Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: lucasea on 18 Oct 2006 13:51 "George O. Bizzigotti" <gbizzigo(a)mitretek.org> wrote in message news:dibcj2tfi7bdp7nbh74tr3upfnku9as0de(a)4ax.com... > On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 03:20:23 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >>Maybe not the "Founding Fathers" as in Washington, Jefferson, Hamilton, >>etc, >>but in fact, yes. The famous "shot heard round the world" was a British >>soldier firing on an angry mob, some of whom were throwing stones. > > I can't resist being pedantic, No, please do. Incorrect "facts" need correcting. > because I think this is a conflation of Yeah, the fullness of time tends to do that to something I last learned 30 years ago. Funny thing is, I used to be a bit of an afficionado for that time period when I was a schoolboy. > the "Boston Massacre" on March 5, 1770, in which British soldiers > fired on an angry mob, some of whom were throwing stones, and the > Battle of Concord on April 19, 1775, which Longfellow immortalized as > the shot heard round the world. Now that you say that, I remember it being taught to me exactly the same way. Thanks for setting my memory straight. Eric Lucas
From: lucasea on 18 Oct 2006 13:53 "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message news:453630FA.BC40A6F1(a)earthlink.net... > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >> Now think again. Christians admire and praise people who are >> martyrs. It doesn't take an IQ of greater than 60 to figure >> out how to turn that one into making suicide bombers heroes. >> Islam has figured out how. You need to listen to some >> of Falwell's speeches. Turn to that religious channel that >> is on your cable, arm yourself with a 10 gallon barf bag, >> and listen to what those believers are getting told. > > Falwell? You would have to hold a gun to my head first, and pull the > trigger. You'd either have to shoot me, or the TV. While I agree that what those guys do is disgusting, it is actually a useful exercise to listen for a few minutes (or as long as you can stand it). It is important to know that that type of things exists in society, and that it is actually moderately politically important. Eric Lucas
From: lucasea on 18 Oct 2006 13:55 "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message news:45363396.C560073(a)earthlink.net... > lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: >> >> No, the acts of a lot of people here bother me enough to publicly >> criticize >> them, yet I still want to be "around" them in the context of this >> discussion. >> >> By the way, it is the church leadership of which I am critical. I have >> many >> friends in several of the congregations, and I thoroughly enjoy being >> around >> them, even though I deplore something their church does (that happens to >> be >> illegal.) >> >> That may be your view--nice black-and-white worldview you've got there. >> I >> don't have that luxury, I see good and bad in everybody and everything. >> I >> get what I want out of the "relationship", and they appear to as well. >> We >> don't have to love everything each other does, but we can certainly >> appreciate each other for what we and they are worth. >> >> Eric Lucas > > > And your world view that allows you to ignore illegal acts somehow > makes you non hypocritical? It also makes you an accessory after the > fact, and depending on the crime, you could be charged for not reporting > it, when it does come under public scrutiny. > > > -- > 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: John Larkin on 18 Oct 2006 13:58 On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 05:09:58 GMT, Jonathan Kirwan <jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote: >On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 20:57:56 -0700, 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. > >I didn't write that, you did. > >>>>Not in churches, they're not. > >I didn't write that. > >>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. > >That's you, of course. Responding to someone you didn't cite above. > >>> 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. > >I didn't write that. > >>Of course it is; you don't want their candidates to win. > >John, you are so fast with all that snip and cut and slam, bam, thank >you mam reading of yours that it would be hard for anyone reading your >post to realize you were responding to someone other than me. > >Show a little more care in your writing, if you'd please. If not, of >course, we'll manage. But it would be nicer if you would show some >care about those you are writing to. > >Jon Geez, it's just a newsgroup. It doesn't really matter. John
From: John Larkin on 18 Oct 2006 14:00
On Wed, 18 Oct 06 10:46:48 GMT, lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >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? If they do, and if it's illegal, they should be stopped, naturally. Ditto Sierra Club and all the rest. John |