Bible-beater pilots

L,

Well, Michaelson and Morley set out to determine the properties of the
ether. They ended up _observing_ stuff inconsistent with the ether
theory. So that one went overboard. In the process, they found that the
speed of light is independent of the speed of the light source (frame
of reference, special relativity and all that).

It's not that science is never wrong. But scientific laws have a basis
in observation - that's their ultimate test. "There's life on other
planets" is not a scientific law. It's something that, at present, we
have to answer with "I don't know". All we can do is try to calculate
probabilities for that, based on our (limited) knowledge of how life
began. The probability is high.

"Life as we know it does not exist anywhere in the universe."


That is another negative, isn't it? It isn't a "scientific statement"
in the sense I meant, either - as you well know.

As for religious statements: the concept of "proof" is inherently not
part of religion. Religion is about "belief". No need to prove a belief
- and no way to do it, either.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

"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?

One more point: Don't misconstrue my position on this as an endorsement of
any religion, either. The point I'm trying to make is this amendment
was intended to prevent the establishment of a state-sponsored religion
(like the Church of England), not to turn the government into an atheist or
agnostic entity. You still need to find a better argument than the US
Constitution.

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/tknoFlyer
__________

"Thomas Borchert" wrote in message
...
John,

You'll need to come up with a better argument than
that, I'm afraid.


Seems I don't. See H. Adams Stevens' post.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)


Thanks Tom. The Constitution seems quite clear on the subject, but it is
de-facto ignored when it suits some folks.
Take the second amendment, for example; And more recently the so-called
Patriot Act.

One thing all pilots and only pilots have in common is solo flight.
No amount of government or outside help can save you in that blissful
predicament.
You're on your own. I love it; Have since my first solo in 1967.

BTW my middle name has no "s" at the end. I'm fascinated by the frequency
with which it spontaneously grows that sibilant appendage. Yours is by no
means the first time I've observed my name grow longer of it's own volition.
Blue skies
H.
N502TB

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)?

It is an obvious bias to a specific theology; which goes against the spirit
of the letter of the constitution. I do not want to see ANY religious
references on government issued documents; their presence is quite
presumptions and offensive.

"John Harlow" wrote in message


It is an obvious bias to a specific theology; which goes against the
spirit of the letter of the constitution.

But...if that's the bias of the majority of the Members, where's the harm?
More importantly, what makes it illegal? The "spirit" of the amendment was
to prevent state-sponsored religion. That has been strenuously adhered to
in the US.

I do not want to see ANY
religious references on government issued documents; their presence
is quite presumptions and offensive.

That is the crux of your argument: You don't *want* to see any reference to
religion. That's a far different matter than trying to claim that "In God
we trust", for example, is illegal.

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/tknoFlyer
__________

Just get the heavy hand of the government out of the way, and the free
market
will take care of things better, chewaper, and without trampling our
liberty.

Amen, Brother!

(Whoops...back to religion... ;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Robert Perkins" wrote in message


I'm still looking for good freeware W&B and E6B calculators for Pocket
PC 2002. Anyone know of any?

http://www.pocketgear.com/software_detail.asp?id=11815

It's a free W&B calculator, but you'll have to tell me how good it is.

--
John T
__________

But, you can prove it to yourself. "If any of you lacks wisdom (the
knowledge of God and His nature), he should ask God, who gives generously
to
all without finding fault, and it will be given to him."

Really? I've asked God questions many times throughout my life. I've
attended parochial schools, attended Mass, gone to catechism classes, went
on to Bible Study classes, and taken college-level World Religion classes.

I've attended services of every viable organized religion, and spoken with
their representatives. I've open-mindedly debated the issue with some of
the finest minds around. I've often asked God for answers to the questions
that science (thus far) can't answer.

Thus far, regretfully, I haven't heard back from Him (Her?).

I'll post here when I do.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

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.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

"John T" wrote in message
ws.com...
"John Harlow" wrote in message


It is an obvious bias to a specific theology; which goes against the
spirit of the letter of the constitution.

But...if that's the bias of the majority of the Members, where's the harm?
More importantly, what makes it illegal? The "spirit" of the amendment
was
to prevent state-sponsored religion. That has been strenuously adhered to
in the US.

I do not want to see ANY
religious references on government issued documents; their presence
is quite presumptions and offensive.

That is the crux of your argument: You don't *want* to see any reference
to
religion. That's a far different matter than trying to claim that "In God
we trust", for example, is illegal.

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/tknoFlyer
__________



I argue that it is explicitly unconstitutional for Congress to make a law
placing "In God We Trust" on a government document or "Under God" in the
Pledge of Alliegance. Beginning a session of Congress with a prayer is not
the same thing as making a law. Now if the Executive were to simply direct
the Treasury Department to do something, or if there were some other sort of
decision making, fine. Congress is explicitly prohibited from making any law
whatsoever "respecting an establishment of religion".

Blus skies
H.
N502TB