Leaving the community

Matt Barrow wrote:

Yes...it's call intent and deliberation.

Guess what? Most victims don't care. And even those who do don't usually
think that the desire of making money with their oil is a valid reason
to kill them.

No wonder the rest of the world is so full of ****.

Then why the desire to invade it? But what do I expect from a country
which has been built on a genozide.

Stefan

Then why the desire to invade it? But what do I expect from a country
which has been built on a genozide.

???

Which country was built on "genozide"?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

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"

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...
If you get right down to it, the only arguments against murder or theft
are
basically religious.

And the Greeks, Romans, Eastern Indians (all atheist or non-religious) that
had such laws long before Christianity, they...hmmm

"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.

C J Campbell wrote:

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

Well, if you kill a man, he won't be paying income taxes anymore. There may even be
some drain on the state funds to support his dependents in some fashion. And if
thieves take much of his property, he may be unable to pay his taxes. It also
encourages theft, and the government hates competition.

Either has adverse effects on the health of society, and, like any good parasite
(symbiotic or not), government has a vested interest in keeping its host healthy.

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.

Matt Barrow wrote:

And the Greeks, Romans, Eastern Indians (all atheist or non-religious) that
had such laws long before Christianity, they...hmmm

These people all had religious beliefs.

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.

"C J Campbell" wrote in message ...
"Cecil Chapman" wrote in message
m...
P.S. You're right, we should all thank Mr. Bush for turning a hard-earned
surplus budget (earned under Clinton's rule) into a 4.3 trillion dollar
DEFICIT.

That is really funny coming from a Democrat. Here we have Democrats accusing
Bush of behaving too much like a Democrat. ROFL.

Just for historical accuracy I think the "behaving too much like a
Democrat" thing is pretty outdated. After all, the only balanced
budgets in the last thirty years has been with the Democrat Bill
Clinton in office. (Source: Appendix F of the CBO publication The
Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2005-2014.)

No matter what you think of Clinton, neither of the Bush presidents,
nor Ford, nor Reagan managed that. In fact, the deficit climbed
significantly in the Reagan and first Bush terms. First time over one
trillion. two trillion, and three trillion in those years.

So, high time to adjust our view to reality.

-Malcolm Teas

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...
Well yes, actually, there was a proven connection even during Clinton's
time. Saddam regularly paid bounties to the families of suicide bombers
for
Hamas and offered rewards for anyone who would kill Americans.

Ahh, right. The Hamas. Remind me again...they were the ones that planned
the 9/11 attacks then? Oh, no...it wasn't them, was it?

I'm still waiting for the "connection" that explains why we're in Iraq now.

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...
If you get right down to it, the only arguments against murder or theft
are
basically religious.

Hardly. A peaceful society requires that members of that society be safe
and that their property remains safe. If murder and theft are allowed, the
outcome is assured: rampant violence, and an enormous waste as everyone
invests most of their resources trying to take what the other members of
society have, including their lives.

You don't need religion to justify rules against murder or theft.