From: Bill Graham on

"Pete Stavrakoglou" <ntotrr(a)optonline.net> wrote in message
news:hqhi98$2se$1(a)news.eternal-september.org...
> <stephe_k(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:hqbfvi$5gr$4(a)news.albasani.net...
>> Pete Stavrakoglou wrote:
>>> <stephe_k(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:hq7veu$hmp$1(a)news.albasani.net...
>>>> Pete Stavrakoglou wrote:
>>>>> <stephe_k(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:hq7okb$6e0$2(a)news.albasani.net...
>>>>>> David Ruether wrote:
>>>>>>> "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Again thanks. I've always been annoyed by that intrusion of
>>>>>>> religion into the pledge, and also with the words, "in god we
>>>>>>> trust" on our money, as if that represents the views of all who
>>>>>>> use the money, and therefore of all US citizens. The tendency
>>>>>>> of a majority of people to believe that their *beliefs* are
>>>>>>> universal and "true" can be oppressive.
>>>>>>> --DR
>>>>>> While I do believe in God and go to church every sunday, I also don't
>>>>>> think it has any place in the government because who knows if what
>>>>>> "Their God wants" is the same as my view of God. Clearly in this case
>>>>>> we are discussing it isn't and given the wide range of denominations,
>>>>>> there are a variety of ways He is viewed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Stephanie
>>>>> Are you suggesting that people of faith have no business being active
>>>>> in government?
>>>> They have no business trying to impose their faith on other people if
>>>> that is why they are being active.
>>>>
>>>> They also have no business trying to control what other people do based
>>>> on their faith or religious beliefs. As I stated, I am a person of
>>>> faith, I am active in government but would NEVER use the government to
>>>> force my religious beliefs on other people.
>>>>
>>>> While the founding fathers felt religion was needed to guide the
>>>> country, they also created separation of church and state for good
>>>> reason.
>>>>
>>>> Stephanie
>>>
>>> I'm still looking for that "separation of church and state" clause in
>>> the Constitution but still haven't found it. What I do find in the
>>> Constitution is that the governement cannot involve itself in religion
>>> but those of religious faith have the right to be involved in
>>> government. There is separation of the state from the church but not
>>> vice versa.
>>
>>
>> So you think the constitution allows you to enforce your religious
>> beliefs on other people, just because it doesn't specifically say a
>> church can't do this?
>>
>> Stephanie
>
> Do you believe that your beliefs should be imposed on others? Only the
> beliefs of religious people should not be considered? I am free to use my
> influence to affect public policy just as you are. Whether I am a
> religious person or not has no bearing on that.
>
You can buy a church, and preach in it. You can stand on a soap box on
public property, and preach. But you can't make laws respecting your
religion if you are a congressman/ I see nothing wrong with this.....Making
a law that changes the pledge of allegiance to the flag by adding a
reference to "God", is a clear transgression of the constitution. Had the
pledge been written that way originally, it would be OK, but it wasn't, so
Its wrong to change it now. All it does is cause trouble by slapping us
non-believers in the face. It is not a prayer....It is the pledge of
allegiance to the flag.

From: Bill Graham on

"Alan LeHun" <try(a)reply.to> wrote in message
news:MPG.263667f94c797789897d2(a)news.x-privat.org...
> In article <hqhi98$2se$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>,
> ntotrr(a)optonline.net says...
>> I am free to use my
>> influence to affect public policy just as you are. Whether I am a
>> religious
>> person or not has no bearing on that.
>>
>>
>
> If you are a religious person, have not effectively signed your
> influence away to the church?
>
> Religion is, after all, simply a means of control.
>
> I agree that certain churches exercise differing amounts of control, and
> some exercise very little, but the point is still valid. A catholic for
> example, could not vote for a candidate standing on a pro abortion
> stance not because they have made up their mind on the issue, but
> because the church has made its mind for them.
>
> --
> Alan LeHun

In general, belonging to any religion is letting someone else make up your
mind for you.....In a sense, belonging to any organization is to relinquish
a part of your autonomy to others, which is why I am not, in general, a
joiner. Unfortunately, this means I have little power to change anything.
Those who band together are the ones who have the power.

From: Bill Graham on

"David Ruether" <d_ruether(a)thotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hqhncg$75b$1(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
>
> "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:2cGdnYKPS8_3VVbWnZ2dnUVZ_rWdnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>> "David Ruether" <d_ruether(a)thotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:hqeul0$k5u$1(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
>
>>> You were lucky enough to make enough money and wise enough
>>> to regularly save enough of it to have what you have now. Most others
>>> "live on the edge" not by choice, but because they don't make enough
>>> to put away anything. I never grossed more than $22k any year in my
>>> life (and often far less), and with business expenses, the "take home"
>>> portion was much smaller. But, with care (I've always been good with
>>> money), I managed to own outright a decent 1100 sq. ft. house and a
>>> cheap-but-OK car, and to amass $96k in investments. I had to stop
>>> working about eight years ago when a "difficulty" hit me suddenly out
>>> of nowhere. I wanted to continue working, but I couldn't be sure of
>>> being able to meet with clients, let alone "perform" on the agreed-upon
>>> dates. For the last two jobs I hired back-up photographers to fill in,
>>> if needed, which left too little profit to bother with, so I went on SS
>>> disability, and a few years later, that converted to a modest SS income,
>>> essentially my only source of income (but it is sufficient for my
>>> needs).
>>> Now, as it happened, I have come to meet many on welfare or disability,
>>> and NONE is on it just because they don't want to work. There are
>>> some who cannot afford even the inexpensive "Gadabout" transportation
>>> service for the elderly and disabled, or modest meals away from where
>>> they live (I set up a local "kitty" for $5 to be given such people when
>>> needed, since they need the money more than I do), people who are
>>> blind and/or have hearing difficulties, people who have mobility
>>> problems,
>>> people who have various diseases (up to ALS), and people who "just"
>>> have bipolar disorder (which can be just as crippling as any physical
>>> problem). I have a form of autism, but I have managed with it since I
>>> found a way to make money without having a regular job (my last
>>> attempt was in 1962, I think...). So, quit with the "stingy" and the "if
>>> I could do it, anyone could do it" attitude and look at the conditions
>>> many real people live with who need the available extra help, and quit
>>> fixating on the few exceptions (and one needs a treat ONCE in a while!),
>>> and, BTW, my sister (long story...) uses a cell 'phone 'cuz it's cheaper
>>> than any other type if used very sparingly. Please be more generous in
>>> your outlook, if not with your money...
>>> --DR
>
>> I am saying, and have said several times before, that the people I am
>> talking about are not those who are disabled to the extent that they find
>> it impossible to work. I never wanted to cut these people off.....As a
>> matter of fact, I would like to cut off the other 98% (a good statistic)
>> who have all their fingers and toes and mental capabilities and could
>> work, but don't, and give this money to those of whom you speak who can't
>> work for one reason or another. The people of whom I speak, who could
>> work but don't, ate (and have been) subsidized by the state of California
>> all of my life....I have met many of them, and they didn't work because
>> they were better off economically by just sitting and letting the
>> California government cut them checks every month. There was no "sliding
>> scale" payments that would (or might have) given them any incentive to
>> work. I keep telling you this, but you keep reverting to my being, "An
>> unfeeling conservative who doesn't understand the plight of others who
>> are less fortunate than I." Lets take the idiot who lived next door to me
>> in Menlo Park for about 5 years. He had a dozen children, and he lived in
>> a three bedroom house. Je was on disability, because he had a "nervous
>> condition that made him uncomfortable when he worked for a living" (No
>> lie) All he did was sit home and drink beer.....After they moved out
>> (owing 5 months rent) I met the owner's son, who was fixing up the place
>> for re-renting to someone else, and needed me to help him install a new
>> toilet. He showed me the back bedroom.....It was piled floor to ceiling
>> with empty beer cans....This guy lived in a three bedroom house, with a
>> dozen children, and he used one of the three bedrooms for a garbage dump
>> for his beer cans! Incidentally, while they were living there, his wife
>> had another ked, so there were thirteen kids when they skipped out of
>> town.....The local police department knew all about this guys
>> kids....They lived under a standing order curfew.....If any of them was
>> seen by a Menlo Park policeman out after dark, he (or she) would be
>> arrested immediately.....they got all their spending money by stealing
>> whatever they could get their hands on, and selling it to whomever they
>> could for whatever they could get for it.......
>
> You do seem to generalize from only a few instances to "pasting"
> your evident low regard for some of those in need to all such. As
> I have pointed out before, there will always be exceptions who
> may not be worthy of help - but that BY NO MEANS indicates
> that most who receive it are not in need of it for basic living
> resources, and also use it to the best of their abilities. Few get rich
> on welfare...;-)
> --DR
>
Hey! Show me these, "Most" of whom you speak.....I lived and worked in
California for over 40 years, I knew many people who were welfare puppies. I
have only known a very few who actually deserved some help from the
taxpayers. My own experience tells me that the system is F***** up. The
statistics of less than 2% I got from reading about the welfare system in
papers and books....I didn't just pull it out of the air. Oh sure, there is
some excuse they all have for taking the money....They are better off than
they would be working, in some cases. But that is a fault of the system.
There was no incentive for them to work at all. No sliding scale to give
them some help in finding a job that would improve their situation. No end
to the help they were getting, so they would have an incentive to learn a
new trade and prepare to leave the welfare rolls. It was a clear case of
giving them a fish every month instead of teaching them how to fish.....

From: Pete Stavrakoglou on
"Alan LeHun" <try(a)reply.to> wrote in message
news:MPG.2637ce713801369e9897df(a)news.x-privat.org...
> In article <hqk5t6$mip$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>,
> ntotrr(a)optonline.net says...
>> Thanks for making this response. Mr. Lehun's post is so ridiculous that
>> I
>> wouldn't even bother responding to it. Your description of my mindset is
>> better than I would have made, thanks.
>>
>
> Fair enough. I would point out though that my post was not a personal
> dig upon yourself, nor a dig at religious people in general. It was
> firstly an observation that religion requires or encourages its subjects
> to relinquish choice on certain (usually moral) grounds, and secondly,
> that society has the same imperatives but from a completely differing
> origin.
>
> I am sorry if I offended you.
>
> --
> Alan LeHun

You are forgiven :)


From: J. Clarke on
On 4/20/2010 10:45 AM, Alan LeHun wrote:
> In article<hqk5t6$mip$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>,
> ntotrr(a)optonline.net says...
>> Thanks for making this response. Mr. Lehun's post is so ridiculous that I
>> wouldn't even bother responding to it. Your description of my mindset is
>> better than I would have made, thanks.
>>
>
> Fair enough. I would point out though that my post was not a personal
> dig upon yourself, nor a dig at religious people in general. It was
> firstly an observation that religion requires or encourages its subjects
> to relinquish choice on certain (usually moral) grounds, and secondly,
> that society has the same imperatives but from a completely differing
> origin.

I am curious as to how religion in the US could require someone to
"relinquish choice". There is no mechanism by which a citizen may cede
his voting rights to another party.