Leaving the community

"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?



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.

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"

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

the word 'religion' here is being tossed about to mean any passing interest
or affinity. That is not its meaning and cannot be in spite of yours and
others' attempts to make it so.




Matt

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
Richard Hertz wrote:

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...

jls wrote:


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


"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...


In article ,
"Peter Duniho" wrote:



Legalized abortion has in the long-run made our country safer, not
less
so.

not for the children killed during the abortion.

What is the definition of a child? (from a legal standpoint)




--
Bob Noel


He doesn't know, obviously, but at common law the foetus or embryo has
never
been treated as a child. In some cases the foetus when "quickened," i.
e.,
capable of living outside of the uterus, has been viewed as a human
being
within the purview of the homicide laws.

foetus??? You don't even know how to spell what you are talking about.




You are truly an idiot

Does writing this make you feel better? Superior?


No. You blasted the poster and you were incorrect, so perhaps that
accusation/question should be directed at yourself.

Matt

On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 08:23:46 -0500, " jls"
wrote:


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

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Peter Duniho" wrote:

Legalized abortion has in the long-run made our country safer, not less
so.

not for the children killed during the abortion.

What is the definition of a child? (from a legal standpoint)

I always thought it was 21, at least for some. Higher for others.

Roger



--
Bob Noel

He doesn't know, obviously, but at common law the foetus or embryo has never
been treated as a child. In some cases the foetus when "quickened," i. e.,
capable of living outside of the uterus, has been viewed as a human being
within the purview of the homicide laws.

There is a movement among religious pharmacists to refuse to fill
prescriptions for the morning-after pill. Watch this absurdity grow and
fester, including the belief of many religious that a human life begins at
the instant of conception.

My lawgivers are Erasmus and Montaigne, not Moses and St. Paul. (E. M.
Forster)

"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.

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

snip

The Constitutional amendment would never have been needed if a small
number of judges had not decided, on their own and against the wishes of
the general public, to create a right where none had existed before.
Now,
these judges are often elected by no one; they are political appointees.
They answer to no one. They simply have decided that no matter what the
laws or the Constitution say, they can simply order anything they want.
I
happen to think that this is very dangerous to the rule of law.

This is a red herring. Judges rule on cases brought before them. This
whole
'activist judges' argument makes it sound like these guys are making it up
in traffic court.

To be honest, I think some of them are.

But I think in controversial issues such as abortion or homosexual marriage,
it would be nice if judges were relying on some sort of law. Abortion in
particular was declared a constitutional right without any precedent
whatsoever, no written law to support it, and contrary to what was public
policy and all legal precedent before it. It is no wonder that a significant
portion of the population was outraged.

Similarly, much of tort law was created out of thin air by judges who defied
all precedent before them and who by fiat simply invalidated many state and
federal laws without even bothering to claim a constitutional right. The
harm that did to the aviation industry, among others, is very well known.

"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.

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.

Rather than happiness as the motivation for killing and stealing, it's
likely survival is the reason for that behavior.

Clearly you've not met many common criminals.

In this country no one steals for "survival". They're stealing because they
have no morals -- period.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

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

Trent,

I don't agree. He lied under oath and that's pretty serious.


Well, in that case, I just have to wonder what you think about the
current president?

The issue of President Bush's lying is open to debate because no one
has all the facts here and only time will tell.

You've got to be kidding...

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)