Bible-beater pilots

John T wrote:

"H. Adam Stevens" wrote in message


" Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
"

Seems to me "no" means "no" as in "none", "not any", "zero".

The quote wasn't intended to be verbatim, but thanks for posting the text
as
it illustrates my point quite clearly. Read the text carefully:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establisment of religion or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

Where does it say that the Treasury cannot use "In God we trust" on its
money? Where does it say that Congress shall not acknowledge God (with
the
prayer before each session, for instance)? What law has been passed that
establishes a religion? What law infringes the people's free exercise
thereof?

snip

It doesn't say the Treasury can't use it. The problem comes when someone
wants to put "In Bhudda we trust" on it too. If the government can't (or
won't) do both then it seems to me they are promoting one religion over
another. For this reason it's best to leave it off completely.


--
Frank....H

Except -- how was the coffee cup formed in the first place? The problem
with the thought experiment is that it assumes that something "man-made"
is not "natural," that we humans are something "other" than nature.
This is a viewpoint that is basic to the Abrahamic religions: people are
above or apart from the rest of nature.

Obviously this is not true. Obviously the cup was formed from
components by some process. This process is different from the process
used to destroy the cup, but that does not make it something apart from
nature. Obviously, at least within the scope of the thought experiment,
humans counter entropy.

Nothing's ever that simple, but it seems to me that this property of the
universe, this 'tendency toward organization', might be the underlying
basis for the beliefs in "a higher power."

Excellent. Thanks for adding a thought-provoking post to this thread.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

In article ,
(Teacherjh) writes:



Anyone so foolish as to go to an uninsured dentist to
get a cheaper price (and they would have to be cheaper to compete with
insured
dentists) gets what they pay for.


You overlook the importance of marketing, and the gullibility of the American
Public.


If you are expecting me to advocate structuring our government to accomodate
the stupid, we are going to disagree.

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

In article , "G.R. Patterson III"
writes:

Wdtabor wrote:

This is a fight I have with my fellow LP members often. TO me, it is more
important that libertarian ideas prevail, not Libertarian candidates. If
that
means gently persuading Republicans and even some Democrats to become more
libertarian, then so be it.

Let's see if I understand you correctly. Your theory is that, if enough
people
vote Libertarian, the other candidates will start to adopt some of the LP
views
in an attempt to siphon off some of those votes?


Not exactly. I want to further libertarian ideas within the Republican Party.
There are more libertarians in the GOP than in the LP as it is, they just don't
realize it themselves.

There are many more who have a basic libertarian viewpoint in economic issues,
but they are big government advocates when it comes to controling morality.
They need to be made to understand that you cannot pick an choose your
freedoms. You cannot have economic freedom and property rights without also
having sexual and lifestyle freedom. Once they learn to trust their fellow
citizens to make their own personal choices, they can then better persuade them
to embrace economic freedom.

With Dems, it is another matter. Most of them are simply socialists and
collectivists and are beyond redemption. But some are in the Dem party based on
some single issue where they feel the GOP threatens them. I have had great
success in recruiting Libertarians from the Gay and Lesbian business community
in the artsy Ghent section of Norfolk. They were economic libertarians all
along, they just fled to the Dem party because it was seen as more permissive
of their lifestyle than the GOP. Once they understand that they don't need
permission if they have freedom, they are converted.



I would like to be able to agree, but I think that Dems and Reps would simply
be afraid of losing votes they already have and afraid of losing the support
of
the main party.

In any case, a vote is never "wasted" if you vote for the candidate you
prefer.


Well, would you vote LP if it meant that someone like Ron Paul would be
replaced by someone like Chuck Schummer?

What is important to me is that libertarian IDEAS prevail, and I really don't
care if they are put forth by someone who calls himself a Republican instead of
a Libertarian. (Of course, they cannot be put forward by a Dem, or his fellow
party members will stone him.)


--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

Jay Honeck wrote:
Except -- how was the coffee cup formed in the first place? The problem
with the thought experiment is that it assumes that something "man-made"
is not "natural," that we humans are something "other" than nature.
This is a viewpoint that is basic to the Abrahamic religions: people are
above or apart from the rest of nature.

Obviously this is not true. Obviously the cup was formed from
components by some process. This process is different from the process
used to destroy the cup, but that does not make it something apart from
nature. Obviously, at least within the scope of the thought experiment,
humans counter entropy.

Nothing's ever that simple, but it seems to me that this property of the
universe, this 'tendency toward organization', might be the underlying
basis for the beliefs in "a higher power."


Excellent. Thanks for adding a thought-provoking post to this thread.

Cool! Does that mean I get to stay one night free at the Alexiz Park Inn?

--
David Hill
david at hillREMOVETHISfamily.org
Sautee-Nacoochee, GA, USA

filters, they're not just for coffee anymore

H.,

BTW my middle name has no "s" at the end.

sorry for that.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

John,

Start here....
http://users.adelphia.net/~jimswanson/DrLaura.htm


Great!

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Gene,

in spite of changes in the intensity of
the cosmic radiation bombardment of the Earth due to changes in the
ozone layer, Van Allen belts, etc.


There is a grave misunderstanding of radioactive decay in that
sentence.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

John Harlow wrote:

Who claims to "really understand scripture"? I have some questions for
that
person.

Such as? If I don't know the answer, which is very possible, I know
someone who
will.

Start here....
http://users.adelphia.net/~jimswanson/DrLaura.htm

If you get these, I can come up with plenty more.

Man and I thought you were going to give me a tough one. Those can all be
answered at once. They are all (at least I am pretty sure) part of the Law of
Moses, and Jesus Christ fulfilled the Law of Moses, and therefor the Law of
Moses is no longer in effect. Of course if you are Jewish and don't believe in
Jesus Christ then you've got problems.


--
Chris W

"They that can give up essential liberty
to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin, 1759 Historical Review of Pennsylvania

G.R. Patterson III wrote:


John Harlow wrote:

If that's not state sponsored religion I don't know what is.


Then you don't know what is. Congress is only forbidden to pass a *law* about
religion. Even in this case, Congress didn't pass any law stating that the
phrase "In God We Trust" be placed on our money.

Actually they passed several such laws. The first was in 1864 and
authorized the use of the phrase on the new two-cent coin. Later acts of
Congress extended the use to other coins and finally an act in 1908 made it
mandatory on almost all coins. It wasn't until 1957 that it appeared on
paper money based on a joint resolution of Congress to that effect in 1956.
See
http://www.ustreas.gov/education/fac...-we-trust.html
for details.