com_dotnet

[The Natural Philosopher]

Re: OT - Oh, so OT.

Shelly wrote:

Israel is a democracy. About 25% of the country is Muslim. Yes, it the
Jewish homeland. So?

What proportion of the *electorate* is Muslim, tho?

[Steve]

Re: OT - Oh, so OT.


"The Natural Philosopher" <a@b.cwrote in message
news:1190276075 .95885.0@iris.u k.clara.net...

Shelly wrote:
>

>Israel is a democracy. About 25% of the country is Muslim. Yes, it the
>Jewish homeland. So?

>
What proportion of the *electorate* is Muslim, tho?

even if you have a point, aren't we supporting the nation (the people) of
israel and not just their gubment?

[Jerry Stuckle]

Re: OT - Oh, so OT.

Steve wrote:

>But when they refuse to allow someone to place a cheche or menorah on city
>property (at no government expense), that's exactly what they are doing -
>interfering with someone's right to practice their religion. And such a
>display does *such great harm* to believers in other religions. It's
>public property and should be available to all, as long as it is in good
>taste (i.e. no displays from "The Honorable Church of the Naturalists".

>
'such great harm'...lol. and the slippery slope rises from no less than
these words.
>
i'm sure the wiccan symbol of an upside-down cross would not offend many. or
how about a swastika (yes, a religious symbol) would not offend anyone. and
how about pentagrams? who says what good taste is?
>

The upside-down cross or pentagram would offend me, but I would take it
in stride. It's nothing worth getting upset over. The swastika is
another story - not because of its religious nature, but what else it
represent. I think that would be out of line.

if the government allows such things on their properties, they sanction them
implicitly.
>

No, they allow the use of public property by the public. There is no
sanctioning.

the fact that you feel like i'm hindering you by not allowing you to market
your filth in public places of operation (court houses, schools, etc.), is
absurd. you keep saying you don't try to 'convert' anyone. what other
purpose could there be? are you going to say, 'for historic reasons'? quit
playing dumb! you have churches, homes, any place that allows you to
proliferate your divel...just don't do it through the vehicle of government.
>

Who said I was trying to convert anyone? I'm proud of my faith, and
want to display it. I don't get upset when I see symbols of other
religions. Why does it upset you so much? Maybe you've got a problem?

>

>>In short its best hope is to act as if it were completely a-theistic. Not
>>to deny or affirm God, but simply to keep its mucky paws out of that area
>>altogether. Almost any other course is a recipe for dissent and
>>ultimately revolution.
>>>

>They should act such that religions can have the same access to public
>facilities as any non-religious group.

>
uhmmm...they do. both should have NONE provided by the government! period.
>
>

They are public places, paid for with my tax dollars. I see no problem
with renting those spaces out, as long as the rent covers the cost of
maintenance, cleaning, etc.

Government buildings have always been open to the public for public
functions - stretching way back to the colonial days, when people could
meet in town halls. And it continues to this day.

--
=============== ===
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attgl obal.net
=============== ===

[Shelly]

Re: OT - Oh, so OT.


"Steve" <no.one@example .comwrote in message
news:0TnIi.808$ nc7.118@newsfe1 2.lga...

>
"Herb" <herb_k@mail.co mwrote in message
news:1190249006 .190962.5160@57 g2000hsv.google groups.com...
shelly, i kind of got the feeling that this was one of those kind of
nut-jobs from his first post. now i guess we both know.
>
loose nut on the keyboard! alert, alert...killfil e, killfile.

Already done yesterday,

Shelly

[Shelly]

Re: OT - Oh, so OT.


"Steve" <no.one@example .comwrote in message
news:SboIi.811$ nc7.132@newsfe1 2.lga...

(he smiles as he tries to playfully edge jerry ever so close to a
forth-coming godwin)

I don't think many people understand that reference. I won't explain it
because in doing so I would be doing it and hence would the loser of the
argument.

Shelly

[Shelly]

Re: OT - Oh, so OT.


"The Natural Philosopher" <a@b.cwrote in message
news:1190276075 .95885.0@iris.u k.clara.net...

Shelly wrote:
>

>Israel is a democracy. About 25% of the country is Muslim. Yes, it the
>Jewish homeland. So?

>
What proportion of the *electorate* is Muslim, tho?

25%. They are full-fledged citizens like everyone else. Theyere is only
one difference. They have the option to not serve in the army if they so
choose. That is what makes Herb's statements such a crock of shit.

Shelly

[Jerry Stuckle]

Re: OT - Oh, so OT.

Shelly wrote:

"Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attg lobal.netwrote in message
news:8vmdnQIFNe 8zCmzbnZ2dnUVZ_ tWtnZ2d@comcast .com...

>First of all, we aren't trying to take over the world. But you are trying
>to take over the world by destroying all religion. You're not doing it in
>meetings - you're trying to take away our legal rights to practice our
>religions.

>
Once again, prove your idiotic statement here. You are claiming that by not
giving you favorable status, you are being deprived of your legal right to
practice your religion. That is out and out bullshit. You can prractice
your religion as you see fit anywhere EXCEPT at public expense and on public
property -- just like ANYONE ELSE.
>

No, I'm not asking for favorable status. And I said NOTHING about
PUBLIC EXPENSE. I have NEVER, ANYWHERE IN THIS THREAD said public money
should be spent on religion.

Jerry, are you old enough to remember the "Domino Theory". It was
formulated by Republicans that if one country falls to Communism, then its
neighbor would fall and so on. It is another name for the slippery slope.
Once you permit religious displays on public property, then ALL religious
displays need to be allowed. That includes Satanism, The Religion of
Nudity, etc. etc. Just because you may find it offensive is not a valid
response to disallow a specific religious display. (I can assure you that
there are many non-Christians that would find Christian displays
offensive.). If it becomes the provence of government to decide what is
offensive and what is not in religious displays, then you can go the road of
Saudi Arabia where you, Jerry, would not be able to bring a cross into the
country. Better to make it black and white. NO religious displays on
public property and NO such displays funded by government.
>

That's fine with me. Let all religions display, as long as it is in
good taste - i.e. no nudity. Also, it is the government's job to decide
what is offensive and what is not. They do it every day. Try walking
down the street naked. You'll be arrested. That's the government
deciding your nudity is offensive.

As for Satanism, Wicca, etc., while I might find those symbols
personally offensive, there is nothing in the symbols which goes against
the morals of the community, so they should be allowed.

>>we have no movement outside of not allowing religion to permeate *every*
>>sector of public domain. that is an action and far from diatribe.
>>>

>If you had your way, there would be no religion. You've said so yourself.

>
He didn't say what you are implying here. His position, and I paraphrase
here, "is that he hopes everyone would mature enough to gain the wisdom that
God is irrelevent.". You, on the other hand, are implying that he wants
this to happen by fiat. He never even hinted at such a situation.
>

I never said he wanted it to happen by fiat. Don't put words in my mouth.

>>it's a logical comparison. however and again, my *claim* is that there is
>>no objective evidence that god exists! get that through your pea-sized
>>brain! the logical conclusion would be that there is no god.
>>>

>The *logical* conclusion is that there would be no way to know whether a
>god exists or not.

>
1 - The "scientific " statement is that the existence of god cannot be
proven.
2 - The "logical" next step is that since there is no basis for such a
hypothesis, then it should be rejected until such time as some evidence can
be brought forth.
>
That is what he is saying.
>

Since there is no proof one way or the other, there is no "next logical
step", because any "next step" can be neither proven nor disproven.

>You're trying to say leprechauns are gods. My statement is they are not
>recognized by society as gods. Not even the Irish believe they are.

>
You totally misunderstand what he is saying.
>

No, I understand exactly what he's saying.

>>i'm not against ANY religion. i go to church every sunday and blend in
>>just like you, jerry. i suspect a surprising number of your flock are
>>just like me, skeptical people in fancy suits just hoping no one asks,
>>'so, how's your walk with our lord jesus christ'. by the way, i fit in
>>quite well and am close with my pastor...we golf every weekend. go
>>figure.
>>>

>So you're saying you're a hypocrite. You go to church but don't believe
>in the teachings of the church. Ok.

>
He is not a hypocrite. He SAID he is going there for the social aspect. It
is a meeting place, after all. Look up the word "hypocrite" . It means
saying one thing but doing the opposite. He SAYS he goes for the social
aspect but ignores the religious message as irrelevent. Where is the
hypocrisy? Where is he doing the opposite of what he says?
>
Shelly
>

He goes to church and tries to stay awake during the service. Does he
tell his minster and friends he is an atheist and only goes there to
socialize?


--
=============== ===
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attgl obal.net
=============== ===

[Shelly]

Re: OT - Oh, so OT.


"Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attg lobal.netwrote in message
news:FP-dnd0s3qy1PG_bnZ 2dnUVZ_jSdnZ2d@ comcast.com...

And why should I have to "prove" my God exists to you - or anyone else?
There is no fraud involved. I have stated my belief. You can choose to
believe or not. It's up to you.

It depends upon what you said. If you said, "I believe God exists", the you
are correct that you don't have to prove anything to anyone because it is a
simple statement of faith. If you said "God exists", then the onus of proof
is upon you because that is a statement that you make as fact. In that
situation the burden of proof is not upon him to show the non-existence
(which is impossible), but upon you to support your statement.

Not to you, there isn't. And no, I'm not even going to try to provide any
objective evidence to you - or anyone else. I have my beliefs, and that's
good enough for me.

Either there is objective proof or there isn't. He claims there isn't. It
is impossible to prove non-existence. All you need to do to show his
statement to be wrong is to produce a single instance of objective evidence.
Unless you can do that, (which you can't), his statement stands undisputed.

I'm glad you finally admit it. But that is a direct contradiction to your
previous statement: "sorry, religious people are in the *business* of
converting."
>
So a correct statement would be "sorry, religious people I'VE MET are in
the *business* of converting." A big difference.

As a point of fact, I will refute Steve's statement this time. The official
policy in Judaism is to DIScourage conversions, and it has been the policy
for at least a thousand years. See, Jerry, all it takes is one instance to
show the statement to be wrong.

>there should be no need for a situation that required an opt-out option
>in the first place!
>>

>
Sure. They all worship a god (or in some cases gods). It is a prayer to
their god.

And what of the atheists? They don't worship a god. Again, only one
instance is needed to disprove your statement. (...or are you saying "to
hell with the atheists"? :-) )

>
And the world is full of opt-out situations every day. Every choice you
make you can opt to go another way.

For adults, that is one thing. For children it is quite another. Peer
pressure disappears to a large degree as we mature. Not so when we are
young. You are promoting cruely to children by your "opt-out choice".

>
Let the state remain NEUTRAL in such matters. Neither promoting nor
prohibiting.

The greatest asset in our democracy is the protection of the rights of the
minority from the tyrrany of the majority. Majority governs, but it must
not rule (do you understand the distinction?) . That is what the Bill of
Rights and the rest of it is all about.

>you have equal access to practice your beliefs as anyone else. the
>standard is the same. the laws are the same. if you feel the gov. should
>favor you more, then you're more arrogant that i thought.
>>

>
No, but YOU feel the government should favor YOU more. I just want the
right to practice my religion. You want to refuse me that right - even
though it is doing NO HARM to you.

Jerry, please stop with this load of crap. NOONE IS REFUSING YOU THE RIGHT
TO PRACTICE YOUR RELIGION. PERIOD. We are merely saying you can't do it on
MY property nor at MY expense. That means not on public property nor at
public expense. You can do it all you want on PRIVATE property and paid for
by you.

Why are you dense here? We have told you this how many times now? Yet, you
insist on repeating this bullshit. Are you blinded? pig-headed? or just
plain too damn stupid to understand? Over the years I had thought more of
your intelligence than that you can't grasp the meaning of the simple
statement that has been made to you over and over and over and over ad
infinitum.

I've had it. Unless you can show how we are REFUSING YOU THE RIGHT TO
PRACTICE YOUR RELIGION, and not come up with the stupidity you have
presented, I will bow out and let you live on in your ignorance.

>>After all - what harm does it do to you that a coach offers a prayer
>>before a big game? Are you afraid your children will start asking
>>questions about something you don't believe in?

>>
>i don't know. you tell me. what if he's leading your kid in a prayer to
>satan? what would your problem be with that? what, are you afraid your
>children will start asking questions about something you don't believe
>in?
>>
>don't be moronic.

>
You're the one who wants it banned, not me. And a non-denominational
prayer, by definition, is one towards no specific god. So he can't be
praying to Satan - it would not be non-denominational.
>
Don't be moronic.

Once you mention "god" in a positive sense, it is no longer
"non-denominational" . That is because you have already excluded atheists.
Again, all that is needed is ONE instance to refute the statement.

How about "Let us all reflect upon what a great country we live in, wish for
the health of our family and friends, be thankful for the opportunities
presented to each one of us, and hope for a future of peace and happiness"?
Would you, Jerry, call that a prayer (no mention of God or pray or giving
thanks)? Would you, Steve? And Steve, isn't this sort of what you think
about when the rest of your church is "praying"? I know that this is what I
think of every time I hear the national anthem.

Shelly

[Shelly]

Re: OT - Oh, so OT.

"Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attg lobal.netwrote in message
news:MNidnSSe2M sZOW_bnZ2dnUVZ_ uWlnZ2d@comcast .com...

No, I'm not asking for favorable status. And I said NOTHING about PUBLIC
EXPENSE. I have NEVER, ANYWHERE IN THIS THREAD said public money should
be spent on religion.

If you dislay on public property, then you are using government money (as
they purchased the land).

That's fine with me. Let all religions display, as long as it is in good
taste - i.e. no nudity. Also, it is the government's job to decide

What about the "Anti-Christian" religion that says awful things about Jesus?
There are so many religions, surely someone can start that one? Is that in
"bad taste"? Why?

what is offensive and what is not. They do it every day. Try walking
down the street naked. You'll be arrested. That's the government
deciding your nudity is offensive.

Only in a public place. I have every right to practice nudity if I want to
in a private place with the owner's permission. (No, I am not a nudist).
Likewise, you have every right to display you religion in a private place.

>
As for Satanism, Wicca, etc., while I might find those symbols personally
offensive, there is nothing in the symbols which goes against the morals
of the community, so they should be allowed.

What about "Anti-Christianism"?

>He didn't say what you are implying here. His position, and I paraphrase
>here, "is that he hopes everyone would mature enough to gain the wisdom
>that God is irrelevent.". You, on the other hand, are implying that he
>wants this to happen by fiat. He never even hinted at such a situation.
>>

>
I never said he wanted it to happen by fiat. Don't put words in my mouth.

Look up the word "implying" in the dictionary and then we'll speak further
to this point. When you say he is refusing you the right to practice your
religion (your word, right?), well how is he doing that? By having the law
say so, that's how. Well, please also look up the "fiat".

>>>it's a logical comparison. however and again, my *claim* is that there
>>>is no objective evidence that god exists! get that through your
>>>pea-sized brain! the logical conclusion would be that there is no god.
>>>>
>>The *logical* conclusion is that there would be no way to know whether a
>>god exists or not.

>>
>1 - The "scientific " statement is that the existence of god cannot be
>proven.
>2 - The "logical" next step is that since there is no basis for such a
>hypothesis, then it should be rejected until such time as some evidence
>can be brought forth.
>>
>That is what he is saying.
>>

>
Since there is no proof one way or the other, there is no "next logical
step", because any "next step" can be neither proven nor disproven.

Not so. Statement: Pigs can fly. Experiment: Toss a pig off a ledge and
it falls. Toss it many times and it never flies. Logic: Pigs can't fly.
Jerry: There is no proof against that one of those times in the future the
pig might fly, so there is no "next step" and the statement can neither be
proven nor disproven. What he is saying is that there is no logical basis
to accept the hypothesis of a god, so, logically he rejects it. He is NOT
saying the existence of god is disproven, only that there is no logical
basis for accepting it.

>

>>You're trying to say leprechauns are gods. My statement is they are not
>>recognized by society as gods. Not even the Irish believe they are.

>>
>You totally misunderstand what he is saying.
>>

>
No, I understand exactly what he's saying.

No.

>He is not a hypocrite. He SAID he is going there for the social aspect.
>It is a meeting place, after all. Look up the word "hypocrite" . It
>means saying one thing but doing the opposite. He SAYS he goes for the
>social aspect but ignores the religious message as irrelevent. Where is
>the hypocrisy? Where is he doing the opposite of what he says?
>>
>Shelly

>
He goes to church and tries to stay awake during the service. Does he
tell his minster and friends he is an atheist and only goes there to
socialize?

If it came up, I'm sure he would. If it already has come up, I'm sure he
has. Considering how strongly he has voiced his position, do you REALLY,
think he would keep silent -- especially when he plays golf with the pastor?
I think not!

In any case, you have no right to call him a hypocrite unless he tells you
he lied to the pastor about his atheism. That he goes for a reason other
than yours is totally irrelevent.

You may pay your taxes willingly because you believe our jackass president
is the greatest thing since sliced bread. I pay them for a myriad of
reasons, not the least of which is I would go to jail if I didn't -- and I
do so in spite of the stupid war that jackass is conducting. Does that make
me a hypocrite because I pay them even though I dislike a lot of what they
are doing, while you do so for the greater glory of the Bush legacy?

Shelly

Shelly

[Shelly]

Re: OT - Oh, so OT.


"Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attg lobal.netwrote in message You stated "I
hope everyone would mature enough to gain the wisdom that

God is irrelevant." So by your own words, you want there to be no
religion.

"Imagine there's not heaven.
No religion too.
.....

Imagine all the people living life in peace.....

Now you may call me a dreamer.
But I'm not the only one......"

--- John Lennon

[Shelly]

Re: OT - Oh, so OT.


"Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attg lobal.netwrote in message
news:YOmdnb5Tyr BUf2_bnZ2dnUVZ_ rGrnZ2d@comcast .com...

ROFLMAO! More ad-homonyms.

adhominems

[Steve]

Re: OT - Oh, so OT.

<snip>

You stated "I hope everyone would mature enough to gain the wisdom that
God is irrelevant." So by your own words, you want there to be no
religion.

<snip>

i'll stop reading here. you need to get your facts straight jerry. those are
NOT my words. someone else in this thread said that. 'so by you own words'
nothing! your first clue, jerry, would be to note the use of capitalization.
see anything different about how it write, and what you quote?

[Jerry Stuckle]

Re: OT - Oh, so OT.

Herb wrote:

On Sep 19, 7:16 am, Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...@attg lobal.netwrote:

>Steve wrote:
>>

>>>I can still be a Christian if I don't go to church, don't take communion,
>>>get married by a judge... My beliefs are what make me one.
>>so, i'm a christian too if i have a lack of belief in christ? wow, they said
>>getting to heaven was as easy as "a b c", but i had no idea!

>I never said anything of the sort.
>>

>>jerry, you have your head so far up your biblical ass, it isn't even funny
>>anymore.

>And you need to learn how to read simple English. You can't even
>understand two sentences when put together.

>
He seems to be the kind that misstates what you said, then attacks the
misstatement as if you had said it. Those politically-correct types
are allergic to correct reasoning. They also are very trite.
>

Yep, I've noticed that. But I've come to expect it - and not just in
religion. If you can't refute an argument, twist it around until you can.

--
=============== ===
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attgl obal.net
=============== ===

[Jerry Stuckle]

Re: OT - Oh, so OT.

Herb wrote:

On Sep 16, 10:13 pm, Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...@attg lobal.netwrote:

>Michael Fesser wrote:

>>.oO(Jerry Stuckle)
>>>ROFLMAO! You really are a sucker, you know that?
>>I don't have a problem with that.
>>>And this is a perfect example. Yep, he has more credibility than an
>>>anonymous post on a website by an organization known for their lies.
>>>Especially when they were not part of the conversations involved, and
>>>Sean was.
>>So a little conservative wannabe has more credibility than half of the
>>Web and many big organizations? Tell me why! Maybe it's just because he
>>has the same opinions as you? So he simply _must_ be right, because you
>>don't allow any other opinions?
>>Micha

>ROFLMAO!
>>
>You really don't have any clue. I'm sorry for you.

>
you are arguing with a bunch of emotional idiots, Jerry.
>

That's true. They really don't know how to carry on an intellectual
conversation, do they? Or acknowledge that Christians, Jews, Muslims,
Wiccans and others have rights, also.

--
=============== ===
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attgl obal.net
=============== ===

[Shelly]

Re: OT - Oh, so OT.


"Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attg lobal.netwrote in message
news:cLidnf6zJc w_km7bnZ2dnUVZ_ oPinZ2d@comcast .com...

Herb wrote:

>On Sep 19, 7:16 am, Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...@attg lobal.netwrote:

>>Steve wrote:
>>>
>>>>I can still be a Christian if I don't go to church, don't take
>>>>communion ,
>>>>get married by a judge... My beliefs are what make me one.
>>>so, i'm a christian too if i have a lack of belief in christ? wow, they
>>>said
>>>getting to heaven was as easy as "a b c", but i had no idea!
>>I never said anything of the sort.
>>>
>>>jerry, you have your head so far up your biblical ass, it isn't even
>>>funny
>>>anymore.
>>And you need to learn how to read simple English. You can't even
>>understand two sentences when put together.

>>
>He seems to be the kind that misstates what you said, then attacks the
>misstatement as if you had said it. Those politically-correct types
>are allergic to correct reasoning. They also are very trite.
>>

>
Yep, I've noticed that. But I've come to expect it - and not just in
religion. If you can't refute an argument, twist it around until you can.

Pot - kettle - black.

Shelly