On Mon, 8 Nov 2004 08:46:23 -0800, "Fletis Humplebacker" ! wrote:


That would then deny the heritage of the country. No one is
converted by the symbols but they were put there for a reason.
I don't see a good enough reason to systematically remove them.
If it troubles someone that the country was predominately
Christian they should learn to accept history and facts for what
they are, not what they want them to be.


I would encourage you to look on the back of a one dollar bill.

Look at the pyramid on the left hand side.

Read the semi-circular inscription below the pyramid.

What do you think it means?



Regards,

Tom.

Thomas J. Watson - Cabinetmaker, ret.
tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/

Larry Blanchard writes:

And every time our birthrate goes way down, the politicians increase
immigration. I get the feeling our economy is one big Ponzi scheme.
Just think what would happen to the housing industry if all we needed
was replacement housing.

Ayup. The mantra of business is growth. I've often wondered if any of them have
a clue as to what is going to happen the day there is neither room nor material
with which to grow. That day is a lot less far off than it was a few years ago.

Charlie Self
"Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character,
give him power." Abraham Lincoln

"Fly-by-Night CC" wrote in message news
In article ,
otforme (Charlie Self) wrote:

We have a consumption problem, but the real population problem resides in
China, India and much of what is known as the Third World.

Ahhhhhhhh. But China at least still practices forced abortion at the
province level.
http://www.abortionfacts.com/statistics/world_statistics_china.asp
In part:
In provincial law there are many "reasons" set by the province that the state
require an abortion. Such "reasons" include "unauthorized pregnancies,
failure to obtain birth certificates, or improper timing for a second child.
In some provinces you must have an abortion if you are young or unmarried and
the state will provide incentives for the poor to have abortions. With such
broad laws the provinces are able to require abortions for anyone they choose

I'd sure like to hear the right-to-life supporters put their mouths were
their money goes. US "manufacturers" (such as: Delta, Jet, Grizzly, P-C,
DeWalt) and retailers (Walmart, Target, Sears) are falling over
themselves to carry cheap products manufactured in China. Where is the
outcry from the pro-life crowd to demand President Bush to publicly
condemn such activities by China and declare that the US will impose
restrictions on imports from China? Guess what... ain't gonna happen.
The dollar has much more value than do morals.


What the hell are you blathering about? That isn't even done here in
the USoA. So either the anti-abortionists are wrong for advocating
their view or they are wrong for not doing it enough. Talk about intellectual
dishonesty.

On 07 Nov 2004 00:02:58 GMT, (David Hall) wrote:

Abortion.

It has been a consistant stand of the Republican party that is has the
moral obligation to oppose the use of abortion in almost every case-
the argument is not based on science, but on a religious belief that a
fertilized egg is a human being with a soul. When they make this
argument, it is based on a moral code which is not shared by the
people they hope to prevent from engaging in this activity. Trying to
ban abortion is using their concept of morality to control the life of
another. While the idea of abortion is personally disgusting to me, I
do not and can not claim the right to tell another person what they
must or must not do with their progeny, especially when it is still
inside their body.

I don't understand that position. If abortion is simply removing a non-sentient
mass of cells (kind of like removing an appendix) then why is this simple
procedure "personally disgusting" to you? Also, why did you feel the need to
add "especially when it is still inside their body" to the statement that you
"can not claim the right to tell another person what they
must or must not do with their progeny" unless you are saying that we
shouldn't be able to keep people from destroying their "progeny" after they are
born (for a few days, weeks or until they are 18 - what is the limit?)

Ok, I'll clarify. I am against abortion as a concept. If my wife
wanted to have an abortion as a form of birth-control, I would be very
against it. But, It Is Not My Decision. Nor is it a valid place for
the government to be sticking it's nose. What I believe is good or
bad is irrelevent to someone with a different frame of reference. I
do not know whether or not a fertilized egg has a soul, and I
personally prefer to err on the side of caution, where caution is
warranted. When a child is delivered whole and viable from a woman's
body, it is no longer a part of her, but an entirely seperate entity,
entitled to the rights granted to any other living individual.

I don't believe that women senselessly rush off to the abortion clinic
on a lark, so I must assume that they have very profound reasons for
their decision that I have no right to question. For me (or the
government) to tell them that they absolutely must not have an
abortion, I would have to impose my morality on them- which was the
context in which I mentioned this issue.

On the other hand, if you did by chance believe that that mass of cells is a
human being as individual as any other human being inside or outside of another
person's body, I can understnd how abortion would be "personally disgusting" to
you. However, if that is the case I can't understand your cavalier attitude
towards it any more than if you were suggesting that we should be able to kill
fully born humans (assuming you didn't actually mean to say that you do believe
that above).

It's not a cavalier attitude towards the issue, it's respect for the
right of a potential mother to make her own decisions. I have my
opinions on it, but opinions are all they are.

Abortion comes down to one question and one question only. Either
the fetus is (at some point) a human being or it is not. If it is not then how
can there be any restriction on that medical procedure and why would it be
disgusting to you or anyone else who believed that way. If, on the other hand,
the fetus is a human being then there cannot be ANY reason to allow ANY
abortion unless it is done in self defense because the fetus was killing the
mother.

The question of when the fetus becomes human can only be resolved by a
religious or moral decision. The government has no right to make
those decisions for citizens.

If you believe that the fetus is a human being how on earth can you
find any justification for allowing the destruction of millions every year
under your very nose. You would have to feel a little like a German in 1945 or
one of millions of Americans in the early 1800s who didn't think slavery was
right, but they weren't going to anything to stop the southern slave owners
from maintaining that "peculiar institution".

Do you know what the definition of sophistry is? These arguments do
not relate to the original point or object of the example in question.
Aut inveniam viam aut faciam

On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 23:10:11 -0500, WoodMangler
wrote:

Prometheus did say:
Abortion.

It has been a consistant stand of the Republican party that is has the
moral obligation to oppose the use of abortion in almost every case-
the argument is not based on science, but on a religious belief that a
fertilized egg is a human being with a soul. When they make this
argument, it is based on a moral code which is not shared by the
people they hope to prevent from engaging in this activity. Trying to
ban abortion is using their concept of morality to control the life of
another. While the idea of abortion is personally disgusting to me, I
do not and can not claim the right to tell another person what they
must or must not do with their progeny, especially when it is still
inside their body.

The solution to this argument is simple. Currently, abortion is legal
for a certain period of time during pregnancy.
Merely shift the legal period ahead about thirteen and a half years. Have
the child. At age thirteen, you pretty much know if this is going to be a
useful member of society. This is when the decision should be made.
Neighbors get a vote.

It was either Phillip K. Dick or Ray Bradbury that had a story along
those lines. Amusing in theory, but terrible in fact.

War (and the "exportation" of freedom)

While a dictatorship is absolutely abhorrent to the American mindset,
many countries throughout history have been ruled by warlords and/or
kings. Sometimes this rule is by consent of the people, and sometimes
it is not. In any case, it is not the province of an outside power to
invade an independant power because the morality of the outside power's
elected leader tells him that "all people want to be free." We may
believe that freedom is always better, and that may be true for us- but
that does not automatically mean that other cultures feel the same. We
have no right to overthrow governments unless they attack ours (not
Kuwait's- ours)

I agree for the most part, but I think there are certainly times when it
is acceptable and right to come to the aid of another country. Not every
country can defend itself from aggressive neighbors. Where would the world
be if there wasn't an alliance during WWII?
I think a better policy is one of non-initiation of force. I'm a firm
believer in "live and let live", but also of the right to self defense.

Not to split hairs, but isn't that what I said in the last sentence?

Posting the Ten Commandments on public property

While I hold no animosity towards any of the principles expressed by the
commandments, they are, stirictly speaking a Christian/Jewish moral
code. When such a monument is posted on the grounds of a public
building, it is maintained with the taxpayer's money.
Taxation is money
taken from private citizens by the government, and should never be used
to grant a greater legitimacy to one religion than to another, since
adherants of many different faiths have all contriubted to the upkeep of
that building.

Agreed. But keep in mind that the US was founded by and for Christians.
Our ancestors have placed graven mementos of their religion in virtually
every public building built before 1970. I don't think we should be adding
more, or placing them in new buildings, but to remove those that exist,
to deny that heritage in order to try and revise our self image is
misguided in my opinion.

That's valid, I'm not for rewriting history or removing landmarks.
Nor do I think it is necessary to take the words "under god" out of
the pledge. I just don't want to see new monuments erected and
maintained with taxpayer money.

Gay marriage.

What difference can it possibly make to allow any two people to engage
in a mutually accepted social contract? My morality tells me that
there's nothing wrong with two individuals accepting one another's
lifelong companionship, regardless of their gender. When the legal
right to join in civil union is denied to two citizens, it is one
group's moral sense being used to control the lives of others. If these
unions are to be discouraged, it should be done by their churches- not
the state.

They shouldn't be discouraged at all. Two (or more for that matter) people
living their lives as they see fit, without harming others, is not
anyone else's concern. But to your point, since both candidates, and the
majority of voters in both parties agree that gay marriage is offensive
and demeans the sanctity of the marriage institution, you're not making a
valid point by trying to blame this on just the Republicans.

Somewhat fair, but the Republicans are certainly more vocal about it.
The Democrats probably would have been for it, had they not taken a
poll to figure out that they weren't.

"Capitalism demands the best of every man- his rationality- and rewards
him accordingly. It leaves every man free to choose the work he likes,
to specialize in it, and to go as far on the road of achievement as his
ability and ambition will carry him. His sucess depends on the
objective value of his work and the rationality of those who recognize
that value."
-Ayn Rand


AMEN

Never took so much as a day's wage from the gov't in my entire life.
The only things I use from them are those things which I must use for
lack of other options (police, roads, military etc.) And somehow I
managed not to vote for Bush.

Good that you have not taken from the government.

It is. Now if they would stop taking from me, we'd be getting
somewhere.

Taking from the government. Now there's an odd turn of phrase. If
anything, you'd be taking back.

True in fact, but false in spirit. To accept any money from the
government, I would have to approach them as a beggar- filling out
forms, and wasting my time convincing *advocates* that I am not able
to support myself in some way. If I could simply go to the bank and
withdraw the money taken from me, no questions asked, then it would be
my money by right, and acceptable to me.

As my wife tried to point out to me once when I was unemployed (for
two days) It would be my money I'd be getting from the unemployment
office if I chose to file for it- but to me, it's a welfare check. I
did not choose to place my money in the hands of the government, and I
do not choose to grant them the power to determine whether or not I
might have it back. To do so grants legitimacy to what they are
doing.
Aut inveniam viam aut faciam

On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 22:46:37 -0800, Fly-by-Night CC
wrote:

In article ,
Prometheus wrote:

Actually I refer to myself as a Bull Moose Republican

Now that, I might be able to get behind.

Gave up the sheep, huh?

ROFL!!!




(Aw jeez, sorry, just couldn't hep myself.)

Aut inveniam viam aut faciam

On Sun, 7 Nov 2004 06:39:46 -0800, "Fletis Humplebacker" ! wrote:


"Nate Perkins"

But today, the Republican party wins by intentionally cultivating
division - by encouraging disdain of Easterners, liberals, and
intellectuals,


That's got more spin than a class 4 hurricane. It's a fact that the
NE is heavily liberal and vote accordingly. They are out of step
with the rest of the country so pointing it out isn't the division,
the division was already there.

There's that Out-Of-Step (tm) line again. Christ, you'd think part of
New England voted 50% for Kerry, and the rest of the country voted
100% for Bush. Almost every state in the nation was split down the
middle. If we're out of step, it's only because we don't don
jackboots and start goosestepping with the fearless leader down the
road to hell.

dislike of foreigners, fear of gays, and callousness
toward those in need.

Why the derogatory comments? You are doing the demonizing
and division, not the Republican leadership.

If you're not with us, you're with the terrorists.

Generally they have little respect for the
opposition, and they seek to smear and destroy their opponents in a
particularly personal way.


LOL !


Sadly, this president and this party bears little resemblance to the
party of Reagan.

Sure it does. Reagan got exactly the same kind of smarmy personal
attacks from liberals, comedians and the media but history proved the
detractors wrong and him right.

Sigh.

Aut inveniam viam aut faciam

On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 11:26:42 -0500, EyesPinchedShut
wrote:

In article ,
ojunk (Sbtypesetter) wrote:

A wise man's heart is at his right hand;
but a fool's heart at his left.
Ecclesiates 10:2

Best reason I know not to be a
leftist, communist, socialist,
democrat, et al.

Wow, being a Christian and a Democrat, I find that a real stretch. But
then we all know that Christ (The word Christian came from) never hung
out with the lower class people of his time period. He told his
followers that they should force their ideas on others and to use
physical force to do so. He also advocated big business and the love of
money. He said only those with money get into Heaven and sit at the side
of our Father.

Don't forget how he got the Jews all riled up the whip the Romans.

In my mind, if Jesus came back tomorrow he would be condemned by many of
the folks who now profess to know him so well and do things in his name.
I wonder if he will be as gracious to Jerry Fallwell and his ilk, as he
will be to the poorer less-vocal lower profile followers of his
teachings and who comfort and assist others with the best of their
ability, physically and monetarily. But, that is only MHO. I have some
liberal leanings, so I must be wrong. I know this because the Bible
Thumpers told me so.

God speaks:
Conservatives - Good Liberals - Bad

EPS

Aut inveniam viam aut faciam

On Sun, 7 Nov 2004 10:57:20 -0600, (p_j) wrote:

Prometheus wrote:

First thing Prometheus, it makes it tough to follow along, because you
are responding to both me and the guy I responded to at the same time in
the same post.

Sorry about that. It's tough to answer every one individually
sometimes- I just try to follow the markers.

Personally, i think a violent revolution, as the founders called for
under circumstances that are current, would be fine.

Another quote for you:

"From time to time, the tree of liberty must be refreshed with the
blood of patriots and tyrants"
--Thomas Jefferson.

Though I don't see a need for that quite yet, things are certainly
tending that way.

I wonder how many people wouldn't be happy if there was a bloodless coup
by some general.

Probably quite a few on either side of the issue.


3. Of, designating, or belonging to a Liberal political party.
So far the first 2 definitions tell me that Republicans are liberals.

Bull****. A huge stinking pile of aging bull****.

Agreed. Republicans have turned into tyrants-in-training. How does
the desire to control the lives of others based on one group's concept
of "morality" fit into the definition of liberal?

They hate us because of our freedom.

??? Wait... wait.... I think I've got you. The Republicans hate us
because of our freedom? If that's what you mean, I'd have to
respectfully disagree. I just think they're demagauges lusting after
power.

Gee, Bush is the exact opposite. So I wonder once again whether you have
recently awakened from a coma? Hell, Bush doesn't believe that the
executive should be limited much at all by the courts. He has claimed
the right to imprison you or execute you without trial on his command
only.

Won't be long before he suspends the writ of Habeas Corpus in the
interest of "National Security." There's even a precedent for him to
use that Lincoln set in the Civil War.

Hey, he already claimed that right. If a person is deemed a terrorist,
no lawyer, no trial, no nothing. What's the latest on Hamdi and Padilla?
If you get really lucky, you get to be "rendered" to a foreign country
for torture.
snip

Fair enough. With luck, it still stands for some of us- I was
referring to a flat, blanket statement of the fact ala Lincoln in the
Civil War.


5. Tolerant of the ideas or behavior of others.
Liberal can't seem tolerate the ideas of Republicans! Republicans, and
conservatives in general, are very tolerant of anybody and any idea
that isn't a lie and doesn't hurt others and is legal.

This is just simply wrong. I worked on Thompson's gubernatorial
campaign in 1998, and the staffers with the college Republicans were
the least tolerant human beings I have ever had the misfortune to
meet- they even went so far as to steal opponent's yard signs, and
physically attack a group of students having some sort of gay/lesbian
rally. One of them even got on my case for not being a Christian as
was *helping* the stupid prick staple signs together. This is not to
say that every Republican is like this- I called myself one for many
years, and there are many good men and women who take that title who
are decent citizens and human beings.

Interesting. I'm in Wisconsin, but worked for the libertarian party
during the Thompson years. I confess I have voted republican when I was
a young, foolish, idealistic student. I have to say it is painful
listening to the current conservatives who seem to know nothing of the
roots, principles or ideals of their own movement.

Agreed.

Thompson is a great example of a big government republican though. I gag
every time one of the five media companies that own the news declare
that he is "beloved" by Wisconsinites.

I know, I was not very sensible when I worked on his campaign- it just
seemed like a good way to get familiar with the process.


No be a conservative. Bush is doing exactly that. The greatest
trough-a-thon in history is ongoing. He just signed two bills that are
monstrosities of welfare largesse. Moreover he is working hard so that
parasites who never have enough money can get others to wipe their asses
for them.

Kinda makes you want to weep, doesn't it? I never thought I'd see the
day when the Democrats were more fiscally responsible than the
Republicans.

Look at historical patterns and its nothing new.

Their third strategy is under implementation as well. Get more currency
out there and allow it to devalue. Good for the stock market and good
for employment and good for exports. What could be wrong with anything
like that? Yes, I know, the stupid assholes who founded the country were
against it, but they haven't been right about anything else have they?

Wish we were still on the gold standard...

lol... that's my advice to everyone. Buy gold. (Actually, silver is a
good investment me thinks.) I guess I should add that there are a lot of
murmerings among true conservatives about the renewal of Roosevelt's
gold confiscation legislation or some such thing. Word is that because
of a loophole in the legislation, Chinese Pandas are exempt because they
are demoninated in Yuan.

Nah, buy tools- they're worth even more than shiny metal bits.

How many forms of welfare do you receive?

Never took so much as a day's wage from the gov't in my entire life.
The only things I use from them are those things which I must use for
lack of other options (police, roads, military etc.) And somehow I
managed not to vote for Bush.

Prometheus, now you're responding to me after most of your responses
were to the other guy.

My bad.

But... my point is that welfare payments are made to property owners,
child bearers and all sorts of other categories.

My father is receiving Social Security. Personally, I think in his case
and many of his generation they are welfare payments. One Christmas in a
discussion on the topic, me, him and my uncle made crude calculations.

Based on estimates of his contribution he had received about 50 times
what he payed in. Hell since then, not only does he receive his monthly
allotment of SS bucks, but he's had a variety of medical procedures,
each of which usually costs more than he paid into the system in his
entire lifetime.

Even worse than that, my father is recieving SSI disability because
he's addicted to pain killers like his buddy Rush. I've got no
sympathy for anyone I've met that is living on the public's money-
I've yet to meet anyone with a right to it!
Aut inveniam viam aut faciam

On Sun, 7 Nov 2004 11:19:19 -0600, "Todd Fatheree"
wrote:

"p_j" wrote in message
. ..
Todd Fatheree wrote:

I have to agree with you, Dave. I honestly don't understand the
thinking of
most people who are pro-abortion.

What i don't understand is the anti-life attitude of the
anti-abortionists who do not value the life of sperm and eggs. These
unborn children deserve the protection of the government.

So, is that an endorsement for the banning of masturbation because it
is commiting the sin of Onanism?
Aut inveniam viam aut faciam

On 07 Nov 2004 19:34:54 GMT, (David Hall) wrote:

He also believes he doesn't have the right to use the force of law to
make others live by his beliefs.

So if I believe that forcing people of other races into slavery is "a bad
thing", I certainly shouldn't try to "use the force of law to make others live"
by this belief. If I believe that people of the Jewish religion shouldn't be
gassed by the government, I certainly shouldn't try to "use the force of law to
make others live" by this belief. Certainly if I believe that killing women
for showing their faces in public is wrong, I shouldn't try to "use the force
of law to make others live" by this belief. Just which beliefs do you think
CAN be given the force of law?

People who do force their religion on others are called fanatics, or
maybe Ayatollah.

I hate to burst your little anti-religion bubble, but opposition to abortion is
not a religion or a religious belief. Just because many religious people share
that belief doesn't mean you can't reach that conclusion logically and without
any leaps of faith. In fact, there is no logic to a legal structure that says
you can't kill a baby 1 second after it has been fully delivered, but it is
just fine 5 minutes earlier. I do not know of any logical argument that can
find the point prior to birth that the mass of cells becomes a human being. So
if it appears logical to you that the mere occurance of delivery annoints the
child as a human being then you are the religious one relying on a leap of
faith for your position. Otherwise, let me know, via logic, when that moment
arrives that the non-sentient mass of cells becomes a human being.

It's not legal to perform an abortion five minutes before birth.

Dave Hall

Aut inveniam viam aut faciam

On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 01:33:04 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

In article , GregP wrote:
On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 23:10:11 -0500, WoodMangler
wrote:

Agreed. But keep in mind that the US was founded by and for Christians.

It was founded by Christians of various stripes, and Jews, and
Muslims,

Just curious -- which of the Founding Fathers were Jews? Which were Muslims?

OOOooohhh... A quiz question. Which were Deists? (As opposed to
"Christian") Which were Quakers?


Aut inveniam viam aut faciam

On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 01:52:53 -0800, Fly-by-Night CC
wrote:

In article ,
"Todd Fatheree" wrote:

If you don't count the 12 million babies that were murdered last year. And
don't lump me in with the wackos killing other people. I'm against both
abortion and the death penalty. And if you believe in Hell, you can be sure
it will be containing abortionists in great numbers. They better just hope
there is no supreme being, because I can't think of much worse than
destroying a totally innocent life.

Why is it that the anti-abortion folks don't press the powers that be to
make contraceptives, education and centralized adoption services the
cornerstone of their movement? Why not have condoms, birth control meds
and other devices freely available to the public? Why not have public
relations ad campaigns aimed at abstinence, birth control and adoption?
Why not have a network of federally overseen adoption agencies to ensure
that prenatal healthcare is guaranteed with an inexpensive and easy to
navigate adoption proceedure?

Why, because using contraceptives is killing babies- don't you listen
to the Pope?

As a left-leaning centrist, I'd fully support my tax dollars going to
such programs and would also support restrictions on abortion for most
cases.

Aut inveniam viam aut faciam

Prometheus responds:


They shouldn't be discouraged at all. Two (or more for that matter) people
living their lives as they see fit, without harming others, is not
anyone else's concern. But to your point, since both candidates, and the
majority of voters in both parties agree that gay marriage is offensive
and demeans the sanctity of the marriage institution, you're not making a
valid point by trying to blame this on just the Republicans.

Somewhat fair, but the Republicans are certainly more vocal about it.
The Democrats probably would have been for it, had they not taken a
poll to figure out that they weren't.


This one all but cracks my ribs when I laugh. In a society where more than 50%
of all marriages end in divorce, I get curious about how much sanctity those
marriages had, how often the spouses spent time in the sack with others before
the divorce was final (or before leaving home), how many wife beaters...well,
the beat goes on. I'm also curious as to whether those bleating about the
sanctity of marriage have been in that category.

Charlie Self
"Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character,
give him power." Abraham Lincoln

Charlie Self wrote:

Prometheus responds:


They shouldn't be discouraged at all. Two (or more for that matter) people
living their lives as they see fit, without harming others, is not
anyone else's concern. But to your point, since both candidates, and the
majority of voters in both parties agree that gay marriage is offensive
and demeans the sanctity of the marriage institution, you're not making a
valid point by trying to blame this on just the Republicans.

Somewhat fair, but the Republicans are certainly more vocal about it.
The Democrats probably would have been for it, had they not taken a
poll to figure out that they weren't.



This one all but cracks my ribs when I laugh. In a society where more than 50%
of all marriages end in divorce, I get curious about how much sanctity those
marriages had, how often the spouses spent time in the sack with others before
the divorce was final (or before leaving home), how many wife beaters...well,
the beat goes on. I'm also curious as to whether those bleating about the
sanctity of marriage have been in that category.

Charlie Self
"Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character,
give him power." Abraham Lincoln


I have a more basic question: Beyond the enforcement of property rights
and contract relationships, how is ANY PART OF ANY KIND OF ANY MARRIAGE ...
uh, ANY Of the government's business???

You'd think the "Conservatives" would support a process to de-federalize
the whole question, toss it to the states, and get out of the Government-As-
Mommy role......

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

Charlie Self wrote:

Larry Blanchard notes:


In article ,
says...

Just curious -- which of the Founding Fathers were Jews? Which were

Muslims?

Which were Christians? From what I've read, most of the major players
were Deists.


And it might do spambait well to check out the financiers of the Revolution.
IIRC, the main one was a Jew named Salomen.


Saloman.

Actually he did more than that. At the end of the Revolutionary War,
he paid off the entire debt iirc so that the new country would not
be crippled by it as it got started...

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

GregP wrote:

On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 23:10:11 -0500, WoodMangler
wrote:


Agreed. But keep in mind that the US was founded by and for Christians.



It was founded by Christians of various stripes, and Jews, and
Muslims, and people with a range of religions I know nothing
about (slaves who weren't Muslims). And a lot of them
(especially the slaves) did a very significant portion of the work
to make the US possible. I don't know whether it was "for
Chrisitians," but it is true that Christians enslaved and
discriminated against a significant percentage of the denizens
and ultimately citizens of this country. I don't see how such

What about the African tribalists who made slavery possible in the
first place? Are they not equally morally culpable? In fact,
in the matter of the Barbary Coast pirates, African slavers
actually enslaved white Europeans, though on nowhere near the
same scale that they conquered and enslaved their own countrymen.

The thing that always gets missed in these convenient little
idelogical rants is that *everyone* through recorded history
engaged in slavery at some point or another. But it was the
children of the Englightenment, animated in many cases by their
Christian beliefs, that *voluntarily ended slavery* ... well
"voluntarily" once the Civil War was fought in the US. This
civilized cessation of slavery is almost unique in human history.
Yes, White Europeans did bad things, but *THEY ALSO FIXED THEM*.

For the record, the one place in the world you can still buy slaves
is ... AFRICA and the buyers are ... Arab Muslims. Have a look
at what's going in Mauretania as an example...


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

Larry Blanchard wrote:

In article ,
says...

Just curious -- which of the Founding Fathers were Jews? Which were Muslims?


Which were Christians? From what I've read, most of the major players
were Deists.


This statement, often made, is no more true than the Religious Right's
claim that they all were devout Christians. Many were Deists,
some (like Sam Adams) were devoutly Christian and wanted to see
a Christian State emerge after the war. Some were atheists. Most all
of them gave some general nod towards the notion of a Judeo-Christian
God for *legal* purposes in establishing the basis for "inalianable
rights", but that is a far cry from an exactly Christian belief.

Everyone seems to want to flog the Floundering Fathers as somehow being
in *their* camp. But the Founders often did not agree with each other
let alone any single ideology. The only thing they really had in common
was a hatred of taxes!

For a very good treatment of the characters that made up the
Revolution, see Languth's book "Patriots".

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

mp wrote:

Agreed. But keep in mind that the US was founded by and for Christians.


Are they the same ones who slaughtered hundreds of thousands of native
Indians, often for just for sport?



Yes, along with the Amer-Indians who also managed to slaughter
*each other* as well. Europeans hardly invented violence and murder
in the New World, they merely managed to do it on a much larger/more
efficient scale (to their everlasting shame). But the notion that
Indians=Good and Europeans=Bad implicit in your statement is
laughably incorrect.

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

Tim Daneliuk writes:


[...]

engaged in slavery at some point or another. But it was the
children of the Englightenment, animated in many cases by their
Christian beliefs, that *voluntarily ended slavery* ... well

In the pre-civil-war book "Incidents of travel in Yucatan" you can
find a nice discussion on why slavery is economically a bad idea for
the slave owner, and more profit can be made with underpaid but
legally free workers, as the require no kapital for aquiring them,
thus no interest payments, can be paid less! than it would cost to
maintain a slave, can be fired without problem....
Maybe that also was some reason to abolish slavery.
--
Dr. Juergen Hannappel http://lisa2.physik.uni-bonn.de/~hannappe
Phone: +49 228 73 2447 FAX ... 7869
Physikalisches Institut der Uni Bonn Nussallee 12, D-53115 Bonn, Germany
CERN: Phone: +412276 76461 Fax: ..77930 Bat. 892-R-A13 CH-1211 Geneve 23

Larry Blanchard wrote:

In article ,
says...

"Larry Blanchard" wrote in message
...

He also believes he doesn't have the right to use the force of law to
make others live by his beliefs.


Then he apparently doesn't have the courage of his convictions, assuming he
has any core beliefs in the first place that go beyond getting elected.
We're not talking about tax policy or which state gets a new highway here.
He claims to believe that innocent children are being slaughtered, but
chooses to do nothing to stop it, hiding behind the religous freedom of
others to commit murder.


You just assumed the pertinent point. Kerry, and apparently you,
believe that a fetus is a human child. If we all agreed to that, there
would be no abortion debate. Kerry realizes that others don't believe
that a fetus is a child. You don't seem to realize that. Maybe that's
what you want to force others to believe.

I do oppose any abortion after the fetus is capable of living on its own
without extraordinary efforts and equipment. In effect, that means
after about 6 or 7 months of gestation.

But claiming 6 or 7 months is really pushing a fine line. The issue
at stake (legally) ought NOT to be "The Woman's Right To Choose".
No citizen's rights exist in a vacuum. Rights are always bounded
by the co-equal rights of other citizens. I have a right to mow
my lawn, but not a 4am if it keeps the neighbors up, for example.

The issue ought to be "When Does The Government's Responsibility To
Protect It's Citizens' Civil Rights Begin?" No one knows exactly
when that moment actually is. It is *somewhere* near the end of the
2nd trimester by most estimations. The tragedy of the Left is that
it defends 3rd Trimester abortion, argues that it's nobody's business
but the woman's (what an absurd notion) and refuses to even
consider the possibility of some rational compromise.

I am not out-of-hand opposed to legal abortion, though I am personally
opposed to it. But I am ENTIRELY opposed to the current situation
which pushes the legal date to the very edge of moral certainty,
and with partial-birth abortions, beyond that edge. I say abortion,
if it is to be legal, should be limited to a timeframe wherein there
is almost a certainty that no citizen is being killed, say 2 months
into the pregnancy. Moreover, no public funds should ever be used
to pay for it. Not perfect, but way better than what we have no.

My scientific training and reading convince me that this country
is committing *murder* on a regular and sanctioned basis. That is
considerably more worrying than some arbitrary "right to choose" that
is divorced from the rest of civil society just because some vacuuous
feminist said so.

The government has one abiding responsibility - to defend Liberty for
its citizens ... and the citizen yet to be born legitimately needs
government protection since he/she cannot speak for themselves.
I simply cannot fathom how anyone can take civil rights seriously,
and then dismiss the discussion out of hand as irrelevant (like the
political Left does) when it comes to unborn citizens.

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

"Prometheus"
"Fletis Humplebacker"


"Nate Perkins"

But today, the Republican party wins by intentionally cultivating
division - by encouraging disdain of Easterners, liberals, and
intellectuals,


That's got more spin than a class 4 hurricane. It's a fact that the
NE is heavily liberal and vote accordingly. They are out of step
with the rest of the country so pointing it out isn't the division,
the division was already there.


There's that Out-Of-Step (tm) line again. Christ, you'd think part of
New England voted 50% for Kerry, and the rest of the country voted
100% for Bush.


I do believe the more dedicated liberals are out of touch with the
rest of America. Most people who call themselves liberal are caught
up in the rhetoric.



Almost every state in the nation was split down the
middle. If we're out of step, it's only because we don't don
jackboots and start goosestepping with the fearless leader down the
road to hell.


That's what I mean. Bush is Satan, blah blah blah. I do not believe
that most people who voted for Kerry are liberal, in fact, many
simply voted against Bush because of the perpetual liberal bashing.
If there were any goosestepping to an ideological drumbeat it was
them.



dislike of foreigners, fear of gays, and callousness
toward those in need.

Why the derogatory comments? You are doing the demonizing
and division, not the Republican leadership.


If you're not with us, you're with the terrorists.



On terrorism, yes. He wasn't talking about domestic issues, except
when they included terrorism. You don't stand with the U.S. on
fighting terrorism?



Generally they have little respect for the
opposition, and they seek to smear and destroy their opponents in a
particularly personal way.


LOL !


Sadly, this president and this party bears little resemblance to the
party of Reagan.

Sure it does. Reagan got exactly the same kind of smarmy personal
attacks from liberals, comedians and the media but history proved the
detractors wrong and him right.

Sigh.

Aut inveniam viam aut faciam


Sorry, I don't speak Greek.

In article , Morris Dovey wrote:
GregP wrote:

On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 01:33:04 GMT, (Doug
Miller) wrote:

It is also true that Christians forced an *end* to slavery
in this country and elsewhere.

Some did, others objected, often rather vehemently.

Where slavery still exists, it is only in areas not
dominated by Christians.

It is further true that the Civil Rights movement of the
1960s was Christian to the core.

And Jewish.

Both correct; and both nearsightedly miss the bigger point: The
civil rights "movement" of the 1960's was supported by people of
many religious beliefs (and by people with none) united by a
common sense of injustice and unfairness.

Which sense had its roots in their religious beliefs. Whether you like it or
not, the Civil Rights movement *was* driven largely by the *religious* beliefs
of its supporters, who understood that since we are *all* children of the same
God, to treat one another differently on the basis of something so trivial as
skin color is as offensive to Him as it would be to you were I to treat your
children differently because one had blue eyes and the other brown.

Religious institutions provided rallying points and lines of
communication vital to the movement - but so did many
non-religious institutions (like public schools, colleges,
universities, and fraternal organizations).

Trying to rewrite history won't change the facts: the Civil Rights movement
was a religiously-based movement, that succeeded because it convinced large
numbers of white people that racial discrimination violates their
religious beliefs.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

In article k.net, jo4hn wrote:

Charlie is right. There is a need for abortion in this society.

Hogwash. Nearly all abortions are performed for convenience.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

In article , Fly-by-Night CC wrote:

Uh-oh Charlie. Better step lightly or you'll fracture the Catholic vote.
As I understand it the "church" doesn't condone artificial birth control
(at least that's what my converted-to-Catholisism sister has to say on
the matter).

Your sister is correct.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

In article , GregP wrote:
Exit polling may be the only way to tell if fraud is
being committed.

Exit polling is utterly useless to determine if fraud is being committed,
unless you have some means to force the voters to tell the pollsters the
truth.

And of course, while fraud may be difficult to detect after the fact, there
are many ways to prevent it, including:
- requiring proof of citizenship when registering to vote
- requiring positive identification when voting
- keeping voter registration lists updated when voters move or die

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

Prometheus did say:

On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 23:10:11 -0500, WoodMangler
wrote:

Prometheus did say:
Abortion.

It has been a consistant stand of the Republican party that is has the
moral obligation to oppose the use of abortion in almost every case-
the argument is not based on science, but on a religious belief that a
fertilized egg is a human being with a soul. When they make this
argument, it is based on a moral code which is not shared by the
people they hope to prevent from engaging in this activity. Trying to
ban abortion is using their concept of morality to control the life of
another. While the idea of abortion is personally disgusting to me, I
do not and can not claim the right to tell another person what they
must or must not do with their progeny, especially when it is still
inside their body.

The solution to this argument is simple. Currently, abortion is legal
for a certain period of time during pregnancy.
Merely shift the legal period ahead about thirteen and a half years. Have
the child. At age thirteen, you pretty much know if this is going to be a
useful member of society. This is when the decision should be made.
Neighbors get a vote.

It was either Phillip K. Dick or Ray Bradbury that had a story along
those lines. Amusing in theory, but terrible in fact.

Tongue in cheek.

War (and the "exportation" of freedom)

While a dictatorship is absolutely abhorrent to the American mindset,
many countries throughout history have been ruled by warlords and/or
kings. Sometimes this rule is by consent of the people, and sometimes
it is not. In any case, it is not the province of an outside power to
invade an independant power because the morality of the outside power's
elected leader tells him that "all people want to be free." We may
believe that freedom is always better, and that may be true for us- but
that does not automatically mean that other cultures feel the same. We
have no right to overthrow governments unless they attack ours (not
Kuwait's- ours)

I agree for the most part, but I think there are certainly times when it
is acceptable and right to come to the aid of another country. Not every
country can defend itself from aggressive neighbors. Where would the world
be if there wasn't an alliance during WWII?
I think a better policy is one of non-initiation of force. I'm a firm
believer in "live and let live", but also of the right to self defense.

Not to split hairs, but isn't that what I said in the last sentence?


You limited the legitimate use of force to repel an attack on us. I think
there are valid exceptions, still under the non-initiation of force
policy, to help friends and neighbors.
Coming to the defense of another individual is a form of self defense
under the law.

Posting the Ten Commandments on public
property

While I hold no animosity towards any of the principles expressed by
the commandments, they are, stirictly speaking a Christian/Jewish
moral code. When such a monument is posted on the grounds of a public
building, it is maintained with the taxpayer's money. Taxation is
money
taken from private citizens by the government, and should never be
used to grant a greater legitimacy to one religion than to another,
since adherants of many different faiths have all contriubted to the
upkeep of that building.

Agreed. But keep in mind that the US was founded by and for Christians.
Our ancestors have placed graven mementos of their religion in virtually
every public building built before 1970. I don't think we should be
adding more, or placing them in new buildings, but to remove those that
exist, to deny that heritage in order to try and revise our self image
is misguided in my opinion.

That's valid, I'm not for rewriting history or removing landmarks. Nor
do I think it is necessary to take the words "under god" out of the
pledge. I just don't want to see new monuments erected and maintained
with taxpayer money.


Agreed.

Gay marriage.

What difference can it possibly make to allow any two people to engage
in a mutually accepted social contract? My morality tells me that
there's nothing wrong with two individuals accepting one another's
lifelong companionship, regardless of their gender. When the legal
right to join in civil union is denied to two citizens, it is one
group's moral sense being used to control the lives of others. If
these unions are to be discouraged, it should be done by their
churches- not the state.

They shouldn't be discouraged at all. Two (or more for that matter)
people living their lives as they see fit, without harming others, is
not anyone else's concern. But to your point, since both candidates, and
the majority of voters in both parties agree that gay marriage is
offensive and demeans the sanctity of the marriage institution, you're
not making a valid point by trying to blame this on just the
Republicans.

Somewhat fair, but the Republicans are certainly more vocal about it.
The Democrats probably would have been for it, had they not taken a poll
to figure out that they weren't.


grin you're spot on.

"Capitalism demands the best of every man- his rationality- and
rewards him accordingly. It leaves every man free to choose the work
he likes, to specialize in it, and to go as far on the road of
achievement as his ability and ambition will carry him. His sucess
depends on the objective value of his work and the rationality of
those who recognize that value."
-Ayn Rand


AMEN

Never took so much as a day's wage from the gov't in my entire life.
The only things I use from them are those things which I must use
for lack of other options (police, roads, military etc.) And
somehow I managed not to vote for Bush.

Good that you have not taken from the government.

It is. Now if they would stop taking from me, we'd be getting
somewhere.

Taking from the government. Now there's an odd turn of phrase. If
anything, you'd be taking back.

True in fact, but false in spirit. To accept any money from the
government, I would have to approach them as a beggar- filling out
forms, and wasting my time convincing *advocates* that I am not able to
support myself in some way. If I could simply go to the bank and
withdraw the money taken from me, no questions asked, then it would be
my money by right, and acceptable to me.

As my wife tried to point out to me once when I was unemployed (for two
days) It would be my money I'd be getting from the unemployment office
if I chose to file for it- but to me, it's a welfare check. I did not
choose to place my money in the hands of the government, and I do not
choose to grant them the power to determine whether or not I might have
it back. To do so grants legitimacy to what they are doing. Aut
inveniam viam aut faciam

It already has the power to determine whether or not you might have some
back. Ever changing tax law, withholding, April 15, refunds...
That you choose not to spend the considerable time and effort (and
probable loss of dignity) to get some more back is a personal decision I
can respect.

In article , Prometheus wrote:

Ok, I'll clarify. I am against abortion as a concept. If my wife
wanted to have an abortion as a form of birth-control, I would be very
against it. But, It Is Not My Decision. Nor is it a valid place for
the government to be sticking it's nose. What I believe is good or
bad is irrelevent to someone with a different frame of reference.

Oh, so if someone else's "different frame of reference" includes coming from a
culture with no concept of private property, it's ok with you if that person
takes your car? Sorry, but that's utter nonsense. In order to live together in
a civilized society, we *must* have *some* sort of rules that govern how we
behave. And that set of rules derives from what the majority of us consider to
be right and wrong.

I do not know whether or not a fertilized egg has a soul, and I
personally prefer to err on the side of caution, where caution is
warranted. When a child is delivered whole and viable from a woman's
body, it is no longer a part of her, but an entirely seperate entity,
entitled to the rights granted to any other living individual.

You don't see the inconsistency in your statements here? If you *truly*
believe in erring on the side of caution, then the *only* self-consistent
position is to oppose abortion in all circumstances, precisely because you do
not know if a fertilized egg has a soul. If there is *any* doubt in your mind,
if you believe that there is *any* possibility that it does, then you must
oppose abortion on the grounds that it may be the murder of an innocent life.


I don't believe that women senselessly rush off to the abortion clinic
on a lark, so I must assume that they have very profound reasons for
their decision that I have no right to question. For me (or the
government) to tell them that they absolutely must not have an
abortion, I would have to impose my morality on them- which was the
context in which I mentioned this issue.

I don't believe that people senselessly shoot other people on a lark, so I
must assume that they have very profound reasons for their decision that I
have no right to question. For me (or the government) to tell them that they
absolutely must not shoot another person, I would have to impose my morality
on them.

It's not a cavalier attitude towards the issue, it's respect for the
right of a potential mother to make her own decisions. I have my
opinions on it, but opinions are all they are.

What about respect for the right of the embryo/fetus/infant to life?

The question of when the fetus becomes human can only be resolved by a
religious or moral decision. The government has no right to make
those decisions for citizens.

Crap. The government codifies morality in legislation all the time. Why do you
suppose there are laws against murder, stealing, or perjury?

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

Charlie Self did say:

Prometheus responds:


They shouldn't be discouraged at all. Two (or more for that matter) people
living their lives as they see fit, without harming others, is not
anyone else's concern. But to your point, since both candidates, and the
majority of voters in both parties agree that gay marriage is offensive
and demeans the sanctity of the marriage institution, you're not making a
valid point by trying to blame this on just the Republicans.

Somewhat fair, but the Republicans are certainly more vocal about it.
The Democrats probably would have been for it, had they not taken a
poll to figure out that they weren't.


This one all but cracks my ribs when I laugh. In a society where more than 50%
of all marriages end in divorce, I get curious about how much sanctity those
marriages had, how often the spouses spent time in the sack with others before
the divorce was final (or before leaving home), how many wife beaters...well,
the beat goes on. I'm also curious as to whether those bleating about the
sanctity of marriage have been in that category.


Both candidates were pandering to the religious majority in both parties.
I believe in the sanctity of my marriage - it is sacred to me and I treat
it as such. And I certainly would never want to deny the opportunity to
have something so great to anyone, regardless of who they want to marry.

I don't think I'd even mind if one of the Aussies on the rec wanted to
marry his sheep. The way some of the Normites feel about their power tools
though - a little unnatural for my comfort.

In article , Prometheus wrote:
Almost every state in the nation was split down the
middle.

Absolutely not true.

See http://www.usatoday.com/news/politic.../countymap.htm for
a county-by-county breakdown.



--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

In article , Prometheus wrote:
g.

It's not legal to perform an abortion five minutes before birth.

Yes, it is.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

In article , Juergen Hannappel wrote:

In the pre-civil-war book "Incidents of travel in Yucatan" you can
find a nice discussion on why slavery is economically a bad idea for
the slave owner, and more profit can be made with underpaid but
legally free workers, as the require no kapital for aquiring them,
thus no interest payments, can be paid less! than it would cost to
maintain a slave, can be fired without problem....

Interesting. Never thought about it in those terms, but it seems to make
sense.

Maybe that also was some reason to abolish slavery.

I don't think so, otherwise the slave owners in the United States would have
been eager to end the system. Instead, they took up arms to preserve it.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

Tim Daneliuk did say:

The thing that always gets missed in these convenient little
idelogical rants is that *everyone* through recorded history
engaged in slavery at some point or another. But it was the
children of the Englightenment, animated in many cases by their
Christian beliefs, that *voluntarily ended slavery* ... well
"voluntarily" once the Civil War was fought in the US. This

And let's not perpetuate the myth that the Civil War was fought over
slavery. Among the socio-economic differences that led to war, slavery was
far down the list.
The emancipation proclamation freed slaves only in the confederate states,
and this during the war when the confederate states did not recognize the
authority of the US government. The last states to abolish slavery did so
after the war, and were northern states. Massive social pressure to end
slavery was gaining ground in all parts of this country before the war,
and would have prevailed even if a war hadn't been fought.

I can't wait for responses from those young enough to only have read "new
revised" American history books.

In article , wrote:

I am not out-of-hand opposed to legal abortion, though I am personally
opposed to it. But I am ENTIRELY opposed to the current situation
which pushes the legal date to the very edge of moral certainty,
and with partial-birth abortions, beyond that edge. I say abortion,
if it is to be legal, should be limited to a timeframe wherein there
is almost a certainty that no citizen is being killed, say 2 months
into the pregnancy. Moreover, no public funds should ever be used
to pay for it. Not perfect, but way better than what we have no.

The medical definition (and in many states, the legal definition as well) of
the *end* of life is the cessation of electrical activity in the brain.
Perhaps the commencement of such activity could become the legal definition of
the beginning of life.

My scientific training and reading convince me that this country
is committing *murder* on a regular and sanctioned basis. That is
considerably more worrying than some arbitrary "right to choose" that
is divorced from the rest of civil society just because some vacuuous
feminist said so.

The government has one abiding responsibility - to defend Liberty for
its citizens ... and the citizen yet to be born legitimately needs
government protection since he/she cannot speak for themselves.
I simply cannot fathom how anyone can take civil rights seriously,
and then dismiss the discussion out of hand as irrelevant (like the
political Left does) when it comes to unborn citizens.

Well said.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

Prometheus did say:

unborn children deserve the protection of the government.

So, is that an endorsement for the banning of masturbation because it
is commiting the sin of Onanism?
Aut inveniam viam aut faciam

Them's fightin' words!

--
New project = new tool. Hard and fast rule.

There's a chart posted in a.b.p.w. that should get this discussion off the
ground.

Tim Daneliuk wrote:

You'd think the "Conservatives" would support a process to de-federalize
the whole question, toss it to the states, and get out of the
Government-As-
Mommy role......

But they are not conservatives ....

JK

Juergen Hannappel responds:


Tim Daneliuk writes:


[...]

engaged in slavery at some point or another. But it was the
children of the Englightenment, animated in many cases by their
Christian beliefs, that *voluntarily ended slavery* ... well

In the pre-civil-war book "Incidents of travel in Yucatan" you can
find a nice discussion on why slavery is economically a bad idea for
the slave owner, and more profit can be made with underpaid but
legally free workers, as the require no kapital for aquiring them,
thus no interest payments, can be paid less! than it would cost to
maintain a slave, can be fired without problem....
Maybe that also was some reason to abolish slavery.
--

Sure it was. It's known as enlightened self-interest, and was probably never
stated quite that baldly. Slavery was an economic drain for owners in lots of
ways. When the value of property (slaves) decreases beyond a certain point,
maintenance and care are still needed. When the value a laborer provides drops
below a certain point, you lay him or her off and let them worry about their
own maintenance and care.

Sort of like the migration of jobs to Asia and other areas in the past decade
or so. If those workers had been slaves, the companies would be obligated to
maintain some kind of life for them (though almost certainly not much of one).

Now, it's fire 15,000 or so, and add a nickel to each share's quarterly payout.
The 15,000? Hey, that's their problem. After all, they're not slaves.

Charlie Self
"Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character,
give him power." Abraham Lincoln

Prometheus wrote in message

If you believe that the fetus is a human being how on earth can you
find any justification for allowing the destruction of millions every year
under your very nose. You would have to feel a little like a German in 1945 or
one of millions of Americans in the early 1800s who didn't think slavery was
right, but they weren't going to anything to stop the southern slave owners
from maintaining that "peculiar institution".

Do you know what the definition of sophistry is? These arguments do
not relate to the original point or object of the example in question.
Aut inveniam viam aut faciam

Yes, I know the definition of sophistry. However, your point is that
we, as a society, cannot impose our morality on others. Yet that is
exactly what the slavery issue was. In the 1700's and early 1800's
millions of (white) americans believed that blacks were less than true
humans. Their morality was that these sub-humans were far better off
as slaves of us good humans than if they were left in the wilds of
Africa, and in any case, they were essentially like any other
domesticated animal and there was nothing morally wrong with keeping
them as slaves. Slowly the moral compass swung and ever larger groups
of (white) americans began to question that morality. Many began to
understand that slavery was wrong (or personally disgusting) but
didn't feel that they could impose their morality on the slave-owning
others. Others (and for a long time a true minority) did feel that
they could impose that morality. At first they imposed (for whatever
reason) only in their own states, but eventually they decided to
impose it completely. That was either the cause of or simply a result
of the Civil War, whichever view you subscribe to. In any case, the
similarities to the abortion issue are plain to me, whether they are
to you or not. I think most of us today from our current perspective
on slavery can agree that we not only had the right, but we had the
obligation, to impose our morals on those who still believed that
blacks were sub-human. Whether the freeing of the slaves would cause
some personal discomfort or even massive loss of economic position was
irrelevant. I feel the same about abortion and I believe that anyone
who believes (on religious or logical grounds) that the fetus is a
human being, should believe that we have an abligation to impose that
morality on those poor souls who don't yet see and understand. The
same whole story can be said for the Jews in Germany example. Call it
sophistry if you want, feel superior if you want, hell even write in
latin if you want, I will continue to believe that your position is as
misguided as someone who knew slavery was wrong but didn't think they
should say that to a slave owner.

Dave Hall

Prometheus wrote in message . ..
On 07 Nov 2004 19:34:54 GMT, (David Hall) wrote:

He also believes he doesn't have the right to use the force of law to
make others live by his beliefs.

So if I believe that forcing people of other races into slavery is "a bad
thing", I certainly shouldn't try to "use the force of law to make others live"
by this belief. If I believe that people of the Jewish religion shouldn't be
gassed by the government, I certainly shouldn't try to "use the force of law to
make others live" by this belief. Certainly if I believe that killing women
for showing their faces in public is wrong, I shouldn't try to "use the force
of law to make others live" by this belief. Just which beliefs do you think
CAN be given the force of law?

People who do force their religion on others are called fanatics, or
maybe Ayatollah.

I hate to burst your little anti-religion bubble, but opposition to abortion is
not a religion or a religious belief. Just because many religious people share
that belief doesn't mean you can't reach that conclusion logically and without
any leaps of faith. In fact, there is no logic to a legal structure that says
you can't kill a baby 1 second after it has been fully delivered, but it is
just fine 5 minutes earlier. I do not know of any logical argument that can
find the point prior to birth that the mass of cells becomes a human being. So
if it appears logical to you that the mere occurance of delivery annoints the
child as a human being then you are the religious one relying on a leap of
faith for your position. Otherwise, let me know, via logic, when that moment
arrives that the non-sentient mass of cells becomes a human being.

It's not legal to perform an abortion five minutes before birth.

Then what do you call partial birth abortion (I know, intact dilation
& extraction or something like that). In fact it is an abortion when
the baby is all but born and all of the body except the head is out.
How long do you think it would take to get the head out? It is my
understanding, at least, that if the head somehow slipped out before
the skull was punctured and the brains vacuumed out it would be termed
as murder.