New Riding Buddy (heheh)

"GeeDubb" wrote:

"Mark Hickey" wrote

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.
snip
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.

But I think you can now at least understand how someone could
interpret the current trend as catering 100% only to those with a
particular "religion" (atheism), to the exclusion of any other belief
system. That's pretty much it in a nutshell for me. Heck, I'm not
even asking for equal time - but zero time seems a little harsh. ;-)

I rode T100 again this morning. Darn humid again.

I was on my roof this afternoon working on the air conditioner (where
we put 'em in the desert for some reason I've never understood). Made
me think trying to ride any of the local trails would be suicidal (not
all that hot by AZ standards, but the sun made it too hot to kneel on
the roof for even a second).

I always wondered what it would be like to crash on ground this hot
and be incapacitated... how "cooked" would you get if no one found you
within an hour or two? Yikes.

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

On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 15:09:44 -0700, Mark Hickey wrote:

But I think you can now at least understand how someone could
interpret the current trend as catering 100% only to those with a
particular "religion" (atheism), to the exclusion of any other belief
system.

As long as one ignores the fact that we have two Christian public holidays
and no holidays of other faiths, that significant publicly-licensed
bandwidth is used to broadcast the word of Christianity, that our money
still says "in God we trust", that the government doesn't tell people not
to believe in God (and in fact specifically refers to God in several
places), and probably a lot of other stuff that doesn't come to mind,
yeah, I can understand how you could interpret it that way.

But if I was an athiest, these things would probably make me feel the
government has a preference toward Christianity, to the exclusion of any
other belief system.

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

BB wrote:
On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 20:36:29 -0700, Drew wrote:

However she has the right to believe what she wants. I also can believe and
say what I want.
This is one of the fundamental rights that make this country great.

...so is "..no law respecting an establishment of religion..". That's in
the first amendment too. A bill to use public funding to post the ten
commandments pretty much violates that, doesn't it? She can say what she
wants, but making into law is a different story.

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

An established religion came from England, where the state dictated the
religion of its citizens, our first amendment saying, "Congress shall
pass no law establishing religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise
thereof."

For a very short answer, this young lady is not Congress, the 10
Commandments on public property is not the establishment of a state
religion, (such as requiring all citizens to be baptists or
rastafarians) nor is anyone prohibited from practicing their religion
of choice.

The state religion being established is the anti-Judaeo-Christian
religious fervour with which a vocal minority is trying to excise all
references to God from public life.

CDB

Whoa, I thought mountain biking was exhausting......

This thread is a double black diamond!!! Stay away from the SLIPPERY
SLOPE.

You bunch of dopes......... SHUT UP AND GET ON THE TOPIC OF THE NG....

Go take a ride and leave the muttering god hugging blonde to her own
devices.

Chip

On 13 Aug 2006 17:27:42 -0700, Paladin wrote:

The state religion being established is the anti-Judaeo-Christian
religious fervour with which a vocal minority is trying to excise all
references to God from public life.

Well I've learned a little about the separation of church and state this
weekend - something which about I actually never had much of an opinion
before. My primary take-aways a 1. that its actually a good thing for
religion, because it provides equal respect to all religions regardless of
how big or popular they are, and 2. those who already have preference want
to keep it that way, so there's no use trying to convince them of #1.

I also managed to get in a ride that still has me tired, and got some
great peppermints (my secret reason for accompanying my wife to the sewing
store).

But I'm sorry for all of everyone else's time I've wasted. I mean this
thread, not just the peppermint story. :-)

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

"CB" wrote in message
oups.com...
Whoa, I thought mountain biking was exhausting......

This thread is a double black diamond!!! Stay away from the SLIPPERY
SLOPE.

You bunch of dopes......... SHUT UP AND GET ON THE TOPIC OF THE NG....

Go take a ride and leave the muttering god hugging blonde to her own
devices.

Chip


Well said Chippy.

CG

On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 19:26:48 -0700, Chris Glidden wrote:

You bunch of dopes......... SHUT UP AND GET ON THE TOPIC OF THE NG....

Well said Chippy.

Maybe I'm missing something...is there some reason you couldn't just skip
this thread and read the other three or four threads? Is it just my
newsreader that makes it easy?

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

Mark Hickey wrote:
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.



But now your are just trying to justify ignoring the constitution. It
was written so specifically for a reason. It's not promoting atheism,
it's just trying to stay impartial. I don't know of a single government
sponsored (or otherwise actually) monument to atheism.

We're a melting pot even if there are still unmelted pockets in some
places. I'd be just as opposed to a Muslim, Jewish, or any other
religious themed monument. The government needs to (at least try to
appear to) be impartial to religion. That's what the country is built on
and why the Puritans wanted to get out of England in the first place.

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").


Indeed. As long as it's done with private funds (and lands and
facilities) then I'm all for it, no matter what religion or lack of
religion it promotes.

Matt

Bill Sornson wrote:
MattB wrote:

Bill Sornson wrote:

MattB wrote:


But the rate at which the Earth is warming is greater than the rate
at which the sun is warming. So there are other factors involved
(like better heat retention by the Earth).


Not so sure it works "linearly" like that. (You can get a worse
sunburn in a half-hour sometimes than in two hours others.)

Guess we'll have to see...



I'm not sure either, but I'll believe scientists over politicians or
lobbyists.


Which is why people worshipping at the flat feet of Al Gore is such a
crack-up. The man is seriously nuts -- and so are at least some of his
computer models and animations.

Guess we'll have to see...



Well I disagree, but I know he's got an agenda and he's a politician so
I take his words with a grain of salt.
Of course his side of the debate has got a lot more support from the
scientific community, so that makes it more credible to me.

But you're right. We'll have to see.

Matt

Paladin wrote:
MattB wrote:

Paladin wrote:

For Mattb and others who appreciate the "finer things in life", and who
don't mind going through mtbr, here are some pictures from last night's
group ride that I host. For a little background, the FIQ (female in
question) is quite famous around here, and the slavering dogs on the ID
mtbr board make references to her every week...

http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.php?t=216690
http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.php?t=216903

CDB
your goodwill ambassador to the unridden masses


Nice pics, but besides riding a mountain bike, I think she epitomizes
"not my type" in every way imaginable.


So quick to judge another based on pictures. Man, where's the
*tolerance* you lefties are supposed to be famous for?? Everything
goes, except Christianity, right? The only politically correct
discrimination left in America.

CDB


No offense meant to you or anyone else CDB (which I realize probably
didn't pan out), but I just typed what I felt. Would you not feel the
same if I posted a picture of someone who wasn't your type (physically
speaking when the thread's theme is "look at this hottie" and I name you
specifically). What if you didn't know who this was so you Google her
and find out she's some kind of raving leftist (hopeful) politician?

Maybe you would have just kept quiet, but I suspect maybe you wouldn't have.

I had no idea who she was, but on the MTBR forum they were acting like
she was a celebrity. So I figured I'd better look her up. The rest is
history.

Matt (mostly just intolerant to intolerance - oh and really bad music)