Discussion:
US Constitution, Bill of Rights, and US Slogans that should not be spoken due to offensive content.
(too old to reply)
PlanetFur
2003-08-28 03:57:04 UTC
Permalink
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect
Union,
establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common
defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the BLESSINGS of Liberty
to
ourselves..."
Blessing should be removed for its religious undertones.
Blessing has several Judeo-Christian tones, but the entymology of the
word comes from one of its truer meanins, to sanctify.

Bless comes from bloe(o")dan, blood, and came into Anglo-Saxon
terminology from PAGAN sanctifications, not Christian.

So even if some of the meanings have manifestations in faith-related
terminology, it also has non-religious tones, and does not always
indicate a promotion of any faith or religion.
"The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient
for
the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the
Same.
done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the
Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven
hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of
America the Twelfth In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our
Names, "
In the Year of our Lord should be removed since this word when capitalized
refers to a religious deity and not a human being.
Except that the Year of our Lord refers to anno Domini, reflecting the
calendar
year of the Christian calendar rather than other forms of calendars. Anno
Domini
literally means "in the year of our Lord". Since the Christian calendar is
what most
countries, including the US, uses, why not keep in its era, whether it be
Year of
our Lord or anno Domini?
No Article in the Consitution of the United States provides for the
separaction of church and state.
Nor do any protect us from prosecution for having any religion, nor do any
guarantee us to a trial for any crimes for which we may be accused. This is
why the Constitution has been and can still be amended.

The Founding Fathers were agnostics and freethinkers, believe it or not.
Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin especially did not subscribe to
any organized or recognized religion.
The US Pledge of Allegience "..one nation, under God" should be striken
from
public statements.
Especially since the phrase was added by a Christian group in hopes of
pushing
Christianity into schools. The original Pledge *DID NOT* include this
phrase.
And there is a stayed decision in which the phrase *does* promote a
religion.
The slogan "In God we Trust" should be removed from all government legal
tender.
Legal tender did not always have this phrase. For a while, it was e pluribus
unum (check old currency). It wasn't until about the Civil War when
religious
groups, hoping to promote their own agendas and wanting to prevent further
wars with the ignorant idea that religion could do this, pushed to have God
on
everything they could, including currency.
The slogan "God Bless America" should be stricken from public discourse.
Yes, it should. However, if someone independent of holding a public office
or
speaking on behalf of someone in a public office wants to say it, that right
is
guaranteed. People who serve the public should *NOT* do so under the guise
of the law of a religion rather than the law of the land. And these people
should
not be changing the law of the land to the law of their religion.

Remember that more than one of ten people in this country does not believe
in
a god, and another one out of ten are not judeo-christian. That leaves under
80% of this country either Jewish, Christian, Catholic or some form or
another.
And that number is *DROPPING*, not rising.
All of these examples would be taken out of US historical context since
this
nation was obviously not founded on by religious principles and men who
did
not want to establish a nation were the freedom of religion could be had
by
all since their original point of origin was established in religious
oppression.
If you read the Federalist Papers, it was evident a few of the Founding
Fathers
rathered organized religions remained OUT of the government. However, there
is much belief that the Constitution was written so that the government
could not
establish or promote any religion, but that separate regions and states
could.
However, since this is not in the Constitution, and SCOTUS decisions have
said
this is now impossible, no religion should be promoted or endorsed by any
government in the US.
"Article [I.] (See Note 13)
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,
or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
petition the Government for a redress of grievances. "
The Bill of Rights Ammendments of the Constitution of the United States
does
not provide for the separation of church and state.
Quite simply, it does. The Amendment states that the Government of the US,
the federal level (Congress) shall make no law respecting any religion over
any other. Since Congress is the only one able to make laws for the entirity
of the US, this means that there is a separation of Church and State. Don't
forget
that the First Amendment doesn't state that you can't yell "Fire!" in a
crowded
theater when there is no danger of any fire, yet this is speech and the
Amendment
says that you have the freedom to do so.

The Supreme Court has upheld that while the Constitution does not
specifically
state many laws or abilities, they must be interpreted with the purpose of
the
Article or Amendment.

In this case, speech is only protected if it does not cause irreparable harm
or
chaos to the public or society. As such, religion should not be respected or
endorsed in law or in public areas of government buildings.
The concept of the separation of church and state came from Thomas
Jefferson's Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom in the State of
Virginia. Though the concept isn't what you may think that Religion should
never interfer with the State, but in fact that the State should never
interfer with a person's decision on how to follow their religous beliefs,
be it for or against. It goes as the following [This was the draft, the
final version can be found here
But also, the State should not follow only one set of beliefs. Lawmakers
can go home and pray or not pray all they want. But I certainly wouldn't
want my lawmakers in my state telling me my Sunday should be a
Sabbath, or that wanting my next door neighbor's wife will get me life in
prison. There's only so much one can attribute to Christianity, as well
as other religions and agnostic/atheistic/freethinking beliefs that are
mostly
or completely shared. Beyond that, you start getting into telling people
their
religion is no longer valid.
A Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom
"SECTION I. Well aware that the opinions and belief of men depend not on
their own will, but follow involuntarily the evidence proposed to their
minds; that Almighty God hath created the mind free, and manifested his
supreme will that free it shall remain by making it altogether
insusceptible
of restraint; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments,
or
burthens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of
hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the holy
author
of our religion, who being lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to
propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do,
but
to exalt it by its influence on reason alone; that the impious presumption
of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being
themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the
faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as
the
only true and infallible, and as such endeavoring to impose them on
others,
hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of
the world and through all time: That to compel a man to furnish
contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he
disbelieves
and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical; that even the forcing him to support
this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion, is depriving him of
the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the particular
pastor
whose morals he would make his pattern, and whose powers he feels most
persuasive to righteousness; and is withdrawing from the ministry those
temporary rewards, which proceeding from an approbation of their personal
conduct, are an additional incitement to earnest and unremitting labours
for
the instruction of mankind; that our civil rights have no dependence on
our
religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics or geometry;
that
therefore the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence by
laying upon him an incapacity of being called to offices of trust and
emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion,
is
depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages to which, in
common with his fellow citizens, he has a natural right; that it tends
also
to corrupt the principles of that very religion it is meant to encourage,
by
bribing, with a monopoly of worldly honours and emoluments, those who will
externally profess and conform to it; that though indeed these are
criminals
who do not withstand such temptation, yet neither are those innocent who
lay
the bait in their way; that the opinions of men are not the object of
civil
government, nor under its jurisdiction; that to suffer the civil
magistrate
to intrude his powers into the field of opinion and to restrain the
profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill
tendency
is a dangerous fallacy, which at once destroys all religious liberty,
because he being of course judge of that tendency will make his opinions
the
rule of judgment, and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as
they shall square with or differ from his own; that it is time enough for
the rightful purposes of civil government for its officers to interfere
when
principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order; and
finally, that truth is great and will prevail if left to herself; that she
is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear
from the conflict unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural
weapons, free argument and debate; errors ceasing to be dangerous when it
is
permitted freely to contradict them.
"SECTION II. We the General Assembly of Virginia do enact that no man
shall
be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or
ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or
burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of
his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to
profess,
and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and
that
the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil
capacities.
"SECTION III. And though we well know that this Assembly, elected by the
people for the ordinary purposes of legislation only, have no power to
restrain the acts of succeeding Assemblies, constituted with powers equal
to
our own, and that therefore to declare this act irrevocable would be of no
effect in law; yet we are free to declare, and do declare, that the rights
hereby asserted are of the natural rights of mankind, and that if any act
shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present or to narrow its
operation,
such act will be an infringement of natural right."
And so as it says, people shouldn't be forced to have a Judeo-Christian
belief
right in front of them when they walk into the courthouse, at least in
Virginia.
And this is exactly what the court in Alabama has decided to do.

What I can't fathom is why religious people WANT to push their religion on
others, as though their beliefs were too fragile, and they need more people
believing in it to strengthen it.
Brian O'connell
2003-08-28 04:47:40 UTC
Permalink
The Bill of Rights Ammendments of the Constitution of the United States
does
not provide for the separation of church and state.
Well, then just what acts are barred by the establishment clause? How far
does
a state actor have to go before they can be determined to have
"established"
religion?
And if the Constitution -doesn't- provide for the seperation of church and
state, then how can any of the numerous time minority religions have been
legally trodd upon, be justified?
You want your school prayer, fine.. but you better not fuss when someone
calls
a Wiccan or Hindu or Moonie in to speak it...
"You can have it Quickly,Correct, Complex - Pick 2"
Feh, you aren't going to get anywhere trying to reason with these people.
They're our 200 year old version of the Taliban, and any attempts at reason
will be met with similar responses to the Taliban's (if blowing someone's
head off was legal, they'd be having executions in the local soccer fields
as well).

The Christians in Alabama are technically guilty of terrorism under the
patriot act, chiefly for creating a public hazard and a threat to safety,
and trespassing on federal property. If it was anyone else, an anti Bush
protester, an anti war protester, or an old man holding up a cardboard sign
outside of a "free speech zone", they'd be locked up and possibly on their
way to Guantanamo.

But they won't, and do you know why? Because both the attorney general and
president are bible thumpers. This is why you haven't seen federal agents
swooping in and taking away the statue in riot gear. They have "protection"
under the Bush regime, and they're going to milk it every chance they get.

They erroneously claim, in addition, that the root of American law and
government are based in Christianity. The fact, however, is that American
law and government were originally based in both Roman politics/laws and
Greek philosophies. That, for example, is why this country is a REPUBLIC.

Additionally, unlike this case with the 10 commandments, "In God We Trust"
and "So Help Me God" leaves that open to interpretation. No specific God, no
statement of "In Judeo Christian God Which Reigns above All Other Inferior
Religions We Trust", and neither phrase are used in direct reference to any
flavor of Christian bible. But the 10 commandments are MUCH different. You
know what religion they're from and what religion is being
endorsed/prosthelatised (sp?).

Oh, and I hate to burst the bible thumpers bubble, but nobody needed the
Christians to tell them that killing was bad, it's so like them to claim
that the concept of murder didn't exist until they came around.
Juan F. Lara
2003-08-28 05:27:16 UTC
Permalink
If it was anyone else, an anti Bush protester, an anti war protester, or an
old man holding up a cardboard sign outside of a "free speech zone", they'd
be locked up and possibly on their way to Guantanamo.
Nobody has been sent to Guantanamo for holding protests of any kind.
This is why you haven't seen federal agents swooping in and taking away the
statue in riot gear.
I don't think mowing those people down with troops is a good idea.
And yelling fire in a crowded theater isn't any way to stand up to these
protesters.

- Juan F. Lara
http://bellsouthpwp.net/l/a/lara6281/intro.html
Michael Hirtes
2003-08-28 08:11:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Juan F. Lara
If it was anyone else, an anti Bush protester, an anti war protester, or an
old man holding up a cardboard sign outside of a "free speech zone", they'd
be locked up and possibly on their way to Guantanamo.
Nobody has been sent to Guantanamo for holding protests of any kind.
At least, not that anyone knows yet.
Samantha Ann Patterson
2003-08-28 10:05:15 UTC
Permalink
Now wait a sec.

I dislike Bush as much as anyone else who has 2+ functioning synapses to
rub together, but lets give him a little credit.

They ultimately dropped the charges against all but a couple of the
thousands of anti-war protestors they arrested, and those few were actually
not acting as peaceful protestors. Also, it's pretty clear which side of
this issue Bush would be on, but he kept his mouth out of it. I fully
expected him to make a statement in support of the statue, but he didn't.

He may well be the most short-sighted and incompetent president we have
ever had but he does appear to have behaved fairly in this particular
case.
Post by Brian O'connell
The Bill of Rights Ammendments of the Constitution of the United States
does
not provide for the separation of church and state.
Well, then just what acts are barred by the establishment clause? How far
does
a state actor have to go before they can be determined to have
"established"
religion?
And if the Constitution -doesn't- provide for the seperation of church and
state, then how can any of the numerous time minority religions have been
legally trodd upon, be justified?
You want your school prayer, fine.. but you better not fuss when someone
calls
a Wiccan or Hindu or Moonie in to speak it...
"You can have it Quickly,Correct, Complex - Pick 2"
Feh, you aren't going to get anywhere trying to reason with these people.
They're our 200 year old version of the Taliban, and any attempts at reason
will be met with similar responses to the Taliban's (if blowing someone's
head off was legal, they'd be having executions in the local soccer fields
as well).
The Christians in Alabama are technically guilty of terrorism under the
patriot act, chiefly for creating a public hazard and a threat to safety,
and trespassing on federal property. If it was anyone else, an anti Bush
protester, an anti war protester, or an old man holding up a cardboard sign
outside of a "free speech zone", they'd be locked up and possibly on their
way to Guantanamo.
But they won't, and do you know why? Because both the attorney general and
president are bible thumpers. This is why you haven't seen federal agents
swooping in and taking away the statue in riot gear. They have "protection"
under the Bush regime, and they're going to milk it every chance they get.
They erroneously claim, in addition, that the root of American law and
government are based in Christianity. The fact, however, is that American
law and government were originally based in both Roman politics/laws and
Greek philosophies. That, for example, is why this country is a REPUBLIC.
Additionally, unlike this case with the 10 commandments, "In God We Trust"
and "So Help Me God" leaves that open to interpretation. No specific God, no
statement of "In Judeo Christian God Which Reigns above All Other Inferior
Religions We Trust", and neither phrase are used in direct reference to any
flavor of Christian bible. But the 10 commandments are MUCH different. You
know what religion they're from and what religion is being
endorsed/prosthelatised (sp?).
Oh, and I hate to burst the bible thumpers bubble, but nobody needed the
Christians to tell them that killing was bad, it's so like them to claim
that the concept of murder didn't exist until they came around.
DishRoom1
2003-08-28 11:28:42 UTC
Permalink
Brian O Connell wrote --

iBuck wrote --
Post by Brian O'connell
The Bill of Rights Ammendments of the Constitution of the United States
does
not provide for the separation of church and state.
Well, then just what acts are barred by the establishment clause? How far
does
a state actor have to go before they can be determined to have
"established"
religion?
And if the Constitution -doesn't- provide for the seperation of church and
state, then how can any of the numerous time minority religions have been
legally trodd upon, be justified?
You want your school prayer, fine.. but you better not fuss when someone
calls
a Wiccan or Hindu or Moonie in to speak it...
"You can have it Quickly,Correct, Complex - Pick 2"
Feh, you aren't going to get anywhere trying to reason with these people.
They're our 200 year old version of the Taliban, and any attempts at reason
will be met with similar responses to the Taliban's (if blowing someone's
head off was legal, they'd be having executions in the local soccer fields
as well).
Funny, Neither Jesus nor His diciples preached violence nor killing. They
talked about the power and love of God.
Post by Brian O'connell
The Christians in Alabama are technically guilty of terrorism under the
patriot act, chiefly for creating a public hazard and a threat to safety,
and trespassing on federal property. If it was anyone else, an anti Bush
protester, an anti war protester, or an old man holding up a cardboard sign
outside of a "free speech zone", they'd be locked up and possibly on their
way to Guantanamo.
First of all, to be a terrorist, you have to do physical violence like killing,
bombing, hyjacking planes for kiddnaping or for smashing them into buildings.
Even the most radical of the monument protestors were still harmless to
everyone. Second of all, I saw no news of Soviet-style gulaging of
anti-Bush/anti-Iraq protestors among the police and such. And the few I've seen
was due to disorderly conduct of some sort.
Post by Brian O'connell
But they won't, and do you know why? Because both the attorney general and
president are bible thumpers. This is why you haven't seen federal agents
swooping in and taking away the statue in riot gear. They have "protection"
under the Bush regime, and they're going to milk it every chance they get.
That's bull and and you know it.
Post by Brian O'connell
They erroneously claim, in addition, that the root of American law and
government are based in Christianity. The fact, however, is that American
law and government were originally based in both Roman politics/laws and
Greek philosophies. That, for example, is why this country is a REPUBLIC.
And yet you hippy types are against those Roman/Greek stuff, too.
Post by Brian O'connell
Additionally, unlike this case with the 10 commandments, "In God We Trust"
and "So Help Me God" leaves that open to interpretation. No specific God, no
statement of "In Judeo Christian God Which Reigns above All Other Inferior
Religions We Trust", and neither phrase are used in direct reference to any
flavor of Christian bible. But the 10 commandments are MUCH different. You
know what religion they're from and what religion is being
endorsed/prosthelatised (sp?).
The commandments of Jewish traditions to begin with. Were they promoting
Judaism too?

(and what's prosthelatised?)
Post by Brian O'connell
Oh, and I hate to burst the bible thumpers bubble, but nobody needed the
Christians to tell them that killing was bad, it's so like them to claim
that the concept of murder didn't exist until they came around.
If long before Christ, long before the Jewish laws, even when some people knew
that killing was bad, it did stop many people as being violent.

John Shughart
PlanetFur
2003-08-28 12:59:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by DishRoom1
First of all, to be a terrorist, you have to do physical violence like killing,
bombing, hyjacking planes for kiddnaping or for smashing them into buildings.
Even the most radical of the monument protestors were still harmless to
everyone. Second of all, I saw no news of Soviet-style gulaging of
anti-Bush/anti-Iraq protestors among the police and such. And the few I've seen
was due to disorderly conduct of some sort.
Hate to burst your bubble, but you're incorrect.

Look at the ELF, the Environmental Liberation Front.

You know, the people setting mountain lodges, logging facilities and
SUV lots on fire and spraying graffiti to promote their cause?

That's all you need to do to be a terrorist. Use terror to promote
your cause.
iBuck
2003-08-28 14:01:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by PlanetFur
Hate to burst your bubble, but you're incorrect.
Look at the ELF, the Environmental Liberation Front.
You know, the people setting mountain lodges, logging facilities and
SUV lots on fire and spraying graffiti to promote their cause?
That's all you need to do to be a terrorist. Use terror to promote
your cause.
I beleive that the definition of terroism that was instituted under USA PATRIOT
act is that it's an act that puts human life at risk done with the intent of
causing political change. You don't even have to use terror as long as someone
-might- get hurt during the act.

As for Gitmo, that's currently only avaible, if you're -not- a US citizen, if
you are, then you get thown in a military brig in the US somewhere.

But the possiblity of being throwing in that brig remain troublingly open, the
designation of "Enemy Combatant" remains solely a declaration of executive
authority, without legislative guidelines, and the Executive is also insisting
that it is due judicial deffrence to it's findings.
"You can have it Quickly,Correct, Complex - Pick 2"
DishRoom1
2003-08-30 05:50:28 UTC
Permalink
PlanetFur wrote --
Post by DishRoom1
Post by DishRoom1
First of all, to be a terrorist, you have to do physical violence like
killing,
Post by DishRoom1
bombing, hyjacking planes for kiddnaping or for smashing them into
buildings.
Post by DishRoom1
Even the most radical of the monument protestors were still harmless to
everyone. Second of all, I saw no news of Soviet-style gulaging of
anti-Bush/anti-Iraq protestors among the police and such. And the few I've
seen
Post by DishRoom1
was due to disorderly conduct of some sort.
Hate to burst your bubble, but you're incorrect.
Look at the ELF, the Environmental Liberation Front.
You know, the people setting mountain lodges, logging facilities and
SUV lots on fire and spraying graffiti to promote their cause?
That's all you need to do to be a terrorist. Use terror to promote
your cause.
Well, that's true too. But still, what's that got to do with peaceful
Christians and such whose beliefs are different than yours?

John Shughart
Tamar
2003-08-28 11:43:02 UTC
Permalink
Oddly enough, I don't think any of use actually live in Alabama to give
personal first hand eye witness report that the people protesting have
actually created "a public hazard and a threat to safety, and trespassing on
federal property." People do have the legal right to stage protest in this
country regardless of what the topic they are protesting (otherwise, today
being the 40th anniversary of one of the greatest speaches given to one of
the most imporant display of public protest would never have taken place.)
Post by Brian O'connell
The Bill of Rights Ammendments of the Constitution of the United States
does
not provide for the separation of church and state.
Well, then just what acts are barred by the establishment clause? How far
does
a state actor have to go before they can be determined to have
"established"
religion?
And if the Constitution -doesn't- provide for the seperation of church and
state, then how can any of the numerous time minority religions have been
legally trodd upon, be justified?
You want your school prayer, fine.. but you better not fuss when someone
calls
a Wiccan or Hindu or Moonie in to speak it...
"You can have it Quickly,Correct, Complex - Pick 2"
Feh, you aren't going to get anywhere trying to reason with these people.
They're our 200 year old version of the Taliban, and any attempts at reason
will be met with similar responses to the Taliban's (if blowing someone's
head off was legal, they'd be having executions in the local soccer fields
as well).
The Christians in Alabama are technically guilty of terrorism under the
patriot act, chiefly for creating a public hazard and a threat to safety,
and trespassing on federal property. If it was anyone else, an anti Bush
protester, an anti war protester, or an old man holding up a cardboard sign
outside of a "free speech zone", they'd be locked up and possibly on their
way to Guantanamo.
But they won't, and do you know why? Because both the attorney general and
president are bible thumpers. This is why you haven't seen federal agents
swooping in and taking away the statue in riot gear. They have
"protection"
Post by Brian O'connell
under the Bush regime, and they're going to milk it every chance they get.
They erroneously claim, in addition, that the root of American law and
government are based in Christianity. The fact, however, is that American
law and government were originally based in both Roman politics/laws and
Greek philosophies. That, for example, is why this country is a REPUBLIC.
Additionally, unlike this case with the 10 commandments, "In God We Trust"
and "So Help Me God" leaves that open to interpretation. No specific God, no
statement of "In Judeo Christian God Which Reigns above All Other Inferior
Religions We Trust", and neither phrase are used in direct reference to any
flavor of Christian bible. But the 10 commandments are MUCH different. You
know what religion they're from and what religion is being
endorsed/prosthelatised (sp?).
Oh, and I hate to burst the bible thumpers bubble, but nobody needed the
Christians to tell them that killing was bad, it's so like them to claim
that the concept of murder didn't exist until they came around.
Brian O'connell
2003-08-28 12:42:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tamar
Oddly enough, I don't think any of use actually live in Alabama to give
personal first hand eye witness report that the people protesting have
actually created "a public hazard and a threat to safety, and trespassing on
federal property." People do have the legal right to stage protest in this
country regardless of what the topic they are protesting (otherwise, today
being the 40th anniversary of one of the greatest speaches given to one of
the most imporant display of public protest would never have taken place.)
Can you prove those protesters have permits? Safety measures in case
fighting or a riot breaks out? No? Then I rest my case.

Secondly, that march and speech took place, as you said, 40 years ago. There
was no Patriot act, Bush wasn't president, and Ashcroft wasn't the US AG. If
they were, you'd probably have seen bloodshed that made the Bonus Army Riot
pale in comparison.
iBuck
2003-08-28 14:08:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brian O'connell
Secondly, that march and speech took place, as you said, 40 years ago. There
was no Patriot act, Bush wasn't president, and Ashcroft wasn't the US AG
No, All the civil rights movement had to deal with was only, J. Edgar and
COINTELPRO, nothing to worry about there...

Much of what USA PATRIOT did was to gut the safeguards that were put in -after-
the abuses of authority during the Red Scare/Civil Rights/Watergate eras
"You can have it Quickly,Correct, Complex - Pick 2"
Tamar
2003-08-29 01:55:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brian O'connell
Post by Tamar
Oddly enough, I don't think any of use actually live in Alabama to give
personal first hand eye witness report that the people protesting have
actually created "a public hazard and a threat to safety, and
trespassing
Post by Brian O'connell
on
Post by Tamar
federal property." People do have the legal right to stage protest in this
country regardless of what the topic they are protesting (otherwise, today
being the 40th anniversary of one of the greatest speaches given to one of
the most imporant display of public protest would never have taken place.)
Can you prove those protesters have permits? Safety measures in case
fighting or a riot breaks out? No? Then I rest my case.
Exactly my point, therefore, nobody should make open statements about such
issues without actual knowledge. It's best to speak in generalities rather
than in a position of authority when you have no 100% facts to back up what
you say.
Post by Brian O'connell
Secondly, that march and speech took place, as you said, 40 years ago. There
was no Patriot act, Bush wasn't president, and Ashcroft wasn't the US AG. If
they were, you'd probably have seen bloodshed that made the Bonus Army Riot
pale in comparison.
And that's...a bad thing? I don't follow you on that statement.
Brian O'connell
2003-08-29 07:17:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brian O'connell
Post by Brian O'connell
Post by Tamar
Oddly enough, I don't think any of use actually live in Alabama to give
personal first hand eye witness report that the people protesting have
actually created "a public hazard and a threat to safety, and
trespassing
Post by Brian O'connell
on
Post by Tamar
federal property." People do have the legal right to stage protest in
this
Post by Brian O'connell
Post by Tamar
country regardless of what the topic they are protesting (otherwise,
today
Post by Brian O'connell
Post by Tamar
being the 40th anniversary of one of the greatest speaches given to
one
Post by Brian O'connell
of
Post by Brian O'connell
Post by Tamar
the most imporant display of public protest would never have taken
place.)
Post by Brian O'connell
Can you prove those protesters have permits? Safety measures in case
fighting or a riot breaks out? No? Then I rest my case.
Exactly my point, therefore, nobody should make open statements about such
issues without actual knowledge. It's best to speak in generalities rather
than in a position of authority when you have no 100% facts to back up what
you say.
Post by Brian O'connell
Secondly, that march and speech took place, as you said, 40 years ago.
There
Post by Brian O'connell
was no Patriot act, Bush wasn't president, and Ashcroft wasn't the US
AG.
Post by Brian O'connell
If
Post by Brian O'connell
they were, you'd probably have seen bloodshed that made the Bonus Army
Riot
Post by Brian O'connell
pale in comparison.
And that's...a bad thing? I don't follow you on that statement.
Study history someday. Back in 1932, almost 15,000 US army veterans and
their families were in Washington DC seeking the bonus they were promised by
the gov't for fighting in WWI. Herbert Hoover sent Douglas MacArthur (who
was convinced 90% of the veterans were fakes) in to clear them out, and
Dougy boy chose to ignore the part of Hoover's order that said to not use
violence against them. The result was a bloodbath.

It isn't covered that often (much like the eugenics programs in the US
during that time period), or the strike busters. Nobody likes history
lessons where the gov'ts the bad guy.
Tamar
2003-08-29 12:36:18 UTC
Permalink
Which is why I asked, so the "Study history someday" was unnecessary. I have
a very extensive education but that doesn't mean I know everything and am
not afraid to ask questions when there's something I don't know.
Post by Brian O'connell
Post by Brian O'connell
Post by Brian O'connell
Post by Tamar
Oddly enough, I don't think any of use actually live in Alabama to
give
Post by Brian O'connell
Post by Brian O'connell
Post by Tamar
personal first hand eye witness report that the people protesting have
actually created "a public hazard and a threat to safety, and
trespassing
Post by Brian O'connell
on
Post by Tamar
federal property." People do have the legal right to stage protest in
this
Post by Brian O'connell
Post by Tamar
country regardless of what the topic they are protesting (otherwise,
today
Post by Brian O'connell
Post by Tamar
being the 40th anniversary of one of the greatest speaches given to
one
Post by Brian O'connell
of
Post by Brian O'connell
Post by Tamar
the most imporant display of public protest would never have taken
place.)
Post by Brian O'connell
Can you prove those protesters have permits? Safety measures in case
fighting or a riot breaks out? No? Then I rest my case.
Exactly my point, therefore, nobody should make open statements about such
issues without actual knowledge. It's best to speak in generalities rather
than in a position of authority when you have no 100% facts to back up
what
Post by Brian O'connell
you say.
Post by Brian O'connell
Secondly, that march and speech took place, as you said, 40 years ago.
There
Post by Brian O'connell
was no Patriot act, Bush wasn't president, and Ashcroft wasn't the US
AG.
Post by Brian O'connell
If
Post by Brian O'connell
they were, you'd probably have seen bloodshed that made the Bonus Army
Riot
Post by Brian O'connell
pale in comparison.
And that's...a bad thing? I don't follow you on that statement.
Study history someday. Back in 1932, almost 15,000 US army veterans and
their families were in Washington DC seeking the bonus they were promised by
the gov't for fighting in WWI. Herbert Hoover sent Douglas MacArthur (who
was convinced 90% of the veterans were fakes) in to clear them out, and
Dougy boy chose to ignore the part of Hoover's order that said to not use
violence against them. The result was a bloodbath.
It isn't covered that often (much like the eugenics programs in the US
during that time period), or the strike busters. Nobody likes history
lessons where the gov'ts the bad guy.
mouse
2003-08-28 09:08:30 UTC
Permalink
In the Year of our Lord should be removed since this word when capitalized
refers to a religious deity and not a human being.
done, C.E. is a suitable replacement, ready to go
The US Pledge of Allegience "..one nation, under God" should be striken from
public statements.
you should know "under god" was added (in 1954 i believe...red scare
stuff...we cant be like those godless commies...) it was not part of
the original pledge, so yes it should be striken....it reads fine
without it
go ahead try it
The slogan "In God we Trust" should be removed from all government legal
tender.
absolutely, once in a while i cross out "God" on my money with green
pen
(just for laughs...long story)
The slogan "God Bless America" should be stricken from public discourse.
sooner the better
No Article in the Consitution of the United States provides for the
separaction of church and state.
yeah...ya know what? ...fuck seperation of church and state
go ahead and let em do whatever they want...let em mandate a
state-religion
ya know why?? when christians are the minority in this country ...i
swear i will laugh my fucking ass off at all the shit they will
complain about
for once the cries of "persecution" might actually mean something..too
bad by that point i will no longer care

most importantly though...you know , for a fucking FACT..that if any
federal or state building in the country EVER put a golden buddha
inside a rotunda or something like that , the fucking HOWLING and
WHINING about seperation of church and state from the christian and
right-wing would LITERALLY NEVER CEASE
DishRoom1
2003-08-28 11:58:06 UTC
Permalink
Mouse wrote --

Tamar wrote --
Post by mouse
In the Year of our Lord should be removed since this word when capitalized
refers to a religious deity and not a human being.
done, C.E. is a suitable replacement, ready to go
But why aren't many people using it?
Post by mouse
The slogan "In God we Trust" should be removed from all government legal
tender.
absolutely, once in a while i cross out "God" on my money with green
pen
(just for laughs...long story)
Isn't it wrong to deface money? I heard that from somewhere.>>
Post by mouse
No Article in the Consitution of the United States provides for the
separaction of church and state.
yeah...ya know what? ...fuck seperation of church and state
go ahead and let em do whatever they want...let em mandate a
state-religion
ya know why?? when christians are the minority in this country
How did you know that Christians are a minority? Oh, well, we Christians don't
care that we are in the minority if it were true. We're more interested in
Jesus than having popularity games.

...i
Post by mouse
swear i will laugh my fucking ass off at all the shit they will
complain about
for once the cries of "persecution" might actually mean something..too
bad by that point i will no longer care
most importantly though...you know , for a fucking FACT..that if any
federal or state building in the country EVER put a golden buddha
inside a rotunda or something like that , the fucking HOWLING and
WHINING about seperation of church and state from the christian and
right-wing would LITERALLY NEVER CEASE
I'm a Christian, and I wouldn't mind if they displayed a Budda at a state house
or the like. They do that in other nations.

John Shughart
iBuck
2003-08-28 13:35:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by DishRoom1
Oh, well, we Christians don't
care that we are in the minority if it were true. We're more interested in
Jesus than having popularity games.
Then why the rush to Iraq and Afghanastan by Christian Missionaaries?

Fact of the matter, you're generalizing, and there are a good number of
Christians who -do- care about the numbers game...
"You can have it Quickly,Correct, Complex - Pick 2"
Samantha Ann Patterson
2003-08-28 16:27:34 UTC
Permalink
I used to agree with that stance, but having met and talked with a few
missionaries, it seems that most honestly have good intentions even if
they are a bit misguided in some of their applications. For the most
part, they're naive, not malicious. They honestly don't seem to realize
that their rhetoric is so heavily stilted. There are exceptions of
course, but there are exceptions in both directions. There are zealots
that are actively trying to convert people, and there are people that
use the church as a tool to help others and more or less shelf the
conversion aspects. The naive sort and the not-pushy sort seem to be
the majority. The zealots are fwer but louder. Then again, this is
only one person's experience and she's never been out of country.
Post by iBuck
Post by DishRoom1
Oh, well, we Christians don't
care that we are in the minority if it were true. We're more interested in
Jesus than having popularity games.
Then why the rush to Iraq and Afghanastan by Christian Missionaaries?
Fact of the matter, you're generalizing, and there are a good number of
Christians who -do- care about the numbers game...
"You can have it Quickly,Correct, Complex - Pick 2"
Tamar
2003-08-29 02:11:28 UTC
Permalink
You're right, the Red Cross shouldn't be over there giving aid.And
missionaaries (who I personally think are crazy sometimes for going in the
first place) should be over there lending physical add either (and yeah,
they do try to convert, but then that's not necessarily an whole body
Chritian thing either. What group do Missionaaries belong to. I'll admit
that I don't know too much about exactly what they do, so will reframe
further comments.)

Here's a question though for most here. Does anybody feel that those of the
Christian persuassion do any good in this world at all or are all evil
people who'd only goal in life is to oppression and hinder?
Post by iBuck
Post by DishRoom1
Oh, well, we Christians don't
care that we are in the minority if it were true. We're more interested in
Jesus than having popularity games.
Then why the rush to Iraq and Afghanastan by Christian Missionaaries?
Fact of the matter, you're generalizing, and there are a good number of
Christians who -do- care about the numbers game...
"You can have it Quickly,Correct, Complex - Pick 2"
iBuck
2003-08-29 14:55:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tamar
What group do Missionaaries belong to. I'll admit
that I don't know too much about exactly what they do, so will reframe
further comments.)
No, you've said -quite- enough,

Simple facts.. after 9/11/Afghanstan/Iraq, ther was a noticble wave of
christina missionays heading over, who quite frankly seemd to be in the
convert first, help second school of thought. If anything they -hindered-
efforts by the like of the red cross.

(if you want refrences, Time Magizine had a cover peice on it a few months
ago)
Post by Tamar
Here's a question though for most here. Does anybody feel that those of the
Christian persuassion do any good in this world at all or are all evil
people who'd only goal in life is to oppression and hinder?
No.. they're fairly normal people, some do a lot of good, some do a lot of
harm. Most just live their lives... But frankly when someone's faith drives
them to an action that is less than honorable, it's hard to discuss it without
identyfing them by it. If you fail to acknowledge those individuals and that
their acts were wrong, thane you end up with the same image problem the
bedevils th catholic church or islam

capital-c Christianity's image problem did -not- come out of nothing...
"You can have it Quickly,Correct, Complex - Pick 2"
DishRoom1
2003-08-30 06:09:00 UTC
Permalink
iBuck wrote --
Post by iBuck
Post by Tamar
What group do Missionaaries belong to. I'll admit
that I don't know too much about exactly what they do, so will reframe
further comments.)
No, you've said -quite- enough,
Simple facts.. after 9/11/Afghanstan/Iraq, ther was a noticble wave of
christina missionays heading over, who quite frankly seemd to be in the
convert first, help second school of thought. If anything they -hindered-
efforts by the like of the red cross.
(if you want refrences, Time Magizine had a cover peice on it a few months
ago)
And again, if the people they preach to don't want to be Christian, then they
don't have to be Christian ever, and the missionaries can quite leave them
alone peacefully. They're repeating what Jesus commanded His Disiples to do in
the Bible: to go beyond Jurluselem and preach to the corners of the Earth "The
Good News" about Him. These followers did just that peacefully in Europe after
have the Holy Ghost after Jesus' Accession. And today's missionaries I think
are doing better than the Crusades and the Inquisition.

That's all..

John Shughart
iBuck
2003-08-30 15:27:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by DishRoom1
And again, if the people they preach to don't want to be Christian, then they
don't have to be Christian ever, and the missionaries can quite leave them
alone peacefully
Some do, Some don't, And some make their assistance conditional to their
preaching to them about the good word. I'm not obligated to give them all the
same level of respect.

A missionaty will earn my respect if they help those in need, preach to those
want it, or at least are in a position to refuse, and treat the beleifs of
those that they are preaching to with the respect that they expect for their
own faith.

If they don't meet those standards, I don't have to give them my respect.
"You can have it Quickly,Correct, Complex - Pick 2"
mouse
2003-08-28 21:10:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by DishRoom1
Post by mouse
done, C.E. is a suitable replacement, ready to go
But why aren't many people using it?
i think it IS used often...probabaly more in europe
when i hear "common era" it usually on some history show, or science
show or whatever.
to be honest i dont actually know how it is used currently
if i had to guess id say its a way of saying A.D. (after death)
without refering to THAT event , i could be wrong
Post by DishRoom1
Post by mouse
absolutely, once in a while i cross out "God" on my money with green
pen
(just for laughs...long story)
Isn't it wrong to deface money? I heard that from somewhere.>>
its a federal offense
Post by DishRoom1
Post by mouse
yeah...ya know what? ...fuck seperation of church and state
go ahead and let em do whatever they want...let em mandate a
state-religion
ya know why?? when christians are the minority in this country
How did you know that Christians are a minority? Oh, well, we Christians don't
care that we are in the minority if it were true. We're more interested in
Jesus than having popularity games.
uhm, i said WHEN they are a minority, key word being - WHEN
and it will happen

and i was refering to the U.S.

in the world as a whole you already are the minority
Post by DishRoom1
Post by mouse
most importantly though...you know , for a fucking FACT..that if any
federal or state building in the country EVER put a golden buddha
inside a rotunda or something like that , the fucking HOWLING and
WHINING about seperation of church and state from the christian and
right-wing would LITERALLY NEVER CEASE
I'm a Christian, and I wouldn't mind if they displayed a Budda at a state house
or the like. They do that in other nations.
John Shughart
maybe you wouldnt, but if you dont consider yourself an exception your
living in a fantasy world. id bet money that 90%+ of U.S. christians
would would mind...A LOT
lets not forget about christian oriented terrorist groups either (e.g.
army of god)
these type of groups would not only protest but would also take direct
violent action
BR
2003-08-28 23:01:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by mouse
lets not forget about christian oriented terrorist groups either (e.g.
army of god)
Army of God?

Better watch out for the Army of mimes. Or Army of midgets.

**Warning**
Putting "Army of..." in front of a noun is hazardous to your noun.
--
-T. H. Huxley
If a little knowledge is dangerous, were is the man who has
so much as to be out of danger?
mouse
2003-08-29 04:08:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by BR
Post by mouse
lets not forget about christian oriented terrorist groups either (e.g.
army of god)
Army of God?
Better watch out for the Army of mimes. Or Army of midgets.
**Warning**
Putting "Army of..." in front of a noun is hazardous to your noun.
yes it is

but i also live in buffalo, where a james kopp (army of god) shot a
dr. slepian (sp?) who worked at a women's clinic - through his kitchen
window and killed him in front of his wife and kids

im surprised you didnt hear about it seeing as kopp fled to france and
it became an international legal matter

they (AoG) also blow shit up now and again, gay clubs, abortion
clinics
whatever the hot topic pissing christians off at the time is
Samantha Ann Patterson
2003-08-29 05:19:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by mouse
Post by BR
Post by mouse
lets not forget about christian oriented terrorist groups either (e.g.
army of god)
Army of God?
Better watch out for the Army of mimes. Or Army of midgets.
**Warning**
Putting "Army of..." in front of a noun is hazardous to your noun.
yes it is
Hmmm... I dunno... 'Army of Darkness' was awsome... 'n'
what about 'Army of Leggies' or something. :)
The Saprophyte
2003-08-29 05:48:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by mouse
Post by BR
Post by mouse
lets not forget about christian oriented terrorist groups either (e.g.
army of god)
Army of God?
Better watch out for the Army of mimes. Or Army of midgets.
**Warning**
Putting "Army of..." in front of a noun is hazardous to your noun.
yes it is
Hmmm... I dunno... 'Army of Darkness' was awsome... 'n'
what about 'Army of Leggies' or something. :)
Wow, saved by the belle. I almost said that, but I was going to call it
"Army of The Dead", which just conjured up images of Bruce Campbell
fighting Gerry Garcia.

--
The Saprophyte
--
Samantha Ann Patterson
2003-08-29 17:13:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Saprophyte
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by mouse
Post by BR
Post by mouse
lets not forget about christian oriented terrorist groups either (e.g.
army of god)
Army of God?
Better watch out for the Army of mimes. Or Army of midgets.
**Warning**
Putting "Army of..." in front of a noun is hazardous to your noun.
yes it is
Hmmm... I dunno... 'Army of Darkness' was awsome... 'n'
what about 'Army of Leggies' or something. :)
Wow, saved by the belle. I almost said that, but I was going to call it
"Army of The Dead", which just conjured up images of Bruce Campbell
fighting Gerry Garcia.
Ooooooh. There's a lotta potential in that idea.
Post by The Saprophyte
--
The Saprophyte
--
BR
2003-08-29 08:15:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by mouse
Post by BR
Post by mouse
lets not forget about christian oriented terrorist groups either
(e.g. army of god)
Army of God?
Better watch out for the Army of mimes. Or Army of midgets.
**Warning**
Putting "Army of..." in front of a noun is hazardous to your noun.
yes it is
but i also live in buffalo, where a james kopp (army of god) shot a dr.
slepian (sp?) who worked at a women's clinic - through his kitchen
window and killed him in front of his wife and kids
im surprised you didnt hear about it seeing as kopp fled to france and
it became an international legal matter
they (AoG) also blow shit up now and again, gay clubs, abortion clinics
whatever the hot topic pissing christians off at the time is
Heh? I think you missed my meaning. Basically "saying", and "being" aren't
the same thing. I could say that I'm a pink flying marshmellow. That
doesn't mean that I'm a pink flying marshmellow, although I could be a
blue flying marshmellow...in coco...with milk...mmm.
--
-T. H. Huxley
If a little knowledge is dangerous, were is the man who has
so much as to be out of danger?
mouse
2003-08-28 20:54:52 UTC
Permalink
Ah, but you know what, making assumptions about things that have not
happened only makes an ass out of U and me. If Christians can elect a gay
Bishop, I think their is a far more range of tolerance in the majority than
many are willing to give them credit for.
And again, things like this happen in areas where there's a majority. Heck,
Christianity was actually made the official language in many states when the
country was first formed.
the gay bishop....and what happened ..dont you remember those "11th
hour accusations", a last ditch desperate attempt to keep a "fag"
from holding an office in a church

ill give christians more credit for being tolerant when i actually see
it once in a while.

also there is a difference between making an assumption and looking at
an excessively long track record of behaviour, looking at current
attitudes and making an educated guess about what would happen...i
cant imagine anything else happening in the scenario i gave (a buddha
in a statehouse)

im not surprised that this is happening in alabama either...if i
wanted to make a sweeping generalization i would say that christians
in alabama in particular are fanatics, ive seen it and heard about it
when i was there. these are people who come to a dead stop in traffic
when hearses go by.
Samantha Ann Patterson
2003-08-28 21:49:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by mouse
when i was there. these are people who come to a dead stop in traffic
when hearses go by.
Err. I do that. That's not a religious thing that's a good manners
and respectful thing. Family members of the deceased are greiving.
the last thing they need is someone cutting them off in traffic or
bleating their horn to get them to speed up.
mouse
2003-08-29 04:02:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by mouse
when i was there. these are people who come to a dead stop in traffic
when hearses go by.
Err. I do that. That's not a religious thing that's a good manners
and respectful thing. Family members of the deceased are greiving.
the last thing they need is someone cutting them off in traffic or
bleating their horn to get them to speed up.
uhm your thinking funeral procession...im not

im talking about stopping for it like its a fucking school bus even
though its driving in the opposite direction and not stopping itself
Tamar
2003-08-29 02:02:23 UTC
Permalink
And they have a right to feel so just as homosexuals have a right to feel
it's not and there are those on both sides who may think differently.
That's the beauty of a free society, we don't always have to agree with one
another and are free to express our disagreements. Heck, there's all kinds
of things that are sins int he world anyway from a religious standpoint if
that's the way you choice to set your beliefs. Still doesn't mean you gotta
be a jerk about expressing yourself if you think something is a sin or
isn't. It's never a good thing to use broad lumping terms when describing
people because you end up lumping those who would be "good" in with those
who would be "bad".

Like I said before. Just because there are white people in this world who
call themselves racist and show so their their actions, does not mean all
white people are therefore racist as well. To say that Christians are
intolerant, bigoted, zeolits is throwing the bad apples in with the good,
cause you'll never find a situation were there's 100% of thought in any
people that decide to classify themselves as being part of a group.

All furries are not plushes. All furries don't like spooge and are sexual
deviants. There are those in there, but there are far more regular folks who
call themselves furry than there are those in the extreme.
Ah, but you know what, making assumptions about things that have not
happened only makes an ass out of U and me. If Christians can elect a
gay
Bishop, I think their is a far more range of tolerance in the majority
than
many are willing to give them credit for.
That's funny you brought that up, because Episcopilians from outside the
US protested to have the US branch separated, and other Christian and
even the Episcopilian churches here outside the Bishop's area protested.
Christians still in the majority feel the homosexuality is a sin.
Steve Carter
2003-08-29 11:14:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tamar
To say that Christians are
intolerant, bigoted, zeolits is throwing the bad apples in with the good,
Hey! I'm not a Christian, but I'm a Zeolit! And I'm very zealous about my
zeolity, too!
Tamar
2003-08-29 12:37:47 UTC
Permalink
Heh. Good to see you active again Steve btw. Where'd you go?
Post by Steve Carter
Post by Tamar
To say that Christians are
intolerant, bigoted, zeolits is throwing the bad apples in with the good,
Hey! I'm not a Christian, but I'm a Zeolit! And I'm very zealous about my
zeolity, too!
Steve Carter
2003-08-29 13:26:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tamar
Heh. Good to see you active again Steve btw. Where'd you go?
Took a vacation. Kinda realized it was time to take a break and re-evaluate
where my bullshit meter needed cutoff.
iBuck
2003-08-29 14:38:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Carter
Hey! I'm not a Christian, but I'm a Zeolit! And I'm very zealous about my
zeolity, too!
You're a little out of date though....

Roman rule in the middle east has been over for a couple of centuries..
"You can have it Quickly,Correct, Complex - Pick 2"
Samantha Ann Patterson
2003-08-28 09:54:24 UTC
Permalink
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union,
establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common
defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the BLESSINGS of Liberty to
ourselves..."
Blessing should be removed for its religious undertones.
This is the preamble, you yutz. Don't you ever read anything that you
try to warp for your twisted defilement of what christianity really is
supposed to be?
"The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for
the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the
Same.
done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the
Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven
hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of
America the Twelfth In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our
Names, "
In the Year of our Lord should be removed since this word when capitalized
refers to a religious deity and not a human being.
Um. Like... they needed the date for international purposes of treaties
and such and that was the only time reference used by europeans.
No Article in the Consitution of the United States provides for the
separaction of church and state.
The US Pledge of Allegience "..one nation, under God" should be striken from
public statements.
Yes, it should. it was added by rightwing nutjobs in the 50s and was not
part of the original pledge.
The slogan "In God we Trust" should be removed from all government legal
tender.
Also added in the 50s. You don't see it on Mercury dimes or buffalo head
nickels.
The slogan "God Bless America" should be stricken from public discourse.
Hallajuha! I thnk the most offensive thing Bush hsa done while he was in
office was excluding the grief and mourning ofnon-christians from the
rememberance of those people in the Trade center towers who were
KILLED BY RELIGIOUS NUTJOBS.

<Deleted a bunch of stuff you obviously didn't read>

Where do you uy your parrot chow anyhow? I know you couldn't have
written all that yourself without thinking about it at least a little.

Ya'know. The more that I think about it, the more I think 'Cut and Paste'
has got to be the worst feature ever.

If you want people to respect your opinion at LEAST read the material you
blather about.
Tamar
2003-08-28 11:49:05 UTC
Permalink
Why do you assume I haven't. Is it too much to try to argue these facts? And
I thought you kill filed be because you could not stand holding a mature
intellectual debate/conversation with me?
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union,
establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common
defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the BLESSINGS of Liberty to
ourselves..."
Blessing should be removed for its religious undertones.
This is the preamble, you yutz. Don't you ever read anything that you
try to warp for your twisted defilement of what christianity really is
supposed to be?
"The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for
the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the
Same.
done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the
Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven
hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of
America the Twelfth In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our
Names, "
In the Year of our Lord should be removed since this word when capitalized
refers to a religious deity and not a human being.
Um. Like... they needed the date for international purposes of treaties
and such and that was the only time reference used by europeans.
No Article in the Consitution of the United States provides for the
separaction of church and state.
The US Pledge of Allegience "..one nation, under God" should be striken from
public statements.
Yes, it should. it was added by rightwing nutjobs in the 50s and was not
part of the original pledge.
The slogan "In God we Trust" should be removed from all government legal
tender.
Also added in the 50s. You don't see it on Mercury dimes or buffalo head
nickels.
The slogan "God Bless America" should be stricken from public discourse.
Hallajuha! I thnk the most offensive thing Bush hsa done while he was in
office was excluding the grief and mourning ofnon-christians from the
rememberance of those people in the Trade center towers who were
KILLED BY RELIGIOUS NUTJOBS.
<Deleted a bunch of stuff you obviously didn't read>
Where do you uy your parrot chow anyhow? I know you couldn't have
written all that yourself without thinking about it at least a little.
Ya'know. The more that I think about it, the more I think 'Cut and Paste'
has got to be the worst feature ever.
If you want people to respect your opinion at LEAST read the material you
blather about.
Dave The Dancing Hyena
2003-08-28 20:53:44 UTC
Permalink
"Tamar" <***@erie.net> shall never vanquished be until great
Birnam wood to high alt.fan.furry. hill shall come against him.
Post by Tamar
Why do you assume I haven't. Is it too much to try to argue these facts? And
I thought you kill filed be because you could not stand holding a mature
People almost never really killfile each other. It would remove a good
reason to get areated and have a rant, applies to all peopels mind.
Post by Tamar
intellectual debate/conversation with me?
Please, no more relegion, if the existence of god is proved, Then it
will become a matter for this group (does god like furries? etc)
untill then, it is offtopic and a theoretical excersis only (since we
do not know that god even exists.

Also, You make a comic I belive, Try to be more tolerant and
progressive as befits someone of your standing otherwise you will find
that it reflects ill upon your work.
The Saprophyte
2003-08-29 01:13:06 UTC
Permalink
(Snip)
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
The slogan "In God we Trust" should be removed from all government legal
tender.
Also added in the 50s. You don't see it on Mercury dimes or buffalo head
nickels.
(snip)

(checks blackbook and paper money handbook)

Uh, actually you do see it on the mercury dime, circa 1916.

and the 1909 Lincoln penny
and the 1938 Jefferson nickel
and the 1946 Roosevelt dime
and the 1932 Washington quarter

In fact, it appears on the 1866 seated liberty quarter.

It was added to the dollar bill in 1935.

S'funny how all this stuff Chuck Melville used to use as examples of
things that had nothing to do with furry fandom keep coming up in
conversation here. :)
So, anyone up for trying to prove Chuck wrong and finding a way to
really link numismatics and anthropomorphics? :D

--
The Saprophyte
--
Dennis Lee Bieber
2003-08-31 01:22:43 UTC
Permalink
The Saprophyte fed this fish to the penguins on Thursday 28 August 2003
Post by The Saprophyte
So, anyone up for trying to prove Chuck wrong and finding a way to
really link numismatics and anthropomorphics? :D
Well, lots of american money has an eagle on it... And one exception
was the buffalo nickel <G>
--
Post by The Saprophyte
============================================================== <
============================================================== <
Bestiaria Home Page: http://www.beastie.dm.net/ <
Home Page: http://www.dm.net/~wulfraed/ <
Samantha Ann Patterson
2003-08-28 09:59:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by PlanetFur
The slogan "In God we Trust" should be removed from all government legal
tender.
Legal tender did not always have this phrase. For a while, it was e pluribus
unum (check old currency). It wasn't until about the Civil War when
religious
groups, hoping to promote their own agendas and wanting to prevent further
wars with the ignorant idea that religion could do this, pushed to have God
on
everything they could, including currency.
Later than that. Post WWII McCarthy era.
Tamar
2003-08-28 11:39:50 UTC
Permalink
I never have fused and never would .(Just cause somebody says they are a
Christian doesn't mean they can't be tolerant of other people's faith). And
if you feel I have, then find a post that I made to the contrary.
The Bill of Rights Ammendments of the Constitution of the United States
does
not provide for the separation of church and state.
Well, then just what acts are barred by the establishment clause? How far
does
a state actor have to go before they can be determined to have
"established"
religion?
And if the Constitution -doesn't- provide for the seperation of church and
state, then how can any of the numerous time minority religions have been
legally trodd upon, be justified?
You want your school prayer, fine.. but you better not fuss when someone
calls
a Wiccan or Hindu or Moonie in to speak it...
"You can have it Quickly,Correct, Complex - Pick 2"
iBuck
2003-08-28 13:50:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tamar
I never have fused and never would .(Just cause somebody says they are a
Christian doesn't mean they can't be tolerant of other people's faith). And
if you feel I have, then find a post that I made to the contrary.
The "you" was to the general audiance , and not specific to Tamar.

The issues that comes up in a majority of "seperation of church an state" cases
is not that the expression of faith is made, but that the ability to make that
expression of faith is limited to a select belief, by some form of state
authorty.

The solutions then tend to fall to either removing the expression, or opening
it up. and frankly there have been a lot of cases where the expression has
been removed, delibritly by those who made it, rather than let others speak
as well...
"You can have it Quickly,Correct, Complex - Pick 2"
PlanetFur
2003-08-28 12:53:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by PlanetFur
What I can't fathom is why religious people WANT to push their religion on
others, as though their beliefs were too fragile, and they need more people
believing in it to strengthen it.
And what I can't fathom is why atheist and freethinkers want to push
evolution
and Big Bang thoeries onto others, as if their beliefs are fragile and
they
need more people believing in it to strenghen it. (when not only Jews and
Christians have their own beliefs on how the world and Man was made, but
so do
Hindus, Buddist, pagans, Muslims, ect. Ever though how a Hindu might feel
forced to accept the ape-into-man stories without question?)
I read through the rest of your post, thinking maybe you were trying to
debate.
This last part, though, proves you weren't.

You can't be serious into thinking that the Big Bang and evolution are
atheists'
ways of destroying Christianity . . .

People's beliefs were mostly constructed BEFORE science was well
established. Since then, technology has made science more practical, and has
allowed people to determine what comprises our bodies, why does
hydrogen burn, why trees in Europe have far too many similarities to those
in Canada . . .

Hate to burst your bubble, but the theory of evolution's effects are FACT,
unable to be disputed by any research. It remains a theory because the
true aspects of how evolution's triggers or mutations truly work are still
unknown. Is it the mutation which triggers it first, or does something else
start reworking the genetic code to promote the necessary change to keep
that species alive?

The Big Bang is only a theory, because it's unobservable, and its effects
aren't
established as fact yet. There are new technologies, like the long-range
infrared
telescope just launched, which will hopefully lead us to discover what is
out
in the farthest reaches of our universe.

No one went out to try to come up with evolution or the Big Bang or anything
else to crush beliefs. They did it in pursuit of knowledge, of facts. Great
men
OBSERVED, something that religion simply cannot do, and others have
taken their research and observations and have continued the work.

If these stomp on your beliefs, modify your beliefs as so many others have
had.
Or, join up with the Flat Earth Society in believing that television
broadcasters
have refit the Earth to a spherical shape in order to have more people watch
their anti-Christian broadcasts. The foil hats are available at the door,
shiny side out.
DishRoom1
2003-08-30 06:46:36 UTC
Permalink
PlanetFur wrote --

I wrote --
Post by PlanetFur
Post by PlanetFur
What I can't fathom is why religious people WANT to push their religion
on
Post by PlanetFur
others, as though their beliefs were too fragile, and they need more
people
Post by PlanetFur
believing in it to strengthen it.
And what I can't fathom is why atheist and freethinkers want to push
evolution
and Big Bang thoeries onto others, as if their beliefs are fragile and
they
need more people believing in it to strenghen it. (when not only Jews and
Christians have their own beliefs on how the world and Man was made, but
so do
Hindus, Buddist, pagans, Muslims, ect. Ever though how a Hindu might feel
forced to accept the ape-into-man stories without question?)
I read through the rest of your post, thinking maybe you were trying to
debate.
This last part, though, proves you weren't.
I was trying to debate. The last paragraph was written out of my fustration
with the world.
Post by PlanetFur
You can't be serious into thinking that the Big Bang and evolution are
atheists'
ways of destroying Christianity . . .
I coures I do not. The Point of Christianity can't be destroyed easily by any
other faith or belief.
Post by PlanetFur
No one went out to try to come up with e
If these stomp on your beliefs, modify your beliefs as so many others have
had.
But my Creation beliefs are fine the way they are. There's no law forcing me to
change them except for my free will. Just like there's no law forcing you from
your evolution beliefs, either, and you're free to believe evolution. But the
law wants us to tolerate each others' beliefs even if we strong disagree with
the other.
Post by PlanetFur
Or, join up with the Flat Earth Society in believing that television
broadcasters
have refit the Earth to a spherical shape in order to have more people watch
their anti-Christian broadcasts. The foil hats are available at the door,
shiny side out.
OK, that, sir, was going over the line. It was enough when Creation-believers
were charged with "believing in fairytales", "out to destroy school education/
set back science" (somthing to that effect anyway), "zealots" and "religous
fanatics" I survived all through that and can bare it. Still can anyway.

John Shughart
Dave The Dancing Hyena
2003-08-30 13:35:29 UTC
Permalink
***@aol.com (DishRoom1) shall never vanquished be until great
Birnam wood to high alt.fan.furry. hill shall come against him.
Post by DishRoom1
Post by PlanetFur
I read through the rest of your post, thinking maybe you were trying to
debate.
This last part, though, proves you weren't.
I was trying to debate. The last paragraph was written out of my fustration
with the world.
OMG! Saved!
Dennis Lee Bieber
2003-08-31 01:22:42 UTC
Permalink
DishRoom1 fed this fish to the penguins on Friday 29 August 2003 11:46
Post by DishRoom1
But my Creation beliefs are fine the way they are. There's no law
forcing me to change them except for my free will. Just like there's
no law forcing you from your evolution beliefs, either, and you're
free to believe evolution. But the law wants us to tolerate each
There is a difference though under scientific principles. A problem is
that most common people hear the scientific word "theory" and think it
means "guess"... Or what, in science, would be properly called an
"hypothesis".

In science, a theory has a body of evidence and experimental results
which support it. It is not considered a "law" because there is always
the possibility that some future experiment or evidence may conflict
with it, leading to a reformulation of the theory to account for the
new facts, or a rejection of it in total.

Evolution does have this evidence and experimental results. It is seen
in the antibiotic industry, where former "magic bullet" "germ killers"
begin to lose their effectivity -- because some of the bacteria have
mutations that allow them to survive a dosage, these reproduce until
eventually they become the majority of the population. It took the
russian silver-fox fur industry something like 30 generations of foxes
(ie, about 30 years) to go from caged wild fox behavior to domestic,
people-liking, dog-like behavior -- unfortunately, the development also
led to the loss of the adult phase silver fox fur for spotty juvenile
fur patterns, floppy ears, and other puppy-like attributes (it also
expanded the breeding season from the fox like couple of weeks in dead
of winter, to a couple of months).

Fossil evidence supports changes in larger animals through time.
Changes in response to changes in the environment... Newer science can
track changes in mitochondrial DNA (which tends to mutate are a fairly
regular rate).

All this makes evolution a valid testable/demonstrable theory.

Creationism barely qualifies as an hypothesis -- as the proponents
have yet to even suggest any experiments or evidence by which to
validate the hypothesis. Creationism is a tautology -- "It happened
because it happened" -- accept it or don't, but never question how or
why it happened, never look for ways to repeat it, never look consider
modifying it in the face of contradictory evidence or experiments.
--
Post by DishRoom1
============================================================== <
============================================================== <
Bestiaria Home Page: http://www.beastie.dm.net/ <
Home Page: http://www.dm.net/~wulfraed/ <
Samantha Ann Patterson
2003-08-31 05:51:18 UTC
Permalink
... John... HOW can you believe in Creationism?

I mean if nothing else, we've carefully measured the speed of light.
We also know the size of our sun and understand that the color of its
light is determined by its mass and composition. We can see similar
stars in space. We can determine their distance from us a number of
ways. Suffice to say, they are a long long long ways away. A distance
so fast light couldn't travel across it in a mere 3,000 years.
We can see things hundreds of millions of light years away. Even if
we hada 99% margin of error, we can STILL say we know there are things
older than the biblical reference for creation.

We can make similar determinations with radio-carbon dating or even strata
layers. Heck, there are trees that we know are more than 3,000 years old.
Its a rather oerwhelming body of evidence. How can you deny such a thing?
Post by DishRoom1
PlanetFur wrote --
I wrote --
Post by PlanetFur
Post by PlanetFur
What I can't fathom is why religious people WANT to push their religion
on
Post by PlanetFur
others, as though their beliefs were too fragile, and they need more
people
Post by PlanetFur
believing in it to strengthen it.
And what I can't fathom is why atheist and freethinkers want to push
evolution
and Big Bang thoeries onto others, as if their beliefs are fragile and
they
need more people believing in it to strenghen it. (when not only Jews and
Christians have their own beliefs on how the world and Man was made, but
so do
Hindus, Buddist, pagans, Muslims, ect. Ever though how a Hindu might feel
forced to accept the ape-into-man stories without question?)
I read through the rest of your post, thinking maybe you were trying to
debate.
This last part, though, proves you weren't.
I was trying to debate. The last paragraph was written out of my fustration
with the world.
Post by PlanetFur
You can't be serious into thinking that the Big Bang and evolution are
atheists'
ways of destroying Christianity . . .
I coures I do not. The Point of Christianity can't be destroyed easily by any
other faith or belief.
Post by PlanetFur
No one went out to try to come up with e
If these stomp on your beliefs, modify your beliefs as so many others have
had.
But my Creation beliefs are fine the way they are. There's no law forcing me to
change them except for my free will. Just like there's no law forcing you from
your evolution beliefs, either, and you're free to believe evolution. But the
law wants us to tolerate each others' beliefs even if we strong disagree with
the other.
Post by PlanetFur
Or, join up with the Flat Earth Society in believing that television
broadcasters
have refit the Earth to a spherical shape in order to have more people watch
their anti-Christian broadcasts. The foil hats are available at the door,
shiny side out.
OK, that, sir, was going over the line. It was enough when Creation-believers
were charged with "believing in fairytales", "out to destroy school education/
set back science" (somthing to that effect anyway), "zealots" and "religous
fanatics" I survived all through that and can bare it. Still can anyway.
John Shughart
Tamar
2003-08-31 19:01:57 UTC
Permalink
Explaining now it works doesn't explain how it's made.

Creationism, tells who made the vcr and how. Science explains how the vcr
works and why.
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
... John... HOW can you believe in Creationism?
I mean if nothing else, we've carefully measured the speed of light.
We also know the size of our sun and understand that the color of its
light is determined by its mass and composition. We can see similar
stars in space. We can determine their distance from us a number of
ways. Suffice to say, they are a long long long ways away. A distance
so fast light couldn't travel across it in a mere 3,000 years.
We can see things hundreds of millions of light years away. Even if
we hada 99% margin of error, we can STILL say we know there are things
older than the biblical reference for creation.
We can make similar determinations with radio-carbon dating or even strata
layers. Heck, there are trees that we know are more than 3,000 years old.
Its a rather oerwhelming body of evidence. How can you deny such a thing?
Post by DishRoom1
PlanetFur wrote --
I wrote --
Post by PlanetFur
Post by PlanetFur
What I can't fathom is why religious people WANT to push their religion
on
Post by PlanetFur
others, as though their beliefs were too fragile, and they need more
people
Post by PlanetFur
believing in it to strengthen it.
And what I can't fathom is why atheist and freethinkers want to push
evolution
and Big Bang thoeries onto others, as if their beliefs are fragile and
they
need more people believing in it to strenghen it. (when not only Jews and
Christians have their own beliefs on how the world and Man was made, but
so do
Hindus, Buddist, pagans, Muslims, ect. Ever though how a Hindu might feel
forced to accept the ape-into-man stories without question?)
I read through the rest of your post, thinking maybe you were trying to
debate.
This last part, though, proves you weren't.
I was trying to debate. The last paragraph was written out of my fustration
with the world.
Post by PlanetFur
You can't be serious into thinking that the Big Bang and evolution are
atheists'
ways of destroying Christianity . . .
I coures I do not. The Point of Christianity can't be destroyed easily by any
other faith or belief.
Post by PlanetFur
No one went out to try to come up with e
If these stomp on your beliefs, modify your beliefs as so many others have
had.
But my Creation beliefs are fine the way they are. There's no law forcing me to
change them except for my free will. Just like there's no law forcing you from
your evolution beliefs, either, and you're free to believe evolution. But the
law wants us to tolerate each others' beliefs even if we strong disagree with
the other.
Post by PlanetFur
Or, join up with the Flat Earth Society in believing that television
broadcasters
have refit the Earth to a spherical shape in order to have more people watch
their anti-Christian broadcasts. The foil hats are available at the door,
shiny side out.
OK, that, sir, was going over the line. It was enough when
Creation-believers
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
were charged with "believing in fairytales", "out to destroy school education/
set back science" (somthing to that effect anyway), "zealots" and "religous
fanatics" I survived all through that and can bare it. Still can anyway.
John Shughart
iBuck
2003-09-01 05:42:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tamar
Creationism, tells who made the vcr and how. Science explains how the vcr
works and why.
science also will tell the how, and the who as well.
"You can have it Quickly,Correct, Complex - Pick 2"
Tamar
2003-09-01 17:29:25 UTC
Permalink
Okay then who is responsible from creating life where there once was none?
What is responsible for the very first living organism since we know that
nothing living can be created without the prior precess of something else
living. Science has yet to 'create' something living from pure scratch.

You're faith in science is strong and logical, but there are just some
things in this world science can't explain. Like Love or the human mind and
why each individual can be so different and why human beings seem to
function on a much further advanced frame of thought from other animals.

I'm not one that says, evolution never happned, sure I think it exists since
I can just see in peole today being born taller and taller everyday. I don't
however by the humans from monkeys theory. Humans for lesser developed
humans yeah, but from monkeys? Come on.
Post by iBuck
Post by Tamar
Creationism, tells who made the vcr and how. Science explains how the vcr
works and why.
science also will tell the how, and the who as well.
"You can have it Quickly,Correct, Complex - Pick 2"
Samantha Ann Patterson
2003-09-01 19:02:29 UTC
Permalink
This just goes to prove how little you've thought about it. Humans most
certain didn't come from monkeys. They may have come from hominids
which may have come from proto-apes which are several million years
removed from the great apes but humans have less in common with monkeys
than cats do with dogs.
Post by Tamar
Okay then who is responsible from creating life where there once was none?
What is responsible for the very first living organism since we know that
nothing living can be created without the prior precess of something else
living. Science has yet to 'create' something living from pure scratch.
You're faith in science is strong and logical, but there are just some
things in this world science can't explain. Like Love or the human mind and
why each individual can be so different and why human beings seem to
function on a much further advanced frame of thought from other animals.
I'm not one that says, evolution never happned, sure I think it exists since
I can just see in peole today being born taller and taller everyday. I don't
however by the humans from monkeys theory. Humans for lesser developed
humans yeah, but from monkeys? Come on.
Post by iBuck
Post by Tamar
Creationism, tells who made the vcr and how. Science explains how the vcr
works and why.
science also will tell the how, and the who as well.
"You can have it Quickly,Correct, Complex - Pick 2"
Tamar
2003-09-01 19:57:41 UTC
Permalink
"This just goes to prove how little you've thought about it. Humans most
certain didn't come from monkeys."
Well DUH. Hello? Isn't that what I said? Hell, you just agreed with me. Are
you so trigger happy to jump into the fray of anything someone you say you
want to killfill posts?
This just goes to prove how little you've thought about it. Humans most
certain didn't come from monkeys. They may have come from hominids
which may have come from proto-apes which are several million years
removed from the great apes but humans have less in common with monkeys
than cats do with dogs.
Post by Tamar
Okay then who is responsible from creating life where there once was none?
What is responsible for the very first living organism since we know that
nothing living can be created without the prior precess of something else
living. Science has yet to 'create' something living from pure scratch.
You're faith in science is strong and logical, but there are just some
things in this world science can't explain. Like Love or the human mind and
why each individual can be so different and why human beings seem to
function on a much further advanced frame of thought from other animals.
I'm not one that says, evolution never happned, sure I think it exists since
I can just see in peole today being born taller and taller everyday. I don't
however by the humans from monkeys theory. Humans for lesser developed
humans yeah, but from monkeys? Come on.
Post by iBuck
Post by Tamar
Creationism, tells who made the vcr and how. Science explains how the vcr
works and why.
science also will tell the how, and the who as well.
"You can have it Quickly,Correct, Complex - Pick 2"
Swipecat
2003-09-01 20:36:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tamar
"This just goes to prove how little you've thought about it. Humans most
certain didn't come from monkeys."
Well DUH. Hello? Isn't that what I said? Hell, you just agreed with me. Are
you so trigger happy to jump into the fray of anything someone you say you
want to killfill posts?
Err... You said you didn't buy the humans from monkeys theory. There
*is* no such theory.
--
Swipecat
Brian O'connell
2003-09-01 20:43:57 UTC
Permalink
Um, your paradigm shift just blew several gears since the clutch wasn't
being depressed properly.

Lesson one: Apes differ from monkeys by coming from as remotely different an
evolutionary branch as cats from wolves.

Lesson two: Apes are NOT monkeys. Apes come from a higher primate order.
More specifically, larger brain case, no tail, more advanced in dexterity
(lemurs are primates, but I bet you a years wages you can't teach them sign
language, whether by mimicry or language training).

Lesson three: Apes, more specifically, the chimpanzee, and even more
specifically, the bonobo chimpanzee, are as genetically close to humans as
dolphins are to killer whales. We come from the same lineage, but are as
related as I am to you in a familial sense. You and I are human, but without
proper testing, you cannot give me a blood transfusion and vice versa, and
certainly cannot donate organs to each other without either taking massive
amounts of anti rejection drugs.

There's a reason for that, y'know. And there's a reason why identical
twins/direct blood descendants can do such with a significantly lower risk.
And no, it ain't god.
Post by Tamar
"This just goes to prove how little you've thought about it. Humans most
certain didn't come from monkeys."
Well DUH. Hello? Isn't that what I said? Hell, you just agreed with me. Are
you so trigger happy to jump into the fray of anything someone you say you
want to killfill posts?
This just goes to prove how little you've thought about it. Humans most
certain didn't come from monkeys. They may have come from hominids
which may have come from proto-apes which are several million years
removed from the great apes but humans have less in common with monkeys
than cats do with dogs.
Post by Tamar
Okay then who is responsible from creating life where there once was
none?
Post by Tamar
What is responsible for the very first living organism since we know that
nothing living can be created without the prior precess of something else
living. Science has yet to 'create' something living from pure scratch.
You're faith in science is strong and logical, but there are just some
things in this world science can't explain. Like Love or the human mind
and
Post by Tamar
why each individual can be so different and why human beings seem to
function on a much further advanced frame of thought from other animals.
I'm not one that says, evolution never happned, sure I think it exists
since
Post by Tamar
I can just see in peole today being born taller and taller everyday. I
don't
Post by Tamar
however by the humans from monkeys theory. Humans for lesser developed
humans yeah, but from monkeys? Come on.
Post by iBuck
Post by Tamar
Creationism, tells who made the vcr and how. Science explains how
the
Post by Tamar
vcr
Post by Tamar
Post by iBuck
Post by Tamar
works and why.
science also will tell the how, and the who as well.
"You can have it Quickly,Correct, Complex - Pick 2"
iBuck
2003-09-01 20:57:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tamar
Well DUH. Hello? Isn't that what I said? Hell, you just agreed with me. Are
you so trigger happy to jump into the fray of anything someone you say you
want to killfill posts?
Well then who the hell -does- say humans come from monkeys... The current
models of human evolution sure doen't, and I'm not sure that hey eve have,
except in arguments made by Creationists.

If you're going to continue this argument, you really should go and do some
research first.because when it comes to evolution, you basically do not know
what you are talking about.


"You can have it Quickly,Correct, Complex - Pick 2"
Tamar
2003-09-01 22:12:43 UTC
Permalink
You know iBuck, whatever your name is anyway, that's what one would call a
flipant remark, not taken literally. Geez people. Soooo touchy when you have
your theories questioned in less than detailed discussion.

And with so many well read people, just what do you all do anyway IRL? Just
out of curiosity since my level of intellect seems to constantly be attacked
when making statements of any kind here.

But, you know, and I'm sure most won't answer, I'm done with this whole
fandom list. If one can't be repected why mingle in the mud to let those
sling it better?
Have a great fandom.
Post by iBuck
Post by Tamar
Well DUH. Hello? Isn't that what I said? Hell, you just agreed with me. Are
you so trigger happy to jump into the fray of anything someone you say you
want to killfill posts?
Well then who the hell -does- say humans come from monkeys... The current
models of human evolution sure doen't, and I'm not sure that hey eve have,
except in arguments made by Creationists.
If you're going to continue this argument, you really should go and do some
research first.because when it comes to evolution, you basically do not know
what you are talking about.
"You can have it Quickly,Correct, Complex - Pick 2"
Noxonomus
2003-09-01 19:10:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tamar
Okay then who is responsible from creating life where there once was
none? What is responsible for the very first living organism since we
know that nothing living can be created without the prior precess of
something else living. Science has yet to 'create' something living
from pure scratch.
your right science has not yet created life but they are geting closer.
some one made aminoacids or some such with electricity and sterilized ice
which sugested that perhaps lightning and glacires could have been the
beging of life on earth by a means that is not yet under stood.

of corse I hard about that quite a while ago and it could have been
debunked by now
Post by Tamar
You're faith in science is strong and logical, but there are just some
things in this world science can't explain. Like Love or the human
mind and why each individual can be so different and why human beings
seem to function on a much further advanced frame of thought from
other animals.
science can't -yet- explain and maybe never will be able to explain those
things but just becuse they havent figured it out yet dosnt mean it cant
be known. Science is a slow process some times.
Post by Tamar
I'm not one that says, evolution never happned, sure I think it exists
since I can just see in peole today being born taller and taller
everyday. I don't however by the humans from monkeys theory. Humans
for lesser developed humans yeah, but from monkeys? Come on.
I beleave it, you dont not much I can say really
Swipecat
2003-09-01 20:58:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Noxonomus
your right science has not yet created life but they are geting closer.
some one made aminoacids or some such with electricity and sterilized ice
which sugested that perhaps lightning and glacires could have been the
beging of life on earth by a means that is not yet under stood.
of corse I hard about that quite a while ago and it could have been
debunked by now
You're thinking of the Miller/Urey Experiment in the 1950s which showed
that it was possible to create amino acids in a simulation of the
"primordial soup".

And maybe life came from beyond the Earth - amino acids have been found
in meteors.

Recent simulations of conditions that might have existed on the early
Earth have created peptides which are short chains of amino acids. The
creation of proteins is the challenge, now.
--
Swipecat
Juan F. Lara
2003-09-01 18:41:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tamar
Okay then who is responsible from creating life where there once was none?
Judgement call.
Post by Tamar
Science has yet to 'create' something living from pure scratch.
Particle-antiparticle pairs arise from the vacuum all the time.
Post by Tamar
You're faith in science is strong and logical, but there are just some
things in this world science can't explain.
Well, the universe being 6000 years old with all living things created
within six days and everything having to start over from a flood is not the
right explanation.
Post by Tamar
I don't however by the humans from monkeys theory. Humans for lesser
developed humans yeah, but from monkeys? Come on.
That's a common misinterpretation. Humans did not descend from the
monkeys you see in the zoo. Primates descended from a common ancestor, and
then broke off into their own branches guided by whatever suited survival best.
The chimp is your cousin not your forefather.

- Juan F. Lara
http://bellsouthpwp.net/l/a/lara6281/intro.html
Farlo
2003-09-01 20:24:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tamar
Okay then who is responsible from creating life where there once was none?
No one. Also, this is not the only source of life in the universe. The
mere fact that there are non-heliocentric ecosystems on earth implies
that life can exist elsewhere. Your question assumes that life began
here, first. What a small universe that must be!

Currently, no, I have no "proof" of life on other worlds. Yet the logical
conclusion of a non-heliocentric ecosystem and the potential of silica-
based lifeforms implies life elsewhere.

It is quite possible that we aren't alone in the universe - and may not
be the best, the brightest, and - gasp! - God's favorite.
Post by Tamar
What is responsible for the very first living organism
Natural law.
Post by Tamar
since we
know that nothing living can be created without the prior precess of
something else living.
That's not correct. There are chemical systems - molecular chains - that
"almost" qualify as life. Yet, they are not alive.
Post by Tamar
Science has yet to 'create' something living from pure scratch.
* we hadn't used bronze ... and now we refine titanium
* we hadn't made fire ... and now my meals are cooked by microwave
* we hadn't floated on water ... and now there are ships
* nukes are made "from scratch"

Now that we have glow-in-the-dark rabbits, you might want to stop egging
them on ... we almost have rabbit people now.
Post by Tamar
why each individual can be so different and why human beings
seem to function on a much further advanced frame of thought from
other animals.
Without the advent of speach, you would still live naked in the bushes
chasing mice and small game. It's possible that primitive society could
have evolved purely on a "monkey see, monkey do" basis without speach,
but advanced concepts require literacy of some kind.
Post by Tamar
Humans for lesser developed humans yeah, but from monkeys? Come on.
Obviously, you have never worked in a retail environment. I see people
almost every day that, but for the clothes on their back, would be right
at home chasing antelopes on the plain with a stick.

Some of them aren't bright enough to have a stick.
--
Farlo, the Urban Fey Dragon

The difference between the average man and the average chimpanzee is
about 30 IQ points and some DNA. Are you blurring the line?
iBuck
2003-09-01 20:44:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tamar
Okay then who is responsible from creating life where there once was none?
What is responsible for the very first living organism since we know that
nothing living can be created without the prior precess of something else
living.
Then who created the creator, if no thing living can be created without life
existing before?
Post by Tamar
You're faith in science is strong and logical, >but there are just some
things in this world science can't explain.
There is a diffrence between "can't" and "hasn't" ..
Post by Tamar
Humans for lesser developed
humans yeah, but from monkeys? Come on.
You expect me to accept the the existence of a infintly powerfull and
knolwedgable intelegent and living being who cannot be observed directly and
created this the entire univese in from nothing in a manner that has not been
seen since, all based on the word of a text that can be proven to have been
written down, transcribed, added to, redacted and edited by -humans- for the
last 30 centuries or more..

I don't know why that is easier to belive than a logical scientific hypothesis
about observable biological processes and development.

So Yeah.. come on..




"You can have it Quickly,Correct, Complex - Pick 2"
Tamar
2003-09-01 22:00:34 UTC
Permalink
I don't expect you to believe anything. The only people here who seem to be
trying to force beliefs onto others are those who reply to my post. I have
only stated I have my beliefs and have a right to believe them without being
insulted for doing so by 'furries' on this group. All I have done here is
state why I believe what I do in accordance to the course of the
conversation. Never once have I typed, because I believe this you too must
believe this, but the same can not be said visa versa. Frankly, its becoming
circular anyway and I should have taken my advice I others have given me and
just leave well enough alone, which I will. Don't have to hit head against a
wall forever to know the wall is hard.

I'll just leave it at this. You believe as you would, I'll do so the same. I
will not attack you for what you believe or belittle you for doing so. All I
expect is the same treatment. Though I doubt that will happen, but that will
be how I will conduct myself.

All I know is, the next time the fandom comes under a negative light from
the media, those same people who would brand me and others who believe as I
do in negative lights ought to first take a look in the mirror and see how
they treat others.

As for me. I'm done.
Post by iBuck
Post by Tamar
Okay then who is responsible from creating life where there once was none?
What is responsible for the very first living organism since we know that
nothing living can be created without the prior precess of something else
living.
Then who created the creator, if no thing living can be created without life
existing before?
Post by Tamar
You're faith in science is strong and logical, >but there are just some
things in this world science can't explain.
There is a diffrence between "can't" and "hasn't" ..
Post by Tamar
Humans for lesser developed
humans yeah, but from monkeys? Come on.
You expect me to accept the the existence of a infintly powerfull and
knolwedgable intelegent and living being who cannot be observed directly and
created this the entire univese in from nothing in a manner that has not been
seen since, all based on the word of a text that can be proven to have been
written down, transcribed, added to, redacted and edited by -humans- for the
last 30 centuries or more..
I don't know why that is easier to belive than a logical scientific hypothesis
about observable biological processes and development.
So Yeah.. come on..
"You can have it Quickly,Correct, Complex - Pick 2"
Dennis Lee Bieber
2003-09-01 20:55:07 UTC
Permalink
Tamar fed this fish to the penguins on Monday 01 September 2003 10:29
Post by Tamar
Okay then who is responsible from creating life where there once was
none? What is responsible for the very first living organism since we
know that nothing living can be created without the prior precess of
something else
living. Science has yet to 'create' something living from pure scratch.
Science /has/ created Amino Acids "from pure scratch" -- a container
of chemical soup and electricity representing the hypothesized
composition or a primordial earth. (And I use "hypothesized"
deliberately -- nothing in this experiment was meant to show that the
earth /had/ to have this composition -- only that it is evidence
supporting a theory of how the compounds of organic life could be
created via natural forces; no need to call on some mystical outside
influence).

That we haven't had the time or funding to continue that experiment
with a container the size of an olympic swimming pool and over a few
centuries of operation to create strands of RNA/DNA does not negate
that this experiment demonstrates a feasible means by which life
originated.
Post by Tamar
You're faith in science is strong and logical, but there are just some
things in this world science can't explain. Like Love or the human
mind and why each individual can be so different and why human beings
seem to function on a much further advanced frame of thought from
other animals.
And did anyone ever claim that science, at any given moment in time,
KNOWS all the answers? Science, theoretical science (vs applied
science), is the SEARCH for those answers.
Post by Tamar
I'm not one that says, evolution never happned, sure I think it exists
since I can just see in peole today being born taller and taller
everyday. I don't however by the humans from monkeys theory. Humans
for lesser developed humans yeah, but from monkeys? Come on.
And here you make the assumption that it is a linear sequence -- the
"Great Chain of Being"... Evolution says that both humans and other
apes (monkeys are a much further offshoot -- they kept tails) would
have both had a common ancestor -- not that one came directly from the
other; it is not a chain, but a tree. For some reason or other, a group
of these proto-apes may have been isolated in a grasslands situation,
while the other group remained in forests... The grasslands "tribe"
would, via forces of evolution, have developed an upright stance to see
predators while the forest group retained or developed the longer
tree-swinging arms and "knuckle-walking" ground stance.
--
Post by Tamar
============================================================== <
============================================================== <
Bestiaria Home Page: http://www.beastie.dm.net/ <
Home Page: http://www.dm.net/~wulfraed/ <
Samantha Ann Patterson
2003-09-01 07:18:23 UTC
Permalink
Err.... Except you don't have the slightest clue who made it. You just
believe that guy on the street corner who said your watch was a Rolex.
Post by Tamar
Explaining now it works doesn't explain how it's made.
Creationism, tells who made the vcr and how. Science explains how the vcr
works and why.
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
... John... HOW can you believe in Creationism?
I mean if nothing else, we've carefully measured the speed of light.
We also know the size of our sun and understand that the color of its
light is determined by its mass and composition. We can see similar
stars in space. We can determine their distance from us a number of
ways. Suffice to say, they are a long long long ways away. A distance
so fast light couldn't travel across it in a mere 3,000 years.
We can see things hundreds of millions of light years away. Even if
we hada 99% margin of error, we can STILL say we know there are things
older than the biblical reference for creation.
We can make similar determinations with radio-carbon dating or even strata
layers. Heck, there are trees that we know are more than 3,000 years old.
Its a rather oerwhelming body of evidence. How can you deny such a thing?
Post by DishRoom1
PlanetFur wrote --
I wrote --
Post by PlanetFur
Post by PlanetFur
What I can't fathom is why religious people WANT to push their
religion
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
Post by PlanetFur
on
Post by PlanetFur
others, as though their beliefs were too fragile, and they need more
people
Post by PlanetFur
believing in it to strengthen it.
And what I can't fathom is why atheist and freethinkers want to push
evolution
and Big Bang thoeries onto others, as if their beliefs are fragile and
they
need more people believing in it to strenghen it. (when not only Jews
and
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
Post by PlanetFur
Christians have their own beliefs on how the world and Man was made,
but
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
Post by PlanetFur
so do
Hindus, Buddist, pagans, Muslims, ect. Ever though how a Hindu might
feel
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
Post by PlanetFur
forced to accept the ape-into-man stories without question?)
I read through the rest of your post, thinking maybe you were trying to
debate.
This last part, though, proves you weren't.
I was trying to debate. The last paragraph was written out of my
fustration
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
with the world.
Post by PlanetFur
You can't be serious into thinking that the Big Bang and evolution are
atheists'
ways of destroying Christianity . . .
I coures I do not. The Point of Christianity can't be destroyed easily by
any
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
other faith or belief.
Post by PlanetFur
No one went out to try to come up with e
If these stomp on your beliefs, modify your beliefs as so many others
have
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
Post by PlanetFur
had.
But my Creation beliefs are fine the way they are. There's no law forcing
me to
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
change them except for my free will. Just like there's no law forcing you
from
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
your evolution beliefs, either, and you're free to believe evolution. But
the
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
law wants us to tolerate each others' beliefs even if we strong disagree
with
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
the other.
Post by PlanetFur
Or, join up with the Flat Earth Society in believing that television
broadcasters
have refit the Earth to a spherical shape in order to have more people
watch
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
Post by PlanetFur
their anti-Christian broadcasts. The foil hats are available at the
door,
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
Post by PlanetFur
shiny side out.
OK, that, sir, was going over the line. It was enough when
Creation-believers
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
were charged with "believing in fairytales", "out to destroy school
education/
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
set back science" (somthing to that effect anyway), "zealots" and
"religous
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
fanatics" I survived all through that and can bare it. Still can anyway.
John Shughart
Tamar
2003-09-01 17:24:48 UTC
Permalink
Sam, again, I thought you weren't going to reply to my post and killfile me,
and if you are the least you could do is do so in a more intelligent, less
sacrcastic way like iBuck has done. At least he can hold a conversation on
an issue without the Elin like attempts at humor, which you are definitely
no Elin.

I hate to sound rude, but I'd appreciate that if you're going to reply, do
so with something useful to add to the conversation or not reply at all. At
best you're just creating needless lenght to treads.
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Err.... Except you don't have the slightest clue who made it. You just
believe that guy on the street corner who said your watch was a Rolex.
Post by Tamar
Explaining now it works doesn't explain how it's made.
Creationism, tells who made the vcr and how. Science explains how the vcr
works and why.
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
... John... HOW can you believe in Creationism?
I mean if nothing else, we've carefully measured the speed of light.
We also know the size of our sun and understand that the color of its
light is determined by its mass and composition. We can see similar
stars in space. We can determine their distance from us a number of
ways. Suffice to say, they are a long long long ways away. A distance
so fast light couldn't travel across it in a mere 3,000 years.
We can see things hundreds of millions of light years away. Even if
we hada 99% margin of error, we can STILL say we know there are things
older than the biblical reference for creation.
We can make similar determinations with radio-carbon dating or even strata
layers. Heck, there are trees that we know are more than 3,000 years old.
Its a rather oerwhelming body of evidence. How can you deny such a thing?
Post by DishRoom1
PlanetFur wrote --
I wrote --
Post by PlanetFur
Post by PlanetFur
What I can't fathom is why religious people WANT to push their
religion
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
Post by PlanetFur
on
Post by PlanetFur
others, as though their beliefs were too fragile, and they need more
people
Post by PlanetFur
believing in it to strengthen it.
And what I can't fathom is why atheist and freethinkers want to push
evolution
and Big Bang thoeries onto others, as if their beliefs are fragile and
they
need more people believing in it to strenghen it. (when not only Jews
and
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
Post by PlanetFur
Christians have their own beliefs on how the world and Man was made,
but
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
Post by PlanetFur
so do
Hindus, Buddist, pagans, Muslims, ect. Ever though how a Hindu might
feel
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
Post by PlanetFur
forced to accept the ape-into-man stories without question?)
I read through the rest of your post, thinking maybe you were trying to
debate.
This last part, though, proves you weren't.
I was trying to debate. The last paragraph was written out of my
fustration
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
with the world.
Post by PlanetFur
You can't be serious into thinking that the Big Bang and evolution are
atheists'
ways of destroying Christianity . . .
I coures I do not. The Point of Christianity can't be destroyed easily by
any
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
other faith or belief.
Post by PlanetFur
No one went out to try to come up with e
If these stomp on your beliefs, modify your beliefs as so many others
have
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
Post by PlanetFur
had.
But my Creation beliefs are fine the way they are. There's no law forcing
me to
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
change them except for my free will. Just like there's no law forcing you
from
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
your evolution beliefs, either, and you're free to believe evolution. But
the
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
law wants us to tolerate each others' beliefs even if we strong disagree
with
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
the other.
Post by PlanetFur
Or, join up with the Flat Earth Society in believing that television
broadcasters
have refit the Earth to a spherical shape in order to have more people
watch
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
Post by PlanetFur
their anti-Christian broadcasts. The foil hats are available at the
door,
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
Post by PlanetFur
shiny side out.
OK, that, sir, was going over the line. It was enough when
Creation-believers
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
were charged with "believing in fairytales", "out to destroy school
education/
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
set back science" (somthing to that effect anyway), "zealots" and
"religous
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
fanatics" I survived all through that and can bare it. Still can anyway.
John Shughart
Samantha Ann Patterson
2003-09-01 18:58:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tamar
Sam, again, I thought you weren't going to reply to my post and killfile me,
and if you are the least you could do is do so in a more intelligent, less
sacrcastic way like iBuck has done. At least he can hold a conversation on
an issue without the Elin like attempts at humor, which you are definitely
no Elin.
I hate to sound rude, but I'd appreciate that if you're going to reply, do
so with something useful to add to the conversation or not reply at all. At
best you're just creating needless lenght to treads.
It's a totally valid comparision despite whether or not you like it. I'm
noresponding to these posts for playful banter.

The fact of the matter is, you never really really had any thought
process in chosing your relgion. You're whichever because your parents
were whichever. If you'd been born a buddist or a hindu you wouldn't
put any more stock in your current religion than I do. Children of
religious people grow up witha systematic brainwashing. What you
call 'faith' is nothing more than Pavlovian behaviour.

Answer this: Why do you believe in the chrstian version of God? why
not the jewish one, or Budda or Kalli or Aphrodite or Jupiter? Why not
just believe that aliens beamed Elvis down to Earth to guide us all.

Numbers don't make one set of ridiculous absurdist beliefs any more
valid than any other set of ridiculous absurdist beliefs. If you are
going to believe that Jesus rose from the dead and danced around, you
must also believe in aliens, the Loch Ness monster, and every other
religion out there. You must accept that Anne Rice fans ARE really
vampires hundreds of years old reborn in human form. You have no choice
but to accept gays for who they see themselves as. Furry lifestylers
too.

The only thing that makes your religion 'right' is that you believe
exactly what you were brougth up to believe. Thing is, that's not a
real problem. What is a problem is that this arguement started about
your intolerance of the identity of others. Seriously. If you expect
queers to kee their identities in the closet, you need to do the same
with your Jesus. I am for gays at LEAST there is some biological
evidence that their beliefs might be true.

So... there it is. If you don't want me to point out the flaws in
your faith, don't snit at the faith of others. I don't care if they're
gay, lifestylers, buddists, or people who believe they sprang from
red wine that was spilled in a vat of tapioca pudding at a celestial
office-party. As long as they aren't harming anyone, their beliefs
are no more or less valid than yours.

And by the way... Saying some group should be silent, repressed,
ignored, governed by a different set of laws... That is harming them.

How exactly is other people loving one another harmful to you?
Post by Tamar
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Err.... Except you don't have the slightest clue who made it. You just
believe that guy on the street corner who said your watch was a Rolex.
Post by Tamar
Explaining now it works doesn't explain how it's made.
Creationism, tells who made the vcr and how. Science explains how the vcr
works and why.
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
... John... HOW can you believe in Creationism?
I mean if nothing else, we've carefully measured the speed of light.
We also know the size of our sun and understand that the color of its
light is determined by its mass and composition. We can see similar
stars in space. We can determine their distance from us a number of
ways. Suffice to say, they are a long long long ways away. A distance
so fast light couldn't travel across it in a mere 3,000 years.
We can see things hundreds of millions of light years away. Even if
we hada 99% margin of error, we can STILL say we know there are things
older than the biblical reference for creation.
We can make similar determinations with radio-carbon dating or even
strata
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by Tamar
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
layers. Heck, there are trees that we know are more than 3,000 years
old.
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by Tamar
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Its a rather oerwhelming body of evidence. How can you deny such a
thing?
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by Tamar
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
PlanetFur wrote --
I wrote --
Post by PlanetFur
Post by PlanetFur
What I can't fathom is why religious people WANT to push their
religion
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
Post by PlanetFur
on
Post by PlanetFur
others, as though their beliefs were too fragile, and they need
more
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by Tamar
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
Post by PlanetFur
people
Post by PlanetFur
believing in it to strengthen it.
And what I can't fathom is why atheist and freethinkers want to
push
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by Tamar
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
Post by PlanetFur
evolution
and Big Bang thoeries onto others, as if their beliefs are fragile
and
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by Tamar
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
Post by PlanetFur
they
need more people believing in it to strenghen it. (when not only
Jews
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by Tamar
and
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
Post by PlanetFur
Christians have their own beliefs on how the world and Man was
made,
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by Tamar
but
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
Post by PlanetFur
so do
Hindus, Buddist, pagans, Muslims, ect. Ever though how a Hindu
might
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by Tamar
feel
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
Post by PlanetFur
forced to accept the ape-into-man stories without question?)
I read through the rest of your post, thinking maybe you were trying
to
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by Tamar
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
Post by PlanetFur
debate.
This last part, though, proves you weren't.
I was trying to debate. The last paragraph was written out of my
fustration
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
with the world.
Post by PlanetFur
You can't be serious into thinking that the Big Bang and evolution
are
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by Tamar
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
Post by PlanetFur
atheists'
ways of destroying Christianity . . .
I coures I do not. The Point of Christianity can't be destroyed easily
by
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by Tamar
any
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
other faith or belief.
Post by PlanetFur
No one went out to try to come up with e
If these stomp on your beliefs, modify your beliefs as so many others
have
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
Post by PlanetFur
had.
But my Creation beliefs are fine the way they are. There's no law
forcing
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by Tamar
me to
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
change them except for my free will. Just like there's no law forcing
you
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by Tamar
from
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
your evolution beliefs, either, and you're free to believe evolution.
But
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by Tamar
the
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
law wants us to tolerate each others' beliefs even if we strong
disagree
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by Tamar
with
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
the other.
Post by PlanetFur
Or, join up with the Flat Earth Society in believing that television
broadcasters
have refit the Earth to a spherical shape in order to have more
people
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by Tamar
watch
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
Post by PlanetFur
their anti-Christian broadcasts. The foil hats are available at the
door,
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
Post by PlanetFur
shiny side out.
OK, that, sir, was going over the line. It was enough when
Creation-believers
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
were charged with "believing in fairytales", "out to destroy school
education/
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
set back science" (somthing to that effect anyway), "zealots" and
"religous
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
fanatics" I survived all through that and can bare it. Still can
anyway.
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by Tamar
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
John Shughart
Tamar
2003-09-01 19:54:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
It's a totally valid comparision despite whether or not you like it. I'm
noresponding to these posts for playful banter.
The fact of the matter is, you never really really had any thought
process in chosing your relgion. You're whichever because your parents
were whichever. If you'd been born a buddist or a hindu you wouldn't
put any more stock in your current religion than I do. Children of
religious people grow up witha systematic brainwashing. What you
call 'faith' is nothing more than Pavlovian behaviour.
Oh my gosh, what are you a fortune teller or a psychic? What makes you so
sure in yourself that you know what is in my mind and in my heart? You don't
know me, you don't know my family, you don't know my life. So what makes you
think you can speak in terms as if you know just what experiences I have
gone through in my life that make me think and believe as I do? Are you that
errogant?

Here's a question for you, just what do you do with your life anyway? What's
your profession. What level of education do you have that seems to make you
such an expert in human behavior?
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Answer this: Why do you believe in the chrstian version of God? why
not the jewish one, or Budda or Kalli or Aphrodite or Jupiter? Why not
just believe that aliens beamed Elvis down to Earth to guide us all.
Because one day when I was 13 I had a revolation. I didn't know what do to
with my life, what I wanted to believe or what path I would take. So I did
some evaluation. I had friends that are Buddist, some from Japan itself, and
I listened to them about their belief. One of my best friends growing up was
Muslim, I listened to him about his faith and beliefs. Then one day I had an
insight, a feeling if you would of my mind opening up. It's hard to put into
worlds but that's when I know my choice of faith was solidfied. I've
experiened things in my life that makes me, the individual, believe in God
because I've seen is work. I've felt his precense and I know the things that
I have achieved and made it through in my life were done only through the
blessings of his grace. My family is poor, single mother home, on and off
employment, yet I've made it through college with a masters degree, and 2
other degrees. We were poor yet never went without. Have had amazing life
changing and saving events happen that I don't feel just plain blind luck
helped. That's why I believe as I do. Because I choose to. Not because
anybody made me. I don't know about your family, but in mine we are allowed
to make our own decisions of which we can either enjoy the fruits of them or
suffer the concequences of them.

What has made you the ***** you are today? Was your family intolerant rude
people?
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Numbers don't make one set of ridiculous absurdist beliefs any more
valid than any other set of ridiculous absurdist beliefs. If you are
going to believe that Jesus rose from the dead and danced around, you
must also believe in aliens, the Loch Ness monster, and every other
religion out there. You must accept that Anne Rice fans ARE really
vampires hundreds of years old reborn in human form. You have no choice
but to accept gays for who they see themselves as. Furry lifestylers
too.
All I can except is you have proven yourself to be an very unsavory person,
who I'm glad does not speak for the cause of those you claim to be a part
of. What makes up your "ridiculous absurdist beliefs" of not believing in
anything that doesn't suit your own personal goals and gain? I guess you
simply don't believe in anything you can not see or explain. Then I guess
you've never been in love, You've never had faith that something would
happen for your favor, that people outside of yourself don't have minds
(since no person can ever prove that people outside of themselves have minds
since you can't measure the human psyche). You just seem like a very bitter
young woman who have a mad on towards people who aren't like you and choice
to play the martyr rule to make your own self image of the world at large
more comfortable for you since being a victim removes responsibility towards
the way you treat others.
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
The only thing that makes your religion 'right' is that you believe
exactly what you were brougth up to believe. Thing is, that's not a
real problem. What is a problem is that this arguement started about
your intolerance of the identity of others. Seriously. If you expect
queers to kee their identities in the closet, you need to do the same
with your Jesus. I am for gays at LEAST there is some biological
evidence that their beliefs might be true.
Find me one statement where I have stated otherwise in quoates that support
your statement, otherwise I demand a public apology. Show me and those
others who are reading this where I have stated an intolerance for the
identity of others. Where I Expect queers (you're word which to mean is very
slanderous a term to call anyone tantamount to a racial slur) to "kee" their
identities in the closet. Was it were I said people should actually stand up
for their rights and not let others dictate to them what or who they should
be and if they did then do so quietly since their complaining wasn't helping
anybody? Do you believe in action or inaction towards the rights of
homosexuals? Do you believe that complaining about a problem will solve it
or actually taking action to change it would.

And another thing miss, I'll have you know whether you believe it or not, if
it weren't for my religion and the faith many and one man in particular had
in it, the rights that any minority would have in this country wouldn't
exist as they do today. That's right, that mean Christian Martin Luthur King
Jr. who's strenght in his faith and God, helped him be a driving force for
change in this country for ALL. That civil rights movement who's staging
grounds were the southern churches, who's form of peaceful protest was sung
in Negro Spirituals as they marched to strenghten their resolve, give them
courage, and help force change in this country and give use all the rights
we all so often squander today. What would you say of him? Would would you
say of his faith. What would you say of his faiths involvement of giving you
the rights you do have, both as a woman and a homosexual? Because I got news
for you, his dedication to both faith and the rights of all human beings,
cost him his life, but made him no greater a man. And through is sacrafice
the big domino effect for civil rights for all began falling one by one.

So don't sit you your high horse and try to either put words in my mouth or
open your blind eye to the feelings and beliefs of others like you got some
kind of monoply going on here.
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
So... there it is. If you don't want me to point out the flaws in
your faith, don't snit at the faith of others. I don't care if they're
gay, lifestylers, buddists, or people who believe they sprang from
red wine that was spilled in a vat of tapioca pudding at a celestial
office-party. As long as they aren't harming anyone, their beliefs
are no more or less valid than yours.
Oh really? You don't say? Wow.
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
And by the way... Saying some group should be silent, repressed,
ignored, governed by a different set of laws... That is harming them.
How exactly is other people loving one another harmful to you?
Again, show facts. And post the whole quoate, instead of buffeting
statements to support your own victimizing agenda. I guess you missed where
you said that I had a very close family member that was gay. I guess you
missed where I said they I admired them because they didn't let the opinions
of other people phase them one bit. That they were strong individuals that
didn't whine about how unfair things are both as a black person and as a
homosexual. SHOW ME THE QUOATE. Or otherwise apologies.

And its people like YOU my dear that would make a person turn exactly into
what you claim them to be by your own close minded ignorance of other
people. Support your statements where I 've said this or that or don't reply
to my messages anymore.

And for those others who are reading this. You be the judge. If I have done
what is claimed then fine, I'll forget all about this fandom and be done
with it since my "Kind" would not be welcome since I've already been branded
the enemy. Cause frankly, I now what it feels like to those innocent people
who are branded by ignorant black people as being racist just because they
may not agree with some issue we support rather than respecting their right
to disagree with anything we say.

If I'm a homophobe as you're clearly trying to imply, you support your
statements.
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Err.... Except you don't have the slightest clue who made it. You just
believe that guy on the street corner who said your watch was a Rolex.
Post by Tamar
Explaining now it works doesn't explain how it's made.
Creationism, tells who made the vcr and how. Science explains how the vcr
works and why.
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
... John... HOW can you believe in Creationism?
I mean if nothing else, we've carefully measured the speed of light.
We also know the size of our sun and understand that the color of its
light is determined by its mass and composition. We can see similar
stars in space. We can determine their distance from us a number of
ways. Suffice to say, they are a long long long ways away. A distance
so fast light couldn't travel across it in a mere 3,000 years.
We can see things hundreds of millions of light years away. Even if
we hada 99% margin of error, we can STILL say we know there are things
older than the biblical reference for creation.
We can make similar determinations with radio-carbon dating or even
strata
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by Tamar
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
layers. Heck, there are trees that we know are more than 3,000 years
old.
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by Tamar
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Its a rather oerwhelming body of evidence. How can you deny such a
thing?
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by Tamar
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
PlanetFur wrote --
I wrote --
Post by PlanetFur
Post by PlanetFur
What I can't fathom is why religious people WANT to push their
religion
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
Post by PlanetFur
on
Post by PlanetFur
others, as though their beliefs were too fragile, and they need
more
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by Tamar
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
Post by PlanetFur
people
Post by PlanetFur
believing in it to strengthen it.
And what I can't fathom is why atheist and freethinkers want to
push
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by Tamar
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
Post by PlanetFur
evolution
and Big Bang thoeries onto others, as if their beliefs are fragile
and
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by Tamar
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
Post by PlanetFur
they
need more people believing in it to strenghen it. (when not only
Jews
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by Tamar
and
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
Post by PlanetFur
Christians have their own beliefs on how the world and Man was
made,
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by Tamar
but
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
Post by PlanetFur
so do
Hindus, Buddist, pagans, Muslims, ect. Ever though how a Hindu
might
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by Tamar
feel
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
Post by PlanetFur
forced to accept the ape-into-man stories without question?)
I read through the rest of your post, thinking maybe you were trying
to
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by Tamar
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
Post by PlanetFur
debate.
This last part, though, proves you weren't.
I was trying to debate. The last paragraph was written out of my
fustration
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
with the world.
Post by PlanetFur
You can't be serious into thinking that the Big Bang and evolution
are
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by Tamar
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
Post by PlanetFur
atheists'
ways of destroying Christianity . . .
I coures I do not. The Point of Christianity can't be destroyed easily
by
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by Tamar
any
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
other faith or belief.
Post by PlanetFur
No one went out to try to come up with e
If these stomp on your beliefs, modify your beliefs as so many others
have
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
Post by PlanetFur
had.
But my Creation beliefs are fine the way they are. There's no law
forcing
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by Tamar
me to
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
change them except for my free will. Just like there's no law forcing
you
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by Tamar
from
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
your evolution beliefs, either, and you're free to believe evolution.
But
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by Tamar
the
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
law wants us to tolerate each others' beliefs even if we strong
disagree
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by Tamar
with
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
the other.
Post by PlanetFur
Or, join up with the Flat Earth Society in believing that television
broadcasters
have refit the Earth to a spherical shape in order to have more
people
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by Tamar
watch
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
Post by PlanetFur
their anti-Christian broadcasts. The foil hats are available at the
door,
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
Post by PlanetFur
shiny side out.
OK, that, sir, was going over the line. It was enough when
Creation-believers
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
were charged with "believing in fairytales", "out to destroy school
education/
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
set back science" (somthing to that effect anyway), "zealots" and
"religous
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
fanatics" I survived all through that and can bare it. Still can
anyway.
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by Tamar
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
John Shughart
Farlo
2003-09-01 20:36:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tamar
I've made it through college with a masters
degree, and 2 other degrees.
I believe this statement purely on your level of literacy. Just put the
thought out of your head that I'm known for my wit.
Post by Tamar
Where I Expect queers (you're
word which to mean is very slanderous a term to call anyone tantamount
to a racial slur)
For future reference, I have no problem with "queer". It seems to work on
multiple levels for me, and I like that.
Post by Tamar
What would you say of his faiths involvement of
giving you the rights you do have, both as a woman and a homosexual?
Hmmm? I thought that she was Straight.
--
Farlo, the Urban Fey Dragon

The difference between the average man and the average chimpanzee is
about 30 IQ points and some DNA. Are you blurring the line?
Tamar
2003-09-01 20:41:10 UTC
Permalink
What, I need to photo copy them now?
Post by Farlo
Post by Tamar
I've made it through college with a masters
degree, and 2 other degrees.
I believe this statement purely on your level of literacy. Just put the
thought out of your head that I'm known for my wit.
Farlo
2003-09-01 22:40:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tamar
What, I need to photo copy them now?
No, not at all - your eloquence stands as an example to us all. One might
even say that your written words evoke the image of a very special
education.
--
Farlo, the Urban Fey Dragon

The difference between the average man and the average chimpanzee is about
30 IQ points and some DNA. Are you blurring the line?
iBuck
2003-09-01 20:59:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tamar
I hate to sound rude, but I'd appreciate that if you're going to reply, do
so with something useful to add to the conversation or not reply at all. At
best you're just creating needless lenght to treads.
Pot, Kettle Black...
"You can have it Quickly,Correct, Complex - Pick 2"
Tamar
2003-09-01 22:14:15 UTC
Permalink
Black? Why yes I am.
And again, show where I haven't contributed in none attacking ways? Hmm?
Quoates please.
Post by iBuck
Post by Tamar
I hate to sound rude, but I'd appreciate that if you're going to reply, do
so with something useful to add to the conversation or not reply at all. At
best you're just creating needless lenght to treads.
Pot, Kettle Black...
"You can have it Quickly,Correct, Complex - Pick 2"
Brian O'connell
2003-09-01 20:32:51 UTC
Permalink
So God is Pioneer? Does that make Satan Sony?

*badumpching*
Post by Tamar
Explaining now it works doesn't explain how it's made.
Creationism, tells who made the vcr and how. Science explains how the vcr
works and why.
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
... John... HOW can you believe in Creationism?
I mean if nothing else, we've carefully measured the speed of light.
We also know the size of our sun and understand that the color of its
light is determined by its mass and composition. We can see similar
stars in space. We can determine their distance from us a number of
ways. Suffice to say, they are a long long long ways away. A distance
so fast light couldn't travel across it in a mere 3,000 years.
We can see things hundreds of millions of light years away. Even if
we hada 99% margin of error, we can STILL say we know there are things
older than the biblical reference for creation.
We can make similar determinations with radio-carbon dating or even strata
layers. Heck, there are trees that we know are more than 3,000 years old.
Its a rather oerwhelming body of evidence. How can you deny such a thing?
Post by DishRoom1
PlanetFur wrote --
I wrote --
Post by PlanetFur
Post by PlanetFur
What I can't fathom is why religious people WANT to push their
religion
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
Post by PlanetFur
on
Post by PlanetFur
others, as though their beliefs were too fragile, and they need more
people
Post by PlanetFur
believing in it to strengthen it.
And what I can't fathom is why atheist and freethinkers want to push
evolution
and Big Bang thoeries onto others, as if their beliefs are fragile and
they
need more people believing in it to strenghen it. (when not only
Jews
Post by Tamar
and
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
Post by PlanetFur
Christians have their own beliefs on how the world and Man was made,
but
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
Post by PlanetFur
so do
Hindus, Buddist, pagans, Muslims, ect. Ever though how a Hindu might
feel
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
Post by PlanetFur
forced to accept the ape-into-man stories without question?)
I read through the rest of your post, thinking maybe you were trying to
debate.
This last part, though, proves you weren't.
I was trying to debate. The last paragraph was written out of my
fustration
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
with the world.
Post by PlanetFur
You can't be serious into thinking that the Big Bang and evolution are
atheists'
ways of destroying Christianity . . .
I coures I do not. The Point of Christianity can't be destroyed easily
by
Post by Tamar
any
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
other faith or belief.
Post by PlanetFur
No one went out to try to come up with e
If these stomp on your beliefs, modify your beliefs as so many others
have
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
Post by PlanetFur
had.
But my Creation beliefs are fine the way they are. There's no law
forcing
Post by Tamar
me to
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
change them except for my free will. Just like there's no law forcing
you
Post by Tamar
from
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
your evolution beliefs, either, and you're free to believe evolution.
But
Post by Tamar
the
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
law wants us to tolerate each others' beliefs even if we strong
disagree
Post by Tamar
with
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
the other.
Post by PlanetFur
Or, join up with the Flat Earth Society in believing that television
broadcasters
have refit the Earth to a spherical shape in order to have more people
watch
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
Post by PlanetFur
their anti-Christian broadcasts. The foil hats are available at the
door,
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
Post by PlanetFur
shiny side out.
OK, that, sir, was going over the line. It was enough when
Creation-believers
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
were charged with "believing in fairytales", "out to destroy school
education/
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
set back science" (somthing to that effect anyway), "zealots" and
"religous
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
fanatics" I survived all through that and can bare it. Still can anyway.
John Shughart
Tamar
2003-09-01 20:47:12 UTC
Permalink
Brian, don't you have commissions to do?
Post by Brian O'connell
So God is Pioneer? Does that make Satan Sony?
*badumpching*
Post by Tamar
Explaining now it works doesn't explain how it's made.
Creationism, tells who made the vcr and how. Science explains how the vcr
works and why.
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
... John... HOW can you believe in Creationism?
I mean if nothing else, we've carefully measured the speed of light.
We also know the size of our sun and understand that the color of its
light is determined by its mass and composition. We can see similar
stars in space. We can determine their distance from us a number of
ways. Suffice to say, they are a long long long ways away. A distance
so fast light couldn't travel across it in a mere 3,000 years.
We can see things hundreds of millions of light years away. Even if
we hada 99% margin of error, we can STILL say we know there are things
older than the biblical reference for creation.
We can make similar determinations with radio-carbon dating or even
strata
Post by Tamar
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
layers. Heck, there are trees that we know are more than 3,000 years
old.
Post by Tamar
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Its a rather oerwhelming body of evidence. How can you deny such a
thing?
Post by Tamar
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
PlanetFur wrote --
I wrote --
Post by PlanetFur
Post by PlanetFur
What I can't fathom is why religious people WANT to push their
religion
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
Post by PlanetFur
on
Post by PlanetFur
others, as though their beliefs were too fragile, and they need
more
Post by Tamar
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
Post by PlanetFur
people
Post by PlanetFur
believing in it to strengthen it.
And what I can't fathom is why atheist and freethinkers want to push
evolution
and Big Bang thoeries onto others, as if their beliefs are fragile
and
Post by Tamar
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
Post by PlanetFur
they
need more people believing in it to strenghen it. (when not only
Jews
Post by Tamar
and
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
Post by PlanetFur
Christians have their own beliefs on how the world and Man was made,
but
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
Post by PlanetFur
so do
Hindus, Buddist, pagans, Muslims, ect. Ever though how a Hindu might
feel
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
Post by PlanetFur
forced to accept the ape-into-man stories without question?)
I read through the rest of your post, thinking maybe you were trying
to
Post by Tamar
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
Post by PlanetFur
debate.
This last part, though, proves you weren't.
I was trying to debate. The last paragraph was written out of my
fustration
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
with the world.
Post by PlanetFur
You can't be serious into thinking that the Big Bang and evolution are
atheists'
ways of destroying Christianity . . .
I coures I do not. The Point of Christianity can't be destroyed easily
by
Post by Tamar
any
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
other faith or belief.
Post by PlanetFur
No one went out to try to come up with e
If these stomp on your beliefs, modify your beliefs as so many others
have
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
Post by PlanetFur
had.
But my Creation beliefs are fine the way they are. There's no law
forcing
Post by Tamar
me to
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
change them except for my free will. Just like there's no law forcing
you
Post by Tamar
from
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
your evolution beliefs, either, and you're free to believe evolution.
But
Post by Tamar
the
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
law wants us to tolerate each others' beliefs even if we strong
disagree
Post by Tamar
with
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
the other.
Post by PlanetFur
Or, join up with the Flat Earth Society in believing that television
broadcasters
have refit the Earth to a spherical shape in order to have more people
watch
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
Post by PlanetFur
their anti-Christian broadcasts. The foil hats are available at the
door,
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
Post by PlanetFur
shiny side out.
OK, that, sir, was going over the line. It was enough when
Creation-believers
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
were charged with "believing in fairytales", "out to destroy school
education/
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
set back science" (somthing to that effect anyway), "zealots" and
"religous
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
fanatics" I survived all through that and can bare it. Still can
anyway.
Post by Tamar
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
John Shughart
Brian O'connell
2003-09-01 21:39:22 UTC
Permalink
Been working for 9+ days straight. Ask iBuck.

In case your calender's off, today IS Labor Day. And I still inked a piece
for Terry out of boredom.
Post by Tamar
Brian, don't you have commissions to do?
Post by Brian O'connell
So God is Pioneer? Does that make Satan Sony?
*badumpching*
Post by Tamar
Explaining now it works doesn't explain how it's made.
Creationism, tells who made the vcr and how. Science explains how the
vcr
Post by Brian O'connell
Post by Tamar
works and why.
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
... John... HOW can you believe in Creationism?
I mean if nothing else, we've carefully measured the speed of light.
We also know the size of our sun and understand that the color of its
light is determined by its mass and composition. We can see similar
stars in space. We can determine their distance from us a number of
ways. Suffice to say, they are a long long long ways away. A
distance
Post by Brian O'connell
Post by Tamar
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
so fast light couldn't travel across it in a mere 3,000 years.
We can see things hundreds of millions of light years away. Even if
we hada 99% margin of error, we can STILL say we know there are
things
Post by Brian O'connell
Post by Tamar
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
older than the biblical reference for creation.
We can make similar determinations with radio-carbon dating or even
strata
Post by Tamar
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
layers. Heck, there are trees that we know are more than 3,000 years
old.
Post by Tamar
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Its a rather oerwhelming body of evidence. How can you deny such a
thing?
Post by Tamar
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
PlanetFur wrote --
I wrote --
Post by PlanetFur
Post by PlanetFur
What I can't fathom is why religious people WANT to push their
religion
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
Post by PlanetFur
on
Post by PlanetFur
others, as though their beliefs were too fragile, and they need
more
Post by Tamar
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
Post by PlanetFur
people
Post by PlanetFur
believing in it to strengthen it.
And what I can't fathom is why atheist and freethinkers want to
push
Post by Brian O'connell
Post by Tamar
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
Post by PlanetFur
evolution
and Big Bang thoeries onto others, as if their beliefs are fragile
and
Post by Tamar
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
Post by PlanetFur
they
need more people believing in it to strenghen it. (when not only
Jews
Post by Tamar
and
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
Post by PlanetFur
Christians have their own beliefs on how the world and Man was
made,
Post by Brian O'connell
Post by Tamar
but
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
Post by PlanetFur
so do
Hindus, Buddist, pagans, Muslims, ect. Ever though how a Hindu
might
Post by Brian O'connell
Post by Tamar
feel
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
Post by PlanetFur
forced to accept the ape-into-man stories without question?)
I read through the rest of your post, thinking maybe you were trying
to
Post by Tamar
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
Post by PlanetFur
debate.
This last part, though, proves you weren't.
I was trying to debate. The last paragraph was written out of my
fustration
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
with the world.
Post by PlanetFur
You can't be serious into thinking that the Big Bang and evolution
are
Post by Brian O'connell
Post by Tamar
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
Post by PlanetFur
atheists'
ways of destroying Christianity . . .
I coures I do not. The Point of Christianity can't be destroyed
easily
Post by Brian O'connell
by
Post by Tamar
any
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
other faith or belief.
Post by PlanetFur
No one went out to try to come up with e
If these stomp on your beliefs, modify your beliefs as so many
others
Post by Brian O'connell
Post by Tamar
have
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
Post by PlanetFur
had.
But my Creation beliefs are fine the way they are. There's no law
forcing
Post by Tamar
me to
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
change them except for my free will. Just like there's no law forcing
you
Post by Tamar
from
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
your evolution beliefs, either, and you're free to believe evolution.
But
Post by Tamar
the
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
law wants us to tolerate each others' beliefs even if we strong
disagree
Post by Tamar
with
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
the other.
Post by PlanetFur
Or, join up with the Flat Earth Society in believing that television
broadcasters
have refit the Earth to a spherical shape in order to have more
people
Post by Brian O'connell
Post by Tamar
watch
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
Post by PlanetFur
their anti-Christian broadcasts. The foil hats are available at the
door,
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
Post by PlanetFur
shiny side out.
OK, that, sir, was going over the line. It was enough when
Creation-believers
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
were charged with "believing in fairytales", "out to destroy school
education/
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
set back science" (somthing to that effect anyway), "zealots" and
"religous
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
fanatics" I survived all through that and can bare it. Still can
anyway.
Post by Tamar
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
John Shughart
Brian O'connell
2003-09-01 21:49:25 UTC
Permalink
Or better yet, ask me for scans of what I've been doing over the last 9
days. BTW, do you have an e-mail box capacity beyond 3 MB?

For one thing, I've gotten tired of pissant wannabes claiming to be
better than me because I dared to take a break after spending over 10 years
of doing close to 3 completed pictures a day. So you know how I'm going to
show I'm better than y'all? By SHOWING how I'm better than y'all. I'm sick
of people using me as an excuse, so keep watching, I'll blow every stupid
theory you have tucked away in yer jockstraps.
Post by Brian O'connell
Been working for 9+ days straight. Ask iBuck.
In case your calender's off, today IS Labor Day. And I still inked a piece
for Terry out of boredom.
Post by Tamar
Brian, don't you have commissions to do?
Post by Brian O'connell
So God is Pioneer? Does that make Satan Sony?
*badumpching*
Post by Tamar
Explaining now it works doesn't explain how it's made.
Creationism, tells who made the vcr and how. Science explains how the
vcr
Post by Brian O'connell
Post by Tamar
works and why.
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
... John... HOW can you believe in Creationism?
I mean if nothing else, we've carefully measured the speed of light.
We also know the size of our sun and understand that the color of
its
Post by Tamar
Post by Brian O'connell
Post by Tamar
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
light is determined by its mass and composition. We can see similar
stars in space. We can determine their distance from us a number of
ways. Suffice to say, they are a long long long ways away. A
distance
Post by Brian O'connell
Post by Tamar
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
so fast light couldn't travel across it in a mere 3,000 years.
We can see things hundreds of millions of light years away. Even if
we hada 99% margin of error, we can STILL say we know there are
things
Post by Brian O'connell
Post by Tamar
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
older than the biblical reference for creation.
We can make similar determinations with radio-carbon dating or even
strata
Post by Tamar
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
layers. Heck, there are trees that we know are more than 3,000
years
Post by Tamar
Post by Brian O'connell
old.
Post by Tamar
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Its a rather oerwhelming body of evidence. How can you deny such a
thing?
Post by Tamar
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
PlanetFur wrote --
I wrote --
Post by PlanetFur
Post by PlanetFur
What I can't fathom is why religious people WANT to push their
religion
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
Post by PlanetFur
on
Post by PlanetFur
others, as though their beliefs were too fragile, and they need
more
Post by Tamar
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
Post by PlanetFur
people
Post by PlanetFur
believing in it to strengthen it.
And what I can't fathom is why atheist and freethinkers want to
push
Post by Brian O'connell
Post by Tamar
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
Post by PlanetFur
evolution
and Big Bang thoeries onto others, as if their beliefs are
fragile
Post by Tamar
Post by Brian O'connell
and
Post by Tamar
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
Post by PlanetFur
they
need more people believing in it to strenghen it. (when not only
Jews
Post by Tamar
and
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
Post by PlanetFur
Christians have their own beliefs on how the world and Man was
made,
Post by Brian O'connell
Post by Tamar
but
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
Post by PlanetFur
so do
Hindus, Buddist, pagans, Muslims, ect. Ever though how a Hindu
might
Post by Brian O'connell
Post by Tamar
feel
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
Post by PlanetFur
forced to accept the ape-into-man stories without question?)
I read through the rest of your post, thinking maybe you were
trying
Post by Tamar
Post by Brian O'connell
to
Post by Tamar
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
Post by PlanetFur
debate.
This last part, though, proves you weren't.
I was trying to debate. The last paragraph was written out of my
fustration
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
with the world.
Post by PlanetFur
You can't be serious into thinking that the Big Bang and evolution
are
Post by Brian O'connell
Post by Tamar
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
Post by PlanetFur
atheists'
ways of destroying Christianity . . .
I coures I do not. The Point of Christianity can't be destroyed
easily
Post by Brian O'connell
by
Post by Tamar
any
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
other faith or belief.
Post by PlanetFur
No one went out to try to come up with e
If these stomp on your beliefs, modify your beliefs as so many
others
Post by Brian O'connell
Post by Tamar
have
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
Post by PlanetFur
had.
But my Creation beliefs are fine the way they are. There's no law
forcing
Post by Tamar
me to
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
change them except for my free will. Just like there's no law
forcing
Post by Tamar
Post by Brian O'connell
you
Post by Tamar
from
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
your evolution beliefs, either, and you're free to believe
evolution.
Post by Tamar
Post by Brian O'connell
But
Post by Tamar
the
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
law wants us to tolerate each others' beliefs even if we strong
disagree
Post by Tamar
with
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
the other.
Post by PlanetFur
Or, join up with the Flat Earth Society in believing that
television
Post by Tamar
Post by Brian O'connell
Post by Tamar
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
Post by PlanetFur
broadcasters
have refit the Earth to a spherical shape in order to have more
people
Post by Brian O'connell
Post by Tamar
watch
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
Post by PlanetFur
their anti-Christian broadcasts. The foil hats are available at
the
Post by Tamar
Post by Brian O'connell
Post by Tamar
door,
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
Post by PlanetFur
shiny side out.
OK, that, sir, was going over the line. It was enough when
Creation-believers
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
were charged with "believing in fairytales", "out to destroy school
education/
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
set back science" (somthing to that effect anyway), "zealots" and
"religous
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
fanatics" I survived all through that and can bare it. Still can
anyway.
Post by Tamar
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
John Shughart
Tamar
2003-09-01 22:07:39 UTC
Permalink
Touched a nerve.
Well, I hope the nine days were indeed productive and fruitful for those who
have been waiting longer than such for their work. I'm sure others would
like to know what that brings your workload down too, particularly those who
are nonpriorities as you once put it.

And while I do have an inbox greater than 3MB you can save sending e-mails
to prove it to me. I'm not a collector and you have nothing to prove to me.
I've never given you money to draw anything that I couldn't do myself.

One last thing. See how you felt when you thought your "professoinalism as
an artist" was being questioned? Focus on that thought when replying to
others on this NG and how you're wit may sting them on issues they hold
important.
Post by Brian O'connell
Or better yet, ask me for scans of what I've been doing over the last 9
days. BTW, do you have an e-mail box capacity beyond 3 MB?
For one thing, I've gotten tired of pissant wannabes claiming to be
better than me because I dared to take a break after spending over 10 years
of doing close to 3 completed pictures a day. So you know how I'm going to
show I'm better than y'all? By SHOWING how I'm better than y'all. I'm sick
of people using me as an excuse, so keep watching, I'll blow every stupid
theory you have tucked away in yer jockstraps.
Post by Brian O'connell
Been working for 9+ days straight. Ask iBuck.
In case your calender's off, today IS Labor Day. And I still inked a piece
for Terry out of boredom.
Post by Tamar
Brian, don't you have commissions to do?
Post by Brian O'connell
So God is Pioneer? Does that make Satan Sony?
*badumpching*
Post by Tamar
Explaining now it works doesn't explain how it's made.
Creationism, tells who made the vcr and how. Science explains how
the
Post by Brian O'connell
Post by Tamar
vcr
Post by Brian O'connell
Post by Tamar
works and why.
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
... John... HOW can you believe in Creationism?
I mean if nothing else, we've carefully measured the speed of
light.
Post by Brian O'connell
Post by Tamar
Post by Brian O'connell
Post by Tamar
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
We also know the size of our sun and understand that the color of
its
Post by Tamar
Post by Brian O'connell
Post by Tamar
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
light is determined by its mass and composition. We can see
similar
Post by Brian O'connell
Post by Tamar
Post by Brian O'connell
Post by Tamar
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
stars in space. We can determine their distance from us a
number
Post by Brian O'connell
of
Post by Brian O'connell
Post by Tamar
Post by Brian O'connell
Post by Tamar
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
ways. Suffice to say, they are a long long long ways away. A
distance
Post by Brian O'connell
Post by Tamar
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
so fast light couldn't travel across it in a mere 3,000 years.
We can see things hundreds of millions of light years away.
Even
Post by Brian O'connell
if
Post by Brian O'connell
Post by Tamar
Post by Brian O'connell
Post by Tamar
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
we hada 99% margin of error, we can STILL say we know there are
things
Post by Brian O'connell
Post by Tamar
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
older than the biblical reference for creation.
We can make similar determinations with radio-carbon dating or
even
Post by Brian O'connell
Post by Tamar
Post by Brian O'connell
strata
Post by Tamar
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
layers. Heck, there are trees that we know are more than 3,000
years
Post by Tamar
Post by Brian O'connell
old.
Post by Tamar
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Its a rather oerwhelming body of evidence. How can you deny
such
Post by Brian O'connell
a
Post by Brian O'connell
Post by Tamar
Post by Brian O'connell
thing?
Post by Tamar
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
PlanetFur wrote --
I wrote --
Post by PlanetFur
Post by PlanetFur
What I can't fathom is why religious people WANT to push
their
Post by Brian O'connell
Post by Tamar
Post by Brian O'connell
Post by Tamar
religion
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
Post by PlanetFur
on
Post by PlanetFur
others, as though their beliefs were too fragile, and they
need
Post by Brian O'connell
Post by Tamar
Post by Brian O'connell
more
Post by Tamar
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
Post by PlanetFur
people
Post by PlanetFur
believing in it to strengthen it.
And what I can't fathom is why atheist and freethinkers want
to
Post by Brian O'connell
Post by Tamar
push
Post by Brian O'connell
Post by Tamar
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
Post by PlanetFur
evolution
and Big Bang thoeries onto others, as if their beliefs are
fragile
Post by Tamar
Post by Brian O'connell
and
Post by Tamar
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
Post by PlanetFur
they
need more people believing in it to strenghen it. (when not
only
Post by Brian O'connell
Post by Tamar
Post by Brian O'connell
Jews
Post by Tamar
and
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
Post by PlanetFur
Christians have their own beliefs on how the world and Man was
made,
Post by Brian O'connell
Post by Tamar
but
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
Post by PlanetFur
so do
Hindus, Buddist, pagans, Muslims, ect. Ever though how a Hindu
might
Post by Brian O'connell
Post by Tamar
feel
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
Post by PlanetFur
forced to accept the ape-into-man stories without question?)
I read through the rest of your post, thinking maybe you were
trying
Post by Tamar
Post by Brian O'connell
to
Post by Tamar
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
Post by PlanetFur
debate.
This last part, though, proves you weren't.
I was trying to debate. The last paragraph was written out of my
fustration
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
with the world.
Post by PlanetFur
You can't be serious into thinking that the Big Bang and
evolution
Post by Brian O'connell
Post by Tamar
are
Post by Brian O'connell
Post by Tamar
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
Post by PlanetFur
atheists'
ways of destroying Christianity . . .
I coures I do not. The Point of Christianity can't be destroyed
easily
Post by Brian O'connell
by
Post by Tamar
any
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
other faith or belief.
Post by PlanetFur
No one went out to try to come up with e
If these stomp on your beliefs, modify your beliefs as so many
others
Post by Brian O'connell
Post by Tamar
have
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
Post by PlanetFur
had.
But my Creation beliefs are fine the way they are. There's no law
forcing
Post by Tamar
me to
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
change them except for my free will. Just like there's no law
forcing
Post by Tamar
Post by Brian O'connell
you
Post by Tamar
from
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
your evolution beliefs, either, and you're free to believe
evolution.
Post by Tamar
Post by Brian O'connell
But
Post by Tamar
the
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
law wants us to tolerate each others' beliefs even if we strong
disagree
Post by Tamar
with
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
the other.
Post by PlanetFur
Or, join up with the Flat Earth Society in believing that
television
Post by Tamar
Post by Brian O'connell
Post by Tamar
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
Post by PlanetFur
broadcasters
have refit the Earth to a spherical shape in order to have more
people
Post by Brian O'connell
Post by Tamar
watch
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
Post by PlanetFur
their anti-Christian broadcasts. The foil hats are available at
the
Post by Tamar
Post by Brian O'connell
Post by Tamar
door,
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
Post by PlanetFur
shiny side out.
OK, that, sir, was going over the line. It was enough when
Creation-believers
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
were charged with "believing in fairytales", "out to destroy
school
Post by Brian O'connell
Post by Tamar
Post by Brian O'connell
Post by Tamar
education/
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
set back science" (somthing to that effect anyway), "zealots" and
"religous
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
fanatics" I survived all through that and can bare it. Still can
anyway.
Post by Tamar
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
Post by DishRoom1
John Shughart
iBuck
2003-08-28 13:26:51 UTC
Permalink
And what I can't fathom is why atheist and freethinkers want to push
evolution
and Big Bang thoeries onto others, as if their beliefs are fragile and they
need more people believing in it to strenghen it.
Because science isn't a matter of belief, It's a matter of deducive reasoning
based on available evidence. And It's being tought as such, even if our primary
school systems only have a chance to cover the broad basics

I find much of the debate over raising the issues of the "problems" of
evolution and alternate thories to be be somewhat hypocritical, because it
allways seems to stop short of examining the "problems" of the alternate
solutions.

Personally, I think the -last- thing people of faith should be doing is pushing
the paralell arguments that science is a matter of belief, and that time should
be given to the "problems" of evolution. because the end result will be a
direct attack on the "problems" of other belief systems..
"You can have it Quickly,Correct, Complex - Pick 2"
Paul R. Bennett
2003-08-31 21:29:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by iBuck
And what I can't fathom is why atheist and freethinkers want to push
evolution
and Big Bang thoeries onto others, as if their beliefs are fragile and they
need more people believing in it to strenghen it.
Because science isn't a matter of belief, It's a matter of deducive reasoning
based on available evidence. And It's being tought as such, even if our primary
school systems only have a chance to cover the broad basics
Nods.
There is Belief, and Science. And please, please note, I do not mock either
Belief goes back millenia, and represents a time when "Man" did not have the tools
to really attempt to explore and explain "The World". From cave paintings and
primitve burials.
Now there is nothing wrong with Belief, and Faith, and one could even say, now and
then, when it motivates us, as humans, to raise above and set examples of Goodness,
and all that is right in the world.
But Science is not a matter of Belief... Science is that way when we take those
hard facts and methods we have learned and try to understand the world and the
universe
Science is where we take those facts we have learned over hundreds of years and try
to learn more. Where we try to learn about Hurricanes and how they move, about
earthquakes, Tornadoes, and volcanos. About diseases, famine, and drought
We, all of us, benefit from Science in the real world.
And maybe even, Science gives us Dreams.
But Faith gives us Dreams too.
Whether it is the stars, the depths of the oceans, artistic masterpieces, or the
birth of a society that can raise above the evils that men do.
Post by iBuck
I find much of the debate over raising the issues of the "problems" of
evolution and alternate thories to be be somewhat hypocritical, because it
allways seems to stop short of examining the "problems" of the alternate
solutions.
Which reminds me of my distant High School days.
Post by iBuck
Personally, I think the -last- thing people of faith should be doing is pushing
the paralell arguments that science is a matter of belief, and that time should
be given to the "problems" of evolution. because the end result will be a
direct attack on the "problems" of other belief systems..
Sigh... "Science" as practiced today, directly for the average man is not an issue
of belief. It is taking hard, cold, sometimes uncomfortable facts and trying to
understand the world in their light. And I ain't knocking Science. I love facts,
I love those wonderful things Science discovers, brings to us. I appreciate those
things Science does that makes our world better.
And I also appreciate, and enjoy faith. From a purelly Scientific point of view,
if it were not for Faith, would we have had Martin Luther King?

Hi IBuck... I think we need both, Science for the Mind, Faith for the Soul.

Paul
iBuck
2003-09-01 05:45:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul R. Bennett
Hi IBuck... I think we need both, Science for the Mind, Faith for the Soul.
Agreed...
"You can have it Quickly,Correct, Complex - Pick 2"
Dave The Dancing Hyena
2003-09-01 20:53:49 UTC
Permalink
***@aol.com.star (iBuck) shall never vanquished be until great
Birnam wood to high alt.fan.furry. hill shall come against him.
Post by iBuck
Post by Paul R. Bennett
Hi IBuck... I think we need both, Science for the Mind, Faith for the Soul.
Agreed...
"You can have it Quickly,Correct, Complex - Pick 2"
I could say we need microwaves for the giant invisable radioactive
fish which live just above our heads at a distance of precisly 17
inches, and it would be just as provable a assertation as that we have
or even need the idea of souls.
Flicker
2003-08-28 14:23:13 UTC
Permalink
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union,
establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common
defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the BLESSINGS of Liberty to
ourselves..."
Blessing should be removed for its religious undertones.
What religious undertones? Do you own a dictionary, or do you simply
choose to see Jesus under every rock and bush?
In the Year of our Lord should be removed since this word when capitalized
refers to a religious deity and not a human being.
It was a standard dating reference.
No Article in the Consitution of the United States provides for the
separaction of church and state.
"Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion"
would certainly SEEM to drive some sort of a wedge between church and
state.
The US Pledge of Allegience "..one nation, under God" should be striken from
public statements.
Go back to the pre-McCarthy/Red Scare version.

Not that that's the only problem I have with a Pledge of Allegiance, but
it's the most recently-added one.
The slogan "In God we Trust" should be removed from all government legal
tender.
Agreed. Not sure how it got there...
The slogan "God Bless America" should be stricken from public discourse.
Now you're just being childish.

I swear, you militant Xtians will grasp at any straw no matter how
slender to cast the Constitution in a religious light. IT'S NOT A
RELIGIOUS DOCUMENT! The words "God" and "Jesus" aren't in there
ANYWHERE! Not even a little bit! And it's not like they couldn't have
wasted the ink on the subject if they'd wanted to, there's only three
letters in "God". It's a secular document entirely by design,
addressing the basic functions of how a representative republic should
work. Praising God is not it's purpose, and the only thing it says
about religion is that we'll hever have an official one.

I can see why you'd find the secular nature of our government's
foundational document a little irksome, being that you apparently want
some kind of American Taliban. I can only suggest that might consider
joining something like a Mennonite colony, or moving to Utah.

=Flicker
no one in particular
2003-09-01 21:15:34 UTC
Permalink
"Flicker" <***@desertlinc.com> wrote in message news:***@desertlinc.com...

Your rant is the sort of thing that would have any of the Founders
questioning the entire Reformation and longing to toss you over to the
Inquistion. Whether you like it or not, the founding of this country was
largely by Protestants(Christians) and their beliefs and faith has huge amounts
to do with what they did and how they did it. Many of the earliest colonists
were here specifically because of intolerance of their worship and faith, the
sort coming from people who pay lip service to having faith of their own but in
reality and practice have no faith and are so exquisitely empty Pinhead would
be envious.

Of course, the pagan/irreligious contingent still imagines themselves with
their homemade make-it-up-as-you-go ethics and morality free pseudo-faith to be
on the same level as Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, and Buddhists who by
contrast do have actual commonalities within them, enduring traditions that
don't change because they may have individual distaste, and real histories that
matter. As did the Celts who so many of the yahoos claim spiritual linkage to,
but of course keeping to the rules that the average pre-Christian Celts did
would be like keeping to the rules of their largely Christian and Jewish
parents and predecessors... which they didn't, and promptly jettisoned, because
they couldn't take responsibility for themselves.

Faith is more than whether or not you like it and isn't multiple choice.
Whatever the religion, there's rules and codes and they don't change because
you want to avoid facing up to your choices and mistakes. It isn't as simple as
casting curses at Christians, chanting, and playing with crystals and talking
about goddesses. Religion is about something bigger than you that is inflexible
in the face of your fallible flexibility and moral turpitude. Thankfully,
although they aren't perfect about it, most of the planet outside of furry
manages to grasp that to some degree.
-Wayd Wolf
John Urie
2003-08-28 14:24:01 UTC
Permalink
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union,
establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common
defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the BLESSINGS of Liberty to
ourselves..."
Blessing should be removed for its religious undertones.
"The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for
the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the
Same.
done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the
Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven
hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of
America the Twelfth In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our
Names, "
In the Year of our Lord should be removed since this word when capitalized
refers to a religious deity and not a human being.
No Article in the Consitution of the United States provides for the
separaction of church and state.
The US Pledge of Allegience "..one nation, under God" should be striken from
public statements.
The slogan "In God we Trust" should be removed from all government legal
tender.
The slogan "God Bless America" should be stricken from public discourse.
All of these examples would be taken out of US historical context since this
nation was obviously not founded on by religious principles and men who did
not want to establish a nation were the freedom of religion could be had by
all since their original point of origin was established in religious
oppression.
"Article [I.] (See Note 13)
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,
or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
petition the Government for a redress of grievances. "
The Bill of Rights Ammendments of the Constitution of the United States does
not provide for the separation of church and state.
The concept of the separation of church and state came from Thomas
Jefferson's Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom in the State of
Virginia. Though the concept isn't what you may think that Religion should
never interfer with the State, but in fact that the State should never
interfer with a person's decision on how to follow their religous beliefs,
be it for or against. It goes as the following [This was the draft, the
final version can be found here
A Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom
"SECTION I. Well aware that the opinions and belief of men depend not on
their own will, but follow involuntarily the evidence proposed to their
minds; that Almighty God hath created the mind free, and manifested his
supreme will that free it shall remain by making it altogether insusceptible
of restraint; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments, or
burthens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of
hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the holy author
of our religion, who being lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to
propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do, but
to exalt it by its influence on reason alone; that the impious presumption
of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being
themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the
faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the
only true and infallible, and as such endeavoring to impose them on others,
hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of
the world and through all time: That to compel a man to furnish
contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves
and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical; that even the forcing him to support
this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion, is depriving him of
the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the particular pastor
whose morals he would make his pattern, and whose powers he feels most
persuasive to righteousness; and is withdrawing from the ministry those
temporary rewards, which proceeding from an approbation of their personal
conduct, are an additional incitement to earnest and unremitting labours for
the instruction of mankind; that our civil rights have no dependence on our
religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics or geometry; that
therefore the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence by
laying upon him an incapacity of being called to offices of trust and
emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is
depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages to which, in
common with his fellow citizens, he has a natural right; that it tends also
to corrupt the principles of that very religion it is meant to encourage, by
bribing, with a monopoly of worldly honours and emoluments, those who will
externally profess and conform to it; that though indeed these are criminals
who do not withstand such temptation, yet neither are those innocent who lay
the bait in their way; that the opinions of men are not the object of civil
government, nor under its jurisdiction; that to suffer the civil magistrate
to intrude his powers into the field of opinion and to restrain the
profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency
is a dangerous fallacy, which at once destroys all religious liberty,
because he being of course judge of that tendency will make his opinions the
rule of judgment, and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as
they shall square with or differ from his own; that it is time enough for
the rightful purposes of civil government for its officers to interfere when
principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order; and
finally, that truth is great and will prevail if left to herself; that she
is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear
from the conflict unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural
weapons, free argument and debate; errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is
permitted freely to contradict them.
"SECTION II. We the General Assembly of Virginia do enact that no man shall
be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or
ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or
burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of
his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess,
and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that
the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil
capacities.
"SECTION III. And though we well know that this Assembly, elected by the
people for the ordinary purposes of legislation only, have no power to
restrain the acts of succeeding Assemblies, constituted with powers equal to
our own, and that therefore to declare this act irrevocable would be of no
effect in law; yet we are free to declare, and do declare, that the rights
hereby asserted are of the natural rights of mankind, and that if any act
shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present or to narrow its operation,
such act will be an infringement of natural right."
--
Shawntae Howard
AKA Tamar the Ebony Leopard
Shawntae, nobody can deny that the issue of religion in government in general
and that of 'Roy's Rock' ( as the Alabama Ten Commandments memorial is now
colloquially referred to. ) is an emotional issue and a divisive one. The
question is; how IMPORTANT an issue is it?

If we strike all religious references from pulbic buildings, is that going to
stop the Fedayeen attacks on our troops in Iraq? If we add MORE of them, will
that reduce the deficit, create more jobs, solve the health-care crisis? Fuel
prices are going through the roof. Will the issue of the Ten Commandments
monument affect that problem one way or the other? How many of the peopel
flying to the MFM this weekend will feel safer in the air if 'In God We Trust'
is removed from all currency?

Let me ask you two more questions Shawntae; one personal, the other not. ( You
don't have to answer, but please think about it. ) Which, of the myriad issues
that we're facing right now is having the most impact upon you, personally?
Will removing the Alabama Ten Commandments monument, or permanently returning it
to the courthouse improve that situation in any way shape or form?

Is this really the issue that deserves the MOST attention?
Tamar
2003-08-29 03:27:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Urie
Snip.
Shawntae, nobody can deny that the issue of religion in government in general
and that of 'Roy's Rock' ( as the Alabama Ten Commandments memorial is now
colloquially referred to. ) is an emotional issue and a divisive one. The
question is; how IMPORTANT an issue is it?
If we strike all religious references from pulbic buildings, is that going to
stop the Fedayeen attacks on our troops in Iraq? If we add MORE of them, will
that reduce the deficit, create more jobs, solve the health-care crisis?
Fuel
Post by John Urie
prices are going through the roof. Will the issue of the Ten Commandments
monument affect that problem one way or the other? How many of the peopel
flying to the MFM this weekend will feel safer in the air if 'In God We Trust'
is removed from all currency?
Probably not. But, there are some issues people have that mean more to them
than to others, and of course the real issue isn't about the rock at all.
And actually I'm not even sure that the issue is a Federal one, since the
Constitution leaves matters not expressed in it up to the states. Has anyone
even read the Alabama Constitution, particularly the Preamble?

But no, it will not effect the economic issues of the nation, but not all
things have t have a financial or physical concern to them. My states
previously about removing things was obviously, or so I thought sarcasim,
because like it or not removing most would alter what has made America,
America frankly. Just think of the national attitude after 911, though I
guess it would call for something getting blown up to cause that kind of
good will towards all men.
Post by John Urie
Let me ask you two more questions Shawntae; one personal, the other not.
( You
Post by John Urie
don't have to answer, but please think about it. ) Which, of the myriad issues
that we're facing right now is having the most impact upon you, personally?
Directly, none. Indirectly when there seems to be daily attacks on one part
that makes me who I am, some. Personally though I think the thing that
upsets me the most are when people use sweeping general statements about a
particular group of people, blanketing them as one thing or another. It's
attitudes like that that do effect my personal life because that's how
bigotry is born. It's also ironic coming from here, a furry news group. The
very place where people don't want to be lumped together by the media as
furry being a deviate sex fetish seem so quick to turn and pounce on another
group. That's what perplexes me. And its gets more and more frequent at cons
when you hear people making discouraging remarks about Christians while you
just sit there not saying anything at the time to hear what they have to
think. I think people make assumptions about things because they either have
limited exposure to a variety of people or experiences, or they join what
I'd call a bandwagon mentality where if others are doing or saying something
I'll jump in cause it's the cool thing to do.

Are there any issues in your life that you just have strong feelings for and
fell the need to express yourself on, even if its not the popular thing
among those you're around? If so, what do you do?

I think people should express themselves and stand up for what they believe
or sit back and just take what people have to say. That's why I listen to
what others have replied to, avoided going on personal attacks and keeping
focused to the issue discussed, and will still, tomorrow, treat people in my
life that I encounter well because I learn from each person who is different
from me. That's why I have a grouping of artist friends I jokingly describe
sometimes as the UN. We're so diverse in thought, beliefs, politics, races,
genders, and sexual orientation you'd think it impossible we all get along
so well, but we do. Cause the bottom line is, we respect and see each other
as the individuals we are.

When people say, "Christians are this, Christians are that", I feel that its
my duty to say, hey, wait aminute. That's not fair. You can't say everyone
is like that because you haven't meet everyone. That's what issue is
important to me.
Post by John Urie
Will removing the Alabama Ten Commandments monument, or permanently returning it
to the courthouse improve that situation in any way shape or form?
Of course not, but this really isn't about the statue, never really was. Its
about the principle of rights. Where some are more willing to respect the
rights of some and not the rights of others. Its about having the ability to
freely disagree publically and yet not be branded zeolot, fool, terrorist.
ITs also a little about hypocracy too. ITs like, how can you ask me to
repect you, but you are unwilling to respect me. How can I respect you when
you call me names for having a differing opinion?

In the 7 years I've been associated with the furry "fandom" I've been
Blessed to meet a variety of different people. From a tigerman, to folks in
poly relationships, people are are gay or bi-sexual, people who are
transexual, people of different ethnicities, people from different
countries, and people of varying religions. From all these people I feel
that I myself have personally grown as a person by having the pleasure of
knowing them. Do I agree with everyone's choice of how they live their
lives? No, but then I'm sure they don't necessarily agree with the way I do
mine. And you know, that's fine. But recently, I've seen these negative
anti-religious undertones towards people who identify themselves as
Christians growing more and more as the years go by and it's seriously
making me wonder, should I continue to be involved with something that
doesn't seem to be able to exept who I am as a personal wholely as I've
tried in return.

Fortunately, I know that overall, the vast majority of the people in this
fandom are not like the few who have posted here, but still, it does make me
wonder sometimes. How tolerant should a person be until the just throw there
hands up and say, okay, you won, I've had enough. I haven't reached that
point publically (as in doing public things in realtion to this fandom), but
I have decided that the fandom has become more of a means to an in that's
coincidently related to what I'd naturally have been doing if I hadn't found
out about it in 1996.
Post by John Urie
Is this really the issue that deserves the MOST attention?
Probably no, but its the hot topic of the day.
no one in particular
2003-09-01 21:25:40 UTC
Permalink
"Tamar" <***@erie.net> wrote in message news:***@corp.supernews.com...

(snip)

Tolerance of the intolerable is no virtue and moral judgement of your
fellow man's behaviour no vice. If they were, there would be no justice system,
no law, only the chaos that gives me the right to take your head off your
shoulders because I can. You say I have no right? In a world that practices the
kind of tolerance of which you speak, I have every right and you have no right
to protest, only to tolerate my choice. Be thankful that the world doesn't work
the way you do and your head thus remains in place because the majority do
engange in judgement and intolerance, such as intolerance of harming or killing
you and yours. See? Judgementalism keeps you alive. It's the basis of a
relatively peaceful and safe society.
-Wayd Wolf
P.S.
No, I'm not threatening you so don't you or anyone else be dense enough to
suggest it. I shouldn't have to explain that, but then this is furrydom where
so much goes by the cortex of so many at Mach 5.
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
2003-08-28 22:03:48 UTC
Permalink
On 28 Aug 2003 11:08:56 GMT, DishRoom1 <***@aol.com> wrote:

[...]
Speech can hurt me? Funny, I've heard a lot of offense stuff in my lifetime.
And look, I'm still fine.
"Give me your money or I'll shoot you."

"I say we march right up to that nigger church and burn it down"

Both are examples of speech that are considered harmfull.
--
Please excuse my spelling as I suffer from agraphia. See
http://dformosa.zeta.org.au/~dformosa/Spelling.html to find out more.
Free the Memes.
iBuck
2003-08-28 22:12:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
"Give me your money or I'll shoot you."
"I say we march right up to that nigger church and burn it down"
Both are examples of speech that are considered harmfull.
And neither are actuall harmfull in and of themselves.. It's the -actions-
that follow them that are harmfull, actions that might well occur even without
the speech..
"You can have it Quickly,Correct, Complex - Pick 2"
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
2003-08-30 11:41:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by iBuck
Post by David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
"Give me your money or I'll shoot you."
"I say we march right up to that nigger church and burn it down"
Both are examples of speech that are considered harmfull.
And neither are actuall harmfull in and of themselves..
Threats of death are known to cause pyschological dammige. In addtion
even if the threat involved in the mugging doesn't take place you have
lost your money.
--
Please excuse my spelling as I suffer from agraphia. See
http://dformosa.zeta.org.au/~dformosa/Spelling.html to find out more.
Free the Memes.
iBuck
2003-08-30 15:17:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
Threats of death are known to cause pyschological dammige.
Which uin a lot of people minds is not considered to be an actual "harm". It
is the right or persue happyness, not acheive it..

To a great degree is impossible to seperate from the whatever effect the speech
has from the trauma of the -act- If the act is sufficently restrained by law
what ever harm might be caused by the speech is also minimized.

Someone would probaly suffer equal or greater trauma if they were pinned to a
wall by a mugger who didn't say a word, and by doing so raised the anxiety of
the situation

On the opppisite case, if the threats to the church were made and the
african-ammerican community did not find out, they would not be suffering any
trauma from those words being spoken. (And again their trauma might be
-greater- if the church just went up in flames and they didn't know who was
responsible.)
Post by David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
In addtion even if the threat involved in the mugging doesn't take place you
have
Post by David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
lost your money.
That however is the act of theft, and could happen with or without the speech.
And is independanly covered by criminal codes.
"You can have it Quickly,Correct, Complex - Pick 2"
Samantha Ann Patterson
2003-08-31 05:56:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
Post by iBuck
Post by David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
"Give me your money or I'll shoot you."
"I say we march right up to that nigger church and burn it down"
Both are examples of speech that are considered harmfull.
And neither are actuall harmfull in and of themselves..
Threats of death are known to cause pyschological dammige. In addtion
even if the threat involved in the mugging doesn't take place you have
lost your money.
The irony here is if someone said to him, "I'm gonna kill you, you freak!"
and he whipped out a gun and shot the guy dead, he'd be claiming the
guy said he was gonna kill him.

But if he had his way, that wouldn't be sufficient for killing someone
in cold blood. He'd need to be up on murder charges for the act.
iBuck
2003-08-31 13:02:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
The irony here is if someone said to him, "I'm gonna kill you, you freak!"
and he whipped out a gun and shot the guy dead, he'd be claiming the
guy said he was gonna kill him.
But if he had his way, that wouldn't be sufficient for killing someone
in cold blood. He'd need to be up on murder charges for the act.
Oh, get real....

If I did "whip a gun out and shot the guy dead" which is -extremely- ulikley
I'd ever do.. (I'd prolly just -book- if it ever happend) it would probably
be in a situation where the other's individuals -acts- (such as charging me,
pointing a gun at me, pulling a knife ect) made it very clear that my life was
in danger...
Post by Samantha Ann Patterson
But if he had his way, that wouldn't be sufficient for killing someone
in cold blood. He'd need to be up on murder charges for the act.
And rightly so...
"You can have it Quickly,Correct, Complex - Pick 2"
Skytech
2003-08-28 22:17:32 UTC
Permalink
This has something to do with that cougar, doesn't it?
--
Skytech
Dennis Carr
2003-08-29 03:30:52 UTC
Permalink
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union,
establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common
defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the BLESSINGS of Liberty to
ourselves..."
Blessing should be removed for its religious undertones.
Quite arrogant of you to say this. Perhaps I should tolerate you not
tolerating me?

Take a hike.
--
Dennis Carr - ***@spamcop.net | I may be out of my mind,
http://www.dennis.furtopia.org | But I have more fun that way.
------------------------------------+-------------------------------
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
2003-08-31 22:36:09 UTC
Permalink
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union,
establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common
defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the BLESSINGS of Liberty to
ourselves..."
In time the meanings of words change. Infact the law is one of thouse
things where old meanings become "fosselized". For example when
compernies sue (Anouther fossal, the only place we use sue these days
in in the legal context) each other they often "Pray for" some form of
relief. This comes from the old meaning of Pray which means that they
requesting something. It doesn't mean that they are making a
religious observince.
Blessing should be removed for its religious undertones.
Even in modern usage "Blessed" can be used in a non-religious
context. And clearly from the reading of this the "Blessings of
Liberty" are not something gained from a supernatural source but from
the secured buy the document itself.

[...]
The US Pledge of Allegience "..one nation, under God" should be striken from
public statements.
"...under God" was added during the red scare.
The slogan "In God we Trust" should be removed from all government legal
tender.
Or have "All others pay cash" appened to it.

[...]
"Article [I.] (See Note 13)
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,
or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
petition the Government for a redress of grievances. "
The Bill of Rights Ammendments of the Constitution of the United States does
not provide for the separation of church and state.
The concept of the separation of church and state came from Thomas
Jefferson's Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom in the State of
Virginia. Though the concept isn't what you may think that Religion should
never interfer with the State, but in fact that the State should never
interfer with a person's decision on how to follow their religous beliefs,
be it for or against.
It also says that the state can't create a "State religion", and that
by implication it can't promote one religion over anouther. Because
if you promote one by concequence you demote the others. And if you
demote the others you infringe apon there free exercise.
--
Please excuse my spelling as I suffer from agraphia. See
http://dformosa.zeta.org.au/~dformosa/Spelling.html to find out more.
Free the Memes.
Dr. Cat
2003-08-31 22:07:38 UTC
Permalink
Tamar <***@erie.net> wrote:
: No Article in the Consitution of the United States provides for the
: separaction of church and state.

No article in the Constitution of the United States provides for the
Supreme Court to have the power of judicial review, either. And yet,
since Chief Justic John Marshall established the practice by just going
ahead and doing it, it's become well established and accepted as part
of the way our government works.

Should we ditch it, since it was neither written into the original
constitution nor formalized by any amendment or bill passed since
that says the Supreme Court can do that? Should we say John Marshall
was some rotten cheating rule-ignoring twit?

Or should we stick with the dang thing? It seems to have done more good
than harm since we started doing it back in the 1800s.

The two term "tradition" established by George Washington even ended up
being added as a constitutional amendment, much later on. Perhaps the
whole "separation of church and state" thing might be codified in such a
way someday too. Perhaps not.

I think it generally is a good principle, though. Some things the
government should probably meddle in, like education and maintaining
a military. Some it should stay the heck out of. Which ones it should
stay out of are subject to endless debate, though, because anybody who
has a big enough problem with anything is potentially likely to feel that
the government and the tax money should be used to solve THEIR problem,
rather than it being solved by other resources.

*-------------------------------------------**-----------------------------*
Dr. Cat / Dragon's Eye Productions || Free alpha test:
*-------------------------------------------** http://www.furcadia.com
Furcadia - a graphic mud for PCs! || Let your imagination soar!
*-------------------------------------------**-----------------------------*

(Disclaimer: On the other hand, if we're going to stop following precedents
that aren't in the Constitution, does that mean we're going to do away with
that 1850s decision that polygamy isn't allowed in the US? In that case,
Tamar, I'm all for your new debating principle! If I can have two or more
wives, I'm gonna have a good time with that and a 5000 pound rock in some
Alabama courthouse is a small price to pay. After all, it does not say
ANYWHERE in the Constitution or any of its amendments that bigamy isn't
allowed or that it's unacceptable in any way. WOOHOO!)

(Disclaimer Disclaimer: Unless you count that new "defense of marriage act".
Dang it! All those terrified-of-gay type people have robbed me of my god
given right to have a small hareem of the wimmenfolk, just so they could stop
the "gay men" and the "lesbians" from having the "equal rights". Tarnation!)
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...