Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 18 Oct 2006 11:00 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >David Bostwick wrote: > > > >> lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: > >> > >> >McVeigh was a part of the radical Christian right. The IRA was Catholic > >> >fighting Protestants (and Protestants fought back). > >> > >> And the guy who killed the Amish kids was what? > > > >Mad presumably. > > Not necessarily. How so ? You're suggesting it's rational behaviour to kill young girls ? > I suspect there will be more of this acting out. Why ? > If the world, as we know it, is going to end, Of course it's not. Why would it ? > a lot of people > are going to indulge in the secret desire which had been suppressed > by society's rules. You are quite berserk yourself. Graham
From: Lloyd Parker on 18 Oct 2006 06:41 In article <eh3g0l$1fm$1(a)news-int.gatech.edu>, david.bostwick(a)chemistry.gatech.edu (David Bostwick) wrote: >In article <eh34ou$nc5$1(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >>In article <eh30er$n6o$1(a)news-int.gatech.edu>, >> david.bostwick(a)chemistry.gatech.edu (David Bostwick) wrote: > >[...] > >>>Are you also willing to include left-wing "fundamentalists" with every >>>killer who is anti-religion or unreligious? >> >>By definition, left-wingers aren't fundamentalist anything. > >Of course they are. The term fundamentalist simply means anyone who believes >the fundamentals of a belief system. But liberals believe in liberty (that's what the word "liberal" comes from) and you take away liberty if you insist on fundamentalism. >It has become linked to religion, but >fundamentalism can be religious, economic, political, or whatever. You can >try to change the definition, but we're still on this side of the looking >glass. > > >> >>>Can I lump Ted and Barney in with anyone >>>who kills just because he wants to? >> >>If you'll tell me whom they murdered and why. >> > >You put people who have done nothing wrong into the same category as those who >have committed crimes. I put Tim McVeigh, Eric Rudolph, and the IRA in the same category as any terrorist. >What's good for one side is good for the other. > >(And Teddy's a gimme.) > > >>>There's probably a killer out there who >>>believes most of what you do, but I don't think you're a danger to anyone. >>> >>>People kill because they are evil. They may use a belief to hide behind or to >>>rally followers, or they may really believe what they say. If you want to say >>>that everyone who believes X is bad because an evil person says he believes X, >>>your're going to have a lot of labels to make. >>> >>> >>> >>True; my post was in response to those lumping all Moslems in as such. > >And then you did *exactly* the same thing.
From: Lloyd Parker on 18 Oct 2006 06:46 In article <879bj21r9ffat4i1pbkbjffvfb2bag6d5r(a)4ax.com>, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >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. Would you have a prohibition against members of a >congregation discussing politics? How about members of the Sierra >Club? The NRA? The ACLU? MADD? > >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. > >John > > The League of Conservation Voters puts out a voter's guide; the LCV is not a tax-exempt organization because of this. Why are churches allowed to put out voter's guides?
From: Lloyd Parker on 18 Oct 2006 06:44 In article <45355C57.28A8837D(a)earthlink.net>, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell(a)earthlink.net> wrote: >lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: >> >> "Jonathan Kirwan" <jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote in message >> news:hra8j25plmkagerobeimflqgo6p6q9j3cg(a)4ax.com... >> > On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 00:36:21 GMT, "Michael A. Terrell" >> > <mike.terrell(a)earthlink.net> wrote: >> > >> >>Jonathan Kirwan wrote: >> >>> >> >>> The article I read pointed out that the soldiers explicitly were under >> >>> a Euro command and that if they were ordered _into_ their own country >> >>> for some reason, that they must have already sworn to uphold the Euro >> >>> command and not obey those in command in their own home country. >> >> >> >> What happens when they are ordered to attack their own country? >> > >> > How hard is it for you to imagine the case here in the US, for gosh >> > sake? >> > >> > Let's say, hypothetically speaking, that on May 17, 1954, the US >> > Supreme Court rules in some case called Brown v. Board of Education of >> > Topeka, Kansas, unanimously agreeing that segregation in public >> > schools is unconstitutional. Just hypothetically, of course, >> > overturning the 1896 Plessy v. Ferguson ruling, sanctioning "separate >> > but equal" segregation of the races and now ruling that "separate >> > educational facilities are inherently unequal." >> > >> > Let's also say that, just hypothetically speaking, that in order to >> > comply with this Brown v. Board decision, a place called Central High >> > School in Little Rock, Arkansas made plans to integrate blacks around >> > the hypothetical time of September, 1957. Let's also say, just >> > hypothetically, that when nine black high school students arrived to >> > attend, that they were met by angry crowds and that the governor of >> > the great State of Arkansas, a hypothetically named Mr. Orval Faubus >> > in fact, just happened to order his own Arkansas National Guard to >> > keep the black students out of the school. >> > >> > Just hypothetically, you know. >> > >> > So let's say that faced with such defiance, a US President named -- >> > oh, let's just say named Dwight Eisenhower -- responded by sending >> > troops from the 101st Airborne to Little Rock with orders to protect >> > the nine students. >> > >> > Just hypothetically, you know. >> > >> > Now, suppose you happened to come from Arkansas and you were in the >> > 101st Airborne and ordered to disobey the Arkansas governor and to go >> > against the state's own Arkansas National Guard. >> > >> > What do you do? Just hypothetically, you know. >> > >> > Come off it, Mike. The US has already answered this question. Europe >> > can just look here for the problems and some answers. >> >> Nicely written. >> >> Ever heard of a dinky, crappy little liberal arts college called Kent State? > > > You mean Kent State in Ohio, where outside agitators stirred up the >students and told them, "Your parents are rich! You can do anything you >want, the soldiers won't shoot at you?!"? The one where someone is >reported to have fired at the National Guard, I suggest you read the report as to what happened. >and someone yelled "Fire" >immediately afterwards? The one, where after numerous nasty incidents >at US colleges all over the country where drunken idiots threw rocks at >the National Guard troops, and local police while they burnt buildings >and demanded their rights? I may have. > > > It was on the local Cincinnati and Dayton TV stations for days, and >discussed for months. You may also remember that it brought an almost >immediate stop to the campus riots all over the country. The few groups >that gathered and started trouble ran away as soon as it was announced >that the guard was called in. The national Guard is made up of well >trained soldiers who don't shoot for the fun of it. On the other hand, >if the other side is shooting at them they are trained to defend >themselves. > I imagine the Nazis rounding up and shooting villagers if the resistance used a village as a staging area put an end to villages allowing the resistance there too. > The thing that surprised me was that the riots went on for so long >before it happened. At least a year before Kent State I was telling >people it was going to happen, and it would stop the riots, but no one >believed me. > >
From: Lloyd Parker on 18 Oct 2006 06:48
In article <irbbj21g2kpf26j9k453j93a17hpmei2ik(a)4ax.com>, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >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. 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. Why are so many amateur scientists so hostile >to the idea that the universe was designed? Because it's not a scientific theory. It cannot be tested, and it cannot be falsified (ask its advocates). >I figure there's a chance >that it was, and a bigger chance that DNA was designed. Why then would a designer make every life form use almost the same DNA? Why have a flower have the same basic DNA as a human? >These >speculations invoke hostility, for no logical reason I can figure out. > >The Jesuits have a long history of science and mathematics. They >somehow didn't find them mutually exclusive to belief. > >John > |