Pilot's Political Orientation

"Dan Luke" wrote in message
...
"C J Campbell" wrote:

By those who, like Dan Luke, want to portray Jefferson as
godless in order to further their own political agenda of
excluding religious views from the political forum.

I certainly would never claim Jefferson was godless. Rather, my point
was that he would not pass the test for religious correctness of the
religious right, whose political agenda is to enlist government in
proselytizing their views.
--

I have little tolerance for the religious right, either, but I don't think
the religious right is representative of conservatism. They appear to be a
hostile group of xenophobic, racist reactionaries. Frankly, they are as much
of an embarrassment to conservatives as PETA and the ELF are to the
liberals. Extremist groups like those are hotbeds for terrorism and other
criminal activity.

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
...

"Dan Luke" wrote in message
...
"C J Campbell" wrote:

By those who, like Dan Luke, want to portray Jefferson as
godless in order to further their own political agenda of
excluding religious views from the political forum.

I certainly would never claim Jefferson was godless. Rather, my point
was that he would not pass the test for religious correctness of the
religious right, whose political agenda is to enlist government in
proselytizing their views.
--
Quite...just as they take the phrase "separation of church and state" as
though it's something from contemporary times rather than from the pen of
James Madison, they guy who essentially WROTE the Constitution.

Yes, but they did not make it part of the Constitution, did they? Read the
Federalist papers. There was quite a bit of debate about it, and Madison
lost.

Peter Gottlieb wrote:
"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...

If it weren't for liberal activist judges who try to make law rather
than interpret the law, the amendment would, in fact, be superfluous.
It is simply restating the obvious, but liberal judges are unable to
understand it any other way.


Are "liberal activist judges" any worse than conservative activist judges?

Probably not, there are just more of them as society as a whole
continues to decline and standards of morality and behavior are lowered.


Isn't case law created in courts rather than by legislation, and a part of
the balance of power of the government?

That wasn't the intent behind the design of our government. The
legislature creates legislation ... could be why they call it the
legislature. :-)

The courts are only to ensure that the legislature adheres to the
constitution, they are not to "create" new law through interpretation.
They are to affirm or deny a given law as being constitutional or not,
and that is it.


Matt

Tom Sixkiller wrote:
"Dan Luke" wrote in message
...

"C J Campbell" wrote:

By those who, like Dan Luke, want to portray Jefferson as
godless in order to further their own political agenda of
excluding religious views from the political forum.

I certainly would never claim Jefferson was godless. Rather, my point
was that he would not pass the test for religious correctness of the
religious right, whose political agenda is to enlist government in
proselytizing their views.
--

Quite...just as they take the phrase "separation of church and state" as
though it's something from contemporary times rather than from the pen of
James Madison, they guy who essentially WROTE the Constitution.

If he wrote the Constitution, why didn't he include this phraseology?
Could it be that it was simply HIS opinion and not generally shared by
the group that in the end approved the wording of our Constitution?
Many contributed to the wording either through writing it with their own
hand or through the debates that edited the final wording. You better
go back and read some more history so that you learn not to take one
man's opinion as being representative of all.


Matt

"Tarver Engineering" wrote:
Another lie.

I have science on my side

Another lie.

and no reason to lie.

Then apparently it's just your nature.

Try posting there again. If what you just said is the truth,
you should get little or no response.

I cross post to talk.origins every few months. It
is a kook bin full of retards spewing 150 year old
dog breeder science and an ocasional qualified
biologist. The biologist usually admits that there are
big problems with Darwin's "Origin of Species",
but "it demonstrates how one thing might
replace another". Although demonstrating a
concept has value, theaching religion as science is
not the way to do it.

More lies. You're afraid.

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...


Fiscal conservatism and a strong resistence to government redistribution
are
two consrvative sentiments libertarians share.

Absolutely. And that's a bad thing?


You are probably thinkin of left and right in European terms, where both
ends of the spectrum are socialist.


Well .. considering both ends of the spectrum wish to grow govt at an
astronomical rate .. you could be right. But I generally think in terms of
the left wishing to control my pocket book and the right wishing to control
my morals, violate my privacy, and control what goes on in my bedroom.

"Philip Sondericker" wrote in message
...
in article , Joe Young at
wrote on 4/18/04 4:36 AM:


"Philip Sondericker" wrote in message
...
in article , Dave Stadt at
wrote on 4/17/04 7:11 PM:


"Philip Sondericker" wrote in message
...
in article , C J Campbell at
wrote on 4/17/04 11:37 AM:

If Jefferson is mentioned in public schools at all, it
is
to highlight the shameful and oppressive past of the white male
dictators
that established the United States. That is all most modern grade
school
kids know about Jefferson.

This must be a relatively recent develepment, because I for one can't
recall
ever being taught any such thing. You're basically just making this
up,
aren't you?

You obviously have no idea what is being taught in the liberal run
education
system in this country.

"If Jefferson is mentioned in public schools at all, it is to highlight
the
shameful and oppressive past of the white male dictators that
established
the United States. That is all most modern grade school kids know about
Jefferson."

Would anyone care to cite some proof of the above statement?


Head over to your local Jr/Sr high school history department and see for
yourself.........

Sorry, that's anecdotal evidence, not proof (actually, it's not even
anecdotal evidence, since you offered no experiences of your own).

Go talk to a school teacher.

Joe Young wrote:

Tell me Rich...why does anyone other than her parents need to tell her

anything?

That's a good question. In an ideal world, parents would be
knowledgable about the
facts of life and comfortable talking about them with their kids. They
would be home
whenever the kids were home, and they'd make sure they knew where their
kids were
when the kids went out with friends. Life would be perfect, and there
would never be
an abortion.

Unfortunately, I happen to live in the real world. This world contains
entirely too
many single parent families, often families where the sole parent has to
work two jobs
just to keep food on the table. This world also contains thousands of
"latch-key" kids
who come home to an empty house, with the parents not expected to be
home for
another three or four hours. In the remaining families, many parents are
completely
uncomfortable with the idea of sex. The "talk" consists of the parents
stammering and
stuttering, and finally saying something like "here's a book, ask your
mother if you have
any questions, and don't do it."

It would be nice if every parent accepted their responsibilities like
you suggest, but
until that happens someone needs to step in and fill the gap. Right now,
it isn't happening.

Rich Lemert

Tarver Engineering wrote:

"L Smith" wrote in message
hlink.net...



I asked you to point out where you believe Darwinian theory is in error.



1) Darwin's "Origin of Species" is not a scientific theory, as it fails to
meet the terms of the scientific method.

2) Geological evidence proves to beyond a shadow of a doubt that the
processes laid out in Darwin's "Origin of Species" are false.

3) The State of Georgia teaching Creation straight from Genesis is closer to
a modern scientific theory than Darwin's "Origin of Species".

4) Darwin's notional hypotesis is false even by the admission of biologists.



And your evidence for these statements, all of which are opinion
rather than fact.

1) Darwin's development of his theory is one of the clearest
applications of the scientific
method that I know of. The revisions that have come since then are
further examples
of science at its best.

2) Geological evidence was used in the development of the theory, and so
far nothing
from geology has been found that clearly contradicts the theory.

3) I'm afraid that Georgia is not a well-known and widely respected
scientific expert.

4) Considering that evolution is a fundamental part of biology, I find
your last statement
somewhat surprising. I've known of several biologists who believed that
there were
still questions that evolutionary theory had not yet answered, but that
is a far cry from
claiming the theory is wrong.

Rich Lemert

"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
online.com...
Newps wrote:

Therefore the feds will need to solve this
problem, one way or the other.

You'll have to be more clear for me, I'm afraid, as I'm not seeing "the
problem" with the Constitution. If states choose to act as you describe,
failing to recognize either drivers licenses or marriage licenses, they're
in violation. Enforce as necessary.

That's the point of the ammendment.