Amun could fuck you back!

It's not MAD science...just disappointed.

Moderator: Gav

Re: IMHO...

Postby DonaldHines on Wed Jul 03, 2002 5:02 am

Aramchek wrote:"I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God." - George Bush the elder

I'm in shock. I didn't believe it, so I scanned the web. As far as I can tell, he actually SAID this. :x I mean, how on earth did this country actually elect someone as president who could say such a thing? How could ANYONE feel safe in a country with people like that in charge? Next its Muslims and Jews who don't worship the same god and can't be considered citizens. Then they come for the Jehovas Witnesses, and shortly after that they start looking at the Seventh Day Adventist and suddenly I find myself included in Bush Sr. list of 'non citizens'. I wanna move to mars. Anyone want to split the expense of building a big linear accelerator with me?

Donald
DonaldHines
Keenspotter Supreme
 
Posts: 20
Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2002 6:45 pm

Tesla

Postby DonaldHines on Wed Jul 03, 2002 5:18 am

LCARS wrote:Actually, Nikoli Tesla was just a accredited with inventing the first radio transmitter

Nikoli Tesla is an incredibly cool and unbelievably unappreciated scientist. He pretty much invented our modern electrical system, even though Edison gets all the credit. check out: http://www.concentric.net/~jwwagner/index.shtml

Donald
DonaldHines
Keenspotter Supreme
 
Posts: 20
Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2002 6:45 pm

Re: IMHO...

Postby Aramchek on Wed Jul 03, 2002 5:19 am

DonaldHines wrote: I wanna move to mars. Anyone want to split the expense of building a big linear accelerator with me?Donald


That reminded me of something. In one Arthur C Clarke book that I read ages ago (I've forgotten the name) the solar system is about to go KABOOM (Gav, what did you do??) so there is a huge program launched to colonise other solar systems. They try to bring along as much of human knowledge as possible, with one exception - nothing about any religion is allowed because they decide they don't want to poison the new colonies with it!
Granted, I'm not sure how they'd be able to bring along anything about human history with this ban :P

Anyone starting to realise why ACC is well known as a militant atheist? :-)

/Aramchek (finally remembering to disable his .sig)
User avatar
Aramchek
Keenspot Despot
 
Posts: 1069
Joined: Sun Mar 17, 2002 4:00 pm
Location: Area 52

Postby vorn_the_unspeakable on Wed Jul 03, 2002 6:09 am

Arthur C. Clarke's Songs of Distant Earth, perhaps? all the chaos and nihilism of the End of the World, followed by the idyllic life of people living on three small islands on a planet called Thalassa? With the colony ship Far Star, I believe, arriving and building an ice manufacturing facility... and also bringing along with it records of the 8,000 years of human history. Including lots and lots of religion and art, both of which were never ever seen at the colonies.

Vorn
User avatar
vorn_the_unspeakable
Keenspot Despot
 
Posts: 1540
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2001 12:00 am
Location: Stratford, CT

McCarthyism

Postby txdadu on Wed Jul 03, 2002 6:43 am

Doesn't anyone in the government care that this change that NEEDS to be changed in the Pledge of Allegiance came from one of the most shameful eras of the history of the United States? The change in the Pledge of Allegiance came as a direct result of the witchhunt by a megalomaniac on the order of Hitler. I am not an Atheist, however this is a change long overdue. As the fight against the 'evil' of Communism needs to end, so does the inclusion of religion in the statements of our government.

Remember the man who originally wrote the Pledge of Allegiance was a socialist.
txdadu
Junior Keenspotter
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Wed Jul 03, 2002 6:34 am

Postby Aramchek on Wed Jul 03, 2002 7:17 am

vorn_the_unspeakable wrote:Arthur C. Clarke's Songs of Distant Earth, perhaps? all the chaos and nihilism of the End of the World, followed by the idyllic life of people living on three small islands on a planet called Thalassa? With the colony ship Far Star, I believe, arriving and building an ice manufacturing facility... and also bringing along with it records of the 8,000 years of human history. Including lots and lots of religion and art, both of which were never ever seen at the colonies.

Vorn


Strange. From the description it sounds like that book but I don't recognise the title as belonging to that tale.

Ah well :-)

/Aramchek (planning to visit Rama next summer)
User avatar
Aramchek
Keenspot Despot
 
Posts: 1069
Joined: Sun Mar 17, 2002 4:00 pm
Location: Area 52

Postby aspera on Wed Jul 03, 2002 8:41 am

aspera wrote:
"Seperation of church and state." That is not in the constitution... This resriction is solely against the governemt declaring an official religion or outlawing one.

DonaldHines wrote:
I hear this one a lot. IF your interpretation was correct (and I don't grant that) then it would ONLY mean that there is a moral flaw in our constitution that needs correction. The constitution didn't outlaw slavery either. We fixed that one, eventually.

The moral flaw is then with the people that wrote it, they felt it was perfectly accceptable for governement to fund private religious schools (like Harvard and Yale). This is in the same Federalist Papers that the courts use to determine the intent of the Founding Fathers as the "Separation" phrase, along with Alexander Hamilton discussions that it is congress's duty to removed judges who rule against the traditions of the country. Their intent was clear(to anyone who isn't on the 9th Circuit), and the law has not changed. I would have no problem with this if it were presented as a constitutional ammendment, but as you can see from the reaction to this issue, it wouldn't pass... If it did, it'd live with it, it would be the law, rather than some judge selected through a highly political process deciding to change the law based on an interpretation of the law the founding fathers most certainly did not intend.

Regardless, there are STILL Mormons who practice polygamy, under constant fear that their homes will one day be invaded by the police and they will be dragged into court, possibly doing time in jail, possibly loosing their children.


And there are still people who practice canibalism, with the same fears what *is* your point? The law is the law, and it must be complied with regardless of your religion. If your religion says that only your family can see your face, but your country requires that they are able to photograph your uncovered face to get a drivers license, do you sue the government force then to change the laws so you can have a drivers license photo that doesn't show your face? (One woman in Florida did just that, now arab terrorists can get driver's licenses in Florida that have to be accepted nationwide.)

gwalla said:
Not sure what you're saying here. Are you saying that the USA is the one atheist country to get it right? Or are you saying that atheism precludes morality (which I would argue is patently absurd.


No, I'm saying America is a christian country, founded on christian beliefs and principles, but tolerant of others views. No you are right, Athiesm doesn't necessarily preclude morality, but can you name an athiest state that maintains a moral tradition? There isn't one. Part of what makes America is these moral traditions are maintained and at the same time people of all religions (and athiests wether that is a religion or not) have always been tolerated. Not always recognised and kowtowed to live they would like, but tolerated. And all that is asked for is a little tolerance of the traditions of the people who founded this country, down to the majority of today.

But there are penalties in school for not following directions.

If the guy how brought this case to court was penalized for failure to say this line in the pledge, the court has already ruled that this is illegal. This isn't about that, because it never happened. I can't immagine a public school (the few that still perform the Pledge) that would care enough to do anything if someone routinely failed to say every word of the pledge properly. Hell, I'd be supprised if in a classroom of 30-50 students if anyone noticed except the four to eight people sitting next to him. At that point it's a problem with society rather than government. Society is much, much harder to change than government is. This is a good thing, I think, because society is everybody.

And I would say that I don't agree with that claim. I don't believe that we're judged when we die, and I don't think it's detrimental to my morality. And the government has no business forcing anybody to say that they agree with it.


Then I would say the government doesn't force you to say it, only to listen as others say it. There are many out there who find the concept of judgement after death to be a powerful moral motivator, so society encourages it, even when there are others who can maintain morality without it, and others who can't maintain morality even with it. Society has found it useful to reduce crime and immorality. That's why that line is in the Pledge of Allegence. (Note: you cannot prove that it isn't detrimental to your morality, just as you say, you believe it to be true. So is this a tenant of the atheist religion?)

You haven't studied enough about polytheist religions. It's a whole lot more complicated than that.


Perhaps, perhaps you can cite a culture where invididuals in a polytheistic religions do not have a perferred god? Even if no one god is most powerfull individuals usually have a god that is most significant to them.

Armachek said:
Most dictatorship have mandated that its people have a certain belief. Atheism in the Soviet Union, Islam in most of the middle east. Christianity in most of Europe until a few hundred years ago. All of these places are/where nasty places to live.
Religions are a marvelous way to control people. Most of these regimes decided they could control the people by controlling the church. The ones that mandated atheism wanted to control people directly and didn't want any competition from the churches.
Besides, Marx wasn't really that keen on religion either


I'm not sure if you are agreeing with me or not... In America you are(always have been, always will be) free to chose which religion you care to believe in, or chose not to believe in any. No one religion is favoured or deprecated, but certain religous principles common to most religions are part of the nations moral and cultural framework. Without these principles based of religion (things like freedom, equality, and personal responsibility) our nation wouldn't be the greatest country known to man. No other country attracts immigrants the way America does.

Let's face it there is a certain amount of control you have to have over people if you are going to have a country rather than anarchy, but the less control you excercise the more freedom people have to excel in life. There is little freedom in Anarchy because you are too busy trying to protect yourself from everyone else. Having a minimal religious tradition in the law while maintaining tolerance for all religions (+atheism and agnosticism) is part of this. This has been in the law for 50 years and no one has cited this as a precident to inflict religious control over anybody. They can't. It's specifically illegal to do so, everyone knows this, and even if it were, our tradition of tolerance make it unthinkable.


"Freedom of religion does not mean freedom from religion" - Joe Lieberman
"I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God." - George Bush the elder

I still want to know what the hell George Bush has to do with all this. The President of the United States has no control over the 9th Circuit, the Supreme Court or Congress's role in impeaching treasonous judges. Even if he stood behind his fathers quote(which has yet to be determined, it doesn't matter, this is an issue for the courts. Since Congressional democrats have decided to violate the constitution by denying *any* judge that Bush nominates regardless of qualifications, he wouldn't be able to replace these judges if they were impeached for incompetence(which I'm not entirely sure I support).
aspera
Junior Keenspotter
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Sun Mar 12, 2000 12:00 am
Location: Bellevue, WA

the constitution

Postby DonaldHines on Wed Jul 03, 2002 9:59 am

aspera wrote:The moral flaw is with the people that wrote it, thye felt it was perfectly accceptable for governement to fund religious schools (like Harvard and Yale). There intent was clear, and the law has not changed.

I would agree that the intent of the author was clear, but I have to disagree on that intent. excerpts from A Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom in Virginia, 1785 By Thomas Jefferson: http://w3.trib.com/FACT/1st.jeffers.html

Thomas Jefferson wrote:That to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical;

the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence by laying upon him incapacity of being called to offices of trust or emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injudiciously of those privileges and advantages to which, in common with his fellow-citizens, he has a natural right;

Now, admittedly, we aren't discussing refusing to let the kids go to school unless they say the pledge, so the second quote doesn't apply directly. But I do think in combination with the first it is clear that Mr. Jefferson would have disapproved of taking money from Atheist and using it to propagate, every morning in a public school, the idea that America is "Under God".

aspera wrote:
Donald wrote:Regardless, there are STILL Mormons who practice polygamy...
And there are still people who practice canibalism, with the same fears what *is* your point? The law is the law, and it must be complied with regardless of your religion.

So I gather that had you lived in early America you would have turned in escaping slaves, And you would have been fully supportive of the government if you lived in Germany during Hitlers reign.

As a Christian, I do NOT believe that morals are a purely subjective idea. I believe that there are moral absolutes. And when the laws of the nation cross with those absolutes, I'll break the laws of the nation.

aspera wrote:And all that is asked for is a little tolerance of the traditions of the people who founded this country, down to the majority of today.

That way lies the destruction of everything those people believed in. Please note that a good portion of the "founders" were deist. Pat Robertson would be horrified by the religion of Thomas Jefferson or Benjamin Franklin. He would be asking his "moral majority" to ensure such heretics could never hold public office. The ONLY way to protect the founders vision, the only way to keep America SAFE for people of faith, is to keep the government out of religion. Totally. When the Moral Majority starts cracking down, you can be quite certain that the less popular Christian sects will be high on the list of people to get. Probably even above Muslims, Jews, and Atheist.

Donald
DonaldHines
Keenspotter Supreme
 
Posts: 20
Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2002 6:45 pm

Postby RanDomino on Wed Jul 03, 2002 11:20 am

H3y, wh0 l3t th4t pr4ticing Christi4n in h3r3??

I s4y w3 n33d r3ligi0ns t0 k33p th3 3rd Est4te in ch3ck. I m34n, if th3y sudd3nly l0se 4ll inhibiti0ns, w3'r3 in d33p cr4p up h3r3. W3, 4s 4 s0ci3ty, 4r3 n0t r34dy f0r univ3rs4l 4th3izm, or p34c3ful 4n4rchy.

Until th4t d4y c0m3z, H4il Eris!
RanDomino
Junior Keenspotter
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2002 8:10 am

Freedom of Association

Postby DonaldHines on Wed Jul 03, 2002 11:52 am

RanDomino wrote:H3y, wh0 l3t th4t pr4ticing Christi4n in h3r3??

I snuck in by hiding under the 1st amendments 'Freedom of Association' clause. :)

It wasn't easy since it is only implied and that doesn't give you much cover.

Donald
DonaldHines
Keenspotter Supreme
 
Posts: 20
Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2002 6:45 pm

Postby Akatsukami on Wed Jul 03, 2002 8:58 pm

You <em>are</em> aware, Gav, that the "Bush's IQ is only 88" meme is a spoof propagated now largely by liberals whose IQs really <em>are</em> roughly 88?
"<I>Angels have no thought of ever returning you,
Would I be wrong if I thought of joining you?</I>" -- "Gloomy Sunday"
Akatsukami
Keenspotter Supreme
 
Posts: 142
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 12:00 am
Location: Glastonbury, CT, USA

Postby Hasufin on Wed Jul 03, 2002 11:03 pm

Feh. I was out of the debate for a few days, I'm over two pages behind.

Someone asked for a polytheistic religion that didn't have a preferred deity, I'll give you one: Wicca. Most varieties of Wicca (and witchcraft in general) believe in both the Lord and the Lady as equals. And I'm not terribly comfortable with the idea of invoking one without the other. I've got a nice long rant ready about assumptions regarding moral codes, but I'm going to refrain for now.

Now, if there's one thing I'm sick of, it's the "America is a Christian Nation". Bullshit. Look at the charter for Rhode Island, if you want to see our rich history of pluralism.
Yes, some of the wording of the original documents implies Judeo-Christian monotheism, but their explicit wording was not christian. I will advance the theory that the wording was the result of the culture of the time, and not the intent of the authors. Provable? Maybe not. But let's not be obtuse - that was the way such documents were written, and by not specifically invoking the will of god as being the source of the government, they were already being pretty revolutionary for the time.

Or, and for fun, let's have a quote from Bush, Jr: "Witchcraft is not a religion"

Thanks George! Nice to know my rights are being protected!
Hasufin
Keenspotter Supreme
 
Posts: 37
Joined: Tue Jun 18, 2002 6:32 pm

Postby gwalla on Wed Jul 03, 2002 11:16 pm

Akatsukami wrote:propagated now largely by liberals whose IQs really <em>are</em> roughly 88?


Please, let's keep this on the subject of religious freedom. If it turns into a general "conservatives vs. liberals" argument, it really will generate more heat than light.
ImageImage
User avatar
gwalla
Keenspot Deity
 
Posts: 10767
Joined: Mon May 08, 2000 11:00 pm
Location: Berkeley, CA, USA irc://us.nightstar.net/gwalla,isnick

Postby Fugli Troll on Thu Jul 04, 2002 1:48 am

Gee... all the debate this has generated. My key problem with the "pledge" has never been focused on the end. I never liked the "to the flag" part. I prefer to pledge allegence to a country, to a people, not to a cloth. :-?

As far as the "under God" part. That's a historical throw back as much as anything else. Most little kids don't know what they're saying, and I've heard quite a few recite "under guard, invisible" It's like the Lord's prayer and thinking it goes "Howard be they name..." Kids don't learn from rote memorization. In retrospect, they only think that they do... but as Piaget's learning model would suggest they get it wrong at first, learn the sounds by repetition, and then one day they cross a cognitive threshold and go "wow, so that's what I've been saying." At that time they make an unconscious decision whether they will think that way or not.

My decision was to keep the "under God" part and edit out "to the flag of"... Try it, I think it makes more sense right up front.

Oh, and take a deep breath and count to 10 while y'all are at it. That helps too. :wink:
User avatar
Fugli Troll
Keenspotter Supreme
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 12:00 am
Location: Shawnee, Oklahoma USA

Postby Aramchek on Thu Jul 04, 2002 7:33 am

aspera wrote:
Aramchek said:
Most dictatorship have mandated that its people have a certain belief. Atheism in the Soviet Union, Islam in most of the middle east. Christianity in most of Europe until a few hundred years ago. All of these places are/where nasty places to live.
Religions are a marvelous way to control people. Most of these regimes decided they could control the people by controlling the church. The ones that mandated atheism wanted to control people directly and didn't want any competition from the churches.
Besides, Marx wasn't really that keen on religion either


I'm not sure if you are agreeing with me or not... In America you are(always have been, always will be) free to chose which religion you care to believe in, or chose not to believe in any. No one religion is favoured or deprecated, but certain religous principles common to most religions are part of the nations moral and cultural framework. Without these principles based of religion (things like freedom, equality, and personal responsibility) our nation wouldn't be the greatest country known to man. No other country attracts immigrants the way America does.

That comment was a response to someone implying that atheism is bad because states where the dictatorship mandates atheism are/where nasty places to live. I wasn't talking about the US at all.
Not that the certain politicians seem to mind the concept of a Christian dictatorship - with them as the dictator...

By the way, I guess you could say that people have been free to choose whatever religion they wanted everywhere. Only problem is that it tended to lead to a rather early death. :P

Speaking of immigration. The only Europeans I can think of that I've ever heard express any interest in emigrating to the US is a few brits and pretty much the entire population of (the republic of) Ireland. I've spoken to lots of other Europeans that could consider moving to a different country, I can't recall any of them expressing an interest in moving to the US I know, anecdotal evidence)
aspera wrote:
George Bush the elder wrote:I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.

I still want to know what the hell George Bush has to do with all this. The President of the United States has no control over the 9th Circuit, the Supreme Court or Congress's role in impeaching treasonous judges. Even if he stood behind his fathers quote(which has yet to be determined, it doesn't matter, this is an issue for the courts. Since Congressional democrats have decided to violate the constitution by denying *any* judge that Bush nominates regardless of qualifications, he wouldn't be able to replace these judges if they were impeached for incompetence(which I'm not entirely sure I support).

I can't think of anything specific he has said that he supports that particular statement but his creative use of the English language can make it rather difficult at times to figure out what he actually meant. He is definately in favour of the state promoting religion (apparantly monotheism in particular). Consider his fondness of talking about state-funded "faith-based initiatives". Could someone give me a sensible explanation for why the state (=ALL) taxpayers, including atheists, agnostics, wiccans (which according to Bush junior is "not a religion", and some other groups)) should pay for what in reality is religious indoctrination? For that matter, how many times has he been talking about the bridge between state and church? Las


/Aramchek (putting on his asbestos suite)
User avatar
Aramchek
Keenspot Despot
 
Posts: 1069
Joined: Sun Mar 17, 2002 4:00 pm
Location: Area 52

Postby NornaGest on Thu Jul 04, 2002 11:55 am

My change the Pledge: One nation, in our faith that there will always be justice for and liberty for all.

(Why can't Alaska and Hawaii secced I wonder?)

The South Tried to Seceed but couldn't. They had the right to do so, but over the Wrong cause. The Yanky Imperialists saw that. They were Capitalists of course, and
paid their slaves!

(My own take is because their different beliefs where animist in nature, they evolved Shintoism, which can automatically subsume them.
Their new corporate state has a quasi-feudal feel to it. The only advanced
form of animism in existance. Remember, Indian society could

not tolerate them, They saw it as a rival uniting priciple and could only expel it. Remember, Buddism is world view independent!

It's definately odd that our nation's capital is in the south, isn't it?)

My father came from the North, My mother came from the south, and my half - Siblings had mixed Akanizi-German hertiage. GrandMother Solomon had unwittingly married an uber-kraut anti-semite!
When her first husband died in a plane crash, my father who was their best friend (he played with the kids) married her. I was his only son
so I always called him Don, along with my other siblings.
My mother is mostly English, andhas some Scotch&Irish Blood as well as some French, too.

(Incidentally I was raised agnotically :D !)

Antioch Is where I started College. It's even more weird than Berkeley.
My brother Allen Is a Biologist Specializing in Plant-Insect Mutualism.
My Sister Helen is A Writer (She co-wrote the Premature Baby book.)
My sister Joan is a retired prosecutor who lives in NorthCarolina in a Tiny town. And I currently reside in Aiken, South Carolina. Because of our state Fossil (I think he's 100 years old but doesn't admit it,) plus the fact
that Aiken started as a railroad stop, became A winter Resort for the Rich
(We are Polo Freaks here), and became a residence for people who worked at the Savanah River plant . All three of my parents Were the First Nukies.
Last edited by NornaGest on Thu Jul 04, 2002 12:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.
NornaGest
Keenspot Despot
 
Posts: 1441
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2001 11:00 pm
Location: N33 35.4' W81 45.6'

Postby NornaGest on Thu Jul 04, 2002 12:06 pm

My Artist Friend , Nancy Wildes, is a Wiccan Too!
(And she came from a Catholic Background: Catholicism is Hyper Sincreatic, too, thanks to the Irish.
NornaGest
Keenspot Despot
 
Posts: 1441
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2001 11:00 pm
Location: N33 35.4' W81 45.6'

Postby NornaGest on Thu Jul 04, 2002 12:22 pm

T'Renn wrote:It's starting to bug me how people misread things. Even intelligent people like we have here.

<RANT>
The circuit court didn't "declare the Pledge unconstitutional". It declared that forcing all children to recite the words "under God" every day is unconstitutional. There's a huge damn difference, and I really wish people would get it right.
</RANT>

Thank you, I feel better now.

T'Renn "captain, the spleen has returned to ambient pressure...." Vraomrell


T'Renn, Were You able to see my suggested modidcation?
NornaGest
Keenspot Despot
 
Posts: 1441
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2001 11:00 pm
Location: N33 35.4' W81 45.6'

Postby NornaGest on Thu Jul 04, 2002 12:54 pm

The Radical, our necessary Left-Hand path i.e. Heretic should always work under ground, where they can experiment in peace. And that's
why there is a conserving conservative, faction. What about the new
"Conservative" party, the Libertarians?

I couldn't vote for either main party, Bush I despised, but Gore seemed to
be a Complete Lunatic! So I voted for Ralph Nader, to Help gain suppport for a new political faction. You Europeans Know what I'm talking about, don't you!

In The Republican party primary I voted for John McCain.
I'm a Registered Democrat, and in my State you can vote for either side, as long as you don't vote twice.
NornaGest
Keenspot Despot
 
Posts: 1441
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2001 11:00 pm
Location: N33 35.4' W81 45.6'

Postby RanDomino on Thu Jul 04, 2002 2:57 pm

Parties? Did someone mention parties?? I'll bring the pointy hats and beer!

<someone whispers in his ear>

Huh? Political parties? What, we all get drunk and talk about the election?

<something else is whispered>

Oh. That sounds dumb. What's the point of a representative government if other people tell you who to vote for?
RanDomino
Junior Keenspotter
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2002 8:10 am

Postby gwalla on Thu Jul 04, 2002 3:22 pm

NornaGest wrote:The Radical, our necessary Left-Hand path i.e. Heretic should always work under ground, where they can experiment in peace. And that's
why there is a conserving conservative, faction. What about the new
"Conservative" party, the Libertarians?[/b]


Actually, libertarians are the old liberal party. Libertarianism is also known as "classical liberalism". However, liberalism changed when laissez faire capitalism turned out to cause an extremely disproportionate distribution of wealth.

I couldn't vote for either main party, Bush I despised, but Gore seemed to
be a Complete Lunatic! So I voted for Ralph Nader, to Help gain suppport for a new political faction.


Same here. Plus, I knew that Gore would carry my state anyway, so I figured that my vote for a third party wasn't going to hurt his chances any.

I'm a registered Dem, but as the party continues to head right, I find myself agreeing with the Greens more and more than with the Dems (the main tenet of the Green party that I disagree with its school vouchers).

[b]In The Republican party primary I voted for John McCain.


McCain I can respect to some degree. If he'd won, I wouldn't complain nearly so much.

Here's to instant runoff voting.
ImageImage
User avatar
gwalla
Keenspot Deity
 
Posts: 10767
Joined: Mon May 08, 2000 11:00 pm
Location: Berkeley, CA, USA irc://us.nightstar.net/gwalla,isnick

Postby _aspera on Thu Jul 04, 2002 10:49 pm

So was it my language(which I appologize, but shouldn't have offended anyone on *this* board, the fact I disagreed, or that I was trying to passionately debate the issue that offended the moderators to terminate my account? I didn't receive the message that said why I was banned, only when I tried to log in did it say my account was dectivated.

So, defenders of the first amendment, you win this round by default. (I realise I have no legal ground, the forum owners have to right to exclude any user from thier service for any reason, so there is nothing I can do... )

I realise now that I should have introduced myself more on this board before charging head long into a debate, so people would know I'm not just a flaming troll... Maybe next time.
_aspera
Junior Keenspotter
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Thu Jul 04, 2002 10:29 pm

Postby Aramchek on Thu Jul 04, 2002 11:18 pm

_aspera wrote:So was it my language(which I appologize, but shouldn't have offended anyone on *this* board, the fact I disagreed, or that I was trying to passionately debate the issue that offended the moderators to terminate my account? I didn't receive the message that said why I was banned, only when I tried to log in did it say my account was dectivated.

So, defenders of the first amendment, you win this round by default. (I realise I have no legal ground, the forum owners have to right to exclude any user from thier service for any reason, so there is nothing I can do... )

I realise now that I should have introduced myself more on this board before charging head long into a debate, so people would know I'm not just a flaming troll... Maybe next time.


disclaimer: I'm not a moderator, nor do I know that much about the technical aspect behind how this board is run. However, I've read the posts you've made an I couldn't find anything that I would expect you to be banned for, especially not without warning, besides, I've seen only one person getting banned before (for VERY good reasons) and I believe that instead of just banning the account (which will not do much good) they banned the IP adress. I would guess that you're inability to log in is some technical problem, rather than censorship. The best way to proceed would probably be to post a question about this on the keenspot central forum, unless Gav might be able to assist you.
Personally, while I disagreed with a lot of what you said, I'd like to see more posts from you since you had interesting things to say.

/Aramchek (pressing all the wrong keys)
"I have opinions of my own - strong opinions - but I don't always agree with them" - George Bush
User avatar
Aramchek
Keenspot Despot
 
Posts: 1069
Joined: Sun Mar 17, 2002 4:00 pm
Location: Area 52

YOU WORMS!

Postby Valafar on Fri Jul 05, 2002 4:55 am

I find that number of people who completely lack the understanding that AFTER ALL, the US Legislature, in 1954, going against the constitution of the United States of America, added in the RELIGIOUS words, "Under God" into the Pledge. In case you missed that. IT WASN'T THERE TO BEGIN WITH. That it has taken the Atheist community this long to deal with the issue, is a black mark against us. Shame on us, we shoulda fought this in 1954. For a country with SEPERATION of Church and State, the state seems pretty reliant on the Christian Faith to support its politicians, to define itself as a nation, and worst of all, as a people. 87% of the US population is supposedly Christian, that's according to the census, which, in case you didn't know, is filled out by one person in the household for the entire family. I am 100% positive that according to the US Census, I'm a Christian, but that's about as far from the truth as you could possibly get. I think this is not just a single case either, Atheism is an up and coming lack of religion, and people better get ready for the change. If the US government and MonkeyMan think that they can interfere with the courts, they're soon going to find themselves on their ass with an impeachment soon following, in case all of you forgot, the Courts have the final say in interpreting the constitution. They can overrule the Congress, and the President. And I will PERSONALLY raise a torch against GW if he tries to mess with that system. And for those people who are afraid of Dick Cheney getting into office, forget about it, he's been running the country all along anyways.
to reiterate (since I ramble so much ^.^) God=Bad Under God=Unconstitutionally added phrase (1954) GW=MonkeyMan Cheney=de facto president
Love (yes I do love (most of) you (in a non-sexual you're a living being kinda way))
Val
I may not agree with what you say, but I shall defend to the death your right to say it.
- Voltair, In Philosophy
Valafar
Junior Keenspotter
 
Posts: 9
Joined: Fri Jul 05, 2002 4:43 am
Location: Andover, MA

 
PreviousNext

Return to Nukees

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron