin' damn in front of it. I
thought damn yankee was one word 'til I was nearly grown.
> And if Merkins, sorry, Yanks, sorry North American,- oh fuck, -
> people from the United States of America get shirty about it
> doubtless they will tell us how they saved our sorry asses in the war >
and don't you forget it bubba.
I seriously doubt that U. S. citizens were responsible for saving Britannia
during WWII but many did die in the attempt.
> I can't speak for anyone else Jim, but if I intentionally intended to
> insult or offend, you'd know it.. Unless I was being ironic. Which
> I'm not. Honest.
I haven't the slightest doubt about either of those facts. And, I'm
certainly not offended by Peter's consistent use of "Yankland" now that I
understand his reticence to refer to any country by its proper name. It is
just one of his unique peculiarities and, by his own report, not intended to
be offensive. I have every confidence that such is the case.
Carry on.
James A. Temple
> Clear?
Wha'dahelldid'esay?? Thanks anyway. I've only got a few years left and
don't think that such time would be sufficient for an proper understanding.
James A. Temple
"Steve Marshall" <48ka...@freNoSpaMeuk.com> wrote in message
> "James A. Temple" <bev...@netzero.net> wrote
> > > The romantic thinking of Marx supported the horrors of
> > > Stalinism ...
> > "Romantic"? I'd rather think of it as "unpractically idealistic".
Yet,
> > I should hardly describe the idealism of Marx as supporting "the
> > horrors of Stalinism". Communist dictators, like any others,
> > require no philosophical justification for atrocities.
> That was a direct quote from a book on philosophy which refers to
> romantic thinking as far as philosophy is concerned.
You gonna take the word of a $30.00 book over a highly-paid guitar picker
like me?
> > > ...whilst Nietzsche influenced Nazi ideology.
> > Yet, I doubt that anyone would blame Nietzsche for the atrocities
> > commited by the Nazi's.
> So can you blame the Bible in the same way ?
I suppose some have, but I fail to understand why.
> > Sorry, Steve, that doesn't "wash". Though there may have been
> > some similar, perhaps even identical, precepts that the German
> > Socialists and humanists share, the resulting actions of each
> > group belie any resemblance of philosophy.
> It does I'm afraid. It's all the stuff about a human being the most
> important thing.
Are you intimating that humanists subscribe to the idea that a human being
is "the most important thing"? My concept is that humanists agree that,
poor as it is, humanity is the only thing upon which we can rely.
> Ever heard of 'Also sprach Zarathrustra' ?
Indeed, I have.
> Characterized by a passionate individualism it calls for a race of
> 'supermen' to replace 'slave morality' of Christianity. Such ideas led >
to the Nazi thinking to produce their master race.
Wellllll... okay, but where in humanism do you see anyone callin' for a
super race? Surely, you don't hold that all philosophies-sans-theism are
alike?
Peter H.M. Brooks
Steve Marshall <48ka...@freNoSpaMeuk.com> wrote in message
news:yDci7.310845$Do6.13...@nnrp4.clara.net...
> important thing.
> Ever heard of 'Also sprach Zarathrustra' ? Characterized by a
passionate
> individualism it calls for a race of 'supermen' to replace 'slave
morality'
> of Christianity. Such ideas led to the Nazi thinking to produce their
master
> race.
>
claim legitimacy from it, not quite the same thing.
Peter H.M. Brooks
> > >> >I have been familiar with the term 'Septic' for a fairly long
time,
> >but
> >> >have felt it unkind and don't use it myself.
> >>
> >> How PC of you.
> >>
> >No, it isn't. It is simply polite -
>
> Of course it is. But it sometimes seems to me that
> when people whine about political correctness it is
> a whine about not being able to be rude.
>
to misuse language for priggish reasons.
>
> >besides I have sufficient terms that
> >I am happy with not to wish to adopt a cockney one (when I am not a
> >cockney).
>
> What can one call a USAian without offending the
> rest of the American continent?
>
may break my bones but words can never hurt me'?
James A. Temple
"Peter H.M. Brooks" <pe...@new.co.za> wrote in message
news:9mcmb0$9hv$1...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
> > What can one call a USAian without offending the
> > rest of the American continent?
You can call them an American, which they are. If you desire to use a more
specific area-name, you can call them a North American. Further defined,
you can refer to them as a U. S. citizen. We ordinarily refer to each other
by state names, Oklahoman, Arizonian, Missourian, etc.
> That is a perceptive comment. What ever happened to 'sticks and
> stones may break my bones but words can never hurt me'?
Whatever happened to it? It was bullshit to start with. But, in any event,
I was wrong to bring it up and I apologize for doing so. Can we leave it at
that?