OT: Huckabee, Ughh
GarageWoodworks
for the Reps because he wouldn't pull as much of the CR.
Former preacher as Pres? "Wall of Separation" between church and state????
Scary.
GarageWoodworks
Edward Hennessey
"GarageWoodworks" <.@.> wrote in message
news:477d955b$0$10973$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
GW:
Quite. There was a newspaper story about him holding up a disaster relief
bill in
his state for a month because he refused to accept inclusion of the ancient
legal
phrase "act of god".
Add that to another one that pointed out his interference in the parole
process of
a violent felon whom he had prayed with. Though he denies instructing board
members
what to do in this case, they refute him. After the criminal got out, he did
a murder which
checking may show also involved a rape.
Regards,
Edward Hennessey
Mark & Juanita
Check your constititution, no "wall of separation" between church and
state is even remotely mentioned. The idea is patently absurd as it would
require people elected to office to operate in a manner inconsistent with
their conscience.
What the constitution does say is that "Congress shall make no law
regarding the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof" Pretty straightforward
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
Edwin Pawlowski
"GarageWoodworks" <.@.> wrote in message
news:477d955b$0$10973$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
60% of the caucus goers were born again Christians. That won't hold up in
the rest of the states. He won't be the next President.
Lew Hodgett
"GarageWoodworks" wrote:
> Christian right (CR) is locked in.
IMHO, best thing that could happen to the Democrats.
The country is looking for meaningful change, not a continuation of
the "My way or the highway" literal interpretation religious
rhetoric.of the far right religious group.
We had tried that way the last 7 years.
Lew
nailsh...@aol.com
when a self proclaimed Christian makes some kind of stir.
Really... what is anyone worried about?
We have what could be the most openly proclaimed Christian president
in my memory. Yet our government funded exhibits (The National
Endowment for the Arts) that show the much needed painting of "Piss
Christ", "Dung Madonna" and so many other important works. And just
today Georgie said that he though the theories of evolution and
creationism should be taught side by side so the students can pick and
choose what they believe.
We will take away a granite boulder with the Ten Commandments written
on them that was in the Alabama courthouse, even though over 75% of
all people polled said they disapproved of the action. I always
thought that even if you didn't believe in God, these were pretty good
rules to live by. Apparently not in the context of being a Christian.
Most schools now have any sign of the Ten Commandments, any quotes
from the Bible, or anything else that refers to Christianity removed.
BUT, they do have (and study!) other religions. My 17 year old niece
is learning to respect and appreciate Muslims courtesy of her public
school. Likewise she is learning about Kwanzaa, and the different
phases of the Jewish religious celebrations.
BUT... she has been cautioned that saying "Merry CHRISTmas" is wrong,
and could offend many other cultures. She appreciates the wonders of
many other religions and has a deep respect for them. But she won't
say the Pledge of Allegiance because it has the phrase "under God" in
it.
She is not alone. Most of her friends are like her. Most of our of
the cultural elite is like her.
I don't see any threat from a government that likes "Piss Christ" as
an avenue for my tax money trying to force real Christian beliefs on
anyone.
If you want to run around in tears over politics, look at the fucking
shitheads in Congress that managed to rally themselfs to force the NFL
to show the Saturday Patriots game, but can't do one damn thing about
health care. But by God, they care about fucking football.
And some are actually worried about some Christian being President
just because he proclaims his beliefs?
Let me help anyone paddling that boat out. Always remember they are
politicians. ALL of them will say anything and do anything to get in
office and stay there. Next they are almost all attorneys or have law
degrees. That means that your scuples, integrity and morals are for
sale for plain old greenbacks. How else could you defend baby rapers,
killers, drug lords, gang bangers, corporate mega felons, child
pornographers, etc.?
Calm down. Rest assured that no matter who is picked, it will be a
lying piece of shit, with no more concern for the citizenry (unless it
is a dedicated voting block) of the USA than your garbage man.
Robert
Robatoy
I think Huckabee is a nice guy and I'd go hunting with him, but you
guys don't need another religious fanatic who talks to God and blames
God for everything and then gets his ass handed to him by Israel.
Larry Blanchard
Let's see - everyone made fun of Kucinich (sp?) and his UFO story, but
voted for a man that says the Earth is only 6000 years old! At least Bush
occasionally visits reality, Huckabee doesn't even know what it is :-).
SonomaProducts.com
term as president. It was in a letter in response to a Baptist
congregation (Danbury) which had written him regarding some concerns
about religiuos freedoms. Jefferson assured them the constitution
protyected their rights to express their religion in civic affairs. He
apparently coined the well known phrase in this letter, although
Madison uses a simialr but stronger phrase "total wall..". However, to
be clear in both case the writers were speaking to the protection of
the church and their religious freedom and not the protection of the
state. More specifically to the churches right to organize and be
active in civic affairs (vote in theior guy). And they both stress
that it is the civic duty of the religious to exercise their "natural
right" and their "right to conscience" commonly interpreted to mean
they should be active in civic affairs such as campaigning, etc. So I
would contend that the legislative intent of the first ammendment is
at least equally strong in both the establishment and restrictive
clauses.
If you would like, I can go back farther, into maybe the 1600's and
discuss the Mayflower Compact. Now that is a document that claims this
land for God!
Joe AutoDrill
>> for the Reps because he wouldn't pull as much of the CR.
>> Former preacher as Pres? "Wall of Separation" between church and
>> state???? Scary.
>
> Check your constititution, no "wall of separation" between church and
> state is even remotely mentioned. The idea is patently absurd as it would
> require people elected to office to operate in a manner inconsistent with
> their conscience.
>
> What the constitution does say is that "Congress shall make no law
> regarding the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise
> thereof" Pretty straightforward
Agreed... I'm not pushing for any one candidate jsut yet. I want to see
what floats to the top or sinks to the bottom at this point... But... The
separation of church and state was to keep the state out of the church, not
the other way around... Morals and concience are based on religion for many
people. Remove the religion and you might as well have a free-for-all
because there is no long term accountability beyond the human aspect of
life.
--
Regards,
Joe Agro, Jr.
(800) 871-5022
01.908.542.0244
Automatic / Pneumatic Drills: http://www.AutoDrill.com
Multiple Spindle Drills: http://www.Multi-Drill.com
V8013-R
Swingman
I think Huckabee is a nice guy and I'd go hunting with him, but you
guys don't need another religious fanatic who talks to God and blames
God for everything and then gets his ass handed to him by Israel.
Among other things, he's a politician ... that's two strikes right there.
It's the little things that ultimately make the man ...
The end result of the way you raise/govern your kids (two sons) can say a
lot about ability to govern. The folks I asked in AR last week were full of
stories on that score, apparently many provable and a matter of public
record ... some of it ain't pretty.
First time I saw Huckabee, he weighed about 300 pounds. Although he talks
about diet and exercise as if he lost it the hard way, IIRC, he had gastric
bypass
... IME, mostly the resort of those lacking the self discipline to quit
stuffing their pie hole.
"Uncle Teet", 83 and a college educated rural Arkansan, put it best when I
asked what he thought: "He (Huckabee) believes he can talk a coon dog up a
tree, but all that hot air did as governor was keep his hunting buddies
warm", or words to that effect.
Bottom line ... non of the bastards are going to tell you the truth about
anything, only what they think you want to hear that will cause them to be
elected, then BOHICA.
For those of you who really want to take this country back -
ww.goooh.com - the only way that concept won't work is "apathy", but we've
already proved that is the most likely trait of this culture.
When it comes to self government, you, unfortunately for us, get exactly
what you deserve.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 12/14/07
KarlC@ (the obvious)
Swingman
> Calm down. Rest assured that no matter who is picked, it will be a
> lying piece of shit, with no more concern for the citizenry (unless it
> is a dedicated voting block) of the USA than your garbage man.
LOL ... Spot on! Next time, put that at both the top and bottom for full
effect!
Swingman
"Robatoy" wrote
>I think Huckabee is a nice guy and I'd go hunting with him<
What encoding are you using that none of my e-mail clients will put quotes
on a reply to your message? I can see ISO in properties, but ...
Inquiring minds ...
Doug Miller
Won't even be the Republican nominee. What plays well in the Iowa caucuses
isn't going to play so well in much of the rest of the nation.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
B. White
>I am referring to the Iowa Caucuses. :^(
>
*starts practicing speaking in tongues*
dpb
> The "Wall of seperation" was penned by Thomas Jefferson during his
> the church and their religious freedom and not the protection of the
> state. More specifically to the churches right to organize and be
> that it is the civic duty of the religious to exercise their "natural
> right" and their "right to conscience" commonly interpreted to mean
> they should be active in civic affairs such as campaigning, etc. So I
> at least equally strong in both the establishment and restrictive
> clauses.
By coincidence I've been reading memoirs of W T Sherman -- last night
got to point where the Union had recaptured Fort Sumter. On the day of
the fourth anniversary of its surrender, there was a major observance
during which the specific flag which had been flown at the time of
surrender was re-raised, salutes in tribute and acknowledgment were
fired from the same batteries which had performed the bombardment and
there was a program. The order of the program was to open w/ prayer and
the address was by an ordained preacher. The "separation" so extolled
by the present-day folk as a tenet is, as noted above, absolutely not
the same thing as most now take it to be.
It was, of course, simply that there was a strong aversion to the
founding of an actual state-sponsored and/or required religion and/or
church, _not_ that there should be no religious observation.
--
Charlie Self
Please, God. We have one clown in there now who claims to have God
whispering in his ear. The country absolutely cannot stand two in a
row: it may yet find it cannot stand one for two terms. Bush's
bullshit won't be over for decades...hell, it is going to take our
great-great-grandkids to pay off the war debt.
Charlie Self
When was the last time Georgie Boy paid a visit to real life? Age 9 or
10?
Robatoy
> "Robatoy" wrote
>
> >I think Huckabee is a nice guy and I'd go hunting with him<
>
> What encoding are you using that none of my e-mail clients will put quotes
> on a reply to your message? I can see ISO in properties, but ...
>
snoop for a setting ...I mostly use Google Groups on any of 3 macs.
Charlie Self
> SonomaProducts.com wrote:
>
> It was, of course, simply that there was a strong aversion to the
> founding of an actual state-sponsored and/or required religion and/or
> church, _not_ that there should be no religious observation.
>
> --
True. But one way to make the formation of a state-sponsored religion
difficult, if not impossible, is to forbid government sponsored events
from having officially led prayers. It's a little like the school
prayer bullshit: no one is prevented from praying in school; what is
prevented is any official form of prayer, led by teachers, or by
student leaders. Any student, teacher or principal, can sit and pray
to himself or herself as often as they like, without let or hindrance,
except that if they are too loud at it, others will scratch their
heads and gaze upon them with wonder--asking themselves, "What's that
fool doing out alone?"
Then again, people may just think they're using a cell phone.
J. Clarke
Several states already _had_ state sponsored religions. There was no
aversion to this. The concern was that the Federal government would
override those state religions and impose a different one.
And the authors of the 14th Amendment would likely have worded it very
differently if they had realized how it was going to be interpreted.
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
NoOne N Particular
to be bad for the country. There isn't a single candidate, Republican
or Democrat, that is even worth a glance. They ALL suck. The guy
that could lose the election for Republicans. IMHO, this question is
not who to vote FOR, but who to vote AGAINST. That is a pretty sad.
To those who want to vote for Ron Paul, he is just the Ross Perot of
2008. Not a chance in hell of winning, but every chance of insuring a
Democrat victory.
Wayne
dpb
> On Jan 4, 10:29 am, dpb <n...@non.net> wrote:
>> SonomaProducts.com wrote:
>
>> It was, of course, simply that there was a strong aversion to the
>> founding of an actual state-sponsored and/or required religion and/or
>> church, _not_ that there should be no religious observation.
>>
>> --
> True. But one way to make the formation of a state-sponsored religion
> difficult, if not impossible, is to forbid government sponsored events
But, imo, that violates the proscription clause from the other direction
by eliminating free expression. (Again, I'm not promoting religion,
simply pointing out that what is presently being practiced is _FAR_
different than the observations and intentions and actions of those
involved in the beginning who established the rules as compared to the
interpretations of present day.)
--
J. Clarke
The total cost of the war to date is, according to sources opposed to
the war, about 1/5 of the 2006 Federal budget.
dpb
I've forgotten specifics of the timeline -- by the time of the
Constitutional Convention there weren't any who still a requirement for
membership/avowed following for rights though, were there (as opposed to
the earlier colonies that were definitely controlling in all aspects)?
--
Larry Blanchard
> And just
> today Georgie said that he though the theories of evolution and
> creationism should be taught side by side so the students can pick and
> choose what they believe.
Equating a scientific theory with an unsupported belief is not a sign of
evenhandedness, it's a sign of ignorance.
Tim Daneliuk
<SNIP>
> To those who want to vote for Ron Paul, he is just the Ross Perot of
> 2008. Not a chance in hell of winning, but every chance of insuring a
> Democrat victory.
>
> Wayne
So what? There isn't all that much difference between the Rs and the Ds
anymore. Different dogs, same fleas...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk tun...@tundraware.com
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Tim Daneliuk
And the *annual* cost of government social do-gooding/meddling is
over 1/2 the Federal budget. The *real* source of our national
debt is internal socialism, not external war...
Larry Blanchard
> (Again, I'm not promoting religion,
> simply pointing out that what is presently being practiced is _FAR_
> different than the observations and intentions and actions of those
> involved in the beginning who established the rules as compared to the
> interpretations of present day.)
But those rules were made by politicians in a land whose predominant
culture was Protestant Christianity. There was a limit as to what they
could say without losing all support. For example, if you read the
private writings of Jefferson you'll find a much less benign view of
religion.
dpb
Personal belief, yes. Separation and forbearance, also. A much more
reasoned time overall in most respects. Sadly we have lost much of what
makes for real debate.
--
Rod & Betty Jo
Merely slapping "scientific" on a theory does not indicate something other
than ignorance as well.......It takes no greater leap of faith to believe in
religion than it does for a belief in evolution. There is absolutely no
factual or observed basis of one specie becoming another nor is there any
basis for life springing forth from a chemical soup......belief in either
whether true or otherwise requires faith. Without these, evolution merely
demonstrates (with reasonable proof) than a given organism can change or
adapt.....a far cry from life springing forth from rocks and the problem as
well of the origin of the rock....... Rod
Phisherman
wrote:
>
>"GarageWoodworks" <.@.> wrote in message
>news:477d955b$0$10973$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
>> Christian right (CR) is locked in. I was hopeful that Guliani would win
>> for the Reps because he wouldn't pull as much of the CR.
>> Former preacher as Pres? "Wall of Separation" between church and
>> state???? Scary.
>
>60% of the caucus goers were born again Christians. That won't hold up in
>the rest of the states. He won't be the next President.
>
Thank God!
Charlie Self
Maybe they would have, but...just maybe, the worded it exactly as they
did with the expectation that at some point, the new republic would
have a majority of people who had brains enough to wipe their own
tails. Unfortunately...
J. Clarke
First, "life springing forth from rocks" is a straw man as this has
nothing to do with evolution.
Second, there is a great deal of "factual or observed basis" including
the ability to predict that specific forms should be found in the
fossil record at specific depths within the rock strata.
This "one specie becoming another" business is another straw
man--evolution doesn't hold that a chicken wakes up one morning and
discovers that it's a turkey. One species doesn't become another, one
species gives birth to offspring that are a bit different and after
enough generations they are so different that they can no longer
interbreed with the first species, at which point they have become a
second species.
And it's funny, the major religions don't seem to have any trouble
with evolution. It's the lunatic fringe mail order evangelicals that
get all upset about it.
J. Clarke
Massachusetts was the last state to disestablish, in 1833. Prior to
that time the Congregational Church was taxpayer supported in MA--I
don't know offhand what other laws were in force.
SonomaProducts.com
out but was quite worried that is would generate flames.
SonomaProducts.com
War Between the States and the surrounding years. Before that time it
wouldn't have really matter much what the federal government did about
religon or most other issues. Of course after that time we were no
longer "A" united states government but "THE" United States.
On Jan 4, 7:29 am, dpb <n...@non.net> wrote:
Jeff
> GarageWoodworks wrote:
> > Christian right (CR) is locked in. I was hopeful that Guliani would win
> > for the Reps because he wouldn't pull as much of the CR.
> > Former preacher as Pres? "Wall of Separation" between church and
> > state???? Scary.
>
> state is even remotely mentioned. The idea is patently absurd as it would
> require people elected to office to operate in a manner inconsistent with
> their conscience.
>
> What the constitution does say is that "Congress shall make no law
> regarding the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise
> thereof" Pretty straightforward
>
It's also pretty straight forward that "no religious test shall ever
be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the
United States." Yet what we've seen - at least on the Republican side
- is precisely that. Romney felt compelled to comment on his religious
views, to tell the faithful that his Jesus was Jesusy enough. No
matter. Iowa Republicans went with the most Christianly candidate they
could find.
The Huckster's schtick isn't going to play here in the Northeast.
He'll be crushed in New Hampshire. After that South Carolina get its
shot. How do you think they'll vote? My guess is more Jesusry.
SonomaProducts.com
"Religion" but that should not be construed to support any contention
that they weren't "God fearing Christians". They surely were believers
in public and private.
Jeff
> >> Christian right (CR) is locked in. I was hopeful that Guliani would win
> >> for the Reps because he wouldn't pull as much of the CR.
> >> Former preacher as Pres? "Wall of Separation" between church and
> >> state???? Scary.
>
> > Check your constititution, no "wall of separation" between church and
> > state is even remotely mentioned. The idea is patently absurd as it would
> > require people elected to office to operate in a manner inconsistent with
> > their conscience.
>
> > What the constitution does say is that "Congress shall make no law
> > regarding the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise
> > thereof" Pretty straightforward
>
> what floats to the top or sinks to the bottom at this point... But... The
> separation of church and state was to keep the state out of the church, not
> the other way around... Morals and concience are based on religion for many
> people. Remove the religion and you might as well have a free-for-all
> because there is no long term accountability beyond the human aspect of
> life.
If the only thing that keeps you from killing ppl is a belief in an
Invisible Sky King then, by all means, keep believing...
Joe AutoDrill
>> what floats to the top or sinks to the bottom at this point... But...
>> The
>> separation of church and state was to keep the state out of the church,
>> not
>> the other way around... Morals and concience are based on religion for
>> many
>> people. Remove the religion and you might as well have a free-for-all
>> because there is no long term accountability beyond the human aspect of
>> life.
>
>
> If the only thing that keeps you from killing ppl is a belief in an
> Invisible Sky King then, by all means, keep believing...
You missed the point during your sarcastic reply. If there are no long term
consequences or higher moral standards for people to follow, many would
degrade into selfish, self-serving oxygen theives under (and maybe even
without) the infleunce of power. Why do you think that congress / the
government is so corrupt? There are no real consequences for them other
than embarassment.
Regards,
Joe Agro, Jr.
(800) 871-5022
01.908.542.0244
Automatic / Pneumatic Drills: http://www.AutoDrill.com
Multiple Spindle Drills: http://www.Multi-Drill.com
V8013-R
dpb
> dpb wrote:
>> I've forgotten specifics of the timeline -- by the time of the
>> Constitutional Convention there weren't any who still a requirement
>> for membership/avowed following for rights though, were there (as
>> opposed to the earlier colonies that were definitely controlling in
>> all aspects)?
>
> Massachusetts was the last state to disestablish, in 1833. Prior to
> that time the Congregational Church was taxpayer supported in MA--I
> don't know offhand what other laws were in force.
That's a little later than I had thought, but not particularly
surprising. Yet still not in violation of "Congress shall..." as it was
state, not federal, of course.
Reading Grant, then Sherman I've been forcibly reminded of the strength
of state loyalties as opposed to national that we now no longer
consider. One state as opposed to another is little more than who one
roots for at the football rivalry as opposed to fervent independent
pride until after the Civil War and really didn't begin to fade until
during the two WW's wherein federal troops were no longer raised and
organized by state militias.
--
NuWave Dave
"Joe AutoDrill" <b...@youthelate.com> wrote in message
news:gBwfj.74$TO.50@trnddc01...
>>> Agreed... I'm not pushing for any one candidate jsut yet. I want
>>> to see
>>> what floats to the top or sinks to the bottom at this point...
>>> But... The
>>> separation of church and state was to keep the state out of the
>>> church, not
>>> the other way around... Morals and concience are based on religion
>>> for many
>>> people. Remove the religion and you might as well have a
>>> free-for-all
>>> because there is no long term accountability beyond the human aspect
>>> of
>>> life.
You speaking for yourself here, Joe? If you lost your faith
tomorrow could we count on you to launch a crime spree against the rest
of the citizenry? What I hear you saying Joe is that your religion is
the only thing keeping you out of prison or off of death row.
>> If the only thing that keeps you from killing ppl is a belief in an
>> Invisible Sky King then, by all means, keep believing...
>
> You missed the point during your sarcastic reply. If there are no
> long term consequences or higher moral standards for people to follow,
> many would degrade into selfish, self-serving oxygen theives under
> (and maybe even without) the infleunce of power. Why do you think
> that congress / the government is so corrupt? There are no real
> consequences for them other than embarassment.
I don't know any non-believers, Joe, that have ever been arrested,
much less convicted. In fact, I would venture that more crimes against
humainty have been cmmitted in the name of god that just about about any
other motive save money. And religion generates no shortage of money
motives by itself.
--
"New Wave" Dave
dpb
...
> It's also pretty straight forward that "no religious test shall ever
> be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the
> United States." Yet what we've seen - at least on the Republican side
No such thing. There is no test of any sort as a qualification -- only
age, citizenship and such. How else could we possibly have such an
unqualified bunch of yahoos (for the most part) elected?
--
Swingman
"Joe AutoDrill" wrote
> You missed the point during your sarcastic reply. If there are no long
term
> consequences or higher moral standards for people to follow, many would
> degrade into selfish, self-serving oxygen theives under (and maybe even
> without) the infleunce of power. Why do you think that congress / the
> government is so corrupt? There are no real consequences for them other
> than embarassment.
Agreed ... formula below:
(Ignorance of Adam Smith capitalism with moral base/"economic man" as moral
man) + (Law school curriculums blurring distinction between morality and
legality) + (lawyer politician/lawmakers) + (corporate greed) = (Corrupt,
morally and economically bankrupt, culture)
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 12/14/07
KarlC@ (the obvious)
Joe AutoDrill
> could we count on you to launch a crime spree against the rest of the
> citizenry? What I hear you saying Joe is that your religion is the only
> thing keeping you out of prison or off of death row.
Not necessarily me... Althought there are some oxygen theives I might just
go after. <grin>
>>> If the only thing that keeps you from killing ppl is a belief in an
>>> Invisible Sky King then, by all means, keep believing...
>>
>> You missed the point during your sarcastic reply. If there are no long
>> term consequences or higher moral standards for people to follow, many
>> would degrade into selfish, self-serving oxygen theives under (and maybe
>> even without) the infleunce of power. Why do you think that congress /
>> the government is so corrupt? There are no real consequences for them
>> other than embarassment.
>
> I don't know any non-believers, Joe, that have ever been arrested, much
> less convicted. In fact, I would venture that more crimes against
> humainty have been cmmitted in the name of god that just about about any
> other motive save money. And religion generates no shortage of money
> motives by itself.
I'm not so sure I'd be comfortable grouping those who do things in the name
of God as those who actually have a healthy religious base... But this is
going way OT... I'm gonna back out for two reasons:
1. Preserve the newsgroup
2. I don't have time to answer this stuff as quickly as it should be.
e-mail me privately and I'll gladly discuss it in detail. Personally, I
think violence on a grand scale has been perpetrated by those with no belief
in a God more often than by those with a belief system in place.
--
Jeff
> >> Agreed... I'm not pushing for any one candidate jsut yet. I want to see
> >> what floats to the top or sinks to the bottom at this point... But...
> >> The
> >> separation of church and state was to keep the state out of the church,
> >> not
> >> the other way around... Morals and concience are based on religion for
> >> many
> >> people. Remove the religion and you might as well have a free-for-all
> >> because there is no long term accountability beyond the human aspect of
> >> life.
>
> > If the only thing that keeps you from killing ppl is a belief in an
> > Invisible Sky King then, by all means, keep believing...
>
> You missed the point during your sarcastic reply. If there are no long term
> consequences or higher moral standards for people to follow, many would
> degrade into selfish, self-serving oxygen theives under (and maybe even
> without) the infleunce of power. Why do you think that congress / the
> government is so corrupt? There are no real consequences for them other
> than embarassment.
>
Sorry. Sarcasm is one of my preferred literary devices.
Unfortunately, sarcasm is my preferred literary device....
Let's consider another institution. This one is dedicated to high
moral standards enforced by the threat of eternal damnation. Despite
its commitments and its beliefs, the Catholic church turned a blind
eye as priests raped altar boys often on its property. If the Catholic
heirarchy was truely concerned for the long term consequences of its
actions, then it would have done considerably more than transfer those
fsckers to another parish. You may place faith in "long term
consequences or higher moral standards" but I prefer the rule of law.
Yeah, sure, Duke Cunningham was one corrupt bastard but he's not
taking bribes anymore.
Joe AutoDrill
> moral standards enforced by the threat of eternal damnation. Despite
> its commitments and its beliefs, the Catholic church turned a blind
> eye as priests raped altar boys often on its property. If the Catholic
> heirarchy was truely concerned for the long term consequences of its
> actions, then it would have done considerably more than transfer those
> fsckers to another parish. You may place faith in "long term
> consequences or higher moral standards" but I prefer the rule of law.
> Yeah, sure, Duke Cunningham was one corrupt bastard but he's not
> taking bribes anymore.
Short, and probably last reply... Unless you want to reply directly to me
and we can do this off-line...
Be careful that you don't confuse religion with a belief in God, etc.
Religion is a machine. It's broken and causing all kinds of problems. A
belief in God is a personal thing and not associated with a denomination or
group of people IMHO.
Check out a guy named Dinesh D'Souza and a recent book he wrote (forgot the
name - Google says it's "What's so great about Christianity"). I'm in the
midst of reading it and although a bit too "christian" for my personal
taste, it has reversed a lot of my thinking already... We shall see what my
take is on it in a year though. :0
J. Clarke
> J. Clarke wrote:
>> dpb wrote:
> ...
>>> I've forgotten specifics of the timeline -- by the time of the
>>> Constitutional Convention there weren't any who still a
>>> requirement
>>> for membership/avowed following for rights though, were there (as
>>> opposed to the earlier colonies that were definitely controlling
>>> in
>>> all aspects)?
>>
>> Massachusetts was the last state to disestablish, in 1833. Prior
>> to
>> that time the Congregational Church was taxpayer supported in MA--I
>> don't know offhand what other laws were in force.
>
> That's a little later than I had thought, but not particularly
> surprising. Yet still not in violation of "Congress shall..." as it
> was state, not federal, of course.
That was the whole point of the Establishment Clause, that Congress
could not interfere with the state churches. MA wasn't the only one.
Connecticut disestablished in 1829 if I recall correctly, and I don't
know the dates on other states that had state religions. In no case
was disestablishment forced by the Federal government.
> Reading Grant, then Sherman I've been forcibly reminded of the
> strength of state loyalties as opposed to national that we now no
> longer consider. One state as opposed to another is little more
> than
> who one roots for at the football rivalry as opposed to fervent
> independent pride until after the Civil War and really didn't begin
> to fade until during the two WW's wherein federal troops were no
> longer raised and organized by state militias.
Actually Federal troops were supposed to be independent of state
militias. The theory if I understand it correctly was that the state
miltias, together, could stand up to the Army at need, but that doing
so successfully would require that the states be in agreement that
such an action was necessary. One of the checks and balances that has
been lost with the National Guard being required to swear fealty to
the Union from the git-go.
J. Clarke
The Republic was hardly "new" when the 14th was added. The authors
had a specific problem to deal with and I doubt that it ever occurred
to them that anybody would come up with some of the interpretations
that the courts have applied.
dpb
> dpb wrote:
...
>> independent pride until after the Civil War and really didn't begin
>> to fade until during the two WW's wherein federal troops were no
>> longer raised and organized by state militias.
>
> Actually Federal troops were supposed to be independent of state
> militias. The theory if I understand it correctly was that the state
> miltias, together, could stand up to the Army at need, but that doing
> so successfully would require that the states be in agreement that
> such an action was necessary. One of the checks and balances that has
> been lost with the National Guard being required to swear fealty to
> the Union from the git-go.
Oh, I wasn't trying to go into the theory of the thing at all, simply
pointing out that the effect of having a national army w/o the state
militias finished off the already in progress assimilation of the states
into an essentially amorphous blob that it is now... :)
--
NoOne N Particular
> NoOne N Particular wrote:
> <SNIP>
>
>> To those who want to vote for Ron Paul, he is just the Ross Perot of
>> 2008. Not a chance in hell of winning, but every chance of insuring a
>> Democrat victory.
>>
>> Wayne
>
> So what? There isn't all that much difference between the Rs and the Ds
> anymore. Different dogs, same fleas...
the one that I just cannot stand to look at, or listen to.
I am just thinking that anyone that votes for Ron Paul would be
politically far right. They would vote for Paul because the Rep
candidate (call him center for the sake of THIS argument) is bad and the
Dem candidate (far left) is probably worse. So by voting for Ron Paul
they are, for all practical purposes, voting for the very person they
want the least.
Wayne
Tim Daneliuk
There cannot be "right" and "wrong" without some objective standard.
If what is "moral" is up to me, than I have absolutely no reason
to do anything other than serve my own narrow interests without
regard to the consequences upon others.
In the absence of an ultimate moral author and judge, why on earth
should one not kill whomever gets in your way? Aside from the
practical legal/political considerations, I mean. For example, suppose
you *knew* you could get away with killing the local armored car
driver and walk away with $200,000 in cash. If you are not answerable
to any moral authority - and in this case, no legal authority - why
not? The very notion of moral rectitude depends on some concept of
moral authority.
Moroever, without some external moral authority, there is little basis
for human law. Why should murder actually be illegal? You can make a
utilitarian argument here: It should be illegal because it serves to
produce a more stable/durable society. But - again, if there is no
absolute morality - who cares if society is stable or durable, so long
as I get what I want. If I am strong enough to vanquish the weak,
then there is no moral impediment for doing so in this model.
Whether the Framers were personally devout or not, they understood
this idea that there must be a universal standard of morality that
is larger than any one individual's wishes. They couched this in
the religious language of their time. They began Constitutional
deliberations with a Chaplain offering a prayer. They grounded
their very argument for natural rights in the existence of a Creator.
It is abundantly clear that they considered some sort of faith
expression to be essential to the wellbeing of the Republic they
were busy drafting. It is equally clear that they meant this
in general terms and had no intention that this Republic would
dictate the details of this faith expression. In effect, they
expressed a non-sectarian version of Judeo-Christian morality
in their law giving. Only in the degenerate intellectual culture
the infests current thinking could this be so manifestly avoided
and argued against.
P.S. - It is noteworthy that the worst human rights abuses in history
came at the hands of people who rejected this Judeo-Christian
precept. The Rape Of Nanking, the abuses of Stalin, and the
horrors of Hitler all came at the hands of people who rejected the
idea of Divine judgment and personal accountability. Their actions
in the 20th Century alone dwarf the recorded excesses of pretty much
any religion, before or since.
Jeff
> > Let's consider another institution. This one is dedicated to high
> > moral standards enforced by the threat of eternal damnation. Despite
> > its commitments and its beliefs, the Catholic church turned a blind
> > eye as priests raped altar boys often on its property. If the Catholic
> > heirarchy was truely concerned for the long term consequences of its
> > actions, then it would have done considerably more than transfer those
> > fsckers to another parish. You may place faith in "long term
> > consequences or higher moral standards" but I prefer the rule of law.
> > Yeah, sure, Duke Cunningham was one corrupt bastard but he's not
> > taking bribes anymore.
>
> Short, and probably last reply... Unless you want to reply directly to me
> and we can do this off-line...
>
> Be careful that you don't confuse religion with a belief in God, etc.
> Religion is a machine. It's broken and causing all kinds of problems. A
> belief in God is a personal thing and not associated with a denomination or
> group of people IMHO.
>
> Check out a guy named Dinesh D'Souza and a recent book he wrote (forgot the
> name - Google says it's "What's so great about Christianity"). I'm in the
> midst of reading it and although a bit too "christian" for my personal
> taste, it has reversed a lot of my thinking already... We shall see what my
> take is on it in a year though. :0
>
Religion is interesting because it gets people fired up. I like when
opinions are expressed. If you really want to start a holy war, ask
this group what color they would paint sugar maple....
Mark & Juanita
> On Jan 3, 10:16 pm, Mark & Juanita <nos...@hadenough.com> wrote:
>> GarageWoodworks wrote:
>> > Christian right (CR) is locked in. I was hopeful that Guliani would
>> > win for the Reps because he wouldn't pull as much of the CR.
>> > Former preacher as Pres? "Wall of Separation" between church and
>> > state???? Scary.
>>
>> Check your constititution, no "wall of separation" between church and
>> state is even remotely mentioned. The idea is patently absurd as it
>> would require people elected to office to operate in a manner
>> inconsistent with their conscience.
>>
>> What the constitution does say is that "Congress shall make no law
>> regarding the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise
>> thereof" Pretty straightforward
>>
>
> It's also pretty straight forward that "no religious test shall ever
> be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the
> United States." Yet what we've seen - at least on the Republican side
> - is precisely that. Romney felt compelled to comment on his religious
> views, to tell the faithful that his Jesus was Jesusy enough. No
> matter. Iowa Republicans went with the most Christianly candidate they
> could find.
>
Yet you are applying a religious test of your own. Because Huckabee is an
open person of faith, you are indicating that he is unworthy of holding
office and are projecting upon the citizens of Iowa that the only reason
they are choosing him is because of religion.
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
Mark & Juanita
> NoOne N Particular wrote:
> <SNIP>
>
>> To those who want to vote for Ron Paul, he is just the Ross Perot of
>> 2008. Not a chance in hell of winning, but every chance of insuring a
>> Democrat victory.
>>
>> Wayne
>
> So what? There isn't all that much difference between the Rs and the Ds
> anymore. Different dogs, same fleas...
You can really say that with a straight face? You honestly don't believe
that a Hillary, Obama, or Edwards would be a bigger disaster to this
country's freedoms and underpinnings than a win by Gulianni, Romney,
Huckabee, or Thompson?
Tim Daneliuk
Paul is not remotely "far right". He is a strict Constitutionalist -
as *all* political creatures who swear "to defend and uphold the
Constitution" ought to be. Most of his arguments - the Iraq war
aside - rest on the fact that the Federal government does not have
Constitutional permission to do all things it is doing, regardless
of how good they might otherwise be. I support Paul because -
even though I disagree with him in particular areas - he is the ONLY
candidate that has bothered to read and actually understand the
Constitution. He would be a breath of fresh air in the Executive
branch - assuming he would behave as he promises to - by making
the office *smaller*, vetoing the endless parade of swine entrails
being passed by the Legislature, eliminating non-Constitutional
government agencies (Dept. Of Education for starters) and generally
returning power to the States and the individual as the Constitution
mandates. You don't have to be Right or Left to support this -
just someone who gets what the Framers had in mind in the first place.
Jeff
> expressed a non-sectarian version of Judeo-Christian morality
> in their law giving. Only in the degenerate intellectual culture
> the infests current thinking could this be so manifestly avoided
> and argued against.
>
> P.S. - It is noteworthy that the worst human rights abuses in history
> came at the hands of people who rejected this Judeo-Christian
> precept. The Rape Of Nanking, the abuses of Stalin, and the
> horrors of Hitler all came at the hands of people who rejected the
> idea of Divine judgment and personal accountability. Their actions
> in the 20th Century alone dwarf the recorded excesses of pretty much
> any religion, before or since.
>
It is also noteworthy that those framers, those men who prayed with a
chaplain each morning, produced a Constitution that made no reference
to "God." It was the first document of its kind in western
civilization without such a reference. I'm sure most believed in some
sort of supernatural sky thingie but at the end of the day their focus
at the convention was on the rule of law.
WRT to your PS, Imperial Japanese sovereignty was based on the notion
of some sort of god. That's how you got to be Emporer. Nice gig. You
set your own hours and people worship you. This notion predated
Western contact. It's a bit self-righteous to claim they "rejected"
the Judeo-Christian precept. What's your reaction when the follower of
another god proselytizes you?
By writ of Godwin's law this thread should end with your Hitler
reference. The fascist dictator was concerned with religion in as far
as it interfered with the state's ability to control its people. Once
the church was pacified, Hitler paid it little mind. A great many of
the the minions whose participation made genocide possible, attended
church on a regular basis. Sure, Hitler wasn't a model Catholic but he
was far from the only participant in the worst human rights abuse in
history.
If Stalin thought there was an Invisible Sky King, it's hard to
imagine a different outcome. If some unseeable know-it-all was lurking
outside, then Stalin would have tried to kill him, too.
Tim Daneliuk
No - they would be different kinds of disasters, but similar in size
and scale. All these people believe that the Federal should *do* things -
things which it has no enumerated power to do. The Republicans have
become the Big Spenders in the last 7 years passing abominations like
the drug bills for retirees. It was a Republican - in part - who
helped further undermine our right to free expression by passing
the McCain-Feingold act. Both Rs and Ds happily cooperated in
passing one of the most bloated, useless, ineffective laws
ever devised - Sarbanes-Oxley (aka "The Auditor Full Employment Act").
It was the Rs that got their panties in a wad when gay citizens
asked to be treated equally before the law. It was a Republican
President that decided to use tax money to fund private charities,
including religious charities. (Oh how that one is going to
come down around the ears of the snakehandling religious right
when the Wiccan charities apply for money and a court upholds
their request.)
The list is just endless. Neither party respects the Constitution.
Neither party is fiscally responsible. Neither party respects
civil rights. Both parties want government in the doing "good"
business differing only in the details of what "good" actually
means. The Democrats are stupid and dangerous, the Republicans are
incompetent and dangerous. Take your your pick. They all - with very
few exceptions like Ron Paul - make me ill.
I will vote for Paul in the primary and possibly write him in in
the general (assuming the Rs aren't smart enough to make them
their candidate). It may be a "wasted" vote, but it will not
be a malignant one like voting for any of the rest of these people.
P.S. Apart from Ron Paul, there is only one other candidate that appears
to even have a shadow of personal integrity - Barak Obama. His
ideas are lousy and dangerous, but he has been clear from the
beginning what they are, has not wavered or pandered to the polls
and stuck to his story. Like I said, it's a bad story, but at
least it's honestly told.
Tim Daneliuk
>> In effect, they
>> expressed a non-sectarian version of Judeo-Christian morality
>> in their law giving. Only in the degenerate intellectual culture
>> the infests current thinking could this be so manifestly avoided
>> and argued against.
>>
>> P.S. - It is noteworthy that the worst human rights abuses in history
>> came at the hands of people who rejected this Judeo-Christian
>> precept. The Rape Of Nanking, the abuses of Stalin, and the
>> horrors of Hitler all came at the hands of people who rejected the
>> idea of Divine judgment and personal accountability. Their actions
>> in the 20th Century alone dwarf the recorded excesses of pretty much
>> any religion, before or since.
>>
>
> It is also noteworthy that those framers, those men who prayed with a
> chaplain each morning, produced a Constitution that made no reference
> to "God." It was the first document of its kind in western
> civilization without such a reference. I'm sure most believed in some
> sort of supernatural sky thingie but at the end of the day their focus
> at the convention was on the rule of law.
And I so stipulated this previously. But the Constitution rests
on a notion of natural rights that appeals directly to a "Creator".
It escapes me why so many wish to sanitize this history to server
their current atheist needs. The Framers were what they were,
were influenced by what they were, and said what they said. Working
backwards to make them politically correct for the benefit of
those currently hostile to faith strikes me as both dishonest and
bad manners.
>
> WRT to your PS, Imperial Japanese sovereignty was based on the notion
> of some sort of god. That's how you got to be Emporer. Nice gig. You
> set your own hours and people worship you. This notion predated
> Western contact. It's a bit self-righteous to claim they "rejected"
> the Judeo-Christian precept. What's your reaction when the follower of
> another god proselytizes you?
But the Japanese did not invade in the name of their religion,
nor did the spirit warrior Japanese thing have much of a component
of after life accountability ISTR (but may be wrong on that).
Recall that I am contrasting the actions of those motivated by
religion and those not. I am not judging the merits of their respective
beliefs.
>
> By writ of Godwin's law this thread should end with your Hitler
I wasn't comparing him to anyone on this thread. I was making
a reference to a historic fact in a very narrow context. I'm
sure Godwin would forgive me and grant me USENET absolution
so long as I performed 2^16 "Hail, Hail, The Gang's All Here"s.
> reference. The fascist dictator was concerned with religion in as far
> as it interfered with the state's ability to control its people. Once
But was himself a pagan at most, certainly never exhibiting the slightest
hint that he expected Divine judgment. In fact, he clearly operated
without any indication of moral boundaries.
> the church was pacified, Hitler paid it little mind. A great many of
> the the minions whose participation made genocide possible, attended
> church on a regular basis. Sure, Hitler wasn't a model Catholic but he
> was far from the only participant in the worst human rights abuse in
> history.
He was its motive force, spokesperson, cheerleader, enabler, and leader.
That makes him the poster child for the movement and primarily morally
accountable - though there are plenty of warm spots in hell being
occupied by his fellow travelers.
>
> If Stalin thought there was an Invisible Sky King, it's hard to
> imagine a different outcome. If some unseeable know-it-all was lurking
> outside, then Stalin would have tried to kill him, too.
Pure supposition. The fact remains that a- and non-religionists of
the 20th Century dwarfed the most horrid excesses of religious-
motivated naughtiness before or since. This is not arguable, it
is evident fact.
GarageWoodworks
> Yet you are applying a religious test of your own. Because Huckabee is
> an
> open person of faith, you are indicating that he is unworthy of holding
> office and are projecting upon the citizens of Iowa that the only reason
> they are choosing him is because of religion.
Maybe not the ONLY reason, but religion is definitely a HUGE considertation
for them.
This Schneider dude summed things up nicely: (From CNN web page):
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/04/new.hampshire.2008/index.html
----If Huckabee is to win the nomination, CNN senior political analyst Bill
Schneider said he has to broaden his appeal beyond the religious base that
fueled his Iowa win.
---"He has to appeal to the non-evangelical Republican voters, to those who
do not put religion in first place," Schneider said.
SonomaProducts.com
them known and McCain has been mostly consistent.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Tim Daneliuk tun...@tundraware.com
> PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
NoOne N Particular
>
> Paul is not remotely "far right". He is a strict Constitutionalist -
> as *all* political creatures who swear "to defend and uphold the
> Constitution" ought to be. Most of his arguments - the Iraq war
> aside - rest on the fact that the Federal government does not have
> Constitutional permission to do all things it is doing, regardless
> of how good they might otherwise be. I support Paul because -
> even though I disagree with him in particular areas - he is the ONLY
> candidate that has bothered to read and actually understand the
> Constitution. He would be a breath of fresh air in the Executive
> branch - assuming he would behave as he promises to - by making
> the office *smaller*, vetoing the endless parade of swine entrails
> being passed by the Legislature, eliminating non-Constitutional
> government agencies (Dept. Of Education for starters) and generally
> returning power to the States and the individual as the Constitution
> mandates. You don't have to be Right or Left to support this -
> just someone who gets what the Framers had in mind in the first place.
>
I agree with everything you say except your very first sentence. So if
you exclude that first sentence, that just leaves me with two things to
say. One - In this day and age, it seems as though your description of
Ron Paul is exactly what the "left" would call a card carrying "far
right wing" nut case. Heck, I'll bet that even a lot of Republicans
think he is a far right-wing nutter.
It really sounds like you and I have very similar political views. I
too like a lot of what Ron Paul has to say. And if he had a shot at
winning I would most likely vote for him. But at this point he is still
not a viable candidate, and so I say again (and this is the second thing
I had to say), he doesn't have a chance of winning, but he as every
chance of securing a Democrat win.
I don't like either the R's or D's nowadays. As someone said, different
dogs, same fleas. Hillary is disgusting to me, but so is McCain.
Hussein Obama, Giullani, Huckabee, Romney, etc. are all just bau. They
are all just establishment politicians and not one of them will turn
this country around. Just the opposite. But those are the only
candidates that have any chance of winning. It all comes down to which
is the lesser of two evils and by a red hair margin that would be R for
me. Voting for Paul will hurt the Republicans more than the Democrats,
and that could lead to what I want the least in the Whitehouse.
Wayne
P.S. During one of the early Republican debates the question of
Socialized Medicine came up (they called it National Health Care but
what's in a name?). Only one other candidate stated that the FEDERAL
government did not have the Constitutional authority to do it.
Unfortunately, I don't remember if it was Duncan Hunter or Tom Tancredo,
but that seems moot now.
Robatoy
Meet the first family:
http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o290/Robatoy/huckfamily.jpg
That is NOT photoshopped.
He reminds me of him:
http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o290/Robatoy/gomer2.jpg
Is that what you want, Mark? Really?
Mark & Juanita
As opposed to this?
<http://www.zombietime.com/really_truly_hillary_gallery/Hillary55.jpg>
Reminds me of: <http://www.scaredwhitewitches.com/pic5.jpg>
Absolutely.
Huckabee isn't my top pick, but looking at the other side's alternatives,
he is head and shoulders above that.
In general, winning Iowa doesn't really mean that candidate is going to
win the nomination.
What I really want is a true conservative to win, most of the leaders
right now fall more into the populist camp than the conservative camp.
Robatoy
> Robatoy wrote:
> > On Jan 4, 6:19 pm, Mark & Juanita <nos...@hadenough.com> wrote:
>
> > Meet the first family:
>
> >http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o290/Robatoy/huckfamily.jpg
> > That is NOT photoshopped.
>
> > He reminds me of him:
> >http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o290/Robatoy/gomer2.jpg
>
> > Is that what you want, Mark? Really?
>
> As opposed to this?
> <http://www.zombietime.com/really_truly_hillary_gallery/Hillary55.jpg>
>
> Reminds me of: <http://www.scaredwhitewitches.com/pic5.jpg>
Touché.
LOL. I thoroughly despise Clinton. She's a neo-con.... even worse than
that Bilderberger Edwards.
Obama is by far the best the dems have. My gut instinct tells me he's
a moral man will good intentions. In relative terms, you understand.
>
> Absolutely.
>
> Huckabee isn't my top pick, but looking at the other side's alternatives,
> he is head and shoulders above that.
"At the other side's alternatives" I'll give you that without the head
and shoulders and Obama.
>
> In general, winning Iowa doesn't really mean that candidate is going to
> win the nomination.
Therein lies the hope for Ron Paul. I think he has as much moral fibre
as Huckabee without the disastrous track record. Huck's pardon record
tells me something... he wants to be liked a little too much. If you
drop party lines, you want a guy that is up to the job of putting your
great country back on track. You also want a guy who you can't mess
with. McCain is such a guy. You can scare Huck too easily.
As an outsider, and for purely selfish reasons which include ending up
with a nice neighbour, I'd pick Paul, Obama, McCain in that order for
a myriad of reasons.
>
> What I really want is a true conservative to win, most of the leaders
> right now fall more into the populist camp than the conservative camp.
The liberal/conservative line is so damned blurry, let's just hope for
a guy who can do the job.
In a stretch of reality: An Obama/Paul ticket would be as cool as
anything. (As opposed to a Paul/Obama, which couldn't get elected) And
give the Sec Defence to Wesley Clark, maybe Edwards for AG (mmmmm he
worries me with that Bilderberg shit.). Bill Clinton for State?
...and make Christopher Walken head of the CIA. *G*
BTW, I think Obama/Paul would be one helluva team. But who has those
kinda gonads, eh?
Rod & Betty Jo
>And give the Sec Defence to Wesley Clark,
Why would you think he would be competent for any post? The last decade of
his career and subsequent comments surely don't inspire such confidence.
>maybe Edwards for AG (mmmmm he
> worries me with that Bilderberg shit.).
Why?......While having a very successful "sue them till it hurts"
career.....his gift is with juries not necessarily the law.... If he could
pick voters like he picks juries he might go somewhere President wise but he
can't.
>Bill Clinton for State?
Why? His softball take few risks, promise lots, defer anything difficult to
succeeding administrations while delivering little and appeasing Muslim's
at will administration is no poster boy for successful foreign policy.
Rod
Robatoy
> Robatoy wrote:
> >And give the Sec Defence to Wesley Clark,
>
> Why would you think he would be competent for any post? The last decade of
> his career and subsequent comments surely don't inspire such confidence.
It would be to patch-up of the US image. He has a lot of friends in
Europe, he'd be useful shaking hands. Doesn't get to make the hard
decisions.
>
> >maybe Edwards for AG (mmmmm he
> > worries me with that Bilderberg shit.).
>
> Why?......While having a very successful "sue them till it hurts"
> career.....his gift is with juries not necessarily the law.... If he could
> pick voters like he picks juries he might go somewhere President wise but he
> can't.
I was more thinking of him going after corrupt contractors and such
with the same vigour he used to nail the tobacco companies. He
preaches a corporate clean-up.
>
> >Bill Clinton for State?
>
> Why? His softball take few risks, promise lots, defer anything difficult to
> succeeding administrations while delivering little and appeasing Muslim's
> at will administration is no poster boy for successful foreign policy.
I think he'd look okay in photo ops but wouldn't be allowed to make
decisions.
Who else would look on the world stage?
Frank Boettcher
<Counte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Jan 5, 5:23 am, "Rod & Betty Jo" <sogg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Robatoy wrote:
>>
>> Why?......While having a very successful "sue them till it hurts"
>> career.....his gift is with juries not necessarily the law.... If he could
>> pick voters like he picks juries he might go somewhere President wise but he
>> can't.
>
>I was more thinking of him going after corrupt contractors and such
>with the same vigour he used to nail the tobacco companies. He
>preaches a corporate clean-up.
>>
LOL, kind of like his esteemed colleague Dickie Scruggs.
Frank
Jeff
>
> And I so stipulated this previously. But the Constitution rests
> on a notion of natural rights that appeals directly to a "Creator".
> It escapes me why so many wish to sanitize this history to server
> their current atheist needs. The Framers were what they were,
> were influenced by what they were, and said what they said. Working
> backwards to make them politically correct for the benefit of
> those currently hostile to faith strikes me as both dishonest and
> bad manners.
You need to re-read the Constitution. Monarchs appealed to creators to
satisfy the divine right of kings. The Americans vested power in the
people, *We* the people. And if anyone distorts the record to suit
their needs it is you. Unable to satisfy your interpretation of
Constitutional law based on its text, you look beyond the document to
the personal lives of the Framers. These people were no more
homogeneous than any other legislative body. The Constitution was the
result of compromise. Do you think any member of that body actually
believed blacks were 3/5ths of a person? Personal beliefs aside, it is
telling that the convention chose as it template the more secular plan
proposed by the Virginians. Certainly, John Adams would have preferred
a more godly document but he unable to win that fight.
WRT to atrocities committed by atheists (Stalin) and uncommitted
Catholics (Hilter), I think you fail to appreciate the organizational
structure of genocide. Whatever their personal beliefs, their crimes
were not possible without the willing assistance of thousands of
actual participants and many more passive participants. Unless there
was some sort of statistical anomaly during the 1930s, it's safe to
say most of those participants were believers of some sort.
Hitler was religiously ambivalent. I've seen no evidence to
characterize him as an atheist, but let's suppose he was sufficiently
enlightened in this regard. So what? To make your point, you'd have to
prove that his atheism drove the genocide. There is ample evidence to
suggest that Hitler and Stalin were both sociopaths, a condition that
better explains their crimes.
Cheers,
Jeff
Jeff
> Robatoy wrote:
> > On Jan 4, 6:19 pm, Mark & Juanita <nos...@hadenough.com> wrote:
>
> > Meet the first family:
>
> >http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o290/Robatoy/huckfamily.jpg
> > That is NOT photoshopped.
>
> > He reminds me of him:
> >http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o290/Robatoy/gomer2.jpg
>
> > Is that what you want, Mark? Really?
>
> As opposed to this?
> <http://www.zombietime.com/really_truly_hillary_gallery/Hillary55.jpg>
>
> Reminds me of: <http://www.scaredwhitewitches.com/pic5.jpg>
>
> Absolutely.
>
Why do you counter a jaw-dropping photo of the Republican victor with
one of the Democratic third-place finisher. It seems to me you could
compare maple to maple. (Hey, I fit something relevant to woodworking
into this conversation...)
Jeff
Personally, I'd like to see Bill Richardson at State. His futile run
for the nomination maybe nothing more than an angle to land a job such
as that. Yeah, that sucks. But the State Department doesn't exactly
post that position and accept resumes...
dpb
> On Jan 4, 7:08 pm, Tim Daneliuk <tun...@tundraware.com> wrote:
>> And I so stipulated this previously. But the Constitution rests
>> on a notion of natural rights that appeals directly to a "Creator".
>> It escapes me why so many wish to sanitize this history to server
>> their current atheist needs. The Framers were what they were,
>> were influenced by what they were, and said what they said. Working
>> backwards to make them politically correct for the benefit of
>> those currently hostile to faith strikes me as both dishonest and
>> bad manners.
>
> You need to re-read the Constitution. Monarchs appealed to creators to
> satisfy the divine right of kings. The Americans vested power in the
> people, *We* the people. And if anyone distorts the record to suit
Actually, it's the Declaration of Independence that Tim's referring to
specifically, not the Constitution wherein the reference comes from.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men,
deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. ..."
But, it seems pretty clear, I agree...
--
J. Clarke
> On Jan 4, 7:08 pm, Tim Daneliuk <tun...@tundraware.com> wrote:
>>
>> And I so stipulated this previously. But the Constitution rests
>> on a notion of natural rights that appeals directly to a "Creator".
Actually, that's the Declaration of Independence. The rights
guaranteed by the Constitution rest on a notion that the Constitution
could not have been ratified without the promise of a Bill of Rights.
Actually it's a bit more subtle than that. What has to be proven is
that his _not_ being an atheist would have prevented it. For all we
know if he had been a True Believer of some kind he might have decided
that God or Ghod or The Great Ghu or Cthulhu or Xenu or whoever or
whatever he believed in wanted him to kill everybody who wasn't a
Nazi, and not just the Jews and those others who managed to annoy the
Gestapo in some way.
> There is ample evidence to
> suggest that Hitler and Stalin were both sociopaths, a condition
> that
> better explains their crimes.
>
> Cheers,
> Jeff
--
Tim Daneliuk
> On Jan 4, 7:08 pm, Tim Daneliuk <tun...@tundraware.com> wrote:
>> And I so stipulated this previously. But the Constitution rests
>> on a notion of natural rights that appeals directly to a "Creator".
>> It escapes me why so many wish to sanitize this history to server
>> their current atheist needs. The Framers were what they were,
>> were influenced by what they were, and said what they said. Working
>> backwards to make them politically correct for the benefit of
>> those currently hostile to faith strikes me as both dishonest and
>> bad manners.
>
> You need to re-read the Constitution. Monarchs appealed to creators to
> satisfy the divine right of kings. The Americans vested power in the
> people, *We* the people. And if anyone distorts the record to suit
And you need to read Locke - whom Jefferson more-or-less plagiarized
to get things going. Locke clearly and unambiguously declares
the basis for natural rights to be the "Creator". Pretty hard
to sanitize that, I'd say.
> their needs it is you. Unable to satisfy your interpretation of
> Constitutional law based on its text, you look beyond the document to
> the personal lives of the Framers. These people were no more
No, I am well enough read to understand that things do not happen
in a vacuum and that you cannot do textual exegesis unless you
understand the context and backdrop in which the words were written.
You can tapdance all you like to sanitize these documents of
their intellectual and philosophical roots, but the plain fact
remains that there was a shared general worldview that drove
the Framers regardless of their personal beliefs and practices.
That worldview was Judeo-Christian.
> homogeneous than any other legislative body. The Constitution was the
> result of compromise. Do you think any member of that body actually
> believed blacks were 3/5ths of a person? Personal beliefs aside, it is
> telling that the convention chose as it template the more secular plan
> proposed by the Virginians. Certainly, John Adams would have preferred
> a more godly document but he unable to win that fight.
While what you write above is true, it is not what we are discussing
here. The discussion at hand is why modern atheists are so
insecure that they need to rewrite history so as to make the
Framers secularists - which they manifestly were not. They
certainly did not want government declaring a state religion, and
the mechanics of the government they brought into being were
free of a specific religious texture, but it simply cannot be denied
that their motivations, thinking, and broader value system was
deeply invested in Judeo-Christian values. The fact that you atheists
don't like this doesn't change the facts of history.
>
> WRT to atrocities committed by atheists (Stalin) and uncommitted
> Catholics (Hilter), I think you fail to appreciate the organizational
Hitler was no "uncommitted Catholic"- he was a cultic pagan who
happened to have been raised in the Roman church.
> structure of genocide. Whatever their personal beliefs, their crimes
> were not possible without the willing assistance of thousands of
> actual participants and many more passive participants. Unless there
> was some sort of statistical anomaly during the 1930s, it's safe to
> say most of those participants were believers of some sort.
That is certainly true. But it took these deviant, if charismatic,
leaders to be the catalyst to move the "thousands" to action.
All bear moral responsibility - well they do in my world, since
I have a basis for morality (I fail to see how any atheist could
declare what these people did as "wrong" except, perhaps, on
purely utilitarian grounds).
>
> Hitler was religiously ambivalent. I've seen no evidence to
> characterize him as an atheist, but let's suppose he was sufficiently
> enlightened in this regard. So what? To make your point, you'd have to
> prove that his atheism drove the genocide. There is ample evidence to
> suggest that Hitler and Stalin were both sociopaths, a condition that
> better explains their crimes.
I do not I ever said, and I did not mean to imply, that it was their
atheism/religious ambivalence that *caused* them to do evil. My point
was merely that in the absence of religion/faith/an external moral
compass, they had no *inhibitions* from doing evil. In this regard,
I think Stalin - who killed north of 20 million of my people before
WWII even got going - was more intellectually consistent than most
modern atheists. He acted consistently with his belief that there
was no absolute moral authority and he was free to do what he
perceived to be in his own self-interest - the results speak for
themselves.
This is why a number of atheist intellectuals have come to understand
that religious faith is important even though they think it has no
basis in Reality. I think this too is inconsistent, but at least
getting them to acknowledge the utility value of faith is a step up
from blaming faith for every human problem (which is a bad rap as
we've just explored).
P.S. There is a world of difference between being a "theist" or a
"person of faith", and being "religious". The latter is
an institutional declaration and subject to the foibles of
all human institutions. The former are personal, meaningful,
and very important.
--
Larry Blanchard
> Yet you are applying a religious test of your own. Because Huckabee is an
> open person of faith, you are indicating that he is unworthy of holding
> office and are projecting upon the citizens of Iowa that the only reason
> they are choosing him is because of religion.
Don't know about Jeff, but I'm applying a reality test. Anyone who says
the Earth is only 6000 years old has a very tenuous grip on reality.
I don't want someone in office who may well think that a war in the Middle
East is a great way to bring on the second coming :-).
Larry Blanchard
> I agree you can say many of the founding fathers had a dim view of
> "Religion" but that should not be construed to support any contention
> that they weren't "God fearing Christians". They surely were believers
> in public and private.
Sorry, wrong. Most were deists. Read their writings. Certainly
Jefferson was, and I think Paine and Franklin were as well.
Tim Daneliuk
It is indeed the Declaration where Jefferson parrots Locke in naming
the "Creator" as the author of our natural rights. While the
Constitution does not explicitly mention this, it is implicit in its
very foundations. Moreover, even a casual reading of the personal
lives of the Framers shows them almost all to have some at least
nodding investment in Judeo-Christian ideas (Franklin) up to an
including people who were deeply invested in their Christian faith (the
Adams boys). To sanitize our government entirely of religious
expression today is to dishonor our own history and the intent of the
Framers. Were they trying to institution a state religion? No. Were
they trying to exclude anyone but Christians? No. But their ideas came
from *somewhere*. That "somewhere" was the Judeo-Christian notion that
we are valuable because we are God's creation. Secularists/atheists
hate this, and have been busy for decades trying to paint of this
inconvenient part of U.S. history. I have no more respect for them
than I do the snakehandler religious rightwingers who want to turn
all our Framers in Southern Baptists ... but that's a grump for another day.
--
Charlie Self
You gotta remember, though, that many Christians cannot accept that
someone is a deist if they don't believe as the Christian believes. If
you don't believe in Christ and the Trinity, then you, by definition,
are NOT a deist.
The gyrations some locals go through to show that scientific theory is
on a par with creationism are absolutely incredible. So far, science
has sort of won, but I'd bet if we get another committed born-again in
the White House, we can kiss that goodbye, and start bowing down to
intelligent creation, a newer form of myth.
Bush is talked to by God. I'd guess that Huckster is, too, or, like
Bush, believes he is. He probably believed the same when he got the
stomach banding that he know calls willpower and diet. Or maybe it was
God that told him that the Writers' Guild had ended their strike for
the talk shows (another facile lie to try to keep from upsetting his
heavy load of union supporters).
Basically, one pseudo-relgious nut a century is sufficient for the
U.S., IMO, and I dont' give a damn what Locke or Adams or even
Jefferson or even my leading founding father, Ben Franklin, would
think. I feel that Eric Hoffer was right: True Believers do too damned
much damage to make up for any good they may do.
dpb
> On Jan 5, 12:05 pm, Larry Blanchard <lbla...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>> On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 11:41:46 -0800, SonomaProducts.com wrote:
>>> I agree you can say many of the founding fathers had a dim view of
>>> "Religion" but that should not be construed to support any contention
>>> that they weren't "God fearing Christians". They surely were believers
>>> in public and private.
>> Sorry, wrong. Most were deists. Read their writings. Certainly
>> Jefferson was, and I think Paine and Franklin were as well.
>
> You gotta remember, though, that many Christians cannot accept that
> someone is a deist if they don't believe as the Christian believes. If
> you don't believe in Christ and the Trinity, then you, by definition,
> are NOT a deist.
???
Deists believe in a divine power but as I understand it, Christianity
would be, to them, a "revealed religion" relying on Christ being a
divine incarnation which would defy their version of "reason". Of
course, how "reason" derives the divinity to begin with is a little hard
to contemplate... :)
So, I don't see how any Christian would have a problem being convinced
someone is a deist if the don't believe as they do. The last sentence
seems almost precisely backwards.
--
Mike in Arkansas
>
> Therein lies the hope for Ron Paul. I think he has as much moral fibre
> as Huckabee
LOL. As a resident of Arkansas I can tell you that if Ron Paul
doesn't have better moral fiber and ethics than Huckabee he would be a
bigger disaster than the current administration. As governor The Huck
(formally "Widebody" before his gastric bypass) he had a real since of
entitlement to all the gifts people wanted to bestow on him. Set up
PACs to collect money he used for personal expenses. Constant
controversy and questions over his ethical lapses. Average
intelligence, gullible and paranoid. Just why did he take the
extraordinary step of crushing all of his administrations hard drives
at his terms end? He was hiding something. Instead of appointing
competent people to important posts he appointed his friends and
people he knew from the past because as he said "I know them and I am
comfortable with them". In other words he wanted 'Yes Men". He can
orate and play guitar a little. I realize no one can predict the
future and how events will turn out but I t I believe he would be an
absolute disaster as President. Among ALL the candidates Democrat or
Republican he is the least qualified and the last I would vote for. I
am a political independent and will vote for the person I judge most
likely to be able to do the job. Not looking for a "nice guy" or
girl, or entertainer but a hard nosed pragmatic manager with
intelligence and political skill. my .02
Tim Daneliuk
> On Jan 5, 12:05 pm, Larry Blanchard <lbla...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>> On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 11:41:46 -0800, SonomaProducts.com wrote:
>>> I agree you can say many of the founding fathers had a dim view of
>>> "Religion" but that should not be construed to support any contention
>>> that they weren't "God fearing Christians". They surely were believers
>>> in public and private.
>> Sorry, wrong. Most were deists. Read their writings. Certainly
>> Jefferson was, and I think Paine and Franklin were as well.
>
> You gotta remember, though, that many Christians cannot accept that
> someone is a deist if they don't believe as the Christian believes. If
> you don't believe in Christ and the Trinity, then you, by definition,
> are NOT a deist.
Huh? That entire parapgraph is incoherent. A "theist" is someone
who believes in God. A Judeo-Christian believer is a theist who
believes God is personally knowable and has expressed Himself
in a number of ways humans can apprehend (General Revelation [nature],
Special Revelation [the Bible], the advent of Jesus, etc.).
A *deist* is some who believes there is a creating God but one
who "wound up the clock of nature" and walked away - in effect
deists believe in a Creator, but not a personally knowable one.
>
> The gyrations some locals go through to show that scientific theory is
> on a par with creationism are absolutely incredible. So far, science
> has sort of won, but I'd bet if we get another committed born-again in
> the White House, we can kiss that goodbye, and start bowing down to
> intelligent creation, a newer form of myth.
The ignorance that most self-proclaimed modern "sophisticated thinkers"
exhibit in this matter is profound. Science in its perfect form
can only ever be about *how things work*. Science cannot - by its
very definition - speak to questions like "Where did it come from?",
"Why is it here?" or "What does it mean?" That's why it is perfectly
possible to acknowledge the value of science, accepting its results
where they are valid, and at the same time be personally devout in
one's faith. Only the truly arrogant (and ignorant) think science
trumps theology. The fact that a few people have misused religion
and abused science does not speak to the larger issue in any meaningful
way.
>
> Bush is talked to by God. I'd guess that Huckster is, too, or, like
> Bush, believes he is. He probably believed the same when he got the
> stomach banding that he know calls willpower and diet. Or maybe it was
> God that told him that the Writers' Guild had ended their strike for
> the talk shows (another facile lie to try to keep from upsetting his
> heavy load of union supporters).
And scientists have "Aha Moments!", mathematicians pursue "hunches",
philosophers "contemplate". Your arrogance is exceeded only by
your ignorance. The human thought/creative process is complicated.
It is not easily expressed in words. People faced with difficult
decisions find various ways to work through them. It is hardly
your place to decide which methods are- and are not "acceptable"
until/unless every single thing you do is rooted *exclusively*
in a rational process - something NO functioning human can claim.
>
> Basically, one pseudo-relgious nut a century is sufficient for the
> U.S., IMO, and I dont' give a damn what Locke or Adams or even
> Jefferson or even my leading founding father, Ben Franklin, would
> think. I feel that Eric Hoffer was right: True Believers do too damned
> much damage to make up for any good they may do.
Yeah, unlike those fine "rational" atheists/anti-religionists of the
20th Century that were responsible for ... lessee now ... about 100
MILLION dead. You fear the leader with a life of faith. I fear a
conscience-free atheist who thinks science has all the answers, there
is no God to whom they answer, and they are free to do whatever they
wish. This has nothing to do with defending a particular religious
tradition. It has to do with the observable damage that secular
atheists have wrought upon mankind which is many orders of magnitude
worse in kind and scale than all the abuses by religionists over
history.
Oh, and one more thing - it took people of Judeo-Christian faith to do
something in Western culture that NO one had done for the preceding
9000 years: get rid of slavery. Slavery is recorded in almost every
part of the human history we have available. It was those "religious
nuts" in Western Europe and the U.S. that forced their respective
nations to face the moral foul that is slavery. They did this in less
that 500 whereas slavery had been nicely tolerated by virtually every
culture for the preceding nine millennia. So before you blather on
about the evils of religion, you might try and acquaint yourself with
some slight understanding of factual Reality, because the absence of
religion - Judeo-Christianity in particular - has done a whole lot
more harm than its presence. I can provide more examples if you like.
GarageWoodworks
> exhibit in this matter is profound. Science in its perfect form
> can only ever be about *how things work*.
"Science in its perfect form" ? What in the hell does that even mean?
> Science cannot - by its
> very definition - speak to questions like "Where did it come from?",
> "Why is it here?" or "What does it mean?"
That is absurd! Sure it can! I encourage you to read about "God of the
Gaps".
Ancient man:
Why do we have dark followed by night? Don't know, must be God.
Why does it rain? Don't know, must be God.
Where did this meteorite come from? Don't know, God must have sent it here.
What does it mean when I get nauseous after drinking sour milk? Must be God
punishing me.
Lets look into your "Why is it here?" question and use MRSA and other
antibiotic resistant bacterial strains as an example. Bacteria demonstrate
evolution before our very eyes. We know "why MRSA and antibiotic resistant
strains are here" and it they were not before. Over use and mis use of
antibiotics.
>That's why it is perfectly
> possible to acknowledge the value of science, accepting its results
> where they are valid, and at the same time be personally devout in
> one's faith.
Bible rigid Christians would disagree with your above statement. Literalist
bible thumpers have a problem accepting evolution and being devout at the
same time. Mainly because they are told that every living organism was
"created" at the same time. Dinosaurs walked the earth with humans, etc.
We now know (Science filling in the Gaps) that this is not the case.
>Only the truly arrogant (and ignorant) think science
> trumps theology.
Truly laughable!
<snip> of the rest of your junk.
Fly-by-Night CC
Tim Daneliuk <tun...@tundraware.com> wrote:
> It is indeed the Declaration where Jefferson parrots Locke in naming
> the "Creator" as the author of our natural rights. While the
> Constitution does not explicitly mention this, it is implicit in its
> very foundations.
Why are the two documents so unalike in their inclusion/exclusion of the
mention of a Creator? Are not many of those who wrote and signed the
Constitution the same as those who wrote and signed the Declaration?
This is a real question -- I'd never seen the disparity between the two
before this thread.
--
This Administration begs the question: WWJT?
_____
Owen Lowe
The Fly-by-Night Copper Company
Charlie Self
Tim, I know that comes as an amazing surprise to you, but to be called
ignorant by an overweening asshole like you is a compliment.
Enjoy the rest of your life with the beliefs you now hold.
May they bring you all the joy you deserve.
Tim Daneliuk
> In article <bsp455-...@ozzie.tundraware.com>,
> Tim Daneliuk <tun...@tundraware.com> wrote:
>
>> It is indeed the Declaration where Jefferson parrots Locke in naming
>> the "Creator" as the author of our natural rights. While the
>> Constitution does not explicitly mention this, it is implicit in its
>> very foundations.
>
> Why are the two documents so unalike in their inclusion/exclusion of the
> mention of a Creator? Are not many of those who wrote and signed the
> Constitution the same as those who wrote and signed the Declaration?
>
> This is a real question -- I'd never seen the disparity between the two
> before this thread.
It was more-or-less assumed in the writing of the Constitution.
There were open expressions of faith during its writing including
opening sessions with a prayer.
Tim Daneliuk
Like I figure ... another entirely content-free subthread from
Pompous Charlie.
Tim Daneliuk
>> The ignorance that most self-proclaimed modern "sophisticated thinkers"
>> exhibit in this matter is profound. Science in its perfect form
>> can only ever be about *how things work*.
>
> "Science in its perfect form" ? What in the hell does that even mean?
It's called a "boundary condition argument". Assume science were perfect.
What could it "know". It could know how things work, how the universe
operates, how life evolves/adapts, etc. It could NEVER know
where it all came from, why things are the way they are, what - if
any - meaning it has, taken as a whole. Science it a utilitarian
philosophy that is strictly limited in what it can examine - it is
limited to those things open to the empirical/rational method.
But there are lots and lots of other things that matter to humans
than just those that can be inspected by reason and science by its
very structure must be mute on these questions.
>
>> Science cannot - by its
>> very definition - speak to questions like "Where did it come from?",
>> "Why is it here?" or "What does it mean?"
>
> That is absurd! Sure it can! I encourage you to read about "God of the
> Gaps".
I encourage you to explain - just in principle - how by sticking stictly
to science we can ever discover answers to questions of first cause.
> Ancient man:
> Why do we have dark followed by night? Don't know, must be God.
> Why does it rain? Don't know, must be God.
> Where did this meteorite come from? Don't know, God must have sent it here.
> What does it mean when I get nauseous after drinking sour milk? Must be God
> punishing me.
Modern Man: I have this nifty swiss army knife of utility value called
"science". Since it has provided so many interesting results for
me and given me useful consequences I will assume, without proof, this
is the only form of knowledge that exists or that I need. I will dumb
down my quest for Truth to that which is limited to purely rational
inspection and make fun of or demean anyone else who has larger questions.
>
> Lets look into your "Why is it here?" question and use MRSA and other
> antibiotic resistant bacterial strains as an example. Bacteria demonstrate
> evolution before our very eyes. We know "why MRSA and antibiotic resistant
> strains are here" and it they were not before. Over use and mis use of
> antibiotics.
A purely mechanical question well below the level of ontology I was
asking.
>
>> That's why it is perfectly
>> possible to acknowledge the value of science, accepting its results
>> where they are valid, and at the same time be personally devout in
>> one's faith.
>
> Bible rigid Christians would disagree with your above statement. Literalist
> bible thumpers have a problem accepting evolution and being devout at the
> same time. Mainly because they are told that every living organism was
> "created" at the same time. Dinosaurs walked the earth with humans, etc.
> We now know (Science filling in the Gaps) that this is not the case.
Now I understand your reasoning: Because there are people who improperly
apply a school of thought or method of knowledge the entire method
is invalid. Guess what Sparky? You better abandon science. I can
show you any number of bad science practitioners just as you can show
me bad theologians. But unlike you, I don't presume science is invalid
because some people abuse it.
>
>> Only the truly arrogant (and ignorant) think science
>> trumps theology.
>
> Truly laughable!
Truly ignorant on your part. I have studied and been schooled by
*both* rational empiricists, mathematicians, AND theologians.
The smartest of the bunch - by a mile - were the theologians.
This doesn't make them right. But your dismissal of theology
to the benefit of science means that you've simply switched religions.
Instead of treating science for what it is - a utilitarian philosophy
of knowledge - you've elevated it to being a belief system.
Welcome to the world of religion.
Charlie Self
Holy shit! Anointment from the Ham of Pomp.
Tim Daneliuk
<SNIP>
>>> Tim, I know that comes as an amazing surprise to you, but to be called
>>> ignorant by an overweening asshole like you is a compliment.
>>> Enjoy the rest of your life with the beliefs you now hold.
>>> May they bring you all the joy you deserve.
Translation: I have absolutely no counterargument or meaningful
addition to this discussion, so I will revert to swearing
and personal invective in some vain hope no one will notice.
I am insecure and unwilling to admit when I am wrong.
>> Like I figure ... another entirely content-free subthread from
>> Pompous Charlie.
Translation: I don't like being attacked for my person. Feel free
to argue with my ideas. I was wrong, though. I should never
have descended to this level of response, and for that I apologize.
> Holy shit! Anointment from the Ham of Pomp.
>
Translation: PLEASE, please, please, take the lights off me.
Charlie Self
> Charlie Self wrote:
>
> <SNIP>
>
> >>> Tim, I know that comes as an amazing surprise to you, but to be called
> >>> ignorant by an overweening asshole like you is a compliment.
> >>> Enjoy the rest of your life with the beliefs you now hold.
> >>> May they bring you all the joy you deserve.
>
> Translation: I have absolutely no counterargument or meaningful
> addition to this discussion, so I will revert to swearing
> and personal invective in some vain hope no one will notice.
> I am insecure and unwilling to admit when I am wrong.
>
> >> Like I figure ... another entirely content-free subthread from
> >> Pompous Charlie.
>
> Translation: I don't like being attacked for my person. Feel free
> to argue with my ideas. I was wrong, though. I should never
> have descended to this level of response, and for that I apologize.
>
> > Holy shit! Anointment from the Ham of Pomp.
>
> Translation: PLEASE, please, please, take the lights off me.
>
> --
I have no reason to counter your arguments, nor does anyone else. Your
Jesuitical mouth has again over-run your peanut brain, so it is
pointless to respond. I had forgotten you and your continuing
asininities were the reason for filtering you before; unfortunately,
my present set up doesn't allow filtering, so I'll have to apply that
hardest to use of all filters, will power.
Ta, twit.
dpb
...
> It's called a "boundary condition argument". Assume science were perfect.
> What could it "know". It could know how things work, how the universe
> operates, how life evolves/adapts, etc. It could NEVER know
> where it all came from, why things are the way they are, what - if
> any - meaning it has, taken as a whole. ...
Well, if it were to be such perfect knowledge then it would also be able
to ascertain the existence or not of the outside influence--ergo, all
would be known including root cause.
It may also turn out, that the root cause is, indeed, buried in the
randomness of quantum theory.
Then again, more realistically, it's likely we'll continue delving
indefinitely.
--
dpb
> In article <bsp455-...@ozzie.tundraware.com>,
> Tim Daneliuk <tun...@tundraware.com> wrote:
>
>> It is indeed the Declaration where Jefferson parrots Locke in naming
>> the "Creator" as the author of our natural rights. While the
>> Constitution does not explicitly mention this, it is implicit in its
>> very foundations.
>
> Why are the two documents so unalike in their inclusion/exclusion of the
> mention of a Creator? Are not many of those who wrote and signed the
> Constitution the same as those who wrote and signed the Declaration?
>
> This is a real question -- I'd never seen the disparity between the two
> before this thread.
In contrast to Tim's answer, I think it has far more to do w/ the actual
purpose and content of the two documents themselves -- the Declaration
is prose and intended to be persuasive of the righteousness of the cause
where as the Constitution is a legal document and therefore staid and
much more precise.
--
Tim Daneliuk
Thank you for demonstrating *my* premises... Enjoy *your* religion...
Tim Daneliuk
> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> ...
>
>> It's called a "boundary condition argument". Assume science were
>> perfect.
>> What could it "know". It could know how things work, how the universe
>> operates, how life evolves/adapts, etc. It could NEVER know
>> where it all came from, why things are the way they are, what - if
>> any - meaning it has, taken as a whole. ...
>
> Well, if it were to be such perfect knowledge then it would also be able
> to ascertain the existence or not of the outside influence--ergo, all
> would be known including root cause.
>
No Sir (or Ma'am as the case may be) - for the following reasons:
Note 1: Science - by it's design and method is innately limited to
those things which can be known by means of the
sense/reason process, as filtered through the rules of logic.
Once you leave sense/reason and/or abandon logic, it *may*
be "true" but it is not science, nor can science comment
upon it. This is where the Intelligent Design people
get in trouble, BTW - they take a big jump that is
outside the methods of science (a jump with which I at
least partially agree), but then demand it be recognized
as "science". Good manners demands that we all admit
the limits of any system of knowledge we're currently
using. I fault the IDers for this but I also fault
the science worshipers for assuming everything else is crap.
Note 2: Goedel pretty much demolished the idea that *any* logical
system can be internally consistent AND complete. In effect,
using logic, you *cannot* "ascertain the existence or not of
outside influence". This drove mathematical logicians
mad when it was first demonstrated within mathematics.
Science folk - especially those who are laypersons interested
in science without the requisite mathematical background -
often don't get how this translates into the limits of
knowledge for *any* logic-based reasoning system, including
science itself.
For instance, a perfect science would take us all the way back
to the Big Bang (or before that if there was a "before"), explaining
all the minutae of how it worked. But even perfect science could
not meaningfully comment upon whence the matter and energy that
comprised the "First Event" came from. It's an interesting
question because science does inform us that matter and energy can
be exchanged but not increased. So ... where did it come from?
Who/what made it happen? Why do the rules of quantum physics
(to the extent we understand them), cosmology, etc. work the
way they do. Once you step up a level from the mechanical details
you discover: a) Science has no voice in these existential/ontological
questions and b) They are pretty dang interesting questions.
> It may also turn out, that the root cause is, indeed, buried in the
> randomness of quantum theory.
>
Even so, how things got to be quantum/random is a question
science cannot answer.
> Then again, more realistically, it's likely we'll continue delving
> indefinitely.
Probably, and that is as it should be. The search for knowledge is
a very good thing for we humans to undertake. I just rebel at the idea
that there is only *one* meaningful way to know things, that's all...
--
Rod & Betty Jo
>
> Don't know about Jeff, but I'm applying a reality test. Anyone who
> says the Earth is only 6000 years old has a very tenuous grip on
> reality.
Very few Christians believe that the earth is only 6000 years old and
apparently neither does Huckabee .....he does however believe in a creative
process if I may quote.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=3140255
Huckabee said he has no problem with teaching evolution as a theory in the
public schools and he doesn't expect schools to teach creationism.
"We shouldn't indoctrinate kids in school," he said. "I wouldn't want them
teaching creationism as if it's the only thing that they should teach."
Also, students should be given credit for having the intelligence to think
through various theories for themselves and come to their own conclusions,
he said.
He said it was his responsibility to teach his children his beliefs though
he could accept that others believe in evolution.
"I believe that there is a God and that he put the process in motion,"
Huckabee said.
The former Arkansas governor said about the evolution question: "I'm not
sure what in the world that has to do with being president of the United
States."
Oddly in the creator Vs evolution debate generally the evolutionists are
intolerant, wish absolute control of the message and generally ridicule
contrary views...surely not a path to great science.....Rod
Tim Daneliuk
You may be right... I wasn't there, and after considerable reading in
the matter, I don't know for sure and can only guess. But there is
indirect evidence of the Framers being deeply influenced by their
faith traditions - even if it was a sort of generic faith for many
of them. References to Divine providence litter their letters and
writings. Their appointment of chaplains to pray at the beginning
of legislative or other deliberative sessions is a big hint.
Certainly some of them (Sam Adams, John Adams) were very up front
about their religious faith and how it influenced their law making.
If they were alive today, some of the people on this thread would
be complaining bitterly about how "John Adams talks to God,
what a loon..." or words to that effect.
This thread got to this point because atheists have a couple problems
in liberal Western culture and it makes many of them angry:
1) The culture was not founded on pure secularism and this is historically
irrefutable.
2) The worst abuses of government has been in places whether those
who govern either flatly oppose any sort of religious faith.
As I noted elsewhere in this thread, Stalin is a poster child
for what happens when you don't believe any moral boundaries exist.
He alone makes the next two or three in the Top 10 Evil Hit Parade
look like rookies. Mao - another atheist - is not far behind.
Any one of these did more harm than all the excessive of every
religion before- or since. But that doesn't stop a good number of
atheists from blaming faith for the world's problems
3) A good many atheists I've spoken with cannot make the distinction
between a *sufficient* form of knowledge and a *complete* form
of knowledge. Science is sufficient for a great many things,
but it is complete. It simply cannot address a bunch of
questions we humans find interesting. I cannot because of the
nature of how scientific knowledge is acquired and tested. This
claim, too, is mighty irritating to atheists.
For the record, I do not think government is well served by having it
become a theocracy. I similarly have no desire to convince atheists
that my views are right. I just tire of listening to them blame
people like me for all the world's sins, when it has been much moreso
people like them that have been the real culprits. Some of the
asinine comments seen here as regards to politicians who openly
express their faith (politicians, I might add, whose ideas I almost
entirely disagree with) are yet another example of these bad manners.
Tim Daneliuk
<SNIP>
>
> Oddly in the creator Vs evolution debate generally the evolutionists are
> intolerant, wish absolute control of the message and generally ridicule
> contrary views...surely not a path to great science.....Rod
1) It is not a path to great science. But whereas science itself
is bias free (when done properly), *scientists* and science groupies
are not.
2) The debate should never be creation vs. science. They address rather
different questions. The only people who have this problem are:
a) Literal 7-day creationist (who have some other exegetical problems -
I know, I was educated among them)
b) Scientists who prostitute science to make it the be-all and end-all
of human knowledge.
Tim Daneliuk
<SNIP>
> 3) A good many atheists I've spoken with cannot make the distinction
> between a *sufficient* form of knowledge and a *complete* form
> of knowledge. Science is sufficient for a great many things,
> but it is complete. It simply cannot address a bunch of
Err, that is, it is "not complete".