WNBR Seattle Report
Richard C.
We started the day at Denny-Blaine park from 10:00 am to 1:00 pm with talk,
body painting and food.
We headed out from that park with about 40 people and traveled along Lake
Washington to Seward Park.
We entered into the park on the closed-to-cars roads for the Sunday Group
Health Bicycle Day.
After a pleasant ride around the park we headed back and made a short stop
at the point of origin.
From there we headed up to the Arboretum and then to the University (UW)
District.
We travelled up the Ave (University Way NE) to many cheers of approval.
From there
we traveled East on Ravena Blvd to the Burke-Gilman Bike Trail and ended at
Magnusen Beach.
We had food, water and a pleasant skinny-dip in Lake Washington.
I encourage everyone to try one of their local WNBR!
Richard
(I hope this was not off-topic for some) ;-)
Terry J. Wood
news:e96dnR5PO8CaMDTV...@comcast.com:
> I encourage everyone to try one of their local WNBR!
Every time I see "WNBR" I think it's a radio station!
http://broadcasting.wikia.com/wiki/Chronology_of_call_letters_WNBR
Anna
> "Richard C." <post-...@spamcop.net> wrote innews:e96dnR5PO8CaMDTV...@comcast.com:
>
> > I encourage everyone to try one of their local WNBR!
>
> Every time I see "WNBR" I think it's a radio station!
>
> http://broadcasting.wikia.com/wiki/Chronology_of_call_letters_WNBR
But instead it is an anti-car, anti progress, neo-Marxist, protest
using in your face public nudity which will only make more people
hostile to the concept of nudity.
Zee
so this was an adults only event....so much for you promoting family
nudism....what a phony ....jz
Neosapienis
Definitely NOT off-topic. Good on you! I'm glad that yourself and the
other participants had a good time at the event. I only wish the same could
be said for the Brisbane WNBR this year.
However, next year I'm expecting to get a better turnout for it.
If you're not already a member of WNBR's Yahoo! Group, it's available at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WorldNakedBikeRide and they have separate ones
for each city.
"Richard C." <post...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:e96dnR5PO8CaMDTV...@comcast.com...
Neosapienis
Do you call polluting the environment 'progress'?
Do you call financial greed 'progress'?
With the exception of a few wowsers, nobody takes offence to this event.
As it's been said before: if you don't want to see nude people having riding
bikes, then go somewhere else.
"Anna" <annal...@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:c6b1e665-177a-4569...@a1g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
Neosapienis
As the organiser of the Brisbane one, it is against the rules to actively
recruit kids into this event. If any of them do participate, it is at the
sole discretion of their parents or guardian.
"Zee" <jon...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:cd58ed80-87b6-4591...@p31g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Anna
wrote:
> Hi Anna,
>
> Do you call polluting the environment 'progress'?
Yes. it is one of the costs of progress. But of course as progress
continues better ways of producing stuff gets developed and there gets
to be less pollution.
> Do you call financial greed 'progress'?
Greed for the lack of a better term is good!
Greed is right. Greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through and
captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Greed, in all of it’s
forms - greed for life, for money, knowledge - has marked the upward
surge of mankind!
> With the exception of a few wowsers, nobody takes offence to this event.
I take offense to socialism. Many people have died because of it!
Anna
So, Richard, did you ride by the statue of Lenin? And no, I don't mean
John Lennon.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/laughingsquid/22102374/
Oh, by the way I found this, if true quite interesting.
Arthalion says:
I'm a son of the sculptor who made this statue. My name is Ivan
Venkov. I do not know what do u want to show by dressing a statue with
crazy things and clothes. Do u want to make fun of communism ? I
wonder what a great fun u would make of Lenin in the real dark
communistic era in the Russia, would u dress Lenin with those
clothes ? I guess not.
The point is that my father made Lenin as a leader of the massacre, so
this is not a communistic statue, this is an anticommunistic statue. I
just want to be sure, you all will get this into your American minds.
----
After reading this I wanted to find out how true this was.
So, I searched and found out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statue_of_Lenin_(Seattle)
The statue was constructed by a Slovak Bulgarian sculptor, Emil
Venkov, under commission from the Soviet and Czechoslovak governments.
While following the bounds of his commission, Venkov intended to
portray Lenin as a bringer of revolution, in contrast to the
traditional portrayals of Lenin as a philosopher and educator. His
Lenin marches ahead fiercely, surrounded by torrid flames and symbols
of war.
Venkov's work was completed and installed in Poprad, Czechoslovakia
(now Slovakia), in 1988, shortly before the fall of Czechoslovak
communism during the 1989 Velvet Revolution. Despite popular belief,
perhaps reinforced by toppling of Saddam's statue, the Poprad Lenin
was not toppled "in the mass demonstrations that shook the Soviet bloc
during the fall of communism".[citation needed] Instead, it was
quietly removed from Lenin's Square, in front of Poprad's main
hospital, several months after the Velvet Revolution.
So, indeed, the guy who replied to that photo could actually be a son
of the original sculptor. Isn't the internet great!
As for the interpretation the sculptor's son had of the intent of his
father's work, well perhaps, but the key thing to understand was he
was forced to make the sculpture. It would be nice to think that the
sculptor slipped in an anti-communism message there somewhere but I
don't blame him even if he didn't unless he really really liked
communism.
I would hope that Ivan Venkov could give an interview to one of the
Seattle papers as it is interesting to hear his perspective on his
father and this sculpture.
Of course for the people of Fremont (neighborhood in Seattle) the
whole thing is a joke. And perhaps, I need to look at it this way.
Because it is in Fremont, Lenin does at times get dressed up in drag,
and isn't that the best way to insult communism in the end. Still, I
don't think people would feel that way if instead of Lenin the people
of Fremont put up a statue of Hitler for the same stated reason
(despite the subject it is still a work of art) even if they would
dress Hitler up in drag every once in a while. People would still be
outraged. So why aren't they outraged about Lenin being on display?
But from now on I will look at the sculpture the way the sculptor's
son has learned to look upon it. I will at least pretend that the
message of the sculptor was anti-communist even though the reason that
the Seattle people have it on display is because they are a bunch of
communist sympathizers. I can think, hah, hah, commie scum, the statue
is anti-Lenin and you didn't even realize it!
As for Emil Venkov, I don't know what ever happened to him or if he
ever made anything post-Soviet Union. I couldn't find anything on him
except for the Stalin Sculpture. I hope he is still alive but I don't
know one way or the other but if he is still alive I hope he has used
his freedom to make works of art promoting the concept of liberty.
Doubt though, that kind of work of art would ever find itself to
Fremont.
Anna
> As for Emil Venkov, I don't know what ever happened to him or if he
> ever made anything post-Soviet Union. I couldn't find anything on him
> except for the Stalin Sculpture.
Sorry, meant to type Lenin Sculpture. There isn't a Stalin Sculpture
in Seattle. At least not yet.
Emil Venkov to his credit to my knowledge never made a Stalin
Sculpture and if his son is correct managed to slip in an anti-
communist message into the one he made of Lenin.
But the New York Times has still not returned Walter Duranty's
Pulitzer and the Pulitzer Prize people have never revoked it.
http://www.orwelltoday.com/stalinliar.shtml
That's the American Left for you. Still idolizing their communist
icons long after they have been discredited and renounced in their own
countries!
Zee
wrote:
> Where did he say that this was an adults-only event?
>
> As the organiser of the Brisbane one, it is against the rules to actively
> recruit kids into this event. If any of them do participate, it is at the
> sole discretion of their parents or guardian.
>
>
> news:cd58ed80-87b6-4591...@p31g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 18, 12:10 pm, "Richard C." <post-...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Yesterday's World Naked Bike Ride in Seattle was a wonderful event.
>
> > We started the day at Denny-Blaine park from 10:00 am to 1:00 pm with
> > talk,
> > body painting and food.
> > We headed out from that park with about 40 people and traveled along Lake
> > Washington to Seward Park.
> > We entered into the park on the closed-to-cars roads for the Sunday Group
> > Health Bicycle Day.
> > After a pleasant ride around the park we headed back and made a short stop
> > at the point of origin.
>
> > From there we headed up to the Arboretum and then to the University (UW)
> > District.
> > We travelled up the Ave (University Way NE) to many cheers of approval.
> > From there
> > we traveled East on Ravena Blvd to the Burke-Gilman Bike Trail and ended
> > at
> > Magnusen Beach.
>
> > We had food, water and a pleasant skinny-dip in Lake Washington.
>
> > I encourage everyone to try one of their local WNBR!
>
> > Richard
>
> > (I hope this was not off-topic for some) ;-)
>
> so this was an adults only event....so much for you promoting family
>
> - Show quoted text -
it always is over here.....he did not have to say it was ....if there
had been naked kids there....that textiles would all know about it
now.....do they ride naked down under....the kids that is...jz
Zee
bawahaha....your up and down indicator needs to be calibrated....life
on earth living in a depressed society and on the edge more so
everyday causes my indicator to show we are going down....but i am
realistic in knowing that to go up in these days one has to suffer the
pain before rising....jz
Richard C.
news:qFmqk.29438$IK1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Hi Anna,
>
> With the exception of a few wowsers, nobody takes offence to this event.
>
Actually the VAST majority of people absolutely love the event.
They honk and wave and say things like "fantastic" and "way to go".
The encouragement is abundant.
Only a few tight-ass people get upset. They obviously have
a mental problem that makes them afraid of the human body.
What a pity.
The 99% of the rest of the people love it!
Richard C.
> so this was an adults only event....so much for you promoting family
> nudism....what a phony ....
======================
Who said it was adults only?
There were hundreds of kids on bikes at Seward Park!
Richard C.
news:784c6c85-e68d-465c...@26g2000hsk.googlegroups.com...
>
> So, Richard, did you ride by the statue of Lenin? And no, I don't mean
> John Lennon.
>
>
Zee
> "Zipee" <d...@webtv.net> wrote in message news:cd58ed80-87b6-4591-894e-
oh so you naked adults surprised some innocent kids at a park
huh......i knew you would find the clothed innocent kids....just a
bunch of ol man perverts.....jz
Terry J. Wood
news:qFmqk.29438$IK1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au:
> Hi Anna,
>.
>.
>.
> As it's been said before: if you don't want to see nude people having
> riding bikes, then go somewhere else.
D*mn straight!
And if you don't like seeing what nudist write, go post somewhere else!
Terry J. Wood
> Only a few tight-ass people get upset. They obviously have
> a mental problem that makes them afraid of the human body.
They're might be RINOs (Republicans In Name Only) or even WINOs (Women In
Name Only). But whatever their problem might be, it ain't ours.
Terry J. Wood
> http://www.post-age-collectibles.com/nudism/lenin.jpg
http://tinyurl.com/all-hail-marx-and-lennon
Which one is you, Richard?
Richard C.
news:Xns9AFF82A9AA4...@216.168.3.30...
==========================
May I see your passport, please?
Terry J. Wood
> May I see your passport, please?
Clone me, Dr. Memory!
James Dale Guckert
<bf3cb8ea-83d2-4d8e...@59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
Anna <annal...@lycos.com> wrote:
> That's the American Left for you. Still idolizing their communist
> icons long after they have been discredited and renounced in their own
> countries!
Liar.
--
James Guckert / Jeff Gannon / Whore for Bush
James Dale Guckert
<3e8a2fc2-6e4b-4d2b...@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
Anna <annal...@lycos.com> wrote:
> On Aug 18, 3:25 pm, "Neosapienis" <dariowest...@nospambigpond.com>
> wrote:
> > Hi Anna,
> >
> > Do you call polluting the environment 'progress'?
>
> Yes. it is one of the costs of progress. But of course as progress
> continues better ways of producing stuff gets developed and there gets
> to be less pollution.
Now I'm confused. (Not really. It's clear you're a loon, but I'm
pretending to be confused.) Progress pollutes, but progress reduces
pollution?
So *not* using a car is offensive because it doesn't pollute? Advising
people to avoid driving when it's not necessary is offensive because it
decreases traffic and makes it easier for drivers to get from point A to
point B?
> > Do you call financial greed 'progress'?
>
> Greed for the lack of a better term is good!
>
> Greed is right. Greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through and
> captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Greed, in all of it零
> forms - greed for life, for money, knowledge - has marked the upward
> surge of mankind!
Cool movie. Gordon Gecko would make Jesus cry, though, don't you think?
Not that either of them existed, but still....
> > With the exception of a few wowsers, nobody takes offence to this event.
>
> I take offense to socialism. Many people have died because of it!
No. People die due to natural causes, accidents, or because people kill
them.
Ideas don't kill.
Socialism was not about killing people, so you'd better look into other
reasons for the deaths you are alleging were caused by it.
I bet you blame those deaths on atheism, too.
What a tool.
Richard C.
=======================
Coming mother!
Terry J. Wood
> "Terry J. Wood" <Terry...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns9AFFE75FBC5...@216.168.3.30...
>> "Richard C." <post...@spamcop.net> wrote in
>> news:L5edneCOV5QyhjbV...@comcast.com:
>>> May I see your passport, please?
>> Clone me, Dr. Memory!
> Coming mother!
Porgy Tirebiter -- he's a regular girl exciter!
Anna
> In article
> <3e8a2fc2-6e4b-4d2b-aee3-8f9b93506...@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
>
> Anna <annalidd...@lycos.com> wrote:
> > On Aug 18, 3:25 pm, "Neosapienis" <dariowest...@nospambigpond.com>
> > wrote:
> > > Hi Anna,
>
> > > Do you call polluting the environment 'progress'?
>
> > Yes. it is one of the costs of progress. But of course as progress
> > continues better ways of producing stuff gets developed and there gets
> > to be less pollution.
>
> Now I'm confused. (Not really. It's clear you're a loon, but I'm
> pretending to be confused.) Progress pollutes, but progress reduces
> pollution?
At first there's a lot of pollution but over time as better ways are
developed there becomes less pollution. There is less pollution now
than there was 50 years ago even though there are more cars. And even
with the pollution we have now, it is far more healthy than 150 years
ago where they had horse shit everywhere.
> So *not* using a car is offensive because it doesn't pollute?
Protesting people having the choice to drive is offensive.
> Advising
> people to avoid driving when it's not necessary is offensive because it
> decreases traffic and makes it easier for drivers to get from point A to
> point B?
Who decides when it is necessary or not?
> > > Do you call financial greed 'progress'?
>
> > Greed for the lack of a better term is good!
>
> > Greed is right. Greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through and
> > captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Greed, in all of it¹s
> > forms - greed for life, for money, knowledge - has marked the upward
> > surge of mankind!
>
> Cool movie. Gordon Gecko would make Jesus cry, though, don't you think?
> Not that either of them existed, but still....
Well it was a liberal movie so they made his character as ugly as
possible. But the basic speech he gave in that scene was correct.
Without the desire for self improvement, without the incentive wanting
to be richer brings, as a society we would all be the poorer.
Now I would be the first one to agree that such a desire needs to be
controlled at times such as in the case of selling technology to
potential foes and such. But I really don't see in the case of oil the
problem is greed.
> > > With the exception of a few wowsers, nobody takes offence to this event.
>
> > I take offense to socialism. Many people have died because of it!
>
> No. People die due to natural causes, accidents, or because people kill
> them.
Because people like Stalin kill them.
> Ideas don't kill.
Tell that to the Jews
> Socialism was not about killing people, so you'd better look into other
> reasons for the deaths you are alleging were caused by it.
In the end it had to be about killing people. Because in the end it
was about total control of the individual. And to do that sometimes
you have to kill a bunch of them.
> I bet you blame those deaths on atheism, too.
Atheism is amoral. Since nothing is intrinsically good one can do
whatever to reach his ultimate good.
James Dale Guckert
<61d7be87-eaae-4248...@e53g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,
Anna <annal...@lycos.com> wrote:
> On Aug 19, 8:55 pm, James Dale Guckert <RichGan...@Bush.Ass> wrote:
> > In article
> > <3e8a2fc2-6e4b-4d2b-aee3-8f9b93506...@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > Anna <annalidd...@lycos.com> wrote:
> > > On Aug 18, 3:25 pm, "Neosapienis" <dariowest...@nospambigpond.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > Hi Anna,
> >
> > > > Do you call polluting the environment 'progress'?
> >
> > > Yes. it is one of the costs of progress. But of course as progress
> > > continues better ways of producing stuff gets developed and there gets
> > > to be less pollution.
> >
> > Now I'm confused. (Not really. It's clear you're a loon, but I'm
> > pretending to be confused.) Progress pollutes, but progress reduces
> > pollution?
>
> At first there's a lot of pollution but over time as better ways are
> developed there becomes less pollution. There is less pollution now
> than there was 50 years ago even though there are more cars. And even
> with the pollution we have now, it is far more healthy than 150 years
> ago where they had horse shit everywhere.
Yet many cities all over the world have toxic air, and those who suffer
the most are the children.
Some progress!
> > So *not* using a car is offensive because it doesn't pollute?
>
> Protesting people having the choice to drive is offensive.
If that's what you think they're doing, you're paranoid.
> > Advising people to avoid driving when it's not necessary is
> > offensive because it decreases traffic and makes it easier for
> > drivers to get from point A to point B?
>
> Who decides when it is necessary or not?
People can be inspired to make that judgment in favor of not driving.
Conservation as a concept should *never* be mocked. Yet there are
whacked-out right-wingers that do exactly that.
> > > > Do you call financial greed 'progress'?
> >
> > > Greed for the lack of a better term is good!
> >
> > > Greed is right. Greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through and
> > > captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Greed, in all of it零
> > > forms - greed for life, for money, knowledge - has marked the upward
> > > surge of mankind!
> >
> > Cool movie. Gordon Gecko would make Jesus cry, though, don't you think?
> > Not that either of them existed, but still....
>
> Well it was a liberal movie so they made his character as ugly as
> possible. But the basic speech he gave in that scene was correct.
> Without the desire for self improvement, without the incentive wanting
> to be richer brings, as a society we would all be the poorer.
>
> Now I would be the first one to agree that such a desire needs to be
> controlled at times such as in the case of selling technology to
> potential foes and such. But I really don't see in the case of oil the
> problem is greed.
Sounds like you made a clear-ish statement and then fogged it up even
more. Seeking financial wealth is not the same as self-improvement.
Words like "rich" and "poor" can mean many, many things. Gecko's speech
is funny because of how it simplifies and conflates.
> > > > With the exception of a few wowsers, nobody takes offence to this event.
> >
> > > I take offense to socialism. Many people have died because of it!
> >
> > No. People die due to natural causes, accidents, or because people kill
> > them.
>
> Because people like Stalin kill them.
Right. Repressive, power-mad assholes like Stalin and his henchmen.
> > Ideas don't kill.
>
> Tell that to the Jews
No Jews were killed by ideas. No people were killed by ideas.
What should I tell them? I'm married to one, so it would be easy to get
started.
> > Socialism was not about killing people, so you'd better look into other
> > reasons for the deaths you are alleging were caused by it.
>
> In the end it had to be about killing people.
No. It didn't.
> Because in the end it was about total control of the individual. And
> to do that sometimes you have to kill a bunch of them.
Wasn't that the justification for the invasion of Iraq?
You should know that much more than a perverted sort of socialism was
practiced in Stalin's Soviet Union.
You should know that. But then it would hurt your supposed point.
> > I bet you blame those deaths on atheism, too.
>
> Atheism is amoral.
That is sort of correct. Nice work, sort of.
> Since nothing is intrinsically good one can do whatever to reach his
> ultimate good.
This is far less correct, in that it denies that atheism has room for a
system of ethics, which many scientists have come to understand as part
of the genetic code of many animals, humans included.
On the other hand, theism can easily seek justification for awful deeds
by claiming that the god or gods wanted such awful deeds done. That's
because theism pretends to know what the god or gods want people to do.
And they very well could decide that the god or gods want very bad
things done.
Think slavery. Think genocide. Think segregation. Think warfare.
Devout Christians, among others, saw good in all of those. You may
argue, but that doesn't change a thing.
Richard C.
=================================
Which Pyramid?
Terry J. Wood
>>>>> May I see your passport, please?
>>>> Clone me, Dr. Memory!
>>> Coming mother!
>> Porgy Tirebiter -- he's a regular girl exciter!
> Which Pyramid?
The one with the ever-widening hole in it!
Squeeze the Wheeze!
Richard C.
==========================
My mother was a bozoette!
Terry J. Wood
> "Terry J. Wood" <Terry...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns9B00E39FFA2...@216.168.3.30...
>> "Richard C." <post...@spamcop.net> wrote in
>> news:Uo2dnYl6mMAvUTHV...@comcast.com:
>>
>>>>>>> May I see your passport, please?
>>
>>>>>> Clone me, Dr. Memory!
>>
>>>>> Coming mother!
>>
>>>> Porgy Tirebiter -- he's a regular girl exciter!
>>
>>> Which Pyramid?
>>
>> The one with the ever-widening hole in it!
>>
>>
>> Squeeze the Wheeze!
> My mother was a bozoette!
I think we're all bozos on this bus!
Stuffed Tiger
<RichG...@Bush.Ass> wrote:
>In article
><61d7be87-eaae-4248...@e53g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,
> Anna <annal...@lycos.com> wrote:
...
>> Since nothing is intrinsically good one can do whatever to reach his
>> ultimate good.
>
>This is far less correct, in that it denies that atheism has room for a
>system of ethics, which many scientists have come to understand as part
>of the genetic code of many animals, humans included.
>
>On the other hand, theism can easily seek justification for awful deeds
>by claiming that the god or gods wanted such awful deeds done. That's
>because theism pretends to know what the god or gods want people to do.
>And they very well could decide that the god or gods want very bad
>things done.
>
>Think slavery. Think genocide. Think segregation. Think warfare.
>Devout Christians, among others, saw good in all of those. You may
>argue, but that doesn't change a thing.
Thoughts following up on ethical moral values and religion ...
If one has good ethics, then of what use is religion?
If one doesn't have good ethics, then of what use is religion?
Good ethics is more fundamental than religion in moral values.
Examples of good ethics with or without religion:
Not saying that good ethics are necessarily inimical to religion.
James Dale Guckert
Stuffed Tiger <No...@NotAnAddress.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 18:14:59 -0700, James Dale Guckert
> <RichG...@Bush.Ass> wrote:
>
> >In article
> ><61d7be87-eaae-4248...@e53g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,
> > Anna <annal...@lycos.com> wrote:
> ...
> >> Since nothing is intrinsically good one can do whatever to reach his
> >> ultimate good.
> >
> >This is far less correct, in that it denies that atheism has room for a
> >system of ethics, which many scientists have come to understand as part
> >of the genetic code of many animals, humans included.
> >
> >On the other hand, theism can easily seek justification for awful deeds
> >by claiming that the god or gods wanted such awful deeds done. That's
> >because theism pretends to know what the god or gods want people to do.
> >And they very well could decide that the god or gods want very bad
> >things done.
> >
> >Think slavery. Think genocide. Think segregation. Think warfare.
> >Devout Christians, among others, saw good in all of those. You may
> >argue, but that doesn't change a thing.
>
> Thoughts following up on ethical moral values and religion ...
Which are two separate things...
> If one has good ethics, then of what use is religion?
Why the introductory conditional clause? Better to ask: Of what use is
religion?
The answer depends on the person in question.
Religion is useful to those who know how to use it to, for example, keep
people afraid and stupid. People who are afraid and stupid are easier
to control than those who are brave and educated.
> If one doesn't have good ethics, then of what use is religion?
I really don't know.
> Good ethics is more fundamental than religion in moral values.
I'm not sure what that sentence means. Too many weasel words.
> Examples of good ethics with or without religion:
<snip>
I suggest that ethics exist separately from religions, and predate them,
originating at the point where humanoids became social beings.
Religions may or not pick up (and shed) certain ethical standards during
their development, but that's the nature of social constructs.
> Not saying that good ethics are necessarily inimical to religion.
Not saying.