Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: John Larkin on 17 Oct 2006 11:48 On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 03:41:23 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >"John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message >news:hmg8j2d5e66hed8b2afqgd8t6lstbflj99(a)4ax.com... >> >> On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 18:37:22 +0100, "T Wake" >> <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>> >>>"Jonathan Kirwan" <jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote in message >>>news:jul5j2tkh6tg8nptqgn390urkanmgjbng9(a)4ax.com... >>> >>>> Actually, President Bush has explicitly kept the "nuclear option" on >>>> the table -- particularly, their tactical use. >>> >>>Sad really, isn't it. I was hoping I would be able to see my great >>>grandchildren. But it gets less likely. >>> >> Well, if you survive the next two years, you're over the hump. > >Good lord yes, let's hope saner minds take office in 2009. > >Eric Lucas > Hilary, as much as I detest her, would probably be a pretty good prez, a lot better than W or Willy. John
From: John Larkin on 17 Oct 2006 11:50 On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 15:38:17 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >"Jonathan Kirwan" <jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote in message >news:i9n8j29atodlsous5hl3bpuk1avrj0s9a4(a)4ax.com... >> On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 03:39:16 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> >>>Nicely written. >> >> Thanks. >> >>>Ever heard of a dinky, crappy little liberal arts college called Kent >>>State? >> >> I'm not sure how you intend that to be applied, of course, since you >> don't say what you are thinking here. > >Sorry if that sounded snotty--no hidden agenda, just the obvious example of >troops being ordered into a situation and attacking their own people. > > Somehow it never occurred to me to throw rocks at armed National Guard troops. John
From: lucasea on 17 Oct 2006 11:53 "Lloyd Parker" <lparker(a)emory.edu> wrote in message news:eh2q77$c28$1(a)leto.cc.emory.edu... > In article <odi8j25ttpiuu9t6tbg4jne9cdut88qmin(a)4ax.com>, > John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 17:38:14 +0100, Eeyore >><rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>>Lloyd Parker wrote: >>> >>>> JoeBloe <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote: >>>> >>>> > All of Islam (read the moslems) believe that all others that are not >>>> >moslem are "infidels" and that killing them is not, nor should not be >>>> >a crime. >>>> >>>> You are lying. >>> >>>I suspect it's what he learnt at Church. >>> >>>American Christian fundamentalists are as dangerous if not more so than > their >>>Muslim counterparts. >> >>Yeah, all those Southern Baptist suicide bombers. > > McVeigh was a part of the radical Christian right. The IRA was Catholic > fighting Protestants (and Protestants fought back). While those are examples of Christian terrorists, that of course is not, as John's strawman implies, the only or even the primary danger of the radical Christian Right. It is their subsumption of a significant fraction of the Federal and state governments, and foisting of their repressive principles on the rest of the population that is so dangerous. Eric Lucas
From: John Larkin on 17 Oct 2006 12:07 On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 04:17:52 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >"John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message >news:qdk8j29a18e3jpjv10oqht1vkhv1ecdv13(a)4ax.com... >> On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 23:36:51 +0100, "T Wake" >> <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >> >>>Intelligent design is a dead end as far as science goes because it defeats >>>the quest for knowledge. Comparing a scientific theory to creationism (or >>>ID >>>or what ever you want to call it) is a basic fallacy. From a logical >>>position, ID/Creationism can be used to dismantle Monotheistic religions >>>on >>>exactly the same principle they try to dismantle (for example) >>>evolutionary >>>theory. >>> >> >> Why so? If some supersmart kid in another spacetime designed this >> universe as a science project, wouldn't we still want to figure out >> how it works? > >Nice parable Thanks >and attempt at a distraction. Sorry, I thought it was relevant to the issue at hand. >However, considering that even >the Religious Right admits that ID was nothing but an attempt to get around >the Supreme Court's decision on teaching Creationism, you know as well as I >do that that "supersmart kid in another universe as a science project" is >intended to be not-so-opaque code for "God". > Maybe that's his nickname. It doesn't matter. >> If the origin of the universe is unknown, and maybe >> unknowable, feeling that it was designed on purpose does no harm to >> scientific inquiry. > >That's disingenuous. You know as well as I do that, the way ID/Creationism >is currently being used by the Religious Right is precisely to attempt to >shut down teaching of evolution, and thus to quell honest and open inquiry >into evolutionary biology, at the very least. If you exclude considering possibilities because it might give you something vaguely in common with Believers, then your mind is as handicapped as theirs, likely more. > >You really do need to take a more critical look at the wackos in your own >political party I belong to no political party. My wife and my kid vote Democrat, which is fine with me. >and the damage that they're doing to our society. It's far >worse than what a few wacko Islamic terrorists are doing or will do. > Oh relax. Things are going to be fine. John
From: John Larkin on 17 Oct 2006 12:10
On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 03:47:19 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >"John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message >news:igi8j2tmonmnsklrgqsh5dds73npt22g6m(a)4ax.com... >> On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 19:50:08 GMT, Jonathan Kirwan >> <jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote: >> >> >>>>American Christian fundamentalists are as dangerous if not more so than >>>>their >>>>Muslim counterparts. >>> >>>More so, because they (through political influence over the power of >>>US action) have so much greater power by which they can act. (They >>>are a very large, very well funded, and highly-catered minority here >>>and they often pass around internal lists of who to vote for, as >>>well.) >>> >> >> And you think the Mother Jones crowd doesn't have their own lists? You >> seem to imply that there's something wrong with political organizing >> among people you don't agree with. Stalin thought that, too. > > >Yeah, but the fundamental difference is that a religious organization, which >gets special tax breaks because of the special protected position that >religion holds in the Constitution, is supposed to stay out of the business >of governing the country. Mother Jones, and the liberal organizations >associated therewith enjoy no such special protection. Any church that >dabbles in politics by telling their congregation how to vote should have >their tax-exempt status revoked. > There are plenty of tax-exempt nonprofits on both sides, or rather all sides. They are prohibited by law from engaging in politics, and that's reasonably well enforced. They are not prohibited from doing good works, even governmant-funded good works. John |