Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Michael A. Terrell on 18 Oct 2006 02:12 lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > > Why do you equate playing music for an organization as endorsing their > political actions? I enjoy playing music, and I get a great deal of joy out > of sharing that music with others. I don't particularly care about the > politics or ethics of those I play for...and I'm sure they don't care about > mine. > > Eric Lucas If their acts bother you enough to publicly complain about them, why do you want to be around them? That is hypocritical. -- Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to prove it. Member of DAV #85. Michael A. Terrell Central Florida
From: lucasea on 18 Oct 2006 02:15 "John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message news:879bj21r9ffat4i1pbkbjffvfb2bag6d5r(a)4ax.com... > On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 18:07:18 GMT, Jonathan Kirwan > <jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote: > > >>>>They are prohibited by law from engaging in politics, and >>>> that's reasonably well enforced. >>> >>>Not in churches, they're not. > > Churches may not donate money or substantial resources to political > candidates. Don't for a minute fool yourself into thinking that they don't. Such money does flow, through PACs and other legalized money laundering mechanisms. > Would you have a prohibition against members of a > congregation discussing politics? Another strawman. Of course nobody is suggesting a prohibition against members of a congregation discussing politics. However, whenever the Church itself (not its congregation) endorses political candidates, that is illegal. Are you even capable of discussing issues honestly and openly, or do you have to use disingenuous strawmen to make non sequitur points? > How about members of the Sierra > Club? The NRA? The ACLU? MADD? See the above comment. Beyond that, those non-religious organizations are different. None of those enjoy the Constitutional protection of the separation of church and State. The Constitution rules that the government is not to meddle in the church, and I believe the Supreme Court has ruled that the prohibition goes the other way, too. > There have been some recent legal actions against churches that have > broken the no-politics rules, and against some secular nonprofits, > too. > >> As a musician in a group that happens to play >>>for church services a lot, I've been to services of quite a few >>>denominations...and many of them preach politics from the pulpit, to the >>>extent of telling their congregation for whom they should vote. That is >>>a >>>big problem, in my book. > > Of course it is; you don't want their candidates to win. I don't happen to make my ethical decisions on the basis of what gets my favorite candidates elected. Do you? No, in fact, quite the opposite--I choose my candidates based on which most closely matches my ethical center. If you remember, I am fundamentally a centrist conservative, and I don't have any preconceived notion of who I want to win. I make each decision based on the individual merits. No, John, the endorsement of candidates by religious organizations is a problem with me because I value the US Constitution. I can't believe that, not only don't you value the Constitution like I do, but you can't even admit or conceive of the fact that I do. Eric Lucas
From: Eeyore on 18 Oct 2006 02:29 lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote > > T Wake wrote: > > >> You are quite correct in that blaming the soldiers directly for their > >> actions is wrong. The blame rests squarely with the person who wants to > >> use guns and soldiers against their own people. > > > > You could blame the US gun culture too. > > I'm not sure I see the connection. The "gun culture" generally refers to > arms in the hands of civilians. Soldiers and police have guns in just about > every culture (I can't think of a single counterexample), and it was those > soldiers' guns that caused the deaths at KSU. For comparison it would be very unusual to see guns used in a similar example here in the UK and our military doesn't come out onto the streets as a rule either ( most of our police are unarmed of course ). Graham
From: lucasea on 18 Oct 2006 02:40 "John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message news:irbbj21g2kpf26j9k453j93a17hpmei2ik(a)4ax.com... > On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 19:11:06 +0100, "T Wake" > <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > > >>> If the origin of the universe is unknown, and maybe >>> unknowable, feeling that it was designed on purpose does no harm to >>> scientific inquiry. >> >>Generally speaking any belief system does no harm to scientific >>exploration >>in that manner. > > Exactly. > >>The problem comes in when the belief tries to answer >>scientific questions. > > Science shouldn't be so fragile that it is threatened by peoples' > beliefs about stuff like this. It isn't. However, considering the abysmal state of US primary science education, we need to make sure it is taught where it belongs--in religion classes, not in science classes (see below). > Until it is proven otherwise, the > universe may have originated in intelligent design, vacuum fluctuation > or (as one serious theory has it) time is an illusion and the universe > had no date of origin. It may have, but you know darned well that what is taught in high school science classes is generally very well-tested theory, as students at that level don't have enough of a basis of understanding to evaluate untested theories. I don't see anyone wanting to slip vacuum fluctuations or illusory time into high school science classes, and teach it as "The Truth", while relegating other explanations to "just theories". You know perfectly well that that just plays off the difference between the scientific (a hypothesis that has withstood tests and attempts at falsification) and lay (unproven and probably false) definition of the word "theory." By the way, the onus for providing evidence for a theory and making sure it is a proper theory is not on its critics, it is on the authors of the theory. Thus, "until it is proven otherwise" has no place in a discussion of a theory...that would put it in the realm of science fiction at best. >Why are so many amateur scientists so hostile > to the idea that the universe was designed? I wouldn't say "hostile" (that was be another strawman), but rather they (correctly) insist that it not be taught as a scientific theory. Part of it is precisely because those who are intent on teaching ID have acknowledged that it is just a euphemism for Creationism, and is just an end-around on the Constitution. As such, it is being used to close off scientific discourse at a time when the US is suffering from some of the worst primary science education in the developed world. If you're suggesting that ID is a viable scientific theory, then the onus is on *you* to come up with the experiments that will test that theory. You must make a serious attempt to falsify the theory, as the very definition of the appelation "theory" demands. Until then, it is a religious belief, and has no place in a science class. > The Jesuits have a long history of science and mathematics. They > somehow didn't find them mutually exclusive to belief. Another strawman. The Jesuits aren't dogmatically Creationist, and as such, their beliefs aren't aimed at shutting down scientific inquiry. Eric Lucas
From: joseph2k on 18 Oct 2006 03:11
JoeBloe wrote: > On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 22:07:34 +0100, "T Wake" > <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> Gave us: > >>You don't understand what COMSEC is. You don't understand how it fits into >>the security picture. It is "current" in some circles but, trust me, it is >>depreciated. > > You're an idiot. Also, the word you may have been attempting to use > is deprecated, not depreciated. > > Still, either choice is incorrect as neither fits the reality. You had better look them up you deprecated fool. -- JosephKK Gegen dummheit kampfen die Gotter Selbst, vergebens. --Schiller |