On 2016-03-14 23:37:24 +0000, Les Cargill said:

Savageduck wrote:
On 2016-03-14 12:43:34 +0000, Les Cargill said:

Rod Speed wrote:
Stormin Mormon wrote
Rod Speed wrote

Same place ours did in the dark ages, and for the same reasons.

They seem to have regressed back to primitives.

Nope, just taking much longer to work out the value of the separation
of church and state and what real democracy is about. It wasnt that
long
ago that the stupid europeans were burning each other at the stake
etc.

1) Please provide an example of a country that has separation of
church and state.

Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc etc etc.


The US does as well. There are just noisy people here who think
something "faith based" should be given equal time to more ...
modern idea-sets.

2) Please provide an example of a country that
is a democracy.

Canada, Australia, New Zealand, USA, Britain, etc etc etc.

Actually the USA is a Constitutional Republic not a democracy.

A Republic is a democracy that can be implemented, unlike historical
plebiscites.

Some of
the States function as democratically, but not the Union.


None of those are acutal plebisictes either.

They certainly are in California where the initiative/proposition
system is in place, and the electorate votes on those issues which
include changes to the Law, tax code, bond initiatives. Sometimes the
changes are good (Prop 13), sometimes they are just badly written law
(Prop 36 - California Three Strikes Law), but the electorate vote(d/s)
on those issues as a plebiscite.
--
Regards,

Savageduck

In message 2016031415034030211-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom
Savageduck wrote:
On 2016-03-14 20:46:55 +0000, Lewis said:

In message om
JF Mezei wrote:
O
What is god's name?
Fred? Tony? Bucky? Gladys?...

His son is Jesus H Christ.

So daddy's name probably begins with an H. So Henry ? Harry ? Hank ?

Howard, obviously.

Go with an imaginary character such as Harvey.

Our Father who art in heaven, Howard be thy name.

--
Hudd: 'I've just done this radio show where I never met any of the other
actors and I didn't understand what any of it was about' Moo 'Ah, yes
I expect that's the thing I'm in.'

On 2016-03-15 00:19:41 +0000, Lewis said:

In message 2016031415034030211-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom
Savageduck wrote:
On 2016-03-14 20:46:55 +0000, Lewis said:

In message om
JF Mezei wrote:
O
What is god's name?
Fred? Tony? Bucky? Gladys?...

His son is Jesus H Christ.

So daddy's name probably begins with an H. So Henry ? Harry ? Hank ?

Howard, obviously.

Go with an imaginary character such as Harvey.

Our Father who art in heaven, Howard be thy name.

This might be coincidentally silly, but my father's name is Howard.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On Mon, 14 Mar 2016 15:57:23 -0000, wrote:

On 2016-03-14 14:55:16 +0000, "(PeteCresswell)" said:

Per Stormin Mormon:
1) Please provide an example of a country that
has separation of church and state.

Cannot speak to the legal technicalities, but in Germany and UK I get a
strong impression that it is considered gauche, even demagogic for a
politician to talk about religion - or even mention G-d's name.

What is god's name?
Fred? Tony? Bucky? Gladys?...

Why would you name something that doesn't exist?

--
I want to die peacefully, in my sleep, like my Uncle Bob. Not screaming in terror like his passengers...

Les Cargill wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Les Cargill wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Stormin Mormon wrote
Rod Speed wrote

Same place ours did in the dark ages, and for the same reasons.

They seem to have regressed back to primitives.

Nope, just taking much longer to work out the value of the separation
of church and state and what real democracy is about. It wasn’t that
long ago that the stupid europeans were burning each other at the
stake etc.

1) Please provide an example of a country that has separation of
church and state.

Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc etc etc.

The US does as well.

That's more arguable when you have quite a few presidents
choosing to have people like Billy Graham show up at the white
house and pontificate about how things should be done etc.

That was window dressing.

Sure, but is clearly more separation of church and state than is
seen in Australia, Canada, New Zealand etc that doesn’t do that.

We got into a God phase when the phrase
"Godless Communists" became de riguer.

Nope, it was the god phase that so pervades the
US that produced that phrase. The US has a MUCH
higher density of churches than any of Australia,
Canada, New Zealand, Britain, Germany or France.

That's when "IN GOD WE TRUST" was put on the money

Because you have such a high density of god botherers.

and a phrase was added to out Pledge of Allegiance.

For the same reason.

And with Liz being head of the church in Britain etc.

Nominally;

Its not nominal at all.

I don't think she does much about it.

She does actually. She not only decides who the new archbishop
of canterbury is, but her relos can't even marry roman catholics
without her express permission to do that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suprem...rch_of_England

Some other places like say Denmark actually have an official state
religion.

True.

But they don't take it very seriously as I've been told. They
had a relatively orderly transition to essentially Lutheranism in the 16th
Century and never bothered to update it.

Still a clear lack of separation of church and state.

Nothing like as bad as in say Iran where the clerics decide how
things must be done, but Britain was like that at one time.

There are just noisy people here who think something "faith based"
should be given equal time to more ...
modern idea-sets.

It’s a bit more than just that in the US.

It generally gets shorted to ground by our processes in terms of
influencing policy, though.

Like hell it does with the Tea Party fools alone.

It's mostly empty buckets making a lot of noise.

Nothing like that in fact with the Tea Party loons.

We have a lot of people who think you can posit a vector of "values" and
then construct an ethics from that.

Sure, but that is a separate matter entirely.

2) Please provide an example of a country that is a democracy.

Canada, Australia, New Zealand, USA, Britain, etc etc etc.

"Savageduck" wrote in message
news:2016031417082570963-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
On 2016-03-14 23:37:24 +0000, Les Cargill said:

Savageduck wrote:
On 2016-03-14 12:43:34 +0000, Les Cargill said:

Rod Speed wrote:
Stormin Mormon wrote
Rod Speed wrote

Same place ours did in the dark ages, and for the same reasons.

They seem to have regressed back to primitives.

Nope, just taking much longer to work out the value of the
separation
of church and state and what real democracy is about. It wasnt that
long
ago that the stupid europeans were burning each other at the stake
etc.

1) Please provide an example of a country that has separation of
church and state.

Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc etc etc.


The US does as well. There are just noisy people here who think
something "faith based" should be given equal time to more ...
modern idea-sets.

2) Please provide an example of a country that
is a democracy.

Canada, Australia, New Zealand, USA, Britain, etc etc etc.

Actually the USA is a Constitutional Republic not a democracy.

A Republic is a democracy that can be implemented, unlike historical
plebiscites.

Some of
the States function as democratically, but not the Union.


None of those are acutal plebisictes either.

They certainly are in California where the initiative/proposition system
is in place, and the electorate votes on those issues which include
changes to the Law, tax code, bond initiatives. Sometimes the changes are
good (Prop 13), sometimes they are just badly written law (Prop 36 -
California Three Strikes Law), but the electorate vote(d/s) on those
issues as a plebiscite.

Same thing happens with changes to the federal constitution.

"Mr Macaw" wrote in message news
On Mon, 14 Mar 2016 15:57:23 -0000, wrote:

On 2016-03-14 14:55:16 +0000, "(PeteCresswell)" said:

Per Stormin Mormon:
1) Please provide an example of a country that
has separation of church and state.

Cannot speak to the legal technicalities, but in Germany and UK I get a
strong impression that it is considered gauche, even demagogic for a
politician to talk about religion - or even mention G-d's name.

What is god's name?
Fred? Tony? Bucky? Gladys?...

Why would you name something that doesn't exist?

For the same reason you name anything else, so you can comment
on the non existent thing succinctly, by calling it god etc.

On 2016-03-15 03:46:51 +0000, JF Mezei said:

On 2016-03-14 20:38, Savageduck wrote:

What is god's name?

Go with an imaginary character such as Harvey.

Our Father who art in heaven, Howard be thy name.

This might be coincidentally silly, but my father's name is Howard.

Dear God !

....and he is a 93 year old atheist.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

In message 201603141738046648-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom
Savageduck wrote:
On 2016-03-15 00:19:41 +0000, Lewis said:

In message 2016031415034030211-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom
Savageduck wrote:
On 2016-03-14 20:46:55 +0000, Lewis said:

In message om
JF Mezei wrote:
O
What is god's name?
Fred? Tony? Bucky? Gladys?...

His son is Jesus H Christ.

So daddy's name probably begins with an H. So Henry ? Harry ? Hank ?

Howard, obviously.

Go with an imaginary character such as Harvey.

Our Father who art in heaven, Howard be thy name.

This might be coincidentally silly, but my father's name is Howard.

Oh god!


--
WINDOWS: The Gates of Hell.

On Mon, 14 Mar 2016 08:46:18 +1100, Rod Speed wrote:

Oh - and BTW: modern mathematics and many
other sciences have their roots in India and Arabia.

Not very many at all do.

Oh, stop it: you're both right -- they all do; and they're not very many
(Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Astronomy, Medicine, Logic, Math's).
Even Architecture and Music and Grammar and Rhetoric do ... but those are
arts, not sciences, in my book :-) . Cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP.

On Mon, 14 Mar 2016 14:17:14 -0400, (PeteCresswell) wrote:

I think might be Jose'.

You're mixing Church and State: you're thinking of

: José Quañu Si ... ,

the USA national anthem :-) . Cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP.

Per tlvp:
I think might be Jose'.

You're mixing Church and State: you're thinking of

: José Quañu Si ... ,

the USA national anthem :-) . Cheers, -- tlvp

Also thinking about all the Mexicans named "Jesus'"
--
Pete Cresswell

Rod Speed schrieb am 2016-03-14 um 18:24:

[stuff]

Ok, you're right. Satisfied?


--
Arno Welzel
http://arnowelzel.de
http://de-rec-fahrrad.de
http://fahrradzukunft.de

tlvp wrote
Rod Speed wrote

Oh - and BTW: modern mathematics and many
other sciences have their roots in India and Arabia.

Not very many at all do.

Oh, stop it: you're both right -- they all do; and they're not very many
(Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Astronomy, Medicine, Logic, Math's).

Those don't have THEIR ROOTS in India and Arabia.

Even Architecture and Music and Grammar and Rhetoric do ...

Nope.

but those are arts, not sciences, in my book :-) .

"Arno Welzel" wrote in message
...
Rod Speed schrieb am 2016-03-14 um 18:24:

[stuff]

Ok, you're right. Satisfied?

Nope, you never could bull**** your way out of a wet paper bag.

On Sat, 12 Mar 2016 22:57:31 -0000, nospam wrote:

In article , Mr Macaw wrote:

My "broken" referred to the missing ('' and '') delimiters.

Ah-hah :-) . One more vote in favor of *requiring* those URL delimiters.
There seems to be a massive difference of opinion in that regard: some
folks maintain that proper news readers shouldn't need them, others, that,
without them, a newsreader can't know where the URL ends.

Me? I find that more newsreaders work better when a URL *is* sandwiched
between a and a than when not, so I use them for others' convenience.

it's not just newsreaders.

any software that handles text can identify urls when they are properly
delimited and make them clickable.

I have no idea what the RFCs (if there even are any relevant ones) say.

the rfcs say that urls should be delimited with .

Not required. http: is the start. The end is at the first space.

wrong.

Why?

--
Take notice: when this sign is under water, this road is impassable.

On Tue, 15 Mar 2016 15:28:16 -0000, Arno Welzel
wrote:

Rod Speed schrieb am 2016-03-14 um 18:24:

[stuff]

Ok, you're right. Satisfied?


Rod has never been wrong on the internet. Maybe ever.

--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug