Leaving the community

On Mon, 8 Nov 2004 20:53:13 -0800, "C J Campbell"
wrote:


"Roger" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 7 Nov 2004 23:14:02 -0800, "C J Campbell"
wrote:


"David Brooks" wrote in message
...
One thing - one of so very many things - I learned in my five years of
flying is that partisan politics does not fit into the cockpit. Most of
my
flight instructors have, I know, been to the right of me politically. I
had
a most enjoyable flight with CJ - although he has since earned my
undying
enmity by unapologetically using the term "Final Solution" in
connection
with me and people like me, an astonishing thought coming from an
avowedly
religious man, but telling and apt.

It is too bad that Mr. Brooks took seriously what was an obvious parody.
I
would never seriously advocate extermination of Democrats.

If the gain of the religious fundamentalists in the Republican party
continues at its present pace, they'll be extinct in 10 years anyway,
or about as potent as a neutered tom cat. :-)) They are definitely
going to have to change their approach so they are not identified with
rich society.

I think this claim that the "religious fundamentalists" control the agenda
of the Republican Party is about as big a canard as claiming that the
Chinese Communists control the Democrats.

I'm not so sure. According to the news the other night that element
was a major voting block for Bush. How much control they have over
the party platform, I don't know, but they are a force with which to
recon and they are growing all the time.

The two things the article pointed out was they are growing rapidly
and *currently* are Republican.

I think possibly Kathleen Parker (Orlando Sentinel) may have written a
column on it as well.

Roger

"Roger" wrote in message
...
I'm not so sure. According to the news the other night that element
was a major voting block for Bush. How much control they have over
the party platform, I don't know, but they are a force with which to
recon and they are growing all the time.

Technically, they have no control. But honestly, why would a party that
claims to be "conservative" (it was the Radical Republicans that argued for
ending slavery, for crying out loud..."conservativism" in its purest form,
IMHO) all of the sudden swing around and start wanting to restrict
individual's behavior?

The Republican Party is strongly against legalizing gay marriage and
abortion, is strongly in favor of prayer and religious references in schools
and government (but only Christian prayer and references, naturally), and
there's even a pretty good movement that's been going for the last couple of
decades to teach the book of Genesis in science classes.

For a party that claims to be "conservative", they have swung about as far
way out the other direction as is possible, on several issues, all of which
directly related to personal liberties. Of course, they are still in favor
of businesses being able to do whatever they want.

Basically, the Republican Party is only "conservative" when there's money in
it for them and their own. Otherwise, they've been whoring themselves out
to the Bible Belt for a long while already.

The correlation between the Republican Party's faith-based lawmaking and
Christian evangelical and fundamentalist groups is well-documented. Anyone
who thinks it's just some old canard has their head in the sand.

Pete

If you get right down to it, the only arguments against murder or theft are
basically religious.

C J Campbell wrote:

If you get right down to it, the only arguments against murder or theft are
basically religious.

No. Moral, yes, but religious, no. This is not the same thing at all.

Stefan

If you get right down to it, the only arguments against murder or theft
are
basically religious.

No. Moral, yes, but religious, no. This is not the same thing at all.

I'm with Stefan on this one (*gasp!*) -- there are plenty of moral and
logical arguments against murder or theft that don't involve religion.

I, for one, don't practice any organized religion -- but I've taught my
children morals that quite closely parallel the Ten Commandments.

Morality and religion often run on parallel tracks, but are, in fact, quite
different.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

In article vnpkd.81153$R05.56261@attbi_s53,
"Jay Honeck" wrote:


I'm with Stefan on this one (*gasp!*) -- there are plenty of moral and
logical arguments against murder or theft that don't involve religion.

I, for one, don't practice any organized religion -- but I've taught my
children morals that quite closely parallel the Ten Commandments.

Morality and religion often run on parallel tracks, but are, in fact, quite
different.


I agree with you entirely on this and have done exactly the same thing
with my own four now grown children (and my teaching seems to have,
fortunately, "taken" with all four of them, for which I take some
satisfaction, even if not necessarily credit).

I'd also like to extend my understanding of the non-religious arguments
involved in other of our country's current political issues, and maybe
you can help.

I also happen to have -- as I'd be pretty sure you do also -- at least
one specific close relative (not actually one of my children) who is an
openly gay or lesbian person, and who I also know is absolutely a fine,
moral, admirable, and productive person.

So, I'd really like to know what the non-religious arguments are that
are so strong and so important that many people are pushing us to go all
the way to the extreme measure of a Constitutional amendment, just to
deny people like this the same benefits and rewards (and costs) of
marriage as heterosexual couples enjoy. What are the NONreligious
reasons that justify this very major step?

Please note: I'm not attributing any views on this issue either way to
you; I have no idea what your views are (and my prediction that you'll
have at least a few gay or lesbian individuals among your not too
distant relatives is based only on simple statistics).

But you're in a Red state, and occasionally outspoken on issues; and I'm
in a Blue state, and genuinely puzzled by this particular issue. So,
what are the non-religious argments on this issue that drive the Red
states to this level of action?

"AES/newspost" wrote in message
...
[...]
So, I'd really like to know what the non-religious arguments are that
are so strong and so important that many people are pushing us to go all
the way to the extreme measure of a Constitutional amendment, just to
deny people like this the same benefits and rewards (and costs) of
marriage as heterosexual couples enjoy. What are the NONreligious
reasons that justify this very major step?

There aren't any. Allowing gays to marry would harm no one.

That said, from Jay you'll probably "find out" that you can't trust gay
people around children of the same sex. He has a very distorted view of the
consequences of homosexuality, and may very well believe that allowing gays
to marry might hurt someone.

Like you, I'd love to hear any proposed "non-religious argument against gay
marriage". Mainly because all the ones I've heard so far are so stupid,
they make me laugh. And I love a good joke.

Pete

"Stefan" wrote in message
...
C J Campbell wrote:

If you get right down to it, the only arguments against murder or theft
are
basically religious.

No. Moral, yes, but religious, no. This is not the same thing at all.

Really? Explain to me, please, the difference.

Morality is doing the right thing just because you know it's the right thing
to do, not because you think some magical being is going to strike you down
from above or send you to some imaginary hell.

That's morality and it doesn't involve religion. It only involves evolution,
something we evidently have a long way to go on. Some more than others.

mike regish

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
news:vqadnZi1WJDNtw_cRVn-

No. Moral, yes, but religious, no. This is not the same thing at all.

Really? Explain to me, please, the difference.

"mike regish" wrote in message
news:r29od.79682$5K2.21834@attbi_s03...
Morality is doing the right thing just because you know it's the right
thing to do, not because you think some magical being is going to strike
you down from above or send you to some imaginary hell.

For what it's worth, not all religious convictions are based on fear of
retribution from God either.

It's fine to say that you have moral conviction without religion, but don't
be confused about what religion is or is not. You'll need a better argument
if you want your distinction to "stick".

Pete