Posted by Steve on 09/20/07 06:13

"Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:_tKdnelQP6RMPWzbnZ2dnUVZ_qSonZ2d@comcast.com...
> Steve wrote:
>> "Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote in message
>> news:cuadnVL5QPJvyW3bnZ2dnUVZ_hKdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>>> Steve wrote:
>>>> "Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:296dnbsuHfXCnW3bnZ2dnUVZ_tPinZ2d@comcast.com...
>>>>> Steve wrote:
>>>>>> "Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:nNqdnZZZKfElX3LbnZ2dnUVZ_h6vnZ2d@comcast.com...
>>>>>>> Steve wrote:
>>>>>>>> "Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:JoWdneE7j9ChsHLbnZ2dnUVZ_vCknZ2d@comcast.com...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hey, I'd much rather have a God-fearing President than an atheist.
>>>>>>>> jerry, i've been quiet thus far. what is wrong with an atheist or
>>>>>>>> atheism itself. you and i are involved in a scientific field. i
>>>>>>>> have to ask, what scientific evidence do you have that god exists.
>>>>>>>> and, with whatever 'evidence' you may provide, what kind of
>>>>>>>> relationship does it indicate that she may want to have with us? as
>>>>>>>> there is no objective evidence, i can only infer that if a god
>>>>>>>> exists, she wants nothing to do with us.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't need scientific evidence. My faith is good enough for me.
>>>>>>> And I feel sorry for you.
>>>>>> oh my!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> i can see the romanticism in the idea of the things hoped for. that
>>>>>> is the nature of humanity. however, to afix that to a god-figure and
>>>>>> create a regiment of though/belief about that concept - one that
>>>>>> rules your life and had such a huge and not always pleasant mark on
>>>>>> the history of others lives - without proof or indications that say
>>>>>> you seem to be correct...that is just scary!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> why is it that most rational people who go through their lives
>>>>>> applying critical thinking to all aspects of their lives, negate or
>>>>>> forbid themselves from doing the same with this one, special case -
>>>>>> god? that is wholly beyond me!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> you go ahead and feel sorry for me. i hope you are serving the
>>>>>> 'right' one, cuz all of the major religions now are quite exclusive
>>>>>> in membership with eternal damnation for not joining. (he pauses to
>>>>>> think...i wonder if jerry is going to come back with the good ol'
>>>>>> pascal wager at this point...then chuckles to self)
>>>>>>
>>>>> Whatever. It's my belief. However, you can be assured if there is a
>>>>> God, you will be in the wrong. At least I have a chance of practicing
>>>>> the "correct" religion.
>>>> I KNEW IT...I CALLED IT...I TOLD YOU IT WAS COMING!!!
>>>>
>>>> PASCAL'S WAGER !!!
>>>>
>>>> and no, we have exactly the SAME changes of being right. you really
>>>> should research theology more before committing one of the most basic,
>>>> stupid, and flawed logical arguments passed throughout history. (as
>>>> jerry now beings to google, red in the face from embarrassment once he
>>>> sees what the fuck he just did).
>>>>
>>> Not at all. If there is no god, my religion is neither helping or
>>> hurting me. However, if there is a god, you have no chance of being
>>> right because you never entered the lottery. OTOH, I could have picked
>>> the "correct" religion.
>>>
>>>>>>>> as for your assumption that god-fearers somehow make better
>>>>>>>> decisions that atheists...hardly the case. what god shall we fear?
>>>>>>>> muhammad? mythra? zeus? buddah? the big jc? as an american and a
>>>>>>>> republican, this is the most i've ever feared for democracy in
>>>>>>>> america...it has nothing to do with afghanistan or iraq, but
>>>>>>>> everything to do with domestic policy inacted after 911...and how
>>>>>>>> easily a 'god-fearing' people can be moved and rallied under the
>>>>>>>> banner of 'god' in leu of ration thought - especially thought that
>>>>>>>> is critical of current events in light of history.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> give me an atheist about now, please!
>>>>>>> I don't care what you believe in. However, when you try to impose
>>>>>>> your religion on me, the President or anyone else, I draw the line.
>>>>>> and the world shudders.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> why are christians so eager to say that but gaffaw when atheists, for
>>>>>> the exact same reason, want to remove religious icons from
>>>>>> mountainsides in california, or edicts greeting patrons of public
>>>>>> places, or pray in schools? why is there a double standard?
>>>>> You're the one setting the double standard - not allowing me to
>>>>> practice my religion. What harm does a cross on a mountainside do to
>>>>> you if you don't believe in any god? It's just a couple of pieces of
>>>>> wood, after all. Or if I want to pray in school, why is it your right
>>>>> to say I can't?
>>>> practice all you want, but don't ask me to pay for it with the taxes
>>>> used to propogate it in public. go off to church and do that shit in
>>>> private...not in the public sector. the harm is that a cross on a
>>>> mountainside, if paid with public funds, is favoring and sponsoring
>>>> religion. do you ever read? how about the federalist papers? madison?
>>>> what harm? fucking get a clue!
>>>>
>>>> if you want to pray in school, go ahead. the problem is when a person
>>>> paid by the state says, 'now it is time to pray'. surely you're not
>>>> that stupid!
>>> I never said you had to pay for it with your taxes. But also notice
>>> there is NOTHING in the Constitution saying Congress or the States can
>>> or cannot spend money regarding religion - or even sponsor a religion.
>>> That has strictly been an "interpretation" of the courts. All it says
>>> that Congress and the States cannot force any person to practice any
>>> religion. Now that does not mean I disagree with this interpretation.
>>>
>>> But obviously you have not read the Federalist Papers. You don't have a
>>> clue what Madison said.
>>>
>>> As for someone offering a non-denominational prayer in school - no, I
>>> don't see anything wrong with it, as long as people can opt out if they
>>> choose. What are you afraid of - your children might actually learn
>>> something you don't believe in?
>>
>> jerry, i am a student of history. i've done my homework. you keep leaving
>> out, or ignoring completely, the establishment clause of the first
>> ammendment.
>>
>> and of course you see nothing wrong with prayer in school! you're a
>> fucking christian!!! the only thing i'm afraid of is that we have a
>> religious zealot in office and people like you are backing him...and you
>> don't see a thing wrong with prayer in school or governmental sponsorship
>> of religion.
>>
>
> And you have yet to tell me what's so wrong about a non-denominational
> prayer that people can chose to participate in or not participate in.


jesus h fucking christ. this line of belabored thought is no longer worth
addressing.

ah, hell! jerry, remember that poland was only one country...and then the
netherlands...and then...well, you get the point. i think the sentiment of
the time was that eventually, satisfaction could be reached. they, and you
for the same reasons, were wrong.

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

>> what would you be afraid of if your kid's school required them to say the
>> morning islamic prayer? the point is, that whatever i want my children to
>> believe about god is (or should be) up to me to provide, not the state.
>> funny how the only things a child learns in school are the essential
>> things that will help them get through life...religion is not part of
>> that.
>>
>
> I never said it was mandatory. In fact, I specifically said participation
> should be optional.

and i, and others, keep saying there should be no reason for the option in
the first place. it is inappropriate.

> As for my children being exposed to an Islamic prayer - I'd say great.
> They should be exposed to different cultures and religions.

and prayer to satan? what about that? pagan gods? fine with that too? where
does it end, jerry? someone will have offended someone else...religions are
like that. so, whom does the gubment say can go and whom may stay?

>> btw, wtf does a prayer sound like...the one where no religion gets
>> offended? "non-demoninational"...you've still got your
>> asshole-tunnel-vision-christian-perspective goggles on, i see. lol. did
>> you mean the non-denominational zen buhdists? the non-denominational
>> hindus? the non-denominational wiccans? i couldn't be laughing harder!
>
> You don't have any idea what a non-denominational prayer is, do you? It's
> one which isn't Christian, Jewish, Muslim or any other specific religion.
> It's one which allows participants to deal with God as they believe.

the term originates in CHRISTIANITY, dumbass! all other religions whos
'denominations' have splintered are called SECTS. so, whom do you think is
pushing that fucked up notion? either way, it is a waste of time that my
children could have used to learn something *useful*. that, in and of
itself, is problem enough - wall of seperation argument aside!

[Back to original message]