Leaving the community

"Gig Giacona" wrote in message
...



Well in the Peterson case in of all places the People's Republic of
California he is charged with the murder of his wife and unborn child. He
is
hardly the forst to be charged with this. The law seems to be the
embryo/fetus is a human when the mother says it is.

Peterson was, in fact, convicted of second degree murder of his unborn son.

Personally, I would not like to see a general prohibition against abortions.
I think at some point, though, you have to say that you know, you had plenty
of opportunity to terminate the pregnancy up until now. But now the child,
if it was born, has some viability of a human being, and you begin to have a
duty to protect and care for it. In particular, I would like to see a ban on
partial birth abortions.

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...

Again, the point is that it has nothing to do with religion.

Sure it does. Religion is nothing more than a belief system. You
believe that you have rights and need government. That is your religion.

The difference is that Christians base their beliefs on the Bible and
you base yours on .... what?

The belief that there is no God is in fact a religious belief. These people
who want to disenfranchise those who have religious beliefs would do well to
remember that. I do not try to prevent those who do not believe in God from
participating in the political system. However, I have found that it is too
much to expect that those who disagree with me would extend the same
courtesy to me.

"Richard Hertz" no one@no one.com wrote in message
. net...

A good start would be Ayn Rand's work, though I am not as violently
opposed
to religion as she is.


Ms. Rand, although I admire much of her thought, was wrong about many
things. The least she could have done was to check her own premises once in
awhile.

Richard Hertz wrote:

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...

Richard Hertz wrote:


"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...


Richard Hertz wrote:



"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...



"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...



But regardless, none of this is even required to show that you don't

require



religion to justify happiness. A simple global desire to be happy is
sufficient (if you have no such desire to be happy, you may have a
hard

time



comprehending this, but it sure would explain some other things).
That's
why large groups of humans get together and agree to try to be happy
together, rather than killing and stealing from each other all the
time.


I think a good argument can be made that one reason people kill and
steal
stems from the desire to be happy. In this respect happiness (or the
desire
for happiness) could be a negative trait.


It makes no difference why they do it. Unless it is self defense it is
criminal. That has nothing to do with religion.

Criminal by whose standard? What if the majority decided that stealing
and killing were OK?


Majority has nothing to do with it, you are violating my right to my body
and property. If you accept the premise of laws, then certainly you
must accept that those two are the fundamental basis for government.
Without those it is anarchy.

What rights? Who gave you these rights? Who said that we need
government? Who said anarchy was bad?


I never said anarchy was bad. So you suggest that it is acceptable to
kill/steal?

Not to me, but it obviously is to a lot of people. I'm making the point
that Christians believe there is an absolute standard of right and
wrong. Most liberals believe it is all relative - situation ethics and
all that crap.


Again, the point is that it has nothing to do with religion.

Sure it does. Religion is nothing more than a belief system. You believe
that you have rights and need government. That is your religion.


Bull****. That is not my religion. Go look up religion in a dictionary.
Also, nowhere in my post did I say that I need a government. However, you
must be an idiot if you really feel that anarchy is a suitable way to live
given the nature of people.

I never said that. Read it again, Sam.


This has nothing to do with religion.

The difference is that Christians base their beliefs on the Bible and you
base yours on .... what?


What are you using for the definition of Christians? Certainly not one that
many people would agree with as there as far too many parts of the new
testament that are completely ignored by supposed "christians"

Such as?

Matt

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


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.

But now it seems the nation has, albeit by a slim margin, re-elected a weak,
hypocritical, murderous coward. Three years ago, when some writers on the
left started talking about fascism, I thought that an absurd stretch. No
longer. The parallels are not precise - they never are - but the broad sweep
and many of the components of a new fascist state are in place. The 48% who
didn't vote for this disaster keep knocking on my consciousness, but they
are now feeble and impotent. The thugs are in charge.

That being so, and despite what should be an apolitical setting, I can no
longer in good faith keep company with a group of which the majority, I
know, has elected to deliver the country I love, and chose as my home, into
the hands of Bush and his repressive, regressive masters.

So long. Thanks for all the conversations. You guys have made me a better
pilot.

-- David Brooks

"Gene Seibel" wrote in message
om...
http://pad39a.com/gene/pusa.html
--
Gene Seibel
Hangar 131 - http://pad39a.com/gene/plane.html
Because I fly, I envy no one.


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.

But now it seems the nation has, albeit by a slim margin, re-elected a
weak,
hypocritical, murderous coward. Three years ago, when some writers on
the
left started talking about fascism, I thought that an absurd stretch. No
longer. The parallels are not precise - they never are - but the broad
sweep
and many of the components of a new fascist state are in place. The 48%
who
didn't vote for this disaster keep knocking on my consciousness, but
they
are now feeble and impotent. The thugs are in charge.

That being so, and despite what should be an apolitical setting, I can
no
longer in good faith keep company with a group of which the majority, I
know, has elected to deliver the country I love, and chose as my home,
into
the hands of Bush and his repressive, regressive masters.

So long. Thanks for all the conversations. You guys have made me a
better
pilot.

-- David Brooks
This is shocking. Could somebody send me the entire post by David Brooks. I
could not find it in Google.

A few days before the election I worked for the Democrats trying to get out
the vote here in NC. My partner in this effort was a retired screenwriter
who had escaped Germany before the shooting began. His parents foresaw what
was coming and sent him to the USA. They later died at Auschwitz. We talked
at length as we drove around distributing literature. He was in his teens,
he said, when Hitler began to rattle swords. He went on at great length
telling of parallels he now sees in this country --- the churches meddling
in politics and the great power of the evangelicals, unprovoked declaration
of war, the so-called Patriot Act, divisiveness and patriotic fervor, and on
and on. He was so convincing and so eloquent in his argument I thought a
couple of times I was going to gag.

Now I'd like to comment on the following words without regard to identity of
their writers:



..R. Patterson III" wrote in message
... Frank Stutzman wrote: In
rec.aviation.ifr Jim Fisher wrote:
Ahh, but it is a truism if one accept the absolute fact that "marraige"
has been recognized for thousands of years as a religous tenant.
So True. But arn't we supposed to have a separation of church and state?

Yes, and putting the clergy in charge of marriages is a violation of the
Establishment Clause. The marriage contract should be secular, not
religious. All enforceable contracts are matters of the state, not
religion. Some states even license "secular" ministers to perform marriage
ceremonies.

On the subject of marriages I cannot understand why the majoritarians who
voted for those stupid resolutions or state constitutional amendments
against gay marriages think it is so harmful to the institution of marriage
for gay partners to have rights of survivorship and other rights like
spouses have. What business is it of theirs? So, don't call it a
marriage. Call it something else but at least let gay people enjoy the
equal protection of the laws. They didn't ask to be gay. I cannot believe
the bigotry and hatred spewing out over this country like molten lava.




? Not as far as the Constitution goes. The Constitution simply forbids
Congress from passing any laws related to religion. The actual wording is
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof;".

This is a misstatement of the law and represents the typical evangelical
buzzwords misinterpreting the First Amendment's Establishment Clause. It
contravenes Jefferson's Letter to the Baptists at Danville, the Federalist
Papers, and a long line of recent Supreme Court decisions. It contradicts
the 14th Amendment which applies the First Amendment's prohibitions against
each and every state in this country and every subdivision thereof. If you
want citations I can provide them to show this poster is badly mistaken.
Take a look at the cases on religion and the Constitution's Establishment
Clause at findlaw.com if you need further understanding.

C J Campbell wrote:


"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...

Again, the point is that it has nothing to do with religion.

Sure it does. Religion is nothing more than a belief system. You
believe that you have rights and need government. That is your religion.

The difference is that Christians base their beliefs on the Bible and
you base yours on .... what?

The belief that there is no God is in fact a religious belief. These
people who want to disenfranchise those who have religious beliefs would
do well to remember that. I do not try to prevent those who do not believe
in God from participating in the political system. However, I have found
that it is too much to expect that those who disagree with me would extend
the same courtesy to me.

I would never exclude you and your opinions from the political debate.

Where the line is crossed is when the 'religious' attempt to codify some of
their beliefs in law. Too often nowadays the debate is focused on a
particular issue as 'right vs. wrong' when it really is a question of what
is the appropriate role of a 'religion neutral' government. It leads to the
great polarization we see today because there is no room to compromise on
'core' beliefs. It also implies that one set of religious beliefs are being
favored over another.

Abortion and gay rights are the big ones today and they are perfect
examples.

No one, not even the most liberal, believes that abortion is a good thing.
Yet they are often portrayed as being "for abortion". The appropriate
question is should the government be involved in medical decisions and/or
can the government decide what a woman can or can't do to her own body?

In the gay marriage issue we should be debating whether or not the
government should be involved in deciding who one can marry and if it
should even be in the marriage business at all.

When I was growing up Catholics weren't allowed to eat meat on Fridays.
Would anyone suggest that the government step in and close all the steak
houses? Of course not. But not because it is a trivial matter. Rather it is
readily apparent that not all religions share this view and the government
would be seen as favoring one religion over another if it were to try to
intervene.

I believe that life doesn't begin until you can breathe on your own and that
if two consenting adults want to marry then that's the way "God" wanted it.
I expect my government to give equal weight to my 'religious' beliefs as
yours.

Who was the wise man that said 'You can't legislate morality'?

--
Frank....H

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

mike regish wrote:

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.

Who determines what the "right things" are?


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.

Now that is funny. Morality results from evolution. Best one I've
heard in a long time.


Matt