On Sep 19, 9:14 pm, "Shelly" <sheldonlg.n...@asap-consult.com> wrote:
> "Herb" <her...@mail.com> wrote in message

>
> Israel is a democracy. About 25% of the country is Muslim. Yes, it the
> Jewish homeland. So?

oh sure, indigenious Palestinians who lived there for untold
generations have equal rights (and voting privileges) to any Jew who
flies in from Chicago. Haha


> EVERY nation will follow its self-interest first.

Wrong. The US endangered itself by pursuing the interests of Israel.
That's mainly why Arabs hate us.

>So does England and
> Canada. Does that make England and Canada not our allies? Your logic is
> so faulty it is not worth pursuing this argument.

quack quack quack


> I've had enough of talking to you. Jerry may be looking through blinders,
> but at least he is not a bigot.

there you go, the reflex pseudo-argument of the reverse bigot.


> I won't answer another one of your posts no
> matter what garbage you put there.

okay, bye immature weenie. You will be more comfortable where your own
prejudices are accepted as if they were fact - like on CNN

Herb wrote:
> On Sep 19, 9:14 pm, "Shelly" <sheldonlg.n...@asap-consult.com> wrote:
>> "Herb" <her...@mail.com> wrote in message
>
>> Israel is a democracy. About 25% of the country is Muslim. Yes, it the
>> Jewish homeland. So?
>
> oh sure, indigenious Palestinians who lived there for untold
> generations have equal rights (and voting privileges) to any Jew who
> flies in from Chicago. Haha

As an American jew who would like to see the current nation of Israel
wiped from the map, I can tell you that the urban legends you're
repeating here are simply not true.

But in fact, most Jews don't qualify for that program. It's limited to
certain blood-lines. Everyone else has to apply for citizenship through
the regular bureaucratic process.

And your belief that Muslims aren't part of the voting population,
relegated to the refugee camps - that's not true either.

In fact, Muslims live in peace with their Jewish neighbors all
throughout Israel, and even serve in the Israeli government.

Now, please excuse me while I go wash my mouth out with soap for
defending Israel.

"Herb" <herb_k@mail.com> wrote in message
news:1190245819.836960.262810@o80g2000hse.googlegr oups.com...
> hey, Stevo, prove you're not a hypocrite. Point to one post you've
> made on usenet ever, where you criticize Muslims or Jews in the same
> way that you criticize Christians.
>
> Show us one post where you object to NYC establishng a Muslim school,
> for instance.

hmmmm. since i've never actually had dialog in usenet with a muslim, i can't
really say your point is well suited to be taken. i really should at least
have had the opportunity to show that i am a hypocrite, right? we are after
all, in this country, innocent until proven guilty? right? are you
predicting future behavior and settling judgement preemptively? why does
that sound like a familiar practice?

ok, i'm ready. give me a muslim who is willing to discuss his religion.
wait...no need. since i have already prepared myself for such a dialog with
christian, judeistic, islamic, mormon, hindu, budhist, and wiccan religious
dogma, several things can be infered.

1) i take the subject of religion seriously
2) i have taken time to *fully* understand the tenents of those listed
3) i am prepared to discuss this topic at any breadth or depth with anyone
4) am not, nor have not, singled out any single religion - especially out of
some vent i may...as you presume.

be assured, if the muslim school in new york city is being pay with public
funds, i'll certainly be up in arms about it. you shouldn't be surprised
though, that this is the first i've heard of it. i keep quite busy
contracting and haven't read the paper or watched the telly in about a
month. again, that would negate my opportunity to engage in hypocrocy.

when you actually get a point to make rather than a reaction to give,
herb...post something valid that we can whittle away with. let me just say,
we won't be getting on well or for very long if the rest of your replies
being with ad-homonyms - and uninformed, assumptive ones at that.

cheers.

"Shelly" <sheldonlg.news@asap-consult.com> wrote in message
news:13f3b6e3dknblc9@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:8vmdnTwFNe-
>> Sorry, religion requires neither ceremonies or rites.
>
> From www.m-w.com
>
> Main Entry: re·li·gion
> Pronunciation: ri-'li-j&n
> Function: noun
> Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Anglo-French religiun, Latin
> religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice,
> perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back -- more at RELY
> 1 a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1)
> : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or
> devotion to religious faith or observance
> 2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes,
> beliefs, and practices
> 3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
> 4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
> - re·li·gion·less adjective
>
> #1 - This involves "service" to God or the supernatural. Service means
> actually DOING something!
> #2 - INSTITUTIONALIZED .... AND PRACTICES! (aka dogma and practices)
> #3 - archaic meaning
> and finally, we get to your position (note that it is last even after the
> archaic meaning).
>
> You will get more or less the same results if you go to
> www.dictionary.com.

thanks shelly...i like 4 best, since it requires neither ardor nor faith to
reject a posit without evidence. ;^)

"Herb" <herb_k@mail.com> wrote in message
news:1190250441.341187.272110@g4g2000hsf.googlegro ups.com...
> On Sep 19, 7:23 pm, "Shelly" <sheldonlg.n...@asap-consult.com> wrote:
>
>> NO ONE IS PREVENTING YOU FROM PRACTICING YOUR RELIGION.
>
>> Shelly
>
> as a factual point, you are quite incorrect. The counter group to the
> ACLU is the ACLJ. They have gone from state to state, suing school
> districts, local governments and other entities who have been actively
> infringing on the rights of Christians. They have been mainly
> successful in these lawsuits.
>
> So you are wrong - reverse discrimination is very well established and
> has been actively pursuing its own bigotry. In fact, reverse
> discrimination of all kinds has become the dominant form of bigotry in
> the US.
>
> A small group of Christians was jailed near Philadelphia PA for
> carryihg signs at a gay festival. They faced 40+ years for trumped up
> "hate crime" charges. Name any recent instance when non-Christians
> suffered any similar peril via govt action.
>
> (You likely haven't heard of this since the liberal bigots who control
> most of the US media sat on the story - naturally.)

funny then, that it never surfaced on hannity and colmbs either...or any fox
network communications that i recall either.

as for your 'detailed' expultion of platitude, post your references/cites.
otherwise, it's all self-serving, meaningless, and probably just made-up.
see, with cites, we may discover that the 'small group of christians'
consisted of two assholes who violated local laws governing the proper
manner in which they could protest...say, like, blocking the parade or
pissing in the punch bowl.

as it is, history is wrot with the crushing conquest of religion. don't
expect sympathy from me when i really couldn't care less about the two
assholes who didn't obey the law.

and hey, by 'mainly successful', do you mean 'outta two cases, they almost
won one'? you see now why cites and references your cause?

one more question. how does one get a notion (reverse-descrimination) to
*actively* pursue its own biggotry (another notion). do they run fast? they
taking their time? is one faster than the other? what happens when the one
catches up with the other? sorry, that was a few more questions than just
one.

i hate to burst your bubble, but the KKK has been faced with the same
consequences while later being the recipient of the protection of the law
that they had violated - this in regard to 'name any recent instance...blah,
blah, blah'. are you going to say that the KKK (all of them, any of them)
are representative or resembling christians? did they not violate the law?
was the law not applied for their right to peaceful assembly? sorry, the
courts aren't as twisted as your synicism and paranoia would dictate.

"Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:hJedneINt947A2zbnZ2dnUVZ_u6rnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
> Steve wrote:
>> "Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote in message
>> news:WPOdnQYlxN2FzW3bnZ2dnUVZ_jidnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>>> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> And BTW - atheism is a religion, also.
>>>> Only to religious people.
>>>>
>>> And Websters...
>>
>> i have an old copy of websters that is nothing like their current
>> definition. plus, every dictionary has a different definition of atheism.
>> it just means no one really understands what it is...except atheists. we
>> don't mind. we're only about 2% of the world's population. even so, that
>> doesn't make your snappy come-back, very snappy.
>>
>> ;^)
>>
>
> Gee, word meanings change. Maybe you should get a copy which has been
> published this century. Or at least last century.
>
>>>> To atheists it is merely sidelining religion as irrelevant and getting
>>>> on with the job.
>>>>
>>>> This is conveniently
>>>>> "overlooked" by those espousing it in the name of "freedom".
>>>> This is conveniently overlooked by those who cannot concieve of a
>>>> person who believes in nothing other than his sensory apparatus and
>>>> what it tells him.
>>>>
>>> Not at all. I can conceive of those people. But, unlike them, I don't
>>> try to force them to practice my religion - but they want to prohibit me
>>> from practicing it.
>>
>> wow. now would be the time for you to say what happened to you
>> *specifically* so we don't just discard such a statement as a generalized
>> blurt that is unfounded and meaningless.
>>
>> you still haven't said how you reconsile your apparent aversion to
>> fulfilling the great commission. you may not actively tie us down, but
>> you're certainly supposed to tell us "the good news". btw, there is more
>> religious proliferation in public forums than atheists standing outside
>> your church's doors blocking your entrance on sunday morning. just who is
>> forcing whom?
>>
>
> Those who won't let me pray on school grounds, for instance. A perfect
> example - when I lived in Raleigh (NC), our church had a fire (old
> wiring). For a while we rented a junior high gymnasium for our Sunday
> services while the church was being renovated. Then an atheist group
> threatened to sue the country Board of Education for allowing a religious
> group to meet on school property.
>
> This was a publicly owned building, and open to any other group willing to
> pay the same rent we did. But even though we were members of the public
> and payed the taxes to build the building, we were barred from using it
> during non-school hours, when no one else was around, because we were
> holding a religious function.

jerry, my church meets in an elementary school. and while i see no problems
with that argument (especially because you'd actually be paying rent thereby
allowing my taxes to work somewhere else) if equal access is afforded. it is
quite a different proposal than most situations...in that the main themes
are seperation and equal access. this instead of seperation and endorsement.
everyone who comes to church in such a situation is doing so of their own
volition.

much different is the actual endorsement of religion given the genre of
examples we've given you. all of that said though, i likewise understand the
reaction that was received. i'd be more lax about it, but i can see fighting
for the principle of the matter. that's a worthy cause. not only that, i'd
rather have an over-reaction by *any* group of protesters since it would
reinforce the walls of seperation rather than letting gray areas creep into
the mix. remember, its a slippery slope.

>>>>> But many atheists are trying to force their religion on the rest of
>>>>> the country.
>>>>>
>>>> They can't. Atheism by definition is the absence of religion.
>>>>
>>> Wrong, again.
>>
>> again...
>>
>> a latin: without
>> theism latin: belief in god
>>
>> i know you don't care about word origins, lexicons, or etymology in
>> general (your s.a.t scores must have s.u.c.k.e.d), however when there is
>> a dispute as the the modern interpretation of a word, the latin or greek
>> roots are the foundation of any definition. the one above is the simple
>> raw data. you can certainly appreciate at least that, being a programmer.
>>
>
> Nope. Word origins don't mean anything other than where the words came
> from. Current usage is what counts.

you missed the point again. however at this point, i can predict how many
threads it would take for me to bring it home to you, given this thread's
history...and i'll tell you now...it just aint worth it. ;^)

>>>>> The first amendment had to do with TOLERANCE. You worship your way
>>>>> and I worship mine. You don't try to tell me what I can and cannot
>>>>> do, and I don't try to tell you the same.
>>>>>
>>>> I don't worship.
>>>>
>>> No, you don't worship a god.
>>
>> no, you don't know him well enough to say that. you must take him at his
>> word that he doesn't worship...anything. you keep acting like you are on
>> familiar terms with everyone. that's rather arrogant.
>
> I was just more specific about it. If he doesn't worship anything, then
> the logical conclusion is that he doesn't worship a god, either.

jerry! you aren't dumb!!! you expect us to swollow that bullshit?!!! you
could have just as easily said he doesn't worship dog shit, were that the
true case. you obviously didn't just intend to *just* be more specific about
it!

"Herb" <herb_k@mail.com> wrote in message
news:1190246181.995323.178430@57g2000hsv.googlegro ups.com...
> On Sep 19, 7:47 pm, "Shelly" <sheldonlg.n...@asap-consult.com> wrote:
>> "Jerry Stuckle" <jstuck...@attglobal.net> wrote in message
>>
>> news:hJednR0Nt97SAmzbnZ2dnUVZ_u7inZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>>
>> > Shelly wrote:
>> >> You can practice your religion on any PRIVATE property that allows you
>> >> to
>> >> do so and you can make any statement you wish in a public place
>> >> concerning religion -- just not at PUBLICLY paid for events. Those
>> >> are
>> >> paid for by people like ME who do not practice YOUR religion.
>
> so you object to the US funding Israel, do you?

jesus h fucking-christ! when did israel cease being a nation and start being
a religion! i no more protest the us funding israel than the us sending a
billion dollars in aid to africa over the past eight years. those, after
all, are strategic locations from which we can better preemptively protect
our oil (tongue in cheek).

;^)

"Herb" <herb_k@mail.com> wrote in message
news:1190249006.190962.5160@57g2000hsv.googlegroup s.com...
> On Sep 19, 8:13 pm, "Shelly" <sheldonlg.n...@asap-consult.com> wrote:
>> "Herb" <her...@mail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1190246181.995323.178430@57g2000hsv.googlegro ups.com...
>>
>> > On Sep 19, 7:47 pm, "Shelly" <sheldonlg.n...@asap-consult.com> wrote:
>> >> "Jerry Stuckle" <jstuck...@attglobal.net> wrote in message
>>
>> >>news:hJednR0Nt97SAmzbnZ2dnUVZ_u7inZ2d@comcast.co m...
>>
>> >> > Shelly wrote:
>> >> >> You can practice your religion on any PRIVATE property that allows
>> >> >> you
>> >> >> to
>> >> >> do so and you can make any statement you wish in a public place
>> >> >> concerning religion -- just not at PUBLICLY paid for events. Those
>> >> >> are
>> >> >> paid for by people like ME who do not practice YOUR religion.
>>
>> > so you object to the US funding Israel, do you?
>>
>> Israel is a country, not a religion.
>
> look up "disingenous", as my reply to your statement above (as if
> Israel is a secular state, uh huh)
>
>> I have no problem with the US ing
>> any of our allies. I have no problem with ing Israel (mostly Jews),
>> France (a half century ago and mostly Catholic), Japan (same time frame
>> and
>> mostly Buddhist), India (mostly Hindu), etc., etc. so long as they are
>> allies. Are you saying that Israel is not our ally?
>
> Ally? No, our beneficiary. The religion-and-ethnicity-based state of
> Israel will pursue it's own interests at every turn, and not ours. I
> cab recall Sharon saying just that, during the Lebanon incursion of a
> generation ago.
>
>>
>> > btw, were you a big fan of Maplethorpe?
>>
>> I had to look up who Maplethorpe is. The photographs I saw on the net
>> are
>> very artistic. Do you have a problem with the beauty of the human body?
>
> hehe... you are funny, Sheldon.
>
> Maplethorpe did mainly homosexual porno, and called it as art. He also
> was a terrible anti-Christian bigot.
>
> Now, if anbybody went to the National Endowment for the Arts, and
> asked to get money to take pictures of crucifixes, they would have
> been figuratively ejected from the building. But Maplethorpe put a
> crucifix in a glass of his own urine, and *THAT* was art. It was
> publicly supported, too - aka tax dollars.
>
> Such is the natural outgrowth of your arguments, in that religion gets
> excluded and suppressed, but anti-Christianity gets endorsed.
>
> It also leads to a godless religion (like secular humanism, which has
> evolved into political-correctness) having the ability to become the
> established religion.
>
> Are you gay? Is that why you like Maplethorpe's photos?

shelly, i kind of got the feeling that this was one of those kind of
nut-jobs from his first post. now i guess we both know.

loose nut on the keyboard! alert, alert...killfile, killfile.

"Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:hJednR8Nt950AmzbnZ2dnUVZ_u7inZ2d@comcast.com. ..
> Steve wrote:
>> "Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote in message
>> news:msOdnYNUlZJZLXLbnZ2dnUVZ_tCrnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>>> Sanders Kaufman wrote:
>>>> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>>> Sanders Kaufman wrote:
>>>>>> But it seems that the same people who are stupid and irresponsible
>>>>>> enough to vote themselves a tax break when there's an outstanding and
>>>>>> past-due, mutli-generational debt to pay...
>>>>> Yea, and you know what? After that tax break, the economy improved,
>>>>> and federal tax revenue INCREASED. You need to go back to Economics
>>>>> 101.
>>>> I CLEP'd Eco101 and 102.
>>> Then you need to go back to school.
>>>
>>>> Where your logic fails is in your use of just ONE side of the economic
>>>> equation.
>>>>
>>> And which side is that, Sanders? It must be the same side every
>>> recognized economics expert in the world is on, though, so I guess I'm
>>> in good company.
>>
>> uhhhh...hummmm (trying not to laugh).
>>
>> well, our friend alan and most other economists like levitt and company,
>> clearly see two sides to manipulating and predicting ecomonomic states.
>> being that you're such an expert (really holding it in now) on the
>> matter, i find it a bit odd that you don't know that sanders is talking
>> about the supply side rather than the demand side...duely recognizing
>> that either is typically and respectively the sole target of republicans
>> and democrats.
>>
>> me thinks the 'side' your standing on now is the one where the crickets
>> can clearly be heard chirping.
>>
>> (now letting loose the supressed hilarity)
>
> No, I understand what he's saying. But the two sides are not separate.
> They are intimately intertwined. Without one, the other is worthless. And
> you cannot consider one without the other.

ah jerry! you just blurted out the first thing that came to mind before you
read what he was saying. PLEASE, tell me that was the case. i'd hate to have
to consider that you just backpeddled to save face since you actually
*didn't* know what supply/demand side manipulation is.

"Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:_tKdnelQP6RMPWzbnZ2dnUVZ_qSonZ2d@comcast.com. ..
> Steve wrote:
>> "Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote in message
>> news:cuadnVL5QPJvyW3bnZ2dnUVZ_hKdnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>>> Steve wrote:
>>>> "Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:296dnbsuHfXCnW3bnZ2dnUVZ_tPinZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>>>>> Steve wrote:
>>>>>> "Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:nNqdnZZZKfElX3LbnZ2dnUVZ_h6vnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>>>>>>> Steve wrote:
>>>>>>>> "Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:JoWdneE7j9ChsHLbnZ2dnUVZ_vCknZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hey, I'd much rather have a God-fearing President than an atheist.
>>>>>>>> jerry, i've been quiet thus far. what is wrong with an atheist or
>>>>>>>> atheism itself. you and i are involved in a scientific field. i
>>>>>>>> have to ask, what scientific evidence do you have that god exists.
>>>>>>>> and, with whatever 'evidence' you may provide, what kind of
>>>>>>>> relationship does it indicate that she may want to have with us? as
>>>>>>>> there is no objective evidence, i can only infer that if a god
>>>>>>>> exists, she wants nothing to do with us.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't need scientific evidence. My faith is good enough for me.
>>>>>>> And I feel sorry for you.
>>>>>> oh my!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> i can see the romanticism in the idea of the things hoped for. that
>>>>>> is the nature of humanity. however, to afix that to a god-figure and
>>>>>> create a regiment of though/belief about that concept - one that
>>>>>> rules your life and had such a huge and not always pleasant mark on
>>>>>> the history of others lives - without proof or indications that say
>>>>>> you seem to be correct...that is just scary!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> why is it that most rational people who go through their lives
>>>>>> applying critical thinking to all aspects of their lives, negate or
>>>>>> forbid themselves from doing the same with this one, special case -
>>>>>> god? that is wholly beyond me!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> you go ahead and feel sorry for me. i hope you are serving the
>>>>>> 'right' one, cuz all of the major religions now are quite exclusive
>>>>>> in membership with eternal damnation for not joining. (he pauses to
>>>>>> think...i wonder if jerry is going to come back with the good ol'
>>>>>> pascal wager at this point...then chuckles to self)
>>>>>>
>>>>> Whatever. It's my belief. However, you can be assured if there is a
>>>>> God, you will be in the wrong. At least I have a chance of practicing
>>>>> the "correct" religion.
>>>> I KNEW IT...I CALLED IT...I TOLD YOU IT WAS COMING!!!
>>>>
>>>> PASCAL'S WAGER !!!
>>>>
>>>> and no, we have exactly the SAME changes of being right. you really
>>>> should research theology more before committing one of the most basic,
>>>> stupid, and flawed logical arguments passed throughout history. (as
>>>> jerry now beings to google, red in the face from embarrassment once he
>>>> sees what the fuck he just did).
>>>>
>>> Not at all. If there is no god, my religion is neither ing or
>>> hurting me. However, if there is a god, you have no chance of being
>>> right because you never entered the lottery. OTOH, I could have picked
>>> the "correct" religion.
>>>
>>>>>>>> as for your assumption that god-fearers somehow make better
>>>>>>>> decisions that atheists...hardly the case. what god shall we fear?
>>>>>>>> muhammad? mythra? zeus? buddah? the big jc? as an american and a
>>>>>>>> republican, this is the most i've ever feared for democracy in
>>>>>>>> america...it has nothing to do with afghanistan or iraq, but
>>>>>>>> everything to do with domestic policy inacted after 911...and how
>>>>>>>> easily a 'god-fearing' people can be moved and rallied under the
>>>>>>>> banner of 'god' in leu of ration thought - especially thought that
>>>>>>>> is critical of current events in light of history.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> give me an atheist about now, please!
>>>>>>> I don't care what you believe in. However, when you try to impose
>>>>>>> your religion on me, the President or anyone else, I draw the line.
>>>>>> and the world shudders.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> why are christians so eager to say that but gaffaw when atheists, for
>>>>>> the exact same reason, want to remove religious icons from
>>>>>> mountainsides in california, or edicts greeting patrons of public
>>>>>> places, or pray in schools? why is there a double standard?
>>>>> You're the one setting the double standard - not allowing me to
>>>>> practice my religion. What harm does a cross on a mountainside do to
>>>>> you if you don't believe in any god? It's just a couple of pieces of
>>>>> wood, after all. Or if I want to pray in school, why is it your right
>>>>> to say I can't?
>>>> practice all you want, but don't ask me to pay for it with the taxes
>>>> used to propogate it in public. go off to church and do that shit in
>>>> private...not in the public sector. the harm is that a cross on a
>>>> mountainside, if paid with public funds, is favoring and sponsoring
>>>> religion. do you ever read? how about the federalist papers? madison?
>>>> what harm? fucking get a clue!
>>>>
>>>> if you want to pray in school, go ahead. the problem is when a person
>>>> paid by the state says, 'now it is time to pray'. surely you're not
>>>> that stupid!
>>> I never said you had to pay for it with your taxes. But also notice
>>> there is NOTHING in the Constitution saying Congress or the States can
>>> or cannot spend money regarding religion - or even sponsor a religion.
>>> That has strictly been an "interpretation" of the courts. All it says
>>> that Congress and the States cannot force any person to practice any
>>> religion. Now that does not mean I disagree with this interpretation.
>>>
>>> But obviously you have not read the Federalist Papers. You don't have a
>>> clue what Madison said.
>>>
>>> As for someone offering a non-denominational prayer in school - no, I
>>> don't see anything wrong with it, as long as people can opt out if they
>>> choose. What are you afraid of - your children might actually learn
>>> something you don't believe in?
>>
>> jerry, i am a student of history. i've done my homework. you keep leaving
>> out, or ignoring completely, the establishment clause of the first
>> ammendment.
>>
>> and of course you see nothing wrong with prayer in school! you're a
>> fucking christian!!! the only thing i'm afraid of is that we have a
>> religious zealot in office and people like you are backing him...and you
>> don't see a thing wrong with prayer in school or governmental sponsorship
>> of religion.
>>
>
> And you have yet to tell me what's so wrong about a non-denominational
> prayer that people can chose to participate in or not participate in.


jesus h fucking christ. this line of belabored thought is no longer worth
addressing.

ah, hell! jerry, remember that poland was only one country...and then the
netherlands...and then...well, you get the point. i think the sentiment of
the time was that eventually, satisfaction could be reached. they, and you
for the same reasons, were wrong.

(he smiles as he tries to playfully edge jerry ever so close to a
forth-coming godwin)

>> what would you be afraid of if your kid's school required them to say the
>> morning islamic prayer? the point is, that whatever i want my children to
>> believe about god is (or should be) up to me to provide, not the state.
>> funny how the only things a child learns in school are the essential
>> things that will them get through life...religion is not part of
>> that.
>>
>
> I never said it was mandatory. In fact, I specifically said participation
> should be optional.

and i, and others, keep saying there should be no reason for the option in
the first place. it is inappropriate.

> As for my children being exposed to an Islamic prayer - I'd say great.
> They should be exposed to different cultures and religions.

and prayer to satan? what about that? pagan gods? fine with that too? where
does it end, jerry? someone will have offended someone else...religions are
like that. so, whom does the gubment say can go and whom may stay?

>> btw, wtf does a prayer sound like...the one where no religion gets
>> offended? "non-demoninational"...you've still got your
>> asshole-tunnel-vision-christian-perspective goggles on, i see. lol. did
>> you mean the non-denominational zen buhdists? the non-denominational
>> hindus? the non-denominational wiccans? i couldn't be laughing harder!
>
> You don't have any idea what a non-denominational prayer is, do you? It's
> one which isn't Christian, Jewish, Muslim or any other specific religion.
> It's one which allows participants to deal with God as they believe.

the term originates in CHRISTIANITY, dumbass! all other religions whos
'denominations' have splintered are called SECTS. so, whom do you think is
pushing that fucked up notion? either way, it is a waste of time that my
children could have used to learn something *useful*. that, in and of
itself, is problem enough - wall of seperation argument aside!

"Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:O7adnXeaxIalPmzbnZ2dnUVZ_uOmnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
> Steve wrote:
>> "Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote in message
>> news:cuadnVL5QPJvyW3bnZ2dnUVZ_hKdnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>>> Steve wrote:
>>>> "Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:296dnbsuHfXCnW3bnZ2dnUVZ_tPinZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>>>>> Steve wrote:
>>>>>> "Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:nNqdnZZZKfElX3LbnZ2dnUVZ_h6vnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>>>>>>> Steve wrote:
>>>>>>>> "Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:JoWdneE7j9ChsHLbnZ2dnUVZ_vCknZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hey, I'd much rather have a God-fearing President than an atheist.
>>>>>>>> jerry, i've been quiet thus far. what is wrong with an atheist or
>>>>>>>> atheism itself. you and i are involved in a scientific field. i
>>>>>>>> have to ask, what scientific evidence do you have that god exists.
>>>>>>>> and, with whatever 'evidence' you may provide, what kind of
>>>>>>>> relationship does it indicate that she may want to have with us? as
>>>>>>>> there is no objective evidence, i can only infer that if a god
>>>>>>>> exists, she wants nothing to do with us.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't need scientific evidence. My faith is good enough for me.
>>>>>>> And I feel sorry for you.
>>>>>> oh my!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> i can see the romanticism in the idea of the things hoped for. that
>>>>>> is the nature of humanity. however, to afix that to a god-figure and
>>>>>> create a regiment of though/belief about that concept - one that
>>>>>> rules your life and had such a huge and not always pleasant mark on
>>>>>> the history of others lives - without proof or indications that say
>>>>>> you seem to be correct...that is just scary!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> why is it that most rational people who go through their lives
>>>>>> applying critical thinking to all aspects of their lives, negate or
>>>>>> forbid themselves from doing the same with this one, special case -
>>>>>> god? that is wholly beyond me!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> you go ahead and feel sorry for me. i hope you are serving the
>>>>>> 'right' one, cuz all of the major religions now are quite exclusive
>>>>>> in membership with eternal damnation for not joining. (he pauses to
>>>>>> think...i wonder if jerry is going to come back with the good ol'
>>>>>> pascal wager at this point...then chuckles to self)
>>>>>>
>>>>> Whatever. It's my belief. However, you can be assured if there is a
>>>>> God, you will be in the wrong. At least I have a chance of practicing
>>>>> the "correct" religion.
>>>> I KNEW IT...I CALLED IT...I TOLD YOU IT WAS COMING!!!
>>>>
>>>> PASCAL'S WAGER !!!
>>>>
>>>> and no, we have exactly the SAME changes of being right. you really
>>>> should research theology more before committing one of the most basic,
>>>> stupid, and flawed logical arguments passed throughout history. (as
>>>> jerry now beings to google, red in the face from embarrassment once he
>>>> sees what the fuck he just did).
>>>>
>>> Not at all. If there is no god, my religion is neither ing or
>>> hurting me. However, if there is a god, you have no chance of being
>>> right because you never entered the lottery. OTOH, I could have picked
>>> the "correct" religion.
>>
>> perhaps you didn't google the wager. the logic is explained quite clearly
>> and how the odds are equal for all players, those who believe and those
>> who don't even participate.
>>
>
> And yes, I am familiar with Pascal's Wager. He agrees that it is better
> to live as if God exists, and in very simple terms. But then came other
> philosophers who threw all kinds of "what-if's" into the equation - some
> of them which conflict with my beliefs (i.e. the Atheists wager - He "may"
> ignore the fact you didn't believe in Him). But that "may" can also be
> "may not" - and there the Atheist's wager falls apart.

actually, only pascal's wager falls apart. you've never read the original,
have you. he prefaced the wager by saying god cannot be known. since that is
the premise, then everything is a guess. god may reward the evil and punish
the good. we don't know. he may honor those who only believe what logic and
reason allow (intelletual honesty...in which case, atheists get their shot).
hell, even if you have the right religion (of the 2500 or so religions that
have ever existed), there is nothing to say that only those christians who
scratch their ass a certain way get a reward...or that it's all just random.
but, that's pascal's wager and pascal's premise. you know what? without
evidence of god, pascal is right...we are left to guess...and the wager left
to fall.

>> were i a betting man though, i'd go with a babylonian religion...you
>> know, the pagan ones. a ton of christian traditions originate with those.
>> hell, the story of noah is the retelling of the babylonian saga of
>> gilgamesh - and i can give you the specific archeological cite for that
>> one! that's about 2K BCE and a few centuries before genesis. and genesis'
>> plagurism is almost word for word with gilgamesh in more than just
>> several places. either so much for the babble being god's word...or, god
>> was pagan too and 'inspired' both accounts (changing the names to protect
>> the innocent i'm sure). but i digress...if i went the babylonian route,
>> i'd double my chances of being right. nah, i'd understand the flaws
>> inherent in pascal's wager and wouldn't be foolish enough to use it.
>> plus, i'd have looked it up if i didn't know what the fuck it was before
>> bullishly saying 'not at all' whilst continuing to place the bet!
> Gee, maybe they are so much alike because they are telling the same
> stories?

which would be problematic for you since babylon was abhorent to the god of
the bible...yet, in the bible, we see a story of pagan origin...and the
bible is supposed to be god's word. that was my point you know...that the
bible IS retelling the story of gilgamesh. actually, worse than that. the
bible makes claims of authenticity and authority, yet has clearly plagurized
at least this book. are you contending that the non-pagan god who inspired
the bible is the same pagan god that inspired gilgamesh? that seems a bit
problematic to me. and for you to sarcastically arrive at my stated point as
if it should be news to me...that shit cracks me up. first, that you didn't
get my point, second that you regurgitate my point back to me in sarcasm,
and finally, that you don't even realize the position you have put yourself
in. i must say, that one is problematic to explain.

but, off you go. explain away...

do keep up, jerry.

Shelly wrote:

> Israel is a democracy. About 25% of the country is Muslim. Yes, it the
> Jewish homeland. So?

What proportion of the *electorate* is Muslim, tho?

Herb wrote:
> On Sep 19, 7:23 pm, "Shelly" <sheldonlg.n...@asap-consult.com> wrote:
>
>> NO ONE IS PREVENTING YOU FROM PRACTICING YOUR RELIGION.
>
>> Shelly
>
> as a factual point, you are quite incorrect. The counter group to the
> ACLU is the ACLJ. They have gone from state to state, suing school
> districts, local governments and other entities who have been actively
> infringing on the rights of Christians. They have been mainly
> successful in these lawsuits.
>
> So you are wrong - reverse discrimination is very well established and
> has been actively pursuing its own bigotry. In fact, reverse
> discrimination of all kinds has become the dominant form of bigotry in
> the US.
>
> A small group of Christians was jailed near Philadelphia PA for
> carryihg signs at a gay festival. They faced 40+ years for trumped up
> "hate crime" charges. Name any recent instance when non-Christians
> suffered any similar peril via govt action.

Well over here Muslims get jailed for incitement to hatred.

They never did it to the Reverend Ian Paisley.

>
> (You likely haven't heard of this since the liberal bigots who control
> most of the US media sat on the story - naturally.)
>

"The Natural Philosopher" <a@b.c> wrote in message
news:1190276075.95885.0@iris.uk.clara.net...
> Shelly wrote:
>
>> Israel is a democracy. About 25% of the country is Muslim. Yes, it the
>> Jewish homeland. So?
>
> What proportion of the *electorate* is Muslim, tho?

even if you have a point, aren't we supporting the nation (the people) of
israel and not just their gubment?

Steve wrote:
> "Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:8vmdnQIFNe8zCmzbnZ2dnUVZ_tWtnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>> Steve wrote:
>>>> I read something very interesting in this month's Scientific American
>>>> last night:
>>> so you actually do that?
>>>
>>>> Athiests cannot simply define themselves by what they do not believe. As
>>>> Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises warned his anti-Communist colleagues
>>>> in the 1950's: "An anti-something movement displays a purely negative
>>>> attitude. It has no chance whatever to succeed. Its passionate
>>>> diatribes virtually advertise the program they attack. People must fight
>>>> for something that they want to achieve, not simply reject an evil, no
>>>> matter how bad it may be."
>>> and like most religious people, ludwig had no fucking clue and was a
>>> paranoid bastard. we atheists don't hold meetings to take over the world
>>> as you religious folk do. as a matter of fact, outside of not caring
>>> whether or not god exists without evidence, we really don't have enough
>>> in common to keep conversations that interesting...much less hang out on
>>> an ongoing basis.
>>>
>> First of all, we aren't trying to take over the world. But you are trying
>> to take over the world by destroying all religion. You're not doing it in
>> meetings - you're trying to take away our legal rights to practice our
>> religions.
>
> crusades aside, right? inquisition aside, right? missionaries aside, right?
> great commission aside, right? to tell you the truth, it is hard for me to
> distinguish the christian philosophy of propogation from the islamic. you
> know, the group you really love.
>

Let's see - crusades - taking back the Holy Land after the Turks invaded
and captured it. Inquisition - not the proudest moment in the Catholic
Church's history, I admit. But no longer practiced - we've gone beyond
that. Missionaries - yes, they do teach about religions. But they
don't force people to listen. They're happy when someone converts, but
do not force conversion on them. And they teach more than their
religion - they typically teach better farming practices, for instance.
And bring tools and such to villages which would not otherwise have them.

And no, when you get down to the basics, there isn't that much
difference between Christianity and Islam (I'm NOT talking about what
militant radicals call Islam - but the one in the Koran). We both
worship the same god - we call him God, they call him Allah. Our rites
are different, but we have similar concepts and morals.

> and exactly how are atheists trying to destroy your religion? by wanting to
> support a wall of separation between governmental concerns and religious
> ones? did you the czech people declared themselves as a nation, atheist,
> because of the shit catholics pulled by assasinating one of their own
> priests in that country? want the cite? point is, your religion does a
> pretty damn good job of destroying itself. why would it need to that
> end?
>

By getting the government to deny us access to facilities our tax
dollars paid for, also. You don't want a wall - you want a prohibition.

A true separation of church and state means that the state will take NO
position on religion - either for or against. But you want them to take
a stand against religion.

> and, the last time i checked, atheists didn't orchistrate a grass-roots
> campain to control local politics by putting conservative atheists in
> representative seats of the republican party as an in-road to get their
> agenda not only heard but to get a president elected...twice. yeah, that
> would be the christians again. yes, i am involved in local politics and have
> held a seat at the RNC...surrounded by babble-thumpers. i'm not talking
> outta my ass.
>

So we wanted someone who shared our views and moral standards. What's
wrong with that? Unions do it with Democratic nominations all the time,
for instance.

>>> we have no movement outside of not allowing religion to permeate *every*
>>> sector of public domain. that is an action and far from diatribe.
>>>
>> If you had your way, there would be no religion. You've said so yourself.
>
> really? provide the quote then. perhaps you've crossed threads here. i find
> god a wholly uninteresting topic. as long as it stays out of the public
> sector, i don't think about him or you much at all.
>

You stated "I hope everyone would mature enough to gain the wisdom that
God is irrelevant." So by your own words, you want there to be no religion.

>>> again, glad to find out you read. just wish you'd have read something
>>> that actually applied to what we've been talking about. did you just
>>> google and copy/paste the first thing you found that had the word
>>> "atheist" in it?
>>>
>> Not at all. Pick up the September, 2007 copy of Scientific American. It's
>> right in there.
>
> it probably is...and you provided proof that i could verify. wonderful!
>
> now pray-tell, how was that article germain to the topic at hand?
>

Among other things, it shows just how hopeless your "cause" truly is.
You might get laws passed, but by brining up religion you are providing
free marketing for it.

>>>>>>> I also profess no belief in leprechauns. Does that make me some kind
>>>>>>> of religious person?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Leprechauns are not gods.
>>>>> neither is your god. until you can PROVE otherwise, then both
>>>>> leprechauns and god are equally almighty.
>>>>>
>>>> How can He be, when according to you there are not gods? Unfortunately
>>>> for you, the majority of the world disagrees with you. And when it
>>>> comes to the meanings of words, majority rules.
>>> it's a logical comparison. however and again, my *claim* is that there is
>>> no objective evidence that god exists! get that through your pea-sized
>>> brain! the logical conclusion would be that there is no god.
>>>
>> The *logical* conclusion is that there would be no way to know whether a
>> god exists or not.
>
> oh no...that would be an 'alternative'. google that..."logic reason
> alternative". that should you along since you apparently lack any kind
> of formal study in reason and logic.
>

Nope. Lack of proof does not imply lack of existence. But you can't
get that through your head.

> the conclusion should be that since the premise is without evidence, the
> premise is rejected. logically if the premise is god exists, the antithesis
> would be...yep. a state of his non-being was the original state of affairs
> before the notion of god was conceived.
>

No, the conclusion is that since there is no evidence for or against,
the premise is neither provable nor unprovable. Nothing more.

> since the notion, an attribute of god may be that his infinite nature is
> such that it cannot be known to man. that idea is an alternative. but, it is
> just as irrelevant as the original state, for anything said about god cannot
> be confirmed and everything said of god is equally valid...including the
> notion that if god honors/favors intellectual honesty, as atheists may
> postulate, then they have equal chances as anyone else, christian or
> whatever, to get eternal rewards for reasoning even to the point they have
> with their conclusions of god. and this is where pascals wager fails, for in
> its premise is exactly what i've just described. now you know, and you
> didn't even have to google.
>

That's very true. But believing in intellectual honesty with the hopes
of getting into paradise (however it's defined) but not believing in a
god isn't very honest, either.

>>> i see your logic...majority makes right. the majority of the world
>>> consists of underdeveloped countries still rolling the bones and
>>> believing in demonic possession! as for those countries with educational
>>> opportunities (as we have seen again with the evolution of man's thought
>>> sophistication), there is more critical thinking being applied to all the
>>> religious dogma and god is replaced with reason. good bye "god of the
>>> gaps".
>>>
>> When it comes to word definitions, yes, the majority does rule.
>
> and who was speaking about word definitions here? i'm experienced at this.
> what you've just done, so you don't have to google, is throw me a big, fat,
> juicy red herring. please avoid doing so since it makes you look childish,
> and as if you can't support yourself properly in debate.
>

We were talking about word definitions. You took it off on another
track, not me. Look back in the messages.

>>> now, what was your point...cuz you certainly have not made any with that
>>> remark.
>>>
>> You're trying to say leprechauns are gods. My statement is they are not
>> recognized by society as gods. Not even the Irish believe they are.
>
> no, you simply stated that leprechauns are not gods. i left that in this
> post quoted above, in case you needed recalling what you've said. it
> s us to not look silly by saying things like, 'my statement is they are
> not recognized by society as gods'.
>

No, my statement was that society doesn't consider them gods.

> but, let's continue on in your line of rationale, shall we? what does it say
> to you that you have to rely on popular opinion to realize the god that you
> serve? what do you think is the cause of so much dispute between different
> religions and even within the same sects, such that a sect would split to
> become known as a denomination? perhaps that there is no evidence by which
> god can be known? if he does exist, why is he hiding? perhaps you/we are as
> irrelevant to him, then, as atheists find the question of his existence? if
> god cannot be known enough so as not to give cause for dispute over his
> attributes, sons, daughters, likes, dislikes, etc., what then, drives you
> christians to such certainty about 'the way'? faith? i don't want a debate
> from this one. i want to know your actual feelings about these questions.
>

I didn't say I relied on popular opinion. I said that society as a
whole recognizes my god, even if they don't believe in him. Just as I
recognize the gods of other religions, even though I don't believe in them.

And who said he's hiding? Not me. I see the effects of His work all
around me, every day. And my faith tells me I am not irrelevant to him.
And my faith tells me this is the way.

>>>>>>> In fact there are thousands of things I do not believe, up to and
>>>>>>> including that GW Bush is the reincarnation of Immelda Markos.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Like my non belief in god, the are simply not worth mentioning.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What religious people do not like at all, is that to an atheist, the
>>>>>>> issue of whether god exists or not is simply irrelevant.
>>>>>>> Uninteresting in the highest degree. Its useless to believe or
>>>>>>> disbelieve. It has little objective effect either way.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I really don't care one way or the other what you think. Your
>>>>>> religious views are your own. Just don't infringe on my right to
>>>>>> believe as I choose.
>>>>> it is obvious to all that you don't care for anyone else's viewpoint.
>>>>> you don't even understand atheism enough to know what it is and is not
>>>>> (i.e. is not a religion). and, we could give two flying fucks what you
>>>>> believe. however, we at least have had an open mind enough to find out
>>>>> about not only your religion, but many others. you seem to feel
>>>>> comfortable using your asshole as blinders on the subject of religion.
>>>>> no wonder your opinion is so tunnel-visioned.
>>>>>
>>>> Yes, I do understand it. And I also understand that you hate it being
>>>> called a religion - because you are against all religions.
>>> i'm not against ANY religion. i go to church every sunday and blend in
>>> just like you, jerry. i suspect a surprising number of your flock are
>>> just like me, skeptical people in fancy suits just hoping no one asks,
>>> 'so, how's your walk with our lord jesus christ'. by the way, i fit in
>>> quite well and am close with my pastor...we golf every weekend. go
>>> figure.
>>>
>> So you're saying you're a hypocrite. You go to church but don't believe
>> in the teachings of the church. Ok.
>
> no, i go to church to get what i need and/or want. the same as any other
> person there. had you noticed "hoping no one asks, 'so, how's your walk with
> our lord jesus christ'", you'd have (or should have) sensed my apprehension
> is based on my anticipation of answering that question honestly. if i'd have
> planned on lying about it, i wouldn't care what they'd ask me.
>

The church is there to practice religion. You don't believe in that
religion, so you're using the church for your own benefits. Even worse.

> you go ahead with your ad-homonyms. you've already wracked up enough points
> on red herrings and strawmen. might as well run the gamut of logical
> fallicies.
>

Not at all. You're the one who doesn't understand simple things like
the scientific method. And read back - who's putting out the
ad-homonyms - like this one?

> hey, ot for a second...i really do recommend you read "crimes against
> logic". that'd you avoid those little monsters you've been hurling.
>
> btw, am i to assume your logic to mean that all who attend church walk in
> through the doors knowing and believing the teachings of that church, and
> anyone who does not is a hypocrite? i could only see that working if you
> prep'ed visitors outside of the church where they'd only be admitted if they
> believed what was just prescribed for them...oh they could go in, but people
> would all scowl and such, hissing 'hypocrite, hypocrite, nah, nah'. roflmao.
>

Or they are at least open-minded enough to want to learn about the
teachings. But if they go knowing they don't believe and are not
willing to open their minds, then yes, they are being hypocritical. Or
using the church for their own purposes.

>
>>>> I refer you to von Mises above.
>>> i refer you to 'get a fucking clue'.
>>>
>> Looks like I have more of a clue than you do.
>
> not on anything we've discussed in this thread. you have thrown a litany of
> logical fallicies in leu of a good defense of your position in just about
> every reply you make. i think you assume too much about yourself.
>

Nope. Every one of my arguments has been logical - to a logical person,
which.

>>>>>>>>> as i said, there is no objective evidence that would lead me to
>>>>>>>>> believe that god exists. no more *subjective* evidence for god than
>>>>>>>>> for santa clause or the toothfairy or the boogy man. are you saying
>>>>>>>>> that this critical observation makes me a religious atoothfarian or
>>>>>>>>> a asanta-clausian?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That's fine. It's your opinion and you're welcome to it. But don't
>>>>>>>> try to convince me my opinion is wrong.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As for proof - I have no proof you exist. All I see is some text on
>>>>>>>> my screen. It could have been generated by a computer. So by your
>>>>>>>> reasoning, I should not believe you exist. But I have faith that
>>>>>>>> you do.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thats your problem, not mine.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not a problem at all.
>>>>> if you can't infer the inputs given to your senses, then you do have a
>>>>> problem. the hallmark trait of humanity is the ability to inf