Bible-beater pilots

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.


If that's not state sponsored religion I don't know what is. "In God (or
Allah, Buddha, Satan or whoever) we trust" simply has no place on a
government issued document, no matter how many people it makes feel all warm
and fuzzy.

"John" wrote in message thlink.net...
Some simple truths:

=====================
God loves you.

snip (mostly to please His Highness Master Usenet-er Top Poster)

Can we stop with the religious trolls, already? If that's not an
option, can we at least have some Judaic (?), Islamic, Hindu, Jainist
(?), etc. tracts thrown in for variety?

Yours in Ras Tafari (almighty God is a living man),
Zippy

"H. Adam Stevens" wrote:

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

Correct. Now. Who's claiming that Congress has made such a law and what law is
it that they made?

George Patterson
A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something that can be learned
no other way.

But...if that's the bias of the majority of the Members, where's the harm?

The harm is that the whole point of the constitution is to protect the minority
against the tyranny of the majority. Lest this statement ignite a flame war,
consider that although decisions are made by majority (or enhanced majority),
the structure for making those decisions is designed to empower the minorities.

The president is not elected by majority vote. It is a several step process
(like the world series) which in effect elects the president based on the
majority of viewpoints.

Congress is not a majority entity either. The senate has equal (by state)
representation, and the house has equal (by population) representation, and
both have to concur.

Speech is not regulated by the majority. Freedom of speech means that a
minority of one can get his voice heard (though nobody is forced to listen)

The majority does not need protection. They can take care of themselves. It
is the minority which needs protection, and that's the function of laws.

The majority of people are afraid of little airplanes, and would be quite happy
with a total ban. We are in a tiny minority who fly these contraptions all
over kingdom come without so much as a flight plan or a radio, let alone
official permission and clearance to engage in such obviously wreckless acts as
aviation. Be careful in your thinking. Majority rule is fine as long as you
are in the majority.

Change "In God we Trust" to the equally pious "Allah Be Praised" and see how
people take it. Or pick a phrase from any religion you don't like, including
athiesm if that's your target. It doesn't belong on pilot certificates, it
doesn't belong in Congress, and it doesn't belong on money.

That said, I'll spend money no matter what is printed on it. So send me some
if you don't like what it says.

Jose

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

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.

George Patterson
A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something that can be learned
no other way.

Jay Honeck wrote:

However, I got the impression that these guys, when confronted with an
in-flight emergency, might conceivably just sit back and wait for a
miracle.
THAT scares me.

Ironically, Darwinism will take care of that problem.

Sadly, I don't think so. Due to the advanced age of the pilot population,
most of us have already reproduced!

Maybe their kids will be in the plane when it happens.

George Patterson
A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something that can be learned
no other way.

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
...


"H. Adam Stevens" wrote:

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

Correct. Now. Who's claiming that Congress has made such a law and what
law is
it that they made?

Placing "Under God" in the pledge of alliegance.


George Patterson
A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something that can be
learned
no other way.

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?

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.

George Patterson
A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something that can be learned
no other way.

--
Gene Seibel
Hangar 131 - http://pad39a.com/gene/plane.html
Because I fly, I envy no one.


Nope! Science isn't about proving negatives. It just doesn't make sense.

Give me one statement in science that you cannot prove.

The speed of light is constant over time.

or how about:

The speed of light is the same now as it was billions of years ago.

Or the assumption that carbon 14 has existed and decayed at the same
rate for millions of years, 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. And this is the entire basis for
radiocarbon dating.

John Harlow wrote:

Also, while many try and use the poor argument you described to "convert"
people, I think anyone that really understands scripture,

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.


--
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