Washington woman trying to get anti-evolution initiative on state

29 views
Skip to first unread message

Jason Spaceman

unread,
Feb 19, 2009, 5:18:00 PM2/19/09
to
From the article:
-----------------------------------------------------
Kim Struiksma doesn't think evolution should be taught in schools.

So the 25-year-old Blaine resident, along with a group of friends from
her church, have fashioned Initiative 1040, which "concerns a supreme
ruler of the universe."

The initiative would prohibit "state use of public money or lands for
anything that denies or attempts to refute the existence of a supreme
ruler of the universe, including textbooks, instruction or research,"
according to paperwork filed on the Washington Secretary of State's Web
site.

Struiksma said during a telephone interview Wednesday, Feb. 18, that the
initiative version online is being revamped and a second one would be
offered to improve some the language.

"I think probably at least that more creation science is overlooked as
not belonging in the public school system because of the religion
(aspect)," she said.

Citing the state Constitution, the U.S. Declaration of Independence and
the Constitution, the initiative states it "is about requiring our
government to do its job, to protect our liberty, a liberty which has
been endowed by our Creator, the one responsible for Blessing us, the
Supreme Ruler of the Universe."

Struiksma and her grassroots group of supporters have a long road to go
to get the initiative on the ballot. An initiative sponsor has to submit
241,153 valid voter signatures by July 3 to qualify, said Secretary of
State Communications Director David Ammons.

Struiksma got the idea to offer up the initiative after hearing a
presentation at Grace Baptist Church in Bellingham by Tom Hoyle, who
operates Bible and Sciences Ministries out of Tacoma. Hoyle has been
"actively involved in creation science missions for over 20 years,"
according to his Web site, hoyle.nwcreation.net.
----------------------------------------------------------

Read it at http://www.bellinghamherald.com/102/story/800162.html

J. Spaceman
.

Mike Dworetsky

unread,
Feb 19, 2009, 5:25:11 PM2/19/09
to
"Jason Spaceman" <notr...@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote in message
news:5a43e$499dda98$4c0a95d0$3...@TEKSAVVY.COM...

I trust that a library of recordings is being kept so if such a law gets on
the books the lawsuit will be a slam-dunk. It is so blatant that it
probably won't get anywhere, but just in case...

--
Mike Dworetsky

(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)

wf3h

unread,
Feb 19, 2009, 5:40:54 PM2/19/09
to
On Feb 19, 2:18 pm, Jason Spaceman <notrea...@jspaceman.homelinux.org>
wrote:

> From the article:
> -----------------------------------------------------
> Kim Struiksma doesn't think evolution should be taught in schools.
>

weeping jesus on the cross...why are so many christians so incredibly
stupid...

Inez

unread,
Feb 19, 2009, 5:44:07 PM2/19/09
to
On Feb 19, 2:18 pm, Jason Spaceman <notrea...@jspaceman.homelinux.org>
wrote:
> From the article:
> -----------------------------------------------------
> Kim Struiksma doesn't think evolution should be taught in schools.
>
> So the 25-year-old Blaine resident, along with a group of friends from
> her church, have fashioned Initiative 1040, which "concerns a supreme
> ruler of the universe."

Hooray for Washington! Our nincompoops are activists!

> The initiative would prohibit "state use of public money or lands for
> anything that denies or attempts to refute the existence of a supreme
> ruler of the universe, including textbooks, instruction or research,"
> according to paperwork filed on the Washington Secretary of State's Web
> site.
>

I don't see how that effects the teaching of evolution. No part of
the ToE attempts to refute the existence of a supreme ruler of the
universe. If this law passes and anyone sues over it, I hope it's on
court TV so I can watch them try to explain how evolution refutes a
supreme creator without mentioning any specific religion. But it won't
pass.

VoiceOfReason

unread,
Feb 19, 2009, 5:48:28 PM2/19/09
to

Jason Spaceman wrote:
> From the article:
> -----------------------------------------------------
> Kim Struiksma doesn't think evolution should be taught in schools.

First question -- has Kim ever *been* to school?

> So the 25-year-old Blaine resident, along with a group of friends from
> her church, have fashioned Initiative 1040, which "concerns a supreme
> ruler of the universe."

Obviously a reference to Darth Vader.

> The initiative would prohibit "state use of public money or lands for
> anything that denies or attempts to refute the existence of a supreme
> ruler of the universe, including textbooks, instruction or research,"
> according to paperwork filed on the Washington Secretary of State's Web
> site.

Last I heard, "anything that denies or attempts to refute the
existence of a supreme ruler of the universe" is already banned in
school.

> Struiksma said during a telephone interview Wednesday, Feb. 18, that the
> initiative version online is being revamped and a second one would be
> offered to improve some the language.
>
> "I think probably at least that more creation science is overlooked as
> not belonging in the public school system because of the religion
> (aspect)," she said.

At least she got that part mostly right.

> Citing the state Constitution, the U.S. Declaration of Independence and
> the Constitution, the initiative states it "is about requiring our
> government to do its job, to protect our liberty, a liberty which has
> been endowed by our Creator, the one responsible for Blessing us, the
> Supreme Ruler of the Universe."

By keeping religion out of pblic schools, the gov is already doing its
job. Sounds like Kim & her cohorts are rather clueless.

> Struiksma and her grassroots group of supporters have a long road to go
> to get the initiative on the ballot. An initiative sponsor has to submit
> 241,153 valid voter signatures by July 3 to qualify, said Secretary of
> State Communications Director David Ammons.
>
> Struiksma got the idea to offer up the initiative after hearing a
> presentation at Grace Baptist Church in Bellingham by Tom Hoyle, who
> operates Bible and Sciences Ministries out of Tacoma. Hoyle has been
> "actively involved in creation science missions for over 20 years,"
> according to his Web site, hoyle.nwcreation.net.

Ah... no wonder she's clueless, listening to too much creto-crap.

Desertphile

unread,
Feb 19, 2009, 8:49:43 PM2/19/09
to
On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 22:18:00 +0000, Jason Spaceman
<notr...@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote:

> From the article:
> -----------------------------------------------------
> Kim Struiksma doesn't think evolution should be taught in schools.

It isn't. Neither is evolutionary theory in many schools, more's
the pity.



> So the 25-year-old Blaine resident, along with a group of friends from
> her church, have fashioned Initiative 1040, which "concerns a supreme
> ruler of the universe."

Who would that be? Darth Vader?



> The initiative would prohibit "state use of public money or lands for
> anything that denies or attempts to refute the existence of a supreme
> ruler of the universe, including textbooks, instruction or research,"
> according to paperwork filed on the Washington Secretary of State's Web
> site.

Golly. No state does that already.



> "I think probably at least that more creation science is overlooked as
> not belonging in the public school system because of the religion
> (aspect)," she said.

Creationism has some science in it?! SINCE WHEN?! Somebody should
tell the Discovery Institute Church!


--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz

Ron O

unread,
Feb 19, 2009, 9:03:41 PM2/19/09
to
On Feb 19, 4:18 pm, Jason Spaceman <notrea...@jspaceman.homelinux.org>
wrote:

This is the home turf of the Discovery Institute. Let them explain
reality to her and feed her the switch scam. It has to wear on the
boobs that they have to keep runninng the bait and switch scam on
their own support base.

Ron Okimoto

Burkhard

unread,
Feb 19, 2009, 9:05:26 PM2/19/09
to
On 20 Feb, 01:49, Desertphile <desertph...@invalid-address.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 22:18:00 +0000, Jason Spaceman
>
> <notrea...@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote:
> > From the article:
> > -----------------------------------------------------
> > Kim Struiksma doesn't think evolution should be taught in schools.
>
> It isn't. Neither is evolutionary theory in many schools, more's
> the pity.
>
> > So the 25-year-old Blaine resident, along with a group of friends from
> > her church, have fashioned Initiative 1040, which "concerns a supreme
> > ruler of the universe."
>
> Who would that be? Darth Vader?
>

Oh dear, you shouldn't have found out like this...but you see....he's
your father, young desert.......

Wombat

unread,
Feb 20, 2009, 3:19:04 AM2/20/09
to
On 19 Feb, 23:48, VoiceOfReason <papa_fo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Jason Spaceman wrote:
> > From the article:
> > -----------------------------------------------------
> > Kim Struiksma doesn't think evolution should be taught in schools.
>
> First question -- has Kim ever *been* to school?
>
> > So the 25-year-old Blaine resident, along with a group of friends from
> > her church, have fashioned Initiative 1040, which "concerns a supreme
> > ruler of the universe."
>
> Obviously a reference to Darth Vader.

Nah, the evil Emperor, Darth's boss.

Wombat

Robert Carnegie

unread,
Feb 20, 2009, 7:47:47 AM2/20/09
to
On Feb 19, 10:48 pm, VoiceOfReason <papa_fo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Jason Spaceman wrote:
> > From the article:
> > -----------------------------------------------------
> > Kim Struiksma doesn't think evolution should be taught in schools.
>
> First question -- has Kim ever *been* to school?

Quite possibly not. You don't have to.

As has been pointed out, however, it isn't immediately clear that the
theory of evolution refutes the "supreme ruler of the universe"
theory.

But the theory of evolution does propose that living things on earth
evolved by themselves without the supreme ruler of the universe
stepping in and contributing to the process. Well, if you're
proposing that for four billion years evolution proceeded without the
supreme ruler of the universe getting involved, then doesn't /that/
mean that they are not actually ruling, but just letting things
happen? So, in fact, the "supreme ruler of the universe" is not that?

J. J. Lodder

unread,
Feb 20, 2009, 7:51:55 AM2/20/09
to
Jason Spaceman <notr...@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote:

> Kim Struiksma doesn't think evolution should be taught in schools.

Descendant of a Dutch Frisian family, apparently.
Frisians have a well-deserved reputation
for being able to be -very- stubborn,

Jan

harry k

unread,
Feb 20, 2009, 9:49:51 AM2/20/09
to
On Feb 19, 2:44 pm, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 19, 2:18 pm, Jason Spaceman <notrea...@jspaceman.homelinux.org>
> wrote:
>
> > From the article:
> > -----------------------------------------------------
> > Kim Struiksma doesn't think evolution should be taught in schools.
>
> > So the 25-year-old Blaine resident, along with a group of friends from
> > her church, have fashioned Initiative 1040, which "concerns a supreme
> > ruler of the universe."
>
> Hooray for Washington!  Our nincompoops are activists!
>
> > The initiative would prohibit "state use of public money or lands for
> > anything that denies or attempts to refute the existence of a supreme
> > ruler of the universe, including textbooks, instruction or research,"
> > according to paperwork filed on the Washington Secretary of State's Web
> > site.
>
> I don't see how that effects the teaching of evolution.  No part of
> the ToE attempts to refute the existence of a supreme ruler of the
> universe.

<snip>

Exactly! I spoted that and wondered if that will be part of the
rewrite ;)

Harry K

Desertphile

unread,
Feb 20, 2009, 12:27:24 PM2/20/09
to
On Fri, 20 Feb 2009 00:19:04 -0800 (PST), Wombat
<tri...@multiweb.nl> wrote:

> On 19 Feb, 23:48, VoiceOfReason <papa_fo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Jason Spaceman wrote:
> > > From the article:
> > > -----------------------------------------------------
> > > Kim Struiksma doesn't think evolution should be taught in schools.
> >
> > First question -- has Kim ever *been* to school?
> >
> > > So the 25-year-old Blaine resident, along with a group of friends from
> > > her church, have fashioned Initiative 1040, which "concerns a supreme
> > > ruler of the universe."
> >
> > Obviously a reference to Darth Vader.

> Nah, the evil Emperor, Darth's boss.

Or the current Pope: same person.

Desertphile

unread,
Feb 20, 2009, 12:26:42 PM2/20/09
to

Thank you, 'Ben. Some how I always suspected.....

AC

unread,
Feb 20, 2009, 12:58:38 PM2/20/09
to

It is nice that His Noodliness is going to finally be given some proper
recognition.

--
Aaron Clausen mightym...@gmail.com

Burkhard

unread,
Feb 20, 2009, 1:23:14 PM2/20/09
to

Not necessarily, after all, "A universe governed least is governed
best"

fc...@verizon.net

unread,
Feb 20, 2009, 3:34:47 PM2/20/09
to
On Feb 19, 5:18 pm, Jason Spaceman <notrea...@jspaceman.homelinux.org>
wrote:

> From the article:
> -----------------------------------------------------
> Kim Struiksma doesn't think evolution should be taught in schools.

But the DI - the chief anti-evolution activist organization these days
- *does* want evolution taught - along with a slick misrepresentation
of course. If she's truly serious about having something else taught,
which would risk it to a critical analysis that the DI does *not* want
students to be learn, she needs to take it up with the DI. Now before
I even read Ron O's reply I'll note that it's possible that Struiksma
never even heard of the DI. But they surely heard of her by now, so
the question is whether they will quietly hand her the "memo", or let
her take the fall like all the others.

fc...@verizon.net

unread,
Feb 20, 2009, 3:46:39 PM2/20/09
to

Actually a "supreme ruler of the universe" could be ultimately in
control of everything, and seamlessly do his work totally undetected
by those itching to dump their responsibility on Him. But only a
hapless klutz of a creator/designer would intervene now and then to
cobble together a flagellum, or a "kind", only to be caught by one of
his creations trying to hide in ever-shrinking gaps.

fc...@verizon.net

unread,
Feb 20, 2009, 3:48:08 PM2/20/09
to
> best"-

I've long suspected that God is a libertarian.

Steven L.

unread,
Feb 20, 2009, 4:59:49 PM2/20/09
to

No, for the same reason that God doesn't have to be manipulating each of
us on metaphoric strings like marionettes.

We have free will, meaning that we can do things on our own volition
that God didn't cause directly.

So God "let us on a long leash," so to speak. Perhaps He did that with
the evolution of life too.

Deists would be comfortable with that conception of God--He just set up
the initial conditions and the natural laws and let time take its course.

--
Steven L.
Email: sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.

Mark Isaak

unread,
Feb 20, 2009, 5:06:26 PM2/20/09
to
On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 22:18:00 +0000, Jason Spaceman wrote:

> [...]


> The initiative would prohibit "state use of public money or lands for
> anything that denies or attempts to refute the existence of a supreme
> ruler of the universe, including textbooks, instruction or research,"
> according to paperwork filed on the Washington Secretary of State's Web
> site.

If a supreme ruler of the universe existed and did not want public
resources spent on denying him, it would already be impossible. The fact
that this woman wants a law is, in itself, a denial of a supreme ruler.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume

Vend

unread,
Feb 20, 2009, 5:44:29 PM2/20/09
to

The theory of evolution doesn't specifically excludes the action of a
"supreme ruler", it simply doesn't require it as a necessary cause.
In fact, the universe could be deterministic, at least from the
"supreme ruler" point of view, in which case he could have pre-
programmed the evolution of the universe in every minute detail when
he set its laws and initial state.

Vend

unread,
Feb 20, 2009, 5:46:30 PM2/20/09
to
On 20 Feb, 13:51, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:

It seems that every country has a minority with a "well-deserved"
mostly negative reputation.

R. Baldwin

unread,
Feb 20, 2009, 9:31:59 PM2/20/09
to
Jason Spaceman <notr...@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote in news:5a43e
$499dda98$4c0a95d0$3...@TEKSAVVY.COM:

> From the article:
> -----------------------------------------------------
> Kim Struiksma doesn't think evolution should be taught in schools.
>
> So the 25-year-old Blaine resident, along with a group of friends from
> her church, have fashioned Initiative 1040, which "concerns a supreme
> ruler of the universe."

[snip]

Here is a link to the actual initiative:
http://www.secstate.wa.gov/elections/initiatives/text/i1040.pdf

John S. Wilkins

unread,
Feb 20, 2009, 10:53:41 PM2/20/09
to
<fc...@verizon.net> wrote:

Are you kidding? God is a fascist, with all the arbitrary laws he
imposes on us and then punishes us with the second law of thermodynamics
if we try to evade them. He has some vague idea he rules by divine
right, too...
--
John S. Wilkins, Philosophy, University of Sydney
scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre

Bob Berger

unread,
Feb 21, 2009, 12:02:44 AM2/21/09
to
In article <5a43e$499dda98$4c0a95d0$3...@TEKSAVVY.COM>, Jason Spaceman says...

>
>From the article:
>-----------------------------------------------------
>Kim Struiksma doesn't think evolution should be taught in schools.
>
>So the 25-year-old Blaine resident, along with a group of friends from
>her church, have fashioned Initiative 1040, which "concerns a supreme
>ruler of the universe."

Shouldn't that be Initiative 10W40?... No, I forgot, that Initiative dealt with
the Exxon Valdez incident.

Folks have to understand that politics in this state are often anything but
conventional. For an introduction, read Murray Morgan's book, "Skid Road".

Google "Everett Massacre", and/or Google "Washington State Referendum 20", which
predated Roe v Wade by 3 years.

And remember then postmaster general Farley's 1936 observation that the US
consisted of 47 states and the soviet of Washington.

:-)

Bob

Walter Bushell

unread,
Feb 21, 2009, 10:38:34 AM2/21/09
to
In article
<70a87728-c633-41ee...@m16g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
fc...@verizon.net wrote:

I want a world where God is a librarian.

Walter Bushell

unread,
Feb 21, 2009, 10:40:59 AM2/21/09
to
In article <1ivht9r.147of3j7hkozgN%jo...@wilkins.id.au>,

jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:

> Are you kidding? God is a fascist, with all the arbitrary laws he
> imposes on us and then punishes us with the second law of thermodynamics
> if we try to evade them. He has some vague idea he rules by divine
> right, too...

We don't know if the laws are arbitrary or not.

J.J. O'Shea

unread,
Feb 21, 2009, 11:43:25 AM2/21/09
to
On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 10:38:34 -0500, Walter Bushell wrote
(in article <proto-5428B9....@news.panix.com>):

A world where God is a Librarian like the Librarian at Unseen University
might be a trifle uncomfortable. A world where God is a Librarian like Adele
Mundy would be extremely dangerous. Especially if you spilled something on
her books.

--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.

John S. Wilkins

unread,
Feb 21, 2009, 12:13:16 PM2/21/09
to
Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:

Sure they are. Haven't you been listening? Physical constants could have
been anything, but they are just right for us to exist. Ergo, God is a
fascist who just sets things up any way they suit him...

Greg G.

unread,
Feb 21, 2009, 12:20:19 PM2/21/09
to
On Feb 21, 11:43 am, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 10:38:34 -0500, Walter Bushell wrote
> (in article <proto-5428B9.10383421022...@news.panix.com>):
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article
> > <70a87728-c633-41ee-a2fd-6e05d2d42...@m16g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,

Would that be any worse than a world where everything starts to die
just because someone ate the wrong fruit?

Robert Carnegie

unread,
Feb 21, 2009, 12:51:35 PM2/21/09
to

That does look like a serious cross-service scripting error.

Apparently there's also a risk of denial of service due to a resource
flood, traced back to the same species that ate the fruit. Are they
buggy or are they being used off licence?

Robert Carnegie

unread,
Feb 21, 2009, 12:54:46 PM2/21/09
to

But then he isn't the Supreme Ruler of the universe, he's the Supreme
Spectator.

Allah whose will is what happens, all the time - /that/ is the Supreme
Ruler of the universe.

Robert Carnegie

unread,
Feb 21, 2009, 12:55:26 PM2/21/09
to

What crazy theistic anarchist ever said that??

Steven L.

unread,
Feb 21, 2009, 2:05:50 PM2/21/09
to
Jason Spaceman wrote:
> From the article:
> -----------------------------------------------------
> Kim Struiksma doesn't think evolution should be taught in schools.
>
> So the 25-year-old Blaine resident, along with a group of friends from
> her church, have fashioned Initiative 1040, which "concerns a supreme
> ruler of the universe."

She got that phrase, right out of the Constitution of the State of
Washington. The Preamble of that Constitution states:

"We, the people of the State of Washington, grateful to the Supreme
Ruler of the Universe for our liberties, do ordain this constitution."

http://www.leg.wa.gov/LawsAndAgencyRules/Constitution.htm

Notice that the Preamble of the United States Constitution doesn't
mention a Supreme Being at all.

J. J. Lodder

unread,
Feb 21, 2009, 2:40:03 PM2/21/09
to
John S. Wilkins <jo...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:

> Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <1ivht9r.147of3j7hkozgN%jo...@wilkins.id.au>,
> > jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
> >
> > > Are you kidding? God is a fascist, with all the arbitrary laws he
> > > imposes on us and then punishes us with the second law of thermodynamics
> > > if we try to evade them. He has some vague idea he rules by divine
> > > right, too...
> >
> > We don't know if the laws are arbitrary or not.
>
> Sure they are. Haven't you been listening? Physical constants could have
> been anything, but they are just right for us to exist. Ergo, God is a
> fascist who just sets things up any way they suit him...

Well he was good enough to help us
by decreeing that the speed of light
should be an integer number of meters/second,
so he can't be completely boshaft,

Jan

Burkhard

unread,
Feb 21, 2009, 4:26:46 PM2/21/09
to

me ;o)
And spot on characterisation of yours truly too - if I were ever
tempted to have sigs like Ray, "crazy theistic anarchist" would be a
strong contender

John S. Wilkins

unread,
Feb 21, 2009, 9:03:29 PM2/21/09
to

Yeah, but the *number*! 299,792,458! What the frick is with that? Why
couldn't he have added the remaining 207,543 and rounded it up to
something *useful*? You reckon that's not arbitrary? Fascist bastard is
just messing with our heads, he is.

Walter Bushell

unread,
Feb 22, 2009, 1:11:14 AM2/22/09
to
John S. Wilkins <jo...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:

> J. J. Lodder <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
>
> > John S. Wilkins <jo...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
> >
> > > Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > In article <1ivht9r.147of3j7hkozgN%jo...@wilkins.id.au>,
> > > > jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
> > > >

>5 Are you kidding? God is a fascist, with all the arbitrary laws he
>5 imposes on us and then punishes us with the second law of
>5 thermodynamics
>5 if we try to evade them. He has some vague idea he rules by divine
>5 right, too...


> > > >
> > > > We don't know if the laws are arbitrary or not.
> > >
> > > Sure they are. Haven't you been listening? Physical constants could have
> > > been anything, but they are just right for us to exist. Ergo, God is a
> > > fascist who just sets things up any way they suit him...
> >
> > Well he was good enough to help us
> > by decreeing that the speed of light
> > should be an integer number of meters/second,
> > so he can't be completely boshaft,
> >
> Yeah, but the *number*! 299,792,458! What the frick is with that? Why
> couldn't he have added the remaining 207,543 and rounded it up to
> something *useful*? You reckon that's not arbitrary? Fascist bastard is
> just messing with our heads, he is.

299,792,458! is quite a large number and when the computation is
finished will have plenty of zeros at the right end.

John S. Wilkins

unread,
Feb 22, 2009, 1:23:08 AM2/22/09
to
Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:

You missed the lecture on use-mention distinctions, didn't you?

Walter Bushell

unread,
Feb 22, 2009, 3:30:14 AM2/22/09
to
In article <9s6dnVG4fd8SzT3U...@earthlink.com>,
"Steven L." <sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote:

> Jason Spaceman wrote:
> > From the article:
> > -----------------------------------------------------
> > Kim Struiksma doesn't think evolution should be taught in schools.
> >
> > So the 25-year-old Blaine resident, along with a group of friends from
> > her church, have fashioned Initiative 1040, which "concerns a supreme
> > ruler of the universe."
>
> She got that phrase, right out of the Constitution of the State of
> Washington. The Preamble of that Constitution states:
>
> "We, the people of the State of Washington, grateful to the Supreme
> Ruler of the Universe for our liberties, do ordain this constitution."
>
> http://www.leg.wa.gov/LawsAndAgencyRules/Constitution.htm
>
> Notice that the Preamble of the United States Constitution doesn't
> mention a Supreme Being at all.

But the body does establish a Supreme Court. (It was a story how it
became Supreme.)

Desertphile

unread,
Feb 21, 2009, 12:48:15 PM2/21/09
to
On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 10:38:34 -0500, Walter Bushell
<pr...@panix.com> wrote:

Yer book iz over due! *ZAP!*


--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz

Desertphile

unread,
Feb 20, 2009, 10:18:35 PM2/20/09
to

Here is the link to the law against it:
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

Walter Bushell

unread,
Feb 22, 2009, 11:27:45 AM2/22/09
to
In article
<e019e9ef-fbdd-4b36...@o11g2000yql.googlegroups.com>,
Vend <ven...@virgilio.it> wrote:

In America it's lawyers.

Desertphile

unread,
Feb 23, 2009, 1:07:32 AM2/23/09
to
On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 13:03:29 +1100, jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S.
Wilkins) wrote:

> J. J. Lodder <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
>
> > John S. Wilkins <jo...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
> >
> > > Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > In article <1ivht9r.147of3j7hkozgN%jo...@wilkins.id.au>,
> > > > jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Are you kidding? God is a fascist, with all the arbitrary laws he
> > > > > imposes on us and then punishes us with the second law of thermodynamics
> > > > > if we try to evade them. He has some vague idea he rules by divine
> > > > > right, too...
> > > >
> > > > We don't know if the laws are arbitrary or not.
> > >
> > > Sure they are. Haven't you been listening? Physical constants could have
> > > been anything, but they are just right for us to exist. Ergo, God is a
> > > fascist who just sets things up any way they suit him...
> >
> > Well he was good enough to help us
> > by decreeing that the speed of light
> > should be an integer number of meters/second,
> > so he can't be completely boshaft,

> Yeah, but the *number*! 299,792,458! What the frick is with that? Why
> couldn't he have added the remaining 207,543 and rounded it up to
> something *useful*? You reckon that's not arbitrary? Fascist bastard is
> just messing with our heads, he is.

But the gods can't help it if we got the meter's length wrong!

J. J. Lodder

unread,
Feb 23, 2009, 5:34:03 AM2/23/09
to
John S. Wilkins <jo...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:

> J. J. Lodder <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
>
> > John S. Wilkins <jo...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
> >
> > > Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > In article <1ivht9r.147of3j7hkozgN%jo...@wilkins.id.au>,
> > > > jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Are you kidding? God is a fascist, with all the arbitrary laws he
> > > > > imposes on us and then punishes us with the second law of
> > > > > thermodynamics if we try to evade them. He has some vague idea he
> > > > > rules by divine right, too...
> > > >
> > > > We don't know if the laws are arbitrary or not.
> > >
> > > Sure they are. Haven't you been listening? Physical constants could
> > > have been anything, but they are just right for us to exist. Ergo, God
> > > is a fascist who just sets things up any way they suit him...
> >
> > Well he was good enough to help us
> > by decreeing that the speed of light
> > should be an integer number of meters/second,
> > so he can't be completely boshaft,
> >
> Yeah, but the *number*! 299,792,458! What the frick is with that? Why
> couldn't he have added the remaining 207,543 and rounded it up to
> something *useful*? You reckon that's not arbitrary? Fascist bastard is
> just messing with our heads, he is.

No, that's really needed. God is a very fussy fine-tuner.
It has been proven beyond reasonable doubt by our anthropic friends
that life in the universe would be quite impossible
if c were only one meter off,

Jan

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages