New Riding Buddy (heheh)

[Paladin]

BB wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 20:36:29 -0700, Drew wrote:
>
> > However she has the right to believe what she wants. I also can believe and
> > say what I want.
> > This is one of the fundamental rights that make this country great.
>
> ...so is "..no law respecting an establishment of religion..". That's in
> the first amendment too. A bill to use public funding to post the ten
> commandments pretty much violates that, doesn't it? She can say what she
> wants, but making into law is a different story.
>
> --
> -BB-
> To e-mail me, unmunge my address

An established religion came from England, where the state dictated the
religion of its citizens, our first amendment saying, "Congress shall
pass no law establishing religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise
thereof."

For a very short answer, this young lady is not Congress, the 10
Commandments on public property is not the establishment of a state
religion, (such as requiring all citizens to be baptists or
rastafarians) nor is anyone prohibited from practicing their religion
of choice.

The state religion being established is the anti-Judaeo-Christian
religious fervour with which a vocal minority is trying to excise all
references to God from public life.

CDB

 

[CB]

Whoa, I thought mountain biking was exhausting......

This thread is a double black diamond!!! Stay away from the SLIPPERY
SLOPE.

You bunch of dopes......... SHUT UP AND GET ON THE TOPIC OF THE NG....

Go take a ride and leave the muttering god hugging blonde to her own
devices.

Chip

 

[BB]

On 13 Aug 2006 17:27:42 -0700, Paladin wrote:

> The state religion being established is the anti-Judaeo-Christian
> religious fervour with which a vocal minority is trying to excise all
> references to God from public life.

Well I've learned a little about the separation of church and state this
weekend - something which about I actually never had much of an opinion
before. My primary take-aways are: 1. that its actually a good thing for
religion, because it provides equal respect to all religions regardless of
how big or popular they are, and 2. those who already have preference want
to keep it that way, so there's no use trying to convince them of #1.

I also managed to get in a ride that still has me tired, and got some
great peppermints (my secret reason for accompanying my wife to the sewing
store).

But I'm sorry for all of everyone else's time I've wasted. I mean this
thread, not just the peppermint story.

--
-BB-
To e-mail me, unmunge my address

 

[Chris Glidden]

"CB" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Whoa, I thought mountain biking was exhausting......
>
> This thread is a double black diamond!!! Stay away from the SLIPPERY
> SLOPE.
>
> You bunch of dopes......... SHUT UP AND GET ON THE TOPIC OF THE NG....
>
> Go take a ride and leave the muttering god hugging blonde to her own
> devices.
>
> Chip
>

Well said Chippy.

CG

 

[BB]

On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 19:26:48 -0700, Chris Glidden wrote:

>> You bunch of dopes......... SHUT UP AND GET ON THE TOPIC OF THE NG....
>
> Well said Chippy.

Maybe I'm missing something...is there some reason you couldn't just skip
this thread and read the other three or four threads? Is it just my
newsreader that makes it easy?

--
-BB-
To e-mail me, unmunge my address

 

[MattB]

Mark Hickey wrote:
> BB <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 18:57:42 -0700, Mark Hickey wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Hmmm, you have to wonder why 90% of the time that line is quoted, the
>>>rest of the sentence is left out.
>>>
>>>For those interested in the TRUE intent of the passage, here's the
>>>rest:
>>>
>>> "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"
>>>
>>>Kinda changes things, huh?
>>
>>Not at all. As I said in the post to which you replied, "she can say what
>>she wants, but making it into law is a different story." I don't assume to
>>know the "true intent" of the amendment; I think they intended to write
>>everything they did.
>>
>>I have no problem with people posting religious text in their homes or
>>churches. But when they try to post them in public parks using tax
>>dollars, that's different. I imagine you only defend it because it happens
>>to be YOUR religious establishment. Would you be equally supportive of
>>your tax dollars being used to post Qu'ranic verses in your local park?
>
>
> I don't know if "equally" applies, but if the park was in an area that
> was predominantly Muslim, yes, I'd "equally" support it. But in the
> case of the Ten Commandments, it's a cornerstone of western culture,
> and especially of American culture. By thoroughly and totally
> excluding anything with a religious content, you're essentially
> insisting on promoting ONLY the religion of atheism.
>
>

But now your are just trying to justify ignoring the constitution. It
was written so specifically for a reason. It's not promoting atheism,
it's just trying to stay impartial. I don't know of a single government
sponsored (or otherwise actually) monument to atheism.

We're a melting pot even if there are still unmelted pockets in some
places. I'd be just as opposed to a Muslim, Jewish, or any other
religious themed monument. The government needs to (at least try to
appear to) be impartial to religion. That's what the country is built on
and why the Puritans wanted to get out of England in the first place.

>>>What part of the Ten Commandments is "establishing a religion"?
>>
>>It doesn't say anything about establishing a religion. It says no law
>>respecting "an establishment of religion". Christianity is an
>>establishment of religion.
>>
>>There is a difference between 'the establishment of religion' which is an
>>action, and 'an establishment of religion' which is something that already
>>exists. They said the latter.
>
>
> In either interpretation (which was in either case done to prevent
> having an "official arm of the church", which I agree is a good idea),
> there's nothing about excluding religion from public life (covered
> under the "or prohibiting the free exercise thing").
>

Indeed. As long as it's done with private funds (and lands and
facilities) then I'm all for it, no matter what religion or lack of
religion it promotes.

Matt

 

[MattB]

Bill Sornson wrote:
> MattB wrote:
>
>>Bill Sornson wrote:
>>
>>>MattB wrote:
>
>
>>>>But the rate at which the Earth is warming is greater than the rate
>>>>at which the sun is warming. So there are other factors involved
>>>>(like better heat retention by the Earth).
>
>
>>>Not so sure it works "linearly" like that. (You can get a worse
>>>sunburn in a half-hour sometimes than in two hours others.)
>>>
>>>Guess we'll have to see...
>
>
>
>>I'm not sure either, but I'll believe scientists over politicians or
>>lobbyists.
>
>
> Which is why people worshipping at the flat feet of Al Gore is such a
> crack-up. The man is seriously nuts -- and so are at least some of his
> computer models and animations.
>
> Guess we'll have to see...
>
>

Well I disagree, but I know he's got an agenda and he's a politician so
I take his words with a grain of salt.
Of course his side of the debate has got a lot more support from the
scientific community, so that makes it more credible to me.

But you're right. We'll have to see.

Matt

 

[MattB]

Paladin wrote:
> MattB wrote:
>
>>Paladin wrote:
>>
>>>For Mattb and others who appreciate the "finer things in life", and who
>>>don't mind going through mtbr, here are some pictures from last night's
>>>group ride that I host. For a little background, the FIQ (female in
>>>question) is quite famous around here, and the slavering dogs on the ID
>>>mtbr board make references to her every week...
>>>
>>>http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.php?t=216690
>>>http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.php?t=216903
>>>
>>>CDB
>>>your goodwill ambassador to the unridden masses
>>>
>>
>>Nice pics, but besides riding a mountain bike, I think she epitomizes
>>"not my type" in every way imaginable.
>
>
> So quick to judge another based on pictures. Man, where's the
> *tolerance* you lefties are supposed to be famous for?? Everything
> goes, except Christianity, right? The only politically correct
> discrimination left in America.
>
> CDB
>

No offense meant to you or anyone else CDB (which I realize probably
didn't pan out), but I just typed what I felt. Would you not feel the
same if I posted a picture of someone who wasn't your type (physically
speaking when the thread's theme is "look at this hottie" and I name you
specifically). What if you didn't know who this was so you Google her
and find out she's some kind of raving leftist (hopeful) politician?

Maybe you would have just kept quiet, but I suspect maybe you wouldn't have.

I had no idea who she was, but on the MTBR forum they were acting like
she was a celebrity. So I figured I'd better look her up. The rest is
history.

Matt (mostly just intolerant to intolerance - oh and really bad music)

 

[MattB]

Mark Hickey wrote:
> "Corvus Corvax" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>This will be the last I post on this subject, I think, but I spent a
>>while on a nice 30-mile spin on the fix this morning doing a little
>>critical thinking and it would be interesting to put it into electrons.
>>
>>Mark Hickey wrote:
>>
>>>Still, you ascribe more moral importance to YOUR "religion" and don't
>>>want to allow those with other viewpoints the same visibility.
>>>Replace "religion" with "mores" or "beliefs" and it's the same thing.
>>>Pure hypocrisy.
>>
>>[...bizarre ranting about Al Quaeda snipped...]
>>
>>This is what I mean by exploiting the American cultural instinct for
>>fairness: I have a religious belief system. Therefore any belief system
>>you have is necessarily religious, and therefore must be held to be on
>>equal footing with _my_ religious belief system.
>
>
> I'm all for that. But the atheist religion requires 100% adherence to
> its beliefs in the public realm, even though the practitioners are a
> minority of the population (imagine if society had somehow chosen
> another religion like Ismam or Judaism, and tried to force 100%
> compliance).
>
>

I don't see this at all. You see, I'm not an Atheist (surprise!) but I
feel like I've never been forced to accept anything from them.
They don't come and knock on my door and try to convert me. They don't
try and spend tax money on monuments to their belief system. They don't
even appear to be an organized group (there are no churches or other
specific meeting places for them). How am I being forced to comply
again? I'm just minding my business (from a religious perspective) and
trying to point out when someone else's beliefs are trying to steamroll
mine or anyone else's.

Matt

 

[Bill Sornson]

MattB wrote:
> Bill Sornson wrote:
>> MattB wrote:

>>> I'm not sure either, but I'll believe scientists over politicians or
>>> lobbyists.


>> Which is why people worshipping at the flat feet of Al Gore is such a
>> crack-up. The man is seriously nuts -- and so are at least some of
>> his computer models and animations.
>>
>> Guess we'll have to see...


> Well I disagree, but I know he's got an agenda and he's a politician
> so I take his words with a grain of salt.
> Of course his side of the debate has got a lot more support from the
> scientific community, so that makes it more credible to me.


The fly in that ointment is that these scientists and researchers have a
/vested interest/ in global warming being legit. It literally puts bread on
their tables. (Plus, of course, few of them are privately funded. The very
government/society they criticize so bitterly is more often than not paying
for their "work".)

> But you're right. We'll have to see.

Yup.

 

[cc]

Bill Sornson wrote:
> MattB wrote:
>
>>Bill Sornson wrote:
>>
>>>MattB wrote:
>
>
>>>>I'm not sure either, but I'll believe scientists over politicians or
>>>>lobbyists.
>
>
>
>>>Which is why people worshipping at the flat feet of Al Gore is such a
>>>crack-up. The man is seriously nuts -- and so are at least some of
>>>his computer models and animations.
>>>
>>>Guess we'll have to see...
>
>
>
>>Well I disagree, but I know he's got an agenda and he's a politician
>>so I take his words with a grain of salt.
>>Of course his side of the debate has got a lot more support from the
>>scientific community, so that makes it more credible to me.
>

You have a much bigger
problem. Manbearpig.

>
>
> The fly in that ointment is that these scientists and researchers have a
> /vested interest/ in global warming being legit. It literally puts bread on
> their tables. (Plus, of course, few of them are privately funded. The very
> government/society they criticize so bitterly is more often than not paying
> for their "work".)

Two things about this:

That is a dangerously critical
argument to make. You are
suggesting that they are
practicing unethically, which
is essentially the worst
critique you can make of a
scientist, and one I wouldn't
make without substantiating
evidence. I wouldn't argue
that the drive for that
'sccop' is large, but I think
that in general scientists are
on the level. I am of course
somewhat biased in that respect.

I think that the story with
reasonable evidence that
global warming is due to
temperature cycles or other
phenomenon not involving human
development is equally as
interesting - and less
represented - than that
condemning our ignorance. With
sound arguments and supporting
data I would find such an
article a very good read.

>
>
>>But you're right. We'll have to see.
>

It's unfortunate that 'wait
and see' is not an approach
that we can afford with
something of such global
impact and time delay between
action and consequence, or I
would agree.

>
> Yup.
>
>

 

[JD]

cc wrote:
<snip more useless pontificating from an inconsequential dingleberry on
the ass of life>


Why don't you go ride your bike?

JD

 

[Corvus Corvax]

MattB wrote:
>
> No offense meant to you or anyone else CDB (which I realize probably
> didn't pan out), but I just typed what I felt.

****, CDB is what we need more of: he just seems to want to apply a
little common sense to life and otherwise be left the hell alone. (I'll
buy you a beer any time, CDB: you may not think so right at the moment,
but I feel pretty sure we are more-or-less on the same side in the
world.)

As far as Brandi goes, my wife took a look at her web site, and all she
had to say was "Man, that girl is compensating for some kind of really
serious kink."

Women know.

CC

 

[Bill Sornson]

Corvus Corvax wrote:

> As far as Brandi goes, my wife took a look at her web site, and all
> she had to say was "Man, that girl is compensating for some kind of
> really serious kink."
>
> Women know.

Why so judgmental? Ah, more making fun of people; forgot.

I don't think that not wanting 8-year-old kids looking at pictures in "The
Joy of Sex" (gay OR straight) in the library without parental permission or
approval means that she (or anyone for that matter) is a prude.

I don't agree with many of her political positions (none of which I'd even
known about unless Pete pushed her website), but I hardly think she's
"dangerous". She's a conservative Christian activist; so what?

I think it's great that she rides (despite that ancient helmet); good for
her.

Bill "much (threaded) ado about nothing" S.

 

[Ed Pirrero]

MattB wrote:
> Mark Hickey wrote:
> > "Corvus Corvax" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>This will be the last I post on this subject, I think, but I spent a
> >>while on a nice 30-mile spin on the fix this morning doing a little
> >>critical thinking and it would be interesting to put it into electrons.
> >>
> >>Mark Hickey wrote:
> >>
> >>>Still, you ascribe more moral importance to YOUR "religion" and don't
> >>>want to allow those with other viewpoints the same visibility.
> >>>Replace "religion" with "mores" or "beliefs" and it's the same thing.
> >>>Pure hypocrisy.
> >>
> >>[...bizarre ranting about Al Quaeda snipped...]
> >>
> >>This is what I mean by exploiting the American cultural instinct for
> >>fairness: I have a religious belief system. Therefore any belief system
> >>you have is necessarily religious, and therefore must be held to be on
> >>equal footing with _my_ religious belief system.
> >
> >
> > I'm all for that. But the atheist religion requires 100% adherence to
> > its beliefs in the public realm, even though the practitioners are a
> > minority of the population (imagine if society had somehow chosen
> > another religion like Ismam or Judaism, and tried to force 100%
> > compliance).
> >
> >
>
> I don't see this at all. You see, I'm not an Atheist (surprise!) but I
> feel like I've never been forced to accept anything from them.
> They don't come and knock on my door and try to convert me. They don't
> try and spend tax money on monuments to their belief system. They don't
> even appear to be an organized group (there are no churches or other
> specific meeting places for them). How am I being forced to comply
> again? I'm just minding my business (from a religious perspective) and
> trying to point out when someone else's beliefs are trying to steamroll
> mine or anyone else's.

That's my take on it as well. I have NEVER ONCE been told by an
atheist (or agnostic, for that matter) what I should believe, or what
way I should raise my kids. Not once, ever. I have, OTOH, been told
multiple times, in person, and by proxy, that I should be raising my
kids to think exactly like this Brandi character.

I'm also not buying the spin that atheism is a religion - I would guess
that atheists would laugh at an attempt to spin their lack of belief in
a deity as some sort of religion. It sounds like a wing-nut talking
point. In fact, most of the folks I know who don't like religious
symbols in the public square are religious themselves. I am one of
those folks. You do your thing, I'll do mine, and leave the couthouse
lawn to things other than Old Testament tablets brought down from the
mount. If you want a big TC monument on your lawn, have at it. Heck,
buy a billboard. Good for you. But thanks, I can supervise my kids'
library habits just fine. I don't need *you* to help. In fact, butt
out. It's NOYB. The Ten Commandments? I know EXACTLY where to find
them. I have several books in the house that have them listed. My
oldest daughter even has a children's version. Save your money from
buying thousands of dollars of graven image, and do something with it
that the New Testament might have words on. Feed the poor, maybe?
Heal the sick? Something tangible.

The Koran on the courthouse lawn? Yeah, I'd bet there'd be a bunch of
angry shouting about Establishment clause then. How about a monument
to Satanism? Good, old-fashioned college hi-jinks there, right? Nope,
there'd be a lawsuit in a second. Heck, even if there were Satanic
symbols on private property, our neighborhood nosey nannies would be
right there with lawyers in hand.

The funny thing about sex books in the library? They're way tame, and
in a public place. At least compared to the utter filth just waiting
on the other side of a computer screen. Tubgirl, anyone? Goatse?
Give me a break. And that screen is in a private room, in lots of
houses. I'm less worried about a little look-see in the library than
predators on Myspace. And way less worried about the library than the
subliminal sex messages beemed out into the room anytime network TV is
on.

I don't know why it's so tough for folks to grasp the quaint idea of
"You live your life, I'll live mine."

E.P.

 

[Mark Hickey]

MattB <[email protected]> wrote:

>Mark Hickey wrote:

>> I'm all for that. But the atheist religion requires 100% adherence to
>> its beliefs in the public realm, even though the practitioners are a
>> minority of the population (imagine if society had somehow chosen
>> another religion like Ismam or Judaism, and tried to force 100%
>> compliance).
>
>I don't see this at all. You see, I'm not an Atheist (surprise!) but I
>feel like I've never been forced to accept anything from them.

Turned on the TV lately? The values represented by most of the drivel
are certainly not those of any religion other than atheism. Think
about how often you see a Christian portrayed in a positive light on
your favorite shows. If half the shows were like "Seventh Heaven"
(sic?) you'd have a point.

Let some nutcase shoot an abortion doctor and it's front page news for
weeks (and fodder for countless newsgroup discussions), while the REAL
work that's being done by the Christian community (feeding the poor,
rehabilitating criminals, supporting those going through tough times,
etc., etc., etc.) is virtually absent from public view in the news.

>They don't come and knock on my door and try to convert me.

Check your inbox. No religion other than atheism could possibly come
up with the **** I get daily.

>They don't
>try and spend tax money on monuments to their belief system. They don't
>even appear to be an organized group (there are no churches or other
>specific meeting places for them).

There are plenty of denominations in the "church of atheism". The
only thing they really have in common is an anti-Judeo/Christian
philosphy.

> How am I being forced to comply
>again? I'm just minding my business (from a religious perspective) and
>trying to point out when someone else's beliefs are trying to steamroll
>mine or anyone else's.

Look at the schools - the ACLU and others are trying to expunge
virtually any hint of anything related to religion from the classroom
and the textbooks. You can't even include rational scientific
discussion about evolution or the creation of the universe in the
textbooks because acknowledging some of the unknowns might open
someone's mind to the possibility that it was actually just more than
a coincidence.

Yeah, that rambled, but I hope it gave you at least a few things to
think about.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

 

[cc]

JD wrote:
> cc wrote:

>
>
> Why don't you go ride your bike?
>

I did all weekend, jackass.

Do you have something of substance to say? You could at least google
something and plagiarize . . it would make you much more interesting.

 

[G.T.]

"Mark Hickey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> MattB <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Mark Hickey wrote:
>
> >> I'm all for that. But the atheist religion requires 100% adherence to
> >> its beliefs in the public realm, even though the practitioners are a
> >> minority of the population (imagine if society had somehow chosen
> >> another religion like Ismam or Judaism, and tried to force 100%
> >> compliance).
> >
> >I don't see this at all. You see, I'm not an Atheist (surprise!) but I
> >feel like I've never been forced to accept anything from them.
>
> Turned on the TV lately? The values represented by most of the drivel
> are certainly not those of any religion other than atheism.

I don't think there's a single American studio run by atheists. So that
drivel is produced by hypocritical Christians and Jews (and possibly a
Buddhist or Muslim or two).

> Think
> about how often you see a Christian portrayed in a positive light on
> your favorite shows. If half the shows were like "Seventh Heaven"
> (sic?) you'd have a point.
>
> Let some nutcase shoot an abortion doctor and it's front page news for
> weeks (and fodder for countless newsgroup discussions), while the REAL
> work that's being done by the Christian community (feeding the poor,
> rehabilitating criminals, supporting those going through tough times,
> etc., etc., etc.) is virtually absent from public view in the news.
>
> >They don't come and knock on my door and try to convert me.
>
> Check your inbox. No religion other than atheism could possibly come
> up with the **** I get daily.

Most English speakers on the planet are Christian so it's more than likely
that stuff in your inbox was created by your typical hypocritical
Christians. And sidestepping Matt's point of being harassed by missionaries
will get you nowhere. I sure as hell have never been harassed by atheists
while hanging out at gay pride with my gay brother-in-law, nor have I been
harassed by atheists while drinking coffee and reading the paper at home on
a weekend.

>
> >They don't
> >try and spend tax money on monuments to their belief system. They don't
> >even appear to be an organized group (there are no churches or other
> >specific meeting places for them).
>
> There are plenty of denominations in the "church of atheism". The
> only thing they really have in common is an anti-Judeo/Christian
> philosphy.

No, there are no denominations because there is no church, and there sure
isn't any anti philosophy except for being anti-breaking-the-constitution.

>
> > How am I being forced to comply
> >again? I'm just minding my business (from a religious perspective) and
> >trying to point out when someone else's beliefs are trying to steamroll
> >mine or anyone else's.
>
> Look at the schools - the ACLU and others are trying to expunge
> virtually any hint of anything related to religion from the classroom
> and the textbooks. You can't even include rational scientific
> discussion about evolution or the creation of the universe in the
> textbooks because acknowledging some of the unknowns might open
> someone's mind to the possibility that it was actually just more than
> a coincidence.
>
> Yeah, that rambled, but I hope it gave you at least a few things to
> think about.
>

Only this part "while the REAL work that's being done by the Christian
community (feeding the poor, rehabilitating criminals, supporting those
going through tough times, etc., etc., etc.) is virtually absent from public
view in the news"
which is due to the hypocritical Christians and Jews running the media in
this country.

Greg

 

[cc]

Mark Hickey wrote:
> MattB <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Mark Hickey wrote:
>
>>> I'm all for that. But the atheist religion requires 100% adherence to
>>> its beliefs in the public realm, even though the practitioners are a
>>> minority of the population (imagine if society had somehow chosen
>>> another religion like Ismam or Judaism, and tried to force 100%
>>> compliance).

Only in the very loosest definition of religion does atheism count as a
religion. (#4 in the webster dictionary as a 'system of beliefs' - right
after scrupulous conformity, and not present in most others). It is
generally associated in all cases with a belief in the supernatural. So
the most accurate description of atheism is the LACK of religion.

>> I don't see this at all. You see, I'm not an Atheist (surprise!) but I
>> feel like I've never been forced to accept anything from them.
>
> Turned on the TV lately? The values represented by most of the drivel
> are certainly not those of any religion other than atheism. Think
> about how often you see a Christian portrayed in a positive light on
> your favorite shows. If half the shows were like "Seventh Heaven"
> (sic?) you'd have a point.

Well, it's only fair that if television is full of those of faith - as a
large fraction of programming is - that they are fair game for poking
fun. The same can be said of any number of lifestyles, characteristics,
ages, races . . .

>
> Let some nutcase shoot an abortion doctor and it's front page news for
> weeks (and fodder for countless newsgroup discussions), while the REAL
> work that's being done by the Christian community (feeding the poor,
> rehabilitating criminals, supporting those going through tough times,
> etc., etc., etc.) is virtually absent from public view in the news.

Most people do recognize that religion does great things for humanity.
While I am not religious and frown upon many of the divisive stances
taken by those of faith, I recognize that it does amazing things for
peoples all over the world. I have friends that religion has done great
things for, and see that a great deal of selfless action comes from
church-affiliated programs. On the other hand, many of these programs
are subversively used to recruit more for their faith - for example the
lepers required to attend mass to eat depicted in The Motorcycle Diaries
- which is in mind akin to pharma's 'humanitarian' actions. In addition,
the good that faith-based programs in no way 'cancels out' a murder by a
zealot such as that you mentioned.

>
>> They don't come and knock on my door and try to convert me.
>
> Check your inbox. No religion other than atheism could possibly come
> up with the **** I get daily.

Are you kidding? Give me an example.

>
>> They don't
>> try and spend tax money on monuments to their belief system. They don't
>> even appear to be an organized group (there are no churches or other
>> specific meeting places for them).
>
> There are plenty of denominations in the "church of atheism". The
> only thing they really have in common is an anti-Judeo/Christian
> philosphy.

Again, please give an example.

>
>> How am I being forced to comply
>> again? I'm just minding my business (from a religious perspective) and
>> trying to point out when someone else's beliefs are trying to steamroll
>> mine or anyone else's.
>
> Look at the schools - the ACLU and others are trying to expunge
> virtually any hint of anything related to religion from the classroom
> and the textbooks. You can't even include rational scientific
> discussion about evolution or the creation of the universe in the
> textbooks because acknowledging some of the unknowns might open
> someone's mind to the possibility that it was actually just more than
> a coincidence.

The only neutral religion is no religion. It is of course a part of our
history, and ought be taught in that context. But no other! There is no
way to do a survey of religion or satisfactorily accomplish anything
meaningful that would be acceptable to all denominations.

Evolution cannot be taught beside faith-based belief because creationism
is NOT SCIENCE. You cannot have 'rational scientific discussion' about
it, because there is no 'rational scientific' aspect to creationism. If
you want to include it in philosophy or creative writing, so be it.
Otherwise, you cannot teach it in the same classroom as evolution.

>
> Yeah, that rambled, but I hope it gave you at least a few things to
> think about.
>
> Mark Hickey
> Habanero Cycles
> http://www.habcycles.com
> Home of the $795 ti frame

 

[GeeDubb]

"Mark Hickey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> MattB <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Mark Hickey wrote:
>
>>> I'm all for that. But the atheist religion requires 100% adherence to
>>> its beliefs in the public realm, even though the practitioners are a
>>> minority of the population (imagine if society had somehow chosen
>>> another religion like Ismam or Judaism, and tried to force 100%
>>> compliance).
>>
>>I don't see this at all. You see, I'm not an Atheist (surprise!) but I
>>feel like I've never been forced to accept anything from them.
>
> Turned on the TV lately? The values represented by most of the drivel
> are certainly not those of any religion other than atheism. Think
> about how often you see a Christian portrayed in a positive light on
> your favorite shows. If half the shows were like "Seventh Heaven"
> (sic?) you'd have a point.

values that are watched day in and day out by the Christian majority.

>
> Let some nutcase shoot an abortion doctor and it's front page news for
> weeks (and fodder for countless newsgroup discussions), while the REAL
> work that's being done by the Christian community (feeding the poor,
> rehabilitating criminals, supporting those going through tough times,
> etc., etc., etc.) is virtually absent from public view in the news.

Building multi-million dollar houses of worship with money that could be
used to feed the poor, etc., yeah, that doesn't get print either.....and I
can think of at least three within 5 miles of my house.

and that nutcase is supposedly a representative of the Christian Faith, just
like the hijackers of 9-11 were supposedly, representatives of the Muslim
Faith, go figure.

>
>>They don't come and knock on my door and try to convert me.

I've never had a Jewish person try to convert me, either....and I'm married
to one. Come to think of it, no other religion other than some sect of
Christ has ever tried to convert me.

>
> Check your inbox. No religion other than atheism could possibly come
> up with the **** I get daily.

I can't prove it and you probably couldn't disprove it either but I'd say
that most of that stuff comes from your good "born again Christian" who
thinks they will be forgiven after sending all that lame stuff out. Your
grasping, so am I but I know of at least one person that made a living
spamming people and he's been forgiven... but not by me.

>
>>They don't
>>try and spend tax money on monuments to their belief system. They don't
>>even appear to be an organized group (there are no churches or other
>>specific meeting places for them).
>
> There are plenty of denominations in the "church of atheism". The
> only thing they really have in common is an anti-Judeo/Christian
> philosphy.
>

this reads to me as if your condeming all religions that don't believe as
you do.

and anti-Muslim, anti-Bhuddist, anti-religion of all faiths. I'll give you
credit, you're really grasping at trying to label athiesm as a religion.

>> How am I being forced to comply
>>again? I'm just minding my business (from a religious perspective) and
>>trying to point out when someone else's beliefs are trying to steamroll
>>mine or anyone else's.
>
> Look at the schools - the ACLU and others are trying to expunge
> virtually any hint of anything related to religion from the classroom
> and the textbooks. You can't even include rational scientific
> discussion about evolution or the creation of the universe in the
> textbooks because acknowledging some of the unknowns might open
> someone's mind to the possibility that it was actually just more than
> a coincidence.

Yes because it's one sided, pro-Christian rhetoric that's trying to be
established in our public schools. Make religious teachings of all
religions part of school and I'll accept that. Teach the kids the
differences and let them decide which way to proceed instead of brainwashing
them into submission. I have no problem with teaching the idea of
creationism along side scientific facts as long as you can back up your
theories with facts, which you can not.

>
> Yeah, that rambled, but I hope it gave you at least a few things to
> think about.

Like the bumper sticker says

"Don't pray in my school and I won't think in your church"

Gary