| |
Main
Date: 05 Feb 2005 23:40:52
From: Frederick Burroughs
Subject: Bill Moyers on environment, politics and Christian fundamentalists
|
Journalist Bill Moyers was presented the 2004 Global Environmental
Citizen Award by the Harvard Medical School's Center for Health and
the Global Environment. In his acceptance speech he warns of negative
consequences for the environment as a result of growing influence over
government by fundamentalist Christians.
From his speech:
"Go to Grist to read a remarkable work of reporting by the journalist
Glenn Scherer, 'The Road to Environmental Apocalypse.' Read it and you
will see how millions of Christian fundamentalists may believe that
environmental destruction is not only to be disregarded but actually
welcomed - even hastened - as a sign of the coming apocalypse."
Read the complete speech (requires Acrobat reader):
http://www.med.harvard.edu/chge/Moyerstranscript.pdf
Acceptance Remarks by Bill Moyers
for the Global Environmental Citizen Award
Harvard University
Center for Health and the Global Environment
New York City
December 1, 2004
(At a recent event in New York, the Center for Health and the Global
Environment at Harvard Medical School presented Bill Moyers with its
fourth annual Global Environment Citizen Award. Previous recipients of
the Award were Jane Goodall, E.O. Wilson, and Harrison Ford. The
presentation of the award was made by Meryl Streep, a member of the
Center's board. Bill Moyers responded as follows.)
Thank you Meryl Streep, for those generous words. I have been in the
front row of your fan club ever since 1978 when Judith and I sat
literally in the front row at the Joseph Papp Public Theater for your
extraordinary performance of "Alice in Concert." I have admired you
not only for your acumen as an actress but because of your commitments
as a citizen. I know acting is hard work - that you have to go deep
into yourself to become someone else. But it takes a special kind of
courage to live out the calling of a citizen, to be yourself when you
are not acting and to take a public stand on a vital issue. You have
set the bar for that kind of citizenship, and I thank you for it.
And the Center has set the bar, too, for taking the measure of what is
happening to human beings because of environmental changes. We
journalists are simply beachcombers on the shores of other people's
knowledge, other people's experience, and other people's wisdom. There
would be little good journalism about the environment if there were no
environmental scientists, advocates, and activists. We tell their
stories.
The journalist who truly deserves this award is my friend, Bill
McKibben. He enjoys the most conspicuous place in my own pantheon of
journalistic heroes for his pioneer work in writing about the
environment. His bestseller The End of Nature carried on where Rachel
Carson's Silent Spring left off.
Writing in Mother Jones recently, Bill described how the problems we
journalists routinely cover - conventional, manageable programs like
budget shortfalls and pollution - may be about to convert to chaotic,
unpredictable, unmanageable situations. The most unmanageable of all,
he writes, could be the accelerating deterioration of the environment,
creating perils with huge momentum like the greenhouse effect that is
causing the melt of the arctic to release so much freshwater into the
North Atlantic that even the Pentagon is growing alarmed that a
weakening gulf stream could yield abrupt and overwhelming changes, the
kind of changes that could radically alter civilizations.
That's one challenge we journalists face - how to tell such a story
without coming across as Cassandras, without turning off the people we
most want to understand what's happening, who must act on what they
read and hear.
As difficult as it is, however, for journalists to fashion a readable
narrative for complex issues without depressing our readers and
viewers, there is an even harder challenge - to pierce the ideology
that governs official policy today. One of the biggest changes in
politics in my lifetime is that the delusional is no longer marginal.
It has come in from the fringe, to sit in the seat of power in the
Oval Office and in Congress. For the first time in our history
ideology and theology hold a monopoly of power in Washington. Theology
asserts propositions that cannot be proven true; ideologues hold
stoutly to a world view despite being contradicted by what is
generally accepted as reality. When ideology and theology couple,
their offspring are not always bad but they are always blind. And
there is the danger: voters and politicians alike, oblivious to the facts.
Remember James Watt, President Reagan's first Secretary of the
Interior? My favorite online environmental journal, the ever engaging
Grist, reminded us recently of how James Watt told the U.S. Congress
that protecting natural resources was unimportant in light of the
imminent return of Jesus Christ. In public testimony he said, "After
the last tree is felled, Christ will come back."
Beltway elites snickered. The press corps didn't know what he was
talking about. But James Watt was serious. So were his compatriots out
across the country. They are the people who believe the Bible is
literally true - one third of the American electorate, if a recent
Gallup poll is accurate. In this past election several million good
and decent citizens went to the polls believing in the rapture index.
That's right - the rapture index. Google it and you will find that the
best-selling books in America today are the twelve volumes of the
left-behind series written by the Christian fundamentalist and
religious right warrior, Timothy LaHaye. These true believers
subscribe to a fantastical theology conced in the 19th century by a
couple of immigrant preachers who took disparate passages from the
Bible and wove them into a narrative that has captivated the
imagination of millions of Americans.
Its outline is rather simple, if bizarre (the British writer George
Monbiot recently did a brilliant dissection of it and I am indebted to
him for adding to my own understanding). Once Israel has occupied the
rest of its 'biblical lands,' legions of the antichrist will attack
it, triggering a final showdown in the valley of Armageddon. As the
Jews who have not been converted are burned, the Messiah will return
for the rapture. True believers will be lifted out of their clothes
and transported to heaven where, seated next to the right hand of God,
they will watch their political and religious opponents suffer plagues
of boils, sores, locusts and frogs during the several years of
tribulation that follow.
I'm not making this up. Like Monbiot, I've read the literature. I've
reported on these people, following some of them from Texas to the
West Bank. They are sincere, serious, and polite as they tell you they
feel called to help bring the rapture on as fulfillment of biblical
prophecy. That's why they have declared solidarity with Israel and the
Jewish settlements and backed up their support with money and
volunteers. It's why the invasion of Iraq for them was a warm-up act,
predicted in the Book of Revelation where four angels 'which are bound
in the great river Euphrates will be released to slay the third part
of man.' A war with Islam in the Middle East is not something to be
feared, but welcomed - an essential conflagration on the road to
redemption. The last time I Googled it, the rapture index stood at 144
-- just one point below the critical threshold when the whole thing
will blow, the Son of God will return, the righteous will enter
heaven, and sinners will be condemned to eternal hellfire.
So what does this mean for public policy and the environment? Go to
Grist to read a remarkable work of reporting by the journalist Glenn
Scherer, "The Road to Environmental Apocalypse." Read it and you will
see how millions of Christian fundamentalists may believe that
environmental destruction is not only to be disregarded but actually
welcomed - even hastened - as a sign of the coming apocalypse.
As Grist makes clear, we're not talking about a handful of fringe
lawmakers who hold or are beholden to these beliefs. Nearly half the
U.S. Congress before the recent election - 231 legislators in total -
more since the election - are backed by the Religious Right.
Forty-five Senators and 186 members of the 108th Congress earned 80 to
100 percent approval ratings from the three most influential Christian
right advocacy groups. They include Senator Majority Leader Bill
Frist, Assistant Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Conference Chair
Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, Policy Chair Jon Kyl of Arizona, House
Speaker Dennis Hastert, and Majority Whip Roy Blunt. The only Democrat
to score 100 percent with the Christian Coalition was Senator Zell
Miller of Georgia, who recently quoted from the biblical book of Amos
on the Senate floor: "The days will come, sayeth the Lord God, that I
will send a famine in the land." He seemed to be relishing the thought.
And why not? There's a constituency for it. A 2002 Time/CNN poll found
that 59 percent of Americans believe that the prophecies found in the
Book of Revelation are going to come true. Nearly one-quarter think
the Bible predicted the 9/11 attacks. Drive across the country with
your radio tuned to the more than 1,600 Christian radio stations or in
the motel turn to some of the 250 Christian TV stations and you can
hear some of this end-time gospel. And you will come to understand why
people under the spell of such potent prophecies "cannot be expected,"
as Grist put it, "to worry about the environment." Why care about the
earth when the droughts, floods, famine and pestilence brought by
ecological collapse are signs of the apocalypse foretold in the Bible?
Why care about global climate change when you and yours will be
rescued in the rapture? And why care about converting from oil to
solar when the same God who performed the miracle of the loaves and
fishes can whip up a few billion barrels of light crude with a word?
Because these people believe that until Christ does return, the Lord
will provide. One of their texts is a high school history book,
America's Providential History. You'll find there these words: "the
secular or socialist has a limited resource mentality and views the
world as a pie...that needs to be cut up so everyone can get a piece."
However, "[t]he Christian knows that the potential in God is unlimited
and that there is no shortage of resources in God's earth...while many
secularists view the world as overpopulated, Christians know that God
has made the earth sufficiently large with plenty of resources to
accommodate all of the people." No wonder Karl Rove goes around the
White House whistling that militant hymn, "Onward Christian Soldiers."
He turned out millions of the foot soldiers on November 2, including
many who have made the apocalypse a powerful driving force in modern
American politics.
I can see in the look on your faces just how hard it is for the
journalist to report a story like this with any credibility. So let me
put it on a personal level. I myself don't know how to be in this
world without expecting a confident future and getting up every
morning to do what I can to bring it about. So I have always been an
optimist. Now, however, I think of my friend on Wall Street whom I
once asked: "What do you think of the market?" "I'm optimistic," he
answered. "Then why do you look so worried?" And he answered: "Because
I am not sure my optimism is justified."
I'm not, either. Once upon a time I agreed with the Eric Chivian and
the Center for Health and the Global Environment that people will
protect the natural environment when they realize its importance to
their health and to the health and lives of their children. Now I am
not so sure. It's not that I don't want to believe that - it's just
that I read the news and connect the dots.
I read that the administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency has declared the election a mandate for President Bush on the
environment. This for an administration:
That wants to rewrite the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act and the
Endangered Species Act protecting rare plant and animal species and
their habitats, as well as the national Environmental Policy Act that
requires the government to judge beforehand if actions might damage
natural resources.
That wants to relax pollution limits for ozone. Eliminate vehicle
tailpipe inspections. And ease pollution standards for cars, sports
utility vehicles and diesel-powered big trucks and heavy equipment.
That wants a new international audit law to allow corporations to keep
certain information about environmental problems secret from the public.
That wants to drop all its New-Source Review suits against polluting
coal-fired power plans and weaken consent decrees reached earlier with
coal companies.
That wants to open the Arctic Wildlife Refuge to drilling and increase
drilling in Padre Island National Seashore, the longest stretch of
undeveloped barrier island in the world and the last great coastal
wild land in America.
I read the news just this week and learned how the Environmental
Protection Agency had planned to spend nine million dollars - $2
million of it from the administration's friends at the American
Chemistry Council - to pay poor families to continue to use pesticides
in their homes. These pesticides have been linked to neurological
damage in children, but instead of ordering an end to their use, the
government and the industry were going to offer the families $970
each, as well as a camcorder and children's clothing, to serve as
guinea pigs for the study.
I read all this in the news.
I read the news just last night and learned that the administration's
friends at the International Policy Network, which is supported by
ExxonMobil and others of like mind, have issued a new report that
climate change is "a myth, sea levels are not rising, scientists who
believe catastrophe is possible are an embarrassment."
I not only read the news but the fine print of the recent
appropriations bill passed by Congress, with the obscure (and obscene)
riders attached to it: a clause removing all endangered species
protections from pesticides; language prohibiting judicial review for
a forest in Oregon; a waiver of environmental review for grazing
permits on public lands; a rider pressed by developers to weaken
protection for crucial habitats in California.
I read all this and look up at the pictures on my desk, next to the
computer - pictures of my grandchildren: Henry, age 12; Thomas, age
10; Nancy, 7; Jassie, 3; SaraJane, nine months. I see the future
looking back at me from those photographs and I say, "Father, forgive
us, for we know not what we do." And then I am stopped short by the
thought: "That's not right. We do know what we are doing. We are
stealing their future. Betraying their trust. Despoiling their world."
And I ask myself: Why? Is it because we don't care? Because we are
greedy? Because we have lost our capacity for outrage, our ability to
sustain indignation at injustice?
What has happened to our moral imagination?
On the heath Lear asks Gloucester: "How do you see the world?" And
Gloucester, who is blind, answers: "I see it feelingly.'"
"I see it feelingly."
Why don't we feel the world enough to save it - for our kin to come?
This brings me back to the Center, to Dr. Chivian, and to all of you
gathered here this evening. You are the antidote to despair, the cure
for cynicism, the answer to the faces of my grandchildren looking back
at me from those pictures on my desk. Your work for the science of
human health is reinforced by what the ancient Israelites called
hochma - the science of the heart - the capacity to see, feel, and
then to act as if the future depended on you.
Because it does.
For your work and your witness - even more than for this beautiful
award - I give you thanks.
--
Burn the land and boil the sea
You can't take the sky from me
- From "Ballad of Serenity" by Joss Whedon
|
|
| |
Date: 16 Mar 2005 15:53:46
From: Tinkerntom
Subject: Re: Bill Moyers on environment, politics and Christian fundamentalists
|
Michael Daly wrote:
> On 15-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser <nobody@bitbucket.org> wrote:
>
> > Oh, I understand it just fine. You just disagree, but are unable to
even
> > refute a simple logical syllogism.
>
> You _still_ can't offer any reference to back up your comments.
>
> > And yet you keep on lapping it up.
>
> You're getting close to admitting you're lying. why not come
> clean and maybe you can start working on telling the truth
> for a change?
>
> Mike
Hey Michael, I have lost track what this particular discussion is
regarding, could you restate from your understanding what the various
contentions are. Thanks, TnT
|
| | |
Date: 16 Mar 2005 18:10:34
From: Wolfgang
Subject: Re: Bill Moyers on environment, politics and Christian fundamentalists
|
"Tinkerntom" <tnksng@qwest.net > wrote in message
news:1111017226.680517.257510@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Hey Michael, I have lost track what this particular discussion is
> regarding, could you restate from your understanding what the various
> contentions are. Thanks, TnT
You're an idiot.
No, yor stupid.
Well, he says you're a moron.
What does he know....he's a fool.
Well, he ain't as dum as you.
So's yer mother.
Bite me.
Eat me.
Sez you.
You don't know what I said.
You don't know what you said. Answer my question.
What question?
What are you talking about.
You're and idiot
Blah......
Blah......
Wolfgang
no charge for this one.
|
| | | |
Date: 20 Mar 2005 01:53:21
From: Tinkerntom
Subject: Re: Bill Moyers on environment, politics and Christian fundamentalists
|
KMAN wrote:
> in article 1111305244.331024.203590@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com,
Tinkerntom
> at tnksng@qwest.net wrote on 3/20/05 2:54 AM:
>
> >
> > KMAN wrote:
> >> in article 1111285363.220309.96370@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com,
> > Tinkerntom
> >> at tnksng@qwest.net wrote on 3/19/05 9:22 PM:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> BCITORGB wrote:
> >>>> Tink opines:
> >>>> =============
> >>>> So we can still look forward to our little chats, about boats
and
> >>>> faith. I prefer the personal approach, to enjoying life. A
> > website
> >>>> just seems a little cold and impersonal. That is sort of like
> > fixing
> >>>> something with a ten pound sledge, that needed a more delicate
> > touch!
> >>> I
> >>>> hope some of you can appreciate my more delicate touch, I only
use
> > a
> >>>> five pound sledge!
> >>>> =============
> >>>>
> >>>> I'm confused. What are you trying to say?
> >>>>
> >>>> frtzw906
> >>>
> >>> It's like this, I appreciate our conversations. The stimulation
is
> >>> good, and it forces me to consider some issues and how my faith
> > applies
> >>> to them in the market place of life. Not that you necessarily get
> > me to
> >>> change my mind, or vice versus. But I have to freshen up my faith
> > and
> >>> the expression of it. I hope that it has been stimulating to you
as
> >>> well.
> >>>
> >>> Rest assured that this is one of the main differences I feel
> > between
> >>> what I am saying, and what is usually passed off as religion
> > (visa-vis
> >>> Ron's approach), and which I believe KMAN and others have such a
> >>> viseral reaction too.
> >>
> >> First off, it is "visceral." Secondly, my "reaction" to religion
is
> > not
> >> visceral, but rather based on obvservation and reasoned
conclusions
> > about
> >> the functioning of religious belief systems and their real world
> > impact on
> >> human beings.
> >>
> >> A very standard dictionary definition of religion is:
> >>
> >> "Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers
regarded
> > as
> >> creator and governor of the universe; a personal or
institutionalized
> > system
> >> grounded in such belief and worship."
> >>
> >> It seems to me that your god blather fits this definition rather
> > perfectly,
> >> Tinkerntom. So I'm not sure why you think your religious belief
> > system is
> >> somehow disctinct from "what is usually passed off as religion."
> >
> > There you go correcting my spelling again
>
> The important issue was not really the spelling.
>
> > but you seemed to know what
> > I was writing about. Now whether you agree with me or not, that is
> > another issue.
>
> I was disagreeing with you about my having a visceral reaction to
religion.
>
> > Even your definition of religion
>
> It's not my definition, it's from the American Heritage Dictionary of
the
> English Language, Fourth Edition.
>
> > comes from your dictionary which may
> > be correct, but that is not what I am talking about, and I am sure
you
> > haven't the foggiest Idea what I am speaking about. That you keep
> > trying to pound it into the religious mould, demonstrates your
complete
> > unawareness of a part of life that for all your observation and
> > reasoned conclusions, you are blind and clueless.
>
> <yawn>
>
> The dictionary definition is a reflection of a common understanding
of the
> meaning of the word "religion."
>
> You seem to be saying that your particular god blather is not
"religion." I
> am pointing out that it seems to fit pretty well with what most
people would
> describe as a religion.
>
> > Reminds me of a story, a lexiographer, desiring to publish a new
> > dictionary, and in all fairness wanting to get unbiased definitions
> > based on any preconceived perceptions, got to the word "elephant".
He
> > decided to hire four blind guys to help develope a definition of
what
> > an elephant is like. So he placed one at the front, one at the
rear,
> > one underneath, and one on the back of the elephant, and ask them
to
> > describe what an elephant was like. Needless to say he got four
widely
> > different definitions.
>
> Reminds me of a story. A lexographer, desiring to publish a new
dictionary,
> and in all fairness wanting to get unbiased definitions not based on
any
> preconceived perceptions, got to the word "elephant". He decided to
hire
> four blind guys to help develop a definition of what an elephant is
like.
> So he placed one at the front, one at the rear, one underneath, and
one on
> the back of the elephant, and asked them to describe what an elephant
was
> like. Needless to say, all four of the blind guys through their life
> experience developed an understanding of what an elephant is. Being
blind
> but fully intellectually functional, each of them figured out what
parts
> they were touching and although some of what they were touching was a
bit
> shocking, it did nothing to dissuade them from their understanding
that an
> elephant is a really big freaking mammal. So, the lexographer ended
up using
> a definition of "elephant" that was very much like past definitions
of
> "elephant" which was fitting since elephants had really not changed
much
> since the word "elephant" was first associated with the big freaking
> mammals.
>
> > All I can say to you KMAN, is that I am speaking of something that
goes
> > beyond religion.
>
> Since religion involves belief in the supernatural, you must be WAY
OUT
> THERE to go beyond that, Tinkerntom!
>
> >I am not interested in religion per se; belief in,
> > reverence for, personal or institutional system, even if grounded
in
> > belief or worship, according to your text book definition. All
these
> > thing are things that man is doing
>
> Right. A man like Tinkerntom. And I think he's about to do it again.
Notice
> how he won't be able to see the hypocrisy in this.
>
> > and probably using for his own
> > power/control structure as you so consistantly point out, where he
is
> > the big cheese, the top banana, the muckety-muck! That the rest of
us
> > get to admire because he is so "spiritual" at least in his own
humble
> > opinion.
> >
> > I am not interested in what man is doing, I am interested in
finding
> > out what God is doing! Now obviously if you don't believe in God in
the
> > first place
>
> Only because She doesn't exist.
>
> > then you don't believe He could be doing anything at all.
>
> Approaching this issue in the hypothetical, whatever She's doing,
being an
> omnipotent supernatural being and all, it's pretty clear to me that
She'd do
> whatever She wants to do, and ranting about Her on a kayaking
newsgroup
> isn't going to impact on what She does. Since, after all, She is more
> powerful than Superman or even Oprah.
>
> > Or if you believe that there is a pan-theon of Gods, then you may
be
> > interested in what they are doing, but most likely, they are more
> > concerned with each other than mere mortals.
>
> Um. If you say so.
>
> > However if there is a God, would it not be beneficial to know what
He
> > is up to! If it is possible to know Him, and to see what He is
doing,
> > would that change how you look at life and respond to other people,
> > and to Him. All the philosophical head games, word games,
annoyingly
> > cute games, that you play with yourself, and with others, become
> > meaningless, if He is, and we can know He is. Play your games in
life,
> > and here on RBP, if you want, but if He is, you are only screwing
> > yourself and depriving yourself of the greatest trip around!
>
> Then again, maybe religion is a barrier to personal growth and fuller
> enjoyment of life.
>
> > I assure you that there is God
>
> I assure you that there is no god.
>
> > He loves you
>
> So does my cat. Only my cat exists beyond Tinkerntom's imagination.
>
> > and He will show Himself
> > to you if you honestly desire to know Him, TnT
>
> My cat will show Himself to you for similar reasons.
>
> Your spiel in this message was 100% stereotypical of the blather of
every
> promoter of every religion. Disappointing, Tinkerntom, disappointing.
And your cluelessness is not surprising!
" Since religion involves belief in the supernatural, you must be WAY
OUT THERE to go beyond that, Tinkerntom!"
But you are beginning just maybe to get the hang of it a little! Even
Melissa in her recent e-mail got as close, and then turned away. Check
her e-mail if you are interested, see what you can uncover. This is
getting fun again! TnT
|
| | | | |
Date: 25 Mar 2005 00:08:51
From: Tinkerntom
Subject: Re: Bill Moyers on environment, politics and Christian fundamentalists
|
KMAN wrote:
> in article 1111727269.292977.54830@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com,
Tinkerntom
> at tnksng@qwest.net wrote on 3/25/05 12:07 AM:
>
> >
> > KMAN wrote:
> >> "Tinkerntom" <tnksng@qwest.net> wrote in message
> >> news:1111690020.321711.93360@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >>
> >> <snip incredible ramble of godtalk and such>
> >>
> >>>> I'm left knowing that religious belief systems are nothing but
> >>> control
> >>>> systems used to manipulate people, and in the meantime getting
on
> >>> with
> >>>> reality.
> >>>
> >>> You may be left knowing this, but that is not the same as to say
> > that
> >>> is all there is to know in reality, just the reality of your
> >>> experience, which I maintain is not all of reality! TnT
> >>
> >> Reality can be an amazing place to be even without the escapism
and
> > delusion
> >> of a deity belief system.
> >
> > Reality is always an amazing place when you know the God of Love
who
> > created all of Reality, and that now without escapism and delusion,
you
> > can explore all of Reality, without fear of running into God who
you
> > thought did not exist, besides Love you! TnT
>
> Uh. What I mean is reality can be an amazing place without the God of
Love
> the Fear of God or any other nutty godtalk of godthink.
I agree, God made it that way, and us that way, even if you don't
acknowledge Him! TnT
|
| | | | | |
Date: 25 Mar 2005 03:27:44
From: KMAN
Subject: Re: Bill Moyers on environment, politics and Christian
|
in article 1111738131.045603.325740@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com, Tinkerntom
at tnksng@qwest.net wrote on 3/25/05 3:08 AM:
>
> KMAN wrote:
>> in article 1111727269.292977.54830@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com,
> Tinkerntom
>> at tnksng@qwest.net wrote on 3/25/05 12:07 AM:
>>
>>>
>>> KMAN wrote:
>>>> "Tinkerntom" <tnksng@qwest.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:1111690020.321711.93360@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>>>
>>>> <snip incredible ramble of godtalk and such>
>>>>
>>>>>> I'm left knowing that religious belief systems are nothing but
>>>>> control
>>>>>> systems used to manipulate people, and in the meantime getting
> on
>>>>> with
>>>>>> reality.
>>>>>
>>>>> You may be left knowing this, but that is not the same as to say
>>> that
>>>>> is all there is to know in reality, just the reality of your
>>>>> experience, which I maintain is not all of reality! TnT
>>>>
>>>> Reality can be an amazing place to be even without the escapism
> and
>>> delusion
>>>> of a deity belief system.
>>>
>>> Reality is always an amazing place when you know the God of Love
> who
>>> created all of Reality, and that now without escapism and delusion,
> you
>>> can explore all of Reality, without fear of running into God who
> you
>>> thought did not exist, besides Love you! TnT
>>
>> Uh. What I mean is reality can be an amazing place without the God of
> Love
>> the Fear of God or any other nutty godtalk of godthink.
>
> I agree, God made it that way, and us that way, even if you don't
> acknowledge Him! TnT
I disagree, Oprah made It that way, and Us that way, even if You don't
acknowledge Her!
Oprah loves you! It is a gift that she gives to you! You can choose to
accept it or not accept it! It is up to you! KmaN
|
| | | | |
Date: 20 Mar 2005 15:18:08
From: KMAN
Subject: Re: Bill Moyers on environment, politics and Christian
|
in article 1111312401.605361.160810@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com, Tinkerntom
at tnksng@qwest.net wrote on 3/20/05 4:53 AM:
>
> KMAN wrote:
>> in article 1111305244.331024.203590@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com,
> Tinkerntom
>> at tnksng@qwest.net wrote on 3/20/05 2:54 AM:
>>
>>>
>>> KMAN wrote:
>>>> in article 1111285363.220309.96370@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com,
>>> Tinkerntom
>>>> at tnksng@qwest.net wrote on 3/19/05 9:22 PM:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> BCITORGB wrote:
>>>>>> Tink opines:
>>>>>> =============
>>>>>> So we can still look forward to our little chats, about boats
> and
>>>>>> faith. I prefer the personal approach, to enjoying life. A
>>> website
>>>>>> just seems a little cold and impersonal. That is sort of like
>>> fixing
>>>>>> something with a ten pound sledge, that needed a more delicate
>>> touch!
>>>>> I
>>>>>> hope some of you can appreciate my more delicate touch, I only
> use
>>> a
>>>>>> five pound sledge!
>>>>>> =============
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm confused. What are you trying to say?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> frtzw906
>>>>>
>>>>> It's like this, I appreciate our conversations. The stimulation
> is
>>>>> good, and it forces me to consider some issues and how my faith
>>> applies
>>>>> to them in the market place of life. Not that you necessarily get
>>> me to
>>>>> change my mind, or vice versus. But I have to freshen up my faith
>>> and
>>>>> the expression of it. I hope that it has been stimulating to you
> as
>>>>> well.
>>>>>
>>>>> Rest assured that this is one of the main differences I feel
>>> between
>>>>> what I am saying, and what is usually passed off as religion
>>> (visa-vis
>>>>> Ron's approach), and which I believe KMAN and others have such a
>>>>> viseral reaction too.
>>>>
>>>> First off, it is "visceral." Secondly, my "reaction" to religion
> is
>>> not
>>>> visceral, but rather based on obvservation and reasoned
> conclusions
>>> about
>>>> the functioning of religious belief systems and their real world
>>> impact on
>>>> human beings.
>>>>
>>>> A very standard dictionary definition of religion is:
>>>>
>>>> "Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers
> regarded
>>> as
>>>> creator and governor of the universe; a personal or
> institutionalized
>>> system
>>>> grounded in such belief and worship."
>>>>
>>>> It seems to me that your god blather fits this definition rather
>>> perfectly,
>>>> Tinkerntom. So I'm not sure why you think your religious belief
>>> system is
>>>> somehow disctinct from "what is usually passed off as religion."
>>>
>>> There you go correcting my spelling again
>>
>> The important issue was not really the spelling.
>>
>>> but you seemed to know what
>>> I was writing about. Now whether you agree with me or not, that is
>>> another issue.
>>
>> I was disagreeing with you about my having a visceral reaction to
> religion.
>>
>>> Even your definition of religion
>>
>> It's not my definition, it's from the American Heritage Dictionary of
> the
>> English Language, Fourth Edition.
>>
>>> comes from your dictionary which may
>>> be correct, but that is not what I am talking about, and I am sure
> you
>>> haven't the foggiest Idea what I am speaking about. That you keep
>>> trying to pound it into the religious mould, demonstrates your
> complete
>>> unawareness of a part of life that for all your observation and
>>> reasoned conclusions, you are blind and clueless.
>>
>> <yawn>
>>
>> The dictionary definition is a reflection of a common understanding
> of the
>> meaning of the word "religion."
>>
>> You seem to be saying that your particular god blather is not
> "religion." I
>> am pointing out that it seems to fit pretty well with what most
> people would
>> describe as a religion.
Did you understand this point Tom? I'm wondering why you skipped through all
of this to make a rather vague comment at the end of the post.
>>> Reminds me of a story, a lexiographer, desiring to publish a new
>>> dictionary, and in all fairness wanting to get unbiased definitions
>>> based on any preconceived perceptions, got to the word "elephant".
> He
>>> decided to hire four blind guys to help develope a definition of
> what
>>> an elephant is like. So he placed one at the front, one at the
> rear,
>>> one underneath, and one on the back of the elephant, and ask them
> to
>>> describe what an elephant was like. Needless to say he got four
> widely
>>> different definitions.
>>
>> Reminds me of a story. A lexographer, desiring to publish a new
> dictionary,
>> and in all fairness wanting to get unbiased definitions not based on
> any
>> preconceived perceptions, got to the word "elephant". He decided to
> hire
>> four blind guys to help develop a definition of what an elephant is
> like.
>> So he placed one at the front, one at the rear, one underneath, and
> one on
>> the back of the elephant, and asked them to describe what an elephant
> was
>> like. Needless to say, all four of the blind guys through their life
>> experience developed an understanding of what an elephant is. Being
> blind
>> but fully intellectually functional, each of them figured out what
> parts
>> they were touching and although some of what they were touching was a
> bit
>> shocking, it did nothing to dissuade them from their understanding
> that an
>> elephant is a really big freaking mammal. So, the lexographer ended
> up using
>> a definition of "elephant" that was very much like past definitions
> of
>> "elephant" which was fitting since elephants had really not changed
> much
>> since the word "elephant" was first associated with the big freaking
>> mammals.
What did you think of that story Tinkerntom?
>>> All I can say to you KMAN, is that I am speaking of something that
> goes
>>> beyond religion.
>>
>> Since religion involves belief in the supernatural, you must be WAY
> OUT
>> THERE to go beyond that, Tinkerntom!
>>
>>> I am not interested in religion per se; belief in,
>>> reverence for, personal or institutional system, even if grounded
> in
>>> belief or worship, according to your text book definition. All
> these
>>> thing are things that man is doing
>>
>> Right. A man like Tinkerntom. And I think he's about to do it again.
> Notice
>> how he won't be able to see the hypocrisy in this.
Was I right?
>>> and probably using for his own
>>> power/control structure as you so consistantly point out, where he
> is
>>> the big cheese, the top banana, the muckety-muck! That the rest of
> us
>>> get to admire because he is so "spiritual" at least in his own
> humble
>>> opinion.
>>>
>>> I am not interested in what man is doing, I am interested in
> finding
>>> out what God is doing! Now obviously if you don't believe in God in
> the
>>> first place
>>
>> Only because She doesn't exist.
>>
>>> then you don't believe He could be doing anything at all.
>>
>> Approaching this issue in the hypothetical, whatever She's doing,
> being an
>> omnipotent supernatural being and all, it's pretty clear to me that
> She'd do
>> whatever She wants to do, and ranting about Her on a kayaking
> newsgroup
>> isn't going to impact on what She does. Since, after all, She is more
>> powerful than Superman or even Oprah.
>>
>>> Or if you believe that there is a pan-theon of Gods, then you may
> be
>>> interested in what they are doing, but most likely, they are more
>>> concerned with each other than mere mortals.
>>
>> Um. If you say so.
>>
>>> However if there is a God, would it not be beneficial to know what
> He
>>> is up to! If it is possible to know Him, and to see what He is
> doing,
>>> would that change how you look at life and respond to other people,
>>> and to Him. All the philosophical head games, word games,
> annoyingly
>>> cute games, that you play with yourself, and with others, become
>>> meaningless, if He is, and we can know He is. Play your games in
> life,
>>> and here on RBP, if you want, but if He is, you are only screwing
>>> yourself and depriving yourself of the greatest trip around!
>>
>> Then again, maybe religion is a barrier to personal growth and fuller
>> enjoyment of life.
Do you think that could be possible Tinkerntom?
>>> I assure you that there is God
>>
>> I assure you that there is no god.
>>
>>> He loves you
>>
>> So does my cat. Only my cat exists beyond Tinkerntom's imagination.
>>
>>> and He will show Himself
>>> to you if you honestly desire to know Him, TnT
>>
>> My cat will show Himself to you for similar reasons.
>>
>> Your spiel in this message was 100% stereotypical of the blather of
> every
>> promoter of every religion. Disappointing, Tinkerntom, disappointing.
>
> And your cluelessness is not surprising!
Perhaps not. What cluelessness are you referencing?
> "Since religion involves belief in the supernatural, you must be WAY
> OUT THERE to go beyond that, Tinkerntom!"
Right?
You said that your beliefs were beyond religion.
Given that religion involves belief in the supernatural, going beyond must
be quite fantastical indeed!
> But you are beginning just maybe to get the hang of it a little!
That's great. What am I getting the hang of Tinkerntom?
> Even
> Melissa in her recent e-mail got as close, and then turned away. Check
> her e-mail if you are interested, see what you can uncover. This is
> getting fun again! TnT
OK?
|
| | | |
Date: 19 Mar 2005 19:04:43
From: Tinkerntom
Subject: Re: Bill Moyers on environment, politics and Christian fundamentalists
|
BCITORGB wrote:
> Tink, my confusion was about the "cold, impersonal website" etc
etc...
> I didn't know where you were coming from.... still don't
>
> frtzw906
Did you check out Ron's website? What was your impression? TnT
|
| | | |
Date: 19 Mar 2005 18:54:32
From: BCITORGB
Subject: Re: Bill Moyers on environment, politics and Christian fundamentalists
|
Tink, my confusion was about the "cold, impersonal website" etc etc...
I didn't know where you were coming from.... still don't
frtzw906
|
| | | |
Date: 17 Mar 2005 00:16:00
From: No Spam
Subject: Re: Bill Moyers on environment, politics and Christian fundamentalists
|
"Wolfgang" <wolfgang@mcw.edu > wrote in message
news:39s07vF65c2knU1@individual.net...
>
> "Tinkerntom" <tnksng@qwest.net> wrote in message
> news:1111017226.680517.257510@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Hey Michael, I have lost track what this particular discussion is
> > regarding, could you restate from your understanding what the various
> > contentions are. Thanks, TnT
>
> You're an idiot.
>
> No, yor stupid.
>
> Well, he says you're a moron.
>
> What does he know....he's a fool.
>
> Well, he ain't as dum as you.
>
> So's yer mother.
>
> Bite me.
>
> Eat me.
>
> Sez you.
>
> You don't know what I said.
>
> You don't know what you said. Answer my question.
>
> What question?
>
> What are you talking about.
>
> You're and idiot
>
> Blah......
>
> Blah......
>
> Wolfgang
> no charge for this one.
>
>
>
Thanks -I had a bad day and that was a good laugh.
Ken
|
| | | | |
Date: 16 Mar 2005 18:20:21
From: Wolfgang
Subject: Re: Bill Moyers on environment, politics and Christian fundamentalists
|
"No Spam" <bennospamzx2@verizon.net > wrote in message
news:4%3_d.7236$FB6.2452@trndny09...
>
> Thanks -I had a bad day and that was a good laugh.
You should read more Usenet. :)
Wolfgang
|
| | | | | |
Date: 17 Mar 2005 00:22:12
From: No Spam
Subject: Re: Bill Moyers on environment, politics and Christian fundamentalists
|
That's what I told my boss. He was not amused.
Ken
"Wolfgang" <wolfgang@mcw.edu > wrote in message
news:39s0qaF62s5j2U1@individual.net...
>
> "No Spam" <bennospamzx2@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:4%3_d.7236$FB6.2452@trndny09...
> >
> > Thanks -I had a bad day and that was a good laugh.
>
>
> You should read more Usenet. :)
>
> Wolfgang
>
>
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 16 Mar 2005 18:31:13
From: Wolfgang
Subject: Re: Bill Moyers on environment, politics and Christian fundamentalists
|
"No Spam" <bennospamzx2@verizon.net > wrote in message
news:U44_d.5087$db6.3337@trndny02...
> That's what I told my boss. He was not amused.
He should read more Usenet.
Wolfgang
|
| | | |
Date: 17 Mar 2005 01:11:01
From: Wilko
Subject: Re: Bill Moyers on environment, politics and Christian fundamentalists
|
Wolfgang wrote:
> "Tinkerntom" <tnksng@qwest.net> wrote in message
> news:1111017226.680517.257510@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>>Hey Michael, I have lost track what this particular discussion is
>>regarding, could you restate from your understanding what the various
>>contentions are. Thanks, TnT
>
>
> You're an idiot.
>
> No, yor stupid.
>
> Well, he says you're a moron.
>
> What does he know....he's a fool.
>
> Well, he ain't as dum as you.
>
> So's yer mother.
>
> Bite me.
>
> Eat me.
>
> Sez you.
>
> You don't know what I said.
>
> You don't know what you said. Answer my question.
>
> What question?
>
> What are you talking about.
>
> You're and idiot
>
> Blah......
>
> Blah......
>
> Wolfgang
> no charge for this one.
Wolfgang, that's basically this whole thread in one post... Thanks! ;-)
--
Wilko van den Bergh wilko(a t)dse(d o t)nl
Eindhoven The Netherlands Europe
---Look at the possibilities, don't worry about the limitations.---
http://wilko.webzone.ru/
|
| | | | |
Date: 16 Mar 2005 18:19:30
From: Wolfgang
Subject: Re: Bill Moyers on environment, politics and Christian fundamentalists
|
"Wilko" <look@in.my.sig > wrote in message
news:a55c3$4238cb3b$53e80cac$4799@freeler.nl...
> Wolfgang wrote:
>> "Tinkerntom" <tnksng@qwest.net> wrote in message
>> news:1111017226.680517.257510@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>>Hey Michael, I have lost track what this particular discussion is
>>>regarding, could you restate from your understanding what the various
>>>contentions are. Thanks, TnT
>>
>>
>> You're an idiot.
>>
>> No, yor stupid.
>>
>> Well, he says you're a moron.
>>
>> What does he know....he's a fool.
>>
>> Well, he ain't as dum as you.
>>
>> So's yer mother.
>>
>> Bite me.
>>
>> Eat me.
>>
>> Sez you.
>>
>> You don't know what I said.
>>
>> You don't know what you said. Answer my question.
>>
>> What question?
>>
>> What are you talking about.
>>
>> You're and idiot
>>
>> Blah......
>>
>> Blah......
>>
>> Wolfgang
>> no charge for this one.
>
> Wolfgang, that's basically this whole thread in one post... Thanks! ;-)
This and most others. It's o.k. Nobody can make us read it.
Wolfgang
but where else can you watch serial self-immolation for free? :)
|
| |
Date: 09 Mar 2005 07:47:40
From: BCITORGB
Subject: Re: Bill Moyers on environment, politics and Christian fundamentalists
|
Michael commenting on Weiser:
==============
> Dickhead likes to pretend that he supports freedom and rights.
===============
And then, interestingly, in one of his more recent posts, he's all over
the ACLU as some sort of subversive organization. If he REALLY cared
about freedom and rights, he'd be sending them a donation.
frtzw906
|
| | |
Date: 09 Mar 2005 19:58:59
From: Scott Weiser
Subject: Re: Bill Moyers on environment, politics and Christian
|
A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:
> Michael commenting on Weiser:
> ==============
>> Dickhead likes to pretend that he supports freedom and rights.
>
> ===============
>
> And then, interestingly, in one of his more recent posts, he's all over
> the ACLU as some sort of subversive organization. If he REALLY cared
> about freedom and rights, he'd be sending them a donation.
To that bunch of leftist socialist pricks? No way. They aren't interested in
freedom and rights, they are just interested in forwarding their socialist
agenda.
They are actually a dangerous, seditious group that ought to be run out of
town on a rail, at the very least.
--
Regards,
Scott Weiser
"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM
© 2005 Scott Weiser
|
| | | |
Date: 09 Mar 2005 22:34:28
From: KMAN
Subject: Re: Bill Moyers on environment, politics and Christian
|
in article BE550603.E1B9%nobody@bitbucket.org, Scott Weiser at
nobody@bitbucket.org wrote on 3/9/05 9:58 PM:
> A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:
>
>> Michael commenting on Weiser:
>> ==============
>>> Dickhead likes to pretend that he supports freedom and rights.
>>
>> ===============
>>
>> And then, interestingly, in one of his more recent posts, he's all over
>> the ACLU as some sort of subversive organization. If he REALLY cared
>> about freedom and rights, he'd be sending them a donation.
>
> To that bunch of leftist socialist pricks? No way. They aren't interested in
> freedom and rights, they are just interested in forwarding their socialist
> agenda.
>
> They are actually a dangerous, seditious group that ought to be run out of
> town on a rail, at the very least.
It seems to me that the ACLU will go to bat for a right wing nut (perhaps
just like yourself) to defend freedom and rights.
|
| | | | |
Date: 10 Mar 2005 18:19:25
From: Scott Weiser
Subject: Re: Bill Moyers on environment, politics and Christian
|
A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:
> in article BE550603.E1B9%nobody@bitbucket.org, Scott Weiser at
> nobody@bitbucket.org wrote on 3/9/05 9:58 PM:
>
>> A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:
>>
>>> Michael commenting on Weiser:
>>> ==============
>>>> Dickhead likes to pretend that he supports freedom and rights.
>>>
>>> ===============
>>>
>>> And then, interestingly, in one of his more recent posts, he's all over
>>> the ACLU as some sort of subversive organization. If he REALLY cared
>>> about freedom and rights, he'd be sending them a donation.
>>
>> To that bunch of leftist socialist pricks? No way. They aren't interested in
>> freedom and rights, they are just interested in forwarding their socialist
>> agenda.
>>
>> They are actually a dangerous, seditious group that ought to be run out of
>> town on a rail, at the very least.
>
> It seems to me that the ACLU will go to bat for a right wing nut (perhaps
> just like yourself) to defend freedom and rights.
Not hardly. The ACLU is a far-left, socialist shill that carefully picks
it's battles, and two of the things they have never fought for are gun
rights or religious freedom.
--
Regards,
Scott Weiser
"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM
© 2005 Scott Weiser
|
| | | | | |
Date: 10 Mar 2005 23:27:09
From: KMAN
Subject: Re: Bill Moyers on environment, politics and Christian
|
in article BE56402D.E211%nobody@bitbucket.org, Scott Weiser at
nobody@bitbucket.org wrote on 3/10/05 8:19 PM:
> A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:
>
>> in article BE550603.E1B9%nobody@bitbucket.org, Scott Weiser at
>> nobody@bitbucket.org wrote on 3/9/05 9:58 PM:
>>
>>> A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:
>>>
>>>> Michael commenting on Weiser:
>>>> ==============
>>>>> Dickhead likes to pretend that he supports freedom and rights.
>>>>
>>>> ===============
>>>>
>>>> And then, interestingly, in one of his more recent posts, he's all over
>>>> the ACLU as some sort of subversive organization. If he REALLY cared
>>>> about freedom and rights, he'd be sending them a donation.
>>>
>>> To that bunch of leftist socialist pricks? No way. They aren't interested in
>>> freedom and rights, they are just interested in forwarding their socialist
>>> agenda.
>>>
>>> They are actually a dangerous, seditious group that ought to be run out of
>>> town on a rail, at the very least.
>>
>> It seems to me that the ACLU will go to bat for a right wing nut (perhaps
>> just like yourself) to defend freedom and rights.
>
> Not hardly. The ACLU is a far-left, socialist shill that carefully picks
> it's battles, and two of the things they have never fought for are gun
> rights or religious freedom.
Hm. I'm pretty sure you'll fine that the ACLU has done such bizarre things
as to support the right of Nazis to march, and taken up other such causes
that could hardly be termed far-left.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 11 Mar 2005 12:39:54
From: Scott Weiser
Subject: Re: Bill Moyers on environment, politics and Christian
|
A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:
>>> It seems to me that the ACLU will go to bat for a right wing nut (perhaps
>>> just like yourself) to defend freedom and rights.
>>
>> Not hardly. The ACLU is a far-left, socialist shill that carefully picks
>> it's battles, and two of the things they have never fought for are gun
>> rights or religious freedom.
> Hm. I'm pretty sure you'll fine that the ACLU has done such bizarre things
> as to support the right of Nazis to march, and taken up other such causes
> that could hardly be termed far-left.
Incorrect. Yes the ACLU has defended the right of neo-nazis to march, but
you have to look more closely at their entire agenda to see why it is that
they are a radical leftist organization. The neo-nazis are a fringe group of
kooks who have no real power and pose no real threat to the ACLU's leftist
agenda. It gives the ACLU the opportunity to appear to be centrist while
actually defending the rights of other leftist-socialists to likewise march.
However, when it comes to defending conservative causes, such as the right
of religious students to pray in school, or defense of individual landowners
property rights against unlawful seizure of their land by the government, or
the rights of gun owners to keep and bear arms, or the rights of the unborn
and virtually any other conservative cause that is opposed to their leftist
agenda, the ACLU is conspicuously silent.
--
Regards,
Scott Weiser
"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM
© 2005 Scott Weiser
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 11 Mar 2005 16:34:06
From: KMAN
Subject: Re: Bill Moyers on environment, politics and Christianfundamentalists
|
"Scott Weiser" <nobody@bitbucket.org > wrote in message
news:BE57421A.E289%nobody@bitbucket.org...
>A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:
>
>>>> It seems to me that the ACLU will go to bat for a right wing nut
>>>> (perhaps
>>>> just like yourself) to defend freedom and rights.
>>>
>>> Not hardly. The ACLU is a far-left, socialist shill that carefully picks
>>> it's battles, and two of the things they have never fought for are gun
>>> rights or religious freedom.
>
>> Hm. I'm pretty sure you'll fine that the ACLU has done such bizarre
>> things
>> as to support the right of Nazis to march, and taken up other such causes
>> that could hardly be termed far-left.
>
> Incorrect. Yes the ACLU has defended the right of neo-nazis to march
Thus, I am correct.
> but
> you have to look more closely at their entire agenda to see why it is that
> they are a radical leftist organization. The neo-nazis are a fringe group
> of
> kooks who have no real power and pose no real threat to the ACLU's leftist
> agenda. It gives the ACLU the opportunity to appear to be centrist while
> actually defending the rights of other leftist-socialists to likewise
> march.
Wow, these are some cold-blooded creeps...deliberately going out of their
way to defend nazis all for the purpose of making it look like they are
interested in civil liberties when really all they are doing is trying to
fool Scott into thinking they are interested in civil liberties when really
then are just pursuing a leftist-socialist agenda.
> However, when it comes to defending conservative causes, such as the right
> of religious students to pray in school
That's like asking them to defend the right to fire a gun in school.
Perhaps they believe that a student should have the right to attend school
without being marginalized for being an atheist. You'd have to ask them.
> or defense of individual landowners
> property rights against unlawful seizure of their land by the government
I'm not sure that civil liberties and property rights are necessarily a good
fit.
> the rights of gun owners to keep and bear arms
Well, perhaps the concern is the right for other people to be safe from gun
nuts.
> or the rights of the unborn
Perhaps there's some consideration of the rights of the born with regard to
what happens to the unborn.
> and virtually any other conservative cause that is opposed to their
> leftist
> agenda, the ACLU is conspicuously silent.
Perhaps because you are confused about the concept of civil liberties, not
sure.
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 11 Mar 2005 16:55:56
From: Scott Weiser
Subject: Re: Bill Moyers on environment, politics and
|
A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:
>
> "Scott Weiser" <nobody@bitbucket.org> wrote in message
> news:BE57421A.E289%nobody@bitbucket.org...
>> A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:
>>
>>>>> It seems to me that the ACLU will go to bat for a right wing nut
>>>>> (perhaps
>>>>> just like yourself) to defend freedom and rights.
>>>>
>>>> Not hardly. The ACLU is a far-left, socialist shill that carefully picks
>>>> it's battles, and two of the things they have never fought for are gun
>>>> rights or religious freedom.
>>
>>> Hm. I'm pretty sure you'll fine that the ACLU has done such bizarre
>>> things
>>> as to support the right of Nazis to march, and taken up other such causes
>>> that could hardly be termed far-left.
>>
>> Incorrect. Yes the ACLU has defended the right of neo-nazis to march
>
> Thus, I am correct.
Only partly.
Even a blind hog finds a acorn occasionally.
>
>> but
>> you have to look more closely at their entire agenda to see why it is that
>> they are a radical leftist organization. The neo-nazis are a fringe group
>> of
>> kooks who have no real power and pose no real threat to the ACLU's leftist
>> agenda. It gives the ACLU the opportunity to appear to be centrist while
>> actually defending the rights of other leftist-socialists to likewise
>> march.
>
> Wow, these are some cold-blooded creeps
Yes, indeed they are.
>...deliberately going out of their
> way to defend nazis all for the purpose of making it look like they are
> interested in civil liberties when really all they are doing is trying to
> fool Scott into thinking they are interested in civil liberties when really
> then are just pursuing a leftist-socialist agenda.
It's not me they are fooling, but they do manage to pull the wool over the
eyes of the illiterati.
>
>> However, when it comes to defending conservative causes, such as the right
>> of religious students to pray in school
>
> That's like asking them to defend the right to fire a gun in school.
Why? In case you missed it, the courts have ruled that students are entitled
to pray in school, just so long as it's not school officials who are leading
the prayers.
>
> Perhaps they believe that a student should have the right to attend school
> without being marginalized for being an atheist. You'd have to ask them.
Perhaps. But that puts them squarely at odds with the Constitution and the
religious student's right to freely exercise their religion. You must learn
to distinguish between a school and its administration leading, engaging in
or fostering prayer by students and the free exercise of religion by
individual students, acting on their own. That other students may be made
uncomfortable by these private displays of religion is not important, as the
Constitution requires them to tolerate such things.
>
>> or defense of individual landowners
>> property rights against unlawful seizure of their land by the government
>
> I'm not sure that civil liberties and property rights are necessarily a good
> fit.
In case you missed it, the right to own private property is one of our
preeminent and most jealously guarded civil liberties. That's the problem
with the ACLU, it only considers a "civil liberty" to be something that
forwards their leftist-socialist/collectivist agenda. They are wrong.
>
>> the rights of gun owners to keep and bear arms
>
> Well, perhaps the concern is the right for other people to be safe from gun
> nuts.
Perhaps, but that puts them squarely at odds with the Constitution and the
civil liberty to own a gun. Once again, it's the
collectivist/socialist/leftist agenda at work to the denigration of
individual civil liberties that makes the ACLU dangerous and wrong.
>
>> or the rights of the unborn
>
> Perhaps there's some consideration of the rights of the born with regard to
> what happens to the unborn.
Perhaps. And yet they see no nuance. Their position seems to be one of
supporting abortion on demand, at any stage of pregnancy, including the
instant before birth without any consideration for the life of the unborn
child. That's rather less than "some consideration" for the unborn.
>
>> and virtually any other conservative cause that is opposed to their
>> leftist
>> agenda, the ACLU is conspicuously silent.
>
> Perhaps because you are confused about the concept of civil liberties, not
> sure.
Evidently you are confused about the concept of civil liberties. Civil
liberties embrace ALL of the rights and liberties that individuals enjoy,
not just some sub-set that fits into a liberal-socialist agenda that they
can try to twist into some "collective" civil right. Fact is that there is
no such thing as a "collective" civil right. All civil rights are individual
in nature and applied to individuals. Thus, the infringement of any
individual civil liberty is as bad as the infringement of any other
individual civil liberty. All must be protected with equal vigor. The ACLU
however, doesn't believe in protecting ALL civil liberties, they pick and
choose a select set of civil liberties to defend that happens to forward
their leftist-socialist agenda.
--
Regards,
Scott Weiser
"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM
© 2005 Scott Weiser
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 11 Mar 2005 19:16:45
From: KMAN
Subject: Re: Bill Moyers on environment, politics andChristianfundamentalists
|
"Scott Weiser" <nobody@bitbucket.org > wrote in message
news:BE577E1C.E2CF%nobody@bitbucket.org...
>A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:
>
>>
>> "Scott Weiser" <nobody@bitbucket.org> wrote in message
>> news:BE57421A.E289%nobody@bitbucket.org...
>>> A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> It seems to me that the ACLU will go to bat for a right wing nut
>>>>>> (perhaps
>>>>>> just like yourself) to defend freedom and rights.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not hardly. The ACLU is a far-left, socialist shill that carefully
>>>>> picks
>>>>> it's battles, and two of the things they have never fought for are gun
>>>>> rights or religious freedom.
>>>
>>>> Hm. I'm pretty sure you'll fine that the ACLU has done such bizarre
>>>> things
>>>> as to support the right of Nazis to march, and taken up other such
>>>> causes
>>>> that could hardly be termed far-left.
>>>
>>> Incorrect. Yes the ACLU has defended the right of neo-nazis to march
>>
>> Thus, I am correct.
>
> Only partly.
>
> Even a blind hog finds a acorn occasionally.
I'm guessing you've gotten to know a lot of blind hogs in a way that few can
understand.
>>> but
>>> you have to look more closely at their entire agenda to see why it is
>>> that
>>> they are a radical leftist organization. The neo-nazis are a fringe
>>> group
>>> of
>>> kooks who have no real power and pose no real threat to the ACLU's
>>> leftist
>>> agenda. It gives the ACLU the opportunity to appear to be centrist while
>>> actually defending the rights of other leftist-socialists to likewise
>>> march.
>>
>> Wow, these are some cold-blooded creeps
>
> Yes, indeed they are.
>
>>...deliberately going out of their
>> way to defend nazis all for the purpose of making it look like they are
>> interested in civil liberties when really all they are doing is trying to
>> fool Scott into thinking they are interested in civil liberties when
>> really
>> then are just pursuing a leftist-socialist agenda.
>
> It's not me they are fooling, but they do manage to pull the wool over the
> eyes of the illiterati.
Why would the ACLU go to all the trouble of establishing their organization
just to pull the wool over the eyes of the illiterati?
>>
>>> However, when it comes to defending conservative causes, such as the
>>> right
>>> of religious students to pray in school
>>
>> That's like asking them to defend the right to fire a gun in school.
>
> Why? In case you missed it, the courts have ruled that students are
> entitled
> to pray in school, just so long as it's not school officials who are
> leading
> the prayers.
Defending civil liberties means that you don't necessarily go along with
whatever the court has to say on an issue.
>> Perhaps they believe that a student should have the right to attend
>> school
>> without being marginalized for being an atheist. You'd have to ask them.
>
> Perhaps.
Mm.
> But that puts them squarely at odds with the Constitution
> and the religious student's right to freely exercise their religion.
It's their job to be at odds with whatever it is that is threatening civil
liberties.
> You must learn
> to distinguish between a school and its administration leading, engaging
> in
> or fostering prayer by students and the free exercise of religion by
> individual students, acting on their own. That other students may be made
> uncomfortable by these private displays of religion is not important, as
> the
> Constitution requires them to tolerate such things.
If the displays are private, there's obviously no problem, because nobody
would even know they were praying.
>>
>>> or defense of individual landowners
>>> property rights against unlawful seizure of their land by the government
>>
>> I'm not sure that civil liberties and property rights are necessarily a
>> good
>> fit.
>
> In case you missed it, the right to own private property is one of our
Who is "our" here?
> preeminent and most jealously guarded civil liberties. That's the problem
> with the ACLU, it only considers a "civil liberty" to be something that
> forwards their leftist-socialist/collectivist agenda. They are wrong.
Or it could be that the right wing agenda is all about reducing civil
liberties in puruist of a narrow agenda.
>>> the rights of gun owners to keep and bear arms
>>
>> Well, perhaps the concern is the right for other people to be safe from
>> gun
>> nuts.
>
> Perhaps, but that puts them squarely at odds with the Constitution and the
> civil liberty to own a gun.
It's their job to be at odds with anything that threatens civil liberties.
Thus, even if a judge rules that it is perfectly fine for Scott Weiser to
park a tank on his front lawn and point it at his neighbor's house, you
might well expect the ACLU to disagree.
> Once again, it's the
> collectivist/socialist/leftist agenda at work to the denigration of
> individual civil liberties that makes the ACLU dangerous and wrong.
Or the right-wing agenda of "more guns and more jesus" is a threat to civil
liberties and the ACLU is just doing their job taking an objective approach
to issues regardless of whether or not Scott Weiser has sent them death
threats.
>>> or the rights of the unborn
>>
>> Perhaps there's some consideration of the rights of the born with regard
>> to
>> what happens to the unborn.
>
> Perhaps. And yet they see no nuance.
You are starting to undersatnd the ACLU.
Don't you think Holocaust survivors were mad as hell to see the ACLU
defending the right of Nazis to march through their streets?
> Their position seems to be one of
> supporting abortion on demand, at any stage of pregnancy, including the
> instant before birth without any consideration for the life of the unborn
> child. That's rather less than "some consideration" for the unborn.
I don't think that's quite their position.
>>> and virtually any other conservative cause that is opposed to their
>>> leftist
>>> agenda, the ACLU is conspicuously silent.
>>
>> Perhaps because you are confused about the concept of civil liberties,
>> not
>> sure.
>
> Evidently you are confused about the concept of civil liberties. Civil
> liberties embrace ALL of the rights and liberties that individuals enjoy,
> not just some sub-set that fits into a liberal-socialist agenda that they
> can try to twist into some "collective" civil right.
Take your finger off the trigger...that's it...relax Scotty...just place the
gun on the table...that's it.....
> Fact is that there is
> no such thing as a "collective" civil right. All civil rights are
> individual
> in nature and applied to individuals. Thus, the infringement of any
> individual civil liberty is as bad as the infringement of any other
> individual civil liberty. All must be protected with equal vigor. The ACLU
> however, doesn't believe in protecting ALL civil liberties, they pick and
> choose a select set of civil liberties to defend that happens to forward
> their leftist-socialist agenda.
They have an agenda to be sure, but it's clearly not leftist-socialist.
>
> --
> Regards,
> Scott Weiser
>
> "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
> friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM
>
> © 2005 Scott Weiser
>
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 11 Mar 2005 18:08:44
From: Scott Weiser
Subject: Re: Bill Moyers on environment, politics
|
A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:
>>>> However, when it comes to defending conservative causes, such as the
>>>> right
>>>> of religious students to pray in school
>>>
>>> That's like asking them to defend the right to fire a gun in school.
>>
>> Why? In case you missed it, the courts have ruled that students are
>> entitled
>> to pray in school, just so long as it's not school officials who are
>> leading
>> the prayers.
>
> Defending civil liberties means that you don't necessarily go along with
> whatever the court has to say on an issue.
It does mean going along with what the Constitution says, however.
>> But that puts them squarely at odds with the Constitution
>> and the religious student's right to freely exercise their religion.
>
> It's their job to be at odds with whatever it is that is threatening civil
> liberties.
Except when the civil liberties threatened happen to be ones that support
things like religion and private property.
>
>> You must learn
>> to distinguish between a school and its administration leading, engaging
>> in
>> or fostering prayer by students and the free exercise of religion by
>> individual students, acting on their own. That other students may be made
>> uncomfortable by these private displays of religion is not important, as
>> the
>> Constitution requires them to tolerate such things.
>
> If the displays are private, there's obviously no problem, because nobody
> would even know they were praying.
"Private" does not mean "invisible." I can pray out loud on the sidewalk all
day long and there's nothing anyone can do about it.
>
>>>
>>>> or defense of individual landowners
>>>> property rights against unlawful seizure of their land by the government
>>>
>>> I'm not sure that civil liberties and property rights are necessarily a
>>> good
>>> fit.
>>
>> In case you missed it, the right to own private property is one of our
>
> Who is "our" here?
Each and every citizen of the United States, of course.
>>>> the rights of gun owners to keep and bear arms
>>>
>>> Well, perhaps the concern is the right for other people to be safe from
>>> gun
>>> nuts.
>>
>> Perhaps, but that puts them squarely at odds with the Constitution and the
>> civil liberty to own a gun.
>
> It's their job to be at odds with anything that threatens civil liberties.
Except when the threatened civil liberty is the right to keep and bear arms.
>
> Thus, even if a judge rules that it is perfectly fine for Scott Weiser to
> park a tank on his front lawn and point it at his neighbor's house, you
> might well expect the ACLU to disagree.
Hyperbolic amphigory.
--
Regards,
Scott Weiser
"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM
© 2005 Scott Weiser
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 11 Mar 2005 22:42:00
From: KMAN
Subject: Re: Bill Moyers on environment, politicsandChristianfundamentalists
|
"Scott Weiser" <nobody@bitbucket.org > wrote in message
news:BE578F2C.E2EF%nobody@bitbucket.org...
>A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:
>
>>>>> However, when it comes to defending conservative causes, such as the
>>>>> right
>>>>> of religious students to pray in school
>>>>
>>>> That's like asking them to defend the right to fire a gun in school.
>>>
>>> Why? In case you missed it, the courts have ruled that students are
>>> entitled
>>> to pray in school, just so long as it's not school officials who are
>>> leading
>>> the prayers.
>>
>> Defending civil liberties means that you don't necessarily go along with
>> whatever the court has to say on an issue.
>
> It does mean going along with what the Constitution says, however.
No it doesn't.
>>> But that puts them squarely at odds with the Constitution
>>> and the religious student's right to freely exercise their religion.
>>
>> It's their job to be at odds with whatever it is that is threatening
>> civil
>> liberties.
>
> Except when the civil liberties threatened happen to be ones that support
> things like religion and private property.
Since religion is nothing but an exercise of the imagination, it can't be
threatened. If you mean that the imposition of religious power and influence
threatens civil liberties and needs to be kept in check, that's quite true.
How exactly does the ACLU threaten private property? I'd like to hear some
examples to see where you are coming from on that one.
>>> You must learn
>>> to distinguish between a school and its administration leading, engaging
>>> in
>>> or fostering prayer by students and the free exercise of religion by
>>> individual students, acting on their own. That other students may be
>>> made
>>> uncomfortable by these private displays of religion is not important, as
>>> the
>>> Constitution requires them to tolerate such things.
>>
>> If the displays are private, there's obviously no problem, because nobody
>> would even know they were praying.
>
> "Private" does not mean "invisible." I can pray out loud on the sidewalk
> all
> day long and there's nothing anyone can do about it.
And that's the place for it. Not in a school where other children are
required to be. There, that's one less issue where you have to shriek about
the ACLU :-)
>>>>> or defense of individual landowners
>>>>> property rights against unlawful seizure of their land by the
>>>>> government
>>>>
>>>> I'm not sure that civil liberties and property rights are necessarily a
>>>> good
>>>> fit.
>>>
>>> In case you missed it, the right to own private property is one of our
>>
>> Who is "our" here?
>
> Each and every citizen of the United States, of course.
Oh, I don't know that they all share your perspective Scotty.
>>>>> the rights of gun owners to keep and bear arms
>>>>
>>>> Well, perhaps the concern is the right for other people to be safe from
>>>> gun
>>>> nuts.
>>>
>>> Perhaps, but that puts them squarely at odds with the Constitution and
>>> the
>>> civil liberty to own a gun.
>>
>> It's their job to be at odds with anything that threatens civil
>> liberties.
>
> Except when the threatened civil liberty is the right to keep and bear
> arms.
Nope, that too.
>> Thus, even if a judge rules that it is perfectly fine for Scott Weiser to
>> park a tank on his front lawn and point it at his neighbor's house, you
>> might well expect the ACLU to disagree.
>
> Hyperbolic amphigory.
Try to see how it is more than that.
It's a bit like the situation with the gum.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 12 Mar 2005 13:52:01
From: Scott Weiser
Subject: Re: Bill Moyers on environment,
|
A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:
>
> "Scott Weiser" <nobody@bitbucket.org> wrote in message
> news:BE578F2C.E2EF%nobody@bitbucket.org...
>> A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:
>>
>>>>>> However, when it comes to defending conservative causes, such as the
>>>>>> right
>>>>>> of religious students to pray in school
>>>>>
>>>>> That's like asking them to defend the right to fire a gun in school.
>>>>
>>>> Why? In case you missed it, the courts have ruled that students are
>>>> entitled
>>>> to pray in school, just so long as it's not school officials who are
>>>> leading
>>>> the prayers.
>>>
>>> Defending civil liberties means that you don't necessarily go along with
>>> whatever the court has to say on an issue.
>>
>> It does mean going along with what the Constitution says, however.
>
> No it doesn't.
If they don't comport with the Constitution, they aren't protecting "civil
liberties."
>>>> But that puts them squarely at odds with the Constitution
>>>> and the religious student's right to freely exercise their religion.
>>>
>>> It's their job to be at odds with whatever it is that is threatening
>>> civil
>>> liberties.
>>
>> Except when the civil liberties threatened happen to be ones that support
>> things like religion and private property.
>
> Since religion is nothing but an exercise of the imagination, it can't be
> threatened. If you mean that the imposition of religious power and influence
> threatens civil liberties and needs to be kept in check, that's quite true.
>
> How exactly does the ACLU threaten private property? I'd like to hear some
> examples to see where you are coming from on that one.
I didn't say they threatened private property, though I suspect they do by
interfering with land transfers (think Wal-Mart) and perhaps by supporting
restrictions on the use and enjoyment of private land found in land use
codes, I said that they did not SUPPORT private property rights. There's not
a chance in hell that the ACLU would, for example, take up my case against
the State of Colorado for the unlawful appropriation of a right of way
across my land by the legislature.
And yet the issue of unlawful eminent domain takings is certainly involved
with "civil rights," since the right to own private property and be
compensated when the state appropriates it, is a fundamental civil right.
>
>>>> You must learn
>>>> to distinguish between a school and its administration leading, engaging
>>>> in
>>>> or fostering prayer by students and the free exercise of religion by
>>>> individual students, acting on their own. That other students may be
>>>> made
>>>> uncomfortable by these private displays of religion is not important, as
>>>> the
>>>> Constitution requires them to tolerate such things.
>>>
>>> If the displays are private, there's obviously no problem, because nobody
>>> would even know they were praying.
>>
>> "Private" does not mean "invisible." I can pray out loud on the sidewalk
>> all
>> day long and there's nothing anyone can do about it.
>
> And that's the place for it.
Well, the point is that neither you nor the government gets to decide that.
> Not in a school where other children are
> required to be.
That they are required to be there does not mean that they have a right to
be protected from displays of religious beliefs by other students who choose
to freely exercise their First Amendment rights.
> There, that's one less issue where you have to shriek about
> the ACLU :-)
Hardly.
>
>>>>>> or defense of individual landowners
>>>>>> property rights against unlawful seizure of their land by the
>>>>>> government
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm not sure that civil liberties and property rights are necessarily a
>>>>> good
>>>>> fit.
>>>>
>>>> In case you missed it, the right to own private property is one of our
>>>
>>> Who is "our" here?
>>
>> Each and every citizen of the United States, of course.
>
> Oh, I don't know that they all share your perspective Scotty.
If they don't, they are socialist asses.
>
>>>>>> the rights of gun owners to keep and bear arms
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, perhaps the concern is the right for other people to be safe from
>>>>> gun
>>>>> nuts.
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps, but that puts them squarely at odds with the Constitution and
>>>> the
>>>> civil liberty to own a gun.
>>>
>>> It's their job to be at odds with anything that threatens civil
>>> liberties.
>>
>> Except when the threatened civil liberty is the right to keep and bear
>> arms.
>
> Nope, that too.
But they absolutely refuse to defend the right to keep and bear arms, which
is a civil liberty. As I said, they are a biased, hard-left group with a
socialist agenda.
--
Regards,
Scott Weiser
"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM
© 2005 Scott Weiser
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 13 Mar 2005 18:31:45
From: KMAN
Subject: Re: Bill Moyers on environment,
|
in article BE58A481.E339%nobody@bitbucket.org, Scott Weiser at
nobody@bitbucket.org wrote on 3/12/05 3:52 PM:
> A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:
>
>>
>> "Scott Weiser" <nobody@bitbucket.org> wrote in message
>> news:BE578F2C.E2EF%nobody@bitbucket.org...
>>> A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>> However, when it comes to defending conservative causes, such as the
>>>>>>> right
>>>>>>> of religious students to pray in school
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's like asking them to defend the right to fire a gun in school.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why? In case you missed it, the courts have ruled that students are
>>>>> entitled
>>>>> to pray in school, just so long as it's not school officials who are
>>>>> leading
>>>>> the prayers.
>>>>
>>>> Defending civil liberties means that you don't necessarily go along with
>>>> whatever the court has to say on an issue.
>>>
>>> It does mean going along with what the Constitution says, however.
>>
>> No it doesn't.
>
> If they don't comport with the Constitution, they aren't protecting "civil
> liberties."
Nonsense.
>>>>> But that puts them squarely at odds with the Constitution
>>>>> and the religious student's right to freely exercise their religion.
>>>>
>>>> It's their job to be at odds with whatever it is that is threatening
>>>> civil
>>>> liberties.
>>>
>>> Except when the civil liberties threatened happen to be ones that support
>>> things like religion and private property.
>>
>> Since religion is nothing but an exercise of the imagination, it can't be
>> threatened. If you mean that the imposition of religious power and influence
>> threatens civil liberties and needs to be kept in check, that's quite true.
>>
>> How exactly does the ACLU threaten private property? I'd like to hear some
>> examples to see where you are coming from on that one.
>
> I didn't say they threatened private property, though I suspect they do by
> interfering with land transfers (think Wal-Mart) and perhaps by supporting
> restrictions on the use and enjoyment of private land found in land use
> codes, I said that they did not SUPPORT private property rights. There's not
> a chance in hell that the ACLU would, for example, take up my case against
> the State of Colorado for the unlawful appropriation of a right of way
> across my land by the legislature.
Perhaps because defending civil liberties doesn't necessarily equate to
defending Scotty Weiser's world view.
> And yet the issue of unlawful eminent domain takings is certainly involved
> with "civil rights," since the right to own private property and be
> compensated when the state appropriates it, is a fundamental civil right.
I'm not sure that Scotty Weiser's right to control his private property
usurps all other rights.
>>>>> You must learn
>>>>> to distinguish between a school and its administration leading, engaging
>>>>> in
>>>>> or fostering prayer by students and the free exercise of religion by
>>>>> individual students, acting on their own. That other students may be
>>>>> made
>>>>> uncomfortable by these private displays of religion is not important, as
>>>>> the
>>>>> Constitution requires them to tolerate such things.
>>>>
>>>> If the displays are private, there's obviously no problem, because nobody
>>>> would even know they were praying.
>>>
>>> "Private" does not mean "invisible." I can pray out loud on the sidewalk
>>> all
>>> day long and there's nothing anyone can do about it.
>>
>> And that's the place for it.
>
> Well, the point is that neither you nor the government gets to decide that.
Who gets to decide?
>> Not in a school where other children are
>> required to be.
>
> That they are required to be there does not mean that they have a right to
> be protected from displays of religious beliefs by other students who choose
> to freely exercise their First Amendment rights.
I disagree.
>> There, that's one less issue where you have to shriek about
>> the ACLU :-)
>
> Hardly.
Oh well. Keep on shrieking.
>>>>>>> or defense of individual landowners
>>>>>>> property rights against unlawful seizure of their land by the
>>>>>>> government
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm not sure that civil liberties and property rights are necessarily a
>>>>>> good
>>>>>> fit.
>>>>>
>>>>> In case you missed it, the right to own private property is one of our
>>>>
>>>> Who is "our" here?
>>>
>>> Each and every citizen of the United States, of course.
>>
>> Oh, I don't know that they all share your perspective Scotty.
>
> If they don't, they are socialist asses.
And that's pretty much what your serious mental health issues boil down to.
Anyone who disagrees with Scotty Weiser is a socialist ass.
>>>>>>> the rights of gun owners to keep and bear arms
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, perhaps the concern is the right for other people to be safe from
>>>>>> gun
>>>>>> nuts.
>>>>>
>>>>> Perhaps, but that puts them squarely at odds with the Constitution and
>>>>> the
>>>>> civil liberty to own a gun.
>>>>
>>>> It's their job to be at odds with anything that threatens civil
>>>> liberties.
>>>
>>> Except when the threatened civil liberty is the right to keep and bear
>>> arms.
>>
>> Nope, that too.
>
> But they absolutely refuse to defend the right to keep and bear arms
Good for them. I've never made a donation to the ACLU, but you are making a
good case for it.
> which is a civil liberty
Only if you are nuts.
> As I said, they are a biased, hard-left group with a
> socialist agenda.
You've done nothing to substantiate your silly claim.
|
| |
Date: 06 Mar 2005 10:57:06
From: Tinkerntom
Subject: Re: Bill Moyers on environment, politics and Christian fundamentalists
|
Michael Daly wrote:
> On 4-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser <nobody@bitbucket.org> wrote:
>
> > Then again, one of the justifications put forward for banning
homosexual
> > sodomy is that such acts are dangerous to the public health. The
AIDS
> > epidemic among homosexuals lent credence to this justification in
the eyes
> > of those who make the laws.
>
> The AIDS epidemic is overwhelmingly among heterosexuals. Any
reasonable
> source for AIDS statistics will point that out. Blaming homosexuals
> for AIDS is nothing but the bias of the ignorant.
>
> > Anti-sodomy laws are based
> > in the same legal theory as laws which proscribe sexual activity
between
> > adults and children.
>
> The big difference is consent - adults can consent to behavior,
> children are assumed to not be able to. Any law that assumes
> that adults are not able to consent removes responsibility from
> adults and puts it in the hands of the law. Hardly a description
> of a free country.
>
> > (such as pedophilia or rape) then you implicitly agree that
> > the state has the power to decide WHICH sexual behavior it wishes
to
> > control.
>
> Pedophilia or rape do not involve consent. Behavior that does should
not
> be controled by the state.
>
> Mike
Just in passing, do you drive on the right side, or the left side of
the street in Canada? TnT
|
| | |
Date: 06 Mar 2005 19:59:56
From: KMAN
Subject: Re: Bill Moyers on environment, politics and Christian
|
in article 1110135426.759365.280670@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com, Tinkerntom
at tnksng@qwest.net wrote on 3/6/05 1:57 PM:
>
> Michael Daly wrote:
>> On 4-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser <nobody@bitbucket.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Then again, one of the justifications put forward for banning
> homosexual
>>> sodomy is that such acts are dangerous to the public health. The
> AIDS
>>> epidemic among homosexuals lent credence to this justification in
> the eyes
>>> of those who make the laws.
>>
>> The AIDS epidemic is overwhelmingly among heterosexuals. Any
> reasonable
>> source for AIDS statistics will point that out. Blaming homosexuals
>> for AIDS is nothing but the bias of the ignorant.
>>
>>> Anti-sodomy laws are based
>>> in the same legal theory as laws which proscribe sexual activity
> between
>>> adults and children.
>>
>> The big difference is consent - adults can consent to behavior,
>> children are assumed to not be able to. Any law that assumes
>> that adults are not able to consent removes responsibility from
>> adults and puts it in the hands of the law. Hardly a description
>> of a free country.
>>
>>> (such as pedophilia or rape) then you implicitly agree that
>>> the state has the power to decide WHICH sexual behavior it wishes
> to
>>> control.
>>
>> Pedophilia or rape do not involve consent. Behavior that does should
> not
>> be controled by the state.
>>
>> Mike
>
> Just in passing, do you drive on the right side, or the left side of
> the street in Canada? TnT
We don't have cars yet, Tinkerntom. Geezus. Our countries are attached. Why
is Canada such a big mystery?
|
| | | |
Date: 07 Mar 2005 02:34:24
From: No Spam
Subject: Re: Bill Moyers on environment, politics and Christianfundamentalists
|
"KMAN" <KMAN-tinOGc@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:BE5111BB.18B05%KMAN-tinOGc@hotmail.com...
> We don't have cars yet, Tinkerntom. Geezus. Our countries are attached.
Why
> is Canada such a big mystery?
>
Total lack of news coverage is the short answer. Every major news outlet
would rather talk 24 hours a day about M. Jackson or some other junk than to
<gasp > ever talk about anything that does not fit in 10 sec sound bite. I
grew up only vaguely aware of anything about either of our neighbors. It is
only now later in life and mostly due to getting more into the outdoors that
I am learning anything. Strangely enough I did learn about Europe up to
about WWII but absolutely nothing about much else in a more modern vein. The
schools that I have had contact with did a very bad job teaching anything
about the rest of the world --- very sad. I get 70+ channels on my TV and
yet not one is international - do ya see a problem here.
Ken
|
| | | | |
Date: 06 Mar 2005 21:39:59
From: KMAN
Subject: Re: Bill Moyers on environment, politics and
|
in article Q4PWd.91240$g16.69896@trndny08, No Spam at
bennospamzx2@verizon.net wrote on 3/6/05 9:34 PM:
>
> "KMAN" <KMAN-tinOGc@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:BE5111BB.18B05%KMAN-tinOGc@hotmail.com...
>> We don't have cars yet, Tinkerntom. Geezus. Our countries are attached.
> Why
>> is Canada such a big mystery?
>>
>
> Total lack of news coverage is the short answer. Every major news outlet
> would rather talk 24 hours a day about M. Jackson or some other junk than to
> <gasp> ever talk about anything that does not fit in 10 sec sound bite. I
> grew up only vaguely aware of anything about either of our neighbors. It is
> only now later in life and mostly due to getting more into the outdoors that
> I am learning anything. Strangely enough I did learn about Europe up to
> about WWII but absolutely nothing about much else in a more modern vein. The
> schools that I have had contact with did a very bad job teaching anything
> about the rest of the world --- very sad. I get 70+ channels on my TV and
> yet not one is international - do ya see a problem here.
>
> Ken
Heh. Brings to mind the popular "Talking To Americans" segment on the faux
news show This Hour Has 22 Minutes. My favourite was when the host went to
the Harvard campus and had everyone from students to professors signing a
petition to stop the polar bear hunt in Toronto. < |
|
