home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:12905 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:11390 alt.politics.clinton:19534 alt.politics.bush:15439 alt.politics.homosexuality:8878
- Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
- Path: sparky!uunet!spool.mu.edu!umn.edu!csus.edu!netcom.com!harp
- From: harp@netcom.com (Gregory O. Harp)
- Subject: Re: Lifestyle Choices and Secular Reasoning
- Message-ID: <1993Jan4.134047.26475@netcom.com>
- Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
- References: <1992Dec30.162502.6756@asl.dl.nec.com> <1992Dec30.185545.26789@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> <C07oBz.F74@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> <1993Jan2.230323.29355@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> <C095nK.82y@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> <1993Jan3.041323.16808@netcom.com> <C0B0Cu.Eu7@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
- Distribution: usa
- Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 13:40:47 GMT
- Lines: 124
-
- kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer steven l) writes:
-
- >harp@netcom.com (Gregory O. Harp) writes:
-
- >>The USA was founded mainly by atheists, and laws were put in its
- >>charters to keep it that way. Since then, we've moved farther away
- >>from religious influence, not closer. Take a look at the number of
- >>judgements in the last few decades restricting things like prayer in
- >>schools, etc.
-
- >Greg, I have no idea where they attempted to teach you history, but
- >I don't think those NoDoze worked.
-
- Cute. Apparently you missed the chapters that even I didn't, though.
-
- >Not by *ANY* stretch of overblown
- >historical imagination were the founders of our country atheists.
- >That's simply wrong. The judgments given in the last few decades prove
- >not one thing about the founding fathers of this country - who would
- >undoubtedly be appalled at the incredible way their ideals were twisted.
-
- Here's a refresher course for you, taken from a post just a few days
- ago. Thanks go to Tristan Riley (triley@weber.ucsd.edu).
-
- "The United States is in no sense founded upon the Christian
- doctrine"--George Washington
-
- "It does me no injury for my neighbor to say that there are twenty
- gods or no gods. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg"
- -- Thomas Jefferson
-
- "I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature"
- --Jefferson again
-
- "I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by
- the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the
- Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is
- my own church"--Thomas Paine
-
- and for good measure "The Bible is not my book, and Christianity is
- not my religion. I could never give assent to the long complicated
- statements of Christian dogma"--Abe Lincoln
-
- all quotes culled from "Salvation for Sale" by Gerard Thomas Straub
-
- So, your statement is false. It should have read, "Not by *ANY*
- stretch of overblown historical imagination were the founders of our
- country Christians."
-
- And, BTW, I didn't mean to imply that the recent judgements reflected
- the intentions of the founding fathers. However, they would have
- undoubtedly agreed with them, as you would have known had you been
- familiar with their views before flaming me.
-
- >>So you'd rather have a country where all individuals must prove their
- >>mental competency? Those who can't "prove" it are SOL? Only those
- >>with "state-approved competency" will have rights?
-
- >We have that now. It's called "genetic testing". Any unborn child
- >which fails the test dies via abortion - at least the counselors work
- >damn hard to see that they do.
-
- Wow. You can't get more tangential to the subject at hand than that.
- We'll have to remember this one when they're handing out the awards at
- the end of the year. I'm talking about the possibility of a
- government that would assume all citizens were mentally incompetent
- until proven otherwise and you jump to the subject of diseased fetal
- tissue. And not only do you make such an incredible leap, but you
- spout anti-abortion propaganda when you land. Amazing.
-
- >Furthermore, all individuals in a court of law must prove competency.
- >Always have had to. The simple test is age - you have to be at least
- >X years old where X used to be 21. If you're that old or older,
- >competency is assumed unless someone questions it, at which point proof
- >of competency has to be shown.
-
- Exactly. My opinion, and Hillary Clinton's (since that is how we got
- on this subject), is that age should not be used as the sole criterion
- when the court assumes competency. Many of those under the "age of
- competency" are more competent than many of those over it. Also, the
- court should never assume a lack of competency. That's "guilty until
- proven innocent."
-
- >>You'd, of course, be using your own religious criteria, since you
- >>place so little weight on "secular reasoning."
-
- >Right now we're using _you're_ religious reasoning, only they call
- >it "science". Science is as dependent on faith as any other form of
- >human thought.
-
- I disagree with that statement. Science is the only "faith" (using
- your term here for the sake of argument) which offers _any_ proof with
- which to back it. Most of the physical phenomena we "believe in" may
- be demonstrated. We can view the physical results, even if you refuse
- to accept the basis. Religion relys on absolute faith.
-
- >>Yes, but the Christian commandment "Honor thy mother and thy father"
- >>makes the children slaves to their parents, which is synonymous with
- >>property. The choice is to do what mommy and daddy say or burn in
- >>Hell. That's "religious reasoning" for you.
-
- >Greg, I'm really sorry you were abused as a child, but don't take it out
- >on the rest of the world, alright?
-
- Oooh. I'll be sure to print this out and mail it off to my parents,
- with a copy to their lawyer. Lessee... They can probably get you
- _and_ UIUC for this one. Too bad you didn't learn any more while you
- were there...
-
- >Your gross distortions of religion
- >do no one any service. How you turn the word "honor" into an equivalent
- >of slavery is impressive - certainly the members of our military would
- >be glad to know that you consider them slaves for honoring our Constitution.
-
- Certainly, if it had been my wording in the first place. It isn't.
- It's that of _your_ religious leaders. Do you wish to deny the words
- of your God? He said that you must honor your parents, and disobeying
- them is surely dishonoring them.
- --
- -----------------Greg-Harp----------------harp@netcom.com------------------
- "I think I've reached that point / Where every word that you write /
- Of every blood dark sea / And every soul black night / And every dream
- you dream me in / And every perfect free from sin / And burning eyes /
- And hearts on fire / Are just the same old song" -- The Cure
-