What do they have against it? Are they afraid of it?

On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 04:43:09 GMT, Omphalos <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote:

>What do they have against it? Are they afraid of it?

	Why do neo-conservative block-heads troll?  Are they
neo-conservative because they are stupid in the first place, or does
being neo-conservative make you stupid?



                             -Jones

"Sometimes we own the zeroes.  Sometimes we own the ones."
            Firesign Theater - Give Me Immortality or Give Me Death

Military Phonetic version of my address to spoof spam:  jones at
  November Echo Tango Sierra Echo Tango dot Charlie Oscar Mike

In article <xdmWa.6651$K4.290860@twister.tampabay.rr.com>, 
omphalos@wp.pl says...
> What do they have against it? Are they afraid of it?
 
Why do religious fanatics insist on forcing their morals on everyone 
else?

In article <cad428e4a373491c28a3a60bcc8c3506@free.teranews.com>, Florida 
<Florida> says...
 
> What makes you think that only religious people do that?
 
Did I say that?  No.  Religious zealots aren't happy with having an 
opinion, everyone must also have it too or they are wrong and must be 
reprogrammed or incarcerated.  The preferred method is by attempting to 
rewrite the Constitution to make sure it's illegal to disagree with the 
Moral Authority.

On Fri 01 Aug 2003 12:54:49a, jaeger <jaeger@jaeger.com> wrote in
news:MPG.1993a0836aed65769896f5@news.west.cox.net: 

> In article <xdmWa.6651$K4.290860@twister.tampabay.rr.com>, 
> omphalos@wp.pl says...
>
>> What do they have against it? Are they afraid of it?
>  
> Why do religious fanatics insist on forcing their morals on everyone 
> else?

What makes you think that only religious people do that?

"jaeger" <jaeger@jaeger.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1993a3c35b2cb6239896f6@news.west.cox.net...
> In article <cad428e4a373491c28a3a60bcc8c3506@free.teranews.com>, Florida
> <Florida> says...
>
> > What makes you think that only religious people do that?
>
> Did I say that?  No.  Religious zealots aren't happy with having an
> opinion, everyone must also have it too or they are wrong and must be
> reprogrammed or incarcerated.

That sure sounds like Democrats (read: Liberals) to me.

>The preferred method is by attempting to rewrite the Constitution to make
sure it's illegal to >
>disagree with the Moral Authority.

Example please?
Here's one of the Democrats trying to rewrite the Constitution to make sure
it's illegal to exercise our 2nd amendment rights.  Bans on certain types of
guns, inordinate license and registration requirements.  How many of our
other rights do we have to apply for permits to exercise?   Do we have to
apply for a permit to make sure we are qualified to exercise free speech?
No.

Florida wrote:

>>Why do religious fanatics insist on forcing their morals on everyone 
>>else?
> 
> What makes you think that only religious people do that?

	Nobody has claimed that they have.  However, they do tend to wield far 
more political power as a group than the non-religious, and can use this 
is a manner that is contrary to the ideals of equality and human rights 
when it benifits their religion over everyone else.

Brad BARCLAY

-- 
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
 From the OS/2 WARP v4.5 Desktop of Brad BARCLAY.
The jSyncManager Project:  http://www.jsyncmanager.org


"Omphalos" <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote in message
news:xdmWa.6651$K4.290860@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
> What do they have against it? Are they afraid of it?

Maybe because religion has been the cause of most of the worlds major wars?

"Omphalos" <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote in message
news:xdmWa.6651$K4.290860@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
> What do they have against it? Are they afraid of it?

Left-wingers don't like religion because (most) religions have concepts of
"right" and "wrong."

A religious person would say "i don't do this or that because according to
my beliefs it is wrong," where a secular person (most left-wingers are
secular) would say "not only is it OK to do this or that, but everyone must
accept it as OK, and anyone who doesn't is 'intolerant'"

Tolerance, of course, cutting only one way, but that's life...

In article <tXmWa.128129$Io.10865519@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>, 
blackhole34@yahoo.com says...

> Example please?

Are you insane?  Faith-based initiatives, religious symbols in 
government buildings, abortion laws, religious hiring rights, and let's 
not forget the "House of Worship Political Speech Protection Act".

> Here's one of the Democrats trying to rewrite the Constitution to make sure
> it's illegal to exercise our 2nd amendment rights.  Bans on certain types of
> guns, inordinate license and registration requirements.  How many of our
> other rights do we have to apply for permits to exercise?   Do we have to
> apply for a permit to make sure we are qualified to exercise free speech?
> No.

Yes, I know.  The commies are coming to break into your compound and 
take away your precious guns.  BTW, the biggest anti-gun show crusader 
is John McCain. Anyway, what part of "well regulated militia" don't you 
get?

" In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use 
of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at 
this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or 
efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second 
Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. 
Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part 
of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to 
the common defense. Aymette v. State of Tennessee, 2 Humph., Tenn., 154, 
158.

The Constitution as originally adopted granted to the Congress power- 
'To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the 
Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for 
organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing 
such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United 
States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the 
Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the 
discipline prescribed by Congress.' U.S.C.A.Const. art. 1, 8. With 
obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the 
effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second 
Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in 
view.

The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set 
in contrast with Troops which they [307 U.S. 174, 179]   were forbidden 
to keep without the consent of Congress. The sentiment of the time 
strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate 
defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia- 
civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.

The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the 
debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and 
States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly 
enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting 
in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for 
military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for 
service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by 
themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?
navby=case&court=us&vol=307&invol=174

"Buckaroo Banzai" <blackhole34@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:tXmWa.128129$Io.10865519@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
> "jaeger" <jaeger@jaeger.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1993a3c35b2cb6239896f6@news.west.cox.net...
> > In article <cad428e4a373491c28a3a60bcc8c3506@free.teranews.com>, Florida
> > <Florida> says...
> >
> > > What makes you think that only religious people do that?
> >
> > Did I say that?  No.  Religious zealots aren't happy with having an
> > opinion, everyone must also have it too or they are wrong and must be
> > reprogrammed or incarcerated.
>
> That sure sounds like Democrats (read: Liberals) to me.
>
> >The preferred method is by attempting to rewrite the Constitution to make
> sure it's illegal to >
> >disagree with the Moral Authority.
>
> Example please?
> Here's one of the Democrats trying to rewrite the Constitution to make
sure
> it's illegal to exercise our 2nd amendment rights.  Bans on certain types
of
> guns, inordinate license and registration requirements.  How many of our
> other rights do we have to apply for permits to exercise?   Do we have to
> apply for a permit to make sure we are qualified to exercise free speech?
> No.

Good ol' liberal double standards- maybe we should feel lucky that the 2nd
is the only one they're bent on destroying...

Of course, none of this would be that big of a problem if Supreme Court
justices did teir job of interpreting existing law, instead of acting as ad
hoc legislators or one-person special interest groups, but that's a story
for another time and we're way OT anyway

lol

"jaeger" <jaeger@jaeger.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1993b4e023fd73f39896f8@news.west.cox.net...
> In article <TCnWa.260$2g.36@fed1read05>, junkyardNOSPAMwillie@tekken.cc
> says...
>
> > Left-wingers don't like religion because (most) religions have concepts
of
> > "right" and "wrong."
>
> I don't need some ancient moldy book of lies to tell me right from
> wrong.

LOL!

Which 'book of lies' are you referring to?  Are you simply anti-Christian
(like most liberals) or are you anti-all religions?

"jaeger" <jaeger@jaeger.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1993b49c334966509896f7@news.west.cox.net...
> In article <tXmWa.128129$Io.10865519@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
> blackhole34@yahoo.com says...
>
> > Example please?
>
> Are you insane?  Faith-based initiatives- That's not rewriting the
constitution.  religious symbols in > government buildings- That's not
rewriting the constitution. abortion laws- That's not rewriting the
constitution (BTW abortion is legal) religious hiring rights- That's not
rewriting the constitution., and let's
> not forget the "House of Worship Political Speech Protection Act".  Speech
protection?  That's *definitely* not rewriting the constitution.
>
> > Here's one of the Democrats trying to rewrite the Constitution to make
sure
> > it's illegal to exercise our 2nd amendment rights.  Bans on certain
types of
> > guns, inordinate license and registration requirements.  How many of our
> > other rights do we have to apply for permits to exercise?   Do we have
to
> > apply for a permit to make sure we are qualified to exercise free
speech?
> > No.
>
> Yes, I know.  The commies are coming to break into your compound and
> take away your precious guns.

You're the one calling the liberals commies, not me.

 BTW, the biggest anti-gun show crusader is John McCain. Anyway, what part
of "well regulated militia" don't you get?

I could give a rat's ass about John McCain.  Anyway, what part of "The
people's right to keep and bear arms *SHALL NOT* be infringed."
>
> " In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use
> of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at
> this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or
> efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second
> Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.
> Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part
> of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to
> the common defense. Aymette v. State of Tennessee, 2 Humph., Tenn., 154,
> 158.
>

No offense, but that's a state court ruling, not a federal one, and it's
unconstitutional.  You could say the same thing about a BB gun, are you
going to outlaw those too?


> The Constitution as originally adopted granted to the Congress power-
> 'To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the
> Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for
> organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing
> such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United
> States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the
> Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the
> discipline prescribed by Congress.' U.S.C.A.Const. art. 1, 8. With
> obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the
> effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second
> Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in
> view.

If that's what they meant, they would have said that.  Don't twist the
amendment.  The purpose of the law is that the govt will not be able to take
away the citizens guns, what do you think a militia is anyway?

>
> The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set
> in contrast with Troops which they [307 U.S. 174, 179]   were forbidden
> to keep without the consent of Congress. The sentiment of the time
> strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate
> defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia-
> civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.

Okay you do, understand the difference?
>
> The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the
> debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and
> States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly
> enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting
> in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for
> military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for
> service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by
> themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."
>
> http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?
> navby=case&court=us&vol=307&invol=174

"Brad BARCLAY" <yaztromo@filter.jsyncmanager.org> wrote in message
news:J7nWa.35537$hOa.4912@news02.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> Florida wrote:
>
> >>Why do religious fanatics insist on forcing their morals on everyone
> >>else?
> >
> > What makes you think that only religious people do that?
>
> Nobody has claimed that they have.  However, they do tend to wield far
> more political power as a group than the non-religious, and can use this
> is a manner that is contrary to the ideals of equality and human rights
> when it benifits their religion over everyone else.
>

That is a completely subjective statement, and it's also false.

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg Omphalos <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote:
> What do they have against it? Are they afraid of it?

Why does Omphalos continue to troll?

Why are there so many fools willing to feed him?

-- 
Adam Smith

"Tor Iver Wilhelmsen" <tor.iver.wilhelmsen@broadpark.no> wrote in message
news:ubrv9ddy1.fsf@broadpark.no...
> "Junkyard Willie" <junkyardNOSPAMwillie@tekken.cc> writes:
>
> > Are you simply anti-Christian (like most liberals)
>
> I assume you think any organization that let Jews to high positions
> must be anti-Christian, but I assure you that most churches has left
> their Jew-hating behind. Maybe it's time you did, too?

Here we go- when you can't bring something intelligent to the argument, you
can always accuse the other guy of racism/religious
intolerance/sexism/etc...

> It's more a fact that most anti-non-Christians are non-liberals, ref.
> George Bush's statement that he didn't consider atheists to be
> citizens.

If any president made a statement like that it would have been all over the
newspapers, news channels, etc- so I'm sure you won't have any trouble
providing plenty of links to New York Times articles backing that one up.

Oh Jesus Christ, not more pathetic idiots posting crap to a games group.

I had a name for one of my ex's, and it was oomphee.  The complete
scientific name was oohphai letoesis.
"Omphalos" <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote in message
news:xdmWa.6651$K4.290860@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
> What do they have against it? Are they afraid of it?

> What do they have against it? Are they afraid of it?


You kidding me?

Two words:  Joe Lieberman

--

*  Novus_
~ Novus_0@hotmail.com ~


"Omphalos" <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote in message
news:xdmWa.6651$K4.290860@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
> What do they have against it? Are they afraid of it?

> > It's more a fact that most anti-non-Christians are non-liberals, ref.
> > George Bush's statement that he didn't consider atheists to be
> > citizens.
> >
>
> I know Bush is dumb, but even he isn't dumb enough to say that.  Please
give
> the exact quote and source please, and if you can't you should go around
> saying things like that.

A quick google search yeilded this:
http://www.unsolvedmysteries.com/usm282778.html
http://bennyhills.fortunecity.com/hardy/203/nonbeliever/page50.html
http://www.flashback.se/archive/atheism_faq.html

It looks like George Bush did indeed question whether atheists should be
considered citizens, the press just didn't seem to care.

"Buckaroo Banzai" <blackhole34@yahoo.com> writes:

> I know Bush is dumb, but even he isn't dumb enough to say that.  Please give
> the exact quote and source please, and if you can't you should go around
> saying things like that.

http://bennyhills.fortunecity.com/hardy/203/nonbeliever/page50.html

Same document:
http://www.holysmoke.org/sdhok/aa011.htm

Do you know how to write words into Goggle's searhc engine? It's not
hard to find if you want to look, but I guess you don't.

"Omphalos" <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote in message
news:xdmWa.6651$K4.290860@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
> What do they have against it? Are they afraid of it?

please, don't bite.

Why do trolls love trolling?

"Omphalos" <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote in message
news:xdmWa.6651$K4.290860@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
> What do they have against it? Are they afraid of it?

Why do trolls appear...every time...you're near?

On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 04:43:09 GMT, Omphalos <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote:

>What do they have against it? Are they afraid of it?

You're going to hell for cross posting this.

They don't. It is they just stand up for common sense, which fell out of
favor during most of the 20th century thanks to Hollywood.

"jaeger" <jaeger@jaeger.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1993a0836aed65769896f5@news.west.cox.net...
> In article <xdmWa.6651$K4.290860@twister.tampabay.rr.com>,
> omphalos@wp.pl says...
> > What do they have against it? Are they afraid of it?
>
> Why do religious fanatics insist on forcing their morals on everyone
> else?

On Fri 01 Aug 2003 02:20:37a, jaeger <jaeger@jaeger.com> wrote in
news:MPG.1993b49c334966509896f7@news.west.cox.net: 

> In article <tXmWa.128129$Io.10865519@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>, 
> blackhole34@yahoo.com says...
> 
>> Example please?
> 
> Are you insane?  Faith-based initiatives, religious symbols in 
> government buildings, abortion laws,

Abortion isn't a religious issue, fool.

> religious hiring rights, and let's 
> not forget the "House of Worship Political Speech Protection Act".

You mean how a lot of black churches, who have political speakers like
Jesse Jackson and Al Gore who preach on voting Democrat, don't seem to get
into any trouble from the IRS? 
 
>> Here's one of the Democrats trying to rewrite the Constitution to make
>> sure it's illegal to exercise our 2nd amendment rights.  Bans on
>> certain types of guns, inordinate license and registration
>> requirements.  How many of our other rights do we have to apply for
>> permits to exercise?   Do we have to apply for a permit to make sure we
>> are qualified to exercise free speech? No.
> 
> Yes, I know.  The commies are coming to break into your compound and 
> take away your precious guns.

The second ammendment was intended more for protection from an American
government out of control than a foreign invasion. 

> BTW, the biggest anti-gun show crusader is John McCain. Anyway, what
> part of "well regulated militia" don't you get?

What part of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed" don't you understand? 

The militia clause and second are attempts to insure that the people and
thus the states retain the power to oppose a government which has exceeded
its constitutional limits and become a tyranny.

Omphalos <omphalos@wp.pl> writes:

> The second ammendment was intended more for protection from an American
> government out of control than a foreign invasion. 

Which makes it seem all the more relevant today than it ever has
before.

Nick

-- 
#  sigmask  ||  0.2  ||  20030107  ||  public domain  ||  feed this to a python
print reduce(lambda x,y:x+chr(ord(y)-1),' Ojdl!Wbshjti!=obwAcboefstobudi/psh?')

"Omphalos" <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote in message
news:xdmWa.6651$K4.290860@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
> What do they have against it? Are they afraid of it?

LOL brilliant troll.  Gotta admire 16 words, all working together
synergistically to bring out the idiots in droves.  Man.  Politics,
religion, accusasion of cowardice.  Simply brilliant for so short a message.

On 1 Aug 2003 07:29:59 GMT, Adam Smith <acsmith@conductor-am.bu.edu>
wrote:

>In comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg Omphalos <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote:
>> What do they have against it? Are they afraid of it?
>
>Why does Omphalos continue to troll?
>
>Why are there so many fools willing to feed him?

And why can I never remember to remove the balls of paper from the
ties of new shoes, then putting them on and having a moment of panic
thinking my feet have become huge ?

-- 

Bunnies aren't just cute like everybody supposes !
They got them hoppy legs and twitchy little noses !
And what's with all the carrots ?  
What do they need such good eyesight for anyway ?
Bunnies !  Bunnies !  It must be BUNNIES !

"Brian" <brian_wolters@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bgdnkt$ni6ie$1@ID-153628.news.uni-berlin.de...
> They don't. It is they just stand up for common sense, which fell out of
> favor during most of the 20th century thanks to Hollywood.

Faith is belief in the absence of evidence or reason. It is far from common
sense. Common sense is the domain of science, not religion.

> "jaeger" <jaeger@jaeger.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1993a0836aed65769896f5@news.west.cox.net...
> > In article <xdmWa.6651$K4.290860@twister.tampabay.rr.com>,
> > omphalos@wp.pl says...
> > > What do they have against it? Are they afraid of it?
> >
> > Why do religious fanatics insist on forcing their morals on everyone
> > else?
>
>

Omphalos <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote in message news:<xdmWa.6651$K4.290860@twister.tampabay.rr.com>...
> What do they have against it? Are they afraid of it?

It is probably because certain beliefs about religion drive certain
individuals to crosspost to every single newsgroup under the sun that
has NOTHING to do with religion.  Well, I think this motives the
Jewish Democrat Joe Lieberman to have the views he does.

- Richard Hutnik

> >> What do they have against it? Are they afraid of it?
> >
> > Why do religious fanatics insist on forcing their morals on everyone
> > else?
>
> What makes you think that only religious people do that?

Why does everyone answer questions with another question?

On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 04:43:09 GMT, Omphalos <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote:

>What do they have against it? Are they afraid of it?

Yeah, like that Jimmy Carter guy. 

On Fri, 1 Aug 2003 08:30:13 -0500, "bluzen" <nope@none> wrote:

>
>"Omphalos" <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote in message
>news:xdmWa.6651$K4.290860@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
>> What do they have against it? Are they afraid of it?
>
>LOL brilliant troll.  Gotta admire 16 words, all working together
>synergistically to bring out the idiots in droves.  Man.  Politics,
>religion, accusasion of cowardice.  Simply brilliant for so short a message.
>

Especially crossposted to the console groups, where the kiddies are
arguing about elections they (hopefully) aren't old enough to vote in.
The sheer level of ignorance is astonishing; people tossing around
terms like "liberal" and "right wing" without having the faintest idea
what they actually mean. It really makes me wonder about universal
suffrage. I mean, so many of these people are really too stupid to be
allowed to participate in the political process. 

> >> Example please?
> >
> > Are you insane?  Faith-based initiatives, religious symbols in
> > government buildings, abortion laws,
>
> Abortion isn't a religious issue, fool.

It is to the religious zealouts who attach "the sanctity of life" to the
argument. *Everything* is religious if someone wants it to be.


> You mean how a lot of black churches, who have political speakers like
> Jesse Jackson and Al Gore who preach on voting Democrat, don't seem to get
> into any trouble from the IRS?

A lot don't, a lot do. And it works the other way around. There may be some
favoritism or collusion involved, and I'd love for a shakedown to nail some
of them. But I can guarantee that more white men and/or Republicans would be
caught (because there are vastly more of them in that position). This is not
a biased statement; just a factual retort.

> >> Here's one of the Democrats trying to rewrite the Constitution to make
> >> sure it's illegal to exercise our 2nd amendment rights.  Bans on
> >> certain types of guns, inordinate license and registration
> >> requirements.  How many of our other rights do we have to apply for
> >> permits to exercise?   Do we have to apply for a permit to make sure we
> >> are qualified to exercise free speech? No.
> >
> > Yes, I know.  The commies are coming to break into your compound and
> > take away your precious guns.
>
> The second ammendment was intended more for protection from an American
> government out of control than a foreign invasion.

I wouldn't say that. I think the intention of the new American government
was to protect the American people from force and fraud, domestic and
abroad.


> > BTW, the biggest anti-gun show crusader is John McCain. Anyway, what
> > part of "well regulated militia" don't you get?
>
> What part of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be
> infringed" don't you understand?

I understand it well. But the law has never made such a decree.

> > > What makes you think that only religious people do that?
> >
> > Nobody has claimed that they have.  However, they do tend to wield far
> > more political power as a group than the non-religious, and can use this
> > is a manner that is contrary to the ideals of equality and human rights
> > when it benifits their religion over everyone else.
> >
>
> That is a completely subjective statement, and it's also false.

Impossible.

Completely subjective statements can be neither false nor true. They're
subjective!

A statement can only be false or true if it is objective -- a factual
assertion -- which is the type of statement made above. Granted, what he
said was twisted with words that make the facts very hard to check, so it's
only as good as a subjective statement, but it is not subjective.

> Oh Jesus Christ, not more pathetic idiots posting crap to a games group.

If you're going to pray to the man, at least ask a favor of him. Simply
acknowledging the obvious is a waste of his, our, and your time.

Why is this common sense so uncommon? Or, wait...

> They don't. It is they just stand up for common sense, which fell out of
> favor during most of the 20th century thanks to Hollywood.

> > What do they have against it? Are they afraid of it?
>
> Maybe because religion has been the cause of most of the worlds major
wars?

Religion doesn't start wars. People start wars. :-)

> > I know Bush is dumb, but even he isn't dumb enough to say that.  Please
give
> > the exact quote and source please, and if you can't you should go around
> > saying things like that.
>
> http://bennyhills.fortunecity.com/hardy/203/nonbeliever/page50.html
>
> Same document:
> http://www.holysmoke.org/sdhok/aa011.htm
>
> Do you know how to write words into Goggle's searhc engine? It's not
> hard to find if you want to look, but I guess you don't.

Good fucking lord, man, you could at least have specified that it was the
first Bush, and 16 years ago. This has no relevance to today's president,
and I'd imagine that most of the people who read this were assuming it did.

Junior might be a lot like daddy, but you can't take it all as given.
They're two separate people. (That scares the hell out of me when I think
about Billary and Hill.)

> If any president made a statement like that it would have been all over
the
> newspapers, news channels, etc- so I'm sure you won't have any trouble
> providing plenty of links to New York Times articles backing that one up.

The NYTimes doesn't care what George H.W. Bush said back in 1987.

"Junkyard Willie" <junkyardNOSPAMwillie@tekken.cc> wrote in message
news:kPoWa.272$2g.59@fed1read05...
>
> "Tor Iver Wilhelmsen" <tor.iver.wilhelmsen@broadpark.no> wrote in message
> news:ubrv9ddy1.fsf@broadpark.no...
> > "Junkyard Willie" <junkyardNOSPAMwillie@tekken.cc> writes:
> >
> > > Are you simply anti-Christian (like most liberals)
> >
> > I assume you think any organization that let Jews to high positions
> > must be anti-Christian, but I assure you that most churches has left
> > their Jew-hating behind. Maybe it's time you did, too?
>
> Here we go- when you can't bring something intelligent to the argument,
you
> can always accuse the other guy of racism/religious
> intolerance/sexism/etc...
>
> > It's more a fact that most anti-non-Christians are non-liberals, ref.
> > George Bush's statement that he didn't consider atheists to be
> > citizens.
>
> If any president made a statement like that it would have been all over
the
> newspapers, news channels, etc- so I'm sure you won't have any trouble
> providing plenty of links to New York Times articles backing that one up.

It was a *huge* deal to all of us atheists when he said it, as was the
popular media's refusal to make a big issue out of this man's blatantly
unconstitutional behavior. It's par for the course, however, given that
equal rights for atheists isn't a popular cause so it doesn't get much
coverage. Even though the New York Times refused to print the article (the
American Atheists tried to get the story printed in every major newspaper),
there are numerous links to it all over the net. Like the other posters
said, take a few seconds to search for it (or look at any of the links
already posted to this thread).

> > What do they have against it? Are they afraid of it?
>
> Why does Omphalos continue to troll?
>
> Why are there so many fools willing to feed him?

Excess food supply. So much garbage to get rid of, and this provides an
outlet. Thanks for asking.

> >LOL brilliant troll.  Gotta admire 16 words, all working together
> >synergistically to bring out the idiots in droves.  Man.  Politics,
> >religion, accusasion of cowardice.  Simply brilliant for so short a
message.
> >
>
> Especially crossposted to the console groups, where the kiddies are
> arguing about elections they (hopefully) aren't old enough to vote in.
> The sheer level of ignorance is astonishing; people tossing around
> terms like "liberal" and "right wing" without having the faintest idea
> what they actually mean. It really makes me wonder about universal
> suffrage. I mean, so many of these people are really too stupid to be
> allowed to participate in the political process.

Let's not forget that the same "troll" started the election discussion too.
He could have at least waited until next October before election time... But
I'm sure we'll have plenty of it then.

> >What do they have against it? Are they afraid of it?
>
> Yeah, like that Jimmy Carter guy.

He's a great uncle of mine. Not that anyone else cares. :-P

"bluzen" <nope@none> wrote in message
news:vikqr641edsqdd@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Omphalos" <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote in message
> news:xdmWa.6651$K4.290860@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
> > What do they have against it? Are they afraid of it?
>
> LOL brilliant troll.  Gotta admire 16 words, all working together
> synergistically to bring out the idiots in droves.  Man.  Politics,
> religion, accusasion of cowardice.  Simply brilliant for so short a
message.

Why do such things bother so many people? Even if it is intended to do
nothing more than stir up conversation about the topic, what is wrong with
that? Granted, it's not on-topic, but it is interesting to hear what
everyone else thinks about subjects other than video games and this is the
only way to get this particular group of people talking about it. He should
have listed it as OT but other than that, it's pretty easy to not read it if
it bothers anyone.

And it's not exactly brilliant, it's a topic that people are interested in
anyway, and even though he probably can't contribute anything useful to the
conversation that doesn't mean other people can't. If he's a troll, he gets
a bigger kick out of reading the posts where people are annoyed than he does
reading other people's honest discussions on the subject anyway. So great
job man, you are feeding the trolls more so than anyone else here, thus you
qualify as one of the aforementioned idiots by a far greater margin than the
rest of us.

> If any president made a statement like that it would have been all over
the
> newspapers, news channels, etc- so I'm sure you won't have any trouble
> providing plenty of links to New York Times articles backing that one up.

http://www.whitehouse.org/dof/index.asp

So Bush Junior's team isn't afraid to admit daddy's words. Nice.

"Damocles" <phaestos2@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:futkiv4sf4s3od1luvqn42oj9madsk3h9n@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 1 Aug 2003 08:30:13 -0500, "bluzen" <nope@none> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Omphalos" <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote in message
> >news:xdmWa.6651$K4.290860@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
> >> What do they have against it? Are they afraid of it?
> >
> >LOL brilliant troll.  Gotta admire 16 words, all working together
> >synergistically to bring out the idiots in droves.  Man.  Politics,
> >religion, accusasion of cowardice.  Simply brilliant for so short a
message.
> >
>
> Especially crossposted to the console groups, where the kiddies are
> arguing about elections they (hopefully) aren't old enough to vote in.
> The sheer level of ignorance is astonishing; people tossing around
> terms like "liberal" and "right wing" without having the faintest idea
> what they actually mean. It really makes me wonder about universal
> suffrage. I mean, so many of these people are really too stupid to be
> allowed to participate in the political process.

Man, another elitist RPG geek.  Are you people breed somewhere?

On Fri, 1 Aug 2003 11:06:19 -0400, "Robert P Holley"
<holleyrp@delanet.com> wrote:

>"Damocles" <phaestos2@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:futkiv4sf4s3od1luvqn42oj9madsk3h9n@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 1 Aug 2003 08:30:13 -0500, "bluzen" <nope@none> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Omphalos" <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote in message
>> >news:xdmWa.6651$K4.290860@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
>> >> What do they have against it? Are they afraid of it?
>> >
>> >LOL brilliant troll.  Gotta admire 16 words, all working together
>> >synergistically to bring out the idiots in droves.  Man.  Politics,
>> >religion, accusasion of cowardice.  Simply brilliant for so short a
>message.
>> >
>>
>> Especially crossposted to the console groups, where the kiddies are
>> arguing about elections they (hopefully) aren't old enough to vote in.
>> The sheer level of ignorance is astonishing; people tossing around
>> terms like "liberal" and "right wing" without having the faintest idea
>> what they actually mean. It really makes me wonder about universal
>> suffrage. I mean, so many of these people are really too stupid to be
>> allowed to participate in the political process.
>
>Man, another elitist RPG geek.  Are you people breed somewhere?
>

 I own a Xbox and PS2 as well as a home computer, actually. I do
cheerfully admit to being elitist with regards to politics and current
events in general. The degree of ignorance displayed here and
elsewhere in common discourse is nauseating, and shows the rot at the
core of western "democracy". 

On Fri, 1 Aug 2003 10:48:21 -0400, "JPM III" <jpmccord@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>> > I know Bush is dumb, but even he isn't dumb enough to say that.  Please
>give
>> > the exact quote and source please, and if you can't you should go around
>> > saying things like that.
>>
>> http://bennyhills.fortunecity.com/hardy/203/nonbeliever/page50.html
>>
>> Same document:
>> http://www.holysmoke.org/sdhok/aa011.htm
>>
>> Do you know how to write words into Goggle's searhc engine? It's not
>> hard to find if you want to look, but I guess you don't.
>
>Good fucking lord, man, you could at least have specified that it was the
>first Bush, and 16 years ago. This has no relevance to today's president,
>and I'd imagine that most of the people who read this were assuming it did.
>
>Junior might be a lot like daddy, but you can't take it all as given.
>They're two separate people. (That scares the hell out of me when I think
>about Billary and Hill.)
>
Although Bush Snr. HAS just declared his opposition to same-sex
marriages, by intending to have 'marrriage' defined as being man-woman
only.

The Pope's on about it too, and he calls homosexuality 'evil and
deviant'.

More on both -
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-763488,00.html

-- 

Bunnies aren't just cute like everybody supposes !
They got them hoppy legs and twitchy little noses !
And what's with all the carrots ?  
What do they need such good eyesight for anyway ?
Bunnies !  Bunnies !  It must be BUNNIES !

"JPM III" <jpmccord@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bgdvji$nniap$1@ID-53393.news.uni-berlin.de...
> > If any president made a statement like that it would have been all over
> the
> > newspapers, news channels, etc- so I'm sure you won't have any trouble
> > providing plenty of links to New York Times articles backing that one
up.
>
> http://www.whitehouse.org/dof/index.asp
>
> So Bush Junior's team isn't afraid to admit daddy's words. Nice.

Not sure what you are getting at here but are you saying that is an
officially sponsored government site?  whitehouse.gov is not the same as
whitehouse.org.

"Damocles" <phaestos2@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:pn0liv89qebdcmj6mlsh352qmulu36o5bd@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 1 Aug 2003 11:06:19 -0400, "Robert P Holley"
> <holleyrp@delanet.com> wrote:
>
> >"Damocles" <phaestos2@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:futkiv4sf4s3od1luvqn42oj9madsk3h9n@4ax.com...
> >> On Fri, 1 Aug 2003 08:30:13 -0500, "bluzen" <nope@none> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"Omphalos" <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote in message
> >> >news:xdmWa.6651$K4.290860@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
> >> >> What do they have against it? Are they afraid of it?
> >> >
> >> >LOL brilliant troll.  Gotta admire 16 words, all working together
> >> >synergistically to bring out the idiots in droves.  Man.  Politics,
> >> >religion, accusasion of cowardice.  Simply brilliant for so short a
> >message.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Especially crossposted to the console groups, where the kiddies are
> >> arguing about elections they (hopefully) aren't old enough to vote in.
> >> The sheer level of ignorance is astonishing; people tossing around
> >> terms like "liberal" and "right wing" without having the faintest idea
> >> what they actually mean. It really makes me wonder about universal
> >> suffrage. I mean, so many of these people are really too stupid to be
> >> allowed to participate in the political process.
> >
> >Man, another elitist RPG geek.  Are you people breed somewhere?
> >
>
>  I own a Xbox and PS2 as well as a home computer, actually. I do
> cheerfully admit to being elitist with regards to politics and current
> events in general. The degree of ignorance displayed here and
> elsewhere in common discourse is nauseating, and shows the rot at the
> core of western "democracy".

It doesn't demonstate "rot" of anything.  It's just usenet.  Nothing more,
nothing less.

Go fuck yourself, the rest of the world don't care.

"Omphalos" <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote in message
news:xdmWa.6651$K4.290860@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
> What do they have against it? Are they afraid of it?

I don't hate religion.  I hate that some have hijacked religion and twist it
to foul efforts.

"JPM III" <jpmccord@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bgdusc$nos3a$1@ID-53393.news.uni-berlin.de...
> > > What do they have against it? Are they afraid of it?
> >
> > Because religion of ALL forms is based on myths and stories
> prove it
>
> > These stories are not factual.
> prove it

The stories are asserted to be true, therefore it falls upon the person
making the assertion to prove it. No one has any responsibility to believe
that those stories (or any other stories about any other events) are true
until and unless factual information is provided.

> >  The "prophets" wrote down their stories - does that make it true?
> so what makes it untrue?

The lack of factual evidence is reason not to believe them. Anyone can say
anything, but only the truth can be proven. If you can't prove it's true,
then you can't expect anyone to believe it's true.....unless you ask them to
have faith, which is diametrically opposed to reason and not bound by what
can and cannot be proven.

> > No "biblical" events have occurred over the past 1000 years
> we're a world of heathens, didn't you know

And originally people were all good? I seem to recall a story about Sodom
and Gomorrah and something else about a flood..............if we are still
heathens, then why hasn't God punished us as it is claimed he used to punish
heathens? How many other examples are there of God punishing heathens in the
Bible that simply do not occur today?

> > All religions, not just Catholics, were formed this way.
> prove it
>
> > Think about this.  There are religions out there that stress that only
> > members of that religion are going to heaven.  That means everyone else
> who
> > belongs to a different religion does not go to heaven.  What about the
> > innocent baby born in a different country, raised under a different
> > religion, and believing that religion b/c that is what he/she was
taught?
> > This innocent person does not go to heaven according to the other
> religion.
> > If their truly was a GOD, he would not have one religion that is the
> correct
> > one and allow other forms to be out there.  Some people don't have a
> choice
> > in what they believe.  Their society's beliefs are forced upon them.
GOD
> > would not punish them b/c of that.
>
> *plugs ears* lalalalala my god has a bigger dick than your god lalalalala

I think that statement just about sums it up. Pretend you don't hear the
best argument in his post since you apparently can't formulate a valid
response to it.

On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 04:43:09 GMT, Omphalos <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote:

>What do they have against it? Are they afraid of it?

Because the trigger-happy "Christians" give their children silly names
like Buckaroo Banzai, Junkyard Willie, Hillybilly Joe, Hubba Bubba
etc.

Why are the American "Christians" so phucking pro-gun, pro-war and
pro-death penalty anyway (just look at Bush Jr, the modern icon of
American Christians)?

Was Jesus like that? NO! That just goes to show how far the current
religions have gone from their origins.

>> If any president made a statement like that it would have been all over
>the
>> newspapers, news channels, etc- so I'm sure you won't have any trouble
>> providing plenty of links to New York Times articles backing that one up.
>
>http://www.whitehouse.org/dof/index.asp
>
>So Bush Junior's team isn't afraid to admit daddy's words. Nice.

whitehouse.org is a joke site, you obviously fell for it

> Not sure what you are getting at here but are you saying that is an
> officially sponsored government site?  whitehouse.gov is not the same as
> whitehouse.org.

Shhhhhhhh.

> > > > What do they have against it? Are they afraid of it?
> > >
> > > Because religion of ALL forms is based on myths and stories
> > prove it
> >
> > > These stories are not factual.
> > prove it
>
> The stories are asserted to be true, therefore it falls upon the person
> making the assertion to prove it. No one has any responsibility to believe
> that those stories (or any other stories about any other events) are true
> until and unless factual information is provided.

The burden of proof is on ANYONE who makes a claim. You just said that these
things are NOT true. For that to be a true statement that I believe, the
burden is on you to prove that it is true by the same standard you just
explained.


> > >  The "prophets" wrote down their stories - does that make it true?
> > so what makes it untrue?
>
> The lack of factual evidence is reason not to believe them. Anyone can say
> anything, but only the truth can be proven. If you can't prove it's true,
> then you can't expect anyone to believe it's true.....unless you ask them
to
> have faith, which is diametrically opposed to reason and not bound by what
> can and cannot be proven.

Correct. It is not reason to believe them, but neither is it reason to
disbelieve them. There is a difference between being skeptical and calling
it wrong or a lie. That's pretty bold for having no proof.


> > > No "biblical" events have occurred over the past 1000 years
> > we're a world of heathens, didn't you know
>
> And originally people were all good? I seem to recall a story about Sodom
> and Gomorrah and something else about a flood..............if we are still
> heathens, then why hasn't God punished us as it is claimed he used to
punish
> heathens? How many other examples are there of God punishing heathens in
the
> Bible that simply do not occur today?

Alfred Hitchcock once wrote: "there's so many of them!" Either he's on
break, he's getting to us one at a time, or this is our punishment. Or maybe
he isn't there. What do I know?

> > > All religions, not just Catholics, were formed this way.
> > prove it
> >
> >
> > *plugs ears* lalalalala my god has a bigger dick than your god
lalalalala
>
> I think that statement just about sums it up. Pretend you don't hear the
> best argument in his post since you apparently can't formulate a valid
> response to it.

You have no tolerance for humor, I see, and apparently you skipped the only
argument I made in my post. Read the bottom of it again.

> >What do they have against it? Are they afraid of it?
>
> Because the trigger-happy "Christians" give their children silly names
> like Buckaroo Banzai, Junkyard Willie, Hillybilly Joe, Hubba Bubba
> etc.

And John Paul. What a silly name.

On Fri 01 Aug 2003 01:45:13a, Brad BARCLAY
<yaztromo@filter.jsyncmanager.org> wrote in
news:J7nWa.35537$hOa.4912@news02.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com: 

> Florida wrote:
> 
>>> Why do religious fanatics insist on forcing their morals on everyone 
>>> else?
>>
>> What makes you think that only religious people do that?
>
> Nobody has claimed that they have.  However, they do tend to wield
> far more political power as a group than the non-religious, and can use
> this is a manner that is contrary to the ideals of equality and human
> rights when it benifits their religion over everyone else.

If they are so powerful, why weren't they able to prevent the rogue
Supreme Court from overturning state's rights by legalizing faggotry?

On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 06:01:15 GMT, "Monkeys need Lovin"
<gorillaradio@aol.comape> wrote:

>
>"Omphalos" <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote in message
>news:xdmWa.6651$K4.290860@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
>> What do they have against it? Are they afraid of it?
>
>Maybe because religion has been the cause of most of the worlds major wars?
>

I agree with the above statement.

In article <eeb51a6025ab43c5846399124fdb740d@free.teranews.com>, 
omphalos@wp.pl says...
 
> Religion has never started a war.

Once you graduate from 5th grade you'll learn about the Crusades.

"Omphalos" <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote in message
news:2782fe1270656909f919d47e5bcf333c@free.teranews.com...
> On Fri 01 Aug 2003 09:49:51a, "Holden" <nothx@ihatespam.com> wrote in
> news:bgdr61$nfs49$1@ID-91786.news.uni-berlin.de:
>
> > "Brian" <brian_wolters@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:bgdnkt$ni6ie$1@ID-153628.news.uni-berlin.de...
> >
> >> They don't. It is they just stand up for common sense, which fell out
> >> of favor during most of the 20th century thanks to Hollywood.
> >
> > Faith is belief in the absence of evidence or reason. It is far from
> > common sense. Common sense is the domain of science, not religion.
>
> Your opinion. Flawed of course, but still only your opinion.

How is it flawed? You love to deride the thought processes of others, but
you have a difficult time documenting your assertions.

What is "common sense" about a belief in something completely bereft of any
evidence aside from folk tales? Not believing in God is man's natural state,
which is why the belief has to be drummed into him at an early age before
he's learned to question and doubt. The only adults who start believing in a
supreme being are almost without fail people going through a personal crisis
looking for a crutch. Some turn to booze, some to drugs, some to gambling,
some to sex, and some turn to religion. As crutches go, it's perhaps the
least damaging alternative, but in the end that's all it is.

On Fri 01 Aug 2003 09:49:51a, "Holden" <nothx@ihatespam.com> wrote in
news:bgdr61$nfs49$1@ID-91786.news.uni-berlin.de: 

> "Brian" <brian_wolters@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:bgdnkt$ni6ie$1@ID-153628.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
>> They don't. It is they just stand up for common sense, which fell out
>> of favor during most of the 20th century thanks to Hollywood.
> 
> Faith is belief in the absence of evidence or reason. It is far from
> common sense. Common sense is the domain of science, not religion.

Your opinion. Flawed of course, but still only your opinion.

On Fri 01 Aug 2003 02:01:15a, "Monkeys need Lovin"
<gorillaradio@aol.comape> wrote in
news:LmnWa.35670$hOa.26197@news02.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com: 

> "Omphalos" <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote in message
> news:xdmWa.6651$K4.290860@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
>
>> What do they have against it? Are they afraid of it?
> 
> Maybe because religion has been the cause of most of the worlds major
> wars?

Religion has never started a war.

On Fri 01 Aug 2003 02:18:24a, "Junkyard Willie"
<junkyardNOSPAMwillie@tekken.cc> wrote in news:TCnWa.260$2g.36@fed1read05: 

> "Omphalos" <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote in message
> news:xdmWa.6651$K4.290860@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
>
>> What do they have against it? Are they afraid of it?
> 
> Left-wingers don't like religion because (most) religions have concepts
> of "right" and "wrong."
> 
> A religious person would say "i don't do this or that because according
> to my beliefs it is wrong," where a secular person (most left-wingers
> are secular) would say "not only is it OK to do this or that, but
> everyone must accept it as OK, and anyone who doesn't is 'intolerant'"
> 
> Tolerance, of course, cutting only one way, but that's life...

And tolerance leads to perversity.

On Fri 01 Aug 2003 10:21:58a, Damocles <phaestos2@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:brtkivccf6gnrkjmihi04u08r9vj00qf77@4ax.com: 

> On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 04:43:09 GMT, Omphalos <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote:
> 
>> What do they have against it? Are they afraid of it?
> 
> Yeah, like that Jimmy Carter guy. 

Jimmy Carter is religious in name only. He's a disgrace to Christianity.

> > >
> > > Abortion isn't a religious issue, fool.
> >
> > It is to the religious zealouts who attach "the sanctity of life" to the
> > argument. *Everything* is religious if someone wants it to be.
> >



Just a little humor, you ever notice most of these Pro-Life anti abortion
people are in favor of the DEATH penalty.



-- 
"Yeah, I'm stupid, stupid like a fox." - Homer J. Simpson

"You try to make something idiot proof, and along comes a better
iot!"   -Unknown

In article <38fd127a0f2a93d6edf03de51dfcd2c6@free.teranews.com>, 
omphalos@wp.pl says...

> The militia clause and second are attempts to insure that the people and
> thus the states retain the power to oppose a government which has exceeded
> its constitutional limits and become a tyranny.
 
Oh, pardon me.  I didn't realize you were there when it was ratified, so 
that you may share this insight.  Sorry junior, but the courts disagree.

On Fri 01 Aug 2003 02:21:39a, jaeger <jaeger@jaeger.com> wrote in
news:MPG.1993b4e023fd73f39896f8@news.west.cox.net: 

> In article <TCnWa.260$2g.36@fed1read05>, junkyardNOSPAMwillie@tekken.cc 
> says...
>  
>> Left-wingers don't like religion because (most) religions have concepts
>> of "right" and "wrong."
> 
> I don't need some ancient moldy book of lies to tell me right from 
> wrong.

Of course not. Since you are a liberal, you enjoy making up your own
definitions of right and wrong because that way, you don't have to hold
yourself accountable to your actions. 

Liberals are tolerant all everyone's beliefs...as long as everyone thinks
like a liberal. 

In article <bge3vd$nk167$2@ID-170553.news.uni-berlin.de>, snubis@go.com 
says...
 
> What about the God-hating zealots who want to ensure that the unborn never
> have the right to be born? They are as adamant about what they believe as any 
> religous person would be.
 
The difference is that one group isn't trying to deny medical care based 
on their interpretation of dogma.

On Fri 01 Aug 2003 02:34:53a, "DP" <java2@corningware.net> wrote in
news:vik2pusvl17da9@corp.supernews.com: 

> Religion is based on fear and money.

You really don't know anything about religion, do you.

> Just about every religion threatens hell or eternal damnation if you do
> not follow their set of "God's laws". People fear this hell, so they
> believe the religion.

Wrong. I could say that atheists don't believe in God because they are
selfish and don't want to be held accountable for their actions. 

> And when the religion says you must tithe 15% to the church, the scared
> people pay up.

A 'tithe' is 10%. How do expect churches to operate if the faithful don't
support them? It would like a charity that didn't ask for donations.

On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 23:20:37 -0700, jaeger <jaeger@jaeger.com> wrote:



>abortion laws,

Nice quote on the Constitution below that you did. Now please quote
where in the Constitution it says abortion is a constitutional right.

It isn't. What the liberal Supreme Court did was twist the
Constitution to support their personel belief that abortion was
correct.

In other words, neither you, nor the originator of this thread should
throw stones about twisting the Constitution or personel beliefs
affecting decisions or law making.


>The Constitution as originally adopted granted to the Congress power- 
>'To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the 
>Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for 
>organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing 
>such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United 
>States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the 
>Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the 
>discipline prescribed by Congress.' U.S.C.A.Const. art. 1, 8. With 
>obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the 
>effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second 
>Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in 
>view.
>
>The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set 
>in contrast with Troops which they [307 U.S. 174, 179]   were forbidden 
>to keep without the consent of Congress. The sentiment of the time 
>strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate 
>defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia- 
>civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.
>
>The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the 
>debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and 
>States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly 
>enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting 
>in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for 
>military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for 
>service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by 
>themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."
>
>http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?
>navby=case&court=us&vol=307&invol=174

"Omphalos" <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote in message
news:4e207b768c1d622284add2779a67ed5a@free.teranews.com...
> On Fri 01 Aug 2003 02:34:53a, "DP" <java2@corningware.net> wrote in
> news:vik2pusvl17da9@corp.supernews.com:
>
> > Religion is based on fear and money.
>
> You really don't know anything about religion, do you.
>
> > Just about every religion threatens hell or eternal damnation if you do
> > not follow their set of "God's laws". People fear this hell, so they
> > believe the religion.
>
> Wrong. I could say that atheists don't believe in God because they are
> selfish and don't want to be held accountable for their actions.
>
> > And when the religion says you must tithe 15% to the church, the scared
> > people pay up.
>
> A 'tithe' is 10%. How do expect churches to operate if the faithful don't
> support them? It would like a charity that didn't ask for donations.


If the US Government taxed the church on her Property Holdings alone, we
could probably knock out the federal deficit ;p

-- 
"Yeah, I'm stupid, stupid like a fox." - Homer J. Simpson

"You try to make something idiot proof, and along comes a better
iot!"   -Unknown

In article <Y%nWa.263$2g.156@fed1read05>, junkyardNOSPAMwillie@tekken.cc 
says...
 
> Which 'book of lies' are you referring to?  

Dianetics.

> Are you simply anti-Christian (like most liberals) or are you anti-all religions?

I don't care if you worship God, Satan, or the Hale Bopp comet.  Just 
leave me the hell alone.  

Omphalos <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote in message news:<xdmWa.6651$K4.290860@twister.tampabay.rr.com>...
> What do they have against it? Are they afraid of it?

I don't think there's a problem with religion in general, there's a
problem with the Christian Right Wing that is filled with ignorant
bigoted zealots.

- Jordan

On Fri 01 Aug 2003 12:16:44p, "JPM III" <jpmccord@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:bge3pd$miocb$1@ID-53393.news.uni-berlin.de: 

>>>>> What do they have against it? Are they afraid of it?
>>>>
>>>> Because religion of ALL forms is based on myths and stories
>>>>
>>> prove it
>>>
>>>> These stories are not factual.
>>>
>>> prove it
>>
>> The stories are asserted to be true, therefore it falls upon the person
>> making the assertion to prove it. No one has any responsibility to
>> believe that those stories (or any other stories about any other
>> events) are true until and unless factual information is provided.
> 
> The burden of proof is on ANYONE who makes a claim. You just said that
> these things are NOT true. For that to be a true statement that I
> believe, the burden is on you to prove that it is true by the same
> standard you just explained.

Archaeology has proven the Bible to be true in many occasions. They found
Sodom and Gomorrah, didn't you know? Also, a race of people known as the
Hittites were thought to be a Biblical myth until their capital city was
found by archaeologists. 

>>>>  The "prophets" wrote down their stories - does that make it true?
>>>
>>> so what makes it untrue?
>>
>> The lack of factual evidence is reason not to believe them. Anyone can
>> say anything, but only the truth can be proven. If you can't prove it's
>> true, then you can't expect anyone to believe it's true.....unless you
>> ask them to have faith, which is diametrically opposed to reason and
>> not bound by what can and cannot be proven.
> 
> Correct. It is not reason to believe them, but neither is it reason to
> disbelieve them. There is a difference between being skeptical and
> calling it wrong or a lie. That's pretty bold for having no proof.

Complete lack of factual evidence hasn't stopped people (especially
God-hating evolutionists) from believing in aliens. Even SETI was funded
by the government for a time.

>>>> No "biblical" events have occurred over the past 1000 years
>>>
>>> we're a world of heathens, didn't you know
>>
>> And originally people were all good? I seem to recall a story about
>> Sodom and Gomorrah and something else about a flood..............if we
>> are still heathens, then why hasn't God punished us as it is claimed he
>> used to punish heathens? How many other examples are there of God
>> punishing heathens in the Bible that simply do not occur today?

I can think of one way God punishes heathens today. AIDS.

On Fri 01 Aug 2003 04:54:13a, "Novus_" <Novus_NOSPAM0@hotmail.com> wrote
in news:bgd9rr$nbqoo$1@ID-164296.news.uni-berlin.de: 

>> What do they have against it? Are they afraid of it?
> 
> 
> You kidding me?
> 
> Two words:  Joe Lieberman

He doesn't follow the tenents of his religion very well for someone who is 
suppoesedly religious.

On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 22:08:47 -0700, jaeger <jaeger@jaeger.com> wrote:

>Religious zealots aren't happy with having an 
>opinion, everyone must also have it too or they are wrong and must be 
>reprogrammed or incarcerated.  The preferred method is by attempting to 
>rewrite the Constitution to make sure it's illegal to disagree with the 
>Moral Authority.

Being a good atheist I say: I'm not against gods, I'm against their
fan's clubs :)

-- 
Io devo insegnare alle mie aspirazioni a conformarsi ai fatti, 
e non cercare di far armonizzare i fatti con le mie aspirazioni.
www.toto63.net
www.iaciners.org
www.nelbuio.net
www.the-brights.net/

"Snubis" <snubis@go.com> wrote in message
news:bge3vd$nk167$2@ID-170553.news.uni-berlin.de...
> On Fri 01 Aug 2003 10:37:26a, "JPM III" <jpmccord@hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:bgdtv6$nl6u2$1@ID-53393.news.uni-berlin.de:
>
> >>>> Example please?
> >>>
> >>> Are you insane?  Faith-based initiatives, religious symbols in
> >>> government buildings, abortion laws,
> >>
> >> Abortion isn't a religious issue, fool.
> >
> > It is to the religious zealouts who attach "the sanctity of life" to the
> > argument.
>
> What about the God-hating zealots who want to ensure that the unborn never
> have the right to be born? They are as adamant about what they believe as
any
> religous person would be.

There is no one advocating that all babies be aborted. the stance is
pro-*choice*, which is to say that the pro-choice movement isn't trying to
tell you to keep or abort your child, they want to ensure that you have the
right to make that decision yourself. The opposition would take that choice
away from you altogether and force you to abide by their religous beliefs
whether you like it or not. See the difference now?

On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 04:43:09 GMT, Omphalos <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote:

>What do they have against it? Are they afraid of it?

I'm atheist.
I'm not democrats, or what it could be like USA's democrats here in
Italy.

Anyway I don't hate religions: I hate religious that want force me to
live according their peculiar religious belief.

-- 
Io devo insegnare alle mie aspirazioni a conformarsi ai fatti, 
e non cercare di far armonizzare i fatti con le mie aspirazioni.
www.toto63.net
www.iaciners.org
www.nelbuio.net
www.the-brights.net/

"juha" <juha@invalid.none.com> wrote in message
news:4s3livokbr1rpt0582r94rf72de9aq74lm@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 04:43:09 GMT, Omphalos <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote:
>
> >What do they have against it? Are they afraid of it?
>
> Because the trigger-happy "Christians" give their children silly names
> like Buckaroo Banzai, Junkyard Willie, Hillybilly Joe, Hubba Bubba
> etc.
>
> Why are the American "Christians" so phucking pro-gun, pro-war and
> pro-death penalty anyway (just look at Bush Jr, the modern icon of
> American Christians)?
>
> Was Jesus like that? NO! That just goes to show how far the current
> religions have gone from their origins.

Not true.  I'm sure if Jesus had a gun he wouldn't have let those bastards
hang him.

"Go ahead...make my day"

On Fri 01 Aug 2003 12:46:16p, "Xbot" <lott@bull.com> wrote in
news:caWcnav0refGBLeiXTWJiQ@giganews.com: 

> "Omphalos" <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote in message
> news:2782fe1270656909f919d47e5bcf333c@free.teranews.com...
>
>> On Fri 01 Aug 2003 09:49:51a, "Holden" <nothx@ihatespam.com> wrote in
>> news:bgdr61$nfs49$1@ID-91786.news.uni-berlin.de:
>>
>>> "Brian" <brian_wolters@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:bgdnkt$ni6ie$1@ID-153628.news.uni-berlin.de...
>>>
>>>> They don't. It is they just stand up for common sense, which fell
>>>> out of favor during most of the 20th century thanks to Hollywood.
>>>
>>> Faith is belief in the absence of evidence or reason. It is far from
>>> common sense. Common sense is the domain of science, not religion.
>>
>> Your opinion. Flawed of course, but still only your opinion.
> 
> How is it flawed? You love to deride the thought processes of others,
> but you have a difficult time documenting your assertions.
> 
> What is "common sense" about a belief in something completely bereft of
> any evidence aside from folk tales?

If science is 'common sense', then why does a scientific organization
called SETI exist? Why are they searching for aliens when no evidence of
aliens exists?

SETI was even funded by the government at one point.

> Not believing in God is man's natural state, which is why the belief has
> to be drummed into him at an early age before he's learned to question
> and doubt. 

I guess that's why atheists represent such a small minority of the general
population. 

> The only adults who start believing in a supreme being are almost
> without fail people going through a personal crisis looking for a
> crutch. Some turn to booze, some to drugs, some to gambling, some to
> sex, and some turn to religion. As crutches go, it's perhaps the least
> damaging alternative, but in the end that's all it is.

So as long as it's a crutch that *you* use, you have no
problem with it; however, when it's a crutch someone *else*
uses, you feel it appropriate to tell them not to use it.

Interesting.

What of the Humanist or Atheist? These people are considered the greatest
doubters of religion but use religion as a crutch as much as the
Christian. While the religionists sits around in prayer and contemplation 
of the higher ideals of life, the atheist attempts to find a argument
against god. Maybe some tragic event occurred in their life to cast doubt
on the existence of a loving god or maybe they just find it hard to
believe something that distant and remote could love them, a mere human
being. Does mankind show so much sympathy for the ant on the street when
it is stepped on? Not likely, so why should this god in heaven, governor
of the whole universe, be concerned with the ant of His kingdom, man? This
is a question asked by these skeptics of religion. Is their life filled
with some sort of anger and attacking the unknown or attempting to remove
the happiness of another their psychological dependence on religion?
Someone would not spend that much attacking something if it did not
actually exist, right? That would be a wasteful expenditure of energy. 


So why do they? Enough people on the earth seem to believe in this higher
power so is all mankind afflicted by some neurosis of the mind? Is
religion the tumor on man�s brain? How could our entire species be so
easily deceived into this belief? 

"Jim Kennedy" <noemail@fake.fake.fake.com> wrote in message
news:pq6livcrla2vfb2evf85frnk23gl9gv716@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 23:20:37 -0700, jaeger <jaeger@jaeger.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> >abortion laws,
>
> Nice quote on the Constitution below that you did. Now please quote
> where in the Constitution it says abortion is a constitutional right.
>
> It isn't. What the liberal Supreme Court did was twist the
> Constitution to support their personel belief that abortion was
> correct.

If the opposition to abortion is due to religious beliefs, and that
opposition is attempting to make the government enforce that religious
belief on every citizen of the US, then it safely falls under the
jurisdiction of the First Amendment. (Please note I'm not stating that the
only opposition is religious, just that the religious opposition that does
exist is contrary to our Constitutional rights. There are other pressing
arguments in opposition of abortion that do not rely on religious belief).

On Fri 01 Aug 2003 12:50:56p, jaeger <jaeger@jaeger.com> wrote in
news:MPG.1994485c1fe363879896fb@news.west.cox.net: 

> Sorry junior, but the courts disagree.

What's your point? If the courts said that grass is pink with yellow
stripes, would that make it so? 

On Fri 01 Aug 2003 01:10:18p, "Holden" <nothx@ihatespam.com> wrote in
news:bge6tt$nmaa3$1@ID-91786.news.uni-berlin.de: 

> "Snubis" <snubis@go.com> wrote in message
> news:bge3vd$nk167$2@ID-170553.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
>> On Fri 01 Aug 2003 10:37:26a, "JPM III" <jpmccord@hotmail.com> wrote in
>> news:bgdtv6$nl6u2$1@ID-53393.news.uni-berlin.de:
>>
>>>>>> Example please?
>>>>>
>>>>> Are you insane?  Faith-based initiatives, religious symbols in
>>>>> government buildings, abortion laws,
>>>>
>>>> Abortion isn't a religious issue, fool.
>>>
>>> It is to the religious zealouts who attach "the sanctity of life" to
>>> the argument.
>>
>> What about the God-hating zealots who want to ensure that the unborn
>> never have the right to be born? They are as adamant about what they
>> believe as any religous person would be.
> 
> There is no one advocating that all babies be aborted. the stance is
> pro-*choice*, which is to say that the pro-choice movement isn't trying
> to tell you to keep or abort your child, they want to ensure that you
> have the right to make that decision yourself. The opposition would take
> that choice away from you altogether and force you to abide by their
> religous beliefs whether you like it or not. See the difference now?

I never said that. By supporting abortion, liberals argue that unborn 
children can be aborted up to childbirth. In other words, no baby has the 
right to be born.

In article <63e166c56b852aa48f005b0c64a6d62f@free.teranews.com>, 
omphalos@wp.pl says...
 
> Evolution sure isn't common sense. Anyone who tries to defend a theory
> with that many holes is a fraud. 

You're 99% chimpanzee.  Deal with it.

On Fri, 1 Aug 2003 12:16:40 -0500, "Holden" <nothx@ihatespam.com>
wrote:

>
>"Jim Kennedy" <noemail@fake.fake.fake.com> wrote in message
>news:pq6livcrla2vfb2evf85frnk23gl9gv716@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 23:20:37 -0700, jaeger <jaeger@jaeger.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >abortion laws,
>>
>> Nice quote on the Constitution below that you did. Now please quote
>> where in the Constitution it says abortion is a constitutional right.
>>
>> It isn't. What the liberal Supreme Court did was twist the
>> Constitution to support their personel belief that abortion was
>> correct.
>
>If the opposition to abortion is due to religious beliefs, and that
>opposition is attempting to make the government enforce that religious
>belief on every citizen of the US, then it safely falls under the
>jurisdiction of the First Amendment. (Please note I'm not stating that the
>only opposition is religious, just that the religious opposition that does
>exist is contrary to our Constitutional rights. There are other pressing
>arguments in opposition of abortion that do not rely on religious belief).

I understand your point, but I can not see a way to go from:

Bush is against abortion

and since

Bush is religious

therefore

His anit-abortion stand violates seperation of Church and State.

That is a REAL reach and leap in logic. Also, if you are going to
declare the presence of religous beliefs unconstitiutional then you
have to delcare the absence of religious beliefs the same.

 Most importantly the Roe V Wade decision says nothing of the sort.
The decision was based upon personal liberty rights in the Fourteenth
Admendment.

JK

On Fri 01 Aug 2003 01:04:45p, Omphalos <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote in
news:65fbdc395c9bcdb2575906c713f4cb16@free.teranews.com: 

> On Fri 01 Aug 2003 12:16:44p, "JPM III" <jpmccord@hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:bge3pd$miocb$1@ID-53393.news.uni-berlin.de: 
> 
>>>>>> What do they have against it? Are they afraid of it?
>>>>>
>>>>> Because religion of ALL forms is based on myths and stories
>>>>>
>>>> prove it
>>>>
>>>>> These stories are not factual.
>>>>
>>>> prove it
>>>
>>> The stories are asserted to be true, therefore it falls upon the
>>> person making the assertion to prove it. No one has any responsibility
>>> to believe that those stories (or any other stories about any other
>>> events) are true until and unless factual information is provided.
>> 
>> The burden of proof is on ANYONE who makes a claim. You just said that
>> these things are NOT true. For that to be a true statement that I
>> believe, the burden is on you to prove that it is true by the same
>> standard you just explained.
> 
> Archaeology has proven the Bible to be true in many occasions. They
> found Sodom and Gomorrah, didn't you know? Also, a race of people known
> as the Hittites were thought to be a Biblical myth until their capital
> city was found by archaeologists. 
> 
>>>>>  The "prophets" wrote down their stories - does that make it true?
>>>>
>>>> so what makes it untrue?
>>>
>>> The lack of factual evidence is reason not to believe them. Anyone can
>>> say anything, but only the truth can be proven. If you can't prove
>>> it's true, then you can't expect anyone to believe it's
>>> true.....unless you ask them to have faith, which is diametrically
>>> opposed to reason and not bound by what can and cannot be proven.
>> 
>> Correct. It is not reason to believe them, but neither is it reason to
>> disbelieve them. There is a difference between being skeptical and
>> calling it wrong or a lie. That's pretty bold for having no proof.
> 
> Complete lack of factual evidence hasn't stopped people (especially
> God-hating evolutionists) from believing in aliens. Even SETI was funded
> by the government for a time.
> 
>>>>> No "biblical" events have occurred over the past 1000 years
>>>>
>>>> we're a world of heathens, didn't you know
>>>
>>> And originally people were all good? I seem to recall a story about
>>> Sodom and Gomorrah and something else about a flood..............if we
>>> are still heathens, then why hasn't God punished us as it is claimed
>>> he used to punish heathens? How many other examples are there of God
>>> punishing heathens in the Bible that simply do not occur today?
> 
> I can think of one way God punishes heathens today. AIDS.

This post was supposed to be in response to Holden.

On Fri 01 Aug 2003 12:59:27p, jaeger <jaeger@jaeger.com> wrote in
news:MPG.19944a5cc11294aa9896fe@news.west.cox.net: 

> In article <bgdnkt$ni6ie$1@ID-153628.news.uni-berlin.de>, 
> brian_wolters@yahoo.com says...
>
>> They don't. It is they just stand up for common sense, which fell out
>> of favor during most of the 20th century thanks to Hollywood.
> 
> If you equate creationism with common sense then you probably shouldn't 
> be out on the street.

Evolution sure isn't common sense. Anyone who tries to defend a theory
with that many holes is a fraud. 

"Snubis" <snubis@com.com> wrote in message
news:bge7cc$ni3e9$4@ID-170553.news.uni-berlin.de...
> On Fri 01 Aug 2003 01:10:18p, "Holden" <nothx@ihatespam.com> wrote in
> news:bge6tt$nmaa3$1@ID-91786.news.uni-berlin.de:
>
> > "Snubis" <snubis@go.com> wrote in message
> > news:bge3vd$nk167$2@ID-170553.news.uni-berlin.de...
> >
> >> On Fri 01 Aug 2003 10:37:26a, "JPM III" <jpmccord@hotmail.com> wrote in
> >> news:bgdtv6$nl6u2$1@ID-53393.news.uni-berlin.de:
> >>
> >>>>>> Example please?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Are you insane?  Faith-based initiatives, religious symbols in
> >>>>> government buildings, abortion laws,
> >>>>
> >>>> Abortion isn't a religious issue, fool.
> >>>
> >>> It is to the religious zealouts who attach "the sanctity of life" to
> >>> the argument.
> >>
> >> What about the God-hating zealots who want to ensure that the unborn
> >> never have the right to be born? They are as adamant about what they
> >> believe as any religous person would be.
> >
> > There is no one advocating that all babies be aborted. the stance is
> > pro-*choice*, which is to say that the pro-choice movement isn't trying
> > to tell you to keep or abort your child, they want to ensure that you
> > have the right to make that decision yourself. The opposition would take
> > that choice away from you altogether and force you to abide by their
> > religous beliefs whether you like it or not. See the difference now?
>
> I never said that. By supporting abortion, liberals argue that unborn
> children can be aborted up to childbirth. In other words, no baby has the
> right to be born.

Ah, I did misunderstand you. In light of that a more correct response would
be to say that so long as that stance is not fueled by religious belief then
it is not subject to being curtailed by the First Amendment. Other than
that, it's a sound observation.

"jaeger" <jaeger@jaeger.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1994505059c4598b989701@news.west.cox.net...
> In article <63e166c56b852aa48f005b0c64a6d62f@free.teranews.com>,
> omphalos@wp.pl says...
>
> > Evolution sure isn't common sense. Anyone who tries to defend a theory
> > with that many holes is a fraud.
>
> You're 99% chimpanzee.  Deal with it.


One of the funniest things I've read in this flamewar yet. ;p


-- 
"Yeah, I'm stupid, stupid like a fox." - Homer J. Simpson

"You try to make something idiot proof, and along comes a better
iot!"   -Unknown

In article <bge7cc$ni3e9$4@ID-170553.news.uni-berlin.de>, snubis@com.com 
says...
 
> I never said that. By supporting abortion, liberals argue that unborn 
> children can be aborted up to childbirth. 

They do?  Last time I checked, nobody was lobbying Congress to allow a 
healthy 8.5 month old fetus to be aborted.  

> In other words, no baby has the right to be born.

Until it's viable, it's a lump of flesh.  Nothing more, with no more 
rights than a finger or toe.

"Omphalos" <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote in message
news:739fe35b1862b4118c1e746056bab887@free.teranews.com...
> On Fri 01 Aug 2003 01:16:40p, "Holden" <nothx@ihatespam.com> wrote in
> news:bge79r$ngflr$1@ID-91786.news.uni-berlin.de:
>
> > "Jim Kennedy" <noemail@fake.fake.fake.com> wrote in message
> > news:pq6livcrla2vfb2evf85frnk23gl9gv716@4ax.com...
> >
> >> On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 23:20:37 -0700, jaeger <jaeger@jaeger.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> abortion laws,
> >>
> >> Nice quote on the Constitution below that you did. Now please quote
> >> where in the Constitution it says abortion is a constitutional right.
> >>
> >> It isn't. What the liberal Supreme Court did was twist the
> >> Constitution to support their personel belief that abortion was
> >> correct.
> >
> > If the opposition to abortion is due to religious beliefs, and that
> > opposition is attempting to make the government enforce that religious
> > belief on every citizen of the US, then it safely falls under the
> > jurisdiction of the First Amendment.
>
> That's not what the first amendment says. It says that Congress can't make
> a state religion.

And that Congress cannot enforce a religion. "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion". To pass laws that state that
Christian beliefs are mandatory and that US citizens must abide by those
beliefs even if they directly conflict with that citizen's chosen religion
is "the establishment of religion". The First Amendment guarantees that
Congress cannot force religious beliefs on US citizens.

> > (Please note I'm not stating that the only opposition is religious, just
> > that the religious opposition that does exist is contrary to our
> > Constitutional rights. There are other pressing arguments in opposition
> > of abortion that do not rely on religious belief).
>
> Wrong. The opposition to murder is a religious belief. Should the
> government not make any laws concerning that?

*sigh* as I clearly stated before, there are other pressing arguments that
do not rely upon religious conviction. I'm an atheist, and the fact that I
don't want anyone murdering my family has *absolutely nothing* to with
religion.


> It is easy to argue against religion without mentioning any religious
> texts.

And even easier when you mention them.

"The Bible has noble poetry in it; and some clever fables; and some
blood-drenched history; and a wealth of obscenity; and upwards of a thousand
lies."
--Mark Twain (1835-1910)

"Omphalos" <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote in message
news:65fbdc395c9bcdb2575906c713f4cb16@free.teranews.com...
> >> And originally people were all good? I seem to recall a story about
> >> Sodom and Gomorrah and something else about a flood..............if we
> >> are still heathens, then why hasn't God punished us as it is claimed he
> >> used to punish heathens? How many other examples are there of God
> >> punishing heathens in the Bible that simply do not occur today?
>
> I can think of one way God punishes heathens today. AIDS.

You're an idiot.

"Omphalos" <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote in message
news:a7630b22fe10e210fb25e1a2f3831f09@free.teranews.com...
> On Fri 01 Aug 2003 01:59:02p, "Brian" <nospam@noemails.net> wrote in
> news:vilajhjucl698d@corp.supernews.com:
>
> > "Omphalos" <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote in message
> > news:xdmWa.6651$K4.290860@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
> >
> >> What do they have against it? Are they afraid of it?
> >
> > Maybe they believe in reality and not fairy tales?
>

Here I fixed your response. I know this is what you really meant.

> Religion *is* a fairy tale.

"Snubis" <snubis@oil.com> wrote in message
news:bge725$ni3e9$1@ID-170553.news.uni-berlin.de...
> On Fri 01 Aug 2003 12:46:16p, "Xbot" <lott@bull.com> wrote in
> news:caWcnav0refGBLeiXTWJiQ@giganews.com:
>
> > "Omphalos" <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote in message
> > news:2782fe1270656909f919d47e5bcf333c@free.teranews.com...
> >
> >> On Fri 01 Aug 2003 09:49:51a, "Holden" <nothx@ihatespam.com> wrote in
> >> news:bgdr61$nfs49$1@ID-91786.news.uni-berlin.de:
> >>
> >>> "Brian" <brian_wolters@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >>> news:bgdnkt$ni6ie$1@ID-153628.news.uni-berlin.de...
> >>>
> >>>> They don't. It is they just stand up for common sense, which fell
> >>>> out of favor during most of the 20th century thanks to Hollywood.
> >>>
> >>> Faith is belief in the absence of evidence or reason. It is far from
> >>> common sense. Common sense is the domain of science, not religion.
> >>
> >> Your opinion. Flawed of course, but still only your opinion.
> >
> > How is it flawed? You love to deride the thought processes of others,
> > but you have a difficult time documenting your assertions.
> >
> > What is "common sense" about a belief in something completely bereft of
> > any evidence aside from folk tales?
>
> If science is 'common sense', then why does a scientific organization
> called SETI exist? Why are they searching for aliens when no evidence of
> aliens exists?

Fundamentally flawed analogy: SETI is about the "Search" for
extraterrestrial life. The people behind SETI aren't running around claiming
to have proof that aliens exist, they are looking for evidence. Contrast
that to religious nuts, who neither ask for nor offer any "proof" that God
exists. SETI is about questioning and attempting to find answers. Religion
is about blind acceptance and suspension of disbelief.

> SETI was even funded by the government at one point.

So what? Like I said, you're making a flawed comparision. There is at least
reason to belief that alien life COULD exist. If life developed on Earth, it
may have done so elsewhere. There are BIIIIIIILIIIIONS and
BIIIIIIIIIIILIIIIIIIIIIONS of stars out there, any number of which may be
orbited by planets capable of sustaining life. And Earth being a relative
newcomer to the game, that life could be eons older than the life on Earth.

> > Not believing in God is man's natural state, which is why the belief has
> > to be drummed into him at an early age before he's learned to question
> > and doubt.
>
> I guess that's why atheists represent such a small minority of the general
> population.

The majority of the population are sheep. This is news? Besides, it's not
like you can recognize atheists on the street. Lots of churchgoing people
are "closet atheists" who go because their partner still believes and/or
they feel the spiritual and community environment of the church is
beneficial for their children even if they don't believe in the "power"
behind it all. Some may profess to believe out of fear - good luck telling
people you're an atheist if you live in the Middle East!

Plus whichever of the various religions you believe is "right" is also going
to be a small minority of the general population.

> > The only adults who start believing in a supreme being are almost
> > without fail people going through a personal crisis looking for a
> > crutch. Some turn to booze, some to drugs, some to gambling, some to
> > sex, and some turn to religion. As crutches go, it's perhaps the least
> > damaging alternative, but in the end that's all it is.
>
> So as long as it's a crutch that *you* use, you have no
> problem with it; however, when it's a crutch someone *else*
> uses, you feel it appropriate to tell them not to use it.

What the hell are you talking about? What crutch do I use?

> Interesting.

I think you mean "baffling."

> What of the Humanist or Atheist? These people are considered the greatest
> doubters of religion but use religion as a crutch as much as the
> Christian. While the religionists sits around in prayer and contemplation
> of the higher ideals of life, the atheist attempts to find a argument
> against god.

Oh, so THIS is what you're on about. No wonder. You don't understand how
someone comes to have an atheist point of view, so you just assume they got
to their viewpoint the same way you did. Through emotion, not logic.

>Maybe some tragic event occurred in their life to cast doubt
> on the existence of a loving god or maybe they just find it hard to
> believe something that distant and remote could love them, a mere human
> being.

I hate to tell you, but you couldn't be more wrong. Atheism (at least in my
case and the case of those I know personally) did not come to me at a moment
of crisis nor do I use it as a crutch. It came to me as I was asking myself
questions about my beliefs that everyone should ask but relatively few
people do for fear of what they'll find. I'm a thinker - I question by
nature. When you can divorce yourself from your emotional investment in your
beliefs, you'll find that religion makes no sense, although the reasons it
was introduced are obvious.

I have no emotional investment in atheism - atheism is a logical choice and
choices made based on logic are not crutches. Did I go in WANTING to believe
that God didn't exist? No! If God were revealed tomorrow to actually exist
I'd be as happy about it as you. But just because I'd like to believe
something based on the benefits of that thing actually being true doesn't
mean I'm prepared to suspend my rational thought processes to the degree
such a belief would require.

I don't believe in God because it is the far more logical choice. Were I to
believe in a God, it would not be the Christian God because, even though he
paints the rosiest picture, he is also the least logical choice. At least as
far as the predominant religions go.

>Does mankind show so much sympathy for the ant on the street when
> it is stepped on? Not likely, so why should this god in heaven, governor
> of the whole universe, be concerned with the ant of His kingdom, man? This
> is a question asked by these skeptics of religion.

No, it's not - man, you really have done NO thinking about how atheists come
to their beliefs at all, have you?

Of course you haven't - if you had actually asked yourself the right
questions and allowed yourself to answer them honestly, you wouldn't be a
religious person any more.

>Is their life filled
> with some sort of anger and attacking the unknown or attempting to remove
> the happiness of another their psychological dependence on religion?

Nope. I never discuss religion or God with friends of mine who are
religious, even if that means enduring their superstitious insinuations
about how my lack of belief is going to cost me a ticket to the Pearly
Gates. I could make a very persuasive argument in short order that would
shatter their belief system, but what would be the point? If they want to go
through life thinking there's some kindly angel watching over them, it
doesn't hurt me. However, at the same time I see no need to mince words in a
Usenet forum when the issue comes up in an off-topic thread. It's not like I
go into Christian newsgroups and start threads telling them atheism is the
only logical choice.

> Someone would not spend that much attacking something if it did not
> actually exist, right? That would be a wasteful expenditure of energy.

So now religion doesn't exist? The fairy tales in the Bible don't exist?
Could have fooled me. Because what energy I have expended "attacking"
anything has been directed at the concept and dogma of religion, which is
very real.

> So why do they? Enough people on the earth seem to believe in this higher
> power so is all mankind afflicted by some neurosis of the mind?

Very deceptive phrasing. "Enough people on the earth seem to believe in THIS
higher power..." Which of the several higher powers are you referring to?

And in any case, yes man does appear to be a superstitious, gullible beast
in his early years when the dogma of religion is drummed into him. If it wer
en't possible to introduce religion to people until they'd learned how to be
skeptical and evaluate new information objectively, all religion would
probably die out within a few hundred years.

> Is
> religion the tumor on man's brain? How could our entire species be so
> easily deceived into this belief?

Our "entire species" is not so easily deceived. But the answer to why so
many are is simple - they're brainwashed at a young age before they learn
how to question. By the time they do learn how to question, they're so
emotionally invested in their vision of an afterlife and the belief that
someone is watching over them that it's generally beyond them to be mature
and logical enough to ask themselves the tough questions about the reasons
behind their beliefs.

"Holden" <nothx@ihatespam.com> wrote in message
news:bge6tt$nmaa3$1@ID-91786.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
> "Snubis" <snubis@go.com> wrote in message
> news:bge3vd$nk167$2@ID-170553.news.uni-berlin.de...
> > On Fri 01 Aug 2003 10:37:26a, "JPM III" <jpmccord@hotmail.com> wrote in
> > news:bgdtv6$nl6u2$1@ID-53393.news.uni-berlin.de:
> >
> > >>>> Example please?
> > >>>
> > >>> Are you insane?  Faith-based initiatives, religious symbols in
> > >>> government buildings, abortion laws,
> > >>
> > >> Abortion isn't a religious issue, fool.
> > >
> > > It is to the religious zealouts who attach "the sanctity of life" to
the
> > > argument.
> >
> > What about the God-hating zealots who want to ensure that the unborn
never
> > have the right to be born? They are as adamant about what they believe
as
> any
> > religous person would be.
>
> There is no one advocating that all babies be aborted. the stance is
> pro-*choice*, which is to say that the pro-choice movement isn't trying to
> tell you to keep or abort your child, they want to ensure that you have
the
> right to make that decision yourself. The opposition would take that
choice
> away from you altogether and force you to abide by their religous beliefs
> whether you like it or not. See the difference now?

Abortion isn't a religious issue tho.  It's a rights issue...as in, does the
child have a right to live or not.

"Roger Christie" <rochrist@charter.net> wrote in message
news:vil52vfmfags07@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Omphalos" <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote in message
> news:38fd127a0f2a93d6edf03de51dfcd2c6@free.teranews.com...
> > On Fri 01 Aug 2003 02:20:37a, jaeger <jaeger@jaeger.com> wrote in
> > news:MPG.1993b49c334966509896f7@news.west.cox.net:
> >
> > > In article
<tXmWa.128129$Io.10865519@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
> > > blackhole34@yahoo.com says...
> > >
> > >> Example please?
> > >
> > > Are you insane?  Faith-based initiatives, religious symbols in
> > > government buildings, abortion laws,
> >
> > Abortion isn't a religious issue, fool.
>
> Of course it is, fool.

I agree with Omphalos being a fool, but abortion isn't a religious issue.

"Omphalos" wrote
> What do they have against it? Are they afraid of it?

Too thick to write OT: ?

In article <bgebc9$o14dc$1@ID-121560.news.uni-berlin.de>, 
holleyrp@delanet.com says...

> Give us the exact cutoff then please.  I assume you feel eight and a half
> months is viable but eight and a half weeks isn't?  So what is the cutoff
> time then?

Whenever you can yank it out, toss it on a table, and it doesn't die.  
Until then it's fair game to be aborted for any reason, including 
persoanl convenience.

"Scott" <scottp@columbus.rr.com> wrote in message
news:iTwWa.8093$IQ2.6908@fe1.columbus.rr.com...
> > > >
> > > > Abortion isn't a religious issue, fool.
> > >
> > > It is to the religious zealouts who attach "the sanctity of life" to
the
> > > argument. *Everything* is religious if someone wants it to be.
> > >
>
>
>
> Just a little humor, you ever notice most of these Pro-Life anti abortion
> people are in favor of the DEATH penalty.

It's almost as funny as anti-death penalty folks being pro-abortion,
wouldn't you say?

Now what deserves to die more?  A convicted felon or an unborn child?

"Omphalos" <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote in message
news:65fbdc395c9bcdb2575906c713f4cb16@free.teranews.com...
> On Fri 01 Aug 2003 12:16:44p, "JPM III" <jpmccord@hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:bge3pd$miocb$1@ID-53393.news.uni-berlin.de:
>
> >>>>> What do they have against it? Are they afraid of it?
> >>>>
> >>>> Because religion of ALL forms is based on myths and stories
> >>>>
> >>> prove it
> >>>
> >>>> These stories are not factual.
> >>>
> >>> prove it
> >>
> >> The stories are asserted to be true, therefore it falls upon the person
> >> making the assertion to prove it. No one has any responsibility to
> >> believe that those stories (or any other stories about any other
> >> events) are true until and unless factual information is provided.
> >
> > The burden of proof is on ANYONE who makes a claim. You just said that
> > these things are NOT true. For that to be a true statement that I
> > believe, the burden is on you to prove that it is true by the same
> > standard you just explained.
>
> Archaeology has proven the Bible to be true in many occasions. They found
> Sodom and Gomorrah, didn't you know? Also, a race of people known as the
> Hittites were thought to be a Biblical myth until their capital city was
> found by archaeologists.

Great - it turns out that actual contemporary cities and tribes were the
basis for some of the Bible's myths. That's some powerful proof right there.
Michael Jordan, an actual person, appeared in a movie with Bugs Bunny once -
does that constitute proof that Bugs Bunny is real?

> >>>>  The "prophets" wrote down their stories - does that make it true?
> >>>
> >>> so what makes it untrue?
> >>
> >> The lack of factual evidence is reason not to believe them. Anyone can
> >> say anything, but only the truth can be proven. If you can't prove it's
> >> true, then you can't expect anyone to believe it's true.....unless you
> >> ask them to have faith, which is diametrically opposed to reason and
> >> not bound by what can and cannot be proven.
> >
> > Correct. It is not reason to believe them, but neither is it reason to
> > disbelieve them. There is a difference between being skeptical and
> > calling it wrong or a lie. That's pretty bold for having no proof.
>
> Complete lack of factual evidence hasn't stopped people (especially
> God-hating evolutionists) from believing in aliens. Even SETI was funded
> by the government for a time.

What is it with you guys and SETI? It's not a viable comparison to the god
phenomenon at all. SETI is about searching for extraterrestrial life, not
just "believing it exists" as you misrepresent it to be. The life they are
searching for isn't anything supernatural, it would be life *similar to that
on Earth* which may have evolved on planets *similar to Earth.* Religion,
first off, isn't about a search for anything but blind acceptance, and it
concerns a being unlike anything we know who has powers unlike anything
we've seen.

Which is more logical:

1) to believe there is a *possibility* that life similar to that on our
planet may have developed on worlds similar to our planet?

or

2) to believe without doubt (or evidence) that a fantastically super-powered
being which is nothing like us and about whom there are a multitude of
contradictory and derivative fables absolutely exists?

Since you brought it up, though: Answer me this, what is the purpose of all
those other stars and planets in the cosmos? The vast majority will
obviously never support life so why did God put them there?

> >>>> No "biblical" events have occurred over the past 1000 years
> >>>
> >>> we're a world of heathens, didn't you know
> >>
> >> And originally people were all good? I seem to recall a story about
> >> Sodom and Gomorrah and something else about a flood..............if we
> >> are still heathens, then why hasn't God punished us as it is claimed he
> >> used to punish heathens? How many other examples are there of God
> >> punishing heathens in the Bible that simply do not occur today?
>
> I can think of one way God punishes heathens today. AIDS.

This statement is so backwards I'm almost starting to think you're a member
of the clergy.

On this day of our lord, Fri, 01 Aug 2003 04:43:09 GMT, Omphalos
<omphalos@wp.pl> quilled:

>What do they have against it? Are they afraid of it?

Because they start wars that kill innocent people, they BS about
reality and generally make a nuisance of themselves. Is that enough?

"Snubis" <snubis@oil.com> wrote in message
news:bge725$ni3e9$1@ID-170553.news.uni-berlin.de...
> On Fri 01 Aug 2003 12:46:16p, "Xbot" <lott@bull.com> wrote in
> news:caWcnav0refGBLeiXTWJiQ@giganews.com:
>
> > "Omphalos" <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote in message
> > news:2782fe1270656909f919d47e5bcf333c@free.teranews.com...
> >
> >> On Fri 01 Aug 2003 09:49:51a, "Holden" <nothx@ihatespam.com> wrote in
> >> news:bgdr61$nfs49$1@ID-91786.news.uni-berlin.de:
> >>
> >>> "Brian" <brian_wolters@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >>> news:bgdnkt$ni6ie$1@ID-153628.news.uni-berlin.de...
> >>>
> >>>> They don't. It is they just stand up for common sense, which fell
> >>>> out of favor during most of the 20th century thanks to Hollywood.
> >>>
> >>> Faith is belief in the absence of evidence or reason. It is far from
> >>> common sense. Common sense is the domain of science, not religion.
> >>
> >> Your opinion. Flawed of course, but still only your opinion.
> >
> > How is it flawed? You love to deride the thought processes of others,
> > but you have a difficult time documenting your assertions.
> >
> > What is "common sense" about a belief in something completely bereft of
> > any evidence aside from folk tales?
>
> If science is 'common sense', then why does a scientific organization
> called SETI exist? Why are they searching for aliens when no evidence of
> aliens exists?
>
> SETI was even funded by the government at one point.

There is no scientifically-proven theory that states that extra-terrestrial
intelligence exists. SETI has acknowledged the possibility that it exists
and is actively searching for *evidence* of it's existence. SETI is not
trying to force others to believe, they are looking to find out whther or
not it is true.

Religion states unequivocally that God exists with or without evidence and
actively attempts to convert others to said belief.

See the difference?

> > Not believing in God is man's natural state, which is why the belief has
> > to be drummed into him at an early age before he's learned to question
> > and doubt.
>
> I guess that's why atheists represent such a small minority of the general
> population.

Yes, because we live in a predominately christian society that enforces
religous belief from birth.

> > The only adults who start believing in a supreme being are almost
> > without fail people going through a personal crisis looking for a
> > crutch. Some turn to booze, some to drugs, some to gambling, some to
> > sex, and some turn to religion. As crutches go, it's perhaps the least
> > damaging alternative, but in the end that's all it is.
>
> So as long as it's a crutch that *you* use, you have no
> problem with it; however, when it's a crutch someone *else*
> uses, you feel it appropriate to tell them not to use it.
>
> Interesting.

Even more interesting is that you would make that assertion without any
evidence of the fact that he 1) relies on a crutch and 2) has no problem
with it.

Interesting indeed.

> What of the Humanist or Atheist? These people are considered the greatest
> doubters of religion but use religion as a crutch as much as the
> Christian. While the religionists sits around in prayer and contemplation
> of the higher ideals of life, the atheist attempts to find a argument
> against god. Maybe some tragic event occurred in their life to cast doubt
> on the existence of a loving god or maybe they just find it hard to
> believe something that distant and remote could love them, a mere human
> being. Does mankind show so much sympathy for the ant on the street when
> it is stepped on? Not likely, so why should this god in heaven, governor
> of the whole universe, be concerned with the ant of His kingdom, man? This
> is a question asked by these skeptics of religion. Is their life filled
> with some sort of anger and attacking the unknown or attempting to remove
> the happiness of another their psychological dependence on religion?
> Someone would not spend that much attacking something if it did not
> actually exist, right? That would be a wasteful expenditure of energy.


No, it is not the question we ask. All of what you are saying would
necessitate that we actually *believe* in God, but think that he doesn't
love us. The very basis of atheism is the acknowledgement that God does not
exist, not that he is too stuck-up to love us.

Try to equate atheism with your feelings about Santa Claus's existence or
the like. Do you struggle with a belief in the Easter Bunny? Do you lay
awake at night pondering if you made the right decision to disbelieve the
Tooth Fairy? Are you worried that the Boogy Man might actually really be
hiding in your closet and he was just too stuck-up to lower himself to
scaring you before now? This is how atheists view belief in God.

And atheists attack religion? How often do atheists knock on your door
preaching about salvation? When was the last president who said that
christians should not be considered citizens? Were your children ever forced
to stand up and pledge allegiance before *no god*? Are we an organized,
internationally-recognized  force with an express intent to convert you to
our beliefs? No, but if you wish to discuss religion, then you'll have to
accept that some people are opposed to it. Stating that belief in a
conversation is not an attack.


> So why do they? Enough people on the earth seem to believe in this higher
> power so is all mankind afflicted by some neurosis of the mind? Is
> religion the tumor on man's brain? How could our entire species be so
> easily deceived into this belief?

All of mankind once believed that the world was flat. Is all mankind
afflicted by some neurosis of the mind? How could our entire species be so
easily deceived into this belief?

"Omphalos" <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote in message
news:65fbdc395c9bcdb2575906c713f4cb16@free.teranews.com...
> On Fri 01 Aug 2003 12:16:44p, "JPM III" <jpmccord@hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:bge3pd$miocb$1@ID-53393.news.uni-berlin.de:
>
> >>>>> What do they have against it? Are they afraid of it?
> >>>>
> >>>> Because religion of ALL forms is based on myths and stories
> >>>>
> >>> prove it
> >>>
> >>>> These stories are not factual.
> >>>
> >>> prove it
> >>
> >> The stories are asserted to be true, therefore it falls upon the person
> >> making the assertion to prove it. No one has any responsibility to
> >> believe that those stories (or any other stories about any other
> >> events) are true until and unless factual information is provided.
> >
> > The burden of proof is on ANYONE who makes a claim. You just said that
> > these things are NOT true. For that to be a true statement that I
> > believe, the burden is on you to prove that it is true by the same
> > standard you just explained.
>
> Archaeology has proven the Bible to be true in many occasions. They found
> Sodom and Gomorrah, didn't you know? Also, a race of people known as the
> Hittites were thought to be a Biblical myth until their capital city was
> found by archaeologists.

They found Troy too. Does that mean that Zeus is really in charge? Or is it
possible that the Bible, which was written by people who lived a long time
ago, referenced a city that existed a long time ago, and that none of it is
proof that God exists?

> >>>>  The "prophets" wrote down their stories - does that make it true?
> >>>
> >>> so what makes it untrue?
> >>
> >> The lack of factual evidence is reason not to believe them. Anyone can
> >> say anything, but only the truth can be proven. If you can't prove it's
> >> true, then you can't expect anyone to believe it's true.....unless you
> >> ask them to have faith, which is diametrically opposed to reason and
> >> not bound by what can and cannot be proven.
> >
> > Correct. It is not reason to believe them, but neither is it reason to
> > disbelieve them. There is a difference between being skeptical and
> > calling it wrong or a lie. That's pretty bold for having no proof.
>
> Complete lack of factual evidence hasn't stopped people (especially
> God-hating evolutionists) from believing in aliens. Even SETI was funded
> by the government for a time.
>
> >>>> No "biblical" events have occurred over the past 1000 years
> >>>
> >>> we're a world of heathens, didn't you know
> >>
> >> And originally people were all good? I seem to recall a story about
> >> Sodom and Gomorrah and something else about a flood..............if we
> >> are still heathens, then why hasn't God punished us as it is claimed he
> >> used to punish heathens? How many other examples are there of God
> >> punishing heathens in the Bible that simply do not occur today?
>
> I can think of one way God punishes heathens today. AIDS.

You have no evidence that God created AIDS to punish anyone. It's ignorant
belief like that that causes so many atheists to scorn your religion. But
then again, if you knew the difference between factual information and fairy
tales, you wouldn't believe in the Bible, now would you?

> >>>> Example please?
> >>>
> >>> Are you insane?  Faith-based initiatives, religious symbols in
> >>> government buildings, abortion laws,
> >>
> >> Abortion isn't a religious issue, fool.
> >
> > It is to the religious zealouts who attach "the sanctity of life" to the
> > argument.
>
> What about the God-hating zealots who want to ensure that the unborn never
> have the right to be born? They are as adamant about what they believe as
any
> religous person would be.

Um, those people aren't an organized group. People in favor of the *right to
choose* to have an abortion are mostly against the practice itself.

> > There is no one advocating that all babies be aborted. the stance is
> > pro-*choice*, which is to say that the pro-choice movement isn't trying
> > to tell you to keep or abort your child, they want to ensure that you
> > have the right to make that decision yourself. The opposition would take
> > that choice away from you altogether and force you to abide by their
> > religous beliefs whether you like it or not. See the difference now?
>
> I never said that. By supporting abortion, liberals argue that unborn
> children can be aborted up to childbirth. In other words, no baby has the
> right to be born.

That is correct, sir. No baby has the right to be born, but mostly because
it has already been born. Before it is born, it is not a baby. It is a
fetus. There may be little biological difference, but that is the
distinction.

> > I never said that. By supporting abortion, liberals argue that unborn
> > children can be aborted up to childbirth.
>
> They do?  Last time I checked, nobody was lobbying Congress to allow a
> healthy 8.5 month old fetus to be aborted.

In fact, we have very clear restrictions on aborting anything after the
first trimester. Once it has taken the fetal shape and position, it's too
late.


> > In other words, no baby has the right to be born.
>
> Until it's viable, it's a lump of flesh.  Nothing more, with no more
> rights than a finger or toe.

And who has the right to those fingers and toes? Why, the person to whose
arms and legs they are connected, of course! The mother has the right to
decide what to do with her body.

Liberals confuse me. They argue their liberal policies, trying to get people
out of poverty and such, and then they fight against the one thing that
might actually help to curtail overpopulation, which is the number one cause
of poverty worldwide.

Last I checked the religious texts, a baby does not earn a place in heave
nor hell until it has acquired some moral capacity -- that is, until it has
been taught right and wrong and how to act one way or the other. So
technically ending a child's life before, say, age two is not necessarily
wrong if it does society a greater good.

But then that's only according to the good book, which most people don't
seem to live by anymore. (The argument being that it's 2000 years old and
most of it no longer applies.)

> >> I never said that. By supporting abortion, liberals argue that unborn
> >> children can be aborted up to childbirth.
> >
> > They do?  Last time I checked, nobody was lobbying Congress to allow a
> > healthy 8.5 month old fetus to be aborted.
> >
> >> In other words, no baby has the right to be born.
> >
> > Until it's viable, it's a lump of flesh.  Nothing more, with no more
> > rights than a finger or toe.
>
> An unborn baby is viable. The mother's womb is the natural environment for
> a human being in his or her first nine months of life. If a land-dwelling
> mammal were put into water, it would not be viable. If a fish were put on
> dry land, it would not be viable. Also, as a class, human beings are
> nonviable relative to the ex-utero environment, yet only for the first
> five months of life. Thus, for the young preborn, viability is lost only
> after an abortion; if the procedure itself does not kill, removal from the
> natural environment does.

A human does not life its life in the womb. A human that can not live its
life out in the air of planet earth is not viable.

"Robert P Holley" <holleyrp@delanet.com> wrote in message
news:bgebh4$nh90g$1@ID-121560.news.uni-berlin.de...
> "Roger Christie" <rochrist@charter.net> wrote in message
> news:vil52vfmfags07@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > "Omphalos" <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote in message
> > news:38fd127a0f2a93d6edf03de51dfcd2c6@free.teranews.com...
> > > On Fri 01 Aug 2003 02:20:37a, jaeger <jaeger@jaeger.com> wrote in
> > > news:MPG.1993b49c334966509896f7@news.west.cox.net:
> > >
> > > > In article
> <tXmWa.128129$Io.10865519@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
> > > > blackhole34@yahoo.com says...
> > > >
> > > >> Example please?
> > > >
> > > > Are you insane?  Faith-based initiatives, religious symbols in
> > > > government buildings, abortion laws,
> > >
> > > Abortion isn't a religious issue, fool.
> >
> > Of course it is, fool.
>
> I agree with Omphalos being a fool, but abortion isn't a religious issue.

As long as there is a desire to abolish due to religious beliefs then it is
a religous issue. It's not *only* a religious issue, but religion most
definitely is involved.

Omphalos <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote:

> The militia clause and second are attempts to insure that the people and
> thus the states retain the power to oppose a government which has exceeded
> its constitutional limits and become a tyranny.

I disagree.  The mechanism by which the 2nd Amendment works to
prevent tyranny is that a people who can defend themselves are
harder to demogogue into paying huge amounts for large police
forces or a standing army.

If people feel that they can protect themselves from criminal violence,
they will not authorize excessive police powers.  If the people feel
confident that they can stand off an invasion or raid themselves, they
will not authorize a strong standing army, which the Founding Fathers
greatly distrusted, and for good reasons.

Private ownership of guns does _not_ help vs the armed force of the
government.  However, they can be very useful against the paramilitary
thugs who try to intimidate their political opponents and thereby
gain control over the government.  You can't fight it out with the
German Army, but you _can_ fight it out with the Brown Shirts.

Private ownership of guns therefore _may_ help to prevent the government
from being taken over by would be thugs.

Of course, the recipe for tyranny is still there.  All you need is to
stampede the voters and congresscritters with threats that they don't
feel individual guns and local community action can deal with.  Then
you can expand police power without limit, and funding for the military
and intelligence agencies without limit.

Michael Sandy

> Why is viability the definition of human? Viability is not a logical
> criterion for abortion. A preborn baby is an individual and a human being,
> regardless of viability.

What makes viability illogical? A preborn baby is the presupposed flesh
attached to its mother that will become a human being, but is not yet. The
human condition is defined by breathing air. A life in the placenta is not a
human life. Until the baby is born, it feeds off the mother, absorbing her
energies and sapping her resources. An unborn child is technically no more
than a parasite .. a genetically compatible parasite.


> Furthermore, nonviability is a transient state.

Transient from "lump of flesh" to "living human being". At the nonviable
stage, it is not alive, but rather is gathering the ability to live.

> Why should the fact that a preborn baby is not yet
> capable of ex utero life be a reason for abortion?

That's not for us to decide. That's for the mother to decide. Why should you
get to make the decision for every woman on this planet who might have a
good reason to have an abortion?

> > Give us the exact cutoff then please.  I assume you feel eight and a
half
> > months is viable but eight and a half weeks isn't?  So what is the
cutoff
> > time then?
>
> Whenever you can yank it out, toss it on a table, and it doesn't die.
> Until then it's fair game to be aborted for any reason, including
> persoanl convenience.

Sounds good to me. Every mother is different. There is no definite cutoff.
And there shouldn't be. We have the technology to determine when the unborn
lump of flesh has taken the fetal shape and position. A prerequisite of all
abortion procedures should be an ultrasound to determine if the unborn lump
of flesh has in fact taken the fetal shape. As soon as it's close, the
abortion should be determined illegal for that particular mother.

When/if the world of medicine determines the general shape and behavior of
the earliest "viable" stage of life, then that should be what they look for
in the ultrasound.

In article <bgegc2$nudbq$1@ID-91786.news.uni-berlin.de>, Holden 
<nothx@ihatespam.com> writes
>> I can think of one way God punishes heathens today. AIDS.
>
>You have no evidence that God created AIDS to punish anyone. It's ignorant
>belief like that that causes so many atheists to scorn your religion. But
>then again, if you knew the difference between factual information and fairy
>tales, you wouldn't believe in the Bible, now would you?
>
>
Right - AIDS - proof that Gods hates gay men and Africans, likes people 
to use condoms, and loves lesbians. Presumably this is the all-loving 
God, who has invented a disease that means babies are born dying.
-- 
John Secker

> > Sorry junior, but the courts disagree.
>
> What's your point? If the courts said that grass is pink with yellow
> stripes, would that make it so?

Yes, because that would legally change the definition of what "pink with
yellow stripes" meant, at least according to the court. You are allowed to
disagree with the courts' interpretation of anything, but the courts are
still part of the law of the land, and we are not (directly).

Antonio Fanelli <toto@iaciners.org> wrote:

> On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 22:08:47 -0700, jaeger <jaeger@jaeger.com> wrote:
> 
> >Religious zealots aren't happy with having an 
> >opinion, everyone must also have it too or they are wrong and must be
> >reprogrammed or incarcerated.  The preferred method is by attempting to
> >rewrite the Constitution to make sure it's illegal to disagree with the
> >Moral Authority.
> 
> Being a good atheist I say: I'm not against gods, I'm against their
> fan's clubs :)

Then you might like this T-Shirt slogan:

The Bible:  Four words by the Author embellished by millenia
of Fan Fiction


The four words being, Let There Be Light. :)

Michael Sandy

JPM III <jpmccord@hotmail.com> writes
>> > There is no one advocating that all babies be aborted. the stance is
>> > pro-*choice*, which is to say that the pro-choice movement isn't trying
>> > to tell you to keep or abort your child, they want to ensure that you
>> > have the right to make that decision yourself. The opposition would take
>> > that choice away from you altogether and force you to abide by their
>> > religous beliefs whether you like it or not. See the difference now?
>>
>> I never said that. By supporting abortion, liberals argue that unborn
>> children can be aborted up to childbirth. In other words, no baby has the
>> right to be born.
>
>That is correct, sir. No baby has the right to be born, but mostly because
>it has already been born. Before it is born, it is not a baby. It is a
>fetus. There may be little biological difference, but that is the
>distinction.

Oh for fuck's sake, knock it off the lot of you. Or at least take it to 
groups where religion and politics are on topic.

-- 
" "
Del

Congress can not establish or endorse any position that favorably or
unfavorably presents any (single) religion over any other.

However, endorsing theism versus atheism is not involved here, because
theism is not a religion, but instead is a category. Call it constitutional
oversight, but I don't think they thought to consider the effects of the
state endorsing or opposing categories of religions, since back then it was
all about "believe in my god or die"... Too bad, because it allows
intolerance on a broader scale.

> >Religious zealots aren't happy with having an
> >opinion, everyone must also have it too or they are wrong and must be
> >reprogrammed or incarcerated.  The preferred method is by attempting to
> >rewrite the Constitution to make sure it's illegal to disagree with the
> >Moral Authority.
>
> Being a good atheist I say: I'm not against gods, I'm against their
> fan's clubs :)

Heheh. That's clever.

I was taught to believe in God. What I've read in philosophy books tells me
not to. I can't help thinking that neither side can prove that any god does
or doesn't exist.

All I know is that science can not explain the origin of the universe, time,
space, matter, and everything.

Then again, I have nothing to suggest that any god could either.

Man is fallable! Atheism is stupid, theism is stupid, and agnosticism is the
intelligent middleground that laughs at all of you for believing something
you can't prove either way (while still enjoying the debates and seeking the
answer).

> > Religion has never started a war.
>
> Once you graduate from 5th grade you'll learn about the Crusades.

And if you stop believing everything your clueless teachers tell you, you'll
read up on your own and find that religion is just an idea, and that men
started the war.

> >http://www.whitehouse.org/dof/index.asp
> >
> >So Bush Junior's team isn't afraid to admit daddy's words. Nice.
>
> whitehouse.org is a joke site, you obviously fell for it

Gahh. I'm trying to get people to lighten up. Geez.

On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 16:23:52 +0100, Mark Morrison <drdpikeuk@aol.com>
wrote:

>Although Bush Snr. HAS just declared his opposition to same-sex
>marriages, by intending to have 'marrriage' defined as being man-woman
>only.

NEWSFLASH!! That *is* how marriage is defined! Look it up in a
dictionary :p

Snubis <snubis@oil.com> wrote:

> If science is 'common sense', then why does a scientific organization
> called SETI exist? Why are they searching for aliens when no evidence of
> aliens exists?

They are searching for aliens because it is theoretically possible
that aliens exist.  When SETI was founded, we didn't even know if there
were extra-solar planets.  Now we know of upwards of fifty planets of
other stars.

The other side of the coin is that they are also searching for the
_absence_ of aliens.  An absence of aliens would also affect
policy, as we would be less inclined to build defenses against
a spaceward foe if we could demonstrate that there was unlikely to
be an alien threat.

SETI is rational because it is cheap for the price.  The potential
benefits of contacting an alien race are huge.  The potential disaster
of being surprised by an alien race is also huge.  According to the
Drake Equation, it is reasonable to expect there to be somewhere
between .01 and a million star faring civilizations in this galaxy
alone.  We can't narrow it down beyond that, yet, because we don't
know the real range of the variables in the Drake equation.

To an extent, it is socialized science.  It is, or was, government
money maintaining a field in order to make sure that the scientists
in that field existed if they were needed.

Michael Sandy

> > Tolerance, of course, cutting only one way, but that's life...
>
> And tolerance leads to perversity.

I'll take my chances. I'd rather have freedom to be perverted than to be
safe and have no rights. The safest life of all is one with zero freedom.
Sit in a box and have your life force-fed to you if that's what you want,
but don't force me to share such a silly fate.

> Right - AIDS - proof that Gods hates gay men and Africans, likes people
> to use condoms, and loves lesbians. Presumably this is the all-loving
> God, who has invented a disease that means babies are born dying.

I love lesbians!

> If the US Government taxed the church on her Property Holdings alone, we
> could probably knock out the federal deficit ;p

And religion would go bankrupt, and people would be forced to believe of
their own volition. The natural laziness of the human condition would lend
to the slow eradication of most major, organized religions...

> >> What do they have against it? Are they afraid of it?
> >
> >
> > You kidding me?
> >
> > Two words:  Joe Lieberman
>
> He doesn't follow the tenents of his religion very well for someone who is
> suppoesedly religious.

Says who? Are you *judging* him? Tisk, tisk...

"Snubis" <snubis@aol.com> wrote in message
news:bge5n4$npje2$1@ID-170553.news.uni-berlin.de...
> On Fri 01 Aug 2003 10:21:58a, Damocles <phaestos2@yahoo.com> wrote in
> news:brtkivccf6gnrkjmihi04u08r9vj00qf77@4ax.com:
>
> > On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 04:43:09 GMT, Omphalos <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote:
> >
> >> What do they have against it? Are they afraid of it?
> >
> > Yeah, like that Jimmy Carter guy.
>
> Jimmy Carter is religious in name only. He's a disgrace to Christianity.

Aren't we all, according to the tenets of Christianity...

JPM III <jpmccord@hotmail.com> wrote:

> All I know is that science can not explain the origin of the universe, time,
> space, matter, and everything.

Science doesn't try to explain the origin of the universe.  It says,
"The Universe Is."

Philosophy says, "Are you Sure about that?"

and Religion says,
"Of course I am sure.  I have a 4,000 year old book that explains the
origin of the universe.  Okay, a 200 year old translation of a
translation of a translation of an oral tradition that says that the 
origin of the universe was XYZ."

Michael Sandy

> > Was Jesus like that? NO! That just goes to show how far the current
> > religions have gone from their origins.
>
> Not true.  I'm sure if Jesus had a gun he wouldn't have let those bastards
> hang him.
>
> "Go ahead...make my day"

Hang him, crucify him... I'll let you slide on that one.

> > What do they have against it? Are they afraid of it?
>
> I don't think there's a problem with religion in general, there's a
> problem with the Christian Right Wing that is filled with ignorant
> bigoted zealots.

There's just as much problem with the Christian Left and its bigoted
zealots. It's only too bad that they work more subtly (and therefore more
dangerously)... They get away with it while the right-wing takes the heat
for it.

> >> What do they have against it? Are they afraid of it?
> >
> > Maybe they believe in reality and not fairy tales?
>
> Liberalism *is* a fairy tale.

No, liberalism is very real. The ideals of liberalism, however, have much in
common with fairy tale endings -- everyone living happily ever after and all
that, except for the villains that happen, in this case, to be anyone who
isn't a liberal.

> > All I know is that science can not explain the origin of the universe,
time,
> > space, matter, and everything.
>
> Science doesn't try to explain the origin of the universe.  It says,
> "The Universe Is."

Uhh, science *tries* to explain everything.
My point was that it doesn't explain everything, but it certainly tries.
Science tries to say, "This is why the universe is...", and indeed there are
several reasons why according to different scientists. Simon says this is a
good reason for philosophy...

> Philosophy says, "Are you Sure about that?"
>
> and Religion says, "Of course I am sure...."

I won't disagree with that. Religion also forgets to mention that is has no
proof, but only hearsay from trustworthy sources. This doesn't make religion
false, mind you, but it makes it difficult for a reasonable person to put
too much faith into it.

> > >Maybe because religion has been the cause of most of the worlds major
wars?
> > >
> >
> > I agree with the above statement.
>
> As an atheist, I disagree.  The role of religion in most wars is
> like that of a team uniform in a sporting event; it is a way of
> quickly identifying who is on one side or the other.

*clap clap clap*
Very good. I wish more people understood that.


> Religion has _stopped_ precious few wars.

Err, in the same way that religion doesn't start wars, it doesn't stop them
either. It's merely a factor. The people do all the fighting, negotiating,
etc.

edje tha ninga <anromsiptagme9p9l@zcookmtchaxsbt.yneet> wrote:

> On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 06:01:15 GMT, "Monkeys need Lovin"
> <gorillaradio@aol.comape> wrote:
> 
> >
> >"Omphalos" <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote in message
> >news:xdmWa.6651$K4.290860@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
> >> What do they have against it? Are they afraid of it?
> >
> >Maybe because religion has been the cause of most of the worlds major wars?
> >
> 
> I agree with the above statement.

As an atheist, I disagree.  The role of religion in most wars is
like that of a team uniform in a sporting event; it is a way of
quickly identifying who is on one side or the other.

I would say that it is more accurate to say that religion was a factor
in almost every war.  That the religious differences between two
countries at war were often emphasized to the troops.  But since in
one war it is the differences between Catholics and Protestants that
were important, and in the next war those differences were papered over
to deal with the obviously much more important differences between
Christian and Muslim, or Christian and native religion.

Religion has _stopped_ precious few wars.  It has exacerbated many,
but sometimes has inspired organizations and individuals to ease
the suffering of war and to work to prevent it.

People start wars, and religion is one of the weapons with which they
fight those wars.

Michael Sandy

> > To a liberal, liberalism is mainstream, and anything in the middle is
too
> > conservative and anything conservative is extreme. Meanwhile, socialism
is
> > liberalism and totalitarianism "isn't so bad", because everyone would be
>
> To a liberal, conservatives are racist hillbilly bible kissing nazis.
> To a conservative, liberals are tree hugging elitist god hating commie
> queers.
> To a moderate, both sides are narrow minded rigid thinking idealogues.
>
> So no matter where you are in the spectrum there's always someone to
> hate.

Err, I'm a moderate, and my personal motto (after long, serious thought on
the matter) is "Truth and Toleration". I hate nothing and no one, and as
part of my own moral philosophy (that is, to try my hardest to tolerate all
and always be truthful), I even tolerate untruth and intolerance. Of course,
I do everything I can to eradicate them... but you have to tolerate them in
order to appeal to those who practice them.

And, um, Nazis were LEFTISTS. "Nationalist Socialism." Hitler denounced God,
did he not? Politically and economically, Nazis were as nearly leftist as
they come. Civil rights might have been more along the lines of what
liberals would call a conservative viewpoint... well, I don't think that's a
fair assertion, but even if you label conservatives as racists, Nazis were
still ultra-leftist in two out of the three major categories of freedom
(political, economic, civic).

On Fri 01 Aug 2003 04:03:13p, "JPM III" <jpmccord@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:bgeh21$o44fb$1@ID-53393.news.uni-berlin.de: 

>> Why is viability the definition of human? Viability is not a logical
>> criterion for abortion. A preborn baby is an individual and a human
>> being, regardless of viability.
> 
> What makes viability illogical? A preborn baby is the presupposed flesh
> attached to its mother that will become a human being, but is not yet.
> The human condition is defined by breathing air. A life in the placenta
> is not a human life. Until the baby is born, it feeds off the mother,
> absorbing her energies and sapping her resources. An unborn child is
> technically no more than a parasite .. a genetically compatible
> parasite.

Why is viability a requirement to be human? Someone on life support
recovering from severe injuries isn't viable without the machines hooked
up to him. Is that person less than human? 
 
>> Furthermore, nonviability is a transient state.
> 
> Transient from "lump of flesh" to "living human being". At the nonviable
> stage, it is not alive, but rather is gathering the ability to live.

Life, (i.e., the life of an individual human being) is a continuum.
Zygote, fetus, infant, child, adolescent and adult all refer to stages of
a human being's life cycle. None of these terms mean "not living." All
human beings come into existence at fertilization and progress along the
life cycle until biological death occurs-whether it be 80 years later from
old age, or 8 weeks later from an abortion. 

How can something be residing inside a woman's womb, possessing its own
body, genetic code, metabolism and destiny; growing, developing and
thriving in its natural environment, and be anything but alive? If preborn
babies are not biologically alive, an abortion to halt their physical
development and remove them from their mother's body would never be
necessary. If a preborn baby's existence was not as biologically
definitive as any other human being's, killing (i.e. abortion) would not
be necessary for his or her removal; perhaps an exorcism would suffice! 
 
>> Why should the fact that a preborn baby is not yet
>> capable of ex utero life be a reason for abortion?
> 
> That's not for us to decide. That's for the mother to decide. Why should
> you get to make the decision for every woman on this planet who might
> have a good reason to have an abortion?

There is never a good reason for an abortion.

Damocles <phaestos2@yahoo.com> wrote:

> >Man, another elitist RPG geek.  Are you people breed somewhere?
> >
> 
>  I own a Xbox and PS2 as well as a home computer, actually. I do
> cheerfully admit to being elitist with regards to politics and current
> events in general. The degree of ignorance displayed here and
> elsewhere in common discourse is nauseating, and shows the rot at the
> core of western "democracy". 

I too am an elitist with regards to politics, but only on issues
about which I consider myself to be more informed on than the
average person.  On some issues I know that I have insufficient
information to make an informed decision, and insufficient time
to really research it myself.  So when such an issue comes up,
I ask my friends and neighbors their opinion and go with that.
Sometimes I simply go by the judgement of one of the few politicians
that I trust.

There are many fields in which a vast majority of the experts are
employed by an industry in that field, and therefore will tend
to have and express certain biases.  _However_, some of the experts
in the field outside of that industry have a greater influence
because a lot of people trust their judgement and analysis more.

If you eliminate the contribution of those who aren't expert on
an issue, you will have decisions made almost exclusively by
those who are employed within that field.

Democracy works if and when there is a network of trust, of
politicians, scientists, media, neighbors etc... who can
be trusted to boil the issue down sufficiently so that people
who have a limited amount of time to contemplate the issue
can come to a decision.

I am an elitist by temperment, but certainly not by policy.  I would
far rather the ignorant debate policy than for said policy to be
determined by experts who shut the ignorant out.  Ignorance, after all,
can be cured.

Michael Sandy

> Case in point: OJ Simpson. He did it? Prove it. He didn't do it? Prove it.
> Failure to prove that OJ did it does not mean he didn't do it. Failure to
> prove that he didn't do it doesn't mean he did it. The burden is on each
> side to prove its case, not on one side to prove its case while the other
is
> simply assumed correct all along.

Um no, that case only went to trial in the first place because there was
sufficent evidence that he was the murderer.
If OJ Simpson was accused of murdering Benny the Carrot-Man who lives in the
heart of the
sun, would that have gone to trial?

If a claim has no evidence, then there is no logical reason to believe it,
and the court will not entertain any request for a trial.

The approach you are suggesting would be a complete adandonement of logical
thinking.

jaeger <jaeger@jaeger.com> wrote:

> In article <bgei4r$o42f2$2@ID-53393.news.uni-berlin.de>, 
> jpmccord@hotmail.com says...
>  
> > And if you stop believing everything your clueless teachers tell you, you'll
> > read up on your own and find that religion is just an idea, and that men
> > started the war.
>  
> Semantics aside, religion was the principle.  The Christians didn't 
> decide to go kill some Arabs because there was nothing better to do.

Arguably, that is _exactly_ why the Crusades started.  You had a bunch
of unemployed knights and mercenaries in the West, and the Head of 
the Eastern Orthodox Church asked the Pope for help, and the Pope
decided to offer absolution or indulgences to everybody who went on 
a Crusade.

Part of the purpose was to keep the skills of knights sharp without
having them kill other Christians.

The Crusades were started, in part, was to give a bunch of men whose
profession was violence something to do _elsewhere_, so they wouldn't
be causing problems in the West.

Michael Sandy

JPM III <jpmccord@hotmail.com> wrote:

> And, um, Nazis were LEFTISTS. "Nationalist Socialism." Hitler denounced God,
> did he not? Politically and economically, Nazis were as nearly leftist as
> they come. Civil rights might have been more along the lines of what
> liberals would call a conservative viewpoint... well, I don't think that's a
> fair assertion, but even if you label conservatives as racists, Nazis were
> still ultra-leftist in two out of the three major categories of freedom
> (political, economic, civic).

Nazis were _not_ Leftists.  However, the ideas of Socialism were _so_
popular in Europe at the time that no popular party could _hope_ to
have widespread support without adopting at least Socialist camoflage.

If you look at 1930s politics in Germany, you will see that the Nazis
fought with the Communists more than anybody else.

Nazi concerns about genetic purity was a conservative position.
Nazi business policy endorsed strong, extremely wealthy corporations
and their heads.  Hardly true Socialism.


If the Nazis were Leftists, then East Germany was a Democracy.  Don't
believe the label.

Michael Sandy

In article <MPG.199454e1f779f0f5989702@news.west.cox.net>, jaeger <jaeger@jaeger.com> wrote:
>In article <bge7cc$ni3e9$4@ID-170553.news.uni-berlin.de>, snubis@com.com 
>says...
> 
>> I never said that. By supporting abortion, liberals argue that unborn 
>> children can be aborted up to childbirth. 
>
>They do?  Last time I checked, nobody was lobbying Congress to allow a 
>healthy 8.5 month old fetus to be aborted.  

You haven't checked too often, then.  There is certainly a degree of 
lobbying for 'late' abortions, i.e. third trimester.  This involves the 
killing of unborn babies that would probably be viable if birth were 
induced.  

They are sliced up alive.  For political reasons, the use of 
anaesthetics is discouraged.

>> In other words, no baby has the right to be born.
>
>Until it's viable, it's a lump of flesh.  Nothing more, with no more 
>rights than a finger or toe.

In most countries where abortion is permitted, second-trimester babies 
may be aborted.  Towards the end of the second trimester, babies are 
certainly often viable, given mild technological intervention such as 
incubation chambers.

- Gerry Quinn

In article <S5BWa.25737$pK2.40444@news.indigo.ie>, gerryq@indigo.ie 
says...

> You haven't checked too often, then.  There is certainly a degree of 
> lobbying for 'late' abortions, i.e. third trimester.  This involves the 
> killing of unborn babies that would probably be viable if birth were 
> induced.  

No, there isn't.  Late term abortions are permitted if the mother's life 
is in danger.  Once that decision is made, what happens to the fetus is 
irrelevant.  It is the holy rollers, who feel in their sense of moral 
superiority that they know better than a doctor how to give medical 
care, who are trying to remove this sometimes necessary practice.
 
> They are sliced up alive.  For political reasons, the use of 
> anaesthetics is discouraged.

The partial birth abortion is a myth propagated by the zealots as a 
shock tactic.  No doctor actually performs them, because there is no 
need.  Either the skull is collapsed inside the mother, or the baby is 
delivered alive.  Once the head of a live and viable fetus has passed 
through the birth canal, the damage has been done and there is no point 
in killing it.

In article <1fz0nsq.yn5quu1pheo7oN%wuggadad@cmc.net>, wuggadad@cmc.net 
says...

> Arguably, that is _exactly_ why the Crusades started.  You had a bunch
> of unemployed knights and mercenaries in the West, and the Head of 
> the Eastern Orthodox Church asked the Pope for help, and the Pope
> decided to offer absolution or indulgences to everybody who went on 
> a Crusade.
 
That sort of depends on whether you consider the "People's Crusade" of 
1095 to be the start, or the first "real" one in 1097.  The crusade led 
by Peter was more akin to a Viking rampage, with some Jew killing tossed 
in, than any sort of holy war.

On Fri 01 Aug 2003 03:57:12p, "JPM III" <jpmccord@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:bgegmp$o79cp$1@ID-53393.news.uni-berlin.de: 

>> > I never said that. By supporting abortion, liberals argue that unborn
>> > children can be aborted up to childbirth.
>>
>> They do?  Last time I checked, nobody was lobbying Congress to allow a
>> healthy 8.5 month old fetus to be aborted.
> 
> In fact, we have very clear restrictions on aborting anything after the
> first trimester. Once it has taken the fetal shape and position, it's
> too late.
> 
> 
>>> In other words, no baby has the right to be born.
>>
>> Until it's viable, it's a lump of flesh.  Nothing more, with no more
>> rights than a finger or toe.
> 
> And who has the right to those fingers and toes? Why, the person to
> whose arms and legs they are connected, of course! The mother has the
> right to decide what to do with her body.

What about Siamese twins. They are connected to each other. What if one is
dependent on the other? Can one who is independent decide that the other
must be removed at the expense of his/her life? 

> Liberals confuse me. They argue their liberal policies, trying to get
> people out of poverty and such, and then they fight against the one
> thing that might actually help to curtail overpopulation, which is the
> number one cause of poverty worldwide.

Overpopulation is a myth. Much of the world's land surface is empty, and
many countries with dense populations have a higher standard of living
than less crowded countries.
 
> Last I checked the religious texts, a baby does not earn a place in
> heave nor hell until it has acquired some moral capacity -- that is,
> until it has been taught right and wrong and how to act one way or the
> other. So technically ending a child's life before, say, age two is not
> necessarily wrong if it does society a greater good.

So the ends justify the means?
 
> But then that's only according to the good book, which most people don't
> seem to live by anymore. (The argument being that it's 2000 years old
> and most of it no longer applies.)

The practice of cooking food is older than that. Does that mean that
cooking food is no longer relevent today?

"Holden" <nothx@ihatespam.com> wrote in message
news:bgdvbi$nmrfu$1@ID-91786.news.uni-berlin.de...

> Why do such things bother so many people? Even if it is intended to do
> nothing more than stir up conversation about the topic, what is wrong with
> that? Granted, it's not on-topic, but it is interesting to hear what
> everyone else thinks about subjects other than video games and this is the
> only way to get this particular group of people talking about it. He
should
> have listed it as OT but other than that, it's pretty easy to not read it
if
> it bothers anyone.
>
> And it's not exactly brilliant, it's a topic that people are interested in
> anyway, and even though he probably can't contribute anything useful to
the
> conversation that doesn't mean other people can't. If he's a troll, he
gets
> a bigger kick out of reading the posts where people are annoyed than he
does
> reading other people's honest discussions on the subject anyway. So great
> job man, you are feeding the trolls more so than anyone else here, thus
you
> qualify as one of the aforementioned idiots by a far greater margin than
the
> rest of us.

And my honest appreciation of the troll caused you to think that I was
annoyed because...?

But, you make some good points.  Certainly not all who are participating in
the discussion are idiots, and even blatant trolls can touch off discussions
that are useful to the participants.

"JPM III" <jpmccord@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bgdusc$nos3a$1@ID-53393.news.uni-berlin.de...
> > > What do they have against it? Are they afraid of it?
> >
> > Because religion of ALL forms is based on myths and stories
> prove it

OK, every religion is based on stories told from the past.  These stories
have not been proven, therfore they are myths.

> > These stories are not factual.
> prove it

The stories can't be proved.  there is nothing whatsoever to prove them.
They are not true.

> >  The "prophets" wrote down their stories - does that make it true?
> so what makes it untrue?

just b/c something is written down does not mean it is true.....

> > No "biblical" events have occurred over the past 1000 years
> we're a world of heathens, didn't you know
>
> > All religions, not just Catholics, were formed this way.
> prove it
>
> > Think about this.  There are religions out there that stress that only
> > members of that religion are going to heaven.  That means everyone else
> who
> > belongs to a different religion does not go to heaven.  What about the
> > innocent baby born in a different country, raised under a different
> > religion, and believing that religion b/c that is what he/she was
taught?
> > This innocent person does not go to heaven according to the other
> religion.
> > If their truly was a GOD, he would not have one religion that is the
> correct
> > one and allow other forms to be out there.  Some people don't have a
> choice
> > in what they believe.  Their society's beliefs are forced upon them.
GOD
> > would not punish them b/c of that.
>
> *plugs ears* lalalalala my god has a bigger dick than your god lalalalala
>
> > Religion is based on fear and money.
> prove it

Every religion promises hell if you disobey them.  thats the fear.  they all
ask for money.

>
> Most religions have it partly right and mostly wrong. There's no sense in
> saying any more than that. Let the people figure out which parts are right
> and wrong for themselves, and stop telling them what they can or can not
> reasonably believe. It shouldn't be your concern.
>
>

"Omphalos" <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote in message
news:4e207b768c1d622284add2779a67ed5a@free.teranews.com...
> On Fri 01 Aug 2003 02:34:53a, "DP" <java2@corningware.net> wrote in
> news:vik2pusvl17da9@corp.supernews.com:
>
> > Religion is based on fear and money.
>
> You really don't know anything about religion, do you.

I know plenty about religion.  They all promised painful damnation or some
sort of hell if you do not follow their laws.  They use this fear to their
advantage.  Name me a religion that does not want money from you.

> > Just about every religion threatens hell or eternal damnation if you do
> > not follow their set of "God's laws". People fear this hell, so they
> > believe the religion.
>
> Wrong. I could say that atheists don't believe in God because they are
> selfish and don't want to be held accountable for their actions.

Incorrect.  People choose the easy way out.  Believe in God and you go to
heaven if it exists.  Don't believe and you go to hell.  Ignorant people
believe this and choose to take the easy way out instead of actually using
their brains and realizing that religions are fantasy organizations.

> > And when the religion says you must tithe 15% to the church, the scared
> > people pay up.
>
> A 'tithe' is 10%. How do expect churches to operate if the faithful don't
> support them? It would like a charity that didn't ask for donations.

Thanks for proving my point.  If "GOD" wanted that religion to worship him
and stay operational, he would make it so b/c he has the power to do
everything, right?  But since that doesn't happen in real life, the humans
running the church build huge extravagant buildings and eat like kings using
money extorted from their patrons.

On Fri 01 Aug 2003 03:58:52p, "JPM III" <jpmccord@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:bgegpt$n1doh$1@ID-53393.news.uni-berlin.de: 

>>>> I never said that. By supporting abortion, liberals argue that
>>>> unborn children can be aborted up to childbirth.
>>>
>>> They do?  Last time I checked, nobody was lobbying Congress to allow
>>> a healthy 8.5 month old fetus to be aborted.
>>>
>>>> In other words, no baby has the right to be born.
>>>
>>> Until it's viable, it's a lump of flesh.  Nothing more, with no more
>>> rights than a finger or toe.
>>
>> An unborn baby is viable. The mother's womb is the natural environment
>> for a human being in his or her first nine months of life. If a
>> land-dwelling mammal were put into water, it would not be viable. If a
>> fish were put on dry land, it would not be viable. Also, as a class,
>> human beings are nonviable relative to the ex-utero environment, yet
>> only for the first five months of life. Thus, for the young preborn,
>> viability is lost only after an abortion; if the procedure itself does
>> not kill, removal from the natural environment does.
> 
> A human does not life its life in the womb. A human that can not live
> its life out in the air of planet earth is not viable.

Why is viability the definition of human?

On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 16:45:47 GMT, Omphalos <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote:

>On Fri 01 Aug 2003 11:18:36a, Mark Morrison <drdpikeuk@aol.com> wrote in
>news:v41liv8r888nrac7msf90r8eb6gljalic9@4ax.com: 
>
>> On Fri, 1 Aug 2003 10:20:36 -0400, "JPM III" <jpmccord@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>>>>> What do they have against it? Are they afraid of it?
>>>>>
>>>>> Why do religious fanatics insist on forcing their morals on everyone
>>>>> else?
>>>>
>>>> What makes you think that only religious people do that?
>>>
>>> Why does everyone answer questions with another question?
>>
>> And what about this sore I have in my mouth ?  I keep poking it with
>> my tongue, but that's just making it worse !
>
>Maybe you should stop putting penises in there.

I need the protein.

-- 

Bunnies aren't just cute like everybody supposes !
They got them hoppy legs and twitchy little noses !
And what's with all the carrots ?  
What do they need such good eyesight for anyway ?
Bunnies !  Bunnies !  It must be BUNNIES !

On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 20:24:25 GMT, Thrasher <spectre911@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 16:23:52 +0100, Mark Morrison <drdpikeuk@aol.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Although Bush Snr. HAS just declared his opposition to same-sex
>>marriages, by intending to have 'marrriage' defined as being man-woman
>>only.
>
>NEWSFLASH!! That *is* how marriage is defined! Look it up in a
>dictionary :p
>
So same-sex couples who have been together for years shouldn't be
allowed all the same rights and benefits as different-sex couples ?

And despite what the church want people to think, nowhere in the bible
does it say homosexuality is wrong.

-- 

Bunnies aren't just cute like everybody supposes !
They got them hoppy legs and twitchy little noses !
And what's with all the carrots ?  
What do they need such good eyesight for anyway ?
Bunnies !  Bunnies !  It must be BUNNIES !

Robert P Holley wrote:
> "Scott" <scottp@columbus.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:iTwWa.8093$IQ2.6908@fe1.columbus.rr.com...
> 
>>>>>Abortion isn't a religious issue, fool.
>>>>
>>>>It is to the religious zealouts who attach "the sanctity of life" to
> 
> the
> 
>>>>argument. *Everything* is religious if someone wants it to be.
>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Just a little humor, you ever notice most of these Pro-Life anti abortion
>>people are in favor of the DEATH penalty.
> 
> 
> It's almost as funny as anti-death penalty folks being pro-abortion,
> wouldn't you say?
> 
> Now what deserves to die more?  A convicted felon or an unborn child?

"Unborn child" is an oxymoron.;)

Leons Petrazickis
import java.lang.disclaimer;

You know what, Omphalos, I LIKE YOU. You're not like the other
people, here, in the trailer park.

Oh, don't go get me wrong. They're fine people, they're
good Americans. But they're content to sit back, maybe
watch a little Mork and Mindy on channel 57, maybe kick
back a cool, Coors 16-ouncer. They're good, fine people,
Omphalos. But they don't know ... what the queers are doing
to the soil!

You know that Jonny Wurster kid, the kid that delivers papers
in the neighborhood. He's a foreign kid. Some of the neighbors
say he smokes crack, but I don't believe it.

Anyway, for his tenth birthday, all he wanted was a Burrow Owl.
Kept bugging his old man. "Dad, get me a burrow owl. I'll never
ask for anything else as long as I live." So the guy
breaks down and buys him a burrow owl.

Anyway, 10:30, the other night, I go out in my yard, and there's
the Wurster kid, looking up in the tree. I say, "What are
you looking for?" He says "I'm looking for my burrow owl."
I say, "Jumping Jesus on a Pogo Stick. Everybody knows
the burrow owl lives. In a hole. In the ground. Why the hell do you
think they call it a burrow owl, anyway?" Now Omphalos, do you
think a kid like that is going to know what the queers are
doing to the soil?

I first became aware of this about ten years ago, the summer
my oldest boy, Hank Jr. died. You know that carnival comes into
town every year? Well this year they came through with a ride
called The Mixer. The man said, "Keep your head, and arms, inside
the Mixer at all times." But Hank Jr, he was a DAAAREDEVIL, just
like his old man. He was leaning out saying "Hey everybody,
Look at me! Look at me!" Pow! He was decapitated! They found
his head over by the snow cone concession.

A few days after that, I open up the mail. And there's a pamphlet
in there. From Pueblo, Colorado, and it's addressed to Hank, Jr.
And it's entitled, "Do you know what the queers are doing to our
soil?"

Now, Omphalos, if you look at the soil around any large US city,
there's a big undeground homosexual population. Des Moines, Iowa,
for an example. Look at the soil around Des Moines, Omphalos.
You can't build on it; you can't grow anything in it. The government
says it's due to poor farming. But I know what's really going on,
Omphalos. I know it's the queers. They're in it with the aliens.
They're building landing strips for gay Martians, I swear to
God.

You know what, Omphalos, I like you. You're not like the other
people, here in this trailer park.

"Mark Morrison" <drdpikeuk@aol.com> wrote in message
news:9ftliv42pbp218o9kot6jo17rn49h2l7nd@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 20:24:25 GMT, Thrasher <spectre911@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 16:23:52 +0100, Mark Morrison <drdpikeuk@aol.com>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>Although Bush Snr. HAS just declared his opposition to same-sex
> >>marriages, by intending to have 'marrriage' defined as being man-woman
> >>only.
> >
> >NEWSFLASH!! That *is* how marriage is defined! Look it up in a
> >dictionary :p
> >
> So same-sex couples who have been together for years shouldn't be
> allowed all the same rights and benefits as different-sex couples ?

I'm a conservative and I fully support gay marriages.

I think homosexuals should have the same "right" to lose half their shit in
a divorce as anyone else.

-- 

"Omphalos" <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote in message
news:xdmWa.6651$K4.290860@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
> What do they have against it? Are they afraid of it?


Is logic a stranger to them? Is the world simply "one group is this" or
"those people
are that"? Why is the sky blue and the sun yellow? And why am I crying in
French? ^_^



Visit The Home Of The Relic!
http://clik.to/relic
Anime Images! FT Lists!
The Briefcase Fulla Rant!
http://www.angelfire.com/anime2/homeoftherelic/page_1.htm
Some of the Loudest Opinions on Earth!

> Man is fallable! Atheism is stupid, theism is stupid, and agnosticism is
the
> intelligent middleground that laughs at all of you for believing something
> you can't prove either way (while still enjoying the debates and seeking
the
> answer).

Yeah right. You think you're smarter than everyone else who believes or
doesn't believe in the unproven because you say "i dunno."

For starters, proving a theory is equivalent to disproving the alternate
theory. In science, we tend to go for the "rejecting the null hypothesis"
approach, because it's easier.

Problem is, science usual can't provide absolute proof because we don't have
good enough measuring tools yet.
But what we can do is extrapolate our existing data and knowledge to make
reasonable assumptions about what can't be proven.

We can rarely say anything with absolute certainty, but that doesn't mean we
should react to everything by saying "i dunno, maybe, maybe not."
We can make reasonable assumptions based on statistical frequency and
common sense.

> "Omphalos" <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote in message
> news:xdmWa.6651$K4.290860@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
> > What do they have against it? Are they afraid of it?

In America, we shouldn't care about a politician's religious views.  Only
that they don't ban worship all together is all we should worry about.
Faith-based policy belongs in states like Iraq and Iran, not here.

Let's keep  our ideologies separate, we are supposed to be killing each
other over them. :)

In alt.games.video.sony-playstation2 JPM III <jpmccord@hotmail.com> wrote:

> The felon, obviously, because something unborn can not die. It is not alive!

Define "alive".

Obviously the cells are alive, since dead things don't grow.

This is the crux of the argument.  When does it stop being just a lump of
cells to being a human being?  There is no real right or wrong answer for
this, since you can support for whatever arbritrary divider you can think
of in some religion or spiritual belief.

On Fri, 1 Aug 2003 14:14:25 -0700, wuggadad@cmc.net (Michael Sandy)
wrote:

>Damocles <phaestos2@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> >Man, another elitist RPG geek.  Are you people breed somewhere?
>> >
>> 
>>  I own a Xbox and PS2 as well as a home computer, actually. I do
>> cheerfully admit to being elitist with regards to politics and current
>> events in general. The degree of ignorance displayed here and
>> elsewhere in common discourse is nauseating, and shows the rot at the
>> core of western "democracy". 
>
>I too am an elitist with regards to politics, but only on issues
>about which I consider myself to be more informed on than the
>average person.  On some issues I know that I have insufficient
>information to make an informed decision, and insufficient time
>to really research it myself.  So when such an issue comes up,
>I ask my friends and neighbors their opinion and go with that.
>Sometimes I simply go by the judgement of one of the few politicians
>that I trust.
>
>There are many fields in which a vast majority of the experts are
>employed by an industry in that field, and therefore will tend
>to have and express certain biases.  _However_, some of the experts
>in the field outside of that industry have a greater influence
>because a lot of people trust their judgement and analysis more.
>
>If you eliminate the contribution of those who aren't expert on
>an issue, you will have decisions made almost exclusively by
>those who are employed within that field.
>
>Democracy works if and when there is a network of trust, of
>politicians, scientists, media, neighbors etc... who can
>be trusted to boil the issue down sufficiently so that people
>who have a limited amount of time to contemplate the issue
>can come to a decision.
>
>I am an elitist by temperment, but certainly not by policy.  I would
>far rather the ignorant debate policy than for said policy to be
>determined by experts who shut the ignorant out.  Ignorance, after all,
>can be cured.
>

That's one of the first actual leftist ideas expressed here, heh. I
don't believe ignorance can be cured, because in most cases it's
willful. Most people don't want to know the truth, they want to
believe comfortable lies that make it easier for them to continue
their day to day lives. It's only when that day to day to life starts
to directly contradict the lies that the system falls apart. The
Soviet Union is a great example of that.

Anyway, I didn't say that everyone couldn't contribute, just that it's
annoying to see so much willful ignorance.   

Omphalos <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote:

>What do they have against it? Are they afraid of it?

Why do Republicans fear the entirely logial seperation of church and
state which is vigorously practiced in ALL civilized contries?

Joe

In alt.games.video.sony-playstation2 Snubis <snubis@go.com> wrote:

> What about the God-hating zealots who want to ensure that the unborn never
> have the right to be born? They are as adamant about what they believe as any 
> religous person would be.

I've never heard of people calling themselves "pro-abortion" running around
blowing up pregnant women...

In alt.games.video.sony-playstation2 jaeger <jaeger@jaeger.com> wrote:
> In article <bge7cc$ni3e9$4@ID-170553.news.uni-berlin.de>, snubis@com.com 
> says...
>  
> > I never said that. By supporting abortion, liberals argue that unborn 
> > children can be aborted up to childbirth. 

> They do?  Last time I checked, nobody was lobbying Congress to allow a 
> healthy 8.5 month old fetus to be aborted.  

Reminds me of that episode of South Park where Cartman's mom wanted to get 
a law passed allowing her to "abort" her son in his 27th trimester...

> > In other words, no baby has the right to be born.

> Until it's viable, it's a lump of flesh.  Nothing more, with no more 
> rights than a finger or toe.

Such is your opinion.  Others feel that once it has a soul, it's human.  
And that this happens once the egg starts dividing.

Again, no right or wrong answers on this.

In alt.games.video.sony-playstation2 JPM III <jpmccord@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Last I checked the religious texts, a baby does not earn a place in heave
> nor hell until it has acquired some moral capacity -- that is, until it has
> been taught right and wrong and how to act one way or the other. So
> technically ending a child's life before, say, age two is not necessarily
> wrong if it does society a greater good.

First, there are many different interpretations of the Bible.  Catholics 
feel that if a baby dies before it's baptized, it goes to purgatory, which 
is rather odd if you think about it...  How is something THAT young 
supposed to be judged unworthy of entering heaven.  Then again, Catholics 
believe that just by being born, you've committed a sin.  (BTW, I'm not 
Catholic.)

Second, there's a whole slew of other religions and beliefs which aren't 
even remotely connected to "the good book".  Who's to say that one 
religion or belief is correct (or even "more correct") than another?

Mark Morrison <drdpikeuk@aol.com> writes:

> And despite what the church want people to think, nowhere in the bible
> does it say homosexuality is wrong.

And nowhere in the Bible does it say "your secular laws must be the
same as your religious laws".

You'd think the conservatives would be *glad* that someone wants to
actually get married instead of just living together :-)

-- 
Darin Johnson
    "Look here.  There's a crop circle in my ficus!"  -- The Tick

In alt.games.video.sony-playstation2 JPM III <jpmccord@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > All I know is that science can not explain the origin of the universe,
> time,
> > > space, matter, and everything.
> >
> > Science doesn't try to explain the origin of the universe.  It says,
> > "The Universe Is."

> Uhh, science *tries* to explain everything.

As does religion.  They're both actually the same in many ways.  Besides, 
studying history you see that science and religion were tightly 
intertwined in ancient civilizations.

> I won't disagree with that. Religion also forgets to mention that is has no
> proof, but only hearsay from trustworthy sources. This doesn't make religion
> false, mind you, but it makes it difficult for a reasonable person to put
> too much faith into it.

*shrug*

Science also has a great deal of faith in it as well.

Which you decide to follow and believe is a separate issue.

Snubis <snubis@aol.com> writes:

> > Yeah, like that Jimmy Carter guy. 
> 
> Jimmy Carter is religious in name only. He's a disgrace to Christianity.

He's religious in action.  He does more for charitable causes than
our other living ex-presidents ever will, and he doesn't just send
money.  When he's at home, he teaches Sunday school.  He will not be
remembered as "that president that plays a lot of golf".  Just
because he doesn't know about the 11th commandment of "thou shalt
not be a Democrat" doesn't mean he isn't religious.  If every
Christian had as much character as Jimmy Carter, the world would be
a much nicer place.

-- 
Darin Johnson
    "Look here.  There's a crop circle in my ficus!"  -- The Tick

"Omphalos" <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote in message
news:xdmWa.6651$K4.290860@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
> What do they have against it? Are they afraid of it?

You are at the wrong newsgroup.

Ok, you've had your fun.

Was there an office pool on how many responses this one would get in the
first day?

I clicked on the cross box next to this one to open up the list of replies
and my computer crashed.

"Omphalos" <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote in message
news:xdmWa.6651$K4.290860@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
> What do they have against it? Are they afraid of it?

"JPM III" <jpmccord@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bgdu5u$nts98$1@ID-53393.news.uni-berlin.de...
> > > > What makes you think that only religious people do that?
> > >
> > > Nobody has claimed that they have.  However, they do tend to wield far
> > > more political power as a group than the non-religious, and can use
this
> > > is a manner that is contrary to the ideals of equality and human
rights
> > > when it benifits their religion over everyone else.
> > >
> >
> > That is a completely subjective statement, and it's also false.
>
> Impossible.
>
> Completely subjective statements can be neither false nor true. They're
> subjective!
>
> A statement can only be false or true if it is objective -- a factual
> assertion -- which is the type of statement made above. Granted, what he
> said was twisted with words that make the facts very hard to check, so
it's
> only as good as a subjective statement, but it is not subjective.
>
>

I apologize, I meant to say that it was a subjective observation, and the
statement's false.

On Fri 01 Aug 2003 04:10:05p, "JPM III" <jpmccord@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:bgeheu$noekm$1@ID-53393.news.uni-berlin.de: 

>>> Sorry junior, but the courts disagree.
>>
>> What's your point? If the courts said that grass is pink with yellow
>> stripes, would that make it so?
> 
> Yes, because that would legally change the definition of what "pink with
> yellow stripes" meant, at least according to the court. You are allowed
> to disagree with the courts' interpretation of anything, but the courts
> are still part of the law of the land, and we are not (directly).

Courts can't change reality.

On Fri 01 Aug 2003 04:32:05p, jaeger <jaeger@jaeger.com> wrote in
news:MPG.19947c33e169e71f989707@news.west.cox.net: 

> In article <36866f548f142dfa4ac364be6bee1cfb@free.teranews.com>, 
> omphalos@wp.pl says...
>  
>> What's your point? If the courts said that grass is pink with yellow
>> stripes, would that make it so? 
> 
> The purpose of the judiciary is to interpret and apply the law, and 
> legal precedent is the primary guide in doing so.  So your analogy is 
> even more pointless than usual in light of the fact that courts don't 
> make laws, best efforts of conservatives to legislate the white 
> christian agenda from the bench nonwithstanding.

What are you talking about? Much of the liberal agenda has become law
because of judges legislating from the bench. 

On Fri 01 Aug 2003 01:49:26p, "Holden" <nothx@ihatespam.com> wrote in
news:bge978$nq4od$1@ID-91786.news.uni-berlin.de: 

> 
> "Omphalos" <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote in message
> news:739fe35b1862b4118c1e746056bab887@free.teranews.com...
>> On Fri 01 Aug 2003 01:16:40p, "Holden" <nothx@ihatespam.com> wrote in
>> news:bge79r$ngflr$1@ID-91786.news.uni-berlin.de:
>>
>> > "Jim Kennedy" <noemail@fake.fake.fake.com> wrote in message
>> > news:pq6livcrla2vfb2evf85frnk23gl9gv716@4ax.com...
>> >
>> >> On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 23:20:37 -0700, jaeger <jaeger@jaeger.com>
>> >> wrote: 
>> >>
>> >>> abortion laws,
>> >>
>> >> Nice quote on the Constitution below that you did. Now please quote
>> >> where in the Constitution it says abortion is a constitutional
>> >> right. 
>> >>
>> >> It isn't. What the liberal Supreme Court did was twist the
>> >> Constitution to support their personel belief that abortion was
>> >> correct.
>> >
>> > If the opposition to abortion is due to religious beliefs, and that
>> > opposition is attempting to make the government enforce that
>> > religious belief on every citizen of the US, then it safely falls
>> > under the jurisdiction of the First Amendment.
>>
>> That's not what the first amendment says. It says that Congress can't
>> make a state religion.
> 
> And that Congress cannot enforce a religion. "Congress shall make no law
> respecting an establishment of religion". To pass laws that state that
> Christian beliefs are mandatory and that US citizens must abide by those
> beliefs even if they directly conflict with that citizen's chosen
> religion is "the establishment of religion". The First Amendment
> guarantees that Congress cannot force religious beliefs on US citizens.

Look, there is always going to be some law that violates someone's
religion. We can't make everybody happy. But, even though it just so
happens that those who are religious oppose abortion, that in and of
itself does not make it a purely religious belief. 

An example of Congress enforcing religion would be more along the lines of
making it mandatory that everyone attend church on Sunday. 
 
>> > (Please note I'm not stating that the only opposition is religious,
>> > just that the religious opposition that does exist is contrary to our
>> > Constitutional rights. There are other pressing arguments in
>> > opposition of abortion that do not rely on religious belief).
>>
>> Wrong. The opposition to murder is a religious belief. Should the
>> government not make any laws concerning that?
> 
> *sigh* as I clearly stated before, there are other pressing arguments
> that do not rely upon religious conviction. I'm an atheist, and the fact
> that I don't want anyone murdering my family has *absolutely nothing* to
> with religion.

And neither does abortion. 

On Fri 01 Aug 2003 01:30:00p, Jim Kennedy <noemail@fake.fake.fake.com>
wrote in news:uf8livsaf6e0h4r5l2sqv4ggc8kpt59pre@4ax.com: 

> On Fri, 1 Aug 2003 12:16:40 -0500, "Holden" <nothx@ihatespam.com>
> wrote:
>
>> "Jim Kennedy" <noemail@fake.fake.fake.com> wrote in message
>> news:pq6livcrla2vfb2evf85frnk23gl9gv716@4ax.com...
>>
>>> On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 23:20:37 -0700, jaeger <jaeger@jaeger.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> abortion laws,
>>>
>>> Nice quote on the Constitution below that you did. Now please quote
>>> where in the Constitution it says abortion is a constitutional right.
>>>
>>> It isn't. What the liberal Supreme Court did was twist the
>>> Constitution to support their personel belief that abortion was
>>> correct.
>>
>> If the opposition to abortion is due to religious beliefs, and that
>> opposition is attempting to make the government enforce that religious
>> belief on every citizen of the US, then it safely falls under the
>> jurisdiction of the First Amendment. (Please note I'm not stating that
>> the only opposition is religious, just that the religious opposition
>> that does exist is contrary to our Constitutional rights. There are
>> other pressing arguments in opposition of abortion that do not rely on
>> religious belief). 
> 
> I understand your point, but I can not see a way to go from:
> 
> Bush is against abortion
> 
> and since
> 
> Bush is religious
> 
> therefore
> 
> His anit-abortion stand violates seperation of Church and State.
> 
> That is a REAL reach and leap in logic.

Another funny thing is that separation of church and state isn't in the US
Constitution.

On Fri 01 Aug 2003 04:34:57p, "JPM III" <jpmccord@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:bgeith$nn5qm$1@ID-53393.news.uni-berlin.de: 

>>>> What do they have against it? Are they afraid of it?
>>>
>>> You kidding me?
>>>
>>> Two words:  Joe Lieberman
>>
>> He doesn't follow the tenents of his religion very well for someone who
>> is suppoesedly religious.
> 
> Says who? Are you *judging* him? Tisk, tisk...

I am making an obvious observation.

In article <e9d07fbe954ce61add52d554def1133f@free.teranews.com>, 
omphalos@wp.pl says...

> Another funny thing is that separation of church and state isn't in the US
> Constitution.
 
As much as I appreciate conservatives' efforts to erase the 1st 
Amendment, it's still there:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

And then there's pesky Article 6:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of 
the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, 
both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by 
oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test 
shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust 
under the United States.

In article <PcadnVeT4Z69ZLeiXTWJjw@comcast.com>, Hank says...
>
>You know what, Omphalos, I LIKE YOU. You're not like the other
>people, here, in the trailer park.
>
>Oh, don't go get me wrong. They're fine people, they're
>good Americans. But they're content to sit back, maybe
>watch a little Mork and Mindy on channel 57, maybe kick
>back a cool, Coors 16-ouncer. They're good, fine people,
>Omphalos. But they don't know ... what the queers are doing
>to the soil!
>
>You know that Jonny Wurster kid, the kid that delivers papers
>in the neighborhood. He's a foreign kid. Some of the neighbors
>say he smokes crack, but I don't believe it.
>
>Anyway, for his tenth birthday, all he wanted was a Burrow Owl.
>Kept bugging his old man. "Dad, get me a burrow owl. I'll never
>ask for anything else as long as I live." So the guy
>breaks down and buys him a burrow owl.
>
>Anyway, 10:30, the other night, I go out in my yard, and there's
>the Wurster kid, looking up in the tree. I say, "What are
>you looking for?" He says "I'm looking for my burrow owl."
>I say, "Jumping Jesus on a Pogo Stick. Everybody knows
>the burrow owl lives. In a hole. In the ground. Why the hell do you
>think they call it a burrow owl, anyway?" Now Omphalos, do you
>think a kid like that is going to know what the queers are
>doing to the soil?
>
>I first became aware of this about ten years ago, the summer
>my oldest boy, Hank Jr. died. You know that carnival comes into
>town every year? Well this year they came through with a ride
>called The Mixer. The man said, "Keep your head, and arms, inside
>the Mixer at all times." But Hank Jr, he was a DAAAREDEVIL, just
>like his old man. He was leaning out saying "Hey everybody,
>Look at me! Look at me!" Pow! He was decapitated! They found
>his head over by the snow cone concession.
>
>A few days after that, I open up the mail. And there's a pamphlet
>in there. From Pueblo, Colorado, and it's addressed to Hank, Jr.
>And it's entitled, "Do you know what the queers are doing to our
>soil?"
>
>Now, Omphalos, if you look at the soil around any large US city,
>there's a big undeground homosexual population. Des Moines, Iowa,
>for an example. Look at the soil around Des Moines, Omphalos.
>You can't build on it; you can't grow anything in it. The government
>says it's due to poor farming. But I know what's really going on,
>Omphalos. I know it's the queers. They're in it with the aliens.
>They're building landing strips for gay Martians, I swear to
>God.
>
>You know what, Omphalos, I like you. You're not like the other
>people, here in this trailer park.
>
>
I like this.......I like it alot. I am going to post this on the message board 
at work. 

> > The lack of factual evidence is reason not to believe them.
> Correct. It is not reason to believe them,

that's right.

> but neither is it reason to
> disbelieve them.

WRONG. Simple probability.
Example: You ask all 7 billion people to write down how many stars
they think there are in the universe.
You collect them all and then pull a number out of the basket.
It reads: There are 7687362846873468743 googleplex stars.

Can you prove or disprove this claim? No.
Should you disbelieve this claim anyway? Yes.
Why? Statistical probabily.
The odds of this statement being correct is 1 out of a pratically infinite
number.
Now, my calculus is a little rusty, but that number effectively equates to
0.
So, it's safe to say this statement is false.

Same goes for any particular claim about supernatural events without
supporting evidence. You can come up with an infinite number of random
explanations for the theory of everything, so the probabilty of any 1 theory
being correct is effectively 0.

> There is a difference between being skeptical and calling
> it wrong or a lie.

Calling it wrong IS the correct logical answer.
In science, we like to have a 95% confidence interval
before we believe something.
0.00000000000000~% probabilty that this statement is true? Forget it.
It's not true.

If you want to believe, or if you believe it is a distinct possibility,
that's fine, but that would be faith, not logic.

Omphalos <omphalos@wp.pl> thought hard and said:

<snip>

I am an atheist. I am also a conservative. Dost thou have something to
say to me?


--
-Kolle; 15                        A.A. #2035
Koji Kondo, Yo-Yo Ma, and Gustav Mahler are my Gods.

Omphalos <omphalos@wp.pl> thought hard and said:

>On Fri 01 Aug 2003 12:59:27p, jaeger <jaeger@jaeger.com> wrote in
>news:MPG.19944a5cc11294aa9896fe@news.west.cox.net: 
>
>> In article <bgdnkt$ni6ie$1@ID-153628.news.uni-berlin.de>, 
>> brian_wolters@yahoo.com says...
>>
>>> They don't. It is they just stand up for common sense, which fell out
>>> of favor during most of the 20th century thanks to Hollywood.
>> 
>> If you equate creationism with common sense then you probably shouldn't 
>> be out on the street.
>
>Evolution sure isn't common sense. Anyone who tries to defend a theory
>with that many holes is a fraud. 

And where did you discover this? 
--
-Kolle; 15                        A.A. #2035
Koji Kondo, Yo-Yo Ma, and Gustav Mahler are my Gods.

"Robert P Holley" <holleyrp@delanet.com> wrote in message
news:bgebc9$o14dc$1@ID-121560.news.uni-berlin.de...
> "jaeger" <jaeger@jaeger.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.199454e1f779f0f5989702@news.west.cox.net...
> > In article <bge7cc$ni3e9$4@ID-170553.news.uni-berlin.de>, snubis@com.com
> > says...
> >
> > > I never said that. By supporting abortion, liberals argue that unborn
> > > children can be aborted up to childbirth.
> >
> > They do?  Last time I checked, nobody was lobbying Congress to allow a
> > healthy 8.5 month old fetus to be aborted.
> >
> > > In other words, no baby has the right to be born.
> >
> > Until it's viable, it's a lump of flesh.  Nothing more, with no more
> > rights than a finger or toe.
>
> Give us the exact cutoff then please.  I assume you feel eight and a half
> months is viable but eight and a half weeks isn't?  So what is the cutoff
> time then?
>
>

Viable is when the fetus can exist outside of the womb with out outside or
medical help.
-- 
"Yeah, I'm stupid, stupid like a fox." - Homer J. Simpson

"You try to make something idiot proof, and along comes a better
iot!"   -Unknown

"jaeger" <jaeger@jaeger.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1994675f969753cc989705@news.west.cox.net...
> In article <bgeca1$nq5ee$1@ID-121560.news.uni-berlin.de>,
> holleyrp@delanet.com says...
>
> > It's almost as funny as anti-death penalty folks being pro-abortion,
> > wouldn't you say?
>
> I don't know.  I love the death penalty and I love abortion.


Im pro death penalty (eye for an eye) and pro CHOICE, im not saying every
woman who gets pregnant should have an abortion but if the mother wants one
thats her business and noone elses, cept maybe the fathers.

if abortion were outlawed the world population would grow so large we
wouldnt possibly be able to feed everyone, hell we have enough trouble with
it now.  Do you really want the US to end up like China where couples can
only have ONE child.


-- 
"Yeah, I'm stupid, stupid like a fox." - Homer J. Simpson

"You try to make something idiot proof, and along comes a better
iot!"   -Unknown

> >
> > That's not for us to decide. That's for the mother to decide. Why should
> > you get to make the decision for every woman on this planet who might
> > have a good reason to have an abortion?
>
> There is never a good reason for an abortion.


So if your daughter (u may not have one now, or may, just pretend you do or
will) got raped at 13 years old and was impregnated you would want her to
have to rear a child at 13 years old with no father?


-- 
"Yeah, I'm stupid, stupid like a fox." - Homer J. Simpson

"You try to make something idiot proof, and along comes a better
iot!"   -Unknown

> > > Until it's viable, it's a lump of flesh.  Nothing more, with no more
> > > rights than a finger or toe.

Problem with this line of thinking is that a finger or toe will
not become "viable" over time.  A fetus will. There is no
denying that, given normal circumstances (ie no miscarrige,
etc) a fetus will develop into a full blown human being over
time.  A living, breathing, thinking individual.

Saying it's a lump o flesh is just a poor rationalization to
excuse the act. To end it's existence, as long as it's BEFORE it's
"viable",  is not somehow magically OK.  It's still ending a life
that will amost certainly develop.  Hopefully one day all of
humanity will wake up to how wrong abortion is.   While there
are a million reasons and rationalizations for it, for the MOST
part, it's nothing more than a get out of jail free card for people
who were careless and don't want to take responsibilty. And
there are so many families that cannot have children that would
gladly take these children in.   But people are selfish and can
rationalize away just about anything if it inconvieniences their
lives.

"jaeger" <jaeger@jaeger.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.19944a294c722b4a9896fd@news.west.cox.net...
> In article <QInWa.262$2g.58@fed1read05>, junkyardNOSPAMwillie@tekken.cc
> says...
>
> > LOL! Even the most blatantly anti-gun supreme court justices recognize
the
> > RKBA applies to an individuals' right to bear arms.
>
> Try to keep up.  Before this became a polarizing issue, the court
> decided that the purpose of the militia was national security.  And
> since a sawed off shotgun serves no purpose in that capacity, the 2nd
> Amendment doesn't protect the right to own one.  Again:
>
> "In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use
> of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at
> this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or
> efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second
> Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.
> Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part
> of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to
> the common defense. Aymette v. State of Tennessee, 2 Humph., Tenn., 154,
> 158."

I honestly wonder if that *state* ruling had gone the other way, would you
be quoting it so readily?  Probably not, no almost certainly not.

> He doesn't follow the tenents of his religion very well for someone who is
> suppoesedly religious.


How so?

--

*  Novus_
~ Novus_0@hotmail.com ~


"Omphalos" <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote in message
news:469ea7a1a3a8cbfdab77b7b3c59008eb@free.teranews.com...
> On Fri 01 Aug 2003 04:54:13a, "Novus_" <Novus_NOSPAM0@hotmail.com> wrote
> in news:bgd9rr$nbqoo$1@ID-164296.news.uni-berlin.de:
>
> >> What do they have against it? Are they afraid of it?
> >
> >
> > You kidding me?
> >
> > Two words:  Joe Lieberman> He doesn't follow the tenents of his religion
very well for someone who is
> suppoesedly religious.
>

"Snubis" <snubis@ilovethemovies.com> wrote in message
news:bge4a4$mnvu8$1@ID-170553.news.uni-berlin.de...
> On Fri 01 Aug 2003 01:45:13a, Brad BARCLAY
> <yaztromo@filter.jsyncmanager.org> wrote in
> news:J7nWa.35537$hOa.4912@news02.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com:
>
> > Florida wrote:
> >
> >>> Why do religious fanatics insist on forcing their morals on everyone
> >>> else?
> >>
> >> What makes you think that only religious people do that?
> >
> > Nobody has claimed that they have.  However, they do tend to wield
> > far more political power as a group than the non-religious, and can use
> > this is a manner that is contrary to the ideals of equality and human
> > rights when it benifits their religion over everyone else.
>
> If they are so powerful, why weren't they able to prevent the rogue
> Supreme Court from overturning state's rights by legalizing faggotry?

What an asshole!  Why do you have to give people with conservative beliefs a
bad name?

"Xbot" <lott@bull.com> wrote in message
news:caWcnav0refGBLeiXTWJiQ@giganews.com...


> Not believing in God is man's natural state,
> which is why the belief has to be drummed into him at an early age before
> he's learned to question and doubt.

I think this point is debatable.  Obviously babies arn't believing in god,
but they haven't developed all of their higher brain functions.  Anyway, the
point being, religious beliefs popped up all over the world, independant of
each other.  This has happened throughout history.  All religion started
WITHOUT someone pounding it into young peoples heads.  Cause, ya know,
religion is invented by adults, at least religions that people subscribe
too.  There is also scientific evidence, that spirituality may be a brain
function.  That humans are hard wired to at least consider a higher power,
or at least the unknown or the unprovable.  You've done this yourself, as
you stated in other posts.


> The only adults who start believing in a
> supreme being are almost without fail people going through a personal
crisis
> looking for a crutch. Some turn to booze, some to drugs, some to gambling,
> some to sex, and some turn to religion. As crutches go, it's perhaps the
> least damaging alternative, but in the end that's all it is.

This is pretty true.  There are exceptions of course.  But for the most
part, yeah, most adults who start believing usually went thru some sort of
trauma.   On the other hand, I'm gonna stop short of calling it a crutch.
Cause I don't find it a particularly useful distinction to make.  Some
people do use it as a "crutch" others I'm sure don't.  It's not this cut and
dry.  Different people have different reasons for believing.  Noy all are
weak minded people, in need of fairy tales to get them through.  I think the
reasons for belief can be very complicated.  Anyway, to summarize, I don't
think it's as easy as calling it a crutch, and calling it crutch sounds
rather derogatory.

Ok, and before ya attack me for being christian.  I'm not.  I don't even
believe in god.  But I'm not an atheist, nor do I wish to be connected to
the word atheist.  See another post for my reasons why.



Gouge

"JPM III" <jpmccord@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bgeiu8$oe9c9$1@ID-53393.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
> "Snubis" <snubis@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:bge5n4$npje2$1@ID-170553.news.uni-berlin.de...
> > On Fri 01 Aug 2003 10:21:58a, Damocles <phaestos2@yahoo.com> wrote in
> > news:brtkivccf6gnrkjmihi04u08r9vj00qf77@4ax.com:
> >
> > > On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 04:43:09 GMT, Omphalos <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote:
> > >
> > >> What do they have against it? Are they afraid of it?
> > >
> > > Yeah, like that Jimmy Carter guy.
> >
> > Jimmy Carter is religious in name only. He's a disgrace to Christianity.
>
> Aren't we all, according to the tenets of Christianity...


No, jesus died for our sins.  All of our sins, past, present and future.  So
we're forgiven for everything in advance.  We can smoke crack, beat our
wives, hurt kids, etc.  We're already forgiven for all that!  So we can't
really disgrace the religion.  At least not in the eyes of jesus!

Woohoo!


Gouge

In article <L_JWa.30872$Mc.2414004@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>, 
blackhole34@yahoo.com says...
> 
> "Snubis" <snubis@ilovethemovies.com> wrote in message
> news:bge4a4$mnvu8$1@ID-170553.news.uni-berlin.de...

> > If they are so powerful, why weren't they able to prevent the rogue
> > Supreme Court from overturning state's rights by legalizing faggotry?
> 
> What an asshole!  Why do you have to give people with conservative beliefs a
> bad name?

And I'm sure he has absolutely no problem at all with Ashcroft trampling 
California's marijuana laws and trying to do the same with Oregon's 
assisted suicide laws(I guess God told him to do that).

In article <muIWa.8168$IQ2.6864@fe1.columbus.rr.com>, 
scottp@columbus.rr.com says...
 
> So if your daughter (u may not have one now, or may, just pretend you do or
> will) got raped at 13 years old and was impregnated you would want her to
> have to rear a child at 13 years old with no father?

Please.  All of these zealots would have their kids on the first plane 
to Sweden the minute they got impregnated by a "socially undesireable".

In article <AoJWa.30866$Mc.2411248@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>, 
blackhole34@yahoo.com says...
 
> I honestly wonder if that *state* ruling had gone the other way, would you
> be quoting it so readily?  Probably not, no almost certainly not.

What's the difference?  The point was to illustrate precedent from a 
time before our courts were apparently overrun by America-hating 
liberals.  

"Robert P Holley" <holleyrp@delanet.com> wrote in message
news:bge1p3$mhll6$1@ID-121560.news.uni-berlin.de...
> "Damocles" <phaestos2@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:pn0liv89qebdcmj6mlsh352qmulu36o5bd@4ax.com...
> > On Fri, 1 Aug 2003 11:06:19 -0400, "Robert P Holley"
> > <holleyrp@delanet.com> wrote:
> >
> > >"Damocles" <phaestos2@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > >news:futkiv4sf4s3od1luvqn42oj9madsk3h9n@4ax.com...

> >  I own a Xbox and PS2 as well as a home computer, actually. I do
> > cheerfully admit to being elitist with regards to politics and current
> > events in general. The degree of ignorance displayed here and
> > elsewhere in common discourse is nauseating, and shows the rot at the
> > core of western "democracy".


LOL.  Not that I disagree, but normally, in this sort of discussion,
ignorance=people who don't agree with my viewpoint
So, yeah, I guess, elitist is the proper term.

> It doesn't demonstate "rot" of anything.  It's just usenet.  Nothing more,
> nothing less.
>

"Damocles" <phaestos2@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:l06mivsbsr61677kdcrhojh30bd6f6crtq@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 1 Aug 2003 14:14:25 -0700, wuggadad@cmc.net (Michael Sandy)
> wrote:
>
> >Damocles <phaestos2@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> >Man, another elitist RPG geek.  Are you people breed somewhere?
> >> >
> >>
> >>  I own a Xbox and PS2 as well as a home computer, actually. I do
> >> cheerfully admit to being elitist with regards to politics and current
> >> events in general. The degree of ignorance displayed here and
> >> elsewhere in common discourse is nauseating, and shows the rot at the
> >> core of western "democracy".
> >
> >I too am an elitist with regards to politics, but only on issues
> >about which I consider myself to be more informed on than the
> >average person.  On some issues I know that I have insufficient
> >information to make an informed decision, and insufficient time
> >to really research it myself.  So when such an issue comes up,
> >I ask my friends and neighbors their opinion and go with that.
> >Sometimes I simply go by the judgement of one of the few politicians
> >that I trust.
> >
> >There are many fields in which a vast majority of the experts are
> >employed by an industry in that field, and therefore will tend
> >to have and express certain biases.  _However_, some of the experts
> >in the field outside of that industry have a greater influence
> >because a lot of people trust their judgement and analysis more.
> >
> >If you eliminate the contribution of those who aren't expert on
> >an issue, you will have decisions made almost exclusively by
> >those who are employed within that field.
> >
> >Democracy works if and when there is a network of trust, of
> >politicians, scientists, media, neighbors etc... who can
> >be trusted to boil the issue down sufficiently so that people
> >who have a limited amount of time to contemplate the issue
> >can come to a decision.
> >
> >I am an elitist by temperment, but certainly not by policy.  I would
> >far rather the ignorant debate policy than for said policy to be
> >determined by experts who shut the ignorant out.  Ignorance, after all,
> >can be cured.
> >
>
> That's one of the first actual leftist ideas expressed here, heh. I
> don't believe ignorance can be cured, because in most cases it's
> willful. Most people don't want to know the truth, they want to
> believe comfortable lies that make it easier for them to continue
> their day to day lives. It's only when that day to day to life starts
> to directly contradict the lies that the system falls apart. The
> Soviet Union is a great example of that.

Again, the use of ignorance, in the political arena, normally means "someone
who disagrees with my position".  Not that there arn't uninformed people out
there, but most uninformed people out there, are as you say, willfully
ignorant.  And most of these people don't want to discuss politics in any
kind of real manner.  This is why they are willfully ignorant, cause they
don't care.  And these normally arn't the folks who pop up in discussions
like this.


> Anyway, I didn't say that everyone couldn't contribute, just that it's
> annoying to see so much willful ignorance.
>

What's annoying to me, is people who think their opinions matter, to
strangers they communicate with on usenet.  Really, people who think their
opinions matter in general.  Usenet or not.  That's the problem with kiddies
on usenet these days.  Mom and dad have taught them they are special, and
what they have to say is important.  I say hogwash.



Gouge

"DP" <java2@corningware.net> wrote in message
news:vilr8bb4v2vtea@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Omphalos" <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote in message
> news:4e207b768c1d622284add2779a67ed5a@free.teranews.com...
> > On Fri 01 Aug 2003 02:34:53a, "DP" <java2@corningware.net> wrote in
> > news:vik2pusvl17da9@corp.supernews.com:
> >
> > > Religion is based on fear and money.
> >
> > You really don't know anything about religion, do you.
>
> I know plenty about religion.  They all promised painful damnation or some
> sort of hell if you do not follow their laws.  They use this fear to their
> advantage.  Name me a religion that does not want money from you.
>
> > > Just about every religion threatens hell or eternal damnation if you
do
> > > not follow their set of "God's laws". People fear this hell, so they
> > > believe the religion.
> >
> > Wrong. I could say that atheists don't believe in God because they are
> > selfish and don't want to be held accountable for their actions.
>
> Incorrect.  People choose the easy way out.  Believe in God and you go to
> heaven if it exists.  Don't believe and you go to hell.  Ignorant people
> believe this and choose to take the easy way out instead of actually using
> their brains and realizing that religions are fantasy organizations.


See, this is my one of my big beefs with atheists.  Or at least most main
stream, self proclaimed atheists.  For whatever reason, most seem to
believe, or at least talk like all religion=christianity.  When bashing
religion, you use all christian terms, such as heaven and hell.  Check it
out, learn a little about other religions and you can be a more well rounded
deity denier.


Gouge

"Jim Vieira" <WhiplashrAT@wiDOT.rrDOT.com> wrote in message
news:STIWa.57335$o27.1236347@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
> > > > Until it's viable, it's a lump of flesh.  Nothing more, with no more
> > > > rights than a finger or toe.
>
> Problem with this line of thinking is that a finger or toe will
> not become "viable" over time.  A fetus will. There is no
> denying that, given normal circumstances (ie no miscarrige,
> etc) a fetus will develop into a full blown human being over
> time.  A living, breathing, thinking individual.
> Saying it's a lump o flesh is just a poor rationalization to
> excuse the act. To end it's existence, as long as it's BEFORE it's
> "viable",  is not somehow magically OK.  It's still ending a life
> that will amost certainly develop.

If you have sex with a condom you're also preventing a life that would
almost certainly develop. Where do you draw the line with your "would've"
agruement?

> Hopefully one day all of
> humanity will wake up to how wrong abortion is.   While there
> are a million reasons and rationalizations for it, for the MOST
> part, it's nothing more than a get out of jail free card for people
> who were careless and don't want to take responsibility.

Yeah, the tired, old, most unethical scenario, used as a sweeping
generalization by anti abortionists, in contrast to the 13 year old
rape victim who cannot financially support a child. Why should we not
consider this scenerio, even if it is more infrequent?

> And
> there are so many families that cannot have children that would
> gladly take these children in.

Yeah right, as if under population and lack of foster children was a
problem.

> But people are selfish and can
> rationalize away just about anything if it inconvieniences their
> lives.

Having a baby is more than a mere inconvenience.

"jaeger" <jaeger@jaeger.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.19951e0b55ced4f2989718@news.west.cox.net...
> In article <AoJWa.30866$Mc.2411248@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
> blackhole34@yahoo.com says...
>
> > I honestly wonder if that *state* ruling had gone the other way, would
you
> > be quoting it so readily?  Probably not, no almost certainly not.
>
> What's the difference?

I can't believe you're actually asking that...

> The point was to illustrate precedent from a
> time before our courts were apparently overrun by America-hating
> liberals.


No, the point was to debunk our U.S. Constitutional rights by using a single
state's court ruling.  You're apparently saying  a soldier could strap on a
flame-thrower, but not a scatter-gun?  Don't make me laugh in your face.

"jaeger" <jaeger@jaeger.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.19951de688e9f0b7989716@news.west.cox.net...
> In article <L_JWa.30872$Mc.2414004@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
> blackhole34@yahoo.com says...
> >
> > "Snubis" <snubis@ilovethemovies.com> wrote in message
> > news:bge4a4$mnvu8$1@ID-170553.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
> > > If they are so powerful, why weren't they able to prevent the rogue
> > > Supreme Court from overturning state's rights by legalizing faggotry?
> >
> > What an asshole!  Why do you have to give people with conservative
beliefs a
> > bad name?
>
> And I'm sure he has absolutely no problem at all with Ashcroft trampling
> California's marijuana laws and trying to do the same with Oregon's
> assisted suicide laws(I guess God told him to do that).

What an idiot!  Of course if the asshole labels gay people's relationships
as "faggotry" he's OBVIOUSLY going to have a problem with marijuana and
assisted suicide laws.  You really have to be an idiot... read a newspaper
and catch up!

Common sense-
There is no "God", religion is made up, but it serves a purpose in society.
Drugs, ALL drugs, should be legal.
Abortion- the more the merrier.
All illegal aliens should be rounded up and shipped out.
Marriage is for a man and woman only.
There should be NO tax breaks for married couples or for children
Gay couples , who wish to forsake all others should have all the benefits
(except tax breaks) as married couples, but it should be called something
other than  marriage.
Quotas are racist
Segregation is racist
Affirmative Action (as it's practiced today) is racist
Criminals have no rights other than basic human rights (neither do illegal
aliens, or battlefield combatants)

This is what I believe.

In article <bgfubi$1mj$1@news.efn.org>, deep_scar@yahoo.com says...

> A person who is willing to sacrifice a little freedom for a little safety,
> deserves neither.  Ok, I'm paraphrasing, that's not the exact quote, but who
> said that?  Was it Thomas Jefferson?

Ben Franklin.

In article <ioLWa.30895$Mc.2418626@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>, 
blackhole34@yahoo.com says...

> What an idiot!  Of course if the asshole labels gay people's relationships
> as "faggotry" he's OBVIOUSLY going to have a problem with marijuana and
> assisted suicide laws.  You really have to be an idiot... read a newspaper
> and catch up!
 
Once again, the point(which was about Federalism since you missed it), 
goes sailing over your head and out of the park.

"Relic" <relic1980@ameritech.net> wrote:

>"Omphalos" <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote in message
>news:xdmWa.6651$K4.290860@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
>> What do they have against it? Are they afraid of it?
>
>
>Is logic a stranger to them? Is the world simply "one group is this" or
>"those people
>are that"? Why is the sky blue and the sun yellow? And why am I crying in
>French? ^_^

Or maybe they don't like having their lives dictated to them by
crooked televangelists.
"It's the 21st century, but where are the flying cars.
"There are no flying cars.
"They promised us flying cars."
     Avery Brooks, IBM commercial

"jaeger" <jaeger@jaeger.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.19953625beb3a93898971b@news.west.cox.net...
> In article <QcLWa.30892$Mc.2418122@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
> blackhole34@yahoo.com says...
>
> > No, the point was to debunk our U.S. Constitutional rights by using a
single
> > state's court ruling.  You're apparently saying  a soldier could strap
on a
> > flame-thrower, but not a scatter-gun?  Don't make me laugh in your face.
>
> Ah, no.  You see, nobody running a well regulated milita is going to be
> handing out flamethrowers to Billy Bob and Cletus.  That's what the
> military is for.
>
> What really makes me laugh is how all the gun freaks think they are the
> ones simply following the letter of the law without any interpretation.

Hmm, gun freaks huh?  Well I don't own a single gun, but If I was in a "well
regulated militia" and flamethrowers were for the military, I guess I'd line
up next to Billy Bob and Cletus with my scatter-gun defending my family,
that way if the "Redcoats" were to come by land or sea, I'd be prepared....
What really makes me laugh is the absurd arguements put forth by liberals
trying to destroy our constitutional rights.
Funny thing about the law and interpetation- the letter of the law allows
for no interpetation.  Besides which, the constitution has nothing to do
with the letter of the law, which is why so many laws are struck down, why
don't you guess as to what those laws such as J.C. (if ya can't guess, I'll
give ya spoilurs at thu end) laws are....


> If that were true, the lobbyists would be pushing for the right of
> anyone to own a nuclear bomb.

Which lobbyists?  The Brady Bill lobbyists???   Or the NRA which is simply
protesting to keep the liberals from striking down the 2nd amendment to the
constitution which *guarantees* our right to keep and bear arms?  Yeah the
liberal rational argument- "The NRA wants the right to keep and bear nuclear
arms!"  Get over your hysteria!





As promised- JC laws- Jim Crow laws- struck down because the were
*unconstitutional*

On Fri, 1 Aug 2003 16:19:57 -0400, "JPM III" <jpmccord@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>Atheism is stupid, theism is stupid, and agnosticism is the
>intelligent middleground that laughs at all of you for believing something
>you can't prove either way (while still enjoying the debates and seeking the
>answer).

 :) you've got a point!
I use often Huxley as a source of my signs.
He was the one who given at the word "agnosticism" the meaning that we
use :)

-- 
Io devo insegnare alle mie aspirazioni a conformarsi ai fatti, 
e non cercare di far armonizzare i fatti con le mie aspirazioni.
www.toto63.net
www.iaciners.org
www.nelbuio.net
www.the-brights.net/

On Fri, 1 Aug 2003 16:42:00 -0400, "JPM III" <jpmccord@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>Uhh, science *tries* to explain everything.

it is not completely true: science tries to knows the world in which
we live, with the goal to use it.
S.J. Gould said often: Science handle the questions that can have an
answer.
I buy this :)

-- 
Io devo insegnare alle mie aspirazioni a conformarsi ai fatti, 
e non cercare di far armonizzare i fatti con le mie aspirazioni.
www.toto63.net
www.iaciners.org
www.nelbuio.net
www.the-brights.net/

In article <xdmWa.6651$K4.290860@twister.tampabay.rr.com>, omphalos@wp.pl 
says...
>
>What do they have against it? Are they afraid of it?

I have resisted joining this thread because the last one got out of hand. The 
only post I made was about a hilarious couple of paragraphs from Death Rides. 
Omphalos could you please take this political crap to where it is supposed to 
be. Please make me understand why you are so ignorant that you can't post this 
stuff in the correct newsgroup? I for one will not post about politics in this 
newsgroup ever again unless its about videogame laws. Have you been banned 
from the political newsgroups Omphalos? Why not post this drivel in there? 

"The Chronic" <blade_@inorbit.com> wrote in message =
news:m6LWa.6560$mv6.1175054@news20.bellglobal.com...
>=20
> "Jim Vieira" <WhiplashrAT@wiDOT.rrDOT.com> wrote in message
> news:STIWa.57335$o27.1236347@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
> > > > > Until it's viable, it's a lump of flesh.  Nothing more, with =
no more
> > > > > rights than a finger or toe.
> >
> > Problem with this line of thinking is that a finger or toe will
> > not become "viable" over time.  A fetus will. There is no
> > denying that, given normal circumstances (ie no miscarrige,
> > etc) a fetus will develop into a full blown human being over
> > time.  A living, breathing, thinking individual.
> > Saying it's a lump o flesh is just a poor rationalization to
> > excuse the act. To end it's existence, as long as it's BEFORE it's
> > "viable",  is not somehow magically OK.  It's still ending a life
> > that will amost certainly develop.
>=20
> If you have sex with a condom you're also preventing a life that would
> almost certainly develop. Where do you draw the line with your =
"would've"
> agruement?

That's why good catholics aren't supposed to use any form of birth =
control. Don't you remember the Sperm Song in Monty Pythons Meaning of =
Life?

>=20
> > Hopefully one day all of
> > humanity will wake up to how wrong abortion is.   While there
> > are a million reasons and rationalizations for it, for the MOST
> > part, it's nothing more than a get out of jail free card for people
> > who were careless and don't want to take responsibility.
>=20
> Yeah, the tired, old, most unethical scenario, used as a sweeping
> generalization by anti abortionists, in contrast to the 13 year old
> rape victim who cannot financially support a child. Why should we not
> consider this scenerio, even if it is more infrequent?
>=20
> > And
> > there are so many families that cannot have children that would
> > gladly take these children in.
>=20
> Yeah right, as if under population and lack of foster children was a
> problem.
>=20
> > But people are selfish and can
> > rationalize away just about anything if it inconvieniences their
> > lives.
>=20
> Having a baby is more than a mere inconvenience.
>=20
> 

In article <MPG.199491c161bd5cb398970b@news.west.cox.net>, jaeger <jaeger@jaeger.com> wrote:
>In article <S5BWa.25737$pK2.40444@news.indigo.ie>, gerryq@indigo.ie 
>says...
>
>> You haven't checked too often, then.  There is certainly a degree of 
>> lobbying for 'late' abortions, i.e. third trimester.  This involves the 
>> killing of unborn babies that would probably be viable if birth were 
>> induced.  
>
>No, there isn't.  Late term abortions are permitted if the mother's life 
>is in danger.  Once that decision is made, what happens to the fetus is 
>irrelevant.  It is the holy rollers, who feel in their sense of moral 
>superiority that they know better than a doctor how to give medical 
>care, who are trying to remove this sometimes necessary practice.

In many countries "the mother's life is in danger" can mean "an 
abortion-friendly counsellor has signed a form saying that bearing a 
child might have adverse psychological consequences for the mother".  In 
short, it's meaningless.

I don't know precisely what medical indications are prescribed for 
late-term abortions in the US; as I have pointed out, viability under 
normal technological interventions begins towards the end of the second 
trimester.
 
>> They are sliced up alive.  For political reasons, the use of 
>> anaesthetics is discouraged.
>
>The partial birth abortion is a myth propagated by the zealots as a 
>shock tactic.  No doctor actually performs them, because there is no 
>need.  Either the skull is collapsed inside the mother, or the baby is 
>delivered alive.  Once the head of a live and viable fetus has passed 
>through the birth canal, the damage has been done and there is no point 
>in killing it.

If they were never performed, a law forbidding them (except to save 
the mother's life, an exemption incorporated I believe in the 
recent US bill) would hardly face such resistance!

As for the expression, I have been unable to find out who originated it, 
and what their views were regarding abortion.  Have you?

Here's an interesting fact: in the UK there is a law against inflicting 
unnecessary pain on unborn animals during scientific experiments.  No 
law makes stipulations regarding pain inflicted on aborted human 
infants.  I think you know why.  Zealotry on this issue cuts both ways, 
and the moral contortions of pro-abortion extremists verge on the 
grotesque.

- Gerry Quinn

In article <vim72c7aco1m1e@corp.supernews.com>, Doug Jacobs <djacobs@shell.rawbw.com> wrote:
>In alt.games.video.sony-playstation2 JPM III <jpmccord@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Last I checked the religious texts, a baby does not earn a place in heave
>> nor hell until it has acquired some moral capacity -- that is, until it has
>> been taught right and wrong and how to act one way or the other. So
>> technically ending a child's life before, say, age two is not necessarily
>> wrong if it does society a greater good.
>
>First, there are many different interpretations of the Bible.  Catholics 
>feel that if a baby dies before it's baptized, it goes to purgatory, which 
>is rather odd if you think about it...  How is something THAT young 
>supposed to be judged unworthy of entering heaven.  Then again, Catholics 
>believe that just by being born, you've committed a sin.  (BTW, I'm not 
>Catholic.)

Actually, there is, or used to be, a fourth place or state called Limbo, 
for just such cases.

As for Original Sin, the basic concept didn't originate with Catholicism 
- and as religious concepts go it seems entirely plausible anyway.

What about the poster earlier in this thread who was going on about 
overpopulation and why it means abortion is right - clearly this person 
has rediscovered the concept of original sin, but his version is much 
more extreme than that of the Catholic Church; he advocates the 
imposition of a secular death penalty just for being conceived and 
contributing to overpopulation...

- Gerry Quinn

"JPM III" <jpmccord@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bgdu7g$nr9f3$1@ID-53393.news.uni-berlin.de...
> > Oh Jesus Christ, not more pathetic idiots posting crap to a games group.
>
> If you're going to pray to the man, at least ask a favor of him. Simply
> acknowledging the obvious is a waste of his, our, and your time.

no offense, but TYPICAL LIBERAL- Ask for something!- not enough to
acknowledge the imaginary man upstairs, but make sure *you* get something
out of it too!  Oh, I want to puke right now!

"The Chronic" <blade_@inorbit.com> wrote in message
news:m6LWa.6560$mv6.1175054@news20.bellglobal.com...
>
> "Jim Vieira" <WhiplashrAT@wiDOT.rrDOT.com> wrote in message
> news:STIWa.57335$o27.1236347@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
> > > > > Until it's viable, it's a lump of flesh.  Nothing more, with no
more
> > > > > rights than a finger or toe.
> >
> > Problem with this line of thinking is that a finger or toe will
> > not become "viable" over time.  A fetus will. There is no
> > denying that, given normal circumstances (ie no miscarrige,
> > etc) a fetus will develop into a full blown human being over
> > time.  A living, breathing, thinking individual.
> > Saying it's a lump o flesh is just a poor rationalization to
> > excuse the act. To end it's existence, as long as it's BEFORE it's
> > "viable",  is not somehow magically OK.  It's still ending a life
> > that will amost certainly develop.
>
> If you have sex with a condom you're also preventing a life that would
> almost certainly develop. Where do you draw the line with your "would've"
> agruement?
>

Hell, what about masterbation, am I murdering millions of unstarted lives
when I masterbate or get into a hot tub?



-- 
"Yeah, I'm stupid, stupid like a fox." - Homer J. Simpson

"You try to make something idiot proof, and along comes a better
iot!"   -Unknown



> > Hopefully one day all of
> > humanity will wake up to how wrong abortion is.   While there
> > are a million reasons and rationalizations for it, for the MOST
> > part, it's nothing more than a get out of jail free card for people
> > who were careless and don't want to take responsibility.
>
> Yeah, the tired, old, most unethical scenario, used as a sweeping
> generalization by anti abortionists, in contrast to the 13 year old
> rape victim who cannot financially support a child. Why should we not
> consider this scenerio, even if it is more infrequent?
>
> > And
> > there are so many families that cannot have children that would
> > gladly take these children in.
>
> Yeah right, as if under population and lack of foster children was a
> problem.
>
> > But people are selfish and can
> > rationalize away just about anything if it inconvieniences their
> > lives.
>
> Having a baby is more than a mere inconvenience.
>
>

In article <viSWa.33904$hc.9202@fe3.columbus.rr.com>, "Scott" <scottp@columbus.rr.com> wrote:
>"Gerry Quinn" <gerryq@indigo.ie> wrote in message

>> What about the poster earlier in this thread who was going on about
>> overpopulation and why it means abortion is right - clearly this person
>> has rediscovered the concept of original sin, but his version is much
>> more extreme than that of the Catholic Church; he advocates the
>> imposition of a secular death penalty just for being conceived and
>> contributing to overpopulation...
>
>I dont think that I was saying a secular death penalty should be put into
>action, I just pointed out one more pro of abortion, I personally THINK,

This "pro" is equally a pro of mass murder.

>that ONLY the IMPREGNATED MOTHER has the right to choose or not choose
>abortion, regardless of what ANYONE else thinks.  If you all are so against

There are at least two human beings (one unambiguously a human being, 
and the other with at least reasonable arguments to be made in its 
favour) who have a legitimate interest in the decision.

>PRO CHOICE why dont you go to an abortion clinic and offer to take these
>babies off of the mothers hands once they are born?

There are huge numbers of willing adoptive parents in the West, far 
greater than the number of healthy potential adoptees.  One has an 
impression that social services do all they can to discourage adoption, 
perhaps - I cannot help suspecting - because it is potentially a threat 
to the abortion industry.

- Gerry Quinn

"The Chronic" <blade_@inorbit.com> wrote in message
news:m6LWa.6560$mv6.1175054@news20.bellglobal.com...
> If you have sex with a condom you're also preventing a life that would
> almost certainly develop. Where do you draw the line with your "would've"
> agruement?

That's taking respnosibility ahead of time, which I endorse. I'm not
Catholic or anything.   I draw the line once the woman is pregnant.

> Yeah, the tired, old, most unethical scenario, used as a sweeping
> generalization by anti abortionists, in contrast to the 13 year old
> rape victim who cannot financially support a child. Why should we not
> consider this scenerio, even if it is more infrequent?

Rape and cases where the child can be proven will be horribly
deformed or something are the only cases in which I can stomach
it.   But to just save some 16 year olds from the pain that they
caused by being irresponsible I cannot stomach.  Nor should
anyone with a conscience.

> Yeah right, as if under population and lack of foster children was a
> problem.

Well my impression was that there are many couples who are trying
to get adopted children and have been waiting for years to get one.
If I'm wrong about that, fine.  But still, there are many people who
would gladly take in a child and raise it, rather than see it be
killed.

> Having a baby is more than a mere inconvenience.

*shrug* People should take responsibility for their actions. I
absoultely cannot understand people that are willing to KILL
a child becuase it will make someones life more miserable.
That's just backwards logic.  They did the deed, they should
take responsibilty.  There are people that would adopt the
child after it was born.   Overpopulation is also just a
horrible rationalization for killing.

I'm sorry to see that you tried to pigeon-hole me as a right
wing zealot and tried to paint me as more extremeist than
I am. I'm simply trying to make the point that if a woman
is pregnant, the great likelyhood is that 9 months later a
healthy baby pops out.  To do anything to stop that, after
conception, is ending that life.  Everything else is a side
issue that just clouds the issue and makes excuses and
rationalizes the act away.  I repeat, I hope that everyone
in the world wakes up to this one day and the practice
ends up only being used in extreme cases like rape.

Jim

"Scott" <scottp@columbus.rr.com> wrote in message
news:WbSWa.33857$hc.28225@fe3.columbus.rr.com...

> Hell, what about masterbation, am I murdering millions of unstarted lives
> when I masterbate or get into a hot tub?

Can you come up with any more ridiculous examples to try to make
your point of view?  Could you please continue to try to lump me
in with people who are much more extreme in an attempt to bolster
your own case?  Can you even make a case (logically) for abortion
itself, or do you only have the ability to continually paint those
against it as extremists who have no pity on poor 13 year olds who
are raped, or believe nonsense like sex with contraception is wrong,
etc?

"Jim Vieira" <WhiplashrAT@wiDOT.rrDOT.com> wrote in message
news:8gUWa.69527$6a3.1756429@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
>
> "Scott" <scottp@columbus.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:WbSWa.33857$hc.28225@fe3.columbus.rr.com...
>
> > Hell, what about masterbation, am I murdering millions of unstarted
lives
> > when I masterbate or get into a hot tub?
>
> Can you come up with any more ridiculous examples to try to make
> your point of view?  Could you please continue to try to lump me
> in with people who are much more extreme in an attempt to bolster
> your own case?  Can you even make a case (logically) for abortion
> itself, or do you only have the ability to continually paint those
> against it as extremists who have no pity on poor 13 year olds who
> are raped, or believe nonsense like sex with contraception is wrong,
> etc?
>

Excuse me, I didn't read closely enough and though you were the same
person that I had already responded to in my other message.  I was wrong
to do so and lumped you in with him. Forget what I said for the most part
please.  But I do think it's getting a bit crazy to suggest that
masturbation
or getting in a hot tub kills lives. Just because some religious zealots
believe that doesn't mean I do. I'm trying to look at it objectivley.  I
will admidt that there are reasons for abortion to ok.  In the case of
a threat to the life of the mother... or cases of someone being raped
and being forced to carry a child from a sicko pervert.... I don't like
this at all. It's the only way I can stomach the act. But that's not what
we have now.   And what we have now goes TOO FAR in my opinion.

Surely there is some middle ground that would be acceptable to everyone.

In article <1PMWa.30913$Mc.2423475@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>, 
blackhole34@yahoo.com says...

> Okay since I can't catch a point like a fly ball, why don't you cite the
> time I missed the first point and re-explain for my dumb-country ass the
> "Federalism" point I missed this time.  And if you try and get away with
> some bullshit woman crap like "If you don't know I'm not going to tell you"
> you'll lose *all* credibility.

The point, Mr. Leghorn, was to inquire about the potential hypocrisy of 
only supporting states rights when the rights in question happen to 
follow your own small-minded beliefs.

"jaeger" <jaeger@jaeger.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.19953228828899f4989719@news.west.cox.net...
> In article <bgfubi$1mj$1@news.efn.org>, deep_scar@yahoo.com says...
>
> > A person who is willing to sacrifice a little freedom for a little
safety,
> > deserves neither.  Ok, I'm paraphrasing, that's not the exact quote, but
who
> > said that?  Was it Thomas Jefferson?
>
> Ben Franklin.

Thanks, you saved me the several seconds it would've taken to do a google
search.


Gouge

In article <G0PWa.25778$pK2.40447@news.indigo.ie>, gerryq@indigo.ie 
says...
 
> If they were never performed, a law forbidding them (except to save 
> the mother's life, an exemption incorporated I believe in the 
> recent US bill) would hardly face such resistance!

Why?  Several reasons.  One, the God-people can feel like they're 
actually doing something constructive in Congress aside from wasting 
taxpayers money.  But the far more sinister reason is that it sets legal 
precedent for taking the decisions regarding medical care OUT of the 
hands of doctors and INTO the hands of politicians.  So while the 
partial birth ban won't stop one single abortion from being performed, 
the next time these lunatics want to make their morals a law they can 
point to it and say "well, here is a case where we know better than 
doctors how to care for women patients!"  And it doesn't have to stop at 
abortion.  Care involving STD's, drug rehab, domestic abuse...you know, 
all the things the people wouldn't have to deal with if only they were 
more moral.  The good news is that the Supreme Court already struck this 
down once, they will almost certainly do so again.

> As for the expression, I have been unable to find out who originated it, 
> and what their views were regarding abortion.  Have you?

What expression?  Partial Birth?  It was coined by a Senator for shock 
value.  The American Medical Association recognizes no such procedure.

"Omphalos" <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote in message
news:81cb53db7a400bc88d6982c16604a94b@free.teranews.com...
> On Fri 01 Aug 2003 04:34:57p, "JPM III" <jpmccord@hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:bgeith$nn5qm$1@ID-53393.news.uni-berlin.de:
>
> >>>> What do they have against it? Are they afraid of it?
> >>>
> >>> You kidding me?
> >>>
> >>> Two words:  Joe Lieberman
> >>
> >> He doesn't follow the tenents of his religion very well for someone who
> >> is suppoesedly religious.
> >
> > Says who? Are you *judging* him? Tisk, tisk...
>
> I am making an obvious observation.

It's funny to watch you continually stumble into your own traps.

Chris Woods

In article <bgftl6$13u$1@news.efn.org>, Gouge <deep_scar@yahoo.com> 
writes
>See, this is my one of my big beefs with atheists.  Or at least most main
>stream, self proclaimed atheists.  For whatever reason, most seem to
>believe, or at least talk like all religion=christianity.  When bashing
>religion, you use all christian terms, such as heaven and hell.  Check it
>out, learn a little about other religions and you can be a more well rounded
>deity denier.
>
That's right. And then you might notice that mankind has worshipped at 
least 18,000 different gods, so at least 17,999 of them must have been 
false. Nobody has any difficulty claiming that all the other gods - 
apart from the one that they personally support - are false. This 
despite the fact that the "evidence" for all these gods is of the same 
quality - personal revelation, claims from authority, visions under 
conditions of physical or mental stress and so on. So if we are going to 
discount 17,999 gods, all of which have this kind of evidence, why not 
take the final logical step and discard the last one as well?
-- 
John Secker

On Fri 01 Aug 2003 06:04:03p, jaeger <jaeger@jaeger.com> wrote in
news:MPG.199491c161bd5cb398970b@news.west.cox.net: 

> In article <S5BWa.25737$pK2.40444@news.indigo.ie>, gerryq@indigo.ie 
> says...
> 
>> You haven't checked too often, then.  There is certainly a degree of 
>> lobbying for 'late' abortions, i.e. third trimester.  This involves the
>> killing of unborn babies that would probably be viable if birth were 
>> induced.  
> 
> No, there isn't.  Late term abortions are permitted if the mother's life
> is in danger.  Once that decision is made, what happens to the fetus is 
> irrelevant.  It is the holy rollers, who feel in their sense of moral 
> superiority that they know better than a doctor how to give medical 
> care, who are trying to remove this sometimes necessary practice.
>  
>> They are sliced up alive.  For political reasons, the use of 
>> anaesthetics is discouraged.
> 
> The partial birth abortion is a myth propagated by the zealots as a 
> shock tactic. 

In your dream world. What else would you call that type of abortion?

> No doctor actually performs them,

Because it's not legal.

On Fri 01 Aug 2003 04:12:51p, Del <Del@gaffe.demon.co.uk> wrote in
news:Xk+QwS8DnsK$Ew1p@gaffe.demon.co.uk: 

> JPM III <jpmccord@hotmail.com> writes
>
>>>> There is no one advocating that all babies be aborted. the stance is
>>>> pro-*choice*, which is to say that the pro-choice movement isn't
>>>> trying to tell you to keep or abort your child, they want to ensure
>>>> that you have the right to make that decision yourself. The
>>>> opposition would take that choice away from you altogether and force
>>>> you to abide by their religous beliefs whether you like it or not.
>>>> See the difference now? 
>>>
>>> I never said that. By supporting abortion, liberals argue that unborn
>>> children can be aborted up to childbirth. In other words, no baby has
>>> the right to be born.
>>
>> That is correct, sir. No baby has the right to be born, but mostly
>> because it has already been born. Before it is born, it is not a baby.
>> It is a fetus. There may be little biological difference, but that is
>> the distinction.
> 
> Oh for fuck's sake, knock it off the lot of you. Or at least take it to 
> groups where religion and politics are on topic.

Is someone putting a gun to your head and making you read this thread?

On Sat 02 Aug 2003 02:02:58a, "Scott" <scottp@columbus.rr.com> wrote in
news:muIWa.8168$IQ2.6864@fe1.columbus.rr.com: 

>>> That's not for us to decide. That's for the mother to decide. Why
>>> should you get to make the decision for every woman on this planet
>>> who might have a good reason to have an abortion?
>>
>> There is never a good reason for an abortion.
>
> So if your daughter (u may not have one now, or may, just pretend you do
> or will) got raped at 13 years old and was impregnated you would want
> her to have to rear a child at 13 years old with no father?

The girl has been subjected to an ugly trauma, and she needs love, support
and help. But she has been the victim of one violent act. Should we now
ask her to be a party to a second violent act -that of abortion?
Unquestionably, many would return the violence of killing an innocent baby
for the violence of rape. But, before making this decision, remember that
most of the trauma has already occurred. She has been raped. That trauma
will live with her all her life. She has finally asked for help, has
shared her upset, and should be in a supportive situation. 

The utilitarian question from the mother's stand-point is whether or not
it would now be better to kill the developing baby within her. But will
abortion now be best for her, or will it bring her more harm yet? What has
happened and its damage has already occurred. 

She's old enough to know and have an opinion as to whether she carries a
"baby" or a "blob of protoplasm." Will she be able to live comfortably
with the memory that she "killed her developing baby"? Or would she
ultimately be more mature and more at peace with herself if she could
remember that, even though she became pregnant unwillingly, she
nevertheless solved her problem by being unselfish, by giving of herself
and of her love to an innocent baby, who had not asked to be created, to
deliver, perhaps to place for adoption, if she decides that is what is
best for her baby. Compare this memory with the woman who can only look
back and say, "I killed my baby." 

"Interestingly, the pregnant rape victim�s chief complaint is not that she
is unwillingly pregnant, as bad as the experience is. The critical moment
is fleeting in this area. It frequently pulls families together like never
before. When women are impregnated through rape, their condition is
treated in accordance, as are their families. 

"We found this experience is forgotten, replaced by remembering the
abortion, because it is what they did." M. Uchtman, Director, Suiciders
Anonymous, Report to Cincinnati City Council, Sept. 1, 1981. 

"In the majority of these cases, the pregnant victim�s problems stem more
from the trauma of rape than from the pregnancy itself."  Mahkorn & Dolan,
"Sexual Assault & Pregnancy." In New Perspectives on Human Abortion,
University Publishers of Amer., 1981, pp. 182-199 239. 

As to what factors make it most difficult to continue her pregnancy, the
opinions, attitudes, and beliefs of others were most frequently cited; in
other words, how her loved ones treated her. Mahkorn, "Pregnancy & Sexual
Assault." In Psychological Aspects of Abortion, University Publishers of
Amer., 1979, pp. 53-72.

On Sat 02 Aug 2003 04:02:09a, jaeger <jaeger@jaeger.com> wrote in
news:MPG.19951deb5f733d13989717@news.west.cox.net: 

> All of these zealots

Pot, kettle, black.

On Sat 02 Aug 2003 01:12:59p, "Scott" <scottp@columbus.rr.com> wrote in
news:viSWa.33904$hc.9202@fe3.columbus.rr.com: 

> I dont think that I was saying a secular death penalty should be put
> into action, I just pointed out one more pro of abortion, I personally
> THINK, that ONLY the IMPREGNATED MOTHER has the right to choose or not
> choose abortion, regardless of what ANYONE else thinks.

Why? The baby is still half the father's.

On Fri 01 Aug 2003 12:46:16p, "Xbot" <lott@bull.com> wrote in
news:caWcnav0refGBLeiXTWJiQ@giganews.com: 

> Not believing in God is man's natural state

There is no society that is naturally atheistic.

On Sat 02 Aug 2003 04:54:37p, jaeger <jaeger@jaeger.com> wrote in
news:MPG.1995d2f569fb9839989720@news.west.cox.net: 

> In article <G0PWa.25778$pK2.40447@news.indigo.ie>, gerryq@indigo.ie 
> says...
>  
>> If they were never performed, a law forbidding them (except to save 
>> the mother's life, an exemption incorporated I believe in the 
>> recent US bill) would hardly face such resistance!
> 
> Why?  Several reasons.  One, the God-people can feel like they're 
> actually doing something constructive in Congress aside from wasting 
> taxpayers money.  But the far more sinister reason is that it sets legal
> precedent for taking the decisions regarding medical care OUT of the 
> hands of doctors and INTO the hands of politicians.  So while the 
> partial birth ban won't stop one single abortion from being performed, 
> the next time these lunatics want to make their morals a law they can 
> point to it and say "well, here is a case where we know better than 
> doctors how to care for women patients!"  And it doesn't have to stop at
> abortion.  Care involving STD's, drug rehab, domestic abuse...you know, 
> all the things the people wouldn't have to deal with if only they were 
> more moral.  The good news is that the Supreme Court already struck this
> down once, they will almost certainly do so again.
> 
>> As for the expression, I have been unable to find out who originated
>> it, and what their views were regarding abortion.  Have you?
> 
> What expression?  Partial Birth?  It was coined by a Senator for shock 
> value.  The American Medical Association recognizes no such procedure.

The American Medical Association is also heavily influenced by politics
and is a crock. Any medical organization that changes the medical status
of homosexuality, not by any medical evidence, but by a vote of less than
20% of its members is a fraud. 

"Omphalos" <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote in message =
news:b84703939e70f3ff51e62ea418136ccb@free.teranews.com...
> On Fri 01 Aug 2003 01:44:20p, jaeger <jaeger@jaeger.com> wrote in
> news:MPG.199454e1f779f0f5989702@news.west.cox.net:=20
>=20
> > In article <bge7cc$ni3e9$4@ID-170553.news.uni-berlin.de>, =
snubis@com.com
> > says...
> > =20
> >> I never said that. By supporting abortion, liberals argue that =
unborn=20
> >> children can be aborted up to childbirth.=20
> >=20
> > They do?  Last time I checked, nobody was lobbying Congress to allow =
a=20
> > healthy 8.5 month old fetus to be aborted. =20
>=20
> Ever heard of partial birth abortion? If abortion is unchecked, we =
will
> get to that point. Some counties even have legalized euthanasia, like
> Holland. Of course, what *isn't* legal in Holland these days.

Do you have a womb or live in Holland? If not what fucking business is =
it of yours. Why do you start these topics in the first place? What =
possible reason was there to post this bullshit to game groups? All you =
like to do is start trouble. Please move to Holland so you can be =
euthanized.

On Fri 01 Aug 2003 11:23:23p, jaeger <jaeger@jaeger.com> wrote in
news:MPG.1994dc94e72df812989711@news.west.cox.net: 

> In article <e9d07fbe954ce61add52d554def1133f@free.teranews.com>, 
> omphalos@wp.pl says...
> 
>> Another funny thing is that separation of church and state isn't in the
>> US Constitution.
>  
> As much as I appreciate conservatives' efforts to erase the 1st 
> Amendment, it's still there:

There is nothing in the First Ammendment that says anything about the
separation of church and state. The concept of "Separation of Church and 
State" comes from a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1802, thirteen years 
after the Constitution was signed. Liberals often try to makes Thomas 
Jefferson some kind of expert on the First Ammendment even though he had 
nothing to do with writing it.
 
> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion
>
> And then there's pesky Article 6:
> 
> The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of 
> the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers,
> both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by 
> oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test
> shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust 
> under the United States.

What's your point?

On Sat 02 Aug 2003 10:53:50a, "Buckaroo Banzai" <blackhole34@yahoo.com>
wrote in news:2gQWa.129514$Io.10994372@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net: 

> "JPM III" <jpmccord@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:bgdu7g$nr9f3$1@ID-53393.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
>>> Oh Jesus Christ, not more pathetic idiots posting crap to a games
>>> group. 
>>
>> If you're going to pray to the man, at least ask a favor of him. Simply
>> acknowledging the obvious is a waste of his, our, and your time.
> 
> no offense, but TYPICAL LIBERAL- Ask for something!- not enough to
> acknowledge the imaginary man upstairs, but make sure *you* get
> something out of it too!  Oh, I want to puke right now!

Try not to get any on my shoes.

On Fri 01 Aug 2003 01:24:56p, jaeger <jaeger@jaeger.com> wrote in
news:MPG.1994505059c4598b989701@news.west.cox.net: 

> In article <63e166c56b852aa48f005b0c64a6d62f@free.teranews.com>, 
> omphalos@wp.pl says...
>  
>> Evolution sure isn't common sense. Anyone who tries to defend a theory
>> with that many holes is a fraud. 
> 
> You're 99% chimpanzee.  Deal with it.

Why do we not look or act like chimpanzees if our genetic material is so
similar?

Studies specify that even if all of the human genes were different from
those of a chimp, the DNA of both could still be 95 percent similar if the
'junk' DNA of humans and chimps were the same.

"Because DNA is a linear array of those four bases�A,G,C, and T�only four
possibilities exist at any specific point in a DNA sequence. The laws of
chance tell us that two random sequences from species that have no
ancestry in common will match at about one in every four sites. Thus even
two unrelated DNA sequences will be 25 percent identical, not 0 percent
identical (Jonathan Marks, "98% Alike? (What Similarity to Apes Tells Us
About Our Understanding of Genetics)," The Chronicle of Higher Education,
May 12., p. B-7)."

Therefore all earth based life would be at least 25% identical to humans.
Would it be accurate to say that a pine tree is 25 % human? The idea of a
tree is 25% human is ridiculous.

Jonathan Marks also says this:

"Moreover, the genetic comparison is misleading because it ignores
qualitative differences among genomes.... Thus, even among such close
relatives as human and chimpanzee, we find that the chimp�s genome is
estimated to be about 10 percent larger than the human�s; that one human
chromosome contains a fusion of two small chimpanzee chromosomes; and that
the tips of each chimpanzee chromosome contain a DNA sequence that is not
present in humans." (B-7) 

The 5% difference in chimps and humans totals 150,000,000 DNA base
pairs that are dissimilar between them. The "5%" devaiation in human and
chimp DNA makes all the difference in the world. 

On Fri 01 Aug 2003 09:52:05p, Joe62 <NOSPAMjmcginn@shaw.ca> wrote in
news:cb6miv84fvaoajlq04ggo7ls90gd450m7u@4ax.com: 

> Omphalos <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote:
> 
>> What do they have against it? Are they afraid of it?
> 
> Why do Republicans fear the entirely logial seperation of church and
> state which is vigorously practiced in ALL civilized contries?

And the United States happens to be a civilization that doesn't practice
it. Why should we do something just because other countries happen to do
it?

"Leviathan" <leviathan@matrixm.com> wrote in message
news:6MZWa.11574$qg3.591678@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
> On Fri 01 Aug 2003 12:46:16p, "Xbot" <lott@bull.com> wrote in
> news:caWcnav0refGBLeiXTWJiQ@giganews.com:
>
> > Not believing in God is man's natural state
>
> There is no society that is naturally atheistic.

Did you see the word "society" in my post? I was talking about individual
people. How many people do you know who pop out of the womb believing in
God? How many would develop such a belief on their own in this day and age
without having it brainwashed into them at an early age? It's not like
there's a talking, burning bush or angel cropping up every ten meters - that
only happens in the realm of fiction.

On Fri 01 Aug 2003 06:38:02p, "DP" <java2@corningware.net> wrote in
news:vilr8bb4v2vtea@corp.supernews.com: 

> "Omphalos" <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote in message
> news:4e207b768c1d622284add2779a67ed5a@free.teranews.com...
>
>> On Fri 01 Aug 2003 02:34:53a, "DP" <java2@corningware.net> wrote in
>> news:vik2pusvl17da9@corp.supernews.com:
>>
>>> Religion is based on fear and money.
>>
>> You really don't know anything about religion, do you.
> 
> I know plenty about religion.  They all promised painful damnation or
> some sort of hell if you do not follow their laws.  They use this fear
> to their advantage.  Name me a religion that does not want money from
> you.

Religions don't want money, but churches rely on donations from the church
members to pay the bills. 
 
>>> Just about every religion threatens hell or eternal damnation if you
>>> do not follow their set of "God's laws". People fear this hell, so
>>> they believe the religion.
>>
>> Wrong. I could say that atheists don't believe in God because they are
>> selfish and don't want to be held accountable for their actions.
> 
> Incorrect.  People choose the easy way out.  Believe in God and you go
> to heaven if it exists.  Don't believe and you go to hell.

Sorry, pal. It isn't quite that simple. Satan believes in God, but that
doesn't help his situation much. 

> Ignorant people believe this and choose to take the easy way out instead
> of actually using their brains and realizing that religions are fantasy
> organizations. 
> 
>>> And when the religion says you must tithe 15% to the church, the
>>> scared people pay up.
>>
>> A 'tithe' is 10%. How do expect churches to operate if the faithful
>> don't support them? It would like a charity that didn't ask for
>> donations. 
> 
> Thanks for proving my point.  If "GOD" wanted that religion to worship
> him and stay operational, he would make it so b/c he has the power to do
> everything, right?

Uh, no. This would defeat the entire purpose of faith. Why do you claim to 
know better than God?

> But since that doesn't happen in real life, the
> humans running the church build huge extravagant buildings and eat like
> kings using money extorted from their patrons.

You really need to cut back on TBN.

On Fri 01 Aug 2003 04:24:09p, "JPM III" <jpmccord@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:bgei99$nlhc7$1@ID-53393.news.uni-berlin.de: 

> "Omphalos" <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote in message
> news:0d172129232e5c3294fa6ebec0a05a60@free.teranews.com...
>
>> On Fri 01 Aug 2003 02:21:39a, jaeger <jaeger@jaeger.com> wrote in
>> news:MPG.1993b4e023fd73f39896f8@news.west.cox.net:
>>
>>> In article <TCnWa.260$2g.36@fed1read05>,
>>> junkyardNOSPAMwillie@tekken.cc says...
>>>
>>>> Left-wingers don't like religion because (most) religions have
>>>> concepts of "right" and "wrong."
>>>
>>> I don't need some ancient moldy book of lies to tell me right from
>>> wrong.
>>
>> Of course not. Since you are a liberal, you enjoy making up your own
>> definitions of right and wrong because that way, you don't have to hold
>> yourself accountable to your actions.
>>
>> Liberals are tolerant all everyone's beliefs...as long as everyone
>> thinks like a liberal.
> 
> To a liberal, liberalism is mainstream, and anything in the middle is
> too conservative and anything conservative is extreme. Meanwhile,
> socialism is liberalism and totalitarianism "isn't so bad", because
> everyone would be treated the same.

Ever notice that when liberals run for office, they almost never run as
liberals. They always run as moderates because America hasn't embraced
liberalism. Liberalism doesn't represent America. That's why liberals rely
so heavily on unelected judges-for-life to legislate from the bench. 

On Sat 02 Aug 2003 12:37:48a, Daniel Kolle <DKolle@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:avfmivo35br2ki442okve574hcrhulo0rn@4ax.com: 

> Omphalos <omphalos@wp.pl> thought hard and said:
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I am an atheist. I am also a conservative. Dost thou have something to
> say to me?

No. You're not a Democrat who hates religion.

On Sat 02 Aug 2003 09:43:28p, "Bugman" <bugman@keynet.net> wrote in
news:bJ-cnRGAjN--9bGiXTWJkw@giganews.com: 

> Do you have a womb or live in Holland? If not what fucking business is
> it of yours. Why do you start these topics in the first place? What
> possible reason was there to post this bullshit to game groups? All you
> like to do is start trouble. Please move to Holland so you can be
> euthanized. 

Typical liberal. Wants to silence anyone who disagrees with him.

"Omphalos" <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote in message =
news:d3a9785ee00f1b86fb7005570d4d1503@free.teranews.com...
> On Sat 02 Aug 2003 09:43:28p, "Bugman" <bugman@keynet.net> wrote in
> news:bJ-cnRGAjN--9bGiXTWJkw@giganews.com:=20
>=20
> > Do you have a womb or live in Holland? If not what fucking business =
is
> > it of yours. Why do you start these topics in the first place? What
> > possible reason was there to post this bullshit to game groups? All =
you
> > like to do is start trouble. Please move to Holland so you can be
> > euthanized.=20
>=20
> Typical liberal. Wants to silence anyone who disagrees with him.

Fuck you. How's that for silence. You try to come off as some high moral =
person. But other people have posted google links to the other crap that =
you post. You just like to stir up controversy. You're a fucking coward =
who hides behind your computer screen and pretends he is a big person. =
No one would pay attention to you in person, so you crosspost bullshit =
topics. You're a parasite. 

> >> Evolution sure isn't common sense. Anyone who tries to defend a theory
> >> with that many holes is a fraud.
> >
> > You're 99% chimpanzee.  Deal with it.
>
> Why do we not look or act like chimpanzees if our genetic material is so
> similar?
>
> Studies specify that even if all of the human genes were different from
> those of a chimp, the DNA of both could still be 95 percent similar if the
> 'junk' DNA of humans and chimps were the same.
>
> "Because DNA is a linear array of those four bases-A,G,C, and T-only four
> possibilities exist at any specific point in a DNA sequence. The laws of
> chance tell us that two random sequences from species that have no
> ancestry in common will match at about one in every four sites. Thus even
> two unrelated DNA sequences will be 25 percent identical, not 0 percent
> identical (Jonathan Marks, "98% Alike? (What Similarity to Apes Tells Us
> About Our Understanding of Genetics)," The Chronicle of Higher Education,
> May 12., p. B-7)."
>
> Therefore all earth based life would be at least 25% identical to humans.
> Would it be accurate to say that a pine tree is 25 % human? The idea of a
> tree is 25% human is ridiculous.

LOL! I have taken several years of cell and molecular biology courses,
and it's funny to see people pretend they know what they're taking about by
doing
a quick google search and copy and paste. You provided correct quotations
of Jonathan Marks, but you paraphrased Brad Harrub and Bert Thompson's
commentary,
without mentioning the source, which is plagiarism. Here's the original
article:

http://www.apologeticspress.org/docsdis/2002/dc-02-07.htm

Wow, you know how to right click with the mouse! You must know a lot about
genetics!
If you want to start doing some thinking of your own (instead of copy and
paste)
about evolution and genetics, learn about fossils first.
I'm sorry, this was an interesting thread, and I was willing to put up with
your
cross posting and backwards views, but this just did it for me.
< plonk >

On Sat, 02 Aug 2003 00:23:10 +0100, Mark Morrison <drdpikeuk@aol.com>
wrote:

>So same-sex couples who have been together for years shouldn't be
>allowed all the same rights and benefits as different-sex couples ?

That's not what I said. You criticized bush for using a correct
definition of the word marriage. I merely pointed out that it's
apparrently your definition of marriage that is wrong, not his.

As far as my personal opinion on the matter, I favor some sort of
civil union for gay couples that gives them the same limited powers of
attorney, inheritance rights, beneficiary status, etc that married
couples get - I can see nothing wrong with that - but I wholeheartedly
object to calling it "marriage" as that word and that relationship
have both religious and social connotations that go back for thousands
of years, and not just amongst Christians.

I think this whole issue is an emotional red herring, though. As far
as I can tell it's just another way homosexuals think they can be *in
your face* with their homosexuality. I don't mind the idea of
allotting the same rights and priveledges to gays that everyone else
has, but I DO mind it if it's going to be used merely as a tool to
offend me.

And gay activists should have been thinking about their long term
goals before they took that boy scout case to the supreme court. That
opened the eyes of a lot of heterosexual parents. What parent of a
teenage girl would want their daughter spending a large amount of
unsupervised time around a single man leading a girl scout troop? Men
are men, whther gay or strait, and if heterosexual men can't be
trusted around teenage girls (and they can't) they the same goes for
homosexual men and boys. All that BS about gay men wanting to
conflicted young men deal with their sexuality is JUST THAT, bullshit.
Lets open up the Girl Scouts to male troop leaders and see how many
guys want to help young girls with their sexuality :p

And a lot of people, myself included, feel that getting "gay marriage"
approved in teh US is just another way to slip the camel's nose under
the tent. For every gay couple who wants to have a legitimate lifelong
bond legally recognized, there will be 10 who see it merely as a goal
to advance there hetero-phobic agenda.

>And despite what the church want people to think, nowhere in the bible
>does it say homosexuality is wrong.

Eh? You haven't actually *read* the bible I take it. In any case,
that's an argument for people more religious than myself to take up.
Marriage and Divorce are, to this day, Christian ceremonies and are
clearly defined as being between a man and a woman. For the government
to redefine something that's been defined by God (in the opinion of
believers) would be blashphemy. Understand that, and how strongly some
people feel about it, when you make your arguments.

"Gouge" <deep_scar@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bgftl6$13u$1@news.efn.org...
>
> "DP" <java2@corningware.net> wrote in message
> news:vilr8bb4v2vtea@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > "Omphalos" <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote in message
> > news:4e207b768c1d622284add2779a67ed5a@free.teranews.com...
> > > On Fri 01 Aug 2003 02:34:53a, "DP" <java2@corningware.net> wrote in
> > > news:vik2pusvl17da9@corp.supernews.com:
> > >
> > > > Religion is based on fear and money.
> > >
> > > You really don't know anything about religion, do you.
> >
> > I know plenty about religion.  They all promised painful damnation or
some
> > sort of hell if you do not follow their laws.  They use this fear to
their
> > advantage.  Name me a religion that does not want money from you.
> >
> > > > Just about every religion threatens hell or eternal damnation if you
> do
> > > > not follow their set of "God's laws". People fear this hell, so they
> > > > believe the religion.
> > >
> > > Wrong. I could say that atheists don't believe in God because they are
> > > selfish and don't want to be held accountable for their actions.
> >
> > Incorrect.  People choose the easy way out.  Believe in God and you go
to
> > heaven if it exists.  Don't believe and you go to hell.  Ignorant people
> > believe this and choose to take the easy way out instead of actually
using
> > their brains and realizing that religions are fantasy organizations.
>
>
> See, this is my one of my big beefs with atheists.  Or at least most main
> stream, self proclaimed atheists.  For whatever reason, most seem to
> believe, or at least talk like all religion=christianity.  When bashing
> religion, you use all christian terms, such as heaven and hell.  Check it
> out, learn a little about other religions and you can be a more well
rounded
> deity denier.
>

I'm not an atheist.  Atheists believe that there is no god at all.  I guess
I would be in the agnostic group.  There is no proof of God's existence
either way.  No one can prove he exists.  No one can prove he does not
exist.  I'm not going to believe a religion that is based on human interests
and human ideas, and EVERY religion on this panet is based on that.  In my
examples I referred to christianity's religions only b/c that is most of
what the US is.

"The Chronic" <blade_@inorbit.com> wrote in message
news:5c0Xa.7430$mv6.1322744@news20.bellglobal.com...

> LOL! I have taken several years of cell and molecular biology courses,
> and it's funny to see people pretend they know what they're taking about
by
> doing
> a quick google search and copy and paste. You provided correct quotations
> of Jonathan Marks, but you paraphrased Brad Harrub and Bert Thompson's
> commentary,
> without mentioning the source, which is plagiarism. Here's the original
> article:
>
> http://www.apologeticspress.org/docsdis/2002/dc-02-07.htm
>
> Wow, you know how to right click with the mouse! You must know a lot about
> genetics!
> If you want to start doing some thinking of your own (instead of copy and
> paste)
> about evolution and genetics, learn about fossils first.
> I'm sorry, this was an interesting thread, and I was willing to put up
with
> your
> cross posting and backwards views, but this just did it for me.
> < plonk >

My favorite part of that otherwise scholarly paper by the two PhDs:

"Yet textbooks and teachers still continue to proclaim that humans and
chimps are 98% genetically identical. The evidence clearly demonstrates vast
molecular differences-differences that can be attributed to the fact that
humans, unlike animals, were created in the image and likeness of God
(Genesis 1:26-27; see Lyons and Thompson, 2002a, 2002b)."

Hillarious.

"Omphalos" <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote in message
news:d1afefbc3f2ae12cd9d67284bb742737@free.teranews.com...
> On Fri 01 Aug 2003 06:38:02p, "DP" <java2@corningware.net> wrote in
> news:vilr8bb4v2vtea@corp.supernews.com:
>
> > "Omphalos" <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote in message
> > news:4e207b768c1d622284add2779a67ed5a@free.teranews.com...
> >
> >> On Fri 01 Aug 2003 02:34:53a, "DP" <java2@corningware.net> wrote in
> >> news:vik2pusvl17da9@corp.supernews.com:
> >>
> >>> Religion is based on fear and money.
> >>
> >> You really don't know anything about religion, do you.
> >
> > I know plenty about religion.  They all promised painful damnation or
> > some sort of hell if you do not follow their laws.  They use this fear
> > to their advantage.  Name me a religion that does not want money from
> > you.
>
> Religions don't want money, but churches rely on donations from the church
> members to pay the bills.

LMFAO.

Give me a second.......

Did you just say "Religions don't want money"???

Holy Shit!  You are a true retard.  EVERY religion wants money.  EVERY
religion asks for money from its patrons.  EVERY SINGLE ONE.  Name me one
religion that does not accept money at all.

> >>> Just about every religion threatens hell or eternal damnation if you
> >>> do not follow their set of "God's laws". People fear this hell, so
> >>> they believe the religion.
> >>
> >> Wrong. I could say that atheists don't believe in God because they are
> >> selfish and don't want to be held accountable for their actions.
> >
> > Incorrect.  People choose the easy way out.  Believe in God and you go
> > to heaven if it exists.  Don't believe and you go to hell.
>
> Sorry, pal. It isn't quite that simple. Satan believes in God, but that
> doesn't help his situation much.

Satan is another form of fear built into some religions.  Satan is not a
real person or being.  People like to blame their bad habits and mental
problems on Satan b/c its easier than accepting that they fucked up.

> > Ignorant people believe this and choose to take the easy way out instead
> > of actually using their brains and realizing that religions are fantasy
> > organizations.
> >
> >>> And when the religion says you must tithe 15% to the church, the
> >>> scared people pay up.
> >>
> >> A 'tithe' is 10%. How do expect churches to operate if the faithful
> >> don't support them? It would like a charity that didn't ask for
> >> donations.
> >
> > Thanks for proving my point.  If "GOD" wanted that religion to worship
> > him and stay operational, he would make it so b/c he has the power to do
> > everything, right?
>
> Uh, no. This would defeat the entire purpose of faith. Why do you claim to
> know better than God?

Faith is blind by definition.  If there were facts to back it up, it
wouldn't be called faith - it would be reality.

> > But since that doesn't happen in real life, the
> > humans running the church build huge extravagant buildings and eat like
> > kings using money extorted from their patrons.
>
> You really need to cut back on TBN.

Try walking into some Catholic churches that don't have a 200 foot ceiling.
Look at some of the Methodist churches that are being built today.  These
people are rolling in money, are exempt from many taxes, can support
themselves for years without taking in another penny, but keep passing
around the collection plate.  Some of the newer churches have sound systems
built in that make THX certified movie theatres sound like a taped up five
inch speaker in a '85 Toyota truck.  But these extravagant sound systems are
a "Need" not a "Want"........

On Sat, 02 Aug 2003 02:09:04 GMT, Darin Johnson <darin@usa.net> wrote:

>And nowhere in the Bible does it say "your secular laws must be the
>same as your religious laws".

Best to abandon this line of argument if you are a supporter of gay
civil unions. It's impossible to make a Biblical argument that
supports it, and by acknowledging the Bible as a legitimate source you
weaken your position. For instance, the Bible never acknowledges the
validity or even the existance of secular laws. And how could it? How
could the law of man ever be elevated above the law of God?

You should study the emergence of the early secular governments during
the Middle Ages and see how they dealt with this issue at the time, if
you are inetersted.

Or you could just forget about it and come up with something else :p

>You'd think the conservatives would be *glad* that someone wants to
>actually get married instead of just living together :-)

Dunno why you make this a conservative issue. Most Catholics are
democrats and the Pope just came out against gay unions last week. The
biggest supporters of this movement, besides gays, are probably civil
libertarians, who tend to be pretty conservative. 

I don't think Liberals really give a shit about gay marriage,
philosophically, they just see it as another wedge issue to use againt
their opponents.

"Brian" <nospam@noemails.net> wrote in message news:<vilajhjucl698d@corp.supernews.com>...
> "Omphalos" <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote in message
> news:xdmWa.6651$K4.290860@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
> > What do they have against it? Are they afraid of it?
> 
> Maybe they believe in reality and not fairy tales?

Cool!  Is everyone named Brian smart, like me? :)

Why do dumb threads like this pop up in the strategy gaming forum?  I
guess somebody (meaning Omphalos, in case you're too dense to catch
the obvious implication) was on an ego trip, forcing his unwanted
thoughts onto thousands of people who don't care what political
parties he hates, or which fantasies he needs to coax himself through
life.  I'm glad you he only seems to know the names of 8 newsgroups...

Am I not blunt enough?  Go away, and take your stupid thread with you.
 You're not supposed to be here anyway - taking pleasure in things
other than your faith in Jesus is a sin, so keep away from unholy
games and get back to your damn bible.  Just reading your words makes
me feel unclean, as though I slipped and fell in a pool of holy water,
or took a bite of bread and it transmuted into human flesh in my
mouth.  God, that's a disgusting thought.

-Brian

-- 

"The Green Goblin (the good Phil Urich one)" <mrhanky@alkaida.ca> wrote in
message news:np5nivslk3rl2ivsuk2mpgnrhmjtur4ii7@4ax.com...
> "Relic" <relic1980@ameritech.net> wrote:
>
> >"Omphalos" <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote in message
> >news:xdmWa.6651$K4.290860@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
> >> What do they have against it? Are they afraid of it?
> >
> >
> >Is logic a stranger to them? Is the world simply "one group is this" or
> >"those people
> >are that"? Why is the sky blue and the sun yellow? And why am I crying in
> >French? ^_^
>
> Or maybe they don't like having their lives dictated to them by
> crooked televangelists.

Look at the changed header. I was being my sarcastic self...

> "It's the 21st century, but where are the flying cars.
> "There are no flying cars.
> "They promised us flying cars."
>      Avery Brooks, IBM commercial

Why do you idiots reply to this drivel? Its easily remedied...

*PLONK*


"Omphalos" <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote in message
news:xdmWa.6651$K4.290860@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
> What do they have against it? Are they afraid of it?

> > The felon, obviously, because something unborn can not die. It is not
alive!
>
> Define "alive".

I already did. Refer to the other dozen posts where I've already defined it.


> Obviously the cells are alive, since dead things don't grow.

Yes, but the cells are alive as a part of the mother's body until they are
viable for survival on their own.


> This is the crux of the argument.  When does it stop being just a lump of
> cells to being a human being?  There is no real right or wrong answer for
> this, since you can support for whatever arbritrary divider you can think
> of in some religion or spiritual belief.

Objectively, no creature is living a life of its own until, err, the life is
its own. Subjectively, life can begin at conception, at fetal stage, at
birth, or at 40 (well, so the saying goes).

"Omphalos" <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote in message
news:82bca54b2eb751a56abe0d2bf3150a46@free.teranews.com...
> On Fri 01 Aug 2003 03:58:52p, "JPM III" <jpmccord@hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:bgegpt$n1doh$1@ID-53393.news.uni-berlin.de:
>
> >>>> I never said that. By supporting abortion, liberals argue that
> >>>> unborn children can be aborted up to childbirth.
> >>>
> >>> They do?  Last time I checked, nobody was lobbying Congress to allow
> >>> a healthy 8.5 month old fetus to be aborted.
> >>>
> >>>> In other words, no baby has the right to be born.
> >>>
> >>> Until it's viable, it's a lump of flesh.  Nothing more, with no more
> >>> rights than a finger or toe.
> >>
> >> An unborn baby is viable. The mother's womb is the natural environment
> >> for a human being in his or her first nine months of life. If a
> >> land-dwelling mammal were put into water, it would not be viable. If a
> >> fish were put on dry land, it would not be viable. Also, as a class,
> >> human beings are nonviable relative to the ex-utero environment, yet
> >> only for the first five months of life. Thus, for the young preborn,
> >> viability is lost only after an abortion; if the procedure itself does
> >> not kill, removal from the natural environment does.
> >
> > A human does not life its life in the womb. A human that can not live
> > its life out in the air of planet earth is not viable.
>
> Why is viability the definition of human?

Um, it isn't. It is the definition of when a human first may live a life of
its own, rather than living life as part of something else (its mother).

And because, obviously, a clump of cells similar in look (and attach any
other sense you want to that) to a vaginal discharge is, well, not a human
life.

> Why is viability a requirement to be human? Someone on life support
> recovering from severe injuries isn't viable without the machines hooked
> up to him. Is that person less than human?

No, because that person has already reached viability. Just because the
person fell from it due to violent or other circumstances doesn't mean the
person was never viable.

Or are you saying people can be unborn?


> >> Furthermore, nonviability is a transient state.
> >
> > Transient from "lump of flesh" to "living human being". At the nonviable
> > stage, it is not alive, but rather is gathering the ability to live.
>
> Life, (i.e., the life of an individual human being) is a continuum.
> Zygote, fetus, infant, child, adolescent and adult all refer to stages of
> a human being's life cycle. None of these terms mean "not living."

Correct, but several of them refer to stages of human life that is not an
individual life of its own, but rather still the life of the mother. A
zygote is little more than a growth sapping the mother's energy until it
reaches birth. Sometime before birth, it reaches a point when it could be
born and survive.

> The girl has been subjected to an ugly trauma, and she needs love, support
> and help. But she has been the victim of one violent act. Should we now
> ask her to be a party to a second violent act -that of abortion?

So an abortion is violent but a stillborn is not?
An abortion is violent but a vaginal discharge during menstruation is not?
So choice makes the difference?

What if you don't believe in free will? What difference does this illusion
of choice make then?

> What about Siamese twins. They are connected to each other. What if one is
> dependent on the other? Can one who is independent decide that the other
> must be removed at the expense of his/her life?

Sure. Anyone can make any decision they want. I make decisions all the time.


> > Liberals confuse me. They argue their liberal policies, trying to get
> > people out of poverty and such, and then they fight against the one
> > thing that might actually help to curtail overpopulation, which is the
> > number one cause of poverty worldwide.
>
> Overpopulation is a myth. Much of the world's land surface is empty, and
> many countries with dense populations have a higher standard of living
> than less crowded countries.

Oh. your. god. Overpopulation is a myth? Have you been to China? or even
Chinatown?


> > Last I checked the religious texts, a baby does not earn a place in
> > heave nor hell until it has acquired some moral capacity -- that is,
> > until it has been taught right and wrong and how to act one way or the
> > other. So technically ending a child's life before, say, age two is not
> > necessarily wrong if it does society a greater good.
>
> So the ends justify the means?

Sure, but only because you said so.


> > But then that's only according to the good book, which most people don't
> > seem to live by anymore. (The argument being that it's 2000 years old
> > and most of it no longer applies.)
>
> The practice of cooking food is older than that. Does that mean that
> cooking food is no longer relevent today?

Of course not. Most people still live by cooking food, silly.

> he advocates the imposition of a secular death penalty just for
> being conceived and contributing to overpopulation...

Ouch, I like that!

> > Yes, because that would legally change the definition of what "pink with
> > yellow stripes" meant, at least according to the court. You are allowed
> > to disagree with the courts' interpretation of anything, but the courts
> > are still part of the law of the land, and we are not (directly).
>
> Courts can't change reality.

No, but they can affect the future of the legal system, which, by the way,
is a part of reality.

> > > Science doesn't try to explain the origin of the universe.  It says,
> > > "The Universe Is."
>
> > Uhh, science *tries* to explain everything.
>
> As does religion.  They're both actually the same in many ways.  Besides,
> studying history you see that science and religion were tightly
> intertwined in ancient civilizations.

I think science is more explanatory while religion is more didactic. Science
explains and you don't understand, religion tells and you have no reason to
understand but you believe.

Snubis <snubis@go.com> wrote in message news:<bge3vd$nk167$2@ID-170553.news.uni-berlin.de>...

> What about the God-hating zealots who want to ensure that the unborn never
> have the right to be born? They are as adamant about what they believe as any 
> religous person would be.

Sounds good to me.  Why should a brainless uterine tumor make
decisions about what an intelligent female can do with her body?  If I
ever got an abdominal tumor, I'd cut that sucker out.  But I'm a male,
so Christians realize that my choices aren't the root of all evil.

What's next, granting rights to genital warts on the offchance that
they develop sentience?  Or do you Christians think that you
understand God's plan to the extent that you KNOW he would never grant
a soul to any bodily growth other than a blastula?  ...or is it a
morula?  Does it say anywhere in the Bible when the "soul" is inserted
into the fetus?  Is it at penetration? Conception?  Maybe even birth? 
Maybe there's a scientific test that can tell us:)  My faith tells me
it's at birth, so there are no problems with abortion!  And my logic
tells me it cannot be before cell specialization occurs, since before
that stage, the embryo can be divided to form twins or triplets.  So
if the soul was inserted then, it could be split into 3, giving 3
people with only 1/3 of a soul each!  I guess that's where atheists
come from:)

Anyway.  Think more, legislate less, and everyone will be happy.

> >Man is fallable! Atheism is stupid, theism is stupid, and agnosticism is
the
> >intelligent middleground that laughs at all of you for believing
something
> >you can't prove either way (while still enjoying the debates and seeking
the
> >answer).
> >
> So what do you say if someone asks whether you still believe in Santa
> Claus? You can't prove that he doesn't exist, and I assume that you do
> not have proof that he does. Do you describe yourself as agnostic with
> respect to Santa? What about the Tooth Fairy? The Easter Bunny? Is there
> anything that you are prepared to say that you don't believe in?

Santa: I tell them that I still put up a tree hoping that he does exist, and
I haven't foregone anything, but I'm also not expecting anything. If he
shows, then I get presents at an acceptable cost of one glass of milk and a
few cookies. If he doesn't show, then maybe I was bad this year, or maybe he
doesn't exist. Whatever.

Com'on, ask a real question next time. What about my great grandfather? I
have no proof that he ever existed, only hearsay from trustworthy sources.
Am I agnostic about that?

How do I know that [insert process here] works if I haven't worked it out,
tried it, proved it, etc. on my own? Trust? What is trust? Faith? How do the
faithless trust? What? Exactly. The world contradicts itself.

Hey, whatever man. Subjective statements can be false according to opinion
only. That is the nature of subjectivity.

> > > Oh Jesus Christ, not more pathetic idiots posting crap to a games
group.
> >
> > If you're going to pray to the man, at least ask a favor of him. Simply
> > acknowledging the obvious is a waste of his, our, and your time.
>
> no offense, but TYPICAL LIBERAL- Ask for something!- not enough to
> acknowledge the imaginary man upstairs, but make sure *you* get something
> out of it too!  Oh, I want to puke right now!

OYFG, if it weren't 3:15 in the morning, I'd be laughing my ass off. You
just called me a liberal! That's hilarious!

> So same-sex couples who have been together for years shouldn't be
> allowed all the same rights and benefits as different-sex couples ?

Sucks, eh? Err, is that a pun?

> So, how does it feel to be made a fool of? Didn't you notice that
> address was .org and not .gov?

You have no appreciation for humor.

> Nazis were _not_ Leftists.

What is your definition of a leftist then?


>  However, the ideas of Socialism were _so_
> popular in Europe at the time that no popular party could _hope_ to
> have widespread support without adopting at least Socialist camoflage.
>
> If you look at 1930s politics in Germany, you will see that the Nazis
> fought with the Communists more than anybody else.

Because the communists were the only ones that threatened them -- their
positions on things were quite similar.


> Nazi concerns about genetic purity was a conservative position.

Yes. It's a proven fact that throughout history man has sought to kill dark
haired, dark eyed people to leave only the fair colored ones. Conservative,
definitely.


> Nazi business policy endorsed strong, extremely wealthy corporations
> and their heads.  Hardly true Socialism.

You have to have an economy to supply money to the people. Would you rather
they wilted and died? It was a mechanism to make their version of communism
work. And it probably would have, too, if Hitler weren't a military idiot.

> If the Nazis were Leftists, then East Germany was a Democracy.  Don't
> believe the label.

You're going to do everything in your power to try to make Nazis seem more
like Republicans than Democrats, aren't you?

"Omphalos" <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote in message
news:44f646dce74a09de052a55d51bd3489f@free.teranews.com...
> On Sat 02 Aug 2003 02:02:58a, "Scott" <scottp@columbus.rr.com> wrote in
> news:muIWa.8168$IQ2.6864@fe1.columbus.rr.com:
>
> >>> That's not for us to decide. That's for the mother to decide. Why
> >>> should you get to make the decision for every woman on this planet
> >>> who might have a good reason to have an abortion?
> >>
> >> There is never a good reason for an abortion.
> >
> > So if your daughter (u may not have one now, or may, just pretend you do
> > or will) got raped at 13 years old and was impregnated you would want
> > her to have to rear a child at 13 years old with no father?
>
> The girl has been subjected to an ugly trauma, and she needs love, support
> and help. But she has been the victim of one violent act. Should we now
> ask her to be a party to a second violent act -that of abortion?

I believe we should leave it up to each woman whether or not she wants an
abortion, perhaps she does not want to have one, then again, what if she
does?  Why should we take that right away from her?  There is no POSSIBLE
way for you to understand every womans' reasons for abortion.  I'm fairly
certain all of them have a pretty damned good reason for what they have
decided to do.

-- 
"Yeah, I'm stupid, stupid like a fox." - Homer J. Simpson

"You try to make something idiot proof, and along comes a better
iot!"   -Unknown

> Unquestionably, many would return the violence of killing an innocent baby
> for the violence of rape. But, before making this decision, remember that
> most of the trauma has already occurred. She has been raped. That trauma
> will live with her all her life. She has finally asked for help, has
> shared her upset, and should be in a supportive situation.
>
> The utilitarian question from the mother's stand-point is whether or not
> it would now be better to kill the developing baby within her. But will
> abortion now be best for her, or will it bring her more harm yet? What has
> happened and its damage has already occurred.
>
> She's old enough to know and have an opinion as to whether she carries a
> "baby" or a "blob of protoplasm." Will she be able to live comfortably
> with the memory that she "killed her developing baby"? Or would she
> ultimately be more mature and more at peace with herself if she could
> remember that, even though she became pregnant unwillingly, she
> nevertheless solved her problem by being unselfish, by giving of herself
> and of her love to an innocent baby, who had not asked to be created, to
> deliver, perhaps to place for adoption, if she decides that is what is
> best for her baby. Compare this memory with the woman who can only look
> back and say, "I killed my baby."
>
> "Interestingly, the pregnant rape victim's chief complaint is not that she
> is unwillingly pregnant, as bad as the experience is. The critical moment
> is fleeting in this area. It frequently pulls families together like never
> before. When women are impregnated through rape, their condition is
> treated in accordance, as are their families.
>
> "We found this experience is forgotten, replaced by remembering the
> abortion, because it is what they did." M. Uchtman, Director, Suiciders
> Anonymous, Report to Cincinnati City Council, Sept. 1, 1981.
>
> "In the majority of these cases, the pregnant victim's problems stem more
> from the trauma of rape than from the pregnancy itself."  Mahkorn & Dolan,
> "Sexual Assault & Pregnancy." In New Perspectives on Human Abortion,
> University Publishers of Amer., 1981, pp. 182-199 239.
>
> As to what factors make it most difficult to continue her pregnancy, the
> opinions, attitudes, and beliefs of others were most frequently cited; in
> other words, how her loved ones treated her. Mahkorn, "Pregnancy & Sexual
> Assault." In Psychological Aspects of Abortion, University Publishers of
> Amer., 1979, pp. 53-72.

Now here's a good thread that shows the type of informed, capable
coversationist omphalos really is.

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&threadm=ed5b30e279f6678a7ba3827407143c93%40free.teranews.com&rnum=11&prev=/groups%3Fhl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26safe%3Doff%26q%3Dauthor:omphalos%2540wp.pl%2B

By the way, it's a pain navigating these threads, most of the posts
are boring.  If anyone can reply to this with a list of the postings
that insult omphalos the most deeply or humorously, I'd be very
grateful.

-Brian

> > > > What do they have against it? Are they afraid of it?
> > >
> > > Because religion of ALL forms is based on myths and stories
> > prove it
>
> OK, every religion is based on stories told from the past.  These stories
> have not been proven, therfore they are myths.

> > > These stories are not factual.
> > prove it
>
> The stories can't be proved.  there is nothing whatsoever to prove them.
> They are not true.

So what you're telling me is... if you have no alibi and can not prove that
you were where you were two nights ago, then it can not be proven, so it is
a myth, and is therefore untrue?

WRONG.

Just because something can not be proved does not make it untrue. Proving
something to be wrong, however, makes it untrue. Proving that there is a
lack of proof only makes it impossible for the truth or untruth of it ever
to be determined.


> > >  The "prophets" wrote down their stories - does that make it true?
> > so what makes it untrue?
>
> just b/c something is written down does not mean it is true.....
or untrue.


> Every religion promises hell if you disobey them.  thats the fear.
> they all ask for money.

you don't know much about relgion, do you? study up.

> >>>> What do they have against it? Are they afraid of it?
> >>>
> >>> You kidding me?
> >>>
> >>> Two words:  Joe Lieberman
> >>
> >> He doesn't follow the tenents of his religion very well for someone who
> >> is suppoesedly religious.
> >
> > Says who? Are you *judging* him? Tisk, tisk...
>
> I am making an obvious observation.

So, what, you're close enough to him to make such an observation? Are you
stalking him? How do you know? I have no reason to believe your claim.

> > Aren't we all, according to the tenets of Christianity...
>
>
> No, jesus died for our sins.  All of our sins, past, present and future.
So
> we're forgiven for everything in advance.  We can smoke crack, beat our
> wives, hurt kids, etc.  We're already forgiven for all that!  So we can't
> really disgrace the religion.  At least not in the eyes of jesus!
>
> Woohoo!

Kinda spoils the concept of heaven, doesn't it, if all of us are going...

So here's the new idea: Heaven has its own rules, based on God's divine
justice, and are true judgment comes once we get there. You do not want the
wrath of God to come down on you...

"JPM III" <jpmccord@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bgicp3$p4c60$1@ID-53393.news.uni-berlin.de...
> > > > Oh Jesus Christ, not more pathetic idiots posting crap to a games
> group.
> > >
> > > If you're going to pray to the man, at least ask a favor of him.
Simply
> > > acknowledging the obvious is a waste of his, our, and your time.
> >
> > no offense, but TYPICAL LIBERAL- Ask for something!- not enough to
> > acknowledge the imaginary man upstairs, but make sure *you* get
something
> > out of it too!  Oh, I want to puke right now!
>
> OYFG, if it weren't 3:15 in the morning, I'd be laughing my ass off. You
> just called me a liberal! That's hilarious!

Ooookay.... what's your deal anyway???  You make a *completely* liberal
statement, then marvel at the fact that I called you on it.   what the F do
you mean by OYFG?  And how does it being 3:15 come into play as far as you
laughing your liberal ass off?

Buckaroo Banzai wrote:

> "JPM III" <jpmccord@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:bgicn0$p3hbn$1@ID-53393.news.uni-berlin.de...
> 
>>Hey, whatever man. Subjective statements can be false according to opinion
>>only. That is the nature of subjectivity.
>>
>>
> 
> 
> Hmm, so if *subjectively* I say that I find the speed of light to be 286
> thousand miles per second instead of the accepted 186 thousand miles per
> second, that would be *not* false?
> .
> .
> .
> That's what I thought- you can't apply subjectivity to objective facts.

Nothing is objective. Just because we measure speed at a certain, well, 
speed does not mean that everyone does.

And yea, nothing is objective.

The whole world is biased.
Even the globe leans to one side.


-- 
 From the mind of Andrew Kicks
Remove nospam to reply

First off, please learn how to attribute quotes properly. I know the name of
the poster you were replying to was right there on your screen when you
typed your response, but people following your posts have no idea who you're
replying to 99% of the time.

"JPM III" <jpmccord@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bgidma$p29nt$1@ID-53393.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
> > Same goes for any particular claim about supernatural events without
> > supporting evidence. You can come up with an infinite number of random
> > explanations for the theory of everything, so the probabilty of any 1
> theory
> > being correct is effectively 0.
>
> Exactly. So what are the chances that god exists? 0.
> What are the chances that god doesn't exist? 0.
> Oooh, dilemma.
>
> Case closed! Thank you for your brilliant point.

He had a good point, but you managed to miss it completely.

The chances that god doesn't exist are "zero?" How the hell do you come up
with that? If the chances of both are zero as you're trying to paint it then
neither can be true. There is not a god, AND there is not NOT a god,
according to you.

The chances of god existing is effectively zero as the poster you quoted
(but failed to attribute) pointed out. The chances of god not existing are
far more than zero.

> > If you want to believe, or if you believe it is a distinct possibility,
> > that's fine, but that would be faith, not logic.
>
> So you can not believe that there is god or that there is not god without
> having faith in one of those two beliefs, and you can only believe one, if
> either, obviously.

I think you need to re-read his entire post and then spend a minute or two
absorbing it before responding next time. Your "summation" is grossly
inaccurate. It does not require faith to be convinced that god does not
exist, only an objective analysis of the available evidence.

Xbot wrote:

> First off, please learn how to attribute quotes properly. I know the name of
> the poster you were replying to was right there on your screen when you
> typed your response, but people following your posts have no idea who you're
> replying to 99% of the time.
> 
> "JPM III" <jpmccord@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:bgidma$p29nt$1@ID-53393.news.uni-berlin.de...
> 
>>>Same goes for any particular claim about supernatural events without
>>>supporting evidence. You can come up with an infinite number of random
>>>explanations for the theory of everything, so the probabilty of any 1
>>
>>theory
>>
>>>being correct is effectively 0.
>>
>>Exactly. So what are the chances that god exists? 0.
>>What are the chances that god doesn't exist? 0.
>>Oooh, dilemma.
>>
>>Case closed! Thank you for your brilliant point.
> 
> 
> He had a good point, but you managed to miss it completely.
> 
> The chances that god doesn't exist are "zero?" How the hell do you come up
> with that? If the chances of both are zero as you're trying to paint it then
> neither can be true. There is not a god, AND there is not NOT a god,
> according to you.
> 
> The chances of god existing is effectively zero as the poster you quoted
> (but failed to attribute) pointed out. The chances of god not existing are
> far more than zero.
> 
> 
>>>If you want to believe, or if you believe it is a distinct possibility,
>>>that's fine, but that would be faith, not logic.
>>
>>So you can not believe that there is god or that there is not god without
>>having faith in one of those two beliefs, and you can only believe one, if
>>either, obviously.
> 
> 
> I think you need to re-read his entire post and then spend a minute or two
> absorbing it before responding next time. Your "summation" is grossly
> inaccurate. It does not require faith to be convinced that god does not
> exist, only an objective analysis of the available evidence.

There is not enough available evidence to make that judgement. Since 
there is not enough evidence, you have to have faith that god does not 
exist.

The same goes the other way, ofcourse.

-- 
 From the mind of Andrew Kicks
Remove nospam to reply

"Kicksy" <slapkicksy@noblueyonderspam.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Us3Xa.1230$xL2.13710448@news-text.cableinet.net...
> Xbot wrote:
>
> > First off, please learn how to attribute quotes properly. I know the
name of
> > the poster you were replying to was right there on your screen when you
> > typed your response, but people following your posts have no idea who
you're
> > replying to 99% of the time.
> >
> > "JPM III" <jpmccord@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:bgidma$p29nt$1@ID-53393.news.uni-berlin.de...
> >
> >>>Same goes for any particular claim about supernatural events without
> >>>supporting evidence. You can come up with an infinite number of random
> >>>explanations for the theory of everything, so the probabilty of any 1
> >>
> >>theory
> >>
> >>>being correct is effectively 0.
> >>
> >>Exactly. So what are the chances that god exists? 0.
> >>What are the chances that god doesn't exist? 0.
> >>Oooh, dilemma.
> >>
> >>Case closed! Thank you for your brilliant point.
> >
> >
> > He had a good point, but you managed to miss it completely.
> >
> > The chances that god doesn't exist are "zero?" How the hell do you come
up
> > with that? If the chances of both are zero as you're trying to paint it
then
> > neither can be true. There is not a god, AND there is not NOT a god,
> > according to you.
> >
> > The chances of god existing is effectively zero as the poster you quoted
> > (but failed to attribute) pointed out. The chances of god not existing
are
> > far more than zero.
> >
> >
> >>>If you want to believe, or if you believe it is a distinct possibility,
> >>>that's fine, but that would be faith, not logic.
> >>
> >>So you can not believe that there is god or that there is not god
without
> >>having faith in one of those two beliefs, and you can only believe one,
if
> >>either, obviously.
> >
> >
> > I think you need to re-read his entire post and then spend a minute or
two
> > absorbing it before responding next time. Your "summation" is grossly
> > inaccurate. It does not require faith to be convinced that god does not
> > exist, only an objective analysis of the available evidence.
>
> There is not enough available evidence to make that judgement.

Of course there is. No evidence exists to support a belief in God, to the
contrary evidence exists to suggest that the tales about him are completely
false (making the world in six days, no mention of the dinosaurs) or
plagiarism of mythology from earlier gods (Jesus "re-living" the trials of
Marduk.) Only hearsay supports the existence of a God, and for any of the
various gods to exist, the rest have to be phonies. Under any reasonable
standard of proof, the "no God" argument would prevail.

>Since
> there is not enough evidence, you have to have faith that god does not
> exist.

You do not need to have "faith" in the non-existence of something,
especially when that something's non-existence is supported by every
rational interpretation of the evidence.

> The same goes the other way, ofcourse.

No it doesn't - faith is required to believe in God, reason is required to
accept that there is none.

A simple question from a non-Yank.....

Why do you like guns so much???

Stupot

On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 18:28:16 GMT, Omphalos <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote:

>On Fri 01 Aug 2003 01:59:02p, "Brian" <nospam@noemails.net> wrote in
>news:vilajhjucl698d@corp.supernews.com: 
>
>> "Omphalos" <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote in message
>> news:xdmWa.6651$K4.290860@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
>>
>>> What do they have against it? Are they afraid of it?
>> 
>> Maybe they believe in reality and not fairy tales?
>                        ^^^^^^^
>Liberalism *is* a fairy tale.

I thought you'd say "Reality *is* a fairy tale."

____     On Sun, 3 Aug 2003 03:17:30 -0400
\__/___  JPM III ran through the
 LI-\o-' streets of comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action
     |   waving an axe and screaming:
    / \
>> So, how does it feel to be made a fool of? Didn't you notice that
>> address was .org and not .gov?
>
>You have no appreciation for humor.

It's sucks when you have to defend your jokes doesn't it?
-- 
|    _             .\ ~~   _       ^~
|   <')_,/    ,  ;  .\   >(')__,  . ` '  ,
|   (_~=/   \._`.'.  .\   (_~_/         _,      _..-''-._,____,----,____
|    ='-     \=~_) ;  .\ ~^~~^~   ` (_~_/        `'--'`  `~~~~)_)=\_\-.(
|             -'=      .\    ~^~    ~^~~^~
ICQ:11367619 EMAIL:bateau:-)jupiter-io.net WEB:http://tyrian2000.cjb.net

In article <bgid6j$ovkm7$1@ID-53393.news.uni-berlin.de>, JPM III 
<jpmccord@hotmail.com> writes
>> Nazi business policy endorsed strong, extremely wealthy corporations
>> and their heads.  Hardly true Socialism.
>
>You have to have an economy to supply money to the people. Would you rather
>they wilted and died? It was a mechanism to make their version of communism
>work. And it probably would have, too, if Hitler weren't a military idiot.
>
Excuse me? The Nazi "version of communism" endorsed strong, extremely 
wealthy corporations and their heads? What definition of the word 
communism are you using here? You might as well say that my "version of 
vegetarianism" endorses the eating of steak as a mechanism to ensure I 
stay healthy.
-- 
John Secker

In article <MPG.1995d2f569fb9839989720@news.west.cox.net>, jaeger <jaeger@jaeger.com> wrote:
>In article <G0PWa.25778$pK2.40447@news.indigo.ie>, gerryq@indigo.ie 
>says...
> 
>> If they were never performed, a law forbidding them (except to save 
>> the mother's life, an exemption incorporated I believe in the 
>> recent US bill) would hardly face such resistance!
>
>Why?  Several reasons.  One, the God-people can feel like they're 
>actually doing something constructive in Congress aside from wasting 
>taxpayers money.  But the far more sinister reason is that it sets legal 
>precedent for taking the decisions regarding medical care OUT of the 
>hands of doctors and INTO the hands of politicians.  So while the 

When "medical care" involves what at least appears to many people as the 
killing of non-consenting human beings, it no longer belongs entirely in 
the hands of doctors.  To say otherwise is to be on the lunatic extreme.

>> As for the expression, I have been unable to find out who originated it, 
>> and what their views were regarding abortion.  Have you?
>
>What expression?  Partial Birth?  It was coined by a Senator for shock 
>value.  The American Medical Association recognizes no such procedure.

The expression "partial birth abortion".  You claim it was coined by "a 
senator" and for all I know you may be correct.  If you know this for a 
fact, though, please tell us what senator, and when.

- Gerry Quinn

"jaeger" <jaeger@jaeger.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1994675f969753cc989705@news.west.cox.net...
> In article <bgeca1$nq5ee$1@ID-121560.news.uni-berlin.de>,
> holleyrp@delanet.com says...
>
> > It's almost as funny as anti-death penalty folks being pro-abortion,
> > wouldn't you say?
>
> I don't know.  I love the death penalty and I love abortion.

I'm RIGHT THERE WITH YA!!!  No sarcasm either!  We need to execute all these
low-life scumbags on death row and if we have to subsidize anything,
subsidize abortions for poor people, give'm a hundred bucks for every
abortion!  Who cares that we'll be creating a new form of welfare.  In the
long run we'll make out like bandits!!!!

"JPM III" <jpmccord@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bgib87$nm7an$1@ID-53393.news.uni-berlin.de...
> > > The felon, obviously, because something unborn can not die. It is not
> alive!
> >
> > Define "alive".
>
> I already did. Refer to the other dozen posts where I've already defined
it.
>
>
> > Obviously the cells are alive, since dead things don't grow.
>
> Yes, but the cells are alive as a part of the mother's body until they are
> viable for survival on their own.
>
>
> > This is the crux of the argument.  When does it stop being just a lump
of
> > cells to being a human being?  There is no real right or wrong answer
for
> > this, since you can support for whatever arbritrary divider you can
think
> > of in some religion or spiritual belief.
>
> Objectively, no creature is living a life of its own until, err, the life
is
> its own. Subjectively, life can begin at conception, at fetal stage, at
> birth, or at 40 (well, so the saying goes).
> '

indeed, this is an interesting argument stemming solely from where you
define alive.  and as thatt definition can be defined differently by the
heavyweights (scientific/religious/political), the argument that best suits
a person can be found.

i'm pro choice, but i do wish that people would just admit that it's murder,
but one that our society will allow.  the problem with that legally is that
now you have to change the law (ie. animal farm) from 'killing bad' to
'killing bad, except in some circumstances when it is good'.  can be
confusing.

it's a life.  if left to its own devices, the child will be born.  is it
less alive if it is premature?  is it less alive if a c-section is performed
early and they go in and get it out?  does passage through the birth canal
suddenly make it more alive?  it's murder, but one that we should allow.
our problems stem from semantics and religion (as they always do).  because
my biggest problem with the pro-choice set is how they try to word their way
around the fact that its murder.  i'd prefer to call it what it is, and
allow it.  people aren't getting abortions because they're fun, they're
doing them because of a mistake, and the mother and the child will probably
have a terrible time of it if the woman isn't ready anyway.  why bring
unhappy kids into the world....


>

"Buckaroo Banzai" <blackhole34@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Iu9Xa.32068$Mc.2551248@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
> "jaeger" <jaeger@jaeger.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1994675f969753cc989705@news.west.cox.net...
> > In article <bgeca1$nq5ee$1@ID-121560.news.uni-berlin.de>,
> > holleyrp@delanet.com says...
> >
> > > It's almost as funny as anti-death penalty folks being pro-abortion,
> > > wouldn't you say?
> >
> > I don't know.  I love the death penalty and I love abortion.
>
> I'm RIGHT THERE WITH YA!!!  No sarcasm either!  We need to execute all
these
> low-life scumbags on death row and if we have to subsidize anything,
> subsidize abortions for poor people, give'm a hundred bucks for every
> abortion!  Who cares that we'll be creating a new form of welfare.  In the
> long run we'll make out like bandits!!!!
>

you can't have executions with a clear conscience knowing that so many
people are found guilty decades after incarceration.  when the state starts
killing innocent people, it's time to be VERY afraid.  if you disagree, may
i pray to all gods everywhere that you are fortunate enough to be wrongly
convicted and put on death row to live within the system you seem to
support.  that's justice.

>

"Thrasher" <spectre911@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:st2pivk82k30iljue0ekojc6615bgfv7oe@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 02 Aug 2003 00:23:10 +0100, Mark Morrison <drdpikeuk@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
> >So same-sex couples who have been together for years shouldn't be
> >allowed all the same rights and benefits as different-sex couples ?
>
> That's not what I said. You criticized bush for using a correct
> definition of the word marriage. I merely pointed out that it's
> apparrently your definition of marriage that is wrong, not his.
>
> As far as my personal opinion on the matter, I favor some sort of
> civil union for gay couples that gives them the same limited powers of
> attorney, inheritance rights, beneficiary status, etc that married
> couples get - I can see nothing wrong with that - but I wholeheartedly
> object to calling it "marriage" as that word and that relationship
> have both religious and social connotations that go back for thousands
> of years, and not just amongst Christians.

If marriage is a union between two people then gay marriage should be
allowed.  But if marriage is a religious institution then government has no
business at all determining who should get it and who should not.  That is
if you believe the 1st amendment.

Leviathan <leviathan@matrixm.com> thought hard and said:

>On Fri 01 Aug 2003 12:46:16p, "Xbot" <lott@bull.com> wrote in
>news:caWcnav0refGBLeiXTWJiQ@giganews.com: 
>
>> Not believing in God is man's natural state
>
>There is no society that is naturally atheistic.

So people are just born with a belief in god?

--
-Kolle; 15                        A.A. #2035
Koji Kondo, Yo-Yo Ma, and Gustav Mahler are my Gods.
Madly Insane EAC Scientist.

"nightwriter" <spider_man@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:AC9Xa.65258$hOa.26276@news02.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
>
> "Buckaroo Banzai" <blackhole34@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:Iu9Xa.32068$Mc.2551248@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> >
> > "jaeger" <jaeger@jaeger.com> wrote in message
> > news:MPG.1994675f969753cc989705@news.west.cox.net...
> > > In article <bgeca1$nq5ee$1@ID-121560.news.uni-berlin.de>,
> > > holleyrp@delanet.com says...
> > >
> > > > It's almost as funny as anti-death penalty folks being pro-abortion,
> > > > wouldn't you say?
> > >
> > > I don't know.  I love the death penalty and I love abortion.
> >
> > I'm RIGHT THERE WITH YA!!!  No sarcasm either!  We need to execute all
> these
> > low-life scumbags on death row and if we have to subsidize anything,
> > subsidize abortions for poor people, give'm a hundred bucks for every
> > abortion!  Who cares that we'll be creating a new form of welfare.  In
the
> > long run we'll make out like bandits!!!!
> >
>
> you can't have executions with a clear conscience knowing that so many
> people are found guilty decades after incarceration.

???  Assuming that you meant not guilty- please support your statement "so
many" with facts.

> when the state starts killing innocent people, it's time to be VERY
afraid.  if you disagree, may
> i pray to all gods everywhere that you are fortunate enough to be wrongly
> convicted and put on death row to live within the system you seem to
> support.  that's justice.
>
> >
>
>

People say all the time- "Better to let 100 guilty men go free than to
execute one innocent man."  I say the exact opposite.  What kind of a
cowardly man would let 100 evil men loose on society just to save his own
neck?  How many people would be killed by these 100 men?  I would walk to
the electric chair in an instant in order to insure the deaths of 100 guilty
men!