OT: I KNEW you' Merkans knew how to fix stuff:

"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message news:[email protected]...

>> Well, I think that sometimes it is possible to prove a negative,
>> but I certainly agree that atheists take the nonexistence of God on
>> faith.

> Hence its status as a religion.

By that standard a disbelief in the Tooth Fairy amounts to a religion.

On Apr 22, 10:21=A0pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:

> Oh yes it is. =A0It is the denial of a deity without confirmable
> proof. =A0Like any religion, it:
>
> 1) Starts from an unprovable starting point
> 2) Develops a system of epistemology and ethics thereby
> 3) Defines all other religions with which it disagrees as being wrong


It is not the denial of anything. It is not accepting someone else's
word for something that THEY cannot prove. Different thing.

Atheism IS falsifiable - believers simply have to show evidence for
their faith, and there you go - atheism would be proven 'wrong'. BUT!
Then again, if believers COULD prove their faith, they technically
wouldn't be believers...

Atheism is not a religion.

On Apr 26, 5:22=A0pm, Just Wondering <[email protected]> wrote:

> That's more a description of agnosticism.

Agnosticism would be "I don't know either way".

On Apr 22, 10:38=A0pm, willshak <[email protected]> wrote:

> It's a belief that there is no supreme being, and is as true as any
> other belief that there is a supreme being.


No, you're wrong. Atheism is not accepting another's word that there
is a supernatural entity out there. It's a crucial difference.

"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message news:[email protected]...

>> Atheism isn't a religion.

> Oh yes it is. It is the denial of a deity without confirmable
> proof.

When atheists knock on your door and offer you pamphlets trying to get you
to share their beliefs then you can call it a religion.

Just Wondering wrote:
>
> Atheism is not a religion. It is simply a belief in the nonexistence
> of deity. As a belief, it is based on faith, something many atheists
> are unwilling to admit. However, faith in the existence or
> non-existence of a thing, without more, is not a religion.
>

Atheism denies the existence of God. Inasmuch as you can't prove a negative,
atheists just have to take God's nonexistence on faith.

On Apr 23, 8:35=A0pm, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
> phorbin <[email protected]> wrote in news:MPG.281d47f2b9ce8808989b05
> @news.execulink.com:
>
> > The paradox of unbelief is that, unbelief is belief. The opposite of
> > belief is probably apathy.
>
> I don't care what you believe, and as long as you don't bother me I won't
> bother you. =A0Moreover, as my mother said, God put you on this earth to =
help
> your fellow man.
>
> --
> Best regards
> Han
> email address is invalid

Works around here, Han.

On Apr 20, 1:05=A0pm, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
> Copied and pasted:
>
> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>
> Saturday USMC Staff Sgt. Jason Rogers, who was killed in action in
> Afghanistan April 7, was buried in Brandon, Mississippi.
> That, by itself, is a sadly unremarkable - though certainly noteworthy
> and solemn - occasion for us to mark.
>
> And in fact when Sgt. Rogers' body returned to Brandon it was greeted
> by hundreds, or perhaps even thousands, of well-wishers who gathered
> at the roadside to honor the fallen American hero. The dashboard
> camera from Mississippi state trooper Elmo Townsend's cruiser gives an
> indication of the scene last Thursday.
>
> What is most notable about Sgt. Rogers' funeral in Brandon, however,
> is what didn't happen.
>
> You see, the troglodytes from Westboro Baptist Church had threatened
> to spew their poison at Sgt. Rogers' funeral.
> But the Westboro mob wasn't on the scene, and Sgt. Rogers was laid to
> rest without incident - thank God.
>
> Why weren't there protestors? Planning ahead by the locals, as it
> turns out.
>
> From an Ole Miss sports message board, a tidbit of information...
>
> "A couple of days before, one of them (Westboro protestors) ran his
> mouth at a Brandon gas station and got his arse waxed. Police were
> called and the beaten man could not give much of a description of who
> beat him. When they canvassed the station and spoke to the large crowd
> that had gathered around, no one seemed to remember anything about
> what had happened."
>
> Rankin County handled this thing perfectly. There were many things
> that were put into place that most will never know about and at great
> expense to the county.
>
> Most of the morons never made it out of their hotel parking lot. It
> seems that certain Rankin county pickup trucks were parked directly
> behind any car that had Kansas plates in the hotel parking lot and the
> drivers mysteriously disappeared until after the funeral was over.
> Police were called but their wrecker service was running behind and it
> was going to be a few hours before they could tow the trucks so the
> Kansas plated cars could get out.
>
> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>
> Put the biggest smile on this face...... "no one seemed to remember
> anything.." =A0LMAO

Nice. How that 'church' can get away with what are hate crimes and/or
instigating a riot is beyond me. With all of this social networking
bullshit amounting to nothing, I'm waiting for the day when people can
vote on the spot to 'export' someone or revoke their church's tax
exempt status. You get over 100 million votes asking you to leave,
and, well, you're gone. Need a boat?

R

> I don't have the particulars handy, but a number of years ago, the
> governor
> of (I think) Colorado got abused by the Usual Suspects because - as a
> personally devout Christian - he chose to attend a prayer breakfast
> featuring people in government. I supposed if he'd appeared to promote a
> pro-anything-but-Judeo-Christian event, it would have been OK of course.

That's it, that's your example of, "people that voluntarily wish to
participate in traditional religious expression are forbidden doing so by
that same government"? Some vague memory of a governor being "abused" by
some unnamed persons over attending a prayer breakfast, that qualifies as
the govt. forbidding religious expression?

You have got to be kidding.

> Church-State "separation" (a phrase appearing nowhere in the Constitution)
> is supposed to prevent the State from *establishing* a religion. It was
> never in the minds of the Framers (based on their own statements anyway)
> that the State was to be protected *from* the appearance any religious
> expression in the context of government activities.

Happily the foolish position that the state could be just a little bit
pregnant on the issue of a state religion has not survived examination by
the courts. You're free to stage your religious rituals in your church, in
your home, on private property with like-minded adherents--you have no right
to inject them into the operations of govt.

> Prayer in schools is a problem because schools are funded as government
> institutions (which they should not be).

You're always good for a laugh, I'll give you that.

On Apr 25, 6:11=A0pm, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 4/20/2011 12:05 PM, Robatoy wrote:
>
> > Copied and pasted:
>
> You did it again, you canny bastid, you! This thread is so worn that
> only the bare hook is left ... ;)
>

WELL, I Nevvah! *Indignant look*

*smirk*

I had no idea! But you win an Easter Bunny:

http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o290/Robatoy/EasterBunny.jpg

LOL

On Apr 23, 3:40=A0pm, Just Wondering <[email protected]> wrote:

> By definition, every atheist believes there is no God (or god).

No, by definition, every atheist does not accept that there is a
god(s). There is no belief in it. This is a crucial point, and one
where many, many people fall down - 'belief' is to accept an idea as
true with no supporting evidence. Atheists don't /believe/.

But, I know what you mean... I was being pedantic for the sake of
clarity!

On Apr 21, 11:31=A0pm, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> The Carlisle Group likewise has nothing to do with the DoD. The company i=
s a
> private equity and asset management firm.
>

You are telling me that The Carlisle Group doesn't have defence
contractors in their portfolio?

On Apr 24, 7:14=A0pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:

<snip>

Tell you what Tim, you live your life, I'll live mine, and we can
agree to disagree on whatever we please.

On Apr 26, 8:26=A0am, Just Wondering <[email protected]> wrote:

> Atheism is not a religion. =A0It is simply a belief in the nonexistence o=
f
> deity.

No! Other way around - a lack of belief in the existence of a deity.


> Strange but true: http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=3D31895

Very strange indeed!

On Apr 24, 3:37=A0pm, phorbin <[email protected]> wrote:

> You clipped out the relevant point.

Apologies, wasn't intentional.

> The paradox of unbelief is that unbelief is belief.
>
> If you dig just a little, you will find that being human makes believing
> unavoidable.
>
> The simple statement, "This world is real." is a statement of belief
> even though the evidence seems 100% conclusive.

OK, so maybe I'll say the probability that the world is real is
approaching 1. But it's easier to say "the world is real".

> The simple statement, "God doesn't exist." is also a statement of belief
> even though the evidence seems 100% conclusive.

But there is no evidence, so there can't be 100% conclusive evidence
either way, but the probability that there is a god is minimal (to an
extreme), which, for me, is appropriate to say "god doesn't exist" in
this situation.


> It doesn't matter what foundation you build your world view from, if it
> is -kind- and serviceable enough, that should be enough.

No arguments here.


> Even though the word apathy carries a lot of baggage, it contains a clue
> to the true opposite of belief.

Not really, you can still believe in something whilst being apathetic
towards it.

On Apr 25, 1:07=A0pm, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote very
little of worth.


Yo!! Jacko!!!! Where the hell have you been, you Douche-nozzle, you!!

On Apr 22, 3:26=A0am, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:

> I am reasonably certain that had this been an expression of atheism -
> a different kind of religion - the ACLU would have been strangely silent.=
..

Atheism isn't a religion.

On 4/21/2011 9:39 PM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
> "Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>> On 4/21/2011 8:32 PM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>> "Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>>>> On 4/21/2011 8:09 AM, Tim W said this:
>>>>> "Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Tim W" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>> I am not an american so I don't know much about the background to this
>>>>>>> mess but I gather from the replies that I hadn't misread or misunderstood
>>>>>>> the account fictional or not.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm not an American either, but perhaps you should acquaint yourself with
>>>>>> the full story of this nut ball religious group before you comment on
>>>>>> whether someone deserved a beating or not.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> No, no, no, no.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nobody deserves a beating for speaking his mind. I don't care what kind of
>>>>> nutball you think he is.
>>>>
>>>> You are confusing the right to *speak* freely and the right to be *heard*.
>>>> You have a natural right to say whatever you wish so long as your
>>>> speech is not threatening or fraudulent. However, this does not mean
>>>> you have a right to make people listen to you.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> A place where a bunch of thugs publicly beat up people they don't like and
>>>>> nobody is arrested, nobody complains and everybody thinks it is a joke -
>>>>> that is sicko country.
>>>>
>>>> This is what happens when government abdicates its primary role of being a
>>>> defender of liberty. Invading a private event like a funeral - even just
>>>> with sound - is an act of *force*.
>>>
>>> The Beatee was in a GAS STATION.
>>
>> Your point?
>>
>> If you shove yourself in a person's face repeatedly - whatever your views -
>> and no one stops this forceful action, sooner or later someone is going
>> to push back.
>
> Where does the OP say anything about him shoving himself in somebody's face?

The OP didn't. However, the behavior of the Westboro people is well
documented. They wish to inflict their views forcibly upon people in
the most private of all human experiences - a funeral. Like I said,
if government doesn't act to prevent forcible action of this kind,
then the individual citizens will respond. You want this to stop?
So do I. I want the Westboro people to have the right to speak and
I want the grieving families to be able to not listen...

On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 11:25:59 -0400, J. Clarke wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
>>
>> On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 14:09:06 +0100, Tim W wrote:
>>
>>> "Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>
>>>> "Tim W" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>> I am not an american so I don't know much about the background to this
>>>>> mess but I gather from the replies that I hadn't misread or misunderstood
>>>>> the account fictional or not.
>>>>
>>>> I'm not an American either, but perhaps you should acquaint yourself with
>>>> the full story of this nut ball religious group before you comment on
>>>> whether someone deserved a beating or not.
>>>
>>>
>>> No, no, no, no.
>>>
>>> Nobody deserves a beating for speaking his mind. I don't care what kind of
>>> nutball you think he is.
>>>
>> You wouldn't like it much in the southeast, US.
>
> I grew up in the Southeast and never knew anyone to get a beating for
> speaking his mind, at least not once I got out of high school. It can
> happen if you spout off about the wrong thing in the wrong bar at the
> wrong time, but that's true anywhere that there are bars. If you're
> black things may still be different--I haven't lived in the South in 20
> years, but the people I know down there have mellowed considerably
> toward blacks so it might have.

Of all the attitude adjustments I have seen it was usually
off the wall behavior(such as westboro) and the recipient was warned.

I'll admit to having been on the sending and recieving end
of such adjustments and I believe that overall it makes
for a more polite society, in the long run.

basilisk

On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 19:56:41 -0700, "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>Somebody wrote:
>
>>>
>>> What is sicko is that someone can at the funeral of a person they
>>> did
>>> not know shout that that person deserved to die while the family of
>>> that
>>> person has no recourse against the shouter.
>>>
>--------------------------------------
>Somebody else wrote:
>>
>> The beatee was in a gas station running his mouth, Not at the
>> funeral. Not the smartest thing to do, but neither was the beating.
>>
>> Parking such that folks with Kansas plates would be unable to use
>> their vehicles, however, was very smart.
>----------------------------------
>The above process is more properly defined as an "Attitude
>Adjustment".
>
>A trick from my youth.
>
>Rather than a simple "attitude adjustment", a 5 pound bag of sugar in
>the
>gas tank also made quite a statement back then.
>
>Today it would probably be liquid sugar.

HFCS.

On Apr 23, 12:50=A0am, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Apr 22, 9:14=A0pm, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > No obfuscation. Carlisle is NOT a defense contractor. No matter how muc=
h you
> > wish it to be so, no matter how much you feel it must be true, no matte=
r how
> > much you need evidence that the Bush administration was but a puppet fo=
r the
> > defense industry, Carlisle is not now nor ever was a defense contractor=
.
>
> Are you thick or just pretending to be thick. Please point to where I
> said Carlisle Group was a defense contractor.

You didn't. He's indulging himself with a straw man argument. He
appears to be Charlie Sheen #winning it.

R

On Apr 26, 9:48=A0pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> I believe it was Pascal that first argued this very view.

He was under pressure to do so...

On Apr 23, 11:04=A0pm, "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
> > WHAT the FUCK is wrong with you people????
>
> Oh, I don't know. =A09 stitches in my left ring finger, the fact that wha=
t I
> used to do all night long now takes me all night to do, hairline sucks, g=
ut
> doesn't hang up where it's supposed to anymore, other parts don't hang do=
wn
> where they're supposed to. =A0Other than that, nothing much is really wro=
ng
> with me. =A0What makes you ask? =A0Very kind of you to care, though.
>
> --
>
> -Mike-
> [email protected]

Did I write that?

"Tim W" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> I am not an american so I don't know much about the background to this
> mess but I gather from the replies that I hadn't misread or misunderstood
> the account fictional or not.

I'm not an American either, but perhaps you should acquaint yourself with
the full story of this nut ball religious group before you comment on
whether someone deserved a beating or not. You may or my not have
misunderstood the little you read, but your comment on the topic is lacking
a substantial amount of information.

On 4/23/2011 2:51 PM, David Paste wrote:
> On Apr 23, 5:13 pm, Tim Daneliuk<[email protected]> wrote:
>> On 4/22/2011 6:12 PM, David Paste wrote:
>>
>>> On Apr 22, 10:59 pm, Tim Daneliuk<[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>>> It is not the denial of anything. It is not accepting someone else's
>>>>> word for something that THEY cannot prove. Different thing.
>>
>>>> That is not atheism, that is "agnosticism".
>>
>>> No, you are wrong. Agnosticism is not knowing if something is knowable
>>> or not - sitting on the fence type situation. Caution, if you like.
>>
>>> Atheism is not taking anyone's word on it. Essentially "prove it,
>>> pal".
>>
>> Nope, you've described skepticism, not atheism:
>
> from:
>
> http://oxforddictionaries.com/view/entry/m_en_gb0989370#m_en_gb0989370
>
> scepticism
>
> Pronunciation:/ˈskɛptɪsɪz(ə)m/
> (archaic& North American skepticism)
> noun
> [mass noun]
>
> 1 a sceptical attitude; doubt as to the truth of something:these
> claims were treated with scepticism
> 2 Philosophy the theory that certain knowledge is impossible.
>
>
> So yes, I'm happy to accept that I beautifully described scepticism
> (partly), of which atheism is related.
>
> BUT. When you quote this:
>
>> Noun
>>
>> S: (n) atheism, godlessness (the doctrine or belief that there is no God)
>
> I suggest you get a new dictionary, as atheism IS NOT A BELIEF! It is
> a lack of belief:

A "lack of belief in a Divine" is ... a form of *belief*.
><SNIP>

>
>
> This, which you quote:
>
>> S: (n) atheism (a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods)
>
> is quite correct.
>
>
>> It is a system of belief,
>
> No it isn't. It may be a framework of ethics and guiding principles,
> but they generally consist of nothing unique to themselves.
>
>> built on an unprovable premise,
>
> It is not for an atheist to prove a negative. The premise of atheism
> is not unprovable, it doesn't work like that. The burden of proof lies

The premises of all systems of epistemology are unprovable. Hence
the need to examine where they take you.

> on theists. Make a claim, show your evidence.
>
>> ...It is worst of all religions
>
> It isn't a religion.
>
>> because its anthropology reduces mankind to mindless, soulless machines,
>
> No it doesn't. Prove your claim!

Show me how you *consistently* maintain the absence of any transcendent
source for humanity AND at the same time imbue mankind with transcendent
value. Hint: You cannot. Absent a transcendent origin, mankind is nothing
more than a accidental machine and of value no greater or remarkable than
a stone.

>
>> it has no basis for ethics other than "what's good for me",
>
> Lies! I suspect you are simply parroting something someone else has
> told you, or gave you to read. I don't want to accept that you would
> have such sloppy thought processes that you think this statement is
> robust.

This statement is very well thought and and perfectly true. Atheists
have NO reason to treat others well other than:

1) Inconsistent romanticism, feel gooding,, and other forms
of existential bilge.

2) Utilitarian reasons - it may serve the atheist to treat others
well as a personal benefit.

But, at the end the of the day, there is absolutely no proscription
against mayhem and murder for the atheist because transcendent morality
does not exist. It is not an accident that the worst butchers in
history were NOT the various churches but *atheists* (Stalin),
occultists (Hitler), and mystics (Hirohito). Each of these schools
of thought essentially deny an overarching morality to which we all must
hew.

>
>> and is incapable of defining a coherent cosmology.
>
> I'm not quite sure what you mean by this, could you please elucidate.
>

An atheist has no explanation for the source of the material world.
They may an explanation for some of the *processes*, but the question
of first cause is completely closed off to the atheist. Theists
may be wrong in their assertion about the source of the physical
world, of course, but their system at least permits them to inspect
the question. For a consistent atheist, the time-zero mass and
energy components contributing to the Big Bang are simply magical.

>
>> All systems of belief in anything (including science) start with one or
>> more unprovable premises.
>
> What?! You clearly don't understand science.

I'm afraid it is you that does not understand science.
Here are just a few of its unprovable assumptions:

1) The physical world is real and can be observed.

2) That scientific 'laws' apply generally or not at all.

3) That we exist to observe the physical world.

Science is built on philosophical reductionism which -
like all philosophies - has to start somewhere with
basic ideas that are axioms and thus unprovable.


>
>> One of the only ways to compare them, therefore,
>> is examine: a) Where does a given system lead you? and b) What are the consequences of
>> adherence to such a system?
>
> You aren't making much sense now.

All systems claiming knowledge start with unprovable premises.
Since you cannot prove the premise, you can only study the
consequences of the system. We thus compare systems by
looking at:

1) Their internal consistency
2) Where they lead us
3) Their correlation to our own life experience and observations

>
>> Atheism fails miserable on both counts.
>
> Please explain.

Per the above:

1) Atheism as a movement is horribly inconsistent because it
denies a transcendent basis for morality and then tries
to gin up a moral code.

2) Consistent atheism leads to a reductionist version of
mankind wherein we are just accidental machines and
thus there's no need for any normative moral code.
(Thankfully, most atheists are not consistent.)

3) The idea that everything sprang magically into place
without any design or author is at odds with everything
most of us observe in the world.

>
>> A consistent atheist has no reason to live an ethical life,
>
> BULLSHIT!

You don't. Beyond your personal utilitarian benefit for living
an ethical life, since there's no God, why bother? What's the
downside if you you're the strongest and can get away with
any manner of mayhem and murder? Ethics for an atheist is
the worst inconsistency of all. If there's not an overarching
moral code beyond our own perception then anything you
want to do/can get away with/benefits you is just fine.

>
>> no reason to to see any transcendent meaning for their own life,
>
> What's that got to do with anything?!

The question of the meaning of our lives is the most fundamental
and longest lasting of all human questions. Atheists typically
simply avoid it because they know their system prevents them
from even inspecting the question.

>
>> and no basis on which to demand behavior norms from others.
>
> BULLSHIT. You are clearly labouring under misinformation fed to you by
> someone you trust, but who sadly has (hopefully unwittingly) lied to
> you.

Nope. I know how to think. I know lots of atheists. Most of them
are (thankfully) inconsistent and DO want some kind of moral code.
But the burden lies with you here. You have NO reason to be
ethical and no basis to demand that others be so. Your doing so
is the height of intellectual inconsistency.

>
>> Like I said ... the worst possible religion.
>
> Yeah, you keep saying it, but:
>
> 1. Atheism is not a religion, and;
> 2. Is your repetition to try to convince me of your claim, or reassure
> yourself?

I am quite happy to admit I don't begin to know the answers to these
questions. But I am certain of one thing: The atheists are utterly wrong
and have robbed both philosophy and the human experience of all meaning.

Happy Easter,

On Apr 22, 10:45=A0pm, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:

> Atheists believe they're right, they don't KNOW they're right.

Ha! I would be hard pushed to find an atheist with /any/ belief,
really.

"Doug Miller" wrote in message news:[email protected]...

> _Of course_ there's a right to pray in school. Preventing students from
> praying in school is as much a violation of their 1st Amendment rights (to
> free exercise of their religion) as requiring them to.

Do you have a right to walk in and make a speech in a courtroom during a
trial or in a public school classroom during a lesson? No? Then what would
lead you to believe that some kid who can't sign a contract or vote and so
on has a right to say anything he pleases in a public school based on the
1st Amendment? Why does that kid have a right that you don't?

On Apr 22, 8:48=A0am, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
> > On Apr 21, 11:31 pm, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> The Carlisle Group likewise has nothing to do with the DoD. The
> >> company is a private equity and asset management firm.
>
> > You are telling me that The Carlisle Group doesn't have defence
> > contractors in their portfolio?
>
> I'm sure they do. Just like Bank of America processes checking accounts f=
or
> Northrup or the New York Stock Exchange handles trades involving GE (who
> owns the Electric Boat Division).
>
> Whatever Carlisle does, it is not a defense contractor. Not only are your
> claims wiggly, they don't even fit the narrative.

I never claimed Carlisle to be a defense contractor, but if your
argument is so weak that you feel the need to put words in my mouth,
please continue.

Of course, by your definition, the large financial institutions have
no clout/lobbies in the government either, after all, they're just
people who look after your savings.

But did the institutions you mentioned have a board member such as
James Baker III (yes the one who was instrumental in the (s)election
of GW Bush in 2000)? Carlisle did have Baker as a board member and I'm
sure nobody said: "That W can be tricked into using a lot of our
products, he's not very bright being a dry drunk and all, besides
Cheney is puppeteering him nicely and some of his people would like a
few no-bid contracts with the pentagon...etc..." Not in your dream
world, eh, Bub?

Carlisle is just a small example of a defence contractor manipulating
foreign policy, as best they can, in order to benefit their
shareholders.... something your party will continue to deny....again
straight out of the neo-con playbook.

Eisenhower warned you people about this.

I patiently await further obfuscation from you.

On Apr 26, 12:17=A0pm, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:

>=A0Once all you have to say is "crap" =A0or "douche-nozzle", well, you sin=
k.
>

I have NO idea why you are still on and on about this.
Take a deep breath and let it go.

I will call you Jack from now on, okay? There, there, all better.

On Apr 23, 7:57=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
> I'm going to top post because I'm tired of having to scroll down.
>
> I am Canadian and I feel for anyone who has to put up with terrorist
> behavior under the guise of freedom to talk stupidity. =A0 =A0These monke=
y
> fucks almost made it to Canada to spout their hate filled slime and
> for some reason never crossed the border. =A0Maybe "legal" counsel
> decided Marcan freedoms don't actually apply in Canada and their
> impending shitkicking would not get them their lawsuit income. =A0 Or
> maybe they found out that Canadian hate crime laws would land them in
> prison where their nicely puckered assholes would be welcomed as fresh
> meat.
>
> What makes this whole thing incredibly stupid is this bunch of =A0fucked
> up religious terrorists are allowed to walk the streets while at the
> same time, American forces and others are trying to take out the Imams
> that recruit suicide bombers. =A0 I see no difference between these
> self-serving hate filled sanctimonious terrorists. =A0 There needs to be
> an (un)fortuneate accident.
>
> Terrorist are not entitled to "rights" and if this bunch only gets a
> mild beating, then someone is being way too lenient, thinking maybe
> these subhumans can learn to behave. =A0When assholes like this spread
> their drivel, and knownothings like you decry their comeuppance, then
> you are the sicko not the nation. =A0 =A0There is a big difference betwee=
n
> speaking your mind and inciting hatred, =A0violence, and murder. =A0
>
> Why don't you read the ensuing news after he burned the Koran, and
> tell us all how many deaths this scum caused for his "religion".
>
> P
> A Canadian and proud of it, with absolutely no use for white wine
> sucking Anglosaxons.
>

We raise pint!


>
> --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: [email protected] ---

Robatoy wrote:

> WHAT the FUCK is wrong with you people????

Oh, I don't know. 9 stitches in my left ring finger, the fact that what I
used to do all night long now takes me all night to do, hairline sucks, gut
doesn't hang up where it's supposed to anymore, other parts don't hang down
where they're supposed to. Other than that, nothing much is really wrong
with me. What makes you ask? Very kind of you to care, though.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

On 4/26/2011 4:47 PM, Doug Miller wrote:
> In article<[email protected]>, Tim Daneliuk<[email protected]> wrote:
>> On 4/26/2011 9:18 AM, Doug Miller said this:
>>> In article<[email protected]>, Tim Daneliuk
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> On 4/25/2011 3:22 PM, Doug Miller wrote:
>>>>> In article<[email protected]>, Tim
>>>> Daneliuk<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/25/2011 12:52 PM, DGDevin said this:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Atheism isn't a religion.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Oh yes it is. It is the denial of a deity without confirmable
>>>>>>>> proof.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When atheists knock on your door and offer you pamphlets trying to get
>> you
>>>> to
>>>>>> share their beliefs then you can call it a religion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You mean like Steven Jay Gould howling about how science obviates the
>>>>>> need for religion (a claim that lies far outside the ability of
>>>>>> science to make for itself)?
>>>>>
>>>>> Tim, are you sure it was Gould that said that, and not Richard Dawkins?
>>>>
>>>> I do stand corrected. It was Dawkins I was thinking about.
>>>
>>> It just sounded a little bit too harsh to be Gould, whose writings always
>>> demonstrated respect for those who hold religious beliefs even though he
>>> disagrees with them. Dawkins, on the other hand, does not bother to disguise
>>> his disdain and contempt for believers.
>>
>> I always figured Dawkins is terrified he might be wrong ...
>>
> Indeed, that might be something to worry about. If I'm wrong, and there really
> isn't an afterlife, oh well, when I'm dead I'm dead, and that's that. OTOH, if
> Dawkins is wrong, and there really is an afterlife, I don't think he's going
> to enjoy it much.

I believe it was Pascal that first argued this very view.

On 4/21/2011 8:29 PM, Doug Miller wrote:
> In article<[email protected]>, "DGDevin"<[email protected]> wrote:
> [...]
>> As for the govt. forbidding you from expressing your religious views, if you
>> can provide any examples that don't come under the doctrine of the
>> separation of church and state, let's hear 'em. But if this is really about
>> nonsense like a "right" to pray in school, sorry, you have no case.
>
> _Of course_ there's a right to pray in school. Preventing students from
> praying in school is as much a violation of their 1st Amendment rights (to
> free exercise of their religion) as requiring them to.
>

Only if they pray to Zoroaster ...

On 4/22/2011 3:41 PM, David Paste said this:
> On Apr 22, 3:26 am, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I am reasonably certain that had this been an expression of atheism -
>> a different kind of religion - the ACLU would have been strangely silent...
>
> Atheism isn't a religion.

Oh yes it is. It is the denial of a deity without confirmable
proof. Like any religion, it:

1) Starts from an unprovable starting point
2) Develops a system of epistemology and ethics thereby
3) Defines all other religions with which it disagrees as being wrong

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
[email protected]

On 4/25/2011 12:52 PM, DGDevin said this:
>
>
> "Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
>>> Atheism isn't a religion.
>
>> Oh yes it is. It is the denial of a deity without confirmable
>> proof.
>
> When atheists knock on your door and offer you pamphlets trying to get you to share their beliefs then you can call it a religion.

You mean like Steven Jay Gould howling about how science obviates the
need for religion (a claim that lies far outside the ability of
science to make for itself)?

You mean like the ACLU and various other pro-atheist organizations
intruding in local communities and using legal harassment to
prevent them from engaging in voluntary public religious expressions
such as valedictorians referring to their faith in their commencement
addresses?

You mean like harassing governors attending prayer breakfasts for
public figures on completely fabricated Church/State separation grounds.

You mean like all manner of atheists declaring that a life of faith is anti-rational
and then swearing, spitting, and howling when their inability to construct
an normative moral system is pointed out?

They don't have to knock on my door. The religion of atheism is effectively
the religion of the state which is SUPPOSED to be completely secular and neutral
on the matter... they're already in all our houses.

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
[email protected]

On 4/25/2011 6:37 PM, DGDevin wrote:
>
>
> "Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> On 4/25/2011 1:13 PM, DGDevin said this:
> <SNIP>
>
>>> Of course there is nothing to stop a student from muttering a prayer
>>> under his breath, nor should there be. What I was saying (albeit poorly)
>>> was that the school cannot facilitate or participate in the activity of
>>> prayer or other religious activities.
>
>> How about when it peddles a particular wordlview in direct contravention
>> to the values held by the students and/or the parents that pay for
>> the education when that worldview isn't religious but political? Is
>> that OK?
>
> If the parents in question are libertarian goofballs suffering from conspiracy theory addiction, sure, that's okay.
>

Ad hominem and non responsive. I do not wish to have my children
dipped in the particular goo that is so en courant at the moment.
You And Yours want to use the gun of government force it down
the childrens' throats but add the insult of forcing people that
disagree entirely with it to pay for it as well. It's obscene.


>>> Exactly, a public school is not there for the purpose of religious
>>> worship any more than a court or a govt. office is there for people to
>>> make speeches unrelated to the activities of the court or office.
>
>> So when a school in Chicago has the children marching and singing songs
>> of praise to Barack Obama, are you equally outraged?
>
> And it's time for Tim to move the goalposts.

No goalpoast was moved. The video in question shows the schools teaching
the children not to question government - something all citizen patriots
should learn to do early and often - but to worship the new President
with Messianic fervor. All you needed was snake handling and the
collection of an offering and it would have BEEN a church service.

>
> Can you point to Supreme Court decisions forbidding schools from facilitating their students praising a President? No? So this is just you being pissed off that things happen which you don't like, requiring you to pretend they are just the same as things which the courts have ruled are unconstitutional? Okay.
>
>>> Jefferson and Madison both made clear that the separation of church and
>>> state was important; I see no reason to think they were wrong about that.
>
>> This is false as written. They made it clear that they did not
>> want the State *establishing* a religion. They never said the public
>> square of politics was to be sanitized of all religious references. Note
>> that the earliest Congresses had a Chaplain and opened with a prayer. Hardly
>> the actions of a committed church-state separator.
>
> Your claim that Jefferson and Madison thought the state could be
> just a little bit pregnant when it came to mixing government and
> religion is happily not one which has survived judicial review. It
> is ludicrous to imagine that Madison was opposed to tax revenues
> going to religious purposes but he would have been okay with
> publically funded schools carrying out religious functions. It is
> equally silly to imagine that Jefferson's view that Congress was
> barred from legislation respecting religion is meaningless to other
> levels of govt. via the incorporation of the Bill of Rights. The
> courts have made it clear that most of the BOR does indeed apply to
> other levels of government, so the separation of church and state is
> here to stay--sorry about that.
>
> "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely
> between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his
> faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach
> actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence
> that act of the whole American people which declared that their
> legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of
> religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a
> wall of separation between Church & State. [Congress thus inhibited
> from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to
> execute their acts, I have refrained from prescribing even those
> occasional performances of devotion, practiced indeed by the
> Executive of another nation as the legal head of its church, but
> subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary
> regulations and discipline of each respective sect.] Adhering to
> this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the
> rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the
> progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his
> natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to
> his social duties."
>
> Thomas Jefferson Letter to the Danbury Baptist Association

>
>
> "Because it is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our
> liberties. We hold this prudent jealousy to be the first duty of
> Citizens, and one of the noblest characteristics of the late
> Revolution. The free men of America did not wait till usurped power
> had strengthened itself by exercise, and entagled the question in
> precedents. They saw all the consequences in the principle, and they
> avoided the consequences by denying the principle. We revere this
> lesson too much soon to forget it.
>
> Who does not see that the same authority which can establish
> Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish
> with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion
> of all other Sects? that the same authority which can force a
> citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for the
> support of any one establishment, may force him to conform to any
> other establishment in all cases whatsoever?"
>

> James Madison
> Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments
>
>
> "Whilst I thus frankly express my view of the subject presented in your sermon, I must do you the justice to observe that you very ably maintained yours. I must admit moreover that it may not be easy, in every possible case, to trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the Civil authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions & doubts on unessential points. The tendency to a usurpation on one side or the other, or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them, will be best guarded agst by an entire abstinence of: the Govt from interference in any way whatever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order, & protecting each sect agst trespasses on its legal rights by others. "
>
> James Madison
> Letter to Jasper Adams


Uh, you skipped a step. These Framers that so desperately wanted to
Church/State wall ... where were they when the Chaplain intoned a prayer
as the beginning of Congressional business. You're like a lot of theologians
and other True Believers (tm). You'll read the texts with rabbinic precision
but out of context and with the intent not of discovering the truth, but
affirming your views.

The Framers personally were all over the map in matters of belief.

The Framers almost universally opposed the creation of a State religion
(Sam Adams may have been an exception).

The Framers were all in receipt of Judeo-Christian values and tradition
and relied, in part, upon it in their argument for natural rights.

The Framers would not recognize the absurd dividing line You And Yours
have manufactured to sanitize public institutions of all religious expression.
>

On 4/26/2011 9:18 AM, Doug Miller said this:
> In article <[email protected]>, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On 4/25/2011 3:22 PM, Doug Miller wrote:
>>> In article<[email protected]>, Tim
>> Daneliuk<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> On 4/25/2011 12:52 PM, DGDevin said this:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Atheism isn't a religion.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Oh yes it is. It is the denial of a deity without confirmable
>>>>>> proof.
>>>>>
>>>>> When atheists knock on your door and offer you pamphlets trying to get you
>> to
>>>> share their beliefs then you can call it a religion.
>>>>
>>>> You mean like Steven Jay Gould howling about how science obviates the
>>>> need for religion (a claim that lies far outside the ability of
>>>> science to make for itself)?
>>>
>>> Tim, are you sure it was Gould that said that, and not Richard Dawkins?
>>
>> I do stand corrected. It was Dawkins I was thinking about.
>
> It just sounded a little bit too harsh to be Gould, whose writings always
> demonstrated respect for those who hold religious beliefs even though he
> disagrees with them. Dawkins, on the other hand, does not bother to disguise
> his disdain and contempt for believers.

I always figured Dawkins is terrified he might be wrong ...

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
[email protected]

On 4/26/2011 11:20 AM, Just Wondering said this:
> On 4/26/2011 6:15 AM, HeyBub wrote:
>> Just Wondering wrote:
>>>
>>> Atheism is not a religion. It is simply a belief in the nonexistence
>>> of deity. As a belief, it is based on faith, something many atheists
>>> are unwilling to admit. However, faith in the existence or
>>> non-existence of a thing, without more, is not a religion.
>>>
>>
>> Atheism denies the existence of God. Inasmuch as you can't prove a negative,
>> atheists just have to take God's nonexistence on faith.
>>
>>
> Well, I think that sometimes it is possible to prove a negative, but I certainly agree that atheists take the nonexistence of God on faith.

Hence its status as a religion.

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
[email protected]

"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> I KNOW it's hard, almost overwhelmingly hard, nearly beyond human
> endurance hard, for progressives to eschew profanity, but, please, this IS
> a family-oriented newsgroup.

No, it most certainly is not. While there may be a few children who might
have some woodworking interest that is occasionally discussed in this
newgroup, there's nothing in the least that's ever discussed here to make
this a "family-oriented newsgroup". To suggest otherwise is a complete
crock. Maybe your "family-oriented newgroup" comment is alluding to that
fact that there aren't any access restrictions to this newsgroup. However,
if I was a responsible parent to some these children, I'd be monitoring what
my children viewed online and be controlling their access to it.

In any event, most children coming across undesirable content are probably
looking for porn and not following some long, drawn, out of topic political
thread that contained the occasional profanity. The children I know would
find this newsgroup exceptionally boring. Once in awhile you actually do
make a comment that makes sense, but in this case your suggestion that this
is a "family-oriented newsgroup" is absolutely ridiculous.

"Lobby Dosser" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> As to Moral rights, the people who administered and watched the beating
> surrendered the high ground when the first fist landed without objection.

I'd hazard a guess that everybody who watched the beating were ready to line
up and beat him too. For all the arguing about rights to speech and making
statements in less than desirable locations, it takes a particular type of
misplaced arrogance, (phrases like lack of common sense, lack of self
preservation, and innate stupidity also come to mind) for people like this
beatee to do what they do.

I'm all for people speaking their minds, but there's a time and a place for
everything and from what little I've heard of this nutball church, they risk
being attacked wherever they go and deservedly so in my opinion. Does that
make me some sort of redneck? Maybe, but I can live with that.

"Tim W" wrote:

> Somebody got beaten in a petrol station because of his
> political/religious views, not one of a number of witnesses wants to
> speak out and you think this is a reason to smile/laugh.
------------------------------------
The technical name for the process is known as an "Attitude
Adjustment", something that group sorely needs.

Often times administered with the heel of a boot and/or a baseball
bat, if handy at the moment.

Lew

On 2011-04-20 17:26:25 -0400, David Paste <[email protected]> said:

> Somebody got beaten in a petrol station because they think that
> contributing to others emotional distress is their right, and they are
> known for this sort of "free speech". I would think that getting his
> arse kicked to bits is something he should be thankful for in a
> country where guns are common and trigger fingers are itchy.

Worse -- these Westboro creeps aren't just spewing their vitriol.
They're suing for monetary damages when their free speech rights are
"violated." Seems it's the family industry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westboro_Baptist_Church#Funding

"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote
>
> Okay.. then YOU walk into a biker bar and yell: "You're all a bunch of
> pussies!!!!"
>
> You HAVE that right to do so....let us know how that works out for
> you..
> .
Reminds me of a story.

I had a friend, who grew up as a rich kid, rejected it all and became a blue
collar worker. He just did not get some things right. He worked with this
big, giant of a black guy who used to go to after hours joints. There was
almost nobody there who wasn't involved in some kind of illegal activity.
It was a real dive. I went there once, it was scary. Lots of drugs, guns,
hookers, etc.

Sooooo..., his big black friend invited him over to meet some of the
brothers at this seedy dive a club in somebody's basement. And my friend,
being raised as a rich white kid, thought he need to bring a gift. He
thought to himself, hey they are black folks. black folks like watermelon.
I will buy a watermelon and give it to a room of black folks, who have
little regard for the law, as a gift. And he did. He walked in and said,
"Hey, does anybody want any watermelon"? And he had no idea that somebody
may become offended. After all, he WAS bringing a gift.

If it wasn't for his very big and protective friend, he would have been dead
very quickly. It was explained to him him that this was patently offensive.
He had no idea. Once they figured out he was hopelessly naïve and meant
well, all was fine. But it was very dicey there for a few minutes. Lots of
red hot tempers and anger happening there. And everybody there is
intoxicated and armed!

I talked to the guy who ran the place. He was shaking his head in disbelief.
He was glad that no rich white kid got killed in his place. Everybody
laughed about it after that and they sort of adopted him. I was shocked
when I heard the story. But he really did not know any better. And if his
big, powerful friend wasn't there, it would have been all over for him.

Yes, this did really happen. some people are just hopelessly naïve and get
themselves into trouble. He is considerable worldly wiser today. A bit of
a learning curve there.

Somebody wrote:

>>
>> What is sicko is that someone can at the funeral of a person they
>> did
>> not know shout that that person deserved to die while the family of
>> that
>> person has no recourse against the shouter.
>>
--------------------------------------
Somebody else wrote:
>
> The beatee was in a gas station running his mouth, Not at the
> funeral. Not the smartest thing to do, but neither was the beating.
>
> Parking such that folks with Kansas plates would be unable to use
> their vehicles, however, was very smart.
----------------------------------
The above process is more properly defined as an "Attitude
Adjustment".

A trick from my youth.

Rather than a simple "attitude adjustment", a 5 pound bag of sugar in
the
gas tank also made quite a statement back then.

Today it would probably be liquid sugar.

Lew

On 4/21/2011 8:32 PM, DGDevin wrote:
>
>
> "Doug Miller" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
>> _Of course_ there's a right to pray in school. Preventing students from
>> praying in school is as much a violation of their 1st Amendment rights
>> (to free exercise of their religion) as requiring them to.
>
> Do you have a right to walk in and make a speech in a courtroom during a
> trial or in a public school classroom during a lesson? No? Then what
> would lead you to believe that some kid who can't sign a contract or
> vote and so on has a right to say anything he pleases in a public school
> based on the 1st Amendment?

People who want to spout off on what the law is should first educate
themselves on what the law is. From Santa Fe Independent School Dist.
v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290, 313 (U.S. 2000):

The Religion Clauses of the First Amendment prevent the government from
making any law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting
the free exercise thereof. By no means do these commands impose a
prohibition on all religious activity in our public schools. Indeed, the
common purpose of the Religion Clauses “is to secure religious liberty.”
Thus, nothing in the Constitution as interpreted by this Court
prohibits any public school student from voluntarily praying at any time
before, during, or after the schoolday. But the religious liberty
protected by the Constitution is abridged when the State affirmatively
sponsors the particular religious practice of prayer.

On 4/22/2011 8:52 AM, phorbin wrote:
>
> OTOH I think that blocking the Westboro lot in the hotel parking lot
> amounts to an expression of freedom of speech and civil disobedience
> and a peaceful enough answer to a real problem.
>
> In the same vein, I'd wonder what would happen if someone established a
> sue the pants off the Westboro bunch for defamation fund (or some such
> lawyerly reason) and kept them tied up in litigation forever. It'd be a
> long process of grinding but once the award money got used up they might
> have to go out and get jobs.

The best thing to do with those malcontents is to simply ignore them.
They came to my city to protest at a local high school. Nobody paid
them any attention (OK, maybe about a dozen people did). After about 15
minutes their protest ended and they slinked away with their tails
between their legs.

On 4/22/2011 5:07 PM, David Paste wrote:
> On Apr 22, 10:45 pm, Robatoy<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Atheists believe they're right, they don't KNOW they're right.
>
> Ha! I would be hard pushed to find an atheist with /any/ belief,
> really.

By definition, every atheist believes there is no God (or god).

On 4/23/2011 12:17 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
> In article<[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
>>
>> On 4/22/2011 5:07 PM, David Paste wrote:
>>> On Apr 22, 10:45 pm, Robatoy<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Atheists believe they're right, they don't KNOW they're right.
>>>
>>> Ha! I would be hard pushed to find an atheist with /any/ belief,
>>> really.
>>
>> By definition, every atheist believes there is no God (or god).
>
> Not really. By the definition that used to apply atheists neither knew
> nor cared whether there was a deity of any kind.
< clipped >

“I don’t know what you mean by ‘glory,’ ” Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. “Of course you don’t—till I tell
you. I meant ‘there’s a nice knock-down argument for you!’”
“But ‘glory’ doesn’t mean ‘a nice knock-down argument’,” Alice objected.
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather a scornful tone,
“it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many
different things.”
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master, that’s all.”
-- Lewis Carroll, Through The Looking Glass

I suppose, like Humpty Dumpty, you can use a word to mean whatever you
want. But to have a meaningful conversation, people have to reach
common agreement on what their words mean. In the absence of
circumstances requiring something different, most people will use the
usual and ordinary meaning of a word. Merriam-Webster online dictionary
(www.merriam-webster.com) defines "atheist" to mean "a disbelief in the
existence of deity." It defines "agnostic" to mean "a person who holds
the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably
unknowable; broadly, one who is not committed to believing in either the
existence or the nonexistence of God or a god."

Your definition better describes an agnostic than an atheist.
After considering these matters, I stand by my statement.

I'm going to top post because I'm tired of having to scroll down.

I am Canadian and I feel for anyone who has to put up with terrorist
behavior under the guise of freedom to talk stupidity. These monkey
fucks almost made it to Canada to spout their hate filled slime and
for some reason never crossed the border. Maybe "legal" counsel
decided Marcan freedoms don't actually apply in Canada and their
impending shitkicking would not get them their lawsuit income. Or
maybe they found out that Canadian hate crime laws would land them in
prison where their nicely puckered assholes would be welcomed as fresh
meat.

What makes this whole thing incredibly stupid is this bunch of fucked
up religious terrorists are allowed to walk the streets while at the
same time, American forces and others are trying to take out the Imams
that recruit suicide bombers. I see no difference between these
self-serving hate filled sanctimonious terrorists. There needs to be
an (un)fortuneate accident.

Terrorist are not entitled to "rights" and if this bunch only gets a
mild beating, then someone is being way too lenient, thinking maybe
these subhumans can learn to behave. When assholes like this spread
their drivel, and knownothings like you decry their comeuppance, then
you are the sicko not the nation. There is a big difference between
speaking your mind and inciting hatred, violence, and murder.

Why don't you read the ensuing news after he burned the Koran, and
tell us all how many deaths this scum caused for his "religion".

P
A Canadian and proud of it, with absolutely no use for white wine
sucking Anglosaxons.


>No, no, no, no.
>
>Nobody deserves a beating for speaking his mind. I don't care what kind of
>nutball you think he is.
>
>A place where a bunch of thugs publicly beat up people they don't like and
>nobody is arrested, nobody complains and everybody thinks it is a joke -
>that is sicko country.
>
>You may or my not have
>> misunderstood the little you read, but your comment on the topic is
>> lacking a substantial amount of information.
>What do I have to know? What makes this alright ffs?
>
>Tim w
>
>


--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: [email protected] ---

The dear reverand is sitting in a Dearborn, Mi, jail cell tonight for
refusing to post a $1.00 bail bond.

Having to sleep naked on a concrete floor without a blanket is
undoubtly uncomfortable; however, it would appear he needs to be on
sucide watch, else why would he refuse to post bail?

Lew

On 4/25/2011 1:47 AM, Upscale wrote:
> "HeyBub"<[email protected]> wrote in message
>> I KNOW it's hard, almost overwhelmingly hard, nearly beyond human
>> endurance hard, for progressives to eschew profanity, but, please, this IS
>> a family-oriented newsgroup.
>
> No, it most certainly is not. While there may be a few children who might
> have some woodworking interest that is occasionally discussed in this
> newgroup, there's nothing in the least that's ever discussed here to make
> this a "family-oriented newsgroup". To suggest otherwise is a complete
> crock. Maybe your "family-oriented newgroup" comment is alluding to that
> fact that there aren't any access restrictions to this newsgroup. However,
> if I was a responsible parent to some these children, I'd be monitoring what
> my children viewed online and be controlling their access to it.
>
> In any event, most children coming across undesirable content are probably
> looking for porn and not following some long, drawn, out of topic political
> thread that contained the occasional profanity. The children I know would
> find this newsgroup exceptionally boring. Once in awhile you actually do
> make a comment that makes sense, but in this case your suggestion that this
> is a "family-oriented newsgroup" is absolutely ridiculous.
>
>
However, profanity is seldom necessary, usually demonstrates a lack of
good communication skills by its user, and loses its power when used too
frequently.

On 4/25/2011 11:52 AM, DGDevin wrote:
>
>
> "Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
>>> Atheism isn't a religion.
>
>> Oh yes it is. It is the denial of a deity without confirmable
>> proof.
>
> When atheists knock on your door and offer you pamphlets trying to get
> you to share their beliefs then you can call it a religion.

Atheism is not a religion. It is simply a belief in the nonexistence of
deity. As a belief, it is based on faith, something many atheists are
unwilling to admit. However, faith in the existence or non-existence of
a thing, without more, is not a religion.

I did a search on "Is atheism a religion?" and found these:

http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/ath/blathm_rel_religion.htm

Strange but true:
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=31895

On 4/25/2011 1:58 PM, willshak wrote:
> DGDevin wrote the following:
>>
>>
>> "Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>>
>>>> Atheism isn't a religion.
>>
>>> Oh yes it is. It is the denial of a deity without confirmable
>>> proof.
>>
>> When atheists knock on your door and offer you pamphlets trying to get
>> you to share their beliefs then you can call it a religion.
> The people that knock on my door with pamphlets sometimes are candidates
> for office. Is that a religion?
>
Like those who worship Obama as the new Messiah?

On 4/25/2011 3:26 PM, Larry W wrote:
> So what did this jerk say that got him beaten up by a bunch of alleged
> southern rednecks?
>
> "I'd like to sit in the front of the bus."
>
> "Is this where I register to vote?"
>
> "I'm moving into a house in your neighborhood"
>
> "I was at home with my family when the crime occurred"
>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ulGdqcez2JM

On 4/25/2011 4:16 PM, DGDevin wrote:
>
>
> "David Paste" wrote in message
> news:a7b37a46-b0f9-4f08-9859-370544610fb2@hg8g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
>
> On Apr 25, 6:48 pm, "DGDevin" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> True, but some folks behave as if it is, always being ready to mock
>>> religious belief in a way that suggests they have an emotional
>>> investment in
>>> belittling those with faith.
>
>> Agreed. Why can't we just come together with our shared ridicule of
>> the French. Or Germans. Or French AND Germans?
>
> Is it really still necessary to ridicule the French? Doesn't that
> qualify as piling-on?

Is this ridiculing the French? or the British? or both?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWBUl7oT9sA

On 4/25/2011 7:37 PM, Robatoy wrote:
> On Apr 25, 8:30 pm, Larry Jaques<[email protected]>
> wrote:
>> On Mon, 25 Apr 2011 16:47:05 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> On Apr 25, 6:11 pm, Swingman<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> On 4/20/2011 12:05 PM, Robatoy wrote:
>>
>>>>> Copied and pasted:
>>
>>>> You did it again, you canny bastid, you! This thread is so worn that
>>>> only the bare hook is left ... ;)
>>
>>> WELL, I Nevvah! *Indignant look*
>>
>>> *smirk*
>>
>>> I had no idea! But you win an Easter Bunny:
>>
>>> http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o290/Robatoy/EasterBunny.jpg
>>
>>> LOL
>>
>> Wasn't that the Everedible Bunny?
>>
>
> I usually eat the ears first, but that dog is showing quite a bit of
> restraint.

http://www.ahajokes.com/crt043.html

On 4/26/2011 6:15 AM, HeyBub wrote:
> Just Wondering wrote:
>>
>> Atheism is not a religion. It is simply a belief in the nonexistence
>> of deity. As a belief, it is based on faith, something many atheists
>> are unwilling to admit. However, faith in the existence or
>> non-existence of a thing, without more, is not a religion.
>>
>
> Atheism denies the existence of God. Inasmuch as you can't prove a negative,
> atheists just have to take God's nonexistence on faith.
>
>
Well, I think that sometimes it is possible to prove a negative, but I
certainly agree that atheists take the nonexistence of God on faith.

On 4/26/2011 9:52 AM, David Paste wrote:
> On Apr 26, 8:26 am, Just Wondering<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Atheism is not a religion. It is simply a belief in the nonexistence of
>> deity.
>
> No! Other way around - a lack of belief in the existence of a deity.
>
That's more a description of agnosticism.
>
>> Strange but true: http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=31895
>
> Very strange indeed!

On 4/26/2011 10:55 AM, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> On 4/26/2011 11:20 AM, Just Wondering said this:
>> On 4/26/2011 6:15 AM, HeyBub wrote:
>>> Just Wondering wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Atheism is not a religion. It is simply a belief in the nonexistence
>>>> of deity. As a belief, it is based on faith, something many atheists
>>>> are unwilling to admit. However, faith in the existence or
>>>> non-existence of a thing, without more, is not a religion.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Atheism denies the existence of God. Inasmuch as you can't prove a negative,
>>> atheists just have to take God's nonexistence on faith.
>>>
>>>
>> Well, I think that sometimes it is possible to prove a negative, but I certainly agree that atheists take the nonexistence of God on faith.
>
> Hence its status as a religion.
>
I'm not an atheist at all. But simply taking the nonexistence of deity
on faith does not make atheism a religion, any more than believing in
the heavenly father of Jesus as God, makes a Muslim a Christian.

On 4/26/2011 12:14 PM, DGDevin wrote:
>
>
> "Just Wondering" wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>>>> When atheists knock on your door and offer you pamphlets trying to get
>>>> you to share their beliefs then you can call it a religion.
>
>>> The people that knock on my door with pamphlets sometimes are candidates
>>> for office. Is that a religion?
>
>> Like those who worship Obama as the new Messiah?
>
> If you can find any, sure. But don't forget the ones carrying placards
> reading, "The Anti-Christ is in the White House"--they have their own
> brand of nutcase religious foolishness to bring to the table.

True. Obama is not a Messiah.
Obama is not the anti-Christ.
Obama is a post turtle.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/eric_tank/2678855518/

On 4/26/2011 1:30 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
> In article<[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
>>
>> On 4/26/2011 10:55 AM, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>>> On 4/26/2011 11:20 AM, Just Wondering said this:
>>>> On 4/26/2011 6:15 AM, HeyBub wrote:
>>>>> Just Wondering wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Atheism is not a religion. It is simply a belief in the nonexistence
>>>>>> of deity. As a belief, it is based on faith, something many atheists
>>>>>> are unwilling to admit. However, faith in the existence or
>>>>>> non-existence of a thing, without more, is not a religion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Atheism denies the existence of God. Inasmuch as you can't prove a negative,
>>>>> atheists just have to take God's nonexistence on faith.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Well, I think that sometimes it is possible to prove a negative, but I certainly agree that atheists take the nonexistence of God on faith.
>>>
>>> Hence its status as a religion.
>>>
>> I'm not an atheist at all. But simply taking the nonexistence of deity
>> on faith does not make atheism a religion, any more than believing in
>> the heavenly father of Jesus as God, makes a Muslim a Christian.
>
> No, it makes Muslims, Christians, and Atheists all religious though.
>
> If you accept revealed truth you have a religion. Antitheists who call
> themselves atheists accept the revealed truth that there is no deity.
>

What do you mean by "revealed truth"? As I understand it, an atheist
would not believe that any truth is "revealed".

On 4/27/2011 11:49 AM, DGDevin wrote:
>
>
> "Just Wondering" wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>>>> Like those who worship Obama as the new Messiah?
>>
>>> If you can find any, sure. But don't forget the ones carrying placards
>>> reading, "The Anti-Christ is in the White House"--they have their own
>>> brand of nutcase religious foolishness to bring to the table.
>
>> True. Obama is not a Messiah.
>> Obama is not the anti-Christ.
>> Obama is a post turtle.
>
> Don't forget he's responsible for that new mental illness, Obama
> Derangement Syndrome. It's an interesting condition, in the mind of the
> sufferer if the stock market goes down it's because of Obama, if the
> stock market goes up it's in spite of Obama--so no matter what happens
> or doesn't happen, the ODS sufferer's delusions remain intact.
>


There's an number of people who think, no matter what's the actual
cause, if the market goes up it's because of Obama and if it goes down
it's in spite of him. And that whatever bad happened in 2010 or will
happen in 2012, it's all Bush's fault.

On 4/25/2011 12:43 PM, DGDevin said this:
>
>
> "Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
>
>> Like I said, the details escape me - but here's one example - I know that
>> whole Google thing is complicated, so I did it for you:
>
> Apparently it's complicated for a lot of folks:
>
> "WE'RE SORRY
> The page you requested can’t be found. Please use our search function to try again."

Unfortunately, they don't check with me first before reorganizing their
content.

>
>> I am reasonably certain that had this been an expression of atheism -
>> a different kind of religion - the ACLU would have been strangely silent...
>
> Unfortunately you're reasonably certain of a lot of things that are just
> plain silly, e.g. there should be no such thing as public schools.
>

Why should I pay for public schools that are incapable of affirming
my values and worldview? For that matter, why should you? At the
very least, the Federal government should have no such role and public
schools - if they exist at all - should be entirely run and paid for
locally ... so as to reflect local values and ideas about education.

This, of course, scared the dickens out of the Usual Suspects who've been
incrementally using the public schools as madrassas for peddling the
execrable junk thinking of the intellectual left.

> I support your right to hold religious beliefs and worship as you please,
> it's when you want to do it on my dime and/or influence public policy
> based on those beliefs that it becomes a problem.

I agree with this ... hence my desire to limit what the public dime
gets spent on generally. There are lots of absurd things being
done with *my* dime that I do not wish to support. The only
way to resolve our differing views it to simply not spend the money
at all and let us each decide how to direct our own funds.

And if you think that people with views other than yours - particularly
people whose views are animated by some faith tradition - should
be silent on matters of public policy, you're really kidding yourself.
Nothing has animated the Christian right more, for example, than
EXACTLY that kind of haughty condescension. It's sort of entertaining
to watch actually ...

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
[email protected]

In article
<8ed0587a-c59e-42b2-b121-1e3c9793057e@r35g2000prj.googlegroups.com>,
Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
> Copied and pasted:

<Big SNIP>

Hooray!!!

--
Stuart Winsor

Midland RISC OS show - Sat July 9th 2011

http://mug.riscos.org/show11/MUGshow.html

On Apr 26, 5:17=A0pm, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:

> Getting in or out of an argument or debate does not make you an ass.
> Getting into an argument and responding with things like, you're a
> monster, you're a douche-nozzle, Crap, Bullshit and not expressing
> support for those statements makes you look like an ass.

No it doesn't.

>=A0If that's ALL you have left to say, it's best to get out of the water.

Already dry mate.

On Apr 25, 8:01=A0pm, [email protected] (Edward A. Falk) wrote:

> Oooh, another favorite quote:
>
> =A0 Creationism fails to be science because the unfalsifiable part is not
> =A0 science, and the falsifiable part always ends up being false.
> =A0 - [email protected] (Max Webb)


Ha! Very good!

On Apr 21, 6:17=A0pm, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
>
> >> I strongly commend for your consideration the movie "Taking Chance."
> >> It
> >> tells the (true) story of an escort accompanying the remains of a
> >> fallen
> >> Marine to his home.
>
> >> Without a doubt, one of the most moving stories I've ever seen and
> >> illustrates with vivid clarity, not only the ethos of our warrior
> >> class, but
> >> the respect and honor expressed by every American who crossed the
> >> path of
> >> the fallen and his escort.
>
> >> Here's the trailer:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DMtmiLdzzgGE
>
> >> Note the line of cars that form an ad hoc procession behind the
> >> hearse in
> >> rural Montana.
>
> >> And here's another snap from the same
> >> movie:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3D0qMHHsl0nt0
>
> > I have seen it. It also reinforced my wish that those who make the
> > decisions to wage war do so without the considerations for their
> > defense contractor-friends.
>
> You've got your wish. No American president, to anyone's certain knowledg=
e,
> has ever done so.
>


That's true. Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, The Carlisle Gang et al...
none of them were presidents.
Where did you get the idea that "those who make the decisions " were
presidents?

On Apr 22, 2:48=A0pm, Just Wondering <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 4/22/2011 8:52 AM, phorbin wrote:
>
>
>
> > OTOH I think that blocking the Westboro lot in the hotel parking lot
> > amounts =A0to an expression of freedom of speech and civil disobedience
> > and a peaceful enough answer to a real problem.
>
> > In the same vein, I'd wonder what would happen if someone established a
> > sue the pants off the Westboro bunch for defamation fund (or some such
> > lawyerly reason) and kept them tied up in litigation forever. It'd be a
> > long process of grinding but once the award money got used up they migh=
t
> > have to go out and get jobs.
>
> The best thing to do with those malcontents is to simply ignore them.
> They came to my city to protest at a local high school. =A0Nobody paid
> them any attention (OK, maybe about a dozen people did). =A0After about 1=
5
> minutes their protest ended and they slinked away with their tails
> between their legs.

There was something in a recent news article about a Detroit mosque
where Weaselboro Church was planning to picket or whatever, and the
police were hitting them up for a $46,000 bill for additional police
presence. Seems like a good way to go.

R

On Apr 24, 12:39=A0am, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:

> A "lack of belief in a Divine" is ... a form of *belief*.

No it isn't.


> Show me how you *consistently* maintain the absence of any transcendent
> source for humanity AND at the same time imbue mankind with transcendent
> value. =A0Hint: You cannot.

Why are you assuming I'm imbuing mankind with any transcendental
value? I'm not. You might be, but I'm not.

> Absent a transcendent origin, mankind is nothing
> more than a accidental machine and of value no greater or remarkable than
> a stone.

If that's your opinion, I feel pretty bad for you man.


> > Lies! I suspect you are simply parroting something someone else has
> > told you, or gave you to read. I don't want to accept that you would
> > have such sloppy thought processes that you think this statement is
> > robust.
>
> This statement is very well thought and and perfectly true.

No, it's wrong.

> Atheists have NO reason to treat others well other than:
>
> 1) Inconsistent romanticism, feel gooding,, and other forms
> =A0 =A0 of existential bilge.

So it's OK for christians (for example) to be kind, but it's not OK
for atheists to be kind? Feel bad for you, man.


> 2) Utilitarian reasons - it may serve the atheist to treat others
> =A0 =A0 well as a personal benefit.

OMG! Like, you mean as in a social dynamic way? I hate to break this
to you, but pretty much everyone acts like this, it's often called
'manners'.


> But, at the end the of the day, there is absolutely no proscription
> against mayhem and murder for the atheist

D'ya wanna bet?! What about the law of the land? Why am I, as an
atheist, not a mass murderer? Oh yes, it's because I might find that
to be abhorrent. Also, do you honestly think that the only reason YOU
aren't murdering people is because of some belief in a divine being
you may have? If so, I... Feel bad for you!

> because transcendent morality does not exist.


> It is not an accident that the worst butchers in
> history were NOT the various churches but *atheists* (Stalin),
> occultists (Hitler), and mystics (Hirohito).

Ah, right, so because you've managed to identify one atheist as a mass-
murderer, that's means that all atheists are inherently bad?! So using
your faulty logic, you must be as nightmarish as the Phelps clan. You
know, I think the reason these people did what they did was not
because they were atheists, or mystics, or cultists, but because they
were sociopaths and despots. But, you know, that's just my opinion.


> Each of these schools of thought essentially deny an overarching morality=
to which we all must
> hew.

In your opinion.


> An atheist has no explanation for the source of the material world.

So?

> They may an explanation for some of the *processes*, but the question
> of first cause is completely closed off to the atheist.

So?

> Theists
> may be wrong in their assertion about the source of the physical
> world, of course, but their system at least permits them to inspect
> the question.

So atheists aren't free to question anything?!

> For a consistent atheist, the time-zero mass and
> energy components contributing to the Big Bang are simply magical.

Well, maybe so. Perhaps the priest who came up with the idea could
explain it better to me, but I've never really been too concerned
about the origins, not least because it bends my mind.


> >> All systems of belief in anything (including science) start with one o=
r
> >> more unprovable premises.
>
> > What?! You clearly don't understand science.
>
> I'm afraid it is you that does not understand science.

Wrong.Your ignorance of the subject belies your words.

> All systems claiming knowledge start with unprovable premises.

Absolute crap.


> 1) Atheism as a movement is horribly inconsistent because it
> =A0 =A0 denies a transcendent basis for morality and then tries
> =A0 =A0 to gin up a moral code.

You're assuming that morals / ethics are only possible with a divine
presence.


> 2) Consistent atheism leads to a reductionist version of
> =A0 =A0 mankind wherein we are just accidental machines

Accidental?! Why do you say that??

> =A0 =A0 thus there's no need for any normative moral code.

Crap.


> 3) The idea that everything sprang magically into place
> =A0 =A0 without any design or author is at odds with everything
> =A0 =A0 most of us observe in the world.

Well, sadly that shows more about your understanding of science than
any credible argument you may have. Feel bad for you man, you really
are labouring under misinformation here.

> >> A consistent atheist has no reason to live an ethical life,
>
> > BULLSHIT!
>
> You don't.

BULLSHIT!

> Beyond your personal utilitarian benefit for living
> an ethical life, since there's no God, why bother?

What sort of monster are you?!

> What's the
> downside if you you're the strongest and can get away with
> any manner of mayhem and murder?

Ummm, mob revenge, at a base level. Well, that's one drawback.


> Ethics for an atheist is the worst inconsistency of all.

Absolute crap. Insulting crap, at that.

> If there's not an overarching
> moral code beyond our own perception then anything you
> want to do/can get away with/benefits you is just fine.

You are appallingly, insultingly, naive.


> The question of the meaning of our lives is the most fundamental
> and longest lasting of all human questions.

OK. It may be to some, but it isn't universally.


> Atheists typically simply avoid it because they know their system prevent=
s them
> from even inspecting the question.

BULLSHIT!

> Nope. =A0I know how to think. =A0I know lots of atheists. =A0Most of them
> are (thankfully) inconsistent and DO want some kind of moral code.
> But the burden lies with you here.

But you keep claiming that atheists don't need a moral code, so the
burden of proof is on you.

> You have NO reason to be
> ethical and no basis to demand that others be so.

Bollocks.

> Your doing so is the height of intellectual inconsistency.

Wrong. It might be inconsistent to you, but that is just you and how
it interacts with your opinions.


> > Yeah, you keep saying it, but:
>
> > 1. Atheism is not a religion, and;
> > 2. Is your repetition to try to convince me of your claim, or reassure
> > yourself?
>
> I am quite happy to admit I don't begin to know the answers to these
> questions.

Which questions in particular?

> But I am certain of one thing: The atheists are utterly wrong
> and have robbed both philosophy and the human experience of all meaning.

Prove your claim!

On Apr 20, 12:05=A0pm, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
> Copied and pasted:
>
> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>
> Saturday USMC Staff Sgt. Jason Rogers, who was killed in action in
> Afghanistan April 7, was buried in Brandon, Mississippi.
> That, by itself, is a sadly unremarkable - though certainly noteworthy
> and solemn - occasion for us to mark.
>
> And in fact when Sgt. Rogers' body returned to Brandon it was greeted
> by hundreds, or perhaps even thousands, of well-wishers who gathered
> at the roadside to honor the fallen American hero. The dashboard
> camera from Mississippi state trooper Elmo Townsend's cruiser gives an
> indication of the scene last Thursday.
>
> What is most notable about Sgt. Rogers' funeral in Brandon, however,
> is what didn't happen.
>
> You see, the troglodytes from Westboro Baptist Church had threatened
> to spew their poison at Sgt. Rogers' funeral.
> But the Westboro mob wasn't on the scene, and Sgt. Rogers was laid to
> rest without incident - thank God.
>
> Why weren't there protestors? Planning ahead by the locals, as it
> turns out.
>
> From an Ole Miss sports message board, a tidbit of information...
>
> "A couple of days before, one of them (Westboro protestors) ran his
> mouth at a Brandon gas station and got his arse waxed. Police were
> called and the beaten man could not give much of a description of who
> beat him. When they canvassed the station and spoke to the large crowd
> that had gathered around, no one seemed to remember anything about
> what had happened."
>
> Rankin County handled this thing perfectly. There were many things
> that were put into place that most will never know about and at great
> expense to the county.
>
> Most of the morons never made it out of their hotel parking lot. It
> seems that certain Rankin county pickup trucks were parked directly
> behind any car that had Kansas plates in the hotel parking lot and the
> drivers mysteriously disappeared until after the funeral was over.
> Police were called but their wrecker service was running behind and it
> was going to be a few hours before they could tow the trucks so the
> Kansas plated cars could get out.
>
> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>
> Put the biggest smile on this face...... "no one seemed to remember
> anything.." =A0LMAO

Sounds like a pretty neat way to control the bastards. But try to
remember we have a few rednecks in Kansas too -- and they drive. But
I doubt if they would share a hotel with the Westboro fruitcakes.

RpmN

On Apr 22, 11:08=A0pm, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:

> That's one problem I have with the government policy toward prayer in
> the schools. =A0Effectively it's favoring atheism.

No it's not.

> Now I'm not a believer
> in anything, including that there is no deity, but it bugs me that that
> viewpoint is getting preferential treatment.

No particular view is getting preferential treatment. Someone has
already enlightened us that anyone can pray any time they want to in
American schools, just not to the detriment of the lessons.

On 4/25/2011 8:37 PM, Robatoy wrote:

> I usually eat the ears first, but that dog is showing quite a bit of
> restraint.

With no cable, you do what you gotta do ...

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlC@ (the obvious)

DGDevin wrote:
>
> Anyone who can't live with their kids not praying for the five or six
> hours a day they're at school can pony up the money for a private
> religious education. And I'll happily drop a dime on them with the
> ASPCA concerning their goat slaughtering.

I'd be for that if they didn't have to also pay local school taxes.

>
> This all goes back to St. Carlin's 11th Commandment: Thou shalt keep
> thy religion to thyself.

But some religions teach otherwise. In Christianity, it is a positive duty
to proselytize. Those who are prevented from so doing have a legitimate
beef. In Islam, it is a pillar of the faith that all be brought into
submission or die. Those who are likewise prohibited from lopping off the
heads of their classmates are similarily suppressed.

On Apr 20, 11:10=A0pm, Larry Jaques <[email protected]>
wrote:

> I'm surprised that the Westboroers aren't arrested for their
> continuing hate crimes. They hate everyone!

It genuinely surprises me that there isn't a system in use in the
States to prevent this sort of public nuisance. Here in the UK we have
a thing called an ASBO - Anti-Social Behaviour Order - they are used
to curb the activities of those who persistently cause a nuisance.
Surely the US have something similar??

> Is this what you're talking about?http://westboro-church.blogspot.com/201=
1/01/westboro-baptist-church-a...

Well, I dunno - I was replying to the other guy who was puzzled that
someone might take exception to provocation, and hit the provocateur.
I think he must have missed the day at primary school when the rest of
learnt that lesson!

On Apr 24, 4:50=A0pm, RicodJour <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Apr 24, 10:55=A0am, David Paste <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 24, 12:39=A0am, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > A "lack of belief in a Divine" is ... a form of *belief*.
>
> > No it isn't.
>
> > > Show me how you *consistently* maintain the absence of any transcende=
nt
> > > source for humanity AND at the same time imbue mankind with transcend=
ent
> > > value. =A0Hint: You cannot.
>
> > Why are you assuming I'm imbuing mankind with any transcendental
> > value? I'm not. You might be, but I'm not.
>
> > > Absent a transcendent origin, mankind is nothing
> > > more than a accidental machine and of value no greater or remarkable =
than
> > > a stone.
>
> > If that's your opinion, I feel pretty bad for you man.
>
> > > > Lies! I suspect you are simply parroting something someone else has
> > > > told you, or gave you to read. I don't want to accept that you woul=
d
> > > > have such sloppy thought processes that you think this statement is
> > > > robust.
>
> > > This statement is very well thought and and perfectly true.
>
> > No, it's wrong.
>
> > > Atheists have NO reason to treat others well other than:
>
> > > 1) Inconsistent romanticism, feel gooding,, and other forms
> > > =A0 =A0 of existential bilge.
>
> > So it's OK for christians (for example) to be kind, but it's not OK
> > for atheists to be kind? Feel bad for you, man.
>
> > > 2) Utilitarian reasons - it may serve the atheist to treat others
> > > =A0 =A0 well as a personal benefit.
>
> > OMG! Like, you mean as in a social dynamic way? I hate to break this
> > to you, but pretty much everyone acts like this, it's often called
> > 'manners'.
>
> > > But, at the end the of the day, there is absolutely no proscription
> > > against mayhem and murder for the atheist
>
> > D'ya wanna bet?! What about the law of the land? Why am I, as an
> > atheist, not a mass murderer? Oh yes, it's because I might find that
> > to be abhorrent. Also, do you honestly think that the only reason YOU
> > aren't murdering people is because of some belief in a divine being
> > you may have? If so, I... Feel bad for you!
>
> > > because transcendent morality does not exist.
> > > It is not an accident that the worst butchers in
> > > history were NOT the various churches but *atheists* (Stalin),
> > > occultists (Hitler), and mystics (Hirohito).
>
> > Ah, right, so because you've managed to identify one atheist as a mass-
> > murderer, that's means that all atheists are inherently bad?! So using
> > your faulty logic, you must be as nightmarish as the Phelps clan. You
> > know, I think the reason these people did what they did was not
> > because they were atheists, or mystics, or cultists, but because they
> > were sociopaths and despots. But, you know, that's just my opinion.
>
> > > Each of these schools of thought essentially deny an overarching mora=
lity to which we all must
> > > hew.
>
> > In your opinion.
>
> > > An atheist has no explanation for the source of the material world.
>
> > So?
>
> > > They may an explanation for some of the *processes*, but the question
> > > of first cause is completely closed off to the atheist.
>
> > So?
>
> > > Theists
> > > may be wrong in their assertion about the source of the physical
> > > world, of course, but their system at least permits them to inspect
> > > the question.
>
> > So atheists aren't free to question anything?!
>
> > > For a consistent atheist, the time-zero mass and
> > > energy components contributing to the Big Bang are simply magical.
>
> > Well, maybe so. Perhaps the priest who came up with the idea could
> > explain it better to me, but I've never really been too concerned
> > about the origins, not least because it bends my mind.
>
> > > >> All systems of belief in anything (including science) start with o=
ne or
> > > >> more unprovable premises.
>
> > > > What?! You clearly don't understand science.
>
> > > I'm afraid it is you that does not understand science.
>
> > Wrong.Your ignorance of the subject belies your words.
>
> > > All systems claiming knowledge start with unprovable premises.
>
> > Absolute crap.
>
> > > 1) Atheism as a movement is horribly inconsistent because it
> > > =A0 =A0 denies a transcendent basis for morality and then tries
> > > =A0 =A0 to gin up a moral code.
>
> > You're assuming that morals / ethics are only possible with a divine
> > presence.
>
> > > 2) Consistent atheism leads to a reductionist version of
> > > =A0 =A0 mankind wherein we are just accidental machines
>
> > Accidental?! Why do you say that??
>
> > > =A0 =A0 thus there's no need for any normative moral code.
>
> > Crap.
>
> > > 3) The idea that everything sprang magically into place
> > > =A0 =A0 without any design or author is at odds with everything
> > > =A0 =A0 most of us observe in the world.
>
> > Well, sadly that shows more about your understanding of science than
> > any credible argument you may have. Feel bad for you man, you really
> > are labouring under misinformation here.
>
> > > >> A consistent atheist has no reason to live an ethical life,
>
> > > > BULLSHIT!
>
> > > You don't.
>
> > BULLSHIT!
>
> > > Beyond your personal utilitarian benefit for living
> > > an ethical life, since there's no God, why bother?
>
> > What sort of monster are you?!
>
> > > What's the
> > > downside if you you're the strongest and can get away with
> > > any manner of mayhem and murder?
>
> > Ummm, mob revenge, at a base level. Well, that's one drawback.
>
> > > Ethics for an atheist is the worst inconsistency of all.
>
> > Absolute crap. Insulting crap, at that.
>
> > > If there's not an overarching
> > > moral code beyond our own perception then anything you
> > > want to do/can get away with/benefits you is just fine.
>
> > You are appallingly, insultingly, naive.
>
> > > The question of the meaning of our lives is the most fundamental
> > > and longest lasting of all human questions.
>
> > OK. It may be to some, but it isn't universally.
>
> > > Atheists typically simply avoid it because they know their system pre=
vents them
> > > from even inspecting the question.
>
> > BULLSHIT!
>
> > > Nope. =A0I know how to think. =A0I know lots of atheists. =A0Most of =
them
> > > are (thankfully) inconsistent and DO want some kind of moral code.
> > > But the burden lies with you here.
>
> > But you keep claiming that atheists don't need a moral code, so the
> > burden of proof is on you.
>
> > > You have NO reason to be
> > > ethical and no basis to demand that others be so.
>
> > Bollocks.
>
> > > Your doing so is the height of intellectual inconsistency.
>
> > Wrong. It might be inconsistent to you, but that is just you and how
> > it interacts with your opinions.
>
> > > > Yeah, you keep saying it, but:
>
> > > > 1. Atheism is not a religion, and;
> > > > 2. Is your repetition to try to convince me of your claim, or reass=
ure
> > > > yourself?
>
> > > I am quite happy to admit I don't begin to know the answers to these
> > > questions.
>
> > Which questions in particular?
>
> > > But I am certain of one thing: The atheists are utterly wrong
> > > and have robbed both philosophy and the human experience of all meani=
ng.
>
> > Prove your claim!
>
> When you feel compelled to respond in line to twenty questions/
> comments, and ask twenty more of your own, isn't it time to get a room
> and be BFFs4EVER?

Yeah, you may be right, I'm happy to give it a rest.

> what exactly do you feel you are accomplishing?

I'm simply trying to correct the notion that atheism is a religion. It
isn't. That's all.

On Apr 25, 7:34=A0pm, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:

> Well, I do. =A0You're initial reply was interesting and I wondered how Ti=
m
> would respond, and he didn't disappoint. =A0Unfortunately, your replies
> dwindled into worthless responses like "Crap".

Not really worthless as they neatly conveyed my idea of hi weird
statements. It's not up to me to prove my point of view, he was on the
attack, so he has to support his claim. Simple as that. I'm not
interested in being dragged into any discussion about his clumsy straw-
man arguments, or bizarre sophistry. But I did! And yes, I know that
makes me the guy on the right in this image:

http://rationalwiki.org/w/images/7/71/Internet_argument.jpg.


> I didn't get that from what he said, rather that you have little reason
> to not be nasty other than from a bad governmental response or lack of
> personal gain, whilst god fearing folks have the additional burden of an
> all seeing, all knowing, very judgmental god (God) watching them.

OK, but the relentless way with which he pedals that ludicrous view is
something I would consider nasty.

On 4/25/2011 5:56 PM, DGDevin wrote:
>
>
> "Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
>
>>> Unfortunately you're reasonably certain of a lot of things that are just
>>> plain silly, e.g. there should be no such thing as public schools.
>
>> Why should I pay for public schools that are incapable of affirming
>> my values and worldview?
>
> Because we live in a civilized society, not a jungle where it's every man for himself.

I see. But pointing a gun at one citizen to make them support
a worldview that is offensive to them AND indoctrinating their
children in it against the wishes of these parents ... this
is "civilized"?

>
>> For that matter, why should you? At the
>> very least, the Federal government should have no such role and public
>> schools - if they exist at all - should be entirely run and paid for
>> locally ... so as to reflect local values and ideas about education.
>
> Allowing schools to teach nonsense like Creationism/Intelligent
> Design because a majority of the locals believe nonsense would be
> counter-productive, so there are state and national standards. It's
> kind of like not allowing every home owner to write his own building
> code, at some point there has to be an objective standard everyone
> has to meet. You can exceed the standard if you please, but at the
> very least you have to meet it, and that means you can't compel
> public schools teach religiously-inspired nonsense. But you can
> always move someplace like Saudi Arabia, they're big on religion in
> the schools there.
>


Your bigotry is showing. As it happens I've read a fair bit of
the Creationists and ID stuff:

1) All Creationists are IDers, but all IDers are not literal 7-day
Creationists.

2) Ditto the intersection of ID and religion. Most religions have
an ID view of some kind, but not all IDers are specifically
flogging a particular religious or faith tradition. The best
among them are very careful to separate their personal faith
from the content of their work.

3) There is a considerable body of interesting work being done both
within science and in the philosophy of science by people of an
ID bent. That's why it doesn't just go away on the scientific landscape
even though every ranting atheist would love for it to.


4) You are demonstrating a breathtaking confidence in education "standards".
One wonders if you've been around a high school lately and seen its output.
I have ... it's largely not impressive. This is what happens when people
that cannot be fired and are not held accountable for their work product
are allowed to spend Other People's Money "teaching".

I commend this to your attention... you'll learn something and perhaps
drop some of the ill conceived bigotry:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0800334/


>> This, of course, scared the dickens out of the Usual Suspects who've been
>> incrementally using the public schools as madrassas for peddling the
>> execrable junk thinking of the intellectual left.
>
> The Conspiracy Theory mentality at work.

It's based on personal observation - watching the high school in the
area jamming some of the most execrable dreck down the students'
throats it has been my misfortune to witness. For more ample evidence
of this sort of thing at the collegiate level, see:

http://thefire.org/
>
>>> I support your right to hold religious beliefs and worship as you please,
>>> it's when you want to do it on my dime and/or influence public policy
>>> based on those beliefs that it becomes a problem.
>
>> I agree with this ... hence my desire to limit what the public dime
>> gets spent on generally. There are lots of absurd things being
>> done with *my* dime that I do not wish to support. The only
>> way to resolve our differing views it to simply not spend the money
>> at all and let us each decide how to direct our own funds.
>
> The way it works is this society has long since decided that
> universal education is a good thing. If you disagree you are free to
> move to some nation where that is not the policy. This libertarian
> nonsense where we should each pay only for things that we approve of
> or which directly benefit us has long since lost its comedy value.

That would almost be an argument except for one small problem.
We do *not have* "universal education" today. We have
universal ideological dunking and have-baked education...

>
>> And if you think that people with views other than yours -
>> particularly people whose views are animated by some faith
>> tradition - should be silent on matters of public policy, you're
>> really kidding yourself.
>
> You have a tendency to make up things that weren't said and act as
> if they were. I have good friends and family members who have strong
> religious beliefs, and I wouldn't dream of suggesting they have no

Ah ... the "I have friends argument" ... It was Socrates that first
demonstrated this as a compelling like of argument ...

> right speak to public policy issues. What I object to is the bizarre
> notion that our laws should be influenced by what it says in the
> Bible (or any other religious book). If you want to believe

Then you should leave the country now. It was built, in part,
on a theory of Natural Rights best explicated by Locke that
relied heavily on Judeo-Christian anthropology to justify
our precise form of government.

They kept praying all the way through the Constitutional
Convention and the subsequent Congresses.

The legal systems itself is deeply imbued with such references.
One need only to look at the various buildings in Washington
D.C. - you know, government buildings - that show folks like
Jesus and Mohammed along with the ancient philosophers before
them.

Sorry, but you want a world that does not exist. This sterile,
sanitized, no-religious-influences-by-anyone-in--government
is an illusion. A chimera designed to prop up the failed
premises of atheists desperate to rewrite US history retroactively.

Methinks thou protesteth too much.

> Methuselah lived to the age of 969, fine, you believe that. But
> don't plan on adjusting the age at which I can collect Social
> Security to to 875 as a result of your belief.

>
>> Nothing has animated the Christian right more, for example, than
>> EXACTLY that kind of haughty condescension. It's sort of
>> entertaining to watch actually ...
>
> Watching the Christian right is like accidentally tuning into the
> Jerry Springer Show. One can't help but feel some horror along with
> the amusement. Of course it's usually only a matter of time until
> the preacher is caught in a motel room with a couple of underage
> male hookers, that's always worth a laugh.

More bigotry and profound ignorance. I know the Christian right
pretty well. I know the atheists, the lefties, the cultural
relativists, and the inconsistent humanists about as well. The
Christian right is more civil, mannered, and patient with those
with whom they disagree, than any of the aforementioned.

On Apr 20, 10:10=A0pm, "Tim W" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Somebody got beaten in a petrol station because of his political/religiou=
s
> views, not one of a number of witnesses wants to speak out and you think
> this is a reason to smile/laugh.
>
> Huh?
>
> Tim W

Somebody got beaten in a petrol station because they think that
contributing to others emotional distress is their right, and they are
known for this sort of "free speech". I would think that getting his
arse kicked to bits is something he should be thankful for in a
country where guns are common and trigger fingers are itchy.

These Westboro dipshits need an appropriate come-uppance, why do they
think it's OK to kick someone when they are down?Do you think it's OK?
Is there any other plausible way they could express themselves freely
whilst not causing undue stress to mourners?

Basically, it's just not cricket, old chap :)

"Lobby Dosser" wrote in message news:[email protected]...


>> Students have the morning before they go to school to pray, they have
>> much of the afternoon and all the evening as well, and of course the
>> weekend. The notion that schools not setting aside time for students to
>> pray during the school day is a burdensome denial of religious freedom or
>> freedom of speech is fantastic.

> Except, of course, when those being denied are Muslim. In their case
> special footbaths and prayer rooms are installed.

If the local Muslim community will pay for any special facilities (although
my understanding is such facilities are not strictly required), and recesses
or breaks between classes are used for students to pray (in the same way
Christian students can sit under a tree and read the Bible on their lunch
break) then I suppose that's acceptable. But it should not be at public
expense or disrupt the regular functioning of the school. My understanding
is that the Islamic faith permits prayers to be shortened or skipped (and
made up later) if necessary, so some flexibility on this point would seem to
be called for at the two times per day in which Muslims would pray during
school hours. But as a general rule I would not make exceptions for the
adherents of any religion; anyone who takes their faith that seriously can
pay for a private education for their children.

On 4/21/2011 8:09 AM, Tim W said this:
> "Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "Tim W" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> I am not an american so I don't know much about the background to this
>>> mess but I gather from the replies that I hadn't misread or misunderstood
>>> the account fictional or not.
>>
>> I'm not an American either, but perhaps you should acquaint yourself with
>> the full story of this nut ball religious group before you comment on
>> whether someone deserved a beating or not.
>
>
> No, no, no, no.
>
> Nobody deserves a beating for speaking his mind. I don't care what kind of
> nutball you think he is.

You are confusing the right to *speak* freely and the right to be *heard*.
You have a natural right to say whatever you wish so long as your
speech is not threatening or fraudulent. However, this does not mean
you have a right to make people listen to you.

>
> A place where a bunch of thugs publicly beat up people they don't like and
> nobody is arrested, nobody complains and everybody thinks it is a joke -
> that is sicko country.

This is what happens when government abdicates its primary role of being a
defender of liberty. Invading a private event like a funeral - even just
with sound - is an act of *force*. It's effectively forcing someone to
listen to you whether they wish to or not. This is very different that
writing, publishing, or otherwise speaking your mind freely wherein
potential listeners have the ability to walk away.

When government doesn't do its job, the citizens themselves are forced to
step up and do it instead. That's what happened here. It's not a great
alternative, but it's all that's left. Conceptually, it's the same thing as
shooting an armed intruder because law enforcement cannot or will not
prevent them for entering your home.

The real irony here is that - thanks to the ideological loons running
Western culture - every wingnut's right to be heard is effectively being
upheld by government passivity, but people that voluntarily wish to
participate in traditional religious expression are forbidden doing so by
that same government.


--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
[email protected]

"David Paste" <[email protected]> wrote in message
I've managed to escape and will do my best
to refrain from replying to him (on O/T posts) again.

And then finally, you have to learn from replying to Jack Stein who is and
was the original recipient of the name "douche nozzle". As far as Tim
Daneliuk goes, no one ever claimed he wasn't intelligent. He just suffers
from an extreme excess of verbal dirreahea. He has not once in his several
years here has he contributed to any woodworking knowledge. In other words,
ALL his posts are O/T. Tim's only goal is to irritate and inflame political
or religious threads to the point of absurdity. Any particular point or
mistake you catch him on will be completey ignored with his counterpoint in
another completely different area.

Welcome to the 2010s. It is encouraged by non-sheeple as the way of the
future.

-------------------

"Steve Barker" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
It's really the only sensible way. Makes the most sense.

-------------
On 4/23/2011 6:57 PM, [email protected] wrote:
I'm going to top post because I'm tired of having to scroll down.

On 4/21/2011 8:32 PM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
> "Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>> On 4/21/2011 8:09 AM, Tim W said this:
>>> "Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>
>>>> "Tim W" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>> I am not an american so I don't know much about the background to this
>>>>> mess but I gather from the replies that I hadn't misread or misunderstood
>>>>> the account fictional or not.
>>>>
>>>> I'm not an American either, but perhaps you should acquaint yourself with
>>>> the full story of this nut ball religious group before you comment on
>>>> whether someone deserved a beating or not.
>>>
>>>
>>> No, no, no, no.
>>>
>>> Nobody deserves a beating for speaking his mind. I don't care what kind of
>>> nutball you think he is.
>>
>> You are confusing the right to *speak* freely and the right to be *heard*.
>> You have a natural right to say whatever you wish so long as your
>> speech is not threatening or fraudulent. However, this does not mean
>> you have a right to make people listen to you.
>>
>>>
>>> A place where a bunch of thugs publicly beat up people they don't like and
>>> nobody is arrested, nobody complains and everybody thinks it is a joke -
>>> that is sicko country.
>>
>> This is what happens when government abdicates its primary role of being a
>> defender of liberty. Invading a private event like a funeral - even just
>> with sound - is an act of *force*.
>
> The Beatee was in a GAS STATION.

Your point?

If you shove yourself in a person's face repeatedly - whatever your views -
and no one stops this forceful action, sooner or later someone is going
to push back.

The Westborough people are obnoxious. But the foul here isn't their views.
The foul is their insistence on trying to make people listen to said views
in all venues whether anyone wants to hear it or not.

Again: You have a right to speak, not a right to be heard.

On Apr 25, 5:28=A0pm, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:

> While your responses are strong, they don't stand alone, other than
> demonstrating you have nothing much to say. =A0I suggest you add
> "douche-nozzle" to your list of empty responses...


Sorry you see it that way. They are not particularly strong responses
for where I am from, and are pretty much nothing to worry about when
one takes into account that the other guy was trying to tell me that
as an atheist I am an inherently nasty person. I think it's pretty
good that I didn't pull him up on his logical failings, but that would
have just potentially dragged on ad infinitum, and others had already
expressed dismay in the thread. So, it's no worries to me just to suck
it up and let people think what they want. I'll carry on being kind
through altruism, and not down to the fear of repercussions of a
divine entity that I don't accept as real.

Also, Douche Nozzle isn't part of my normal vernacular, but thanks for
the suggestion.

Cheers.

On Apr 24, 2:33=A0am, phorbin <[email protected]> wrote:

> The paradox of unbelief is that, unbelief is belief. The opposite of
> belief is probably apathy.

Unbelief isn't a belief. Unbelief is simply not accepting as plausible
the explanation given as a reason to believe.

WHAT the FUCK is wrong with you people????

On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 19:18:54 -0700, "Lobby Dosser"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>"Zz Yzx" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
<snip>
>> I've read thet their leader's daughter is a lawyer. Why isn't THAT
>> lawfirm picketed continuously? And every courthouse she goes to?
>
>She has ONE Client. Westboro Baptist Church.

Isn't that rather...incestuous? <grin>

--
I am an old man, but in many senses a very young man.
And this is what I want you to be, young, young all
your life. -- Pablo Casals

On 4/27/2011 12:12 PM, Jack Stein wrote:
> On 4/26/2011 9:48 PM, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>> On 4/26/2011 4:47 PM, Doug Miller wrote:
>
>>> Indeed, that might be something to worry about. If I'm wrong, and
>>> there really
>>> isn't an afterlife, oh well, when I'm dead I'm dead, and that's that.
>>> OTOH, if
>>> Dawkins is wrong, and there really is an afterlife, I don't think he's
>>> going
>>> to enjoy it much.
>>
>> I believe it was Pascal that first argued this very view.
>
> I thing ALGOL came before Pascal:-)
>
> Besides, I myself argued this very view long before Pascal was invented.

Perhaps you could have created a language called SHEOL ...

On Apr 26, 1:15=A0pm, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Atheism denies the existence of God.

No! It doesn't accept the existence of a deity. There's no active
denial involved! We're not even in Egypt for god's sake! (sorry)

"David Paste" wrote in message
news:a7b37a46-b0f9-4f08-9859-370544610fb2@hg8g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...

On Apr 25, 6:48 pm, "DGDevin" <[email protected]> wrote:

>> True, but some folks behave as if it is, always being ready to mock
>> religious belief in a way that suggests they have an emotional investment
>> in
>> belittling those with faith.

> Agreed. Why can't we just come together with our shared ridicule of
> the French. Or Germans. Or French AND Germans?

Is it really still necessary to ridicule the French? Doesn't that qualify
as piling-on?

On Apr 20, 11:10=A0pm, Larry Jaques <[email protected]>
wrote:

> Is this what you're talking about?http://westboro-church.blogspot.com/201=
1/01/westboro-baptist-church-a...
> Too bad she ain't true. ;)

And lastly: Yes, I know it's a satire, but several pigeons crapped on
the car I spent hours cleaning and waxing today, and I was vexed. But
I feel better now, thankyouverymuch.

;)

On Apr 20, 6:45=A0pm, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
>
>
>
> > "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:8ed0587a-c59e-42b2-b121-1e3c9793057e@r35g2000prj.googlegroups.com..=
.
> > [...]
>
> > > Put the biggest smile on this face...... "no one seemed to remember
> > > anything.." =A0LMAO
>
> > Somebody got beaten in a petrol station because of his political/religi=
ous
> > views, not one of a number of witnesses wants to speak out and you thin=
k
> > this is a reason to smile/laugh.
>
> > Huh?
>
> He wasn't beaten because of his political/religious views. =A0He was
> beaten because he aligned himself with an organization of obnoxious
> jackasses with no manners. =A0If they don't want to get beaten they can
> quit disrupting funerals. =A0As long as they keep disrupting funerals,
> anything bad that happens to them is deserved.

I'll second that. Folks doing a lot of things that aren't "illegal"
but damn well deserve a good ass-kicking. I got a few when I was
young, and probably not enough.
JP

On Apr 26, 9:37=A0am, "Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote:

> And then finally, you have to learn from replying to Jack Stein who is an=
d
> was the original recipient of the name "douche nozzle". As far as Tim
> Daneliuk goes, no one ever claimed he wasn't intelligent. He just suffers
> from an extreme excess of verbal dirreahea. He has not once in his severa=
l
> years here has he contributed to any woodworking knowledge. In other word=
s,
> ALL his posts are O/T. Tim's only goal is to irritate and inflame politic=
al
> or religious threads to the point of absurdity. Any particular point or
> mistake you catch him on will be completey ignored with his counterpoint =
in
> another completely different area.

OK thanks for the insight. Good ol' usenet!

Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>
>> The OP didn't. However, the behavior of the Westboro people is well
>> documented. They wish to inflict their views forcibly upon people in
>> the most private of all human experiences - a funeral. Like I said,
>> if government doesn't act to prevent forcible action of this kind,
>> then the individual citizens will respond. You want this to stop?
>> So do I. I want the Westboro people to have the right to speak and
>> I want the grieving families to be able to not listen...
>>
>
> On that, we agree. Beating a single individual in a Gas Station is
> not a Positive contribution.

Yep. You've got to take out the nest.

Just Wondering wrote the following:
> On 4/21/2011 8:32 PM, DGDevin wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Doug Miller" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>>
>>> _Of course_ there's a right to pray in school. Preventing students from
>>> praying in school is as much a violation of their 1st Amendment rights
>>> (to free exercise of their religion) as requiring them to.
>>
>> Do you have a right to walk in and make a speech in a courtroom during a
>> trial or in a public school classroom during a lesson? No? Then what
>> would lead you to believe that some kid who can't sign a contract or
>> vote and so on has a right to say anything he pleases in a public school
>> based on the 1st Amendment?
>
> People who want to spout off on what the law is should first educate
> themselves on what the law is. From Santa Fe Independent School Dist.
> v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290, 313 (U.S. 2000):
>
> The Religion Clauses of the First Amendment prevent the government
> from making any law respecting the establishment of religion or
> prohibiting the free exercise thereof. By no means do these commands
> impose a prohibition on all religious activity in our public schools.
> Indeed, the common purpose of the Religion Clauses “is to secure
> religious liberty.” Thus, nothing in the Constitution as interpreted
> by this Court prohibits any public school student from voluntarily
> praying at any time before, during, or after the schoolday. But the
> religious liberty protected by the Constitution is abridged when the
> State affirmatively sponsors the particular religious practice of prayer.

The reason for the law was to prevent the government from establishing a
national religion, such as the Church of England, which many of the
colonists had escaped from.
It stills exists today, but the religion is Islam.


--

Bill
In Hamptonburgh, NY
In the original Orange County. Est. 1683
To email, remove the double zeroes after @

Robatoy wrote:
> Copied and pasted:
>
> ==============
>
> Saturday USMC Staff Sgt. Jason Rogers, who was killed in action in
> Afghanistan April 7, was buried in Brandon, Mississippi.
> That, by itself, is a sadly unremarkable - though certainly noteworthy
> and solemn - occasion for us to mark.
>
> And in fact when Sgt. Rogers' body returned to Brandon it was greeted
> by hundreds, or perhaps even thousands, of well-wishers who gathered
> at the roadside to honor the fallen American hero. The dashboard
> camera from Mississippi state trooper Elmo Townsend's cruiser gives an
> indication of the scene last Thursday.

I strongly commend for your consideration the movie "Taking Chance." It
tells the (true) story of an escort accompanying the remains of a fallen
Marine to his home.

Without a doubt, one of the most moving stories I've ever seen and
illustrates with vivid clarity, not only the ethos of our warrior class, but
the respect and honor expressed by every American who crossed the path of
the fallen and his escort.

Here's the trailer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MtmiLdzzgGE

Note the line of cars that form an ad hoc procession behind the hearse in
rural Montana.

And here's another snap from the same movie:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0qMHHsl0nt0

Don't feed the troll.
------------------

"David Paste" wrote in message
news:fa584d45-4a67-4c88-b6c9-38b23763dfcc@u38g2000prd.googlegroups.com...

On Apr 24, 7:01 pm, Larry Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote:

> You mean people are *still* responding to Tim D? A lot of us gave up on
> him a long time ago :-).

Sorry about that - relatively new to the group!

Tim W wrote:
> "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:8ed0587a-c59e-42b2-b121-1e3c9793057e@r35g2000prj.googlegroups.com...
> [...]
>>
>> Put the biggest smile on this face...... "no one seemed to remember
>> anything.." LMAO
>
> Somebody got beaten in a petrol station because of his
> political/religious views, not one of a number of witnesses wants to
> speak out and you think this is a reason to smile/laugh.
>

Uh, yeah. Sure.

Don't you?

It's really the only sensible way. Makes the most sense.


On 4/23/2011 6:57 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> I'm going to top post because I'm tired of having to scroll down.
>


--
Steve Barker
remove the "not" from my address to email

"Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> Your views are not immune from criticism if you choose to air them
> publicly. This is not "trolling", it is called having a "conversation".

In your case, it is trolling because you have not once in a number of years
contributed to any woodworking knowledge which is the primary focus of this
newsgroup. You only jump in when some political or religious topic presents
an opportunity for you to inflame it further.

> here is noteworthy for people resorting to profanity and name calling
> when they don't like someone's ideas and/or cannot defend their own.

Well, I don't like you trolling in this newsgroup so go Fuck Yourself.

"Tim W" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> Somebody got beaten in a petrol station because of his political/religious
> views, not one of a number of witnesses wants to speak out and you think
> this is a reason to smile/laugh.

No, someone got beaten because of his intention to disrupt the burial of an
American soldier, a hero. I can certainly think of a number of lesser
reasons to beat someone. Kudos to Rankin county and its inhabitants.

No!

Today is would be Sucralose or Aspartame.

------------------------

"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
The above process is more properly defined as an "Attitude Adjustment".

A trick from my youth.

Rather than a simple "attitude adjustment", a 5 pound bag of sugar in
the
gas tank also made quite a statement back then.

Today it would probably be liquid sugar.

Lew

Morals and conviction?
Has to demonstrate a simple life of poverty?

------------------------
"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

The dear reverand is sitting in a Dearborn, Mi, jail cell tonight for
refusing to post a $1.00 bail bond.

Having to sleep naked on a concrete floor without a blanket is
undoubtly uncomfortable; however, it would appear he needs to be on
sucide watch, else why would he refuse to post bail?

Lew

Larry W wrote the following:
> So what did this jerk say that got him beaten up by a bunch of alleged
> southern rednecks?
>
> "I'd like to sit in the front of the bus."
>
> "Is this where I register to vote?"
>
> "I'm moving into a house in your neighborhood"
>
> "I was at home with my family when the crime occurred"
>
> etc.

What his belief was that...
...every soldier that dies in war deserves it, whether or not he is gay.
Those attackers were easy on him.

--

Bill
In Hamptonburgh, NY
In the original Orange County. Est. 1683
To email, remove the double zeroes after @

J. Clarke wrote the following:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
>
>> So what did this jerk say that got him beaten up by a bunch of alleged
>> southern rednecks?
>>
>> "I'd like to sit in the front of the bus."
>>
>> "Is this where I register to vote?"
>>
>> "I'm moving into a house in your neighborhood"
>>
>> "I was at home with my family when the crime occurred"
>>
>
> "Your dead buddy deserved to die?"

Who died?

--

Bill
In Hamptonburgh, NY
In the original Orange County. Est. 1683
To email, remove the double zeroes after @

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
>
> "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:8ed0587a-c59e-42b2-b121-1e3c9793057e@r35g2000prj.googlegroups.com...
> [...]
> >
> > Put the biggest smile on this face...... "no one seemed to remember
> > anything.." LMAO
>
> Somebody got beaten in a petrol station because of his political/religious
> views, not one of a number of witnesses wants to speak out and you think
> this is a reason to smile/laugh.
>
> Huh?

He wasn't beaten because of his political/religious views. He was
beaten because he aligned himself with an organization of obnoxious
jackasses with no manners. If they don't want to get beaten they can
quit disrupting funerals. As long as they keep disrupting funerals,
anything bad that happens to them is deserved.

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> <snip>
>
> >Why weren't there protestors? Planning ahead by the locals, as it
> >turns out.
> >
>
> What I can't understand is, why don't "we" counter-protest?
>
> Counter-protest their weddings, funerals, church services, place of
> employment, their homes, their kids schools? Their high-school
> football and basketball games, and Proms? The banks that hold their
> mortgages? Their barbers and beauticians while their getting their
> hair cut? The restaruants they're eating at? Every place of business
> they go to? I'd bet that they'd get refused service pretty soon.
>
> On weekends, on weeknights at 3:00 am, every freakin' day and night?
>
> The Supreme Court has held up their right to free speech, surely it
> applies to counter-protesters as well.
>
> If I had a vendor that employed one of them, I'd close the contract.
> If I had a vendor or supplier that distributed products made by one of
> them, I'd kill that contract. If I had a vendor that sold to one of
> their employers, I'd kill THAT contract.
>
> I've read thet their leader's daughter is a lawyer. Why isn't THAT
> lawfirm picketed continuously? And every courthouse she goes to?

Sounds like a plan. You wanna organize it?