Debate : 16684


Off-Topic / Debate / 16684

One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —Dave Schuler

(URL) For the life of me I can't imagine why this never happened before, but I'm delighted by it. Dave! (22 years ago, 26-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —Pedro Silva

(...) Next step is likely to be the motto on the dollar bills "In God we trust"... ;-) Pedro (22 years ago, 26-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) They can leave that motto, for all I care, as long as they add: "All others pay cash!" ;-) Bruce (22 years ago, 26-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) They can leave that motto, for all I care, as long as they add: "All other pay cash!" ;-) Bruce (22 years ago, 26-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —Jeremy Scott

I cannot believe that this discussion board, Lugnet, has become an place for antidisestablishmenttarians to comment on what is going on in other people's countries, and describe their mental high on an issue that is controversial. We talk about Lego (...) (22 years ago, 26-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —Mark A. Taylor

Now pardon me, but I live in Kentucky USA, and find that the issue of the Pledge of Allegiance being Religeos is a big issue that is important. I agree with the courts decision. The use of that pledge, as it is written today was used in my (...) (22 years ago, 26-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —Richard Marchetti

(...) Eh? I think Schuler is a U.S. guy -- this means he is a citizen of the country with this particular controversy. And while we do talk Lego here, this is off-topic.debate, which gives Schuler some latitude. And that last part -- well, you (...) (22 years ago, 26-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —Jeremy Scott

(...) Hey, how does this mean I don't like Dave. A lot of times Dave is a very positive and great guy. I can't say I love him, but without him, Lugnet wouldn't be the same. This type of message is sick though, whomever posts it. Hey, I've spoken my (...) (22 years ago, 26-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Na... at least not until you actually make some "hilarious" threats. (insert rimshot here). :-) You've got "vague" covered though. Jeremy, in one sense everything said here can be viewed as somewhat likely to offend the sensibilities of some (...) (22 years ago, 27-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —Joseph Williams

(...) * checks head for trepanning *... hey my keys! Joseph (22 years ago, 27-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —Dave Schuler

(...) As of the last census, I was born and still live in the US of A, and I vote, work, and pay taxes here, so my discussions of "my" country tend generally to involve the US. In addition, your sesquipedalian label isn't entirely accurate, since I (...) (22 years ago, 27-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —Maggie Cambron

(...) Uh, I think that should be LUGNET.WE-ALL-LOVE-DAVE! Maggie C. (22 years ago, 27-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —Dave Schuler

(...) Hey, talk to Suz--she's the one who created the group. Dave! (22 years ago, 27-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —David Koudys

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes: snip (...) Love people who try to get their points across by jumping right to the end of the slippery slope. I don't believe in the 'popular view', as in 'its *just* a tradition so who cares?' And (...) (22 years ago, 27-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —Richard Marchetti

Well, I won't go around telling you what to do -- but I disagreed strongly with most of that on a personal level. The separation of church and state should mean that everyone's religious beliefs are respected and that there is no official state (...) (22 years ago, 27-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —Dave Schuler

(...) You only perceive it as a slippery slope because you're heavily invested in your particular deity. That's your right, obviously, but that doesn't mean The State can endorse a deity. To an athiest, an agnostic, a humanist, or even to someone (...) (22 years ago, 27-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —Larry Pieniazek

(...) I'm confused. I thought David Koudys more likely to sing "God Save Our Gracious Queen" than "My Country Tis of Thee" but I could be wrong. Or is it that he just went to college in CA but is a US citizen after all? I admit it. I can't keep all (...) (22 years ago, 27-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) I wouldn't have expected you to want to keep anyone straight...What do you care? Chris FUT lugnet.off-topic.out...ext-quotes (22 years ago, 27-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Not that kind of straight, silly! But yes, good one. I realised I had set that up right after I hit post.. was wondering who would be the responder. Well met, good sir! (22 years ago, 27-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —Dave Schuler

(...) I had planned to respond, but I couldn't figure out if you'd accused me of some sort of autoerotic debating(1): (...) Dave! (1) Which is NOT a heated discussion about sexy cars. (22 years ago, 27-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —James Brown

(...) Of course not. That would be thermoautoerotic debating. James GD&R (22 years ago, 27-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —David Koudys

(...) That line of mine is from 'Oh Canada' Sometimes when I'm debating, I jump from one side of hte border to the other 'cause invariably, the stupidity that happens to our bigger brother, will eventually happen to us, though always on a much (...) (22 years ago, 27-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Changing the subject... :-) —Larry Pieniazek

Well, um... thanks for clearing that up! (...) Apropos of nothing in particular I would like to point out that as a child I had to sing both lyrical versions of this song at various points in my elementary school career (1), and therefore I remember (...) (22 years ago, 27-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —Dave Schuler

(...) Since I'm the one who mentioned your libelous comments, I'll address this. You mischaracterize me (and thereby attempt a straw-man argument) by suggesting that I cry libel whenever I read something I dislike--that's simply not the case. I (...) (22 years ago, 27-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —David Eaton

(...) He's figured us out. Ah well, it was fun while it lasted. DaveE (22 years ago, 27-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —Dan Boger

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes: <snip> (...) you're arguing about the semantics here. Would it be ok with there were state run mosques? a mosque isn't a church, right? I strongly believe that the state should stay away from all (...) (22 years ago, 27-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) Evidentily the Knights of Columbus did. This Catholic organization is the one that led the charge to get the words "under God" appended to the Pledge of Allegiance. The Pledge has existed longer without those words than with them (okay, not by (...) (22 years ago, 27-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —Steve Bliss

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys wrote: [snipitty] (...) Unless I'm totally misremembering, a good number of the 'American forefathers' were Deists, not Christians. A Deist's 'god' would definitely not be the Judeo-Christian God. Steve (22 years ago, 28-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —John Neal

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes: I (...) Like it or not, our nation was founded by men who believed that the US was a country of higher purpose-- as it has turned out to be. To extricate the core values of those who created the (...) (22 years ago, 27-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —Erik Olson

(...) I continue to recommend to people to read original sources. It is hard to find a ringing endorsement of religion in Jefferson, for example. Certainly the Founding Fathers read religous books and belonged to various denominations, and the (...) (22 years ago, 27-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —Richard Marchetti

John: The founding fathers were not religious and they were certainly not christians -- and that's putting it mildly. More anon... (...) I am sure at least some critical members actually were; or if not, they were merely deists[1] -- which is sort (...) (22 years ago, 27-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —William R. Ward

Some more quotes for you: "The government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded upon the Christian Religion." - John Adams "I am no Christian" - Ethan Allen "I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish Church, by the (...) (22 years ago, 27-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —John Neal

(...) I have not mentioned any particular religion so far, so for you to is a little puzzling... If the FF weren't religious, why envoke the name of God in the D of I? (...) So why should *now* be any different? (As any politician will soon find out (...) (22 years ago, 27-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —Richard Marchetti

(...) It's pretty obvious what brands of religion are going to be the most concerned about this issue. And I don't feel like looking up all your past posts merely to discover that you ARE indeed some kind of christian, it is my assumption that you (...) (22 years ago, 28-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Um, you're overgeneralizing. SOME of the Founding Fathers were indeed professed and practicing christians... Just not any of the ones that did the heavy lifting to get this nation off the ground. So you need to be more specific, I think, (...) (22 years ago, 28-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —Richard Marchetti

(...) Right -- Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, etc... (...) Yes, fair enough -- but while there continues to be some psycho-xtian movement afoot to show that the framers were bible thumpers -- or that they even cared about such things, I think I can (...) (22 years ago, 28-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Amen, brother!!!! You are preaching to the choir on that one! (22 years ago, 28-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —Constantine Hannaher

Indeed. Although I haven't read the founders as such, I can read the Declaration of Independence and find that the alleged invocation is of the form of "...the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle (...) (22 years ago, 28-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —John Neal

(...) Well, *I* was going to try and keep it above specifics, but since you mentioned it.... And I don't feel like looking up all your past (...) No need to wonder. I am indeed a Christian, although I feel that that fact is moot in this discussion. (...) (22 years ago, 28-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —Richard Marchetti

(...) While Jefferson embraced the ideas of Christ (perhaps the parables, sort of the red letter stuff), he was fairly hostile to the idea of Christ's divinity and to certain aspects of the gospels (esp. Pauline thought). I don't think that (...) (22 years ago, 28-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —John Neal

(...) When he professes that "I am a Christian", I think it makes my argument better than yours. (...) Ahh. Welcome to Christianity 101. You think every Christian believes the same thing? And FWIW, (...) So what's your point? (...) Fine. -John (22 years ago, 28-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —Richard Marchetti

(URL) now I'm really done. I'm not wasting any more time on someone who doesn't know any better, and doesn't want to know any better. Read other branches of the thread, John. ALL of the rest of us are wrong about Jefferson, and you know better -- is (...) (22 years ago, 28-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —John Neal

(...) This has nothing to do with Christianity-- you are the one who mentioned it and thus you are the one who denegrated this debate to sarcasm and whatnot (and in doing so missed my initial point entirely). Read Jefferson's Virginia Statute of (...) (22 years ago, 28-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —Dave Schuler

(...) So in addition to being a self-admited homophobic, misogynist bigot, you also presume to judge who can sincerely invoke God's name? How many times have you cast the first stone, John? (...) Atheism is as American as apple pie. My right to be (...) (22 years ago, 28-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —John Neal

(...) Again you miss my point. The name of God is invoked by all, whether they actually believe in God or not-- it is a *cultural* thing. As to your first sentence, I'm not sure what that's about. (...) *a* religion. Using God language doesn't (...) (22 years ago, 28-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) If you can really believe this, then please explain who this God is. I assume, though correct me if I'm wrong, that the big G indicates the god of Abraham -- Jehovah (or whatever) and no other. I'm pretty sure it doesn't mean Ashur, Odin, or (...) (22 years ago, 28-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —John Neal

(...) You are very wrong. It is *intentially* vague. It is whomever you deem it to be. For *me*, yes, it is the God of Abraham and Jacob. -John (22 years ago, 28-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) assume, (...) -- (...) The capitalization indicates that it's a proper noun -- the name of a unique individual. Therefore, all gods are not God. Above, you say that I'm wrong, but without an explanation of it, I have to stick to my (...) (22 years ago, 28-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —John Neal

(...) I would say that it refers generically to God the creator, and if one is into polytheism, then I'd say it refers to the highest ranking god one worships. If all of those gods are exactly equal, then I guess one has a dilemma. -John (22 years ago, 28-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —Larry Pieniazek

(...) What if one worships no god or higher power? What then? You did not answer that point yet. To say that the nation is under god (any god, your god, the hindu pantheon, the blue mud rubbers, Larritarianism, Mammon, whatever) is to establish (...) (22 years ago, 28-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Now really, Larry, how wrong could it be for the entire population to be required to send in your love offering? That's like 280,000,000 bricks! ;-) Chris FUT -> .fun (22 years ago, 28-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —John Neal

(...) Say again? How can one worship the absence of God? or higher power? Higher Power, God. Semantics here? What then? You did not answer (...) Well, I happen to believe that establishing a religion entails a little more than that, and I think that (...) (22 years ago, 29-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —Larry Pieniazek

We have a disconnect here. There is something resistant to logical analysis in what John is saying. It just doesn't gibe with what the other side is saying, in that it shows a lack of understanding of the fundamental point. (...) And the above seems (...) (22 years ago, 29-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) I read his statement and was at a loss for words. I interpret it exactly as you do. I had no idea how to respond. I guess you did a good job. I eventually came to believe (once more -- maybe I'll learn someday) that it is impossible for me (...) (22 years ago, 29-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —John Neal

(...) Yes. I am trying to explain the use of such language as "the Creator" from our very first document as a nation which. Is that offensive to atheists? Why not? Should it be changed? Why not? (...) Well, that's my point. I think the FFs *did* (...) (22 years ago, 29-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —Thomas Stangl

(...) You'd better elaborate on this, John, because the above statement makes you sound like a truly disgusting person without further expansion. It makes you sound like you're saying "if they don't say "under God", they shouldn't become citizens? (...) (22 years ago, 29-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —John Neal

(...) What are you talking about??? Do you know what the oath naturalized citizens must take says? "I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or (...) (22 years ago, 29-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —Dan Boger

(...) you didn't but you seem to imply that if I don't believe in God, I shouldn't bother applying for citzenship...? Dan (22 years ago, 29-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —John Neal

(...) All I am saying is that the phrase "so help me God" is a part of it. Whether one believes in God or not is irrelevant (to me at least). -John (22 years ago, 29-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —Thomas Stangl

Sure, it's irrelevant to you because you have no problem cramming it down other's throats. Repugnant. (...) -- Tom Stangl ***(URL) Visual FAQ home ***(URL) Bay Area DSMs (22 years ago, 29-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —John Neal

(...) Hardly. What I meant was it's irrelevant to me because it is none of my business *what* other people believe-- they are free to believe what they wish. -John (...) (22 years ago, 1-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —Thomas Stangl

Yet you see no problem in forcing God down everyone's throats, as long as they keep their mouths shut and stop "crying": "(unless one is an atheistic activist who goes about crying about being persecuted for believing in nothing)." (your words) "I (...) (22 years ago, 1-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —John Neal

(...) Where's the "force"? down everyone's throats, as long as they keep (...) persecuted for (...) My words happen to echo Judge Fernandez's dissent (though I hadn't read it at the time). No one is being forced to say the pledge (that was ruled (...) (22 years ago, 1-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) The force is a social compulsion. When I was young, I thought that the right thing to do was to refuse to recite the pledge because I didn't agree to it. My first grade teacher (Mrs. Henderson - Fern Drive Elementary, Fullerton, CA) tried to (...) (22 years ago, 1-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —Dave Schuler

(...) I agree! If the US Mint has the wherewithal to commission 50 new designs of quarter, it really should take much to scour the religious invocations from future stampings. And to address John's frothing over-reaction; no one here is trying to (...) (22 years ago, 1-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) In school (we are talking about PoA in public school) the pressure may come from the teacher, the state, classmates, or a combination of them. It happens all the time. It has been noted here before, but you seem to ignore the point. Claiming (...) (22 years ago, 1-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —Dave Schuler

(...) Because the Declaration isn't a document of law; it's a Declaration of Independence (that's why they call it that). (...) The Founding Fathers' position on the matter was that Congress shall make no law respecting religion. Again, the DOI is (...) (22 years ago, 29-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —John Neal

(...) Thanks, Dave-- your command of the obvious is an inspiration. BTW, wasn't the DoI *ratified* by the congress? (...) My point was that they held certain views about God (that one existed and Created the universe), while not subscribing to any (...) (22 years ago, 29-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —Dave Schuler

(...) Not really; if my command of the obvious were so astounding, I'd have realized long ago that you are unable to employ logic or reason, but here I am still trying to persuade you. (...) Okay, maybe we've come upon a legitimate example of my (...) (22 years ago, 1-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —Matthew Hamand

(...) I've been following this since last week and I've got to say that that quote is one of the funniest things I've seen recently. Good work. Matt (22 years ago, 1-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —John Neal

(...) :-) (...) Um, aren't we splitting hairs here? The Continental Congress ratified the DoI on July 4, 1776. We mark this date as the beginning of our country (you're no the only one who has a command of the obvious!:) So are you trying to argue (...) (22 years ago, 2-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) I'd say that the actual start of our country is somewhat nebulous. I guess it feels good for us to say that it is 4 July 1776, but we had been effectively governing ourselves for some time at that point. Further, I think the adoption of the (...) (22 years ago, 2-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —Dave Schuler

(...) In every speech in which W invokes God on behalf of America, he's endorsing religion. When he condemned the court's decision, he explicitly endorsed religion. In his private life, George can worship absolutely anything he chooses, but as The (...) (22 years ago, 2-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —John Neal

(...) Interesting that the same Amendment that you cite condemning his "endorsment" of religion protects his right to do so. But I think you are applying it incorrectly in this case. The First Amendment prohibits *congress* from establishing (...) (22 years ago, 2-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —Dave Schuler

(...) Hmm. Good point. Still, it's risky for the leader of the nation to take a stance on religion when there's a very real chance of being exclusionary on that basis. (...) Oh, he had a private life--the problem is that everyone knew about it! (...) (22 years ago, 2-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —Lindsay Frederick Braun

(...) See the following. I rather found it interesting: (URL) Oh, he had a private life--the problem is that everyone knew about it! (...) That's not democracy, if one opinion is higher than all others. It may be reality, but it's anathema to the (...) (22 years ago, 2-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —Dave Schuler

(...) Uh, just so there's no confusion, I was kidding about the "that's MINE" bit. Dave! (22 years ago, 2-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —Lindsay Frederick Braun

(...) I know, Dave! I was referring to the idea that the opinion of our razor-thin-plurality President is somehow sacrosanct and allows him to create a religion test for those who sit on the bench. LFB (22 years ago, 2-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —David Koudys

Back into the fray (from a much needed absence 'cause I had to re-evaluate the way I come across in my posts...) /America rant on The next time anyone tells me the USofA is the 'free-est' nation on the planet, I'm going to point to this thread (and (...) (22 years ago, 2-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —Larry Pieniazek

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes: <snip> You would be well served not to use "West Wing" as your basis for research, or even for sound bites. It's terribly biased in the statist/socialist direction and the writers are quite skillful (...) (22 years ago, 2-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —Dave Schuler

(...) I've never watched the show, but I'm given to wonder if the people to whom it's marketed are themselves disposed to the sort of government depicted on the small screen. I'm loathe to use the term "statist" since it's become something of a (...) (22 years ago, 2-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —David Koudys

(...) I believe the word you're looking for is 'idealism' (...) And I think it's important for our neighbours to the south to recall that we Canadians play the best Americans on T.V. I can;t speak for the ROC, but I know that I like my entertainment (...) (22 years ago, 2-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) I'm not looking up the specifics, but as I recall, in the first years of the Supreme Court, maybe during the reign of Madison(?), the court decided that some big name law passed by Congress (that we should all remember, but I can't) was (...) (22 years ago, 2-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) can't) (...) Unless I fill in the blanks first... It was Marbury v. Madison in 1803. From (URL) : The new Constitution declared itself to be the "supreme law of the land a fundamental law binding upon state and federal officers alike. To make (...) (22 years ago, 2-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —David Koudys

Oh I hate when this happens--I had a most beautiful resonse in the making and I accidentally closed explorer!! Grr!!! K, here goes--take 2 Using West Wing for a basis of research on politics is like using Pretty Woman for the basis of reasearch on (...) (22 years ago, 2-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —Dave Schuler

(...) Freedom of Speech can be restricted by requirements of circumstance and profession. If W announced that we were about to obliterate Canada with nuclear bombardment and said that we've just launched the missiles, would you say "oh, that's just (...) (22 years ago, 2-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —John Neal

(...) Even here on (...) I'm going to forgive your foray off-topic in this NG just this once if you tell us and tell us NOW who knows what:-) (...) I would say that your characterization is slightly off-- should be whether the inclusion of "under (...) (22 years ago, 2-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —David Koudys

(...) I guess then that this is up to the Supreme Court to decide? Wait, if the Pledge is 'voluntary' then it's Free Speech--those that don't want to say it don't have to, which then legitimizes my other arguement--if the kid gets picked on, it has (...) (22 years ago, 2-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —David Koudys

(...) I know about shouting 'Fire!' in a crowded Theatre arguement--don't get bogged down in semantics. (...) And you're getting bogged down in semantics and slippery slopes--if you're afraid that your kid's going to get beat up 'cause he or she's (...) (22 years ago, 2-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Question Time is fine television. —Lindsay Frederick Braun

(...) I mean, I don't know about the Canadian iteration, but I absolutely LOVE PM's Question Time in the UK. They show it at off times on CSPAN and sometimes it's just a hoot. Were it that all government activity were so entertaining. best LFB (22 years ago, 3-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Question Time is fine television. —Scott Arthur

(...) Shh! The overseas entertainment factor is one of the biggest reasons used to justify the "reform" of PMQ’s. Scott A (...) (22 years ago, 3-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —John Neal

(...) lol, and it is *because* of this self-imposed slavery that we *remain* the "free-est" and greatest nation on the planet. (...) Wrong. They are the cornerstone of our greatness. Without them we would be nothing. They *are* sacred, or at least (...) (22 years ago, 2-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —David Koudys

Wow. Strong emotions from a strong people. That said... once again into the fray... (...) Greatest? History, my friend, will see about that. Greeks thought... Romans thought... whatever. Arrogance does not make one great. The ability to take over (...) (22 years ago, 2-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —John Neal

(...) What else would you expect? :-) (...) Well, I meant *in* history, not for all time. The US is the greatest nation to have ever existed, even though we've only been around for 200odd years. Heck, Americans have driven SUVs on the moon-- we've (...) (22 years ago, 2-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —Pedro Silva

(...) Sorry to pop in in this discussion like this, but I dispute this point of yours. I'd acknowledge the United Kingdom as the greatest nation the world has ever seen, even if its context was considerably different (colonial/imperial, I mean). You (...) (22 years ago, 3-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —Joseph Williams

(...) I'm in full agreement with taking into consideration previous civilizations as greater in influence than what is currently the USA of today. Take either China or Egypt, which are still very vital world communities today. Most everything we (...) (22 years ago, 3-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —Pedro Silva

(...) I will be more inclined to agree that China has continuously been an extremely important civilization, rather than Egypt (which is now only a part of a much wider culture). But yes, you have a point - ultimately, those who came before laid the (...) (22 years ago, 3-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) On the other hand, what have they done recently? Have the Chinese or Egyptians contributed to the world anything of note in the past thousand years? At all time and in all places, every accomplishment is made standing on the backs of giants. (...) (22 years ago, 3-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —Pedro Silva

(...) The Chinese sold pasta to italian merchants. They "invented" gunpowder (I am not sure of the date, though). And they chose the ultimate path a great civilization can afford to, they ignored the rest of us *because they could afford to*. And up (...) (22 years ago, 3-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —John Neal

(...) Well, let's compare apples to apples here. I said greatest *nation*-- you can hardly compare a nation to a civilization. Take either (...) ...please. (apologizes to Henny;-) which are still very vital world communities today. That's putting it (...) (22 years ago, 3-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —Joseph Williams

(...) Where I was coming from wasn't giving anyone a moral scorecard. Just how they had impacted nations that followed. By noting that they were still vital wasn't trying to give any credence to whatever political atmosphere is currently going on, (...) (22 years ago, 3-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) A bunch of immigrants were forced to come here. (...) Um...uh...well...we did! (...) to (...) Actually, I largely agree with this. The core of whatever greatness we have claim to (aside from the dumb luck, which is indisputable) is our (...) (22 years ago, 3-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —David Koudys

(...) This is one for the first things that I actually agreed with ;) (...) There is nothing with saying the USofA is great. My original issue was with saying it is the "Greatest" nation. The US is great, for numerous reasons which I may expound on, (...) (22 years ago, 3-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Most people don't know that the US Army's Psychological Operations sends it's members out as interns at US news organizations. Think I'm kidding? (URL) (22 years ago, 3-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —John Neal

(...) Fine. Just show me a better one. (...) And I say again-- pick a greater one. (...) How can one say that we are great because of our people, and OTOH we are a nation of immigrants (people from *other* countries). Our people are (...) (22 years ago, 3-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —David Koudys

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes: <snip> (...) God bless us all. K, I'm saying it--I think Canada is the free-est nation on the planet 'cause we're not beholden to some piece of paper written 200+ years ago and therefore the greatest (...) (22 years ago, 3-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —John Neal

(...) Amen. (...) Take off:-) (...) Wimps;-) (...) Of course. But it wasn't *our* war yet (although we were exporting like mad to support the allies-- lend-lease, etc) The (...) Well, shouldn't it be thus? (...) Did you hear this on WW... >;^D (...) (...) (22 years ago, 3-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —Pedro Silva

(...) (snip) (...) Hardly. And they still managed to rush in help of the "mother nation" when it was needed - loyalty is still a quality! (...) Maybe this can help explain why there is resentment in Europe against the USA: they made fortune with (...) (22 years ago, 3-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —Scott Arthur

(...) Indeed. Canada chose to fight for the freedom of others. It chose to declare war in 1939 - not neutrality. Scott A (22 years ago, 4-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —Simon Bennett

(...) OK, against my better judgement I'm going to wade in here. Thank you John for providing your very simple method of calculating greatness (with which I do not agree but I think coming up with a formula for such a thing would be like nailing (...) (22 years ago, 3-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —Dave Schuler

(...) (URL) Dave! (22 years ago, 3-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —John Neal

(...) Thank you Simon, for bringing up Liberia. Any nation whose Constitution guarantees the freedoms of its people deserves to be included among the greatest nations on earth. The table is set for that country-- the possibilities for them are (...) (22 years ago, 3-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —David Koudys

(...) And I guess that's also the point here--the gov't can say, 'Yes, we as a nation believe there's a God, but the individuals in the nation can believe whatever they please' and do this without having a 'State Run Religion'. Anywho, this has been (...) (22 years ago, 3-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —Richard Marchetti

(...) The usual madness, John? We are amongst the most incarcerated people of any nation, and this is by percentage, not just numbers. Why do you suppose that is? One reason, and there are many others, is that we'd rather treat our drug addicts (...) (22 years ago, 3-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —John Neal

(...) The usual leftist bilge, Richard? (...) Because freedom and responsibility go hand in hand. Many people don't understand that. (...) Show me in our Constitution where: 1. that is anywhere near the government's responsibility, and 2. why I (...) (22 years ago, 3-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Umm...do you know what it costs to incarcerate people. I don't have numbers in front of me, but I can only imagine that it would be cheaper for the US taxpayer to help them than to jail them. Chris (22 years ago, 4-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —John Neal

(...) Do you know the percentage of crimes committed which are perpetrated by repeat offenders? If we just keep them in jail the first time, crime would plummet. -John (22 years ago, 4-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) in (...) No, I don't. What is it? And what counts as a crime when compiling those numbers? And why is it that you think crimes that take place in prison are less important? I think the overall effect on the economy of fixing those who can be (...) (22 years ago, 4-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —John Neal

(...) I'd have to remember where I saw it, but something like 70% of all violent crimes are committed by repeat offenders. And what counts as a crime when compiling those (...) I don't think I ever asserted that. (...) *They* are a necessary evil to (...) (22 years ago, 4-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —Richard Marchetti

(...) Only because I am finishing my breakfast and only because it is the day it is... I do have a problem with patriotism. It is the same problem I have with most "religious" people and their seemingly mad fervor for whatever thing they happen to (...) (22 years ago, 4-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —John Neal

(...) Little judgmental this morning, are we? To follow something blindly -- uneducated and (...) What's ignorant here is your elitism and your hatred. I thought lefties were supposed to be the tolerant ones... -- is really to favor a kind of (...) (22 years ago, 5-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —Christopher L. Weeks

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes: [snip] (...) Wow! Do you really think this?: (...) What is the value of just getting together and patting one another on the back for being American? Chris (22 years ago, 5-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —Larry Pieniazek

(...) I would (regrettably...) dispute that these traits are confined to (modern) liberals. In my own county you need look no further than the local GOP machine to find them, although the loyal Democratic opposition has them as well. Perhaps not as (...) (22 years ago, 5-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —Thomas Stangl

Congratulations, John. In your responses below you have proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that you cannot read anything over 1-2 sentences long and comprehend it. That, or that you simply refuse to comprehend it (which you proved with your last (...) (22 years ago, 5-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —Scott Arthur

(...) In many respects the USA is "Great". But so was Goliath. Economically and Militarly the USA is "great". But, increasingly, it has failed to be morally "Great". (...) You are free to conform to the norm. I would have more respect for your scrap (...) (22 years ago, 4-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —John Neal

(...) Yes, you are correct. I think we are victims of our own success-- freedom has a price which one must be willing to pay; freedom without responsibility is anarchy and not freedom at all. (...) Can you say "pledge ruling"? I'm not sure that (...) (22 years ago, 4-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) You paint with too broad a brush, my good man. This atheist believes that school vouchers are the best thing since sliced bread. Seriously, I don't see vouchers as a religious issue at all. It's an educational freedom issue. And I want more! (...) (22 years ago, 4-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —John Neal

(...) Many were upset that those vouchers were used to attend religious schools, allegedly at the state's expense. -John (22 years ago, 4-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —David Koudys

(...) People can't have it both ways--they want the vouchers 'cause then they can send their kid to whatever school they think is best for their kid and at the same time say "oh you can't send *your* voucher (and therefore your kid) to *that* school (...) (22 years ago, 4-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) SC (...) positions (...) I go back and forth on what I think the base requirements for a school to use vouchers should be. I'm opposed to schools teaching e.g. strict creationism instead of reality, but I'm not sure I'd even support (...) (22 years ago, 4-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —David Koudys

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes: <snip> (...) Well, this statement kinda shows where you stand on the matter. Saying that Creationism *isn't* reality endorses that something else is. Unless you're an avid reader of Hitch (...) (22 years ago, 4-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —Dave Schuler

(...) Then let's restate it this way: Of the explanations currently on the table for how we arrived where we are today, evolution provides more complete, explanatory answers and makes more accurate, testable predictions than Creationism, and (...) (22 years ago, 5-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Evolution vs Scientific Creationism —Curt Tigges

(...) I don't think that most Christians (including me) believe that the Earth and Solar Sytem was created in 6 days (rotations of the Earth). Since there was no Earth to set the time, that wouldn't even make sense. I think that most (...) (22 years ago, 5-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism —Dave Schuler

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Curt Tigges writes: First of all, "Scientific Creationism" is an oxymoron, so let's dispense with that term and stick with Creationism. (...) Actually, it's a *theory,* just as the theory of gravitation, the theory of (...) (22 years ago, 5-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism —David Koudys

(...) Just like military intelligence or whatever... There are scientists who are Christian, and they came up with a theory and they called it Scientific Creationism, in which they try to merge the Biblical stories of creatin with scientific (...) (22 years ago, 5-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism —Dave Schuler

(...) Please don't misunderstand me--I reject "Scientific Creationism" as a term because there is nothing at all scientific about it. It makes no claims that can be tested, it calls for no experiments that can be repeated, it uses no evidence that (...) (22 years ago, 5-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism —Curt Tigges

(...) The same could be said about evolution. You can't prove macroeveolution in a lab, it makes no claims that can be tested, it uses no evidence that cannot be used for the S.C. theory (the type I believe in anyway). (...) This is totally (...) (22 years ago, 5-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Creationism —Dave Schuler

(...) Evolution makes many claims that can be tested. One deals with the order in which fossil records are deposited in strata, and in this respect is has proven correct again and again. Another is in the types of transitional fossils that will (...) (22 years ago, 5-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism —Lindsay Frederick Braun

(...) What's the difference between "pure Creationism" and "Scientific Creationism?" Both are based on anti-logic, and both are necessarily rooted in theistic dogma. If you want to produce a totally non- sectarian vision of spontaneous generation ex (...) (22 years ago, 5-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism —Curt Tigges

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Lindsay Frederick Braun writes: <snip> (...) Pure Creationists believes that the Earth really was created in exactly 6 days, and ignore any scientific eveidence to the contrary. S.C.s (at least me, tell me if i'm wrong (...) (22 years ago, 5-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism —Lindsay Frederick Braun

(...) It's not "my theory," and in fact it's very logical--and where it's not, it is open to challenge and change. That's the strength of science--that it's willing to admit that it does not have all the answers, yet. Remember that before (...) (22 years ago, 10-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism —John Neal

(...) If I may pose a question: Evolution is basically the theory that stuff comes from stuff that came before it. If you take stuff all the way back to the Big Bang (or whatever universe starting event you wish), where logically did *that* stuff (...) (22 years ago, 10-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism —Dan Boger

(...) but that's not about evolution anymore - it's the origins question, I believe. I think it's ok to say I don't know what happened then, but to me, the most logical thing that was before the big bang, was another universe... basicly, we have a (...) (22 years ago, 10-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism —Lindsay Frederick Braun

(...) The general understanding of the universe isn't evolution, though. It's cosmology. Evolution has to do with life from the point of the planet's formation--you can, in fact, divorce them; if you talk about cosmology you're moving (as Dan points (...) (22 years ago, 10-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism —John Neal

(...) Hmm. I see your point, but am still a little fuzzy as to the distinction. Evolution, AFAIK, attempts to trace life back to proteins in a sea of goop, but then again, I think it would be fair to ask from where the goop came, and so on. -John (...) (22 years ago, 10-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism —David Eaton

(...) I think my own explanation is that your question forces conditions that weren't. Like me asking you if you stopped killing babies or some nonsense like that, since you never *were* killing babies in the first place. Essentially, there *is* no (...) (22 years ago, 10-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism —John Neal

(...) I can accept the matter and energy thing, but wouldn't that suppose that life and non-life are merely facets of the same thing, which would suggest that evolution and cosmology are intertwined? (...) Yes. It is a paradox, and thus illogical (...) (22 years ago, 10-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism —James Brown

(...) Evolution isn't trying to explain the universe. You seem to be stumbling over that. (...) Now *THIS* I can agree with (the reaction, not the notion). It's an impression I've had for a long time in .debate, although I don't think anyone's (...) (22 years ago, 10-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism —Tom Stangl

I don't have a problem with someone believing in a Greater Being... What I DO have a problem with is the following: IF such a Greater Being exists, why is he/she/it such a bastard? I don't take with the Watchmaker theory, it basically doesn't jive. (...) (22 years ago, 10-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism —John Spencer Rezkalla

(...) I don't have a problem if someone believes in a higher power, wants to attend a church, etc. This is America and you have that personal right. I DO have a problem when lawmakers in Ohio try to push their religious views into public school (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism —David Eaton

(...) I think this is the attitude that James B. was referring to. Let me ask you, what's not "valid" about Creationism? I don't think 'science' can or will be able to disprove it-- although I don't doubt that it will find mounds more evidence to (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism —James Brown

(...) Only in part. I was partly refering to the trend to dismiss faith-based arguments, but I was more speaking to the further dismissal of anyone bringing forward faith-based arguments. John (Neal)'s borne the recent brunt of this, but he's by no (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Creationism —Dave Schuler

(...) Well, you're making several different points here, so let's take them one by one; First off, John R's not saying Creationism isn't "valid;" he's saying that it's not a "valid scientific theory," and he's 100% correct. Creationism is not (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Creationism —David Eaton

(...) Disagree-- but you won't like the answer. (...) Sure it is. It's just that *IF* most Creationists were presented with conflicting data, they'd choose to ignore or dismiss it. Just like you ignore or dismiss the Bible as evidence against (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Creationism —Dave Schuler

(...) Actually, no it's not. At least, not Christian Creationism, which is really what we're talking about. The presence of an omnipotent being by definition eliminates all falsifiability or empirical verification--two necessary criteria for a (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Creationism —David Eaton

(...) Well, that's not the part that's falsifiable. And, I agree-- if we take the absolutemost non-literal translation of the Bible and say 1 day = 8.6 billion years or what-have-you, then yes, you're right, it may *not* be falsifiable. Certainly (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Creationism —Dave Schuler

(...) Okay, but it's still not scientific. My claim that I just came back from the men's room is falsifiable, but that's not really scientific, either. (...) The flood story? the GLOBAL flood story? Not hardly. And anecdotal examples of failures of (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Creationism —David Eaton

(...) I know this ever-so-rarely ever happens, but I think I'm going to switch gears and join your team on this one, based on something that struck me after writing this post: (URL) that the Biblical Creation story *does* have evidence to support (...) (22 years ago, 12-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Creationism —Dave Schuler

(...) In an arena of two competing theories, the one that is able to make testable predictions is stronger than and therefore preferable to the one that is not so able. If the theory does not make testable predictions, you can't really perform (...) (22 years ago, 12-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Creationism —David Eaton

(...) Question is, is it still "scientific"? I'd still want to say yes. (...) Alright, fine. Switch the example then (we can play this game for a while yet to come). Suppose we *don't* know the chemical makeup of Halley's Comet, because it gets (...) (22 years ago, 12-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Creationism —Dave Schuler

(...) Are you asking if post hoc reasoning is scientific? No--it's actually one of the hallmarks of pseudoscience, like palmistry or astrology or Creationism. (...) For the umpteenth time in this debate you have presented the falacy known as "the (...) (22 years ago, 12-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Creationism —David Eaton

(...) I think the issue here was my interpretation of your specific problem with Creationism wherein you said: (...) The issue I was attempting to discuss here (if you trace back) is with the 2nd item in your list: "does not make any predictions (...) (22 years ago, 12-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Creationism —Dave Schuler

(...) Again, I've been basing my argument on the notion of the Xtian interpretation of Genesis re: infinite Creator. All bets are off once an infinite entity steps into the equation, so my objection stands. This is also, by the way, why studies into (...) (22 years ago, 15-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Creationism —David Eaton

(...) I'll still argue that Biblical Creationism is falsifiable-- it's just that CreationISTS tend to either bend with the evidence, or refuse it. If, for example, we were able to "prove" that humans preceeded the Earth, out goes Biblical (...) (22 years ago, 15-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Creationism —Dave Schuler

(...) See my previous point that falsifiable theories that are proven false have no explanatory scientific value. This is the case with biblical creation. The "day-lengths" thing--to which you correctly refer as disproven--was by the way a classic (...) (22 years ago, 15-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Creationism —David Eaton

(...) Apparently without a 2nd thought, sadly :( It still rather catches me by suprise that the 1st instinct isn't "Oh! We might be wrong!" but is instead "Oh! We must have misinterpreted!". The justification, BTW, is just that: 'Our former (...) (22 years ago, 15-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Creationism —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Yaay, another Larritarian! I expect a love offering from you, acolyte. Took you long enough though. (22 years ago, 15-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Creationism —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) What? Of course the Big Bang theory makes predictions. Virtually any model makes predictions. You then see if observable data matches the predictions - in the case of the Big Bang, are galaxies (or more properly galactic groupings) moving away (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Creationism —David Eaton

(...) I think you reversed the prediction with the evidence. The evidence was (IIRC) that galaxies are all moving away from each other, and the *conclusion* was that the Big Bang happened. There is no "Therefore, BECAUSE the Big Bang happened, X". (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Creationism —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Seriously? Where'd you get that stat? Chris (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Creationism —Lindsay Frederick Braun

(...) <goad> Well, it's because the other 33% are Hindus and Jews, and the rest aren't really humans. </goad> The figure is closer to 30-35%, by the way. (URL) best LFB (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Creationism —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Chris (22 years ago, 12-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Creationism —David Eaton

(...) rather than 1/3 which is I think what I heard the stat as... sorry 'bout that one... DaveE (22 years ago, 12-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Creationism —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) I cited one aspect of the Big Bang, that's all. You usually have some kind of evidence, contruct a model, and then see if you can find new evidence to confirm or deny the theory. I spoke from the standpoint of the model, not the actual linear (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Creationism —David Eaton

(...) Well, the point on this one was that I think Dave! insinuated that in order for a theory to be 'scientific', one requirement was that the theory must be able to make predictions. And I disagreed with that assertion. That's where this one was (...) (22 years ago, 12-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Creationism —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) I don't think what makes a theory scientific is as hard and fast as some would like to indicate. Does it have to "helpful" to be scientific? Why would it have to? (...) Basically, Creationist Theories don't fit the known evidence. (...) (...) (22 years ago, 12-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Creationism —John Neal

(...) But I could say the same about the existence of an infinite Being. <snipping here> (...) This is because science is using a loaded bat (to continue the metaphor). The presuppositions of science are that if you can't test it, observe it, (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Creationism —John Spencer Rezkalla

(...) Yep, thank you for clarifying that for the audience. I suppose I could have emphasized the term "scientific" rather than "valid", but it seems perfectly clear to me the way I originally wrote it. I don't oppose the teaching of creationism, I (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism —Dave Schuler

(...) I'm one of those people, so I'll offer something of an explanation. It's not that we (allow me to presume to speak for others who share my view on this) think an anti-evolutionist is a lesser *person,* but it is almost invariably the case that (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism —David Eaton

(...) Isn't accusing someone of using "falacious logic" an insult to their person? IE assuming they're a lesser one? I think the assumption you're making is that "I would *never* come to that conclusion, but you would, and that conclusion is (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism —Dave Schuler

(...) Well, don't condemn me for the assumptions *you're* making. Here's a restatement: A: Rational reasoning is based on experience and observation of verifiable evidence B: Intuitive reasoning is based on feelings and impressions independent of (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism —David Eaton

(...) I dunno if I'd go so far as to distinguish these two methods of reasoning as much as you'd like to... Could you give me an utterly basic example of each? (...) Ah-- so here's the clutch. Your argument is that your reasoning is superior to (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism —Dave Schuler

(...) Rational: After repeated trials eliminating as many external variables as possible, it is apparent that penicillin has a positive medicinal effect on the disease tuberculosis Intuitive: I slept with the window open, and my tuberculosis (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism —David Eaton

(...) Really? Now, I'd call them both rational (==logical?) decisions, there's just less support for the 2nd as opposed to the 1st. IE I'd be "less sure" of the 2nd assumption than the 1st. Which is really how I feel about Creationism. It's not that (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism —Larry Pieniazek

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes: <snippety snip> (...) I'm OK with that view! (does that come as a shock to anyone???) Reason is our evolutionary advantage. If you can't or won't reason, you're repudiating your humanity. I'm an (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism —Richard Marchetti

(...) Let me play off this idea for a minute... The problem with faith-based assertions in a category like debate is that it tends to operate as a trump card of a kind. Faith-based assertions are not logical -- they skip over such a concern and go (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism —David Koudys

(...) Very well thought out and written, Dave! A few of my thoughts and ideas (that I can guarantee won't be as thought out nor in any sense a coherent order)... I find that there are fellow Christians out there who *have* to hit others over the (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism —Joseph Williams

(...) Mabye this seems cold but I feel that this has to do with continuity of the species. Maternal instinct is found in many species to varying degree, as is monogamous relationships. Monogany helps assures fidelity, security and assures the (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) [snip] (...) Well, there are only three organisms that routinely recognize individual identity through graphic representations and the notion of self as tested with a mirror. Dolphins aren't one of them. We are. Obviously there is yet much to (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism —Joseph Williams

When anthropologists encountered stone age tribes in Africa they exposed them to many objects of the industrial world including pictures. They didn't perceive them as a representative image, let alone the object they were depicting. To expose a (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism —Lindsay Frederick Braun

(...) I call "bullhockey." Citation, please. This just screams residual imperial mentality and the racist anthropology of the pre-WWI era--and the fact that you use it to make a point about nonhumans is extremely problematic. best LFB (22 years ago, 12-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism —Lindsay Frederick Braun

(...) (probably should clarify--I'm not calling you racist, but calling the example one that's generated by racist hierarchy and totally useless in the context.) -LFB (22 years ago, 12-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism —Joseph Williams

(...) thanks for clarifying to me that I'm not a racist there, I was wondering about that for awhile now, nice for you to set me straight. As far as it being a useless point out of context, I was replying to a statement that dolphins could not see (...) (22 years ago, 12-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism —Lindsay Frederick Braun

(...) Because "tribes in the stone age" is a severe value judgement. It implies that they exist along a continuum that has us at the "good" end and them at the "primitive" or less developed end. That's the core of development theory. And it's (...) (22 years ago, 12-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism —Larry Pieniazek

(...) I'm OK with that so far as it goes... Tribes in the stone age ARE less developed. And I am perfectly OK characterising my life (and my society) as "better" than theirs. We have LEGO(r). They don't. QED. Next! ++Lar (22 years ago, 12-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism —Joseph Williams

(...) I had no idea that Stone Age was an unpc term. I must update my civilization terminolgy lexicon. Mabye metallurgically challenged? Not preferring alloys? Archae/anthro 'gists have been the worst ambassadors and tomb raiders since recorded (...) (22 years ago, 12-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism —Lindsay Frederick Braun

(...) The big problem with it has little to do with the "emotional distress" it supposedly places on people (I said nothing about this, so I'm not sure where you got it from). It has to do with the fallacious logic that the creation of this linear (...) (22 years ago, 12-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism —Joseph Williams

(...) There are actual groups of people for lack of a better term, we'll call a tribe, who having no technology beyond stone tool making and limited agriculture fall into a social development known as the Stone Age. These cultures have been having (...) (22 years ago, 12-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism —Lindsay Frederick Braun

(...) Where did you read that this was an indictment of your intentions regarding cultures? I was making a general point about the problems with the terminology *that is used in the field*, and you're accusing me of something totally out of left (...) (22 years ago, 12-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism —Joseph Williams

Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Careful, your (non classical) liberal education is causing you to use loaded words... that they happen not to be correct is an added bonus for those keeping score at home. (22 years ago, 12-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) I too wonder about this. I've heard that bandied about for years, but haven't seen any real accounts of it. I would like to read an account of this occurance. Chris (22 years ago, 12-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism —Dave Schuler

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes: Well, super. After I climb all the way up onto my high horse someone comes along with a polite and articulate post (and he's Canadian, of all things!) Some great points follow: (...) "Missing link" (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism —Tom Stangl

(...) BTW, it's bugging me that people haven't detailed the fish yet, just because I used to follow the info on it closely. It was just in the last decade or so that they've caught LIVE ones for scientists. For the longest time, they were just (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) "Micro-evolution" and "macro-evolution" are creationist terms, not terms used by scientists. That should tell you something right away. Further, in evolution, what you would call "macro-evolution" is nothing more than "micro-evolution" over a (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism —David Koudys

(...) Once again, the difference is jumping species. Whether it's 2 years or 2 thousand years, or 2 million years, a fish is still a fish. Sure, it adapted over the course of those millions of years to climate changes, grew a new fin to help it (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism —Tom Stangl

(...) False. Evolution describes the changes to fit the environment (simplifying greatly). If the Ceolacanth evolved to the point *where it succeeded in its' environment*, it doesn't necessarily have to change any more to fit Evolutionary Theory. (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism —Lindsay Frederick Braun

(...) In fact, the coelecanth *has* undergone further change. Genus Latimera is unknown in the fossil record; it is *a* coelecanth, but there are many, many types. A few of the changes that have happened to the coelecanth since the end of the (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism —James Brown

(...) <...> (...) <...> (...) Dave, I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding about what evolutionary theory is. I would encourage you to step back from the evolution:creation debate, and try and look at the theory of evolution from within a (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism —David Koudys

(...) Now this is refreshing--'The theory of Evolution' and saying that it has nothing to do with the plausibility of God. For the record, I believe the world to be millions of years old. I believe the universe to be even older. I believe that there (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism —David Koudys

(...) To clear up after reading my post and realizing that I didn't complete this thought--I was thanking James for his well worded response. It was shown to me thusly (trashing God) in parts of this debate and I appreciate his efforts to clear it (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) But no one said that about evolution. I don't even thing that anyone asserted that about science. I happen to not believe in any kind god-stuff, but that has nothing to do with the topic. Even if I did, it would still be clear that evolution (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism —James Brown

(...) Ya know, I think that's the most succinctly phrased understatement I've heard in a long time. thanks James (22 years ago, 12-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Well, people have been saying that all along!!!! What took you so long? Science in general has nothing to say about faith based beliefs other than "they are outside the purview of science". You can't use science to prove or disprove them. But (...) (22 years ago, 12-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism —John Neal

(...) That may be true, but I wonder: When evolution is taught in schools, is it preceded by the topic "origin of the universe"? That seems logical to me, and I'd be willing to bet that Big Bang garners all of the press (to the exclusion of (...) (22 years ago, 12-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism —Larry Pieniazek

(...) A creator is not a theory. It fails the falsifyability test. You seem not to understand this... (...) The evidence indicates support for the Big Bang (I think that's a misnomer in modern terminology, but OK...) and as Dave! is relating quite (...) (22 years ago, 12-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism —John Neal

(...) Would you say that it is possible to talk about events prior to the big bang without referring to religion? -John (22 years ago, 12-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism —Larry Pieniazek

(...) It is not possible to meaningfully talk about events prior to the big bang (1) at this time. Period. With or without religion. (except in the negative sense of saying that we can't talk about them as we have no frame of reference and no way to (...) (22 years ago, 12-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism —John Neal

(...) Am I *that* transparent? :-) So regarding events prior to the Big Bang, all we have are opinions which may or may not be based upon religion. To say that a Creator started it all or to say that it all just happened are equally neutral. Would (...) (22 years ago, 12-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism —Dave Schuler

(...) A "fairer" assessment would be that, regarding issues which we cannot verify even in principle, science makes no statement. Similarly, some people (myself included) might say that, since we have no basis for making a determination, it is (...) (22 years ago, 12-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism —Richard Marchetti

(...) No, not actually. Scenario 1: a creator and the kernel of the universe (2 elements) Scenario 2: the kernel of the universe itself (1 element) All things being otherwise equal, I would tend to choose the scenario with the fewest assertions. The (...) (22 years ago, 12-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism —John Neal

(...) No, scenario 1 has 1 element: the Creator. The Creator is alone until the creator creates something from literary nothing. The creator and the kernal are the same thing-- the beginning point. -John (22 years ago, 12-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism —David Eaton

(...) I'd say you're accurate-- both statements are (AFIAK) equally valid. Which is precicely why "science" says neither of them, but instead says "I dunno, I won't commit to either option" DaveE (22 years ago, 12-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) Absolutely. If the universe is cyclic, then simply everything collapsed back into as small of a point as possible until the big bang was triggered. An interesting question would be if the physical laws of the universe change from one (...) (22 years ago, 12-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Once again, the difference between species isn't something magical, or even obvious. It's (usually) merely a matter of reproductive capacity. There are many, many examples of two species that are so similar that only recently have scientists (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) Of course a fish is still a fish. I mean, what else would it be? If you are trying to state (but not quite saying it) that a fish can never evolve into another species, that's easy to answer: yes it can. I think you are really trying to say it (...) (22 years ago, 12-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism —Lindsay Frederick Braun

(...) Also, fish aren't fish. There is no class, subclass, order, family, genus, or species known as "fish." What we know colloquially as fish are in fact four (maybe five now) classes of vertebrates that happen to all share certain features that (...) (22 years ago, 12-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) *CRASH*!!! Nobody expects the Taxonomic Scale Inquisition! Our chief weapon is surprise. Surprise and anal retentiveness.....oo...ooo....two chief weapons are surprise, anal retentiveness, and a ruthless devotion to splitting scales....three! (...) (22 years ago, 12-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Know Thy Python (was: Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism) —John Neal

(...) If, for no other reason, you have to respect a man who knows his Python.... <okay, I just cracked *myself* up with that one!> -John (22 years ago, 12-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism —David Eaton

(...) I'd sure say so. One root problem being (I think) that science has an awful definition of what it means to be alive. Evolution wants to separate itself from cosmology because it doesn't really have anything to say about the Big Bang or the (...) (22 years ago, 10-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism —Joseph Williams

(...) does existential second guessing paranoia work in other areas of your life? yes we can all pretend that we're in the matrix but I'd sooner make decisions based on commonly agreed upon fact of our time, unless proven otherwise. Who has time to (...) (22 years ago, 10-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism —David Eaton

(...) Oh, it helps-- but only insofar as whether or not I want to argue with people. It helps my sense of wanting to be "right" by saying "hey, they can believe what they want". In other words, by believing in such a theory, I'm less inclined to (...) (22 years ago, 10-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism —Joseph Williams

(...) it's a nice universal way of summarizing. as long as it's not taken to a kilgore trout level it's interesting speculation. although I am an adament supporter of evolution, it is on a level of faith. I havn't looked through the microscopes or (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism —John Spencer Rezkalla

(...) That's basically the conclusion that I came to. When someone asks "well then where did the universe and all this stuff come from?", I reply "Can you phrase that question without invoking within it concepts of spacetime itself?" (i.e. cause & (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism —Joseph Williams

(...) Evolution is concerned with the origins of life not the universe. Those are unrelated fields of science, only associated by the fact that they are scientific pursuits. Theories and conceptions of the origin and nature of the Universe have (...) (22 years ago, 10-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism —Larry Pieniazek

(...) I disagree. Evolution does not speak to the origins of life on a particular planet. It merely posits a mechanism by which life on that planet, once underway (by whatever way it came into being, which Evolution is mute on), can fill all (...) (22 years ago, 10-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism —Joseph Williams

(...) my bad and duly noted. I did say in that post 'The intial spark of life is debatable too' which I really should have clarified at the beginning as well. Your explanation as to how evolution does not get involved into that murky area is great, (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism —David Koudys

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Lindsay Frederick Braun writes: <snip> Most of the time in these debates, I feel like the 5 year old trying to understand his older brother and his buddies talking about the stuff they learned in grade 8--sometimes is (...) (22 years ago, 5-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism —John Neal

(...) Precisely. And all said, we will never know. The theories of Evolution and "Creationism" (I'd call it a belief, not a theory, but whatever) are 2 sides of the same coin. *Neither* are proveable, and the debate is similar to the "existence of (...) (22 years ago, 5-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism —David Koudys

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes: <snip> (...) That's it! I voiced the same opinion as both Scott and John in under 2 days!!! Now I just have to say something that goes with what Dave! says and I will cease to exist!! Dave (22 years ago, 5-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Pathemata Mathemata —Tom Stangl

BTW, for those that were too stubborn/ignorant/lazy to look it up, typing "pathemata mathemata" into the Location bar of Communicator gave the following match in less than 1 second: (URL) of: pathemata mathemata (Greek) pathemata mathemata (Greek): (...) (22 years ago, 5-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Pathemata Mathemata —John Neal

(...) Personally, I tired after looking up "mote";-) Did you search my French line, or were *you* too lazy? :-) -John (22 years ago, 5-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Pathemata Mathemata —Tom Stangl

I ran it through Babelfish, but it didn't make much sense - "plays its fact". A basic search did not bring up a good translation within 30sec or so, so yes, I got lazy (see my other thread about people making it too easy on the rest of us). It was (...) (22 years ago, 5-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Pathemata Mathemata —John Neal

(...) Not that it matters-- I was just tweaking you:-) The point was the humor of Rooney quoting French as he's about to (as far as he knows) bust Ferris. BTW, he himself translates for us: "The game is up". -John (22 years ago, 5-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Pathemata Mathemata —Pedro Silva

(...) I believe there was a typo in the original sentence: "les jeux son faits" should translate to "the game is set" or "the bets are made". Frequent in Casinos, IIRC, when the roulette is spinned. Pedro (22 years ago, 5-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Pathemata Mathemata —John Neal

(...) I got (...) lol First, I don't know much French (though my kids speak it fluently)-- I was guessing at the spelling. The translation is Rooney's himself-- that it refers to gambling just adds to its humor:-) Thanks for the info, Pedro! -John (22 years ago, 5-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Pathemata Mathemata —Pedro Silva

(...) Your choice of having your children taught french is very wise, IMHO. As a starter for romace languages it is very good *because it is hard*, and it comes quite handy at times. From french, italian, catalonian and (to a lesser degree) spanish (...) (22 years ago, 5-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) I agree, and hope that Dave(!) will reconsider. Since it is a name of a belief/theory, and the name is reasonably illustrative of what the theorists are thinking about, I think the name is fit. (...) That's completely wrong. Plenty of (...) (22 years ago, 5-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism —Dave Schuler

(...) "Oxymoron" may have been a cruel overstatement, but I stand by my assertion that there is nothing scientific about Creationism. However, in another post, I recognized the error of my absolutist stance and acknowledge that it's fair to call (...) (22 years ago, 5-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Oh, I agree. But were I a Christian, I would still see the overwhelming evidence, believe in evolution as the most likely explanation of the origin of species, and search for a way to justify my religious belief with my scientific observation. (...) (22 years ago, 5-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism —Curt Tigges

(...) You are wrong, and I will correct you. According to scientists (including non-Creationist), the definitions are these: Microevolution: The theory that natural selection, over time, take an organism and transform it into a more specialized (...) (22 years ago, 5-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —David Koudys

(...) We have the law of gravity, which has yet to be disproven--when I let go of a hammer it will fall. We see that today. We can test that today. How do we prove 'evolution', which happened millions and/or billions of yeara ago? There have been (...) (22 years ago, 5-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) I thought it was somewhere in the UK. (...) Our wisdom teeth are primarily for mashing grains and tough fiberous roots. (...) Chaos accounts for the existence of cells of spontaneous order in a chaotic system. If you add heat to a pan of water (...) (22 years ago, 5-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Yes. (...) But actually, I was trying to indicate a specific thing when I wrote "strict creationism." I meant the belief that you describe above as dumb. The notion that God set up a bunch of physical laws several billion years ago, knowing (...) (22 years ago, 5-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —Scott Arthur

(...) Indeed, but it is important to iron out any imperfections. You constitution allows political power to be bought and sold. Millionaires can buy elections. Third parties can run negative campaigns against candidates (eg NRA). Your embassies are (...) (22 years ago, 4-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —John Neal

(...) But then you are simply restricting freedoms. Pretty soon we'd end up like the UK>;-) (...) That you mentioned race-- what would that necessarily have to do with anything? (...) Damn right. People *need* to start *really* being colorblind, and (...) (22 years ago, 4-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —Scott Arthur

(...) The past two UK general elections have produced MPs who got to power with virtually no funding. That is freedom. In the UK we limit MP’s political advertising budgets to allow open access to power. The average winning candidate spends about (...) (22 years ago, 4-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —David Koudys

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes: <snip> (...) Oh My Goodness!!! I'm sounding like Scott!! AAAAAUUU...UUUGGGGGG...H!!!...!!! That's it--I bow out of this debate! ;) Dave (22 years ago, 4-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —Scott Arthur

(...) Gosh, that's great! I thought I was starting to sound like you. ;) Scott A (22 years ago, 4-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —John Neal

(...) You said it. You "limit" the budgets. That's *not* freedom. The average winning candidate spends about $40,000.00. Think (...) So the liberal, career-politician incumbants can remain in power. No thanks. (...) One big reason is because they (...) (22 years ago, 5-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —Scott Arthur

<snip> (...) If you mean rich guys don't have the "freedom" (aka power) to buy a seat in power - I agree. Protecting democracy is far more important. (...) lol. Was Thatcher a liberal? <snip> (...) have (...) billions (...) Think bigger John. (...) (...) (22 years ago, 5-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Here in the US, we limit your hunting quota, your speed of travel, you ability to shout "fire," the percentage of your income that you get to keep, your ability to discriminate based on skin tone, and a million other things. So I guess we (...) (22 years ago, 5-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —Thomas Stangl

(...) It may not be freedom in *your* mind, John, but it is in mine. Freedom to run for office whether you have friends with millions in the bank or not. (...) Explain to me how no new people would run for office if the most they'd spend would be (...) (22 years ago, 5-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —John Neal

(...) would (...) I didn't say more wouldn't run. It's just that they wouldn't *win*. (...) Displacing an incumbent is statistically difficult. They already have the advantage in a reelection attempt. Limiting $$$ hurts the challengers. And BTW, (...) (22 years ago, 5-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) This claim got me interested. I decided that a thorough analysis of the past fifty years of US politics was beyond my level of interest. So I narrowed my exploration to the current US Senate. I sifted and sorted some stats and came up with: 50 (...) (22 years ago, 5-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —Richard Marchetti

(...) Xtians? Jews? Muslims? Etc.? Funny the things that get justified for THE MOST HOLY reasons... -- Hop-Frog (22 years ago, 7-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —John Neal

(...) Cite please (let's see if you can keep it to within 100 years of today) (...) butchers of all-time... Ah, we're *all* guilty of butchering innocent women and children, so how could we condemn any one else who does? Welcome to Moral Relativism (...) (22 years ago, 8-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —Dave Schuler

(...) Andrea Yates. Those fun fellows who murder physicians who perform abortions. Any number of Xtian Scientists or similar denominations forbidding medical care for children. Anyone, frankly, instructed by George W Bush to kill during the current (...) (22 years ago, 8-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —Larry Pieniazek

(...) It does HERE, Dave! We do things differently around here, and you'd be well served to keep that in mind, Dave! :-) (22 years ago, 8-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —Dave Schuler

(...) Darn your rules! America is the Greatest Nation in the Country! I shouldn't have to be constrained by the conventions of polite discourse! Dave! (22 years ago, 8-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —David Koudys

(...) <snip> K, this has been alluded to, and I personally have no personal stake in it for I have no problem getting my appendix ripped out if it has to be... But we know-better-than-you...your-kids' who say you 'religious-fanatics' should do as we (...) (22 years ago, 8-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —Dave Schuler

(...) **snip of some stuff** That's all well and good, but the point is that John asked for an example of a Xtian (or group thereof) in the past 100 years who killed innocent women or children, and I provided several examples. At any rate, I don't (...) (22 years ago, 8-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —David Koudys

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes: <snip> (...) If I backed the wrong horse and/or he doesn't exist (as proven in HHGTTG btw) then I have lived my life to the best of my ability for no other reason than it was the right thing to do. (...) (22 years ago, 8-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Herbs have complex chemicals that are as yet poorly understood. Some of them are certainly medicinal. And "real doctors" have been practicing quackery through the ages. (...) Something being legal doesn't make it right. Slavery of negros was (...) (22 years ago, 8-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —David Koudys

A little terse, aren't we? (...) Yes, isn't it amazing how much better we know now than we did back then. And isn't it amazing how we can't possibly conceive that the future is going to be any better at making decisions than we do today. I always (...) (22 years ago, 8-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —Dave Schuler

(...) Right to whom? To yourself? That's mighty solipsistic of a professed Xtian. Regardless, Pascal's wager is no validation of faith whatsoever, unless one already believes and feels like he needs a reason to continue. (...) Well, quacks are (...) (22 years ago, 8-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —David Koudys

(...) K, I was replying to someone who mentinoed that perhaps there is no God and that I'm wasting my time being a Christian. My answer, slightly tongue-in-cheek, was stating that 'so what?' If I get to the end of my life, living as a Christian and (...) (22 years ago, 8-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Correct. The "Big AMA Conspiracy" *actually* in effect is the one that restricts the supply of doctors in order to drive up the price of medical services. Classic cartel/union operation. (22 years ago, 8-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Fine. I agree. But who are you to say that I *may not* have it? Even if you're my parent. (...) Not really. In one case, superstitious zealots are killing innocents. In the other, superstitious zealots are killing innocents. I don't see a (...) (22 years ago, 8-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —David Koudys

(...) You may have whatever you want for you and your child, as, if and when I have them, I should be the responsible guardian for my child. (...) No, in one case the superzealots are killing innocents, ending lives that they themselves are not (...) (22 years ago, 8-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) But what I'm asking, is: what if the child wants medical treatment and the parent forbids it? (...) So if I see that a piano is falling from the seventh floor window right above you and I choose to say nothing -- letting you squash, that's OK? (...) (22 years ago, 8-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —David Koudys

(...) Ooooh, now that's the real question--is the kid denying his or her faith? Then we have a situation--the kid wants the treatment. If the child understands the implications of forsaking her or his religion... if we believe that the child is (...) (22 years ago, 8-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —John Neal

(...) It's not baloney. What gets my undies in a bunch is when ignorant people group *all* Christians together. Because one sorely misguided wacko such as Andrea Yates, who claims to be a Christian offs all of her kids, that must mean that *ALL* (...) (22 years ago, 8-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —Dave Schuler

(...) Can you not see the contradiction you're broadcasting? You are constantly sputtering about "athiests" and "leftists" as if either group can be painted with a single brush, but then you get your undies in a bunch when people applie your own (...) (22 years ago, 8-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —John Neal

(...) Back up there, schoolboy. Atheists *can* be categorized insofar as that they all have one thing in common that binds them-- no belief in God. But you would be hard pressed to find a single common belief among *all* Christians, short of their (...) (22 years ago, 8-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —Dave Schuler

(...) Easy there, zealot. (...) How about an alleged belief in Christ? That seems like a binding factor that unites Andrea Yates, Torquemada, Emperor Constantine, David Koresh, Mother Theresa, and Padre Pio, regardless of the different (...) (22 years ago, 8-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —John Neal

(...) :-) Mine was a wordplay on "Schuler". The dirty dealer meant no harm... (...) Belief in *what exactly* about Christ? This is an extremely contentious issue among Christians. (...) Dave!! That is what *RM* did to Christianity, Jews, and (...) (22 years ago, 9-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —Dave Schuler

(...) Okay, I withdraw my sharp rejoinder. But I hasten to add that it may be unwise to engage in name-based wordplay if one's name is John. (...) Well, it would seem to me that a professed Xtian would have to believe, at least nominally, in the (...) (22 years ago, 9-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —John Neal

(...) In loo of that point I see if I can refrain. (...) You are wrong. Maybe more on that later. (...) At this point it wouldn't matter. The resurrection is a faith-based event. (...) *I* am the one who ironically brought the atheists into the (...) (22 years ago, 9-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —Dave Schuler

(...) Please do clarify. In the absence of a unifying belief, we're back to the point of saying "Xtians are those who say they're Xtians." Are you comfortable with that categorization? You and Mr. Koresh and Ms. Yates and Mr. Buchannan and Mr. (...) (22 years ago, 9-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —John Neal

(...) The nature of Jesus: God or man? Man or God? The early church struggled with this question and came up with a seemingly impossible conclusion: fully man AND fully God. The meaning or understanding of this is impossible and has led to many (...) (22 years ago, 9-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —Richard Marchetti

Dave! and all: I ask that you stop responding to John Neal's posts. I can't see that there is any good in it. I just hope that the members of other countries that may see Neal's excretory texts realize that his is only one kind of minority view in (...) (22 years ago, 9-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —Maggie Cambron

(...) No, of course not. Not for a country whose citizens voted George W. Bush into office. Maggie C. (22 years ago, 10-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) What country would that be? Bruce (pointing out that the citizens of the U.S.A. rejected George Bush....) (22 years ago, 10-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —Dave Schuler

(...) No way, Bruce! One man, one vote, and Scalia was that one man. Dave! (22 years ago, 10-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) Actually, I'd say that one man was George the Elder's selection providing payback: Clarence "Uncle Tom" Thomas. :-) Bruce (22 years ago, 10-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —Richard Marchetti

(...) Are you pointing out the fact that there is considerable evidence that the Florida election was fixed, Bruce? Cuz, I tend to believe this is true -- although most people have lost interest in the subject. I guess it's good to have family in (...) (22 years ago, 10-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) No, I'm saying the *people* of the United States voted for The Other Guy. Dubya lost by that measure. He's President because the people don't actually get to vote directly for the President, though it is expressed that way. That Dubya couldn't (...) (22 years ago, 10-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —John Neal

(...) This is all a joke, right? You people have gotten over the election and have moved on, right? I only ask because there are those who *still* fume about it... (Not that there's anything *wrong* with that!) [1] -John [1] My new (borrowed), (...) (22 years ago, 10-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) There's a joke in there, alright, trouble is, it's in the White House! :-) Do you mean was I joking? No, of course not. Are you saying Uncle Tom Thomas isn't an unthinking bag man for the conservatives? Are you saying that there weren't (...) (22 years ago, 10-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —David Koudys

(...) And yet, he's the prez... Don't ever say that the US *upholds* democracy above all else--a piece of paper trumped the will of the people. And, from my vague recollections of poli-sci 101, the US isn't even a democracy, in its purest form--not (...) (22 years ago, 10-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) And yet, my comment to Maggie still stands. :-) (...) To switch devil advocate sides: the piece of paper is the will of the people. We can change it if we don't like it (political inertia may make it difficult, but if we perceive it to be that (...) (22 years ago, 10-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —Dave Schuler

(...) Let's see... Chiarascurro is a dog-sized rodent native to South America, and Trompe L'oiel is that crazy circus with the uber-limber Thai contortionists, right? Dave! (22 years ago, 10-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —James Brown

(...) No, that's a Chihuahua. Or is that the rodent-sized dog? I always get those mixed up. James (22 years ago, 10-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —John Neal

(...) no, no, no. You two are talking about the *Chupacabra*: (URL) (22 years ago, 10-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Chris ;-) (22 years ago, 10-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —John Neal

(...) D'oh, I left myself open because I forgot my parenthetical disclaimer! (Not that there's anything *wrong* with people who forget things) ;-) John (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) I'm throwing pearls before Capybara, I tell ya! I'll render hue to pieces. Aintchya got any value? Ya tone deaf? Are you art critics or impastos? Your oily opinions are water-based. I gotta give you cheap impressionists the brush-off. I (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —Maggie Cambron

(...) Gee Bruce, don't you know by now that pointillism belongs in another group? I really don't have time to be canvassing groups looking for those who paint with too broad a brush. Maggie FUT ot.pun (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, lugnet.off-topic.pun)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —John Neal

(...) <a la Mike as Wayne> Good one! -John (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.pun)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —Pedro Silva

(...) If you meant a dog-sized rodent, then it's a Capivara (to be found in Brazilian Pantanal). Pedro (22 years ago, 10-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —Lindsay Frederick Braun

(...) In English, we call it a capybara, but I like the Iberian spelling better. The really nasty ones are apparently nutrias--they're smaller but meaner by far. Sort of like little seals swimming around in the swamp, except they're ratty. LFB (22 years ago, 10-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —Pedro Silva

(...) I did not know these ones. The capivara I knew because of a brazilian soap, which was set in the Pantanal region and became famous for showing the fantastic wildlife to be found there (much more spectacular than in Amazonia, IMHO). They look (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —Maggie Cambron

(...) Okay, okay, I admit I got a bit sloppy there. Let's say we are a nation that tolerates having Dubya as president. Isn't there some saying about the people getting the governement they deserve? Maggie (who will mind her own p's and q's if only (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) Dang, I think ya got me there, finally. Bruce :-) (Dubya only hurts when I smile....and frown...and grimmace...and....) (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —John Neal

(...) Of course if the great intellect Richard Marchetti doesn't see any good in something, then there *isn't* any good in it and you all should obey his request. Do not, I repeat, do not try and think for yourselves. A greater intellect is at work (...) (22 years ago, 10-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —Richard Marchetti

I have been asked by several people to stop debating with you. Some have asked privately others publically. Some have defended you in part, in the main they have condemned you as being pointedly unreasonable -- which I think is true. I am merely (...) (22 years ago, 10-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —Thomas Stangl

Richard, John, It's real simple - Kill Filter each other. I kill filtered ScottA in this group only, and my life is much less stressful ;-) I have no problem reading his posts outside of .debate, but in here, he's as thick-headed (or moreso) than (...) (22 years ago, 10-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —Scott Arthur

(...) I have to say I have enjoyed comparing the content of this thread with the "indivisible" theme of the subject line. ;) Any Americans who are not happy with life in the USA are welcome to come back to the UK (leave you guns, SUVs etc behind). (...) (22 years ago, 10-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —John Neal

(...) Are you kidding?-- that's how we're getting there (guns in the car rack). But first, please build another chunnel to us, and while you are preparing for our arrival, please lose those silly Monty Python accents;^D Mmmmm Four-wheeling in the (...) (22 years ago, 10-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) Oooooo, british sports cars (have you fixed the darn oil leaks yet?), but have to put up with a queen? Tough choice. How about if I go to Scotland and foment rebellion? But then again, I could stay in SoCal, have my non-leaky Japanese but (...) (22 years ago, 10-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —David Koudys

(...) Or you could become Canadian, which, as *everyone* knows, is a happy balance between the British system and Americanism, and we're pretty nice people to boot! We have the best sense of humour, combining the satirical Monty Python with the (...) (22 years ago, 10-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) Oooo...ooo! I'm a lumberjack and I'm okay, I sleep all night and I work all day! Canada is a great place. I like Canada. But then again, I drove through Massachusetts and loved the place. Why the heck would people leave there for ugly sage (...) (22 years ago, 10-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —John Neal

(...) I chop down trees, I wear high heels, Suspenders and a bra. I wish I'd been a girlie Just like my dear papa. -John (22 years ago, 10-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —Larry Pieniazek

(...) The SUVs are doing that??? Whoa. Auto automation (and auto armament, where's my Car Wars rule book!?!) in silly valley has gotten farther than I thought. Here I thought it was the *drivers* that were doing that, using their SUV (or gun, as the (...) (22 years ago, 10-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —John Neal

(...) And here *I* thought those kind of cars were only available to British 00 agents! -John (22 years ago, 10-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —John Neal

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Thomas Stangl writes: Luckily, the times I've seen you (...) Perhaps you are correct. FWIW, I find you very different IRL as well:-) I'm prone to say that it is the nature of this medium. It is always very interesting to (...) (22 years ago, 10-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Please fix your quoting. You have omitted the leading ">" from the first line of your quoted material again.... If you can't take care to do this, maybe you're not taking care in your thinking either? (22 years ago, 10-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —John Neal

(...) This is some wrapping problem-- something else one needs not worry about f2f:-p -John (22 years ago, 10-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) Ahhhh. Interesting. Then it is irrelevant whether you accept Christ as God (avatar of God?) in relation to whether you are a Christian or not? That's my own opinion, but I suspect the majority of those that describe themselves as Christians (...) (22 years ago, 9-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —John Neal

(...) Uh, I wouldn't put it quite that way. Jesus was from God as no other had been before or since. Only One from God who would know God's nature would be able to reveal God to us (now this "us" could be interpreted as "the Jews" and then to the (...) (22 years ago, 10-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —Dan Boger

Something just struck me wrong when I read this... (...) Back up there, schoolboy. Christians *can* be categorized insofar as that they all have one thing in common that binds them-- belief in God. But you would be hard pressed to find a single (...) (22 years ago, 8-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —John Neal

(...) But then you wouldn't be talking about *only* Christians. If belief in God is your sole criteria, then you would have only a small portion of the group if you were speaking of Christians-- Muslims, Jews, Deists, etc would be a part of that (...) (22 years ago, 8-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —Pedro Silva

(...) Replace "Christians" with any "Religious" and the sentence still makes sense - much sense. (...) See "Buddhist" (sp?) (...) The mere fact that you don't hear them does not mean they are not there... these are the ones that do not attend (...) (22 years ago, 8-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —Larry Pieniazek

(...) I got his point. I think it's a valid restatement of your words to show that they can be applied to many groups. you DO paint atheists with an excessively broad brush, you know. More importantly.... I have a favor to ask though... please do a (...) (22 years ago, 8-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —Richard Marchetti

(...) I just wanted to see what it felt like to make bald assertions like the troll, John. Plus, I didn't want to go all "scoolboy" on you since I know you value your ignorance so much. DOG forbid you should learn anything, including the error of (...) (22 years ago, 8-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —John Neal

(...) This wasn't even your baldest assertion-- it was your characterization of Christianity as a group of homicidal innocent butcherers. Plus, I didn't want to go all "scoolboy" "Schoolboy" was a word play on Dave's last name-- I'm not sure what (...) (22 years ago, 9-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

messes —Larry Pieniazek

John... Please, PLEASE fix your line wrapping messes when you post. Either fix them by hand or get a better posting tool. Here is an example - start - that I think (...) - end - See that first line? It should have a ">" in front of it just like the (...) (22 years ago, 9-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —Lindsay Frederick Braun

(...) Wait a second. I thought the unifying belief of "Christians" was in the divinity of Jesus Christ--unless something has changed, and groups like the Unitarians are now "acceptable" to the bulk of Christianity as Christian faiths (not that (...) (22 years ago, 10-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) In fairness, John was looking for groups, not individuals. Any bigish group is going to have some fruitcakes. And in her case, you can hardly blame her Christianity (unless there's something I don't know about her). (...) This, OTOH, is a (...) (22 years ago, 8-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —David Koudys

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes: <snip> (...) Again, fruitcakes who have no idea what God's word is about--they are not Christians, they are religious fanatics--just 'cause they call themselves Christians doesn't mean they (...) (22 years ago, 8-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) It's not really my job to assign guilt to you. That's up to you. I feel vaguely uneasy about sitting by and paying taxes when my government(s) do wrong. And I feel like guilt is virtually always shared by the people involved in some mishap. (...) (22 years ago, 8-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —John Neal

(...) That's bull, Chris. Look at RM's reply to my question that *started* this whole thing: Me: What term would *you* use for a homicidal, innocent-butchering group who believes that they are acting on behalf of God? RM: Xtians? Richard was (...) (...) (22 years ago, 9-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —David Koudys

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes: <snip> (...) Oh I'm so glad that I'm Canadian with our health care system. Yes there are those union bosses who say otherwise, and people can line up a whole bunch of people whining about the woes of (...) (22 years ago, 4-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

US healthcare (was: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.) —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) millions? This common stance ignores the fact that our poor often (at least) obtain medical care when it is needed. When I was a child, our family was poor. I was, however, vacinated at county clinics, had my tonsils removed when I was three, (...) (22 years ago, 4-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: US healthcare (was: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.) —Scott Arthur

(...) I was careful not to mention the "poor". My comments focus on those just above the safety net and also do not include any “churn”. Scott A (22 years ago, 4-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —John Neal

(...) No, welcome! I'd acknowledge the United Kingdom as the greatest nation the world (...) That's funny. For those reasons the US gets criticized bitterly... (...) Yeah, and life in Britian became so intolerable for some that they *left* it to (...) (22 years ago, 3-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —John Neal

(...) I know this is bad form, but I have to apologize for this statement-- I admit I was shooting from the hip there. But here is an evaluation of Norway allegedly being the best place on earth to live (and it's by a Norwegian, no less): (URL) (22 years ago, 3-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Foundation. The fact that he's right is irrelevant. (22 years ago, 3-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —Fredrik Glöckner

(...) It may be because of immigration regulations. (...) That sounds quite a bit simplified. The majority of immigrants come from neighboring countries. There have been a fair number of immigrants from Sweden lately, and they generally move over (...) (22 years ago, 3-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —Pedro Silva

(...) Thank you! :-) (...) I used the expression "differnt context" for some reason. And I did not criticize the USA for any sort of Imperialist attitude, did I? (...) Innacurate: the Britons who originally left found life in the Colonies better; (...) (22 years ago, 3-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —Lindsay Frederick Braun

(...) "Largest" != greatest. But I think an imperialist attitude is extremely evident in American destinarianism (we're the greatest, therefore everyone else should take our lead). That's going to take us headlong into a bitter squabble with the PRC (...) (22 years ago, 4-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) I'd think that effective occupation is really the deal. For us to have claimed the moon in 69 would have lead to strife because our claim would not have been honored. We couldn't deploy enough force to the moon to keep others off, so what (...) (22 years ago, 4-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —Scott Arthur

(...) Their lifestyle was sustainable - your one is not. Right now the world is paying the price the "material culture" you (collectively) enjoy/conform to. The ugly inefficiency of your subsidised steel "industry" is an example of this. The EU is (...) (22 years ago, 4-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) because (...) Native Americans hunted some things to extinction in some places. Sustainability in the big picture can only be measured over long time periods which includes the ability to adapt. But by and large, I agree. OTOH, I personally (...) (22 years ago, 4-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —Fredrik Glöckner

(...) ... and Sweden is just between. I'm sorry for bringing this old thread back to life, but I'd just like to point out that following the UN nomination of Norway's place on the top of the "quality of life" index, the Independet reporter Paul (...) (22 years ago, 1-Aug-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —Lindsay Frederick Braun

(...) Really, read Stephanson. A large part of it *was* dumb luck, combined with lasseiz-faire attitudes (more out of a realization that the center could not control the edges than anything else) and a cultural touchpoint with the world's preeminent (...) (22 years ago, 3-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Can I deem it to be no one at all, that no such power exists? If not, then my religious freedom is abrogated by any such state sponsored statement referring to a god whether big or little "g" is used. I prefer the usage used in oaths now "do (...) (22 years ago, 28-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —Dave Schuler

(...) You can say that Chris is wrong, but you're either lying, benighted, or simply misinformed. When he signed the Bill in 1954, President Eisenhower wrote that "millions of our schoolchildren will daily proclaim in every city and town, every (...) (22 years ago, 28-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —John Neal

(...) Notice, however, the addition wasn't "in Jesus God" or "in Christ Almighty". That may be what Eisenhower had in his mind, but that isn't necessarily what it should mean to others. It is in the spirit of walking the thin line begun by our FFs. (...) (22 years ago, 28-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —Dave Schuler

(...) Oh, please. "God The Almighty" is undeniably the God of The Bible, and if you claim otherwise then you're bearing false witness--two Commandments in one day, John--and still you cast stones? Point me to one other deity in the history of (...) (22 years ago, 28-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —John Neal

(...) As I mentioned before, it is to me (and to Ike as well). Perhaps not to you. But the phrase in question is "under God" anyway, so the point is moot. (...) And even if you could, by your own assertion in (...) Not exactly. I said it would be a (...) (22 years ago, 28-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —Erik Olson

While you guys are making heat, I suggest reading the document: VIRGINIA STATUTE FOR RELIGIOUS FREEDOM (URL) (22 years ago, 28-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —Dave Schuler

(...) From a previous thread. I'll dig it up, if you'd care to review it... (...) "God language" is an imprecise euphemism. If Congress enacts legislation saying "include 'under God' in the Pledge," then Congress has absolutely, unequivocally, and (...) (22 years ago, 28-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) Again, the PoA was *changed* (corrupted during the Cold War). There is absolutlely no question as to who is rocking the boat, and it is the people who made and support that change. Bruce (22 years ago, 28-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Reading Suggestion for General Edification —Lindsay Frederick Braun

In this thread I've seen a lot of "America has a special purpose, and therefore has become a special place...etc" here--so I'd suggest that anyone who's internalized that take a look at Anders Stephanson's _Manifest Destiny_--which really points (...) (22 years ago, 29-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —Richard Marchetti

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Really, John! Do you think Richard is going to fall for that old trick? This is a debate about the separation of church and state, *not* about creationism. The "non-stupidness" of Jefferson referred to by Froggy is merely that he knew how to (...) (22 years ago, 28-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —John Neal

(...) As far as you know. (...) Your cite? (...) The point is that that kind of "religious" language permeates their thought and writings, however they "really" felt about it. You are correct that Jefferson and others cleverly didn't get specific (...) (22 years ago, 28-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) a picture of a Jefferson who appreciates the topical philosophy of Jesus while not attributing divinity. Hell, if you include people like that under the umbrella of Christianity, then I suppose you'd call me a Christian too. But of course (...) (22 years ago, 28-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —John Neal

(...) I was responding to part of Richard's post: "I don't really care how this "bs" Pledge of Allegiance issue (bread and (...) He wrote that it was "painfully obvious"..."EXACTLY" what Jefferson felt about Christianity. I cited it to show that (...) (22 years ago, 28-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) You seem to be arguing that there shouldn't be a separation between church and state, the same thing these 'founding father' seemed wary of. (...) Deists come *awfully* darn close, in function if not appearance. (...) I've always called the (...) (22 years ago, 27-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —John Neal

(...) What I'm arguing is that the FF used religious language pretty freely (non-specific to be sure). Of course they didn't want a state-sponsored religion, but at the same time they recognized the importance of religion to the people. (...) (...) (22 years ago, 28-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) This is a perfectly valid observation. Certainly there are those that feel the 9th Circuit Court's ruling will be struck down along those lines - the "liberal" Los Angeles Times entitled it's editorial on the subject "A Godforsaken Ruling" and (...) (22 years ago, 28-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

One nacho, underpants, with licorice and jugs of wine for owls —Lindsay Frederick Braun

(...) "sesquipedalian" is hereby my Word of the Day. But I never knew you were missing half of one of your feet, Dave! (...) Besides, "Under God" was added in 1954, and has no place in the original Pledge. I've seen letters in local newspapers--both (...) (22 years ago, 29-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nacho, underpants, with licorice and jugs of wine for owls —Pedro Silva

(...) Pennywise also have a version (in "Land of the free") "I pledge allegiance to the flag of United States of Hipocrisy and to the Republic for which it stands one nation, without liberty nor justice for all" Come to think of it, I think Greenday (...) (22 years ago, 29-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —William R. Ward

(...) There is a reason that this is called "off-topic.debate". We're not *supposed* to talk about LEGO here. That's what the rest of LUGNET is for. Personally, whenever the Pledge of Allegiance is said, I participate but omit the words "Under God". (...) (22 years ago, 26-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —Steve Bliss

(...) Yeah, but this group was created to serve as a kind of 'steam valve'. The intent was for threads that started in other groups, but got heated and off-topic, to move to this group. There was never an intent for this group to actually generate (...) (22 years ago, 27-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —Fredrik Glöckner

(...) The original intent of lugnet.lego.direct was to serve for polite, swift and to the point discussions with LEGO Direct (or something mostly to that effect). I think that the group has evolved into something completely different by now. It is (...) (22 years ago, 27-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —Larry Pieniazek

(...) It seems to have annoyed Senator Robert Byrd of W. Va... (I saw him on a clip that CNN showed storming around the senate almost at a loss for words in annoyance at "that stupid judge" missing the point of course that it was a panel of 3 judges (...) (22 years ago, 27-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —Maggie Cambron

(...) I'm delighted too for now, but isn't this a decision of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, one of the more liberal bodies? I assume it will be sent up to the U.S. Supreme Court for their decision-- and I bet we won't be so delighted then. BTW (...) (22 years ago, 27-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —John Neal

(...) I understand that they have been overturned by the SC 12 of 17 times, or something like that. Nice track record! I assume it will be sent up to the (...) Especially after their (US Supreme Court) *last* ridiculous ruling (executing the (...) (22 years ago, 27-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —Dave Schuler

(...) Actually, it was about *NOT* executing the mentally retarded, but your point is off-the-mark at any rate. Scalia castigated the SC for what he perceived as an attempt to establish a national consensus where none exists. If that's the case, (...) (22 years ago, 27-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —John Neal

(...) Well, he *was* writing the *dissent*... My point was the the majority used the concept of a national consensus for justification. If *that's* valid, then I would think that that justification would apply to the pledge case as well (where I (...) (22 years ago, 28-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —Simon Bennett

(...) I was always very confused by this when I was at school in the US. My US Government class made a big deal of the 'separation of church and state', yet we (well not me obviously, though I did stand for it) were expected to recite the pledge (...) (22 years ago, 27-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —Pedro Silva

(URL) else is having fun with this subject too... Pedro (22 years ago, 27-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —Tore Eriksson

(...) Pardon my ignorance, but who or what is Scrutiny? /Tore (22 years ago, 27-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —Dave Schuler

(...) Here are a few other gems from (URL) Sen. Kit Bond, R-Missouri, was one of many lawmakers who immediately reacted in anger and shock to the ruling. "Our Founding Fathers must be spinning in their graves. This is the worst kind of political (...) (22 years ago, 27-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —Dan Boger

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes: <snip> (...) even better quotes from Mr Bush: Speaking Thursday at the G-8 summit in Canada, Bush said the ruling was "out of step with the history and traditions of America," and said it highlighted (...) (22 years ago, 27-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —Tore Eriksson

(...) Of course all Christians are equal, it's just that some are even more equal... /Tore (22 years ago, 27-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —Erik Olson

(...) This reminds me of a good line in the movie Spartacus. Senator Gracchus says to Marcus, "Privately I don't believe in any of the gods, and neither do you, but publicly? I believe in all of 'em." The Senate resolved 99-0... which senator was (...) (22 years ago, 27-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) I'm confused by it. Before we get into why, I want to state clearly that I oppose the practice of reciting the PoA in schools with every ounce of my being -- but not particularly because of the God thing. Such childhood political (...) (22 years ago, 27-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —Dave Schuler

(...) Here's another encouraging bit of religious tolerance: Newdow said that since the ruling he has received death threats, including one left on his answering machine that said, "You're a dead man walking." Newdow said he has received a flood of (...) (22 years ago, 27-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —John Neal

(...) LOL Hope you enjoyed it while it lasted. Seems the old coot who wrote the decision has already recanted. What a quack. -John (22 years ago, 27-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —Dave Schuler

(...) free of "Canada's Better, no the US is better" rhetoric): (URL) (22 years ago, 3-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)