jo4hn wrote:

Let's spend a few moments browsing the list of books Mayor Sarah Palin
tried to get town librarian Mary Ellen Baker to ban in the lovely,
all-American town of Wasilla, Alaska . When Baker refused to remove
the books from the shelves, Palin threatened to fire her. The story
was reported in Time Magazine and the list comes from the
librarian.net website.

Palin's actions were unacceptable and IMO call her fitness to be VP into
serious question. However there has been a flood of anti-Palin propaganda
and misinformation including fake photos of her, when closely examined some
of the claims about her have evaporated. I'm concerned about this paragraph
from the site you linked to:

"note: there's some buzz being generated that says that this post contains a
comment that lists the books that Palin supposedly wanted banned. The list
is here, [link to the list] but there appears to be no truth to the claim
made by the commenter, and no further documentation or support for this has
turned up."

So the question has to be asked, where did this list come from? Are we
supposed to just blindly accept this list which apparently comes from a de
facto anonymous comment on somebody's blog?

Here's a story about the issue from the Anchorage Daily News, if they'd
printed a list of books Palin wanted banned it might be credible. They
didn't.

http://www.adn.com/sarah-palin/story/515512.html

BTW, the NY Times reported that no list of books or objectionable passages
was ever offered during the exchanges between Palin and the librarian, so
again, where does this list come from? Snopes.com also asks how it was that
a list of books Palin wanted banned in 1996 includes books which had not yet
been published (e.g. the Harry Potter books). That's kind of a tip-off that
the list might not be the real deal.

There are good reasons for wondering if Sarah Palin is fit to be VP, it
really isn't necessary to make up stuff that never happened, leave that sort
of trash to Daily Kos.

Tim Daneliuk wrote:

You can easily remove my ability to influence the content of the
library by having the government ceasing make me pay for it.

Some people object to their taxes being used to fund the military, should
they be allowed to opt-out of contributing to the defense budget? Obviously
that is impractical, we can't have every taxpayer micro-managing various
govt. budgets. It's not unlike letting individuals demand books be removed
from a public library, eventually you'd have few books left. If you don't
like how the govt. spends your tax dollars there are elections every few
years so you have the opportunity to elect people who will be more
responsive to your wishes. So long as the bulk of the population and their
elected representatives think publicly funded libraries are a good idea,
you'll have to learn to live with the injustice of your tax dollars being
used for things you disapprove of, just like the rest of us.

DGDevin wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:

You can easily remove my ability to influence the content of the
library by having the government ceasing make me pay for it.

Some people object to their taxes being used to fund the military, should
they be allowed to opt-out of contributing to the defense budget? Obviously

No - because running the military is an explicitly enumerated task of
the Federal government in the Constitution, but libraries are not.

that is impractical, we can't have every taxpayer micro-managing various
govt. budgets. It's not unlike letting individuals demand books be removed
from a public library, eventually you'd have few books left. If you don't
like how the govt. spends your tax dollars there are elections every few
years so you have the opportunity to elect people who will be more
responsive to your wishes. So long as the bulk of the population and their
elected representatives think publicly funded libraries are a good idea,
you'll have to learn to live with the injustice of your tax dollars being
used for things you disapprove of, just like the rest of us.

Translation: If enough people break the law, it's OK. Fine. There are lots
of laws I don't like, so since you obviously don't believe in rule-of-law,
I am free to ignore the rules I don't like.

You are going to have to get used to the idea that our Federal government
is built upon a doctrine of enumerated rights. If a right is not enumerated
in the Constitution, the Federal government has no permission to act on
that matter. You are also going to have to come to terms with the
fact that ignoring this doctrine and thus our entire legal history
places *all* law at risk.





--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
SNIP
You are going to have to get used to the idea that our Federal government
is built upon a doctrine of enumerated rights. If a right is not enumerated


Errrrr, make that a doctrine of enumerated *powers*...






--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

.... If anything, American culture and government
today are *less* religious than at any time in our history.

Which is a grand and glorious thing!!! I hope the Federal Government
keeps it up.

There is no
Constitutionally enumerated power for the Federal government to fund
*any* education. Doing so is an arrogation of power to the Feds that
properly belongs in the hands of "the people and the states."

Ah, no, you are wrong. The Constitution gives Congress the power to pass
legislation, and if the President signs the legislation it is law. Any
Law Congress chooses to pass. The Federal Courts may review the
constitutionality of laws and regulation. Unless there is a
unconstitutionality decision by the courts, the statues stand and can be
enforced. The Congress has every *right* to fund education, sports,
parks, tree farms, oil rigs, whatever; unless a law is reviewed and
declared unconstitutional by the courts the law stands.

...... Oh, and BTW, as a person of
pretty deep principle and conviction on the matter, you and yours are
violating *my* civil rights when you make me pay for your infanticide.


How? Your civil rights are divorced from you religious beliefs. Where is
your constitutional right to impose your religious beliefs on the society
at large. Period. My *rights* are embedded in the current
interpretation of constitution by some very smart people (humans) who are
doing their very best to create, interpret, and make decisions I
certainly don't want to think about.

Your civil rights allow you to petition a change in the constitution. Do
so and see if you can get the required votes for passage of an
amendment. Until then, you live as a human in a human society governed
by a human created government that has an amendment that separates
religion and state.

I may be unable to understand this: the constitution was written my
humans, passed by humans, and amended by humans. No Divine inspiration
or intervention is claimed or declared. No Supreme court decision has
been inspired by Divine intervention. The laws of the USA, and the
Federal courts are of the realm of Mankind; Mundane. When, or at what
stage a fetus acquires a soul is known only to the Deity that created
that soul(s.) No human has been granted an audience with any Deity to
receive an answer to the question, no one. Therefor all humans can do is
take their best shot at a guess. I will take the written decision of the
US Supreme Court on this matter over anyone else's opinion. Because our
government is a rule of law; human laws.

.. But Obama is almost overtly Leninist in his hatred of wealth,
achievement, and success.


While you equate Obama to Lenin, I equate McBush with Mussolini.

Phil Again wrote:
.... If anything, American culture and government
today are *less* religious than at any time in our history.

Which is a grand and glorious thing!!! I hope the Federal Government
keeps it up.


So at least you stipulate to the religious roots of our government.
That's progress.

There is no
Constitutionally enumerated power for the Federal government to fund
*any* education. Doing so is an arrogation of power to the Feds that
properly belongs in the hands of "the people and the states."

Ah, no, you are wrong. The Constitution gives Congress the power to pass
legislation, and if the President signs the legislation it is law. Any
Law Congress chooses to pass. The Federal Courts may review the
constitutionality of laws and regulation. Unless there is a
unconstitutionality decision by the courts, the statues stand and can be
enforced. The Congress has every *right* to fund education, sports,
parks, tree farms, oil rigs, whatever; unless a law is reviewed and
declared unconstitutional by the courts the law stands.

This power to legislate is supposed to be bounded by the list of
enumerated powers given the Federal government. All you've described
above is the prostitution of the system by using its inherent complexity
and corners to thwart the clear intent of the Framers.


...... Oh, and BTW, as a person of
pretty deep principle and conviction on the matter, you and yours are
violating *my* civil rights when you make me pay for your infanticide.


How? Your civil rights are divorced from you religious beliefs. Where is
your constitutional right to impose your religious beliefs on the society

Nowhere have I said I wish to impose my religious beliefs - if any -
upon anyone. I wish to not pay for infanticide. I don't care what
the "courts have found in the matter". I prefer not to be a party
to murder. This apparently doesn't bother you much, and I'm not
saying you can or should be entirely prevented from doing so. I'm
saying I ought not to have to pay for it.



I may be unable to understand this: the constitution was written my
humans, passed by humans, and amended by humans. No Divine inspiration
or intervention is claimed or declared. No Supreme court decision has

Utterly false. Virtually every Framer at some point spoke of their
belief in the Divine as animating their political ideals. No matter
how much you put your fingers in your ears and scream to the contrary
you are still wrong in this matter. Notice that I have not - anywhere
in this thread argued *for* more religion in politics. I have merely
argued that you and yours are - and remain - utterly wrong in your
understanding of our history because - apparently - it hurts your feelings.
a
been inspired by Divine intervention. The laws of the USA, and the
Federal courts are of the realm of Mankind; Mundane. When, or at what
stage a fetus acquires a soul is known only to the Deity that created
that soul(s.) No human has been granted an audience with any Deity to
receive an answer to the question, no one. Therefor all humans can do is
take their best shot at a guess. I will take the written decision of the

Right. And in the absence of clear evidence to the contrary, a nation
built on individual liberty should at least have the good manners to
take as narrow a view of this matter of possible on the off chance we
might, just might, be murdering citizens. This is ultimately not a
religious matter. It is a matter of law - when does one become a
citizen and thus become entitled to the legal protections that accrue
thereto. You and yours seem to think that this doesn't happen till
well into the third trimester. This is nonsense. It is murder. You are
wrong (and evil for supporting such a system).

In fact, using your fine reasoning above, if enough people created the
necessary "human law", retroactive abortions would be legal. Oh, wait,
you're already headed that way with euthanasia. Just think, someday
you'll have your perfect world. When a child is born and turns out to,
say, have a profound learning disability not discovered until they
enter kindergarten, you'll be able to legally kill them. Absurd? It
should be, but it's not. It is the logical extension of the rationale'
you and others give for supporting the current abortion-on-demand
laws.

BTW, I am entirely consistent in this. I also wholly oppose the
death penalty on the same grounds. The state cannot legitimately
give the people or itself permission to murder its own citizens.
No amount of law making makes it OK - it just makes it legal.


US Supreme Court on this matter over anyone else's opinion. Because our
government is a rule of law; human laws.

Fine. So, if say, SCOTUS found that slavery was still legal,
that it was OK to silence liberals, that killing Muslims in
the street was fine, you'd have no problem with this? Your line
of argumentation is puerile and silly. All law is an encoding
of *somebody's* ethical/moral system. You seem to want to divorce
yourself form this or act like it doesn't matter.


.. But Obama is almost overtly Leninist in his hatred of wealth,
achievement, and success.


While you equate Obama to Lenin, I equate McBush with Mussolini.



Even if true (it isn't), Mussolini did far less harm than Lenin.
This is a lousy election. There are no good choices. Obama is
just the worst choice by a mile. He will further the collectivist/
socialist sewer that this country has wallowed in since FDR. He
will undermine the national safety and defence of the nation,
and he will pander to every slimy far left wingnut faction
far moreso than McCain will ever do on the right.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

On Sep 8, 11:14*pm, Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Mon, 08 Sep 2008 14:57:04 -0500, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
... *I'd vote for W for
reelection a third term before I'd vote for those two Leninists.
(And I can't stand the Republican party.)

Nice to see you reiterating your middle of the road stance, Tim :-).

I wonder if equating someone to Marx, Lenin, et al, should rate the
same automatic disqualification as Hitler equates do?

Godwin!

--

FF

On Sep 9, 11:55*am, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Phil Again wrote:
...
I, for one, am deeply concerned about a (any) President using the office
to impose, and thus enforce, by Presidential decree and administrative
action the beliefs and theology of a specific denomination. *The creation
of an ipso-facto state religion. *

There is not now, nor has there ever been any serious risk of that in
the US. *It is a red herring thrown out by the lifestyle liberals and
various anti-religionists. *If anything, American culture and government
today are *less* religious than at any time in our history.


To the contrary, a variant of Christianity was a de-facto State
religion for a very long time. Consider the Sunday blue laws
and the kidnapping of Hopi Indian children.

--

FF

On Sep 9, 11:55*am, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
...
Our government - from its inception - was deeply influenced by
Judeo-Christian people and ideas. The fact that this annoys you
doesn't change the fact.


I know more than one Jew who finds the term "Judeo-Christian"
annoying or outright insulting.

They regard it as just another attempt on the part of Christians
to blame the Jews for their own moral failings.

--

FF

On Sep 9, 4:30*pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
DGDevin wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:

You can easily remove my ability to influence the content of the
library by having the government ceasing make me pay for it.

Some people object to their taxes being used to fund the military, should
they be allowed to opt-out of contributing to the defense budget? *Obviously

No - because running the military is an explicitly enumerated task of
the Federal government in the Constitution, but libraries are not.

Actually, the Constitution only authorizes an Army and a Navy. There
is
no blanket authorization for a 'military', certainly none for any
branch that
is not part of one or the other (e.g. Air Force).

Regardless, neither can be funded for more than two years.

--

FF

Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
On Sep 9, 4:30 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
DGDevin wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
You can easily remove my ability to influence the content of the
library by having the government ceasing make me pay for it.
Some people object to their taxes being used to fund the military, should
they be allowed to opt-out of contributing to the defense budget? Obviously
No - because running the military is an explicitly enumerated task of
the Federal government in the Constitution, but libraries are not.

Actually, the Constitution only authorizes an Army and a Navy. There
is
no blanket authorization for a 'military', certainly none for any
branch that
is not part of one or the other (e.g. Air Force).

Regardless, neither can be funded for more than two years.

--

FF



Noted. But my primary point is that there is NO provision for Federal
involvement in education.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
On Sep 9, 11:55 am, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Phil Again wrote:
...
I, for one, am deeply concerned about a (any) President using the office
to impose, and thus enforce, by Presidential decree and administrative
action the beliefs and theology of a specific denomination. The creation
of an ipso-facto state religion.
There is not now, nor has there ever been any serious risk of that in
the US. It is a red herring thrown out by the lifestyle liberals and
various anti-religionists. If anything, American culture and government
today are *less* religious than at any time in our history.


To the contrary, a variant of Christianity was a de-facto State
religion for a very long time. Consider the Sunday blue laws
and the kidnapping of Hopi Indian children.

--

FF


You like to call it a "variant of Christianity". I all it
"unfettered rule by the majority" ... which is, of course,
execrable. It is to that same majority rule that others in thread
appeal when they wish to further anoint the Federal government with
power - also execrable.


--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
On Sep 9, 11:55 am, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
...
Our government - from its inception - was deeply influenced by
Judeo-Christian people and ideas. The fact that this annoys you
doesn't change the fact.


I know more than one Jew who finds the term "Judeo-Christian"
annoying or outright insulting.

Those two traditions, jointly, inform our history hence the
hyphenation. If someone gets offended thereby, they are bozos.
History is what it is, not what some politically correct
revisionist or religious zealot wants it to be.


They regard it as just another attempt on the part of Christians
to blame the Jews for their own moral failings.

Utter nonsense. I know many Christians in many different traditions,
none of whom have I ever heard make such an absurd claim.


--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

On Sep 9, 5:20*pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Phil Again wrote:

...


I may be unable to understand this: the constitution was written my
humans, passed by humans, and amended by humans. *No Divine inspiration
or intervention is claimed or declared. *No Supreme court decision has ...

Utterly false. *Virtually every Framer at some point spoke of their
belief in the Divine as animating their political ideals. *No matter
how much you put your fingers in your ears and scream to the contrary
you are still wrong in this matter. *Notice that I have not - anywhere
in this thread argued *for* more religion in politics. *I have merely
argued that you and yours are - and remain - utterly wrong in your
understanding of our history because - apparently - it hurts your feelings.
a
...

Wrong.

What Phil wrote was entirely correct.

What you wrote was entirely irrelevant.

What the Framers had to say at some _other_ point is
irrelevant. The Constitution itself contains not one one
word invoking Divine or religious inspiration or justification.
Religion is mentioned only in terms of prohibiting any
religious test as a qualification for office. (Which, BTW
conflicted with some state constitutions that restricted
public office to Christians.) Subsequent amendments
only prohibit establishment of religion, or discrimination
on the basis of religion.

As these facts contrast markedly with the Articles of Confederation
and the Declaration of Independence, I do not think the omission
was accidental.

Of course, having read those documents, I may have you at
a disadvantage.

Whatever religious beliefs the Framers had, they chose to leave
them out of the Constitution. That they chose to leave their
religion out of their politics for their most important political
work, should serve as an inspiration to today's politicians.

--

FF

Tim Daneliuk wrote:

Noted. But my primary point is that there is NO provision for Federal
involvement in education.

Politics is the art of the possible. Railing against federal participation
in education is going to be perceived as wingnuttery no matter how heartfelt
your belief is. Fight the battles you can win or you're just kicking up
dust.

Fred the Red Shirt wrote:

What the Framers had to say at some _other_ point is
irrelevant.

Well, not exactly. The SCOTUS is known to look at the writings of the
Framers and legislation they were involved in at the state level and so on
in making rulings. E.g., in the recent 2nd Amendment case both sides
referred to such extra-Constitutional evidence in trying to illustrate what
the Framers meant.

Whatever religious beliefs the Framers had, they chose to leave
them out of the Constitution. That they chose to leave their
religion out of their politics for their most important political
work, should serve as an inspiration to today's politicians.

Amen to that. People can believe whatever they please, doesn't mean I want
the more extreme versions moving into the White House. Oops, too late.

Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
On Sep 9, 5:20 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Phil Again wrote:

...


I may be unable to understand this: the constitution was written my
humans, passed by humans, and amended by humans. No Divine inspiration
or intervention is claimed or declared. No Supreme court decision has ...
Utterly false. Virtually every Framer at some point spoke of their
belief in the Divine as animating their political ideals. No matter
how much you put your fingers in your ears and scream to the contrary
you are still wrong in this matter. Notice that I have not - anywhere
in this thread argued *for* more religion in politics. I have merely
argued that you and yours are - and remain - utterly wrong in your
understanding of our history because - apparently - it hurts your feelings.
a
...

Wrong.

What Phil wrote was entirely correct.

What you wrote was entirely irrelevant.

What the Framers had to say at some _other_ point is
irrelevant. The Constitution itself contains not one one
word invoking Divine or religious inspiration or justification.
Religion is mentioned only in terms of prohibiting any
religious test as a qualification for office. (Which, BTW
conflicted with some state constitutions that restricted
public office to Christians.) Subsequent amendments
only prohibit establishment of religion, or discrimination
on the basis of religion.

And they - isn't this fascinating - at no point *prohibit*
the influence of religion on government. Quite to the contrary,
the prohibitions are on *government* not to meddle with religion.
Given the precise legal writing that characterizes the Constitution,
I think *that* is no accident.


As these facts contrast markedly with the Articles of Confederation
and the Declaration of Independence, I do not think the omission
was accidental.

Of course, having read those documents, I may have you at
a disadvantage.


You don't ... I've read all the above at one point or another.
I have the advantage of *understanding them* because I am not
trying to inflict my current worldview upon documents. I actually
let them speak for themselves. You sound remarkably like one
of those "living document" ideologues who - under the influence
of malignant theories such as deconstructionism /post-modernism /
post-structurualistm - can find any meaning in any text they wish ...
thereby robbing the texts of *all* meaning.


Whatever religious beliefs the Framers had, they chose to leave
them out of the Constitution. That they chose to leave their
religion out of their politics for their most important political
work, should serve as an inspiration to today's politicians.

You are being argumentative for its own sake. No rational person
looks at a document like the Constitution in some sort of sterile
isolation. Exegesis of a text requires input from something other
than just the text. I have no doubt the Framers did NOT want a state
sponsored religion. But arguments like Phil's fundamentally
underestimate the degree to which the Framers were animated by
religious principles. They said so, they said so repeatedly.
Suddenly discovering a pure atheist/humanist document in the
Constitution does a disservice to our history and tradition.
One can acknowledge the religious influences without demanding
a theocracy.

Then again, having read a number of these extra-canonical texts
and the words of the Framers, I may have you at a disadvantage.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

DGDevin wrote:
Fred the Red Shirt wrote:

What the Framers had to say at some _other_ point is
irrelevant.

Well, not exactly. The SCOTUS is known to look at the writings of the
Framers and legislation they were involved in at the state level and so on
in making rulings. E.g., in the recent 2nd Amendment case both sides
referred to such extra-Constitutional evidence in trying to illustrate what
the Framers meant.

Whatever religious beliefs the Framers had, they chose to leave
them out of the Constitution. That they chose to leave their
religion out of their politics for their most important political
work, should serve as an inspiration to today's politicians.

Amen to that.

An odd turn of phrase, given the context of this discussion.


People can believe whatever they please, doesn't mean I want
the more extreme versions moving into the White House. Oops, too late.


You're absolutely right. There's no way that Obama and his pal's
Phelger and Wright (two men of the cloth with whom he communed
with regularly - well, one of them anyway) could ever be as vile
as a more-or-less traditional Christian. Again, I am not defending
Christianity particularly here. I am holding your view up to the
ridicule it deserves. Phelger, Wright, Ayers, and host of other
vicious, race-baiting, violent, and generally horrid influences on
Obama get scant notice. But a president that expresses a fairly
mainstream Christian viewpoint is "extreme'. You're hilarious.
I'll take the whacky right over the nasty, cruel, victim-laden
socialists that you adore.


--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

jo4hn wrote:
[snip]

First of all, thank you all for your contributions. Secondly, my
apologies for not labeling this exercise OT.

Having watched Ms Palin give her speech, I was struck by her ability to
breathe life into the crowd. She actually said little beyond McCain
good, Obama evil, me hockey mom; having been given little policy by the
RNC. Since then she has not been allowed in public unless she was in
the company of McCain and RNC functionaries. I was curious to see what
the wRECkers thought about the erstwhile administration and rather than
ask a direct question, I threw out the lure.

My thoughts on results are that wooddorkers generally are not convinced
that the Reds are going to do much more than continue the Bush track
concerning the war, education, the war, etc. One major problem, of
course, is that little policy has been presented in any form. Reading
the platform gives some information. For example, the chapter on
education promotes abstinence education, voluntary prayer in schools (!)
and to have access to school property for bible study and the like, and
what appears to be vouchers. Speeches are of no use: they like blogs
focus on misstatements of the intentions of the Blues. Nor is there
much clarity on the wedge issues like abortion, gay rights, flag
burning, etc., McCain having modified his stand on most.

And for the curious out there, I did check with snopes.com the day I
sent out this little gem and it was not listed. Did I suspect it would
be? Yup. Did it anyway.

If anyone has a good source for clear, concise information from either
party (did I say that?) please communicate same. In the meantime, make
sawdust, enjoy it, and don’t let the toolbugs bite.
mahalo,
jo4hn

"jo4hn" wrote in message
m...
jo4hn wrote:
[snip]

First of all, thank you all for your contributions. Secondly, my
apologies for not labeling this exercise OT.

Having watched Ms Palin give her speech, I was struck by her ability
to breathe life into the crowd. She actually said little beyond
McCain good, Obama evil, me hockey mom; having been given little
policy by the RNC. Since then she has not been allowed in public
unless she was in the company of McCain and RNC functionaries. I
was curious to see what the wRECkers thought about the erstwhile
administration and rather than ask a direct question, I threw out
the lure.

My thoughts on results are that wooddorkers generally are not
convinced that the Reds are going to do much more than continue the
Bush track concerning the war, education, the war, etc. One major
problem, of course, is that little policy has been presented in any
form. Reading the platform gives some information. For example,
the chapter on education promotes abstinence education, voluntary
prayer in schools (!) and to have access to school property for
bible study and the like, and what appears to be vouchers. Speeches
are of no use: they like blogs focus on misstatements of the
intentions of the Blues. Nor is there much clarity on the wedge
issues like abortion, gay rights, flag burning, etc., McCain having
modified his stand on most.

And for the curious out there, I did check with snopes.com the day I
sent out this little gem and it was not listed. Did I suspect it
would be? Yup. Did it anyway.

If anyone has a good source for clear, concise information from
either party (did I say that?) please communicate same. In the
meantime, make sawdust, enjoy it, and don’t let the toolbugs bite.
mahalo,
jo4hn

On Tue, 09 Sep 2008 10:59:53 -0500, Tim Daneliuk wrote:


That seems to me to be a major difference between the neocons and
traditional conservatives. The neocons seem to want all government
supported organizations to espouse ONLY the neocon view of the world.
Of course, the PC branch of liberalism is just as bad.

Whereas the Constitutional view is one in which the Federal government
is so limited in scope that none of this would even be a discussion.

Tim, you lost that argument in 1861. Most legal opinion of the day held
that a state that had freely joined the union could freely leave it. Old
Abe even argued that once in a court case, IIRC. We still went to war to
prevent it.

So yes, the federal government has expanded far beyond its original scope.
Often at the behest of the general public. You're trying to close
Pandora's box.

On Tue, 09 Sep 2008 10:55:32 -0500, Tim Daneliuk wrote:


McBush and Palin scare me (down to my toes) when they give speeches
proclaiming their desire to impose a minor religious sect belief system

Please cite where they have done so. (BTW, Judeo-Christianity, in its
various expressions is hardly a "minor" viewpoint.)

But their version of it (and yours?) certainly is. How many mainstream
Christian churches reject evolution?

Tim Daneliuk wrote:

Phil Again wrote:
.... snip


The Democratic Party does not claim the either Obama or Bidden to be
above the Constitution. Obama will enforce the Constitution, and the
laws authorized and enacted by Congress as interpreted by the Federal
Courts.

No he won't. He will expand social entitlement spending, wealth
redistirbution, and generally ignore the limits of power explicit
in the doctrine of enumerated powers. If it makes you feel better,
so will McCain. But Obama is almost overtly Leninist in his
hatred of wealth, achievement, and success.


Well, unless it's his own wealth, achievement, and success. But then you
did indicate his tendency toward Leninism


.... snip


BTW: I completely, and totally reject any and all arguments that the
constitution's first amendment does not protect the Federal Government
from any specific religious denomination taking control.

You're free to reject what you like, you are not free to invent your
own facts.


The Bill of Rights was not meant to protect the Federal Government *from*
anything -- it was designed to protect the people from the *government*.
The first amendment was designed to prevent the federal government from
establishing a state church, not to prevent leaders of the country from
expressing their own religious views.



--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

On Tue, 09 Sep 2008 16:20:05 -0500, Tim Daneliuk wrote:

Nowhere have I said I wish to impose my religious beliefs - if any -
upon anyone. I wish to not pay for infanticide. I don't care what
the "courts have found in the matter". I prefer not to be a party
to murder. This apparently doesn't bother you much, and I'm not
saying you can or should be entirely prevented from doing so. I'm
saying I ought not to have to pay for it.

Since you define it as murder, it is murder? Tim, you seem to have no
tolerance for opposing points of view. I have no desire to force any
woman to have an abortion, even though in my view it's not murder. But
you would prevent women who disagree with you to abide by your views.

Why can't you live by your views and let others live by theirs. By all
means argue the point, but try a little tolerance for the opinions of
others. You are NOT infallible.

Yes, I know. You'll bring up that tired rant about not wanting to pay for
it. I think others have answered that one pretty well.

BTW, I took a look at our library budget. It's just under $10 million for
2008. The great majority of revenue is local property taxes plus some
contract fees from local cities without their own library system and some
interest earnings. A total of $161,000 is listed as miscellaneous. Some
of that is book sales, some from fines, but lets give your view the
benefit of the doubt and say that about $150,000 is government grants.
That's roughly 1.5% of the budget. Or, if prorated, thank you for your
contribution of 5 cents to our library. I'll think of you every week when
I go there :-).

In article , jo4hn wrote:

And for the curious out there, I did check with snopes.com the day I
sent out this little gem and it was not listed. Did I suspect it would
be? Yup. Did it anyway.

In other words... you figured it was probably false, but decided to spread it
anyway.

I'd expected better from you.

(Doug Miller) writes:

In other words... you figured it was probably false, but decided to spread it
anyway.

The web page that the OP referred to already rebutted the claim about
the list of books. All you had to do was read the responses. I read
it the day before I say it posted here.


But spend more than 15 seconds researching an issue - too much work for some....

Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Tue, 09 Sep 2008 16:20:05 -0500, Tim Daneliuk wrote:

Nowhere have I said I wish to impose my religious beliefs - if any -
upon anyone. I wish to not pay for infanticide. I don't care what
the "courts have found in the matter". I prefer not to be a party
to murder. This apparently doesn't bother you much, and I'm not
saying you can or should be entirely prevented from doing so. I'm
saying I ought not to have to pay for it.

Since you define it as murder, it is murder? Tim, you seem to have no
tolerance for opposing points of view. I have no desire to force any

I have no tolerance for killing people that cannot defend themselves.

woman to have an abortion, even though in my view it's not murder. But
you would prevent women who disagree with you to abide by your views.

That is correct. Just like I want to prevent thief from stealing in
a bank, or a common thug from shooting my while walking down the street.
Personal rights are not boundless. They have legitimate limitations.
A woman's right to "choose" cannot supercede a human's very right to
exist.


Why can't you live by your views and let others live by theirs. By all
means argue the point, but try a little tolerance for the opinions of
others. You are NOT infallible.

It is exactly because I am not infallible that I take this position.
I don't know when a fetus becomes human - no one does. A decent
and civil society thus takes the most careful possible view of this -
acknowledging that we don't know this moment - and extends citizenship
to that unborn child as soon as possible so as to prevent murder.
Is every abortion murder - I'd guess not (but I don't know). But
I think it is indisputable that some, or even many, are. I watch in
horror as the execrable political left has defended third trimester
abortions with a song in their vile little hearts and spring in their
step.


Yes, I know. You'll bring up that tired rant about not wanting to pay for
it. I think others have answered that one pretty well.

No one has answered it even remotely well. Let's review. Making me
pay for abortion is:

1) Un-Constitutional because this is no an enumerated right of the govt.
2) Forcing me to act in what I believe to be an immoral manner

So, it is both illegal and immoral.


BTW, I took a look at our library budget. It's just under $10 million for
2008. The great majority of revenue is local property taxes plus some
contract fees from local cities without their own library system and some
interest earnings. A total of $161,000 is listed as miscellaneous. Some
of that is book sales, some from fines, but lets give your view the
benefit of the doubt and say that about $150,000 is government grants.
That's roughly 1.5% of the budget. Or, if prorated, thank you for your
contribution of 5 cents to our library. I'll think of you every week when
I go there :-).


I have no objection to local taxation for schools, libraries, and so
on. I object specifically to the *Federal* government being involved
as it has no legal power to do so.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Tue, 09 Sep 2008 10:55:32 -0500, Tim Daneliuk wrote:

McBush and Palin scare me (down to my toes) when they give speeches
proclaiming their desire to impose a minor religious sect belief system
Please cite where they have done so. (BTW, Judeo-Christianity, in its
various expressions is hardly a "minor" viewpoint.)

But their version of it (and yours?) certainly is. How many mainstream
Christian churches reject evolution?


Not mine, but I hardly think a rejection of evolition constitutes a
prima facia case for dismissing that entire corner of Christianity
as "minor". There are lots and lots of people of that view in the
West.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Tue, 09 Sep 2008 10:59:53 -0500, Tim Daneliuk wrote:

That seems to me to be a major difference between the neocons and
traditional conservatives. The neocons seem to want all government
supported organizations to espouse ONLY the neocon view of the world.
Of course, the PC branch of liberalism is just as bad.
Whereas the Constitutional view is one in which the Federal government
is so limited in scope that none of this would even be a discussion.

Tim, you lost that argument in 1861. Most legal opinion of the day held
that a state that had freely joined the union could freely leave it. Old
Abe even argued that once in a court case, IIRC. We still went to war to
prevent it.

As a matter of law, you're absolutely right. To remove the evil of slavery,
we had to sacrifice limited government, the rule of law, the Constitution,
and, arguably, our future. Perhaps this is our divine punishment for
ever trading in humans.


So yes, the federal government has expanded far beyond its original scope.

Illegally.

Often at the behest of the general public. You're trying to close
Pandora's box.


The "general public" always wants to vote itself the impossible, the
immoral, the simple, and the expedient. That doesn't make it OK.
And I still stand in opposition to these kinds of things on both
legal and moral grounds ...

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

On Sep 9, 7:06*pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Fred the Red Shirt wrote:

On Sep 9, 11:55 am, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
...
Our government - from its inception - was deeply influenced by
Judeo-Christian people and ideas. The fact that this annoys you
doesn't change the fact.

I know more than one Jew who finds the term "Judeo-Christian"
annoying or outright insulting.

...


They regard it as just another attempt on the part of Christians
to blame the Jews for their own moral failings.

Utter nonsense. *I know many Christians in many different traditions,
none of whom have I ever heard make such an absurd claim.


Neither have I.

So?

As I made clear above, I have heard the claim made by Jews.

--

FF

Tim Daneliuk wrote:


I have no tolerance for killing people that cannot defend themselves.


Eh? Are you posting from Darfur? Listening to the echoes of Beethoven's
Ninth in Sarajevo? Turning back Russian tanks at the Georgian border?

I'm inclined to believe you have a bit more tolerance than you've been
willing to admit to yourself.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

On Sep 9, 7:10*pm, Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
...
*(Which, BTW
conflicted with some state constitutions that restricted
public office to Christians.) * ...

Er, after thinking about this a bit I think the actual provisions I
have read forbade office to atheists.

--

FF

On Sep 9, 7:47*pm, "DGDevin" wrote:
Fred the Red Shirt wrote:

What the Framers had to say at some _other_ point is
irrelevant.

Well, not exactly. *The SCOTUS is known to look at the writings of the
Framers and legislation they were involved in at the state level and so on
in making rulings. *E.g., in the recent 2nd Amendment case both sides
referred to such extra-Constitutional evidence in trying to illustrate what
the Framers meant.

Again, that is irrelevant to the point Phil made which is that the
Framers explicitly left religion out of the Constitution.

--

FF

On Sep 9, 11:49*pm, Mark & Juanita wrote:

...

* The Bill of Rights was not meant to protect the Federal Government *from*
anything -- it was designed to protect the people from the *government*.
The first amendment was designed to prevent the federal government from
establishing a state church, not to prevent leaders of the country from
expressing their own religious views.
...

Implimentation, OTOH, is another thing entirely.

--

FF

On Sep 10, 10:26*am, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
...

As a matter of law, you're absolutely right. *To remove the evil of slavery,
we had to sacrifice limited government, the rule of law, the Constitution,
and, arguably, our future. *Perhaps this is our divine punishment for
ever trading in humans.


Slavery has been aptly referred to as the original sin of the
United States.

--

FF

In article , Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
On Sep 9, 7:06=A0pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Fred the Red Shirt wrote:

On Sep 9, 11:55 am, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
...
Our government - from its inception - was deeply influenced by
Judeo-Christian people and ideas. The fact that this annoys you
doesn't change the fact.

I know more than one Jew who finds the term "Judeo-Christian"
annoying or outright insulting.

...


They regard it as just another attempt on the part of Christians
to blame the Jews for their own moral failings.

Utter nonsense. =A0I know many Christians in many different traditions,
none of whom have I ever heard make such an absurd claim.


Neither have I.

So?

As I made clear above, I have heard the claim made by Jews.

[whoosh]

Slow down, Fred, you're missing the point.

Morris Dovey wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:


I have no tolerance for killing people that cannot defend themselves.


Eh? Are you posting from Darfur? Listening to the echoes of Beethoven's
Ninth in Sarajevo? Turning back Russian tanks at the Georgian border?

I'm inclined to believe you have a bit more tolerance than you've been
willing to admit to yourself.


What an absurd argument. The fact that I cannot actually *do* anything
about these situations is hardly evidence that I tolerate them. In
any case, the genocide directed at the unborn in the West far exceeds
that in the places you cite above. I *can* do something about that:
Vote for people who pledge to stop the infanticide.



--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
On Sep 9, 7:06 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Fred the Red Shirt wrote:

On Sep 9, 11:55 am, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
...
Our government - from its inception - was deeply influenced by
Judeo-Christian people and ideas. The fact that this annoys you
doesn't change the fact.
I know more than one Jew who finds the term "Judeo-Christian"
annoying or outright insulting.
...


They regard it as just another attempt on the part of Christians
to blame the Jews for their own moral failings.
Utter nonsense. I know many Christians in many different traditions,
none of whom have I ever heard make such an absurd claim.


Neither have I.

So?

As I made clear above, I have heard the claim made by Jews.

--

FF

I've heard all manner of claims about all manner of things from all
manner of people. This does not instantly imbue those claims with
any credibility.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
On Sep 10, 10:26 am, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
...

As a matter of law, you're absolutely right. To remove the evil of slavery,
we had to sacrifice limited government, the rule of law, the Constitution,
and, arguably, our future. Perhaps this is our divine punishment for
ever trading in humans.


Slavery has been aptly referred to as the original sin of the
United States.

--

FF


Well, in a sense I agree. But let's not forget that the US - indeed
all the Western powers of that day - hardly invented slavery. More to
the point, the slaves they bought were enslaved by, um, *Africans*.
Further to the point, it was the West - animated by the Enlightenment
ideas and driven by *religious* conscience *that gave up slavery in
less than 3 centuries* whereas it has been going on for millenia before.

It is ironic that slavery has been around all of recorded human history,
that the orginal slavers of Africans were Africans, that one of the only
places in the world you can still buy slaves is Africa, that the West
ceased this horrid practice after a (relatively) short time, but all
we hear about is the West's culpability in the matter. Almost nowhere
are the Africans or other tribal peoples around the world held to
account for their continued savage barbarism. Quiet to the contracy,
we have academic muttonheads praising and celebrating tribalism
in their classrooms.



--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Maxwell Lol wrote:
(Doug Miller) writes:

In other words... you figured it was probably false, but decided to
spread it anyway.

The web page that the OP referred to already rebutted the claim
about
the list of books. All you had to do was read the responses. I read
it the day before I say it posted here.


But spend more than 15 seconds researching an issue - too much work
for some....

"This problem could easily be solved with a minute's thought but
thought is arduous and a minute is a long time"--can't remember who
said it.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)