Book burning
Hang Dog
dangerous books of the 19-20th centuries:
http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=7591
Cliff
wrote:
>The "National Conservative Weekly" presents DA DAH - The ten most
>dangerous books of the 19-20th centuries:
>http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=7591
I'm probably going to have to steal that .....
--
Cliff
Hang Dog
Go ahead I did.
FWB
wrote:
>The "National Conservative Weekly" presents DA DAH - The ten most
>dangerous books of the 19-20th centuries:
>http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=7591
Gosh, ideas are certainly scary, aren't they?
Someone should protect us from them.
We would all be happier if we lived in a plastic bubble, now, wouldn't
we?
Yes, let's all allow the bushies to think for us.
Then, when we are left with no pensions, no social security, and no
civil rights, they can tell us how happy we are.
And, since we no longer have ideas, we can happily believe them go
back to drinking our Bovril.
NormanM
I saw no mention that the books should be burned, or even banned; only that
they contained dangerous ideas. Or does the first amendment to the U.S.
Constitution not protect the speech of those who would disagree with the
content of such publications?
--
Norman
~I'll be there, by your side
~in the land of Twilight.
~In your dream I will go
~'till we find the Sunlight.
FWB
<spamme...@immoral.invalid> wrote:
>I saw no mention that the books should be burned, or even banned; only that
>they contained dangerous ideas. Or does the first amendment to the U.S.
>Constitution not protect the speech of those who would disagree with the
>content of such publications?
It speaks to a frame of mind that would see danger in ideas, rather
than in people. It is a short step from characterizing ideas as
dangerous to trying to censor them.
Or collecting lists of what people who are not accused of any crime
have read in libraries.
A thought:
I find the economic ideas of the Bushies far more pernicious than
anything in the writings of Karl Marx. Indeed, one can make a strong
argument that they are bringing to fruition his prediction that the
ultimate social result of capitalism would be the destruction of the
middle class and the creation of a huge gap of weath between those who
own the means of production and those who work for them.
Remember, what the so-called Communist Parties actually did following
Marx's death was far and away different from anything Marx envisioned
or wanted. What separated Marx from the other Utopian Socialists of
his day (and there were many, repulsed by the poverty and mistreatment
of the workers in mid-Victorian England) was the calibre of his
economic analysis of the past.
His influence on scholarship was enormous. Pretty much everything
written since then interpreting economics and history has been written
to support or counter his theories.
As a predicter of the future, though, he pretty much sucked.
Cliff
<spamme...@immoral.invalid> wrote:
>I saw no mention that the books should be burned, or even banned
They must have missed Harry Potter .....
--
Cliff
NormanM
> On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 04:27:43 GMT, NormanM
> <spamme...@immoral.invalid> wrote:
>
>>I saw no mention that the books should be burned, or even banned; only that
>>they contained dangerous ideas. Or does the first amendment to the U.S.
>>Constitution not protect the speech of those who would disagree with the
>>content of such publications?
>
> It speaks to a frame of mind that would see danger in ideas, rather
> than in people. It is a short step from characterizing ideas as
> dangerous to trying to censor them.
>
> Or collecting lists of what people who are not accused of any crime
> have read in libraries.
The concept that there are no dangerous ideas is a dangerous idea! ;)
It is "a short step" from any idea to any actual implementation of the
idea. Jeffrey Dahlmer practiced erotic cannibalism.
> A thought:
>
> I find the economic ideas of the Bushies far more pernicious than
> anything in the writings of Karl Marx. Indeed, one can make a strong
> argument that they are bringing to fruition his prediction that the
> ultimate social result of capitalism would be the destruction of the
> middle class and the creation of a huge gap of weath between those who
> own the means of production and those who work for them.
One could also be wrong.
> Remember, what the so-called Communist Parties actually did following
> Marx's death was far and away different from anything Marx envisioned
> or wanted. What separated Marx from the other Utopian Socialists of
> his day (and there were many, repulsed by the poverty and mistreatment
> of the workers in mid-Victorian England) was the calibre of his
> economic analysis of the past.
A common fallacy, which could be used to counter your "Capitalism" argument
above; if only the "right people" were in charge. All humans are sinners.
> His influence on scholarship was enormous. Pretty much everything
> written since then interpreting economics and history has been written
> to support or counter his theories.
His influence on scholarship? More like his influence on economic ideology.
> As a predicter of the future, though, he pretty much sucked.
He did not have the proper connections to be a prophet. He was an atheist.
NormanM
Or, maybe they know that he isn't a dangerous person.
FWB
<spamme...@immoral.invalid> wrote:
>> A thought:
>>
>> I find the economic ideas of the Bushies far more pernicious than
>> anything in the writings of Karl Marx. Indeed, one can make a strong
>> argument that they are bringing to fruition his prediction that the
>> ultimate social result of capitalism would be the destruction of the
>> middle class and the creation of a huge gap of weath between those who
>> own the means of production and those who work for them.
>
>One could also be wrong.
Certainly one could be wrong.
What arguments to wish to marshall regarding the growing disparity
between the privileged and the rest of us?
Or will you simply be content to spout opinions without rationale?
>
>> Remember, what the so-called Communist Parties actually did following
>> Marx's death was far and away different from anything Marx envisioned
>> or wanted. What separated Marx from the other Utopian Socialists of
>> his day (and there were many, repulsed by the poverty and mistreatment
>> of the workers in mid-Victorian England) was the calibre of his
>> economic analysis of the past.
>
>A common fallacy, which could be used to counter your "Capitalism" argument
>above; if only the "right people" were in charge. All humans are sinners.
Where did I say anything about the "right people" being in charge?
Counsel assumes facts not in evidence.
In other words, don't put words in my mouth. I did not put words in
your mouth.
Strike one.
>> His influence on scholarship was enormous. Pretty much everything
>> written since then interpreting economics and history has been written
>> to support or counter his theories.
>
>His influence on scholarship? More like his influence on economic ideology.
Do your homework first. A tremendous amount of research based
scholarship was triggered by his theories, from the work of Max Weber
to the work of Robert Heilbroner and others that followed him.
I wonder, have you ever actually read anything by Karl Marx other
than, perhaps, the Communist Manifesto, a 50-page throw-away pamphlet?
>> As a predicter of the future, though, he pretty much sucked.
>
>He did not have the proper connections to be a prophet. He was an atheist.
I did not say prophet. Once again, you attempt to put words in my
mouth.
I am quite willing to have a reasoned discussion with you. But, if
you resort to Karl Rove tactics of character assassination,
misrepresentation, and twisting of words, I shall have to ignore your
rightwing rantings.
Strike two.
Cliff
<spamme...@immoral.invalid> wrote:
>On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 12:36:14 -0400, Cliff wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 04:27:43 GMT, NormanM
>> <spamme...@immoral.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>I saw no mention that the books should be burned, or even banned
>>
>> They must have missed Harry Potter .....
>
>Or, maybe they know that he isn't a dangerous person.
Lots of people burning the books.
It's probably adding a bit to the sales figures.
--
Cliff
Cliff
>On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 08:23:33 -0400, FWB wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 04:27:43 GMT, NormanM
>> <spamme...@immoral.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>I saw no mention that the books should be burned, or even banned; only that
>>>they contained dangerous ideas. Or does the first amendment to the U.S.
>>>Constitution not protect the speech of those who would disagree with the
>>>content of such publications?
>>
>> It speaks to a frame of mind that would see danger in ideas, rather
>> than in people. It is a short step from characterizing ideas as
>> dangerous to trying to censor them.
>>
>> Or collecting lists of what people who are not accused of any crime
>> have read in libraries.
>
>The concept that there are no dangerous ideas is a dangerous idea! ;)
>
>It is "a short step" from any idea to any actual implementation of the
>idea. Jeffrey Dahlmer practiced erotic cannibalism.
And now that wingers have heard of it ...... does this explain
neocons & Winger's Disease? Is it a bit like Kuru?
>> A thought:
>>
>> I find the economic ideas of the Bushies far more pernicious than
>> anything in the writings of Karl Marx. Indeed, one can make a strong
>> argument that they are bringing to fruition his prediction that the
>> ultimate social result of capitalism would be the destruction of the
>> middle class and the creation of a huge gap of weath between those who
>> own the means of production and those who work for them.
>
>One could also be wrong.
Probably not in this case.
>> Remember, what the so-called Communist Parties actually did following
>> Marx's death was far and away different from anything Marx envisioned
>> or wanted. What separated Marx from the other Utopian Socialists of
>> his day (and there were many, repulsed by the poverty and mistreatment
>> of the workers in mid-Victorian England) was the calibre of his
>> economic analysis of the past.
>
>A common fallacy, which could be used to counter your "Capitalism" argument
>above; if only the "right people" were in charge.
And they would be?
>All humans are sinners.
Got foorp?
>> His influence on scholarship was enormous. Pretty much everything
>> written since then interpreting economics and history has been written
>> to support or counter his theories.
>
>His influence on scholarship? More like his influence on economic ideology.
Little thought ....
>> As a predicter of the future, though, he pretty much sucked.
>
>He did not have the proper connections to be a prophet. He was an atheist.
So?
--
Cliff
Cliff
>I am quite willing to have a reasoned discussion with you. But, if
>you resort to Karl Rove tactics of character assassination,
>misrepresentation, and twisting of words, I shall have to ignore your
>rightwing rantings.
>
>Strike two.
IIRC Karl Rove was either a drop out, flunked out or was thrown
out.
--
Cliff
NormanM
Most likely in this case. This country has been heading in the same
economic direction since the Clinton era. One world government, one world
economy. It is not a conservative, or liberal thing. It is not a Republican
or Democratic thing. I have long believed that we lost the cold war, and
that the "Powers that Be" are moving us toward state socialism anyway.
>>> Remember, what the so-called Communist Parties actually did following
>>> Marx's death was far and away different from anything Marx envisioned
>>> or wanted. What separated Marx from the other Utopian Socialists of
>>> his day (and there were many, repulsed by the poverty and mistreatment
>>> of the workers in mid-Victorian England) was the calibre of his
>>> economic analysis of the past.
>>
>>A common fallacy, which could be used to counter your "Capitalism" argument
>>above; if only the "right people" were in charge.
>
> And they would be?
There are no right people. The concept of "if only the right people were in
charge" is the problem, not which people are right.
>>All humans are sinners.
>
> Got foorp?
Trying to be cute? "Froop" indeed; if you puke on the floor, you should be
the one to clean it up.
Just looking around me, at what the people really want to do. Being "good"
is unnatural.
>>> His influence on scholarship was enormous. Pretty much everything
>>> written since then interpreting economics and history has been written
>>> to support or counter his theories.
>>
>>His influence on scholarship? More like his influence on economic ideology.
>
> Little thought ....
Just enough is all that is necessary.
>>> As a predicter of the future, though, he pretty much sucked.
>>
>>He did not have the proper connections to be a prophet. He was an atheist.
>
> So?
Prophets require either devine, or at least supernatural connections.
Atheists, by definition, have neither. Economic predictions require either
omnitient grasp of all the variables in the economy, or devine knowledge.
Marx had neither. No human alive on this planet has either.
NormanM
> On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 16:56:57 GMT, NormanM
> <spamme...@immoral.invalid> wrote:
>
>>> A thought:
>>>
>>> I find the economic ideas of the Bushies far more pernicious than
>>> anything in the writings of Karl Marx. Indeed, one can make a strong
>>> argument that they are bringing to fruition his prediction that the
>>> ultimate social result of capitalism would be the destruction of the
>>> middle class and the creation of a huge gap of weath between those who
>>> own the means of production and those who work for them.
>>
>>One could also be wrong.
>
> Certainly one could be wrong.
>
> What arguments to wish to marshall regarding the growing disparity
> between the privileged and the rest of us?
Even Clinton was in tune with the concept of a one world government, one
world economy. As things stand now, it is no longer a Republican-Democrat
issue, or even a conservative-liberal issue. It is more of a hedonist
issue, if anything. People full of themselves are running the show.
> Or will you simply be content to spout opinions without rationale?
That you don't accept my rationale does not mean that I lack one.
>>> Remember, what the so-called Communist Parties actually did following
>>> Marx's death was far and away different from anything Marx envisioned
>>> or wanted. What separated Marx from the other Utopian Socialists of
>>> his day (and there were many, repulsed by the poverty and mistreatment
>>> of the workers in mid-Victorian England) was the calibre of his
>>> economic analysis of the past.
>>
>>A common fallacy, which could be used to counter your "Capitalism" argument
>>above; if only the "right people" were in charge. All humans are sinners.
>
> Where did I say anything about the "right people" being in charge?
> Counsel assumes facts not in evidence.
"What the so-called Communist Parties actually did..."
> In other words, don't put words in my mouth. I did not put words in
> your mouth.
>
> Strike one.
In your dreams.
>>> His influence on scholarship was enormous. Pretty much everything
>>> written since then interpreting economics and history has been written
>>> to support or counter his theories.
>>
>>His influence on scholarship? More like his influence on economic ideology.
>
> Do your homework first. A tremendous amount of research based
> scholarship was triggered by his theories, from the work of Max Weber
> to the work of Robert Heilbroner and others that followed him.
>
> I wonder, have you ever actually read anything by Karl Marx other
> than, perhaps, the Communist Manifesto, a 50-page throw-away pamphlet?
>
>>> As a predicter of the future, though, he pretty much sucked.
>>
>>He did not have the proper connections to be a prophet. He was an atheist.
>
> I did not say prophet. Once again, you attempt to put words in my
> mouth.
Prophets are predictors.
> I am quite willing to have a reasoned discussion with you. But, if
> you resort to Karl Rove tactics of character assassination,
> misrepresentation, and twisting of words, I shall have to ignore your
> rightwing rantings.
Character assassination? Whose? Not yours. How do you determine that I am
ranting? What does "rightwing" mean, with respect to me?
> Strike two.
Hardly. But I am left to wonder whose character is being assassinated.
NormanM
I don't know who. But if somebody buys their own books just to burn them,
well, their loss. The more they burn, the more they must buy, the more they
buy, the more the publishers print. Something of a losing proposition, this
book burning idea.
We aren't talking about an environment where the books are being prevented
from being published; and nobody who is burning any books seems to be
wealth enough to by the entire print run.
DaveG
> All humans are sinner
Not being religious, then I, for one am not a sinner so your
premise there is way off course. You can believe what you want. I don't
have a problem with that so long as it doesn't infringe on my right to
believe (or not) what I wish)
I admit I'm not perfect and have done things which may be morally wrong
but in the religious sense I am not a sinner in my eyes. Sin, in common
usage, is a religious term. I certainly was *not* born with "original sin".
Definition
sin (OFFENCE) [Show phonetics]
noun [C or U]
the offence of breaking, or the breaking of, a religious or moral law: to
commit/confess a sin
He thinks a lot about sin.
[+ to infinitive] INFORMAL I think it's a sin (= is morally wrong) to
waste food, when so many people in the world are hungry. HUMOROUS For my
sins (= As if it were a punishment), I'm organizing the office party this
year.
sin [Show phonetics]
verb [I] -nn-
to break a religious or moral law
sinful [Show phonetics]
adjective
1 against the rules of a religion or morally wrong: He confessed that he
had sinful thoughts. Buying that sports car was a sinful waste of money.
2 INFORMAL describes something which is very pleasant, but very bad for
you: This cream cake is sinful!
--
Dave
Beauty is in the eye of the beerholder
Mecoman
"NormanM" <spamme...@immoral.invalid> wrote in message
news:knmno36q4lro$.dlg@aol.prodigy.net...
> On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 19:56:33 -0400, FWB wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 16:56:57 GMT, NormanM
> > <spamme...@immoral.invalid> wrote:
> >>> As a predicter of the future, though, he pretty much sucked.
> >>
> >>He did not have the proper connections to be a prophet. He was an
atheist.
> >
> > I did not say prophet. Once again, you attempt to put words in my
> > mouth.
>
> Prophets are predictors.
All prophets are predictors, therefore, all predictors are prophets?
If it is raining, then the streets are wet.
The streets are wet, therefore it is raining.
Faulty logic.
--
Jeff
It is preferential to refrain from the utilization of sesquipedalian
verbiage in the circumstance that your intellectualization can be verbalized
using compararatively simplistic lexicographical entitities.
TyMeDwn1st
<spamme...@immoral.invalid> wrote:
>The concept that there are no dangerous ideas is a dangerous idea! ;)
>
>It is "a short step" from any idea to any actual implementation of the
>idea. Jeffrey Dahlmer practiced erotic cannibalism.
Really? So I'm a danger to society because I occasionally have -- and
thoroughly enjoy -- wild sexual fantasies?
Do you really mean to equate imagination with action?
--
Ty
Who is mostly just a
slightly skewed
Donna Reed
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government.
--Edward Abbey
TyMeDwn1st
<spamme...@immoral.invalid> wrote:
>> Got foorp?
>
>Trying to be cute? "Froop" indeed; if you puke on the floor, you should be
>the one to clean it up.
>
>Just looking around me, at what the people really want to do. Being "good"
>is unnatural.
What people? Define "good."
Specificity is a virtue; blanket statements are generally unwise.
Cliff
<spamme...@immoral.invalid> wrote:
Nope. In the US this gap has become quite large and it's rate
of growth increased, as a matter of government/neocon policy,
quite a lot in the last 4 years or so.
The average working wage is actually down, in real terms,
while those getting more than ~ US$ 200,000 get enough
tax breaks that, in many cases, they have a lower percentage
of their income going to total taxes than those making that
average working wage.
Not to mention that funds inherited or from capitol gains may
be totally tax free now anyway. That's the way to get rich ....
or Enron-like SCAMS.
Kenny boy is not doing badly .... and it sounds like the SEC
may go to the highest bidder ....
>This country has been heading in the same
>economic direction since the Clinton era. One world government, one world
>economy. It is not a conservative, or liberal thing. It is not a Republican
>or Democratic thing. I have long believed that we lost the cold war, and
>that the "Powers that Be" are moving us toward state socialism anyway.
You seem upset by trade & legal issues.
The neocons have broken & abrogated so many treaties & international
agreements that the US cannot be trusted for anything anymore. Except
to sell arms ...
>>>> Remember, what the so-called Communist Parties actually did following
>>>> Marx's death was far and away different from anything Marx envisioned
>>>> or wanted. What separated Marx from the other Utopian Socialists of
>>>> his day (and there were many, repulsed by the poverty and mistreatment
>>>> of the workers in mid-Victorian England) was the calibre of his
>>>> economic analysis of the past.
>>>
>>>A common fallacy, which could be used to counter your "Capitalism" argument
>>>above; if only the "right people" were in charge.
>>
>> And they would be?
>
>There are no right people. The concept of "if only the right people were in
>charge" is the problem, not which people are right.
So nobody could actually be correct?
>>>All humans are sinners.
>>
>> Got foorp?
>
>Trying to be cute? "Froop" indeed; if you puke on the floor, you should be
>the one to clean it up.
>
>Just looking around me, at what the people really want to do. Being "good"
>is unnatural.
Define "good" then. Compare & contrast to "sin".
Provide foorp.
Now consider ethics ...
>>>> His influence on scholarship was enormous. Pretty much everything
>>>> written since then interpreting economics and history has been written
>>>> to support or counter his theories.
>>>
>>>His influence on scholarship? More like his influence on economic ideology.
>>
>> Little thought ....
>
>Just enough is all that is necessary.
Hence little to no thought .....
>>>> As a predicter of the future, though, he pretty much sucked.
>>>
>>>He did not have the proper connections to be a prophet. He was an atheist.
>>
>> So?
>
>Prophets require either devine, or at least supernatural connections.
Karnak was okay at times.
>Atheists, by definition, have neither. Economic predictions require either
>omnitient grasp of all the variables in the economy, or devine knowledge.
Consider the effects of potlatches ..
>Marx had neither. No human alive on this planet has either.
Many things often seem clear. Unless you are of the voodoo school
......
--
Cliff
Cliff
<spamme...@immoral.invalid> wrote:
>On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 20:10:00 -0400, Cliff wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 16:57:48 GMT, NormanM
>> <spamme...@immoral.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 12:36:14 -0400, Cliff wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 04:27:43 GMT, NormanM
>>>> <spamme...@immoral.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>I saw no mention that the books should be burned, or even banned
>>>>
>>>> They must have missed Harry Potter .....
>>>
>>>Or, maybe they know that he isn't a dangerous person.
>>
>> Lots of people burning the books.
>> It's probably adding a bit to the sales figures.
>
>I don't know who.
Searches will find them. Some of them, anyway.
Personally, I've burned one by Mortimer J. Adler. AFTER reading
all ~800 or so pages.
It was the best part of that book.
>But if somebody buys their own books just to burn them,
>well, their loss. The more they burn, the more they must buy, the more they
>buy, the more the publishers print. Something of a losing proposition, this
>book burning idea.
Motels & hotels often have books ....
>We aren't talking about an environment where the books are being prevented
>from being published;
Actually, that's being tried as well. As is keeping them out of
libraries, schools, etc.
>and nobody who is burning any books seems to be
>wealth enough to by the entire print run.
But they can buy the publishers ....
--
Cliff
NormanM
> Define "good" then. Compare & contrast to "sin".
> Provide foorp.
Define "foorp". Your attempt at "cute" is pathetic.
> Now consider ethics ...
Whose?
NormanM
> Not being religious, then I, for one am not a sinner so your
> premise there is way off course. You can believe what you want. I don't
> have a problem with that so long as it doesn't infringe on my right to
> believe (or not) what I wish)
You can also believe whatever you want. But you have to recognize that I
approach the world on the basis of my beliefs. To do otherwise is to deny
my beliefs.
There is no point in carrying on this debate, I suppose, because I refuse
to accept the premise of your world view; as, no doubt, you do likewise.
Let us agree to disagree. But do recognize that I don't like the idea of
our government indoctrinating my children with ideas at odds with my own.
NormanM
> On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 16:56:57 GMT, NormanM
> <spamme...@immoral.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>>The concept that there are no dangerous ideas is a dangerous idea! ;)
>>
>>It is "a short step" from any idea to any actual implementation of the
>>idea. Jeffrey Dahlmer practiced erotic cannibalism.
>
> Really? So I'm a danger to society because I occasionally have -- and
> thoroughly enjoy -- wild sexual fantasies?
>
> Do you really mean to equate imagination with action?
I wonder. In the Army we had a saying; "You fight the way you train". The
whole point of training exercises was to condition the soldier to perform
the proper actions in combat. If it did not work that way, training would
be a wasted exercise. You may make of that whatever you wish.
OTOH, if you are right, and those "short steps" aren't so short, then why
make a big deal out of somebody's publication of a list of "dangerous"
books? The publication of the list is hardly more dangerous than your wild
sexual fantasies.
NormanM
> On Sat, 04 Jun 2005 04:26:52 GMT, NormanM
> <spamme...@immoral.invalid> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 20:10:00 -0400, Cliff wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 16:57:48 GMT, NormanM
>>> <spamme...@immoral.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 12:36:14 -0400, Cliff wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 04:27:43 GMT, NormanM
>>>>> <spamme...@immoral.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>I saw no mention that the books should be burned, or even banned
>>>>>
>>>>> They must have missed Harry Potter .....
>>>>
>>>>Or, maybe they know that he isn't a dangerous person.
>>>
>>> Lots of people burning the books.
>>> It's probably adding a bit to the sales figures.
>>
>>I don't know who.
>
> Searches will find them. Some of them, anyway.
If they were a serious threat, the SJMN would have covered it. The SJMN
covers a lot of politically incorrect activity, with their leftist elite
snoot in the air.
> Personally, I've burned one by Mortimer J. Adler. AFTER reading
> all ~800 or so pages.
> It was the best part of that book.
Your property, your right.
>>But if somebody buys their own books just to burn them,
>>well, their loss. The more they burn, the more they must buy, the more they
>>buy, the more the publishers print. Something of a losing proposition, this
>>book burning idea.
>
> Motels & hotels often have books ....
Do they burn them? Or just buy them?
>>We aren't talking about an environment where the books are being prevented
>>from being published;
>
> Actually, that's being tried as well. As is keeping them out of
> libraries, schools, etc.
Trying to prevent a book from being published in this country is
considerably like trying to piss up a rope. And it generally meets more
than enough resistance to be unsuccessful.
>>and nobody who is burning any books seems to be
>>wealth enough to by the entire print run.
>
> But they can buy the publishers ....
If the publishers are for sale...
NormanM
> On Sat, 04 Jun 2005 04:16:45 GMT, NormanM
> <spamme...@immoral.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>>> Got foorp?
>>
>>Trying to be cute? "Froop" indeed; if you puke on the floor, you should be
>>the one to clean it up.
>>
>>Just looking around me, at what the people really want to do. Being "good"
>>is unnatural.
>
> What people?
The ones who aren't "other than human".
> Define "good."
That is the rub. We will never agree, you and I, on what "good" is. I am
perfectly willing to let that be, but are you? Consider, I believe that
homosexual relationships are the moral equivalent of adulterous, bestial,
and incestuous relationships. I will enforce that belief where I have the
standing to do so; in my home, in my church. But not where I don't; as an
employer (with limited exceptions), as a landlord, etc.
Now there are those who will call me a "homophobe" for that statement. And
those who will attempt to impose sanctions on me for that, as well. So much
for diversity, eh?
> Specificity is a virtue; blanket statements are generally unwise.
Especially when we begin from opposite premises, I expect.
pkj...@aol.com
<spamme...@immoral.invalid> wrote:
>That is the rub. We will never agree, you and I, on what "good" is. I am
>perfectly willing to let that be, but are you? Consider, I believe that
>homosexual relationships are the moral equivalent of adulterous, bestial,
>and incestuous relationships. I will enforce that belief where I have the
>standing to do so; in my home, in my church. But not where I don't; as an
>employer (with limited exceptions), as a landlord, etc.
>
>Now there are those who will call me a "homophobe" for that statement.
Well, you are, just as you would be a racist if you thought
interracial marriages were an abomination. The thing is, since you
state that you wouldn't try to enforce your beliefs onto the rest of
us by passing laws, I'm fine with what you believe. I don't like it,
but you sound as if you are respectful of people who don't agree with
you.
And
>those who will attempt to impose sanctions on me for that, as well. So much
>for diversity, eh?
I have no desire to impose sanctions on you for your beliefs. My
problem is that so many people who agree with you want to impose
sanctions on me, i.e. pass laws that I believe are not only cruel but
immoral.
Elsewhere you said: But do recognize that I don't like the idea of
>our government indoctrinating my children with ideas at odds with my own.
On this point, we agree. I don't want my children being taught that
there's no difference between evolution and intelligent design. I
don't want my children growing up in a society that has state
sanctions against my friends. One friend from college has been living
with his partner for 26 years, one less year than I've been married.
I could go on and on about this, as I've had this conversation with my
cousin, who's very conservative but not at all religious. She
believes that laws should reflect a general consensus of society, as
opposed to blazing a trail ("activist judges")or whatever you want to
call it. But that leaves me in the same position as you, who doesn't
want the government indoctrinating my children with ideas at odds with
my own.
I don't see any solution on the horizon, which kind of scares me, at
times.
Cliff
<spamme...@immoral.invalid> wrote:
>On Sat, 04 Jun 2005 09:51:08 -0400, Cliff wrote:
>
>> Define "good" then. Compare & contrast to "sin".
>> Provide foorp.
>
>Define "foorp". Your attempt at "cute" is pathetic.
It's rather self evident.
You don't seem to have any of even that <G>.
>> Now consider ethics ...
>
>Whose?
??
--
Cliff
Cliff
<spamme...@immoral.invalid> wrote:
>On Sat, 04 Jun 2005 09:57:27 -0400, Cliff wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 04 Jun 2005 04:26:52 GMT, NormanM
>> <spamme...@immoral.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 20:10:00 -0400, Cliff wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 16:57:48 GMT, NormanM
>>>> <spamme...@immoral.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 12:36:14 -0400, Cliff wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 04:27:43 GMT, NormanM
>>>>>> <spamme...@immoral.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I saw no mention that the books should be burned, or even banned
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They must have missed Harry Potter .....
>>>>>
>>>>>Or, maybe they know that he isn't a dangerous person.
>>>>
>>>> Lots of people burning the books.
>>>> It's probably adding a bit to the sales figures.
>>>
>>>I don't know who.
>>
>> Searches will find them. Some of them, anyway.
>
>If they were a serious threat,
To wingers? To thumpers? To whom, exactly?
>the SJMN would have covered it. The SJMN
>covers a lot of politically incorrect activity, with their leftist elite
>snoot in the air.
??
They can read & write?
>> Personally, I've burned one by Mortimer J. Adler. AFTER reading
>> all ~800 or so pages.
>> It was the best part of that book.
>
>Your property, your right.
You've probably not read the book in question.
>>>But if somebody buys their own books just to burn them,
>>>well, their loss. The more they burn, the more they must buy, the more they
>>>buy, the more the publishers print. Something of a losing proposition, this
>>>book burning idea.
>>
>> Motels & hotels often have books ....
>
>Do they burn them? Or just buy them?
>
>>>We aren't talking about an environment where the books are being prevented
>>>from being published;
>>
>> Actually, that's being tried as well. As is keeping them out of
>> libraries, schools, etc.
>
>Trying to prevent a book from being published in this country is
>considerably like trying to piss up a rope. And it generally meets more
>than enough resistance to be unsuccessful.
There are lists maintained by the publishers & librarians of such
attempts, some of which probably worked.
Even just printing a few copies may not matter if nobody can get
them.
>>>and nobody who is burning any books seems to be
>>>wealth enough to by the entire print run.
>>
>> But they can buy the publishers ....
>
>If the publishers are for sale...
--
Cliff
Cliff
<spamme...@immoral.invalid> wrote:
>On Sat, 04 Jun 2005 08:26:38 GMT, DaveG wrote:
>
>> Not being religious, then I, for one am not a sinner so your
>> premise there is way off course. You can believe what you want. I don't
>> have a problem with that so long as it doesn't infringe on my right to
>> believe (or not) what I wish)
>
>You can also believe whatever you want. But you have to recognize that I
>approach the world on the basis of my beliefs. To do otherwise is to deny
>my beliefs.
What actual "evidence" do you have to support these superstitions?
>
>There is no point in carrying on this debate, I suppose, because I refuse
>to accept the premise of your world view; as, no doubt, you do likewise.
None, so it seems.
>Let us agree to disagree. But do recognize that I don't like the idea of
>our government indoctrinating my children with ideas at odds with my own.
Truth, beauty .....
--
Cliff
Cliff
<spamme...@immoral.invalid> wrote:
>On Sat, 04 Jun 2005 07:16:35 -0400, TyMeDwn1st wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 16:56:57 GMT, NormanM
>> <spamme...@immoral.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>The concept that there are no dangerous ideas is a dangerous idea! ;)
>>>
>>>It is "a short step" from any idea to any actual implementation of the
>>>idea. Jeffrey Dahlmer practiced erotic cannibalism.
>>
>> Really? So I'm a danger to society because I occasionally have -- and
>> thoroughly enjoy -- wild sexual fantasies?
>>
>> Do you really mean to equate imagination with action?
>
>I wonder. In the Army we had a saying; "You fight the way you train". The
>whole point of training exercises was to condition the soldier to perform
>the proper actions in combat. If it did not work that way, training would
>be a wasted exercise. You may make of that whatever you wish.
Kill a commie for jesus?
Mind control at an early age, usually, with a large dose of brain
scrubbing.
>OTOH, if you are right, and those "short steps" aren't so short, then why
>make a big deal out of somebody's publication of a list of "dangerous"
>books? The publication of the list is hardly more dangerous than your wild
>sexual fantasies.
So it's about the publication (or even mention) of the list, is it?
Should they just be banned in secret?
--
Cliff
Cliff
>On Sat, 04 Jun 2005 07:19:15 -0400, TyMeDwn1st wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 04 Jun 2005 04:16:45 GMT, NormanM
>> <spamme...@immoral.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> Got foorp?
>>>
>>>Trying to be cute? "Froop" indeed; if you puke on the floor, you should be
>>>the one to clean it up.
>>>
>>>Just looking around me, at what the people really want to do. Being "good"
>>>is unnatural.
>>
>> What people?
>
>The ones who aren't "other than human".
That's rather nonsencical. You get to define them & kill any
that don't fit, right?
Or work it the other way & be certain ....
>> Define "good."
>
>That is the rub. We will never agree, you and I, on what "good" is. I am
>perfectly willing to let that be, but are you?
Probably not while you are making such judgements but then say
that you cannot define .......
>Consider, I believe that
>homosexual relationships are the moral equivalent of adulterous, bestial,
>and incestuous relationships.
Define "moral".
What priest do you listen to?
>I will enforce that belief where I have the
>standing to do so; in my home, in my church. But not where I don't; as an
>employer (with limited exceptions), as a landlord, etc.
So it's not actually anything to do with "moral"?
>Now there are those who will call me a "homophobe" for that statement. And
>those who will attempt to impose sanctions on me for that, as well. So much
>for diversity, eh?
You seem very opposed to it.
>> Specificity is a virtue; blanket statements are generally unwise.
>
>Especially when we begin from opposite premises, I expect.
Is that another blanket statement?
--
Cliff
TyMeDwn1st
<spamme...@immoral.invalid> wrote:
>On Sat, 04 Jun 2005 07:16:35 -0400, TyMeDwn1st wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 16:56:57 GMT, NormanM
>> <spamme...@immoral.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>The concept that there are no dangerous ideas is a dangerous idea! ;)
>>>
>>>It is "a short step" from any idea to any actual implementation of the
>>>idea. Jeffrey Dahlmer practiced erotic cannibalism.
>>
>> Really? So I'm a danger to society because I occasionally have -- and
>> thoroughly enjoy -- wild sexual fantasies?
>>
>> Do you really mean to equate imagination with action?
>
>I wonder. In the Army we had a saying; "You fight the way you train". The
>whole point of training exercises was to condition the soldier to perform
>the proper actions in combat. If it did not work that way, training would
>be a wasted exercise. You may make of that whatever you wish.
>
>OTOH, if you are right, and those "short steps" aren't so short, then why
>make a big deal out of somebody's publication of a list of "dangerous"
>books? The publication of the list is hardly more dangerous than your wild
>sexual fantasies.
You must have me confused with someone else. I don't recall
commenting at all on the book list itself.
TyMeDwn1st
<spamme...@immoral.invalid> wrote:
>> Define "good."
>
>That is the rub. We will never agree, you and I, on what "good" is. I am
>perfectly willing to let that be, but are you? Consider, I believe that
>homosexual relationships are the moral equivalent of adulterous, bestial,
>and incestuous relationships. I will enforce that belief where I have the
>standing to do so; in my home, in my church. But not where I don't; as an
>employer (with limited exceptions), as a landlord, etc.
Please watch out for toads falling from the sky and other possible
omens of the end of the world, but you and I agree on something: your
values are yours and you have an unequivocal right to [attempt] to
enforce them where you have standing to do so. I have no quarrel or
quibble about that at all.
>Now there are those who will call me a "homophobe" for that statement. And
>those who will attempt to impose sanctions on me for that, as well.
When I was politicking <hawk><spit> for a living, I used to deal
routinely with similar problems. Many of my cohorts wasted time and
energy trying to convert our political opponents to our point of view.
I really didn't -- and don't -- care what someone's viewpoint was; I
cared only about how they *voted.* I sought out the politicians who
were able to understand that there is often a difference between
private morality and sound public policy.
>So much
>for diversity, eh?
Unfortunately, the folks who most frequently make that same sort of
statement ("You claim to be tolerant but you don't want me to follow
my beliefs!") are most often engaged in efforts to keep me from
following my own beliefs.
In that situation, no. I will not be guilt tripped into "tolerating"
efforts to enact religious views into secular law.
Shat T. Cat
<spamme...@immoral.invalid> wrote:
>But do recognize that I don't like the idea of our government indoctrinating
>my children with ideas at odds with my own.
I think Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida would agree with you on this.
--
Shat T Cat - Creature of Cyberspace
"In Fluffy We Trust"
DaveG
> There is no point in carrying on this debate, I suppose, because I refuse
> to accept the premise of your world view; as, no doubt, you do likewise.
> Let us agree to disagree.
Yep, that's fine by me. I just wish more people would do as we have just
done :-)
> But do recognize that I don't like the idea of
> our government indoctrinating my children with ideas at odds with my own.
Oh yes. Government should stay well out of religious matters (and other
areas they stick their unwanted noses into)
DaveG
>>You can also believe whatever you want. But you have to recognize that I
>>approach the world on the basis of my beliefs. To do otherwise is to deny
>>my beliefs.
>
> What actual "evidence" do you have to support these superstitions?
That's not the point Cliff. The point is that he is free to believe what
he wants, just as you are. So long as neither he nor you try to force
your beliefs on others then we'll all get along just fine.
Monika Krug
> NormanM wrote:
>
>>our government indoctrinating my children with ideas at odds with my own.
>
> On this point, we agree.
I tend to agree, but how to prevent this without banning all social
science classes from school?
Monika.
--
All wars are civil wars, because all men are brothers ... Each one owes
infinitely more to the human race than to the particular country in
which he was born. - Francois Fenelon, theologian and writer (1651-1715)
E-mail address is valid until 4 weeks after the expiration date. Use
@arcor.de instead.
Monika Krug
> The neocons have broken & abrogated so many treaties & international
> agreements that the US cannot be trusted for anything anymore. Except
> to sell arms ...
Indeed.
Monika Krug
> Your property, your right.
Flag burning, should it be legal or illegal? Just interested.
Cliff
<monik...@expires-2005-06-30.arcornews.de> wrote:
>NormanM schrieb:
>
>> Your property, your right.
>
>Flag burning, should it be legal or illegal? Just interested.
Has to be legal. Bible burning too.
--
Cliff
Cliff
If he has any "evidence" ..... otherwise any random superstition
is about as good as any other.
Think of it in terms of predicate logic where no terms have meaning,
no operators are logical (or repeatable) and people kill millions
of each other over such absurdities ..... A+B=C ... TRUE or FALSE?
But nobody knows what A,B or C are or what "+" & "=" do either ..
Kill a commie for "+"?
--
Cliff
Cliff
<Shat...@WarmPost.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 05 Jun 2005 02:29:43 GMT, NormanM
><spamme...@immoral.invalid> wrote:
>
>>But do recognize that I don't like the idea of our government indoctrinating
>>my children with ideas at odds with my own.
>
> I think Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida would agree with you on this.
They probably have more freedom of & from religion than he'll
allow his kids.
Their major gripes had to do with US bases & US support
(like the recent 5,000 smart bombs to be used on guess who)
for Israel AFAIK.
--
Cliff
Cliff
>On Sun, 05 Jun 2005 03:29:43 +0000, NormanM wrote:
>
>> There is no point in carrying on this debate, I suppose, because I refuse
>> to accept the premise of your world view; as, no doubt, you do likewise.
>> Let us agree to disagree.
>
>Yep, that's fine by me. I just wish more people would do as we have just
>done :-)
Robertson, Falwell, Rush, bush & crew will happily tell him
which ways to vote & what to think & do.
The rest of us should be able to do that too as he cannot even
question the first four.
--
Cliff
Cliff
<monik...@expires-2005-06-30.arcornews.de> wrote:
>pkj...@aol.com schrieb:
>
>> NormanM wrote:
>>
>>>our government indoctrinating my children with ideas at odds with my own.
>>
>> On this point, we agree.
>
>I tend to agree, but how to prevent this without banning all social
>science classes from school?
He'd probably like to make Pi == 3 as well.
And forgets the Scopes "monkey trial".
IF he had his way all kids would "learn" is what *he*
decides to tell them .... right or wrong .... thinking for
themselves would be prohibited .... and their heads
would be filled wth so much "could be" & "Norman sez" mush
instead of biology, logic, reason, etc. that even nuns would
be worried.
--
Cliff
--
Cliff
DaveG
Which is why I said "So long as neither he nor you try to force
your beliefs on others then we'll all get along just fine."
Those who do try to force their beliefs on others are the cause of most
if not all of the worlds troubles.
Darrell Stec
Clhu...@aol.com wrote:
This has been posted before, but perhaps it is time for it again:
<a href="http://funnystrange.com/quiz/">http://funnystrange.com/quiz/>/a>
--
Later,
Darrell Stec dar...@neo.rr.com
Webpage Sorcery
http://webpagesorcery.com
We Put the Magic in Your Webpages
Cliff
<darrel...@webpagesorcery.com> wrote:
>http://funnystrange.com/quiz/
TNX. I stole it too ......
--
Cliff
NormanM
> He'd probably like to make Pi == 3 as well.
> And forgets the Scopes "monkey trial".
> IF he had his way all kids would "learn" is what *he*
> decides to tell them .... right or wrong .... thinking for
> themselves would be prohibited .... and their heads
> would be filled wth so much "could be" & "Norman sez" mush
> instead of biology, logic, reason, etc. that even nuns would
> be worried.
Such bigotry! We have hassled that "Pi == 3" bullshit to death. You are, of
course, wrong. But too bullheaded to admit it. The Bible does not state, as
a matter of doctrine, anything about the value of 'pi', or the value of
'e', or the value of any other natural constant.
The Scopes "monkey trial" proved what? That evolution is science? That it
is true? Or that the government should teach it exclusively in the schools?
The fact that it was the latter changes nothing about the other concepts.
Also, if your attorney could prove to a judge that calling a dog's tail a
leg, we would all have to know that all dogs now have five legs. Talk about
"pi=3"!
If I had my way, kids would learn to think for themselves. They would not
be indoctrinated by the state that my religion is "superstitious myth".
They would not be indoctrinated by the state that my religion teaches a
"young earth, creation in seven literal 24-hour days". They would not be
indoctrinated by the state that God does not exist.
NormanM
> On Sun, 05 Jun 2005 02:44:23 GMT, NormanM
> <spamme...@immoral.invalid> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 04 Jun 2005 07:19:15 -0400, TyMeDwn1st wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 04 Jun 2005 04:16:45 GMT, NormanM
>>> <spamme...@immoral.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>> Got foorp?
>>>>
>>>>Trying to be cute? "Froop" indeed; if you puke on the floor, you should be
>>>>the one to clean it up.
>>>>
>>>>Just looking around me, at what the people really want to do. Being "good"
>>>>is unnatural.
>>>
>>> What people?
>>
>>The ones who aren't "other than human".
>
> That's rather nonsencical. You get to define them & kill any
> that don't fit, right?
> Or work it the other way & be certain ....
There is only one sensible definition of human. Any being who isn't, say,
of 'canis', 'bovine', 'equine', etc. persuasion. Or, in biological taxonomy
terms, people are of the persuasion, 'homo sapiens sapiens'.
>>> Define "good."
>>
>>That is the rub. We will never agree, you and I, on what "good" is. I am
>>perfectly willing to let that be, but are you?
>
> Probably not while you are making such judgements but then say
> that you cannot define .......
What is "good", for my POV, hinges on Christian doctrine. Regardless of
your ignorance of the matter, I am required to not judge non-Christians by
Christian standards. So, unless we can agree to use Christian standards of
"good", we will never be able to agree on what is "good".
>>Consider, I believe that
>>homosexual relationships are the moral equivalent of adulterous, bestial,
>>and incestuous relationships.
>
> Define "moral".
Don't you have a dictionary?
> What priest do you listen to?
The Highest One there is.
>>I will enforce that belief where I have the
>>standing to do so; in my home, in my church. But not where I don't; as an
>>employer (with limited exceptions), as a landlord, etc.
> So it's not actually anything to do with "moral"?
I am also required, believe it or not, to submit to the authority of the
state. In which case, if the state declares that I can't discriminate in
housing based on moral character, then I can't discriminate in housing
based on moral character. Also, if the state determines to sanction me for
being a "homophobe", then I would have to accept state sanction. Even if it
was to be shot at sunrise.
>>Now there are those who will call me a "homophobe" for that statement. And
>>those who will attempt to impose sanctions on me for that, as well. So much
>>for diversity, eh?
> You seem very opposed to it.
Only to those who choose not to see. I have no problem with homosexuals
having homosexual relationships. But I have a problem with homosexuals in
homosexual relationships claiming that they have God's blessings, when they
clearly don't, if the Bible is correct; which, as a matter of course, I do
believe.
A pastor, in an actively homosexual relationship, has no standing to
counsel me on the morality of my sexual desires, because he is living the
sexual morality I would live; if it wasn't a mortal sin in God's eyes, and
a crime in my state.
>>> Specificity is a virtue; blanket statements are generally unwise.
>>
>>Especially when we begin from opposite premises, I expect.
>
> Is that another blanket statement?
Nothing blank about it...
NormanM
> On Sun, 05 Jun 2005 02:44:23 GMT, NormanM
> <spamme...@immoral.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>>> Define "good."
>>
>>That is the rub. We will never agree, you and I, on what "good" is. I am
>>perfectly willing to let that be, but are you? Consider, I believe that
>>homosexual relationships are the moral equivalent of adulterous, bestial,
>>and incestuous relationships. I will enforce that belief where I have the
>>standing to do so; in my home, in my church. But not where I don't; as an
>>employer (with limited exceptions), as a landlord, etc.
>
> Please watch out for toads falling from the sky and other possible
> omens of the end of the world...
It isn't the toads falling from the sky which signal the end times...
> but you and I agree on something: your
> values are yours and you have an unequivocal right to [attempt] to
> enforce them where you have standing to do so. I have no quarrel or
> quibble about that at all.
And yet...
>>Now there are those who will call me a "homophobe" for that statement. And
>>those who will attempt to impose sanctions on me for that, as well.
>
> When I was politicking <hawk><spit> for a living, I used to deal
> routinely with similar problems. Many of my cohorts wasted time and
> energy trying to convert our political opponents to our point of view.
> I really didn't -- and don't -- care what someone's viewpoint was; I
> cared only about how they *voted.* I sought out the politicians who
> were able to understand that there is often a difference between
> private morality and sound public policy.
Sound public policy includes indoctrination of my children that homosexual
relations are morally acceptable at the same time that we will imprison
consenting adults for incestuous relations? I know none of the 50 states,
and D.C., where incest between consenting adults is legal.
>>So much for diversity, eh?
>
> Unfortunately, the folks who most frequently make that same sort of
> statement ("You claim to be tolerant but you don't want me to follow
> my beliefs!") are most often engaged in efforts to keep me from
> following my own beliefs.
Which makes me one of them? Ah, isn't tolerance a wonderful thing!
> In that situation, no. I will not be guilt tripped into "tolerating"
> efforts to enact religious views into secular law.
I will not be guilt tripped into accepting secular law which sanctions
people for holding forth their religious beliefs, or interferes with their
right to practice there religion; including what they will allow their
children to be taught in the public schools.
NormanM
> On Sun, 05 Jun 2005 02:44:23 GMT, NormanM
> <spamme...@immoral.invalid> wrote:
>
>>That is the rub. We will never agree, you and I, on what "good" is. I am
>>perfectly willing to let that be, but are you? Consider, I believe that
>>homosexual relationships are the moral equivalent of adulterous, bestial,
>>and incestuous relationships. I will enforce that belief where I have the
>>standing to do so; in my home, in my church. But not where I don't; as an
>>employer (with limited exceptions), as a landlord, etc.
>>
>>Now there are those who will call me a "homophobe" for that statement.
>
> Well, you are, just as you would be a racist if you thought
> interracial marriages were an abomination.
Homosexuality is not the same as race. If it like anything at all, it is
like hemophilia.
I believe that adulterous relationships are sinful; am I an "adulterphobe"?
I believe that bestial relationships are sinful; am I a "bestiophobe"?
I believe that incestuous relationships are sinful; am I an "incestophobe"?
Oddly, given the choice, and postulating that neither God, nor the state,
disapproved, I'd rather have an incestuous relationship than a homosexual
relationship.
OTOH, knowing the sinful nature of that desire, and knowing that, in my
state (California), I would be imprisoned for executing that desire, even
though the partner is of the age of consent (she is), it galls me that
homosexuals are not also pushing for allowing siblings to marry. Or even
just pushing to legalize incest.
> The thing is, since you
> state that you wouldn't try to enforce your beliefs onto the rest of
> us by passing laws, I'm fine with what you believe. I don't like it,
> but you sound as if you are respectful of people who don't agree with
> you.
>
> And
>>those who will attempt to impose sanctions on me for that, as well. So much
>>for diversity, eh?
>
> I have no desire to impose sanctions on you for your beliefs. My
> problem is that so many people who agree with you want to impose
> sanctions on me, i.e. pass laws that I believe are not only cruel but
> immoral.
Let's see; hate crime laws, the description of ideas at odds with post
modern humanist ideology as hate speech, etc. Nobody who agrees with me is
pushing for those. Those will, and do, impose sanctions on my, and my
friends.
> Elsewhere you said: But do recognize that I don't like the idea of
>>our government indoctrinating my children with ideas at odds with my own.
>
> On this point, we agree. I don't want my children being taught that
> there's no difference between evolution and intelligent design. I
> don't want my children growing up in a society that has state
> sanctions against my friends. One friend from college has been living
> with his partner for 26 years, one less year than I've been married.
We also have sanctions against adulterous, bestial, and incestuous
marriage. If you would be true to your beliefs, you would either advocate
legalization of those, as well, or just get the state out of the marriage
business altogether.
> I could go on and on about this, as I've had this conversation with my
> cousin, who's very conservative but not at all religious. She
> believes that laws should reflect a general consensus of society, as
> opposed to blazing a trail ("activist judges")or whatever you want to
> call it. But that leaves me in the same position as you, who doesn't
> want the government indoctrinating my children with ideas at odds with
> my own.
>
> I don't see any solution on the horizon, which kind of scares me, at
> times.
You and me both. There was a time when the Puritans left a place where they
were at odds with the hedonists. Alas, the hedonists have followed them,
and there appears to be no place else for the Puritans to go. I think it
would have been better if we just left things at the Puritans live here,
and the hedonists live there.
NormanM
> pkj...@aol.com schrieb:
>
>> NormanM wrote:
>>
>>>our government indoctrinating my children with ideas at odds with my own.
>>
>> On this point, we agree.
>
> I tend to agree, but how to prevent this without banning all social
> science classes from school?
>
> Monika.
It would help, some, if the social science classes could discuss the
various social ideologies in a non-judgmental fashion. But I spent my high
school years hearing nothing but negative commentary on my religious
beliefs. It continues to this day; i.e., "Christianity is responsible for
more human misery than any other belief". That is both negative judgment,
and provably wrong.
Nobody's hands are clean. Humanist, who believe in the inherent "goodness"
of humanity, tend to look for external agents which have deviated the state
of humanity. As a Christian, though, I know that the deviated state of
humanity is not a result of any external agency, but the internal foibles
of human beings.
Look at the history of every nation, at every time in history. The Japanese
displaced an older people in those islands; some of those displaced people
have survived to this day. Not so the original inhabitants of Eire, who
were completely obliterated by the Celts, the ancestors of the modern
Irish.
The Celts were displaced by a migration of Germanic people from the east,
who were, in turn, displaced by a Slavic migration, who were displaced
by...
Everybody who is a "victimizer" today, was a "victim" yesterday. The
Hindus, the Buddhists; you will find them to be quite intolerant, if you
look closely enough. The reason that India is not as Muslim as Pakistan is
because a Hindu leader got his dander up at the Islamic wave of invasion
heading his way.
Humanity is a pox on the Earth, and if I wasn't tempered by Christian hope
that God will, eventually, impose His Will, I would probably be a nihlist,
hoping for the ultimate destruction of humankind. We are more trouble than
we are worth. What are we worth? 90% H_2_O and $3.48US worth of odd
chemicals?
NormanM
> On Sun, 05 Jun 2005 02:29:43 GMT, NormanM
> <spamme...@immoral.invalid> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 04 Jun 2005 08:26:38 GMT, DaveG wrote:
>>
>>> Not being religious, then I, for one am not a sinner so your
>>> premise there is way off course. You can believe what you want. I don't
>>> have a problem with that so long as it doesn't infringe on my right to
>>> believe (or not) what I wish)
>>
>>You can also believe whatever you want. But you have to recognize that I
>>approach the world on the basis of my beliefs. To do otherwise is to deny
>>my beliefs.
>
> What actual "evidence" do you have to support these superstitions?
I thought that a "superstition" was a belief in some kind of supernatural
'quid pro quo'; if I do something to appease the gods, they will favor me
with their blessings. I am not like that.
My assertion of the sinful nature of humanity lies in the actions of the
members of the species 'homo sapiens sapiens'. They tend to act in ways
that work against others, and themselves, without some kind of external
influence. Whether secular law, or supernatural. Secular law, however is
kind of like recursion.
>>
>>There is no point in carrying on this debate, I suppose, because I refuse
>>to accept the premise of your world view; as, no doubt, you do likewise.
>
> None, so it seems.
>
>>Let us agree to disagree. But do recognize that I don't like the idea of
>>our government indoctrinating my children with ideas at odds with my own.
>
> Truth, beauty .....
Insanity, psychosis...
NormanM
And that includes trying to assert some kind of post modern secular
morality on my children, in opposition to the Christian morality I am
trying to instill in them.
"The Separation of Church and State" also means the government must not
interfere with the practice of religion.
TyMeDwn1st
Forget what I said earlier. You are dangerous to my freedom. <plonk>
NormanM
> On Sun, 05 Jun 2005 02:34:14 GMT, NormanM
> <spamme...@immoral.invalid> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 04 Jun 2005 07:16:35 -0400, TyMeDwn1st wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 16:56:57 GMT, NormanM
>>> <spamme...@immoral.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>The concept that there are no dangerous ideas is a dangerous idea! ;)
>>>>
>>>>It is "a short step" from any idea to any actual implementation of the
>>>>idea. Jeffrey Dahlmer practiced erotic cannibalism.
>>>
>>> Really? So I'm a danger to society because I occasionally have -- and
>>> thoroughly enjoy -- wild sexual fantasies?
>>>
>>> Do you really mean to equate imagination with action?
>>
>>I wonder. In the Army we had a saying; "You fight the way you train". The
>>whole point of training exercises was to condition the soldier to perform
>>the proper actions in combat. If it did not work that way, training would
>>be a wasted exercise. You may make of that whatever you wish.
>>
>>OTOH, if you are right, and those "short steps" aren't so short, then why
>>make a big deal out of somebody's publication of a list of "dangerous"
>>books? The publication of the list is hardly more dangerous than your wild
>>sexual fantasies.
>
> You must have me confused with someone else. I don't recall
> commenting at all on the book list itself.
Not at all. The whole thread started with the list of books. The idea that
the list was a "short step" from book burning came up in the discussion;
the idea of a "short step" from imagination (that those books are
dangerous) to action (let's burn those books).
You probably neglected to bring the proper equipment when treading in this
minefield! ;)
NormanM
> On Sun, 05 Jun 2005 02:34:14 GMT, NormanM
> <spamme...@immoral.invalid> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 04 Jun 2005 07:16:35 -0400, TyMeDwn1st wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 16:56:57 GMT, NormanM
>>> <spamme...@immoral.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>The concept that there are no dangerous ideas is a dangerous idea! ;)
>>>>
>>>>It is "a short step" from any idea to any actual implementation of the
>>>>idea. Jeffrey Dahlmer practiced erotic cannibalism.
>>>
>>> Really? So I'm a danger to society because I occasionally have -- and
>>> thoroughly enjoy -- wild sexual fantasies?
>>>
>>> Do you really mean to equate imagination with action?
>>
>>I wonder. In the Army we had a saying; "You fight the way you train". The
>>whole point of training exercises was to condition the soldier to perform
>>the proper actions in combat. If it did not work that way, training would
>>be a wasted exercise. You may make of that whatever you wish.
>
> Kill a commie for jesus?
It was a disgusting idea when I saw the bus driver wearing the button in
1966. It has not improved with age. It does, however, show the depth of
your ignorance, and prejudice, about me, and my faith.
> Mind control at an early age, usually, with a large dose of brain
> scrubbing.
All education appears to be just that, if you are an absolute cynic. That
the natural world is all that you would acknowledge does not make it the
only world to consider.
>>OTOH, if you are right, and those "short steps" aren't so short, then why
>>make a big deal out of somebody's publication of a list of "dangerous"
>>books? The publication of the list is hardly more dangerous than your wild
>>sexual fantasies.
>
> So it's about the publication (or even mention) of the list, is it?
> Should they just be banned in secret?
I suppose that we should ban the list, not the books? But how is banning
the list different from banning the books?
NormanM
> NormanM schrieb:
>
>> Your property, your right.
>
> Flag burning, should it be legal or illegal? Just interested.
>
> Monika.
I don't see that as an issue. The only illegal aspects about flag burning
involve matters of public safety. I almost set of a firestorm by burning
some photos, once. My photos, my right; but what about the neighbors, who
could have lost their homes?
Or private property. Bring your own flag to the protest, and burn it in
such a matter that it won't torch the neighborhood; it would seem to me
(not a constitutional lawyer) that, in the U.S.A., anyway, the action is
constitutionally protected. But remove my flag from my flagstaff to burn
it? Theft, and possibly criminal tresspass. Probably malicious mischief, as
well.
Oh, and I have not considered the environmental aspects; don't burn the
flag on a "no burn" day?
NormanM
And flushing the pages of the Koran (or should I write, Quran?), as well.
Ever notice something odd? Desecrate symbols of Christianity (Andres
Serrano's "Piss Christ", Martin Scorsese's "The Last Temptation of Christ",
Chris Ofili's "The Virgin Mary"), and there is not riot one anywhere in the
entire world. Nobody is killed, or injured; just a handful of people
ranting about the insensitivity of the art. Some of it even funded by the
U.S. Government (1st Amendment issue, I should think).
Flush one page of the Koran down the toilet and Muslims by the thousand
rise up in a riotous rage, leading to a score of deaths, and hundreds of
injuries.
Just commenting...
NormanM
> I am quite willing to have a reasoned discussion with you. But, if
> you resort to Karl Rove tactics of character assassination,
> misrepresentation, and twisting of words, I shall have to ignore your
> rightwing rantings.
Um...didn't you "plonk" me? Just asking.
Darrell Stec
spamme...@immoral.invalid wrote:
> Desecrate symbols of Christianity (Andres
> Serrano's "Piss Christ", Martin Scorsese's "The Last Temptation of
> Christ", Chris Ofili's "The Virgin Mary"), and there is not riot one
> anywhere in the entire world.
The Last Temptation of Christ is perhaps the greatest tribute to your Jesus
that has until its publishing been written. It is tragic, to epidemic
proportions, that most Christians are too stupid and too ignorant to
realize that.
It is the story of a son of god, truly human in every way with all human
desires, follows not his own desires but the will of his father in heaven.
And he does so even under the most vehement attack of his protagonist who
understands the human condition all too well.
For the son's death to have any meaning he would have had to be fully human
and not in touch with his fully god nature. Otherwise what meaning would a
few hours of suffering and a quick death have for a god who is also his own
son? Most women suffer far more in giving birth, and so too do many cancer
victims.
If you read the story, which I doubt, you understood nothing of what you
read Either that or you understand nothing of your own religion.
Cliff
<spamme...@immoral.invalid> wrote:
>Flush one page of the Koran down the toilet and Muslims by the thousand
>rise up in a riotous rage, leading to a score of deaths, and hundreds of
>injuries.
>
>Just commenting...
Equally silly but for the intended outcome: government sponsored
torture & terrorism as a matter of neocon policy.
It's not as if they could leave ....
--
Cliff
Cliff
<darrel...@webpagesorcery.com> wrote:
>It is the story of a son of god
Which relative of which "god"?
--
Cliff
Cliff
<spamme...@immoral.invalid> wrote:
>On Sun, 05 Jun 2005 15:42:39 -0400, Cliff wrote:
>
>> He'd probably like to make Pi == 3 as well.
>> And forgets the Scopes "monkey trial".
>> IF he had his way all kids would "learn" is what *he*
>> decides to tell them .... right or wrong .... thinking for
>> themselves would be prohibited .... and their heads
>> would be filled wth so much "could be" & "Norman sez" mush
>> instead of biology, logic, reason, etc. that even nuns would
>> be worried.
>
>Such bigotry! We have hassled that "Pi == 3" bullshit to death. You are, of
>course, wrong. But too bullheaded to admit it. The Bible does not state, as
>a matter of doctrine, anything about the value of 'pi', or the value of
>'e', or the value of any other natural constant.
Gee, were the gods too ignorant to know of such?
>The Scopes "monkey trial" proved what? That evolution is science? That it
>is true? Or that the government should teach it exclusively in the schools?
>The fact that it was the latter changes nothing about the other concepts.
Umm ...... Scopes was convicted.
>Also, if your attorney could prove to a judge that calling a dog's tail a
>leg, we would all have to know that all dogs now have five legs. Talk about
>"pi=3"!
But of all that matters is your own values you can make them
anything at all.
You could even have nice litte wars between the Pi=3 and the Pi=2
camps.
>If I had my way, kids would learn to think for themselves. They would not
>be indoctrinated by the state that my religion is "superstitious myth".
What superstition is yours?
>They would not be indoctrinated by the state that my religion teaches a
>"young earth, creation in seven literal 24-hour days".
So all your books & sayings are wrong?
>They would not be
>indoctrinated by the state that God does not exist.
Got foorp?
Which ones should they claim?
--
Cliff
Cliff
<spamme...@immoral.invalid> wrote:
>On Sun, 05 Jun 2005 05:28:28 -0400, Cliff wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 05 Jun 2005 02:44:23 GMT, NormanM
>> <spamme...@immoral.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 04 Jun 2005 07:19:15 -0400, TyMeDwn1st wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 04 Jun 2005 04:16:45 GMT, NormanM
>>>> <spamme...@immoral.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> Got foorp?
>>>>>
>>>>>Trying to be cute? "Froop" indeed; if you puke on the floor, you should be
>>>>>the one to clean it up.
>>>>>
>>>>>Just looking around me, at what the people really want to do. Being "good"
>>>>>is unnatural.
>>>>
>>>> What people?
>>>
>>>The ones who aren't "other than human".
>>
>> That's rather nonsencical. You get to define them & kill any
>> that don't fit, right?
>> Or work it the other way & be certain ....
>
>There is only one sensible definition of human. Any being who isn't, say,
>of 'canis', 'bovine', 'equine', etc. persuasion. Or, in biological taxonomy
>terms, people are of the persuasion, 'homo sapiens sapiens'.
Somewhat evasive.
>>>> Define "good."
>>>
>>>That is the rub. We will never agree, you and I, on what "good" is. I am
>>>perfectly willing to let that be, but are you?
>>
>> Probably not while you are making such judgements but then say
>> that you cannot define .......
>
>What is "good", for my POV, hinges on Christian doctrine. Regardless of
>your ignorance of the matter, I am required to not judge non-Christians by
>Christian standards. So, unless we can agree to use Christian standards of
>"good", we will never be able to agree on what is "good".
So such exists only in your superstition, hence "good" is also a
superstition.
Odd how that works.
>>>Consider, I believe that
>>>homosexual relationships are the moral equivalent of adulterous, bestial,
>>>and incestuous relationships.
>>
>> Define "moral".
>
>Don't you have a dictionary?
Define "moral".
>> What priest do you listen to?
>
>The Highest One there is.
Hearing voices?
>>>I will enforce that belief where I have the
>>>standing to do so; in my home, in my church. But not where I don't; as an
>>>employer (with limited exceptions), as a landlord, etc.
>
>> So it's not actually anything to do with "moral"?
>
>I am also required, believe it or not, to submit to the authority of the
>state. In which case, if the state declares that I can't discriminate in
>housing based on moral character, then I can't discriminate in housing
>based on moral character. Also, if the state determines to sanction me for
>being a "homophobe", then I would have to accept state sanction. Even if it
>was to be shot at sunrise.
So it's not actually anything to do with "moral"?
>>>Now there are those who will call me a "homophobe" for that statement. And
>>>those who will attempt to impose sanctions on me for that, as well. So much
>>>for diversity, eh?
>
>> You seem very opposed to it.
>
>Only to those who choose not to see. I have no problem with homosexuals
>having homosexual relationships. But I have a problem with homosexuals in
>homosexual relationships claiming that they have God's blessings, when they
>clearly don't,
Which superstition says so?
>if the Bible is correct; which, as a matter of course, I do
>believe.
But you just said that it was wrong.
>A pastor, in an actively homosexual relationship, has no standing to
>counsel me on the morality of my sexual desires,
Really worried about them, eh?
>because he is living the
>sexual morality I would live;
??
>if it wasn't a mortal sin in God's eyes, and
>a crime in my state.
Bad laws do not a mushroom make.
>>>> Specificity is a virtue; blanket statements are generally unwise.
>>>
>>>Especially when we begin from opposite premises, I expect.
>>
>> Is that another blanket statement?
>
>Nothing blank about it...
Must have been the look then.
--
Cliff
Cliff
<spamme...@immoral.invalid> wrote:
>It isn't the toads falling from the sky which signal the end times...
Falwell & crew, eh?
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/strong1.html
--
Cliff
Cliff
<spamme...@immoral.invalid> wrote:
>>>Now there are those who will call me a "homophobe" for that statement. And
>>>those who will attempt to impose sanctions on me for that, as well.
>>
>> When I was politicking <hawk><spit> for a living, I used to deal
>> routinely with similar problems. Many of my cohorts wasted time and
>> energy trying to convert our political opponents to our point of view.
>> I really didn't -- and don't -- care what someone's viewpoint was; I
>> cared only about how they *voted.* I sought out the politicians who
>> were able to understand that there is often a difference between
>> private morality and sound public policy.
>
>Sound public policy includes indoctrination of my children that homosexual
>relations are morally acceptable at the same time that we will imprison
>consenting adults for incestuous relations? I know none of the 50 states,
>and D.C., where incest between consenting adults is legal.
Then where do wingers come from?
--
Cliff
Cliff
<tymedwn1...@aol.com> wrote:
>>> In that situation, no. I will not be guilt tripped into "tolerating"
>>> efforts to enact religious views into secular law.
>>
>>I will not be guilt tripped into accepting secular law which sanctions
>>people for holding forth their religious beliefs, or interferes with their
>>right to practice there religion; including what they will allow their
>>children to be taught in the public schools.
>
>Forget what I said earlier. You are dangerous to my freedom. <plonk>
He really wants the schools to teach religion.
I suppose forms of Panthiesm or Isalm would do.
--
Cliff
Cliff
<spamme...@immoral.invalid> wrote:
>On Sat, 04 Jun 2005 23:46:13 -0400, pkj...@aol.com wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 05 Jun 2005 02:44:23 GMT, NormanM
>> <spamme...@immoral.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>That is the rub. We will never agree, you and I, on what "good" is. I am
>>>perfectly willing to let that be, but are you? Consider, I believe that
>>>homosexual relationships are the moral equivalent of adulterous, bestial,
>>>and incestuous relationships. I will enforce that belief where I have the
>>>standing to do so; in my home, in my church. But not where I don't; as an
>>>employer (with limited exceptions), as a landlord, etc.
>>>
>>>Now there are those who will call me a "homophobe" for that statement.
>>
>> Well, you are, just as you would be a racist if you thought
>> interracial marriages were an abomination.
>
>Homosexuality is not the same as race. If it like anything at all, it is
>like hemophilia.
You seem confused, IMHO.
>I believe that adulterous relationships are sinful; am I an "adulterphobe"?
Not illegal though .... too many fundies & wingers doing it ...
>I believe that bestial relationships are sinful; am I a "bestiophobe"?
Why? What business is it of yours?
>I believe that incestuous relationships are sinful; am I an "incestophobe"?
You cannot even define "sin" it seems so who knows?
>Oddly, given the choice, and postulating that neither God, nor the state,
>disapproved, I'd rather have an incestuous relationship than a homosexual
>relationship.
Relatives ...
>OTOH, knowing the sinful nature of that desire, and knowing that, in my
>state (California), I would be imprisoned for executing that desire, even
>though the partner is of the age of consent (she is), it galls me that
>homosexuals are not also pushing for allowing siblings to marry. Or even
>just pushing to legalize incest.
Why?
>> The thing is, since you
>> state that you wouldn't try to enforce your beliefs onto the rest of
>> us by passing laws, I'm fine with what you believe. I don't like it,
>> but you sound as if you are respectful of people who don't agree with
>> you.
>>
>> And
>>>those who will attempt to impose sanctions on me for that, as well. So much
>>>for diversity, eh?
>>
>> I have no desire to impose sanctions on you for your beliefs. My
>> problem is that so many people who agree with you want to impose
>> sanctions on me, i.e. pass laws that I believe are not only cruel but
>> immoral.
>
>Let's see; hate crime laws, the description of ideas at odds with post
>modern humanist ideology as hate speech, etc. Nobody who agrees with me is
>pushing for those. Those will, and do, impose sanctions on my, and my
>friends.
How much do you hate?
>> Elsewhere you said: But do recognize that I don't like the idea of
>>>our government indoctrinating my children with ideas at odds with my own.
>>
>> On this point, we agree. I don't want my children being taught that
>> there's no difference between evolution and intelligent design. I
>> don't want my children growing up in a society that has state
>> sanctions against my friends. One friend from college has been living
>> with his partner for 26 years, one less year than I've been married.
>
>We also have sanctions against adulterous, bestial, and incestuous
>marriage.
Sheep have a hard tme saying "I do."
>If you would be true to your beliefs, you would either advocate
>legalization of those, as well, or just get the state out of the marriage
>business altogether.
Why do the churches want it in them?
>> I could go on and on about this, as I've had this conversation with my
>> cousin, who's very conservative but not at all religious. She
>> believes that laws should reflect a general consensus of society, as
>> opposed to blazing a trail ("activist judges")or whatever you want to
>> call it. But that leaves me in the same position as you, who doesn't
>> want the government indoctrinating my children with ideas at odds with
>> my own.
>>
>> I don't see any solution on the horizon, which kind of scares me, at
>> times.
>
>You and me both. There was a time when the Puritans left a place where they
>were at odds with the hedonists. Alas, the hedonists have followed them,
>and there appears to be no place else for the Puritans to go. I think it
>would have been better if we just left things at the Puritans live here,
>and the hedonists live there.
They were indeed a nasty bit of work.
--
Cliff
Cliff
<spamme...@immoral.invalid> wrote:
>On Sun, 05 Jun 2005 20:17:13 +0200, Monika Krug wrote:
>
>> pkj...@aol.com schrieb:
>>
>>> NormanM wrote:
>>>
>>>>our government indoctrinating my children with ideas at odds with my own.
>>>
>>> On this point, we agree.
>>
>> I tend to agree, but how to prevent this without banning all social
>> science classes from school?
>>
>> Monika.
>
>It would help, some, if the social science classes could discuss the
>various social ideologies in a non-judgmental fashion. But I spent my high
>school years hearing nothing but negative commentary on my religious
>beliefs. It continues to this day; i.e., "Christianity is responsible for
>more human misery than any other belief". That is both negative judgment,
>and provably wrong.
How droll.
>Nobody's hands are clean. Humanist, who believe in the inherent "goodness"
>of humanity, tend to look for external agents which have deviated the state
>of humanity. As a Christian, though, I know that the deviated state of
>humanity is not a result of any external agency, but the internal foibles
>of human beings.
Which create superstitions & hate groups.
>Look at the history of every nation, at every time in history. The Japanese
>displaced an older people in those islands; some of those displaced people
>have survived to this day. Not so the original inhabitants of Eire, who
>were completely obliterated by the Celts, the ancestors of the modern
>Irish.
Cites?
>The Celts were displaced by a migration of Germanic people from the east,
>who were, in turn, displaced by a Slavic migration, who were displaced
>by...
Lots of relocation.
>Everybody who is a "victimizer" today, was a "victim" yesterday. The
>Hindus, the Buddhists; you will find them to be quite intolerant, if you
>look closely enough. The reason that India is not as Muslim as Pakistan is
>because a Hindu leader got his dander up at the Islamic wave of invasion
>heading his way.
??
--
Cliff
Cliff
<spamme...@immoral.invalid> wrote:
>On Sun, 05 Jun 2005 17:44:34 GMT, DaveG wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 05 Jun 2005 03:29:43 +0000, NormanM wrote:
>>
>>> There is no point in carrying on this debate, I suppose, because I refuse
>>> to accept the premise of your world view; as, no doubt, you do likewise.
>>> Let us agree to disagree.
>>
>> Yep, that's fine by me. I just wish more people would do as we have just
>> done :-)
>>
>>> But do recognize that I don't like the idea of
>>> our government indoctrinating my children with ideas at odds with my own.
>>
>> Oh yes. Government should stay well out of religious matters (and other
>> areas they stick their unwanted noses into)
>
>And that includes trying to assert some kind of post modern secular
>morality on my children, in opposition to the Christian morality I am
>trying to instill in them.
>
>"The Separation of Church and State" also means the government must not
>interfere with the practice of religion.
You certainly want it in the schools.
--
Cliff
Cliff
<spamme...@immoral.invalid> wrote:
>On Sun, 05 Jun 2005 05:20:41 -0400, Cliff wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 05 Jun 2005 02:29:43 GMT, NormanM
>> <spamme...@immoral.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 04 Jun 2005 08:26:38 GMT, DaveG wrote:
>>>
>>>> Not being religious, then I, for one am not a sinner so your
>>>> premise there is way off course. You can believe what you want. I don't
>>>> have a problem with that so long as it doesn't infringe on my right to
>>>> believe (or not) what I wish)
>>>
>>>You can also believe whatever you want. But you have to recognize that I
>>>approach the world on the basis of my beliefs. To do otherwise is to deny
>>>my beliefs.
>>
>> What actual "evidence" do you have to support these superstitions?
>
>I thought that a "superstition" was a belief in some kind of supernatural
>'quid pro quo'; if I do something to appease the gods, they will favor me
>with their blessings. I am not like that.
Why else have the superstition?
>My assertion of the sinful nature of humanity lies in the actions of the
>members of the species 'homo sapiens sapiens'. They tend to act in ways
>that work against others, and themselves, without some kind of external
>influence. Whether secular law, or supernatural. Secular law, however is
>kind of like recursion.
Superstitions are the worst.
>>>
>>>There is no point in carrying on this debate, I suppose, because I refuse
>>>to accept the premise of your world view; as, no doubt, you do likewise.
>>
>> None, so it seems.
>>
>>>Let us agree to disagree. But do recognize that I don't like the idea of
>>>our government indoctrinating my children with ideas at odds with my own.
>>
>> Truth, beauty .....
>
>Insanity, psychosis...
Wingers & fundies.
--
Cliff
Cliff
<spamme...@immoral.invalid> wrote:
>On Sun, 05 Jun 2005 05:23:35 -0400, Cliff wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 05 Jun 2005 02:34:14 GMT, NormanM
>> <spamme...@immoral.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 04 Jun 2005 07:16:35 -0400, TyMeDwn1st wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 16:56:57 GMT, NormanM
>>>> <spamme...@immoral.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>The concept that there are no dangerous ideas is a dangerous idea! ;)
>>>>>
>>>>>It is "a short step" from any idea to any actual implementation of the
>>>>>idea. Jeffrey Dahlmer practiced erotic cannibalism.
>>>>
>>>> Really? So I'm a danger to society because I occasionally have -- and
>>>> thoroughly enjoy -- wild sexual fantasies?
>>>>
>>>> Do you really mean to equate imagination with action?
>>>
>>>I wonder. In the Army we had a saying; "You fight the way you train". The
>>>whole point of training exercises was to condition the soldier to perform
>>>the proper actions in combat. If it did not work that way, training would
>>>be a wasted exercise. You may make of that whatever you wish.
>>
>> Kill a commie for jesus?
>
>It was a disgusting idea when I saw the bus driver wearing the button in
>1966. It has not improved with age. It does, however, show the depth of
>your ignorance, and prejudice, about me, and my faith.
You do what they tell you.
>> Mind control at an early age, usually, with a large dose of brain
>> scrubbing.
>
>All education appears to be just that, if you are an absolute cynic. That
>the natural world is all that you would acknowledge does not make it the
>only world to consider.
Superstitions ....
>>>OTOH, if you are right, and those "short steps" aren't so short, then why
>>>make a big deal out of somebody's publication of a list of "dangerous"
>>>books? The publication of the list is hardly more dangerous than your wild
>>>sexual fantasies.
>>
>> So it's about the publication (or even mention) of the list, is it?
>> Should they just be banned in secret?
>
>I suppose that we should ban the list, not the books? But how is banning
>the list different from banning the books?
Not my list <G>.
--
Cliff
Monika Krug
> If I had my way, kids would learn to think for themselves. They would not
> be indoctrinated by the state that my religion is "superstitious myth".
> They would not be indoctrinated by the state that my religion teaches a
> "young earth, creation in seven literal 24-hour days". They would not be
> indoctrinated by the state that God does not exist.
And they aren't currently. So no change there.
Monika.
--
All wars are civil wars, because all men are brothers ... Each one owes
infinitely more to the human race than to the particular country in
which he was born. - Francois Fenelon, theologian and writer (1651-1715)
E-mail address is valid until 4 weeks after the expiration date. Use
@arcor.de instead.
Mecoman
"NormanM" <spamme...@immoral.invalid> wrote in message
news:18vddqmkl3rn1$.dlg@aol.prodigy.net...
> Oddly, given the choice, and postulating that neither God, nor the state,
> disapproved, I'd rather have an incestuous relationship than a homosexual
> relationship.
Yet, had previously said:
> A pastor, in an actively homosexual relationship, has no standing to
> counsel me on the morality of my sexual desires, because he is living the
> sexual morality I would live; if it wasn't a mortal sin in God's eyes, and
> a crime in my state.
So which is it?
How about a homosexual incestuous relationship?
> OTOH, knowing the sinful nature of that desire, and knowing that, in my
> state (California), I would be imprisoned for executing that desire, even
> though the partner is of the age of consent (she is),
Okay, so there is a target of your desire, but whether or not that desire is
held by both parties you choose to follow the law and not pursue that
desire.
Not recalling my bible (not very religious, though 3 of my 4 grown children
attend church every Sunday), I don't know how that impacts the situation.
However, I also don't know if your particular situation has other impacting
factors, such as one or both parties being married, etc.
If not, I personally see nothing wrong with people seeking happiness. The
only real negative is that of inbreeding, which can cause hereditary
physical or mental problems, in your case, possibly very serious ones ;-).
Other than that, incest has been around since the beginning of time and, in
the abstract, I don't consider it unnatural.
> it galls me that
> homosexuals are not also pushing for allowing siblings to marry. Or even
> just pushing to legalize incest.
Not in their interest. It is a different group.
Perhaps you can start a national movement for legalizing incest. Have a
parade in the major cities once a year of all those involved in incestuous
relationships (and their supporters).
For the most part, I have absolutely no problem with your beliefs, and
commend you for sticking to them and living by them. My only problem is that
you do seem to wish to impose some of those beliefs on others, even at a
small level.
If you wish to have your children educated in your beliefs, either enroll
them in a religious school, or home-school them. At very least, home-school
them in those beliefs even if they attend public school. That is your
responsibility, not that of the State.
If you disagree with certain teachings in public schools, discuss that with
them at home, make your arguments, and then you have no choice but to allow
them to make up their own minds as they get older, with as much information
as possible available to them.
I have no quibble with prayer in school, only with imposing it upon the
children. I favor a short "personal" period, where the children are free to
pray in their own way or not, as they wish. The period would be silent, so
that if a Catholic child wishes to pray next to a Jewish child, next to a
Baptist child, next to a Muslim child, etc., they would not impose upon each
other.
That also holds for children who prefer not to pray at all, who can spend
the time thinking about lunch, the Yankees, the pretty girl two rows over
(maybe praying for her) or even studying. Completely their choice, as long
as they don't pray for the Red Sox ;-).
I don't see how this could offend anyone but those who wish to impose their
beliefs upon others, and should satisfy those who want prayer in school too.
As far as the subject of "dangerous" books is concerned. The freedom to read
or write what one believes in our country includes the freedom to compile
such a list of books that the person or group considers "dangerous."
As ridiculous as I felt that list to be, I do understand the reasons for the
choices in the minds of the listers, and defend their right to list them.
If they were to try to get them banned, however, I would oppose it. The the
people make their own choices for themselves and their children.
Going back to the subject of certain teachings in schools, if a school were
to assign a book that, for religious reasons, you objected to, you could
either sit down with your child and discuss why you feel that way, helping
him or her to approach the writings from a point of view with which you are
more comfortable (if (s)he can read such a book, (s)he can understand your
point), or you can reasonbly approach the teacher/school board with your
concerns, and request that they assign a different book to your child for
this particular assignment.
When approached with reason you would (usually) get reason in return.
This thread also touched on flag burning.
In the context of the USA, the very freedom that our flag symbolizes MUST
include the freedom to burn that symbol in protest.
While I personally feel that such a protest is offensive, I would have to
defend it since to make it illegal would be a curtailment of their, and by
extension, my freedom.
I believe that homosexual marriages should be recognized by the state. This
nation is founded upon the premise that all religions should be tolerated.
By extension, that means that "no religion" should also be tolerated. There
is a separation of church and state for that very reason.
No matter what the opinions of homosexuality are in any religion, it is a
reality that is not going to go away.
The government is created for the benefit and protection of all of it's
citizens, unless those citizens commit crimes against other citizens.
Well, homosexuals are citizens as well and, as such, are entitled to full
protection under the law.
I am in favor of legal abortion (I know this can be a touchy subject here,
so address this at your own risk). But more, I am in favor of education and
relaxing the laws on obtaining birth control measures.
I believe that, in 98% of the cases, it should be up to the woman, along
with those she feels should have input, to make that decision. It is her
body to do with as she feels she needs.
I do feel that it should be kept to the first trimester or less, unless a
health problem enters the picture.
While I say the above, I must emphasize that, unless the woman's problem is
with carrying the baby, I would prefer to see unwanted pregnancies carried
to term with the child put up for adoption by the many who want children and
cannot have any. But just the same, it has to be the woman's choice.
> We also have sanctions against adulterous, bestial, and incestuous
> marriage. If you would be true to your beliefs, you would either advocate
> legalization of those, as well, or just get the state out of the marriage
> business altogether.
>
> > I could go on and on about this, as I've had this conversation with my
> > cousin, who's very conservative but not at all religious. She
> > believes that laws should reflect a general consensus of society, as
> > opposed to blazing a trail ("activist judges")or whatever you want to
> > call it. But that leaves me in the same position as you, who doesn't
> > want the government indoctrinating my children with ideas at odds with
> > my own.
Laws should more reflect the needs of the community. They should protect the
citizens from harm by other citizens. In other words, the community should
protect itself by initiating laws that do only that. Actions, such as
homosexuality, incest, and even bestiality (on the premise that the beastie
gets pleasure on a par with the beaster) have nothing to do with harming
other members of the community.
Adultery actually does harm others, so I have no problem with laws against
it, however hard to uphold.
> There was a time when the Puritans left a place where they
> were at odds with the hedonists. Alas, the hedonists have followed them,
> and there appears to be no place else for the Puritans to go. I think it
> would have been better if we just left things at the Puritans live here,
> and the hedonists live there.
Send them all back! That is an unrealistic expectation. The Puritans and
hedonists (why is Puritan capitalized and hedonist not?) should be tolerant
and therefore able to coexist. The problem should only arise if the
hedonists try to give or get hed from the Puritans, or if the Puritans try
to Purify the hedonists.
Otherwise, they do not harm each other.
If I have missed any subjects close to your hearts, just ask and I'll be
happy to spout my wisdom.
--
Jeff
It is preferential to refrain from the utilization of sesquipedalian
verbiage in the circumstance that your intellectualization can be verbalized
using compararatively simplistic lexicographical entitities.
Mecoman
"NormanM" <spamme...@immoral.invalid> wrote in message
> On Sun, 05 Jun 2005 05:23:35 -0400, Cliff wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 05 Jun 2005 02:34:14 GMT, NormanM
> > <spamme...@immoral.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >>On Sat, 04 Jun 2005 07:16:35 -0400, TyMeDwn1st wrote:
> >>
> >>> Really? So I'm a danger to society because I occasionally have -- and
> >>> thoroughly enjoy -- wild sexual fantasies?
> >>>
> >>> Do you really mean to equate imagination with action?
Doesn't matter. As far as wild sexual fantasies go, even if they become
actions, as long as they are with (a) consenting partner(s) or alone, they
don't harm anyone and therefore are not a danger to society.
> All education appears to be just that, if you are an absolute cynic. That
> the natural world is all that you would acknowledge does not make it the
> only world to consider.
If the natural world is all that one would acknowledge, then that is all
that particular one CAN consider.
> I suppose that we should ban the list, not the books? But how is banning
> the list different from banning the books?
It is no different, and neither should be banned.
Darrell Stec
Clhu...@aol.com wrote:
The son of Yahweh who was the son of El. The most high god, El would be
Jesus' grandfather according to the bible. (Ashera, his father's consort
who must be really pissed at Mary, was edited out to a great extent though
she is still there if one reads their bible carefully in Hebrew.) Jesus
uncles would be Azazel [incorrectly translated as scapegoat], Baal and
Satan. And Beelzebub, son of Baal would be a cousin. El, as the bible
tells us, had 70 sons. Christians conveniently ignore those verses and the
apparent polytheism of the early Hebrews. Remember that Yahweh was the
personal war/thunder god of the Hebrews and had a contract with them to be
first among their gods, i.e. put no other gods ahead of me.
TyMeDwn1st
<mec...@mecoprecision.compost> wrote:
>
>"NormanM" <spamme...@immoral.invalid> wrote in message
>news:d5rxhzkd...@aol.prodigy.net...
>> On Sun, 05 Jun 2005 05:23:35 -0400, Cliff wrote:
>>
>> > On Sun, 05 Jun 2005 02:34:14 GMT, NormanM
>> > <spamme...@immoral.invalid> wrote:
>> >
>> >>On Sat, 04 Jun 2005 07:16:35 -0400, TyMeDwn1st wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Really? So I'm a danger to society because I occasionally have -- and
>> >>> thoroughly enjoy -- wild sexual fantasies?
>> >>>
>> >>> Do you really mean to equate imagination with action?
>
>Doesn't matter. As far as wild sexual fantasies go, even if they become
>actions, as long as they are with (a) consenting partner(s) or alone, they
>don't harm anyone and therefore are not a danger to society.
That was me, not Norman, but your response is what I would have said
were I still bothering with him.
Shat T. Cat
<spamme...@immoral.invalid> wrote:
>Flush one page of the Koran down the toilet and Muslims by the thousand
>rise up in a riotous rage, leading to a score of deaths, and hundreds of
>injuries.
>
>Just commenting...
The muslim opposition who started those riots were just waiting for
an excuse. The fact that the story was false didn't seem to bother
them.
--
Shat T Cat - Creature of Cyberspace
"In Fluffy We Trust"
Shat T. Cat
<monik...@expires-2005-06-30.arcornews.de> wrote:
>NormanM schrieb:
>
>> Your property, your right.
>
>Flag burning, should it be legal or illegal? Just interested.
In of itself, I don't think flag burning should be illegal. But, I
don't think it should be a protected action either. In this I mean
people should be allowed to burn a flag, but other people should be
allowed to beat the shit out of the commie bastards.
Of course that seems to indicate that around the crowd I normally
associate with, flag burning would amount to "fighting words", and
thus should be regulated.
Shat T. Cat
>On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 02:16:54 +0900, Shat T. Cat
><Shat...@WarmPost.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 05 Jun 2005 02:29:43 GMT, NormanM
>><spamme...@immoral.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>But do recognize that I don't like the idea of our government indoctrinating
>>>my children with ideas at odds with my own.
>>
>> I think Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida would agree with you on this.
>
> They probably have more freedom of & from religion than he'll
>allow his kids.
> Their major gripes had to do with US bases & US support
>(like the recent 5,000 smart bombs to be used on guess who)
>for Israel AFAIK.
???? You've lost me friend. I seem to remember the Taliban using
the new soccer stadium for executions and women not being allowed
education.
I thought you were anti-fundi. Are you just anti-Christian fundi?
Shat T. Cat
<spamme...@immoral.invalid> wrote:
>We also have sanctions against adulterous, bestial, and incestuous
>marriage. If you would be true to your beliefs, you would either advocate
>legalization of those, as well, or just get the state out of the marriage
>business altogether.
I agree with your last phrase above. The state should get out the
marriage business altogether. Marriage is a religious concept and
should be kept separate from the state.
Shat T. Cat
<mec...@mecoprecision.compost> wrote:
>Other than that, incest has been around since the beginning of time and, in
>the abstract, I don't consider it unnatural.
I have wondered how we got so many people, if we started out with
just Adam and Eve.
Mecoman
"TyMeDwn1st" <tymedwn1...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:hss8a1d1o49lroi50...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 6 Jun 2005 09:33:33 -0400, "Mecoman"
> <mec...@mecoprecision.compost> wrote:
> >> >>On Sat, 04 Jun 2005 07:16:35 -0400, TyMeDwn1st wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>> Really? So I'm a danger to society because I occasionally have --
and
> >> >>> thoroughly enjoy -- wild sexual fantasies?
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Do you really mean to equate imagination with action?
> >
> >Doesn't matter. As far as wild sexual fantasies go, even if they become
> >actions, as long as they are with (a) consenting partner(s) or alone,
they
> >don't harm anyone and therefore are not a danger to society.
>
> That was me, not Norman, but your response is what I would have said
> were I still bothering with him.
I knew that was you, and was just forgetting to remove some of the
attributes.
The reply was aimed at him, however, in support of what you'd said.
Darrell Stec
Shat...@WarmPost.com wrote:
> On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 01:46:30 GMT, NormanM
> <spamme...@immoral.invalid> wrote:
>
>>We also have sanctions against adulterous, bestial, and incestuous
>>marriage. If you would be true to your beliefs, you would either advocate
>>legalization of those, as well, or just get the state out of the marriage
>>business altogether.
>
> I agree with your last phrase above. The state should get out the
> marriage business altogether. Marriage is a religious concept and
> should be kept separate from the state.
>
Except for the fact that it was established as a state institution at a time
when the state and the church were one and the same, for the sole purpose
that the upper classes might choose which of their bastard children might
inherit their estates.
From the earliest scripture it was all about inheritance and benefits and
that is still true today. However today, both heterosexuals and
homosexuals believe they are entitled, just as they had in the past before
the dark ages and a church ignorant of its own history reversed things.
Cliff
<darrel...@webpagesorcery.com> wrote:
>was edited out to a great extent
IIRC They wrote most of the tales in about 400 AD ..
or edited many old ones from various sources &
religions ...
Mostly plagiarism, anyway, from older religions.
They knew what sells .....
--
Cliff
Cliff
<mec...@mecoprecision.compost> wrote:
>Not recalling my bible
IIRC IF you are indeed VERY holy you are supposed
to farm out any daughters as prostitutes and kill any
male children.
The Romans, being a bit more liberal, only allowed
the father to kill the sons IIRC.
--
Cliff
Cliff
<mec...@mecoprecision.compost> wrote:
>If you disagree with certain teachings in public schools, discuss that with
>them at home, make your arguments,
Try writing a textbook & researching the subjects first <GGG>.
The kids already probably know a lot more about it ....
--
Cliff
Cliff
<mec...@mecoprecision.compost> wrote:
>I have no quibble with prayer in school, only with imposing it upon the
>children. I favor a short "personal" period, where the children are free to
>pray in their own way or not, as they wish. The period would be silent, so
>that if a Catholic child wishes to pray next to a Jewish child, next to a
>Baptist child, next to a Muslim child, etc., they would not impose upon each
>other.
Many religions require a LOT of noise. And rote .....
Saves & prevents thinking.
--
Cliff
Cliff
<mec...@mecoprecision.compost> wrote:
>As far as the subject of "dangerous" books is concerned. The freedom to read
>or write what one believes in our country includes the freedom to compile
>such a list of books that the person or group considers "dangerous."
>As ridiculous as I felt that list to be, I do understand the reasons for the
>choices in the minds of the listers, and defend their right to list them.
Ummm ... thsse were "a panel of 15 conservative scholars and public
policy leaders". I don't know any of the names but they were listed.
Falwell seems to be after Spongebob too .....
--
Cliff
Cliff
<Shat...@WarmPost.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 02:28:03 GMT, NormanM
><spamme...@immoral.invalid> wrote:
>
>>Flush one page of the Koran down the toilet and Muslims by the thousand
>>rise up in a riotous rage, leading to a score of deaths, and hundreds of
>>injuries.
>>
>>Just commenting...
>
> The muslim opposition who started those riots were just waiting for
>an excuse. The fact that the story was false didn't seem to bother
>them.
Umm ..... nobody that knows has actually said that it's false.
Smoke & mirrors are in full play though which makes one suspect
that it's true
Unlike the WMD & other claims .....
--
Cliff.
Cliff
<Shat...@WarmPost.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 05 Jun 2005 15:32:07 -0400, Cliff <Clhu...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 02:16:54 +0900, Shat T. Cat
>><Shat...@WarmPost.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 05 Jun 2005 02:29:43 GMT, NormanM
>>><spamme...@immoral.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>>But do recognize that I don't like the idea of our government indoctrinating
>>>>my children with ideas at odds with my own.
>>>
>>> I think Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida would agree with you on this.
>>
>> They probably have more freedom of & from religion than he'll
>>allow his kids.
>> Their major gripes had to do with US bases & US support
>>(like the recent 5,000 smart bombs to be used on guess who)
>>for Israel AFAIK.
>
> ???? You've lost me friend. I seem to remember the Taliban using
>the new soccer stadium for executions and women not being allowed
>education.
Not good either. But not related to Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida's
complaints either, which was the subject.
> I thought you were anti-fundi. Are you just anti-Christian fundi?
Any & all. Not that I think any should be bombed backwards
into even more superstitions ....
Soon we will have cargo cults again at this rate ...
--
Cliff
Cliff
<darrel...@webpagesorcery.com> wrote:
>After serious contemplation, on or about Monday 06 June 2005 12:59 pm
>Shat...@WarmPost.com wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 01:46:30 GMT, NormanM
>> <spamme...@immoral.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>We also have sanctions against adulterous, bestial, and incestuous
>>>marriage. If you would be true to your beliefs, you would either advocate
>>>legalization of those, as well, or just get the state out of the marriage
>>>business altogether.
>>
>> I agree with your last phrase above. The state should get out the
>> marriage business altogether. Marriage is a religious concept and
>> should be kept separate from the state.
>>
>
>Except for the fact that it was established as a state institution at a time
>when the state and the church were one and the same, for the sole purpose
>that the upper classes might choose which of their bastard children might
>inherit their estates.
I wonder if the Republicans with their new tax cuts
on estates have considered this ....
--
Cliff
TyMeDwn1st
<Shat...@WarmPost.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 05 Jun 2005 20:46:10 +0200, Monika Krug
><monik...@expires-2005-06-30.arcornews.de> wrote:
>
>>NormanM schrieb:
>>
>>> Your property, your right.
>>
>>Flag burning, should it be legal or illegal? Just interested.
>
> In of itself, I don't think flag burning should be illegal. But, I
>don't think it should be a protected action either. In this I mean
>people should be allowed to burn a flag, but other people should be
>allowed to beat the shit out of the commie bastards.
You're awfully quick to assume that someone who burns a flag is a
"commie bastard." (Leaving aside for the moment the issue of where
you find commies these days outside of, um, Cuba.)
As my husband -- the guy who retired after 20 years in the US Navy --
says, the flag is simply a symbol of something, but he'd have laid
down his life to defend the US Constitution.
> Of course that seems to indicate that around the crowd I normally
>associate with, flag burning would amount to "fighting words", and
>thus should be regulated.
The only regulation needed is for your pals to remember that it's
still illegal to commit assault.
TyMeDwn1st
<Shat...@WarmPost.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 01:46:30 GMT, NormanM
><spamme...@immoral.invalid> wrote:
>
>>We also have sanctions against adulterous, bestial, and incestuous
>>marriage. If you would be true to your beliefs, you would either advocate
>>legalization of those, as well, or just get the state out of the marriage
>>business altogether.
>
> I agree with your last phrase above. The state should get out the
>marriage business altogether. Marriage is a religious concept and
>should be kept separate from the state.
And I see it exactly the opposite: the state should be "licensing"
civil unions with any consenting adults who want to pair up, since
being legally paired entitles one to a huge number and variety of
financial and legal options unavailable to those not in such unions.
Then religious folks could add their own spin on their own ceremonies,
in the hope that doing so would actually matter to the people
involved.
TyMeDwn1st
<Shat...@WarmPost.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 6 Jun 2005 09:15:04 -0400, "Mecoman"
><mec...@mecoprecision.compost> wrote:
>
>>Other than that, incest has been around since the beginning of time and, in
>>the abstract, I don't consider it unnatural.
>
> I have wondered how we got so many people, if we started out with
>just Adam and Eve.
Incest. Lots of it.
Shat T. Cat
>> ???? You've lost me friend. I seem to remember the Taliban using
>>the new soccer stadium for executions and women not being allowed
>>education.
>
> Not good either. But not related to Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida's
>complaints either, which was the subject.
Okay, please tell me why we went into Afghanistan. As I understood
it, the Taliban were good friends with Osama bin Laden and Al-Quaid,
with bin Laden hiding out in their backyard. Or more to the point,
the Taliban government was to bin Laden's liking. It was the type of
government he and Al-Quaid are fighting for.
>> I thought you were anti-fundi. Are you just anti-Christian fundi?
>
> Any & all. Not that I think any should be bombed backwards
>into even more superstitions ....
The Muslim fundies have been the ones driving the car bombs (and
plane bombs) lately, so I see them as the most dangerous at the
moment. Of course, that could change at any time, as you know.
> Soon we will have cargo cults again at this rate ...
Cargo cults? Please explain.
Darrell Stec
Shat...@WarmPost.com wrote:
> The Muslim fundies have been the ones driving the car bombs (and
> plane bombs) lately, so I see them as the most dangerous at the
> moment. Of course, that could change at any time, as you know.
>
And they are doing it in an area supposedly controlled by the US military,
however they weren't doing so under the control of Saddam Husein. If they
can't protect the citizens in an area of full out armed military presence,
how is the government going to protect the US citizen here in America if
the terrorist should decide to strike again? I doubt they will use planes
again, but they sure do have us jumping hoops and shutting down the
freedoms of citizens by us citizens ourselves. My next bet will be a
strike at a place like Walt Disney World, or the poisoning of water
reservoirs in little podunk towns across America, who will then vote for an
even greater censure on American freedoms. The step following it would be
a slight move from fundamentalist Christian to fundamentalist Muslim; then
welcome to the United States of Islam America.
Has America forgotten how Hitler took over by convincing that law and order
preservation needed MORE laws and order?