New Riding Buddy (heheh)

On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 07:29:58 -0700, Mark Hickey wrote:

I'm curious if you actually know where this (very non-constitutional)
idea even originated (don't bother looking through any of the
"foundation documents" - it's not there).

It originated from Thomas Jefferson's 1802 letter to the Baptist
Association of Danbury, Connecticut, explaining the intent behind the
first amendment:

"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American
people which declared that their legislature should "make no law regarding
an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,"
thus building a wall of separation between Church and State."

--
-BB-
To e-mail me, unmunge my address

GeeDubb wrote:


I did Trail 100 this morning from the west end to Dreamy Draw. Had to
stop twice to wring out my glove and sweat band. Got to the coffee shop
and left a trail of sweat from the door to the bar...


Sweet.

Greg

--
"All my time I spent in heaven
Revelries of dance and wine
Waking to the sound of laughter
Up I'd rise and kiss the sky" - The Mekons

On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 10:48:14 -0700, GeeDubb wrote:

I did Trail 100 this morning from the west end to Dreamy Draw. Had to stop
twice to wring out my glove and sweat band. Got to the coffee shop and left
a trail of sweat from the door to the bar...

I've been waiting for it to warm up before I go riding!

--
-BB-
To e-mail me, unmunge my address

On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 07:34:11 -0700, Mark Hickey wrote:

I'm only "half old" - my personal MTB still has a canti on the back
(since that provides better modulation than a V-brake, and more than
enough braking power). In fact, I'd still be running one up front if
I could buy a (good) fork with a canti brake cable stop.

Same here (on that last sentence). I'd still have canti's on both of my
bikes if I could have. I use Avid v-brakes and Kool Stop pads, which are
supposed to be good, but I only wish they worked as well as the STX-SE
cantis on my other bike.

--
-BB-
To e-mail me, unmunge my address

On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 10:26:49 -0700, G.T. wrote:

No, I don't think either side is gullible. I believe rational people
want to keep our society enlightened and free,

I'd be happy with just free. Enlightened is subjective - you may consider
it to mean "free of religion"; those of faith will probably consider it to
mean just the opposite. Buddhists use the word to mean something totally
different from either.

and I believe the superstitious people want to take us back to the dark
ages of fear and repression.

Some do, many don't. Their ability to use the government to do so will
always be somewhat limited. There'll always be some 'cross-over' when it
comes to things like morality, which can be considered separate from
religion even though there's a big link between the two. I have a hard
time considering it inherently wrong that the library selection of Boise
or Salt Lake City might be different than that of LA or Portland, as it
reflects the morals of the local majority. There's always amazon.com...

--
-BB-
To e-mail me, unmunge my address

BB wrote:

On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 18:57:42 -0700, Mark Hickey wrote:

Hmmm, you have to wonder why 90% of the time that line is quoted, the
rest of the sentence is left out.

For those interested in the TRUE intent of the passage, here's the
rest:

"or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

Kinda changes things, huh?

Not at all. As I said in the post to which you replied, "she can say what
she wants, but making it into law is a different story." I don't assume to
know the "true intent" of the amendment; I think they intended to write
everything they did.

I have no problem with people posting religious text in their homes or
churches. But when they try to post them in public parks using tax
dollars, that's different. I imagine you only defend it because it happens
to be YOUR religious establishment. Would you be equally supportive of
your tax dollars being used to post Qu'ranic verses in your local park?

I don't know if "equally" applies, but if the park was in an area that
was predominantly Muslim, yes, I'd "equally" support it. But in the
case of the Ten Commandments, it's a cornerstone of western culture,
and especially of American culture. By thoroughly and totally
excluding anything with a religious content, you're essentially
insisting on promoting ONLY the religion of atheism.

What part of the Ten Commandments is "establishing a religion"?

It doesn't say anything about establishing a religion. It says no law
respecting "an establishment of religion". Christianity is an
establishment of religion.

There is a difference between 'the establishment of religion' which is an
action, and 'an establishment of religion' which is something that already
exists. They said the latter.

In either interpretation (which was in either case done to prevent
having an "official arm of the church", which I agree is a good idea),
there's nothing about excluding religion from public life (covered
under the "or prohibiting the free exercise thing").

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

BB wrote:

On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 07:29:58 -0700, Mark Hickey wrote:

I'm curious if you actually know where this (very non-constitutional)
idea even originated (don't bother looking through any of the
"foundation documents" - it's not there).

It originated from Thomas Jefferson's 1802 letter to the Baptist
Association of Danbury, Connecticut, explaining the intent behind the
first amendment:

"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American
people which declared that their legislature should "make no law regarding
an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,"
thus building a wall of separation between Church and State."

I'm not surprised that you know that. But most people actually think
it's in the US Constitution or some other "real document". Of course,
Jefferson's comments could be interpreted several different ways - and
is one man's opinion in any case. Our great grandchildren might be
likewise debating an email from Justice Kennedy about a USSC decision.
;-)

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

"GeeDubb" wrote:

I wasn't directing this at anyone in particular (a generalization) but isn't
that what religion is all about? Suppression of the masses?

Errrr, no. It's not. You should actually try it some time and see if
it makes you FEEL opressed (it's quite liberating for me, actually).

OTOH, if you feel that "self-control" equates to "suppression", I'd
suggest you don't need to find your eneny in religion, but in
philosophy in general (unless you choose to study only hedonist
philosophers).

and to ask Mark Hickey......since when is atheism considered a religion? I
don't believe in a superior being nor do I believe in any organized religion
(mostly due to the suppression issue and each religion attempts to control
its followers IMO) but I have more morals than probably 99% of all religious
people. Morality is not a religious thing.....especially not a Christian
initiated thing.

I'm looking at the Webster College Dictionary. The first definition:
"a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the
universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency
or agencies, usu. involving devotional and ritual observances, and
often containing a moral code for the conduct of human affairs".

That definition certainly says that USUALLY there is a supreme being
involved (and most references to the word would do so), but not
ALWAYS.

Look at the second definition: "a specific fundamental set of beliefs
and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects".

Atheism fits both of the above defitions perfectly.

and to try and get mtbiking back into this...

I did Trail 100 this morning from the west end to Dreamy Draw. Had to stop
twice to wring out my glove and sweat band. Got to the coffee shop and left
a trail of sweat from the door to the bar...

suffice it to say it was quite humid this morning but the trail was in
superb condition.

And here I am typing political nonsense into a newsgroup this
(relatively cool) morning... ;-)

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 06:52:22 -0700, Mark Hickey wrote:

Of course, Jefferson's comments could be interpreted several different
ways - and is one man's opinion in any case.

One can easily find similar writings from Madison, and more on the subject
from Jefferson.

That particular letter was written in regard to a minority faith whose
members were being forced to pay taxes to support the majority faith -
exactly the scenario you advocate. In that particular case, the minority
were Baptists.

--
-BB-
To e-mail me, unmunge my address

"Mark Hickey" wrote in message
...
"GeeDubb" wrote:

I wasn't directing this at anyone in particular (a generalization) but
isn't
that what religion is all about? Suppression of the masses?

Errrr, no. It's not. You should actually try it some time and see if
it makes you FEEL opressed (it's quite liberating for me, actually).

OTOH, if you feel that "self-control" equates to "suppression", I'd
suggest you don't need to find your eneny in religion, but in
philosophy in general (unless you choose to study only hedonist
philosophers).

and to ask Mark Hickey......since when is atheism considered a religion?
I
don't believe in a superior being nor do I believe in any organized
religion
(mostly due to the suppression issue and each religion attempts to control
its followers IMO) but I have more morals than probably 99% of all
religious
people. Morality is not a religious thing.....especially not a Christian
initiated thing.

I'm looking at the Webster College Dictionary. The first definition:
"a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the
universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency
or agencies, usu. involving devotional and ritual observances, and
often containing a moral code for the conduct of human affairs".

That definition certainly says that USUALLY there is a supreme being
involved (and most references to the word would do so), but not
ALWAYS.

Look at the second definition: "a specific fundamental set of beliefs
and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects".

Atheism fits both of the above defitions perfectly.

I'll give you an "OK" on the first definition in that science, for me, sets
my beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe but the
second part "involving devotional and ritual observances..." is far from a
perfect definition of me as an athiest.

I guess in the second definition the non-belief in the existance of deity is
the fundamental "set" of beliefs and practices........

pretty thin perfect fit but that's how you interpret it so we will agree to
disagree.


and to try and get mtbiking back into this...

I did Trail 100 this morning from the west end to Dreamy Draw. Had to
stop
twice to wring out my glove and sweat band. Got to the coffee shop and
left
a trail of sweat from the door to the bar...

suffice it to say it was quite humid this morning but the trail was in
superb condition.

And here I am typing political nonsense into a newsgroup this
(relatively cool) morning... ;-)

Mark Hickey

I rode T100 again this morning. Darn humid again.

Gary