"Tinkerntom" wrote in message
oups.com...

KMAN wrote:
"BCITORGB" wrote in message
ups.com...
Tink asks of KMAN:
=====================
So, would you describe yourself as an atheist, agnostic, humanist?
===================

Can one be an atheist and a secular humanist at the same time?

frtzw906

I think so...

What Is Secular Humanism?
Secular Humanism is a term which has come into use in the last thirty
years
to describe a world view with the following elements and principles:

a.. A conviction that dogmas, ideologies and traditions, whether
religious, political or social, must be weighed and tested by each
individual and not simply accepted on faith.
b.. Commitment to the use of critical reason, factual evidence, and

scientific methods of inquiry, rather than faith and mysticism, in
seeking
solutions to human problems and answers to important human questions.
c.. A primary concern with fulfillment, growth, and creativity for
both
the individual and humankind in general.
d.. A constant search for objective truth, with the understanding
that new
knowledge and experience constantly alter our imperfect perception of
it.
e.. A concern for this life and a commitment to making it
meaningful
through better understanding of ourselves, our history, our
intellectual and
artistic achievements, and the outlooks of those who differ from us.
f.. A search for viable individual, social and political principles
of
ethical conduct, judging them on their ability to enhance human
well-being
and individual responsibility.
g.. A conviction that with reason, an open marketplace of ideas,
good
will, and tolerance, progress can be made in building a better world
for
ourselves and our children.
http://www.secularhumanism.org/intro/what.html

Frtwz and KMAN, can I assume that you are both comfortable with this
definition, and willing to identify yourself as a Secular Humanist,
atheist with no need for the imaginary mystical creation of men's mind
called God? TnT

I will say that if I were forced to choose to be associated with some sort
of identifying label in the realm of sprituality, I suppose I might choose
Secular Humanist. But I'm not a member of any such organization and don't
know that I agree with everything they stand for.

You may definitely say however that I do not believe that there is some sort
of invisible man or other mythical entity managing the affairs of the planet
earth.

"Tinkerntom" wrote in message
oups.com...

BCITORGB wrote:
KMAN says:
=============
a.. A conviction that dogmas, ideologies and traditions, whether
religious, political or social, must be weighed and tested by each
individual and not simply accepted on faith. ...

...
g.. A conviction that with reason, an open marketplace of ideas,
good
will, and tolerance, progress can be made in building a better world
for
ourselves and our children.
==============

Great! Then I are one.

frtzw906

We posted past each other, and I just got your "I are one." I'll give
KMAN a chance to respond as well. TnT

It all sounds quite good and fine, but I aren't one.

TnT asks:
============
Frtwz and KMAN, can I assume that you are both comfortable with this
definition, and willing to identify yourself as a Secular Humanist,
atheist with no need for the imaginary mystical creation of men's mind
called God? TnT
===================

I can't speak for KMAN, but that works for me.

frtzw906

"BCITORGB" wrote in message
ps.com...
TnT asks:
============
Frtwz and KMAN, can I assume that you are both comfortable with this
definition, and willing to identify yourself as a Secular Humanist,
atheist with no need for the imaginary mystical creation of men's mind
called God? TnT
===================

I can't speak for KMAN, but that works for me.

frtzw906

I'm good for the "no need for the imaginary mystical creation of men's mind
called god" part and I congratulate Tinkerntom for that particular turn of
phrase, which would make for an interesting albeit very long bumper sticker.

Tink says:
============
I don't know that I expected you to come over to my squad. I thought
you were asking what my squad is all about; you were being honest,
intellectual, curious! If I was mistaken in my understanding of any of
these things about you, I apologize, and am open for you to clarify
your reasons for entertaining this discussion.
================

OK, Tink, while we're keeping it simple, here's what I'd really like
you to explain. I'd like to know what it is about right-wing politics
that apparently attracts a large chunk of, for lack of a better term,
rabid Christians.

Am I correct in assming that their is more to their faith than "God
loves you"? Surely they must find some sort of correlation between the
tenets of their faith and party platform of the Republicans. If there
is no such correlation, could you explain apparent Christian-Republican
attraction?

frtzw906

BCITORGB wrote:
Tink says:
============
I don't know that I expected you to come over to my squad. I thought
you were asking what my squad is all about; you were being honest,
intellectual, curious! If I was mistaken in my understanding of any
of
these things about you, I apologize, and am open for you to clarify
your reasons for entertaining this discussion.
================

OK, Tink, while we're keeping it simple, here's what I'd really like
you to explain. I'd like to know what it is about right-wing politics
that apparently attracts a large chunk of, for lack of a better term,
rabid Christians.

Am I correct in assming that their is more to their faith than "God
loves you"? Surely they must find some sort of correlation between
the
tenets of their faith and party platform of the Republicans. If there
is no such correlation, could you explain apparent
Christian-Republican
attraction?

frtzw906

Now this is getting really interesting, and I hate to do this, but I
got to go do some "work stuff." But I appreciate you both getting back
to me and I will have somethings to think about now this afternoon. I
will get back to you later. TnT

"KMAN" wrote in message news:uk2Yd.25572 I'm good
for the "no need for the imaginary mystical creation of men's mind
called god" part and I congratulate Tinkerntom for that particular turn of
phrase, which would make for an interesting albeit very long bumper
sticker.

I prefer being labeled agnostic--if I'm gonna be labeled, at all. My view
is that I neither believe nor disbelieve in some ethereal being or beings,
as I have no knowledge such and don't give a **** one way or the other.

Mark

BCITORGB wrote:


OK, Tink, while we're keeping it simple, here's what I'd really like
you to explain. I'd like to know what it is about right-wing politics
that apparently attracts a large chunk of, for lack of a better term,
rabid Christians.

Am I correct in assming that their is more to their faith than "God
loves you"? Surely they must find some sort of correlation between the
tenets of their faith and party platform of the Republicans. If there
is no such correlation, could you explain apparent Christian-Republican
attraction?


In the last presidential election, the Republicans mobilized,
polarized and manipulated voters over several "moral" issues: gay
marriage, women's right to choose, court reviews of the phrase "under
God" in the Pledge of Allegiance and the right to display the Ten
Commandments on government property. The Republicans drew a hard line
between themselves and the Democrats on these issues. Discussion of
these issues found its way into many churches, and congregations felt
sympathy with the Republican stance.

Republicans, including the President, used the buzzwords "activist
judges" and suggested immorality was being legislated from the bench.
The 2004 Republican Party Platform goes as far as to say activist
judges are exercising a "self-proclaimed supremacy." In a Christian
context, this "supremacy" is seen as an affront to God, and not just a
powerplay between the judicial and the other two branches of government.


From the 2004 Republican Party Platform:

"Supporting Judges Who Uphold the Law

In the federal courts, scores of judges with activist backgrounds in
the hard-left now have lifetime tenure. Recent events have made it
clear that these judges threaten America's dearest institutions and
our very way of life. In some states, activist judges are redefining
the institution of marriage. The Pledge of Allegiance has already been
invalidated by the courts once, and the Supreme Court's ruling has
left the Pledge in danger of being struck down again - not because the
American people have rejected it and the values that it embodies, but
because a handful of activist judges threaten to overturn commonsense
and tradition. And while the vast majority of Americans support a ban
on partial birth abortion, this brutal and violent practice will
likely continue by judicial fiat. We believe that the self-proclaimed
supremacy of these judicial activists is antithetical to the
democratic ideals on which our nation was founded. President Bush has
established a solid record of nominating only judges who have
demonstrated respect for the Constitution and the democratic processes
of our republic, and Republicans in the Senate have strongly supported
those nominees. We call upon obstructionist Democrats in the Senate to
abandon their unprecedented and highly irresponsible filibuster of
President Bush's highly qualified judicial nominees, and to allow the
Republican Party to restore respect for the law to America's courts.

The sound principle of judicial review has turned into an intolerable
presumption of judicial supremacy. A Republican Congress, working with
a Republican president, will restore the separation of powers and
re-establish a government of law. There are different ways to achieve
that goal, such as using Article III of the Constitution to limit
federal court jurisdiction; for example, in instances where judges are
abusing their power by banning the use of "under God" in the Pledge of
Allegiance or prohibiting depictions of the Ten Commandments, and
potential actions invalidating the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).
Additionally, we condemn judicial activists and their unwarranted and
unconstitutional restrictions on the free exercise of religion in the
public square."





--
"This president has destroyed the country, the economy,
the relationship with the rest of the world.
He's a monster in the White House. He should resign."

- Hunter S. Thompson, speaking to an antiwar audience in 2003.

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

They are never used for good. They are only used for different degrees of
ill.

What a remarkably ignorant statement. The vast majority of the time, guns
are used to provide pleasure, and the only thing "harmed" is a piece of
paper or a tin can.

But your assertion utterly ignores the obvious fact that guns can be, and
very frequently are used to protect the innocent against violent attack.
That you would classify self-defense as a "degree of ill" indicates that
you
have lost touch with reality.

Take a pill.

Get off whatever pills you are taking.

People (normal people) don't feel good after they act in self-defense.

No one but you suggested anything of the kind.

They
wish they never had to do it in the first place. Find a cop that doesn't
describe using his gun as a "necessary evil" and I'll find you a cop that
should be off the force.

Your statement is non sequitur.

Not at all.

You said:

"That you would classify self-defense as a "degree of ill" indicates that
you have lost touch with reality."

I am saying that good police officers (which is most of them) view using
their guns as a necessary evil.

Ah, I see. Thanks for being more explicit. I would agree with you in that it
is always lamentable that one is forced into the position of having to harm
another person for any reason, even in self defense.

That's one of the most beneficial effects of legal CCW...it puts criminals
at serious risk of death or serious bodily harm, and they know it, so many
of them choose a different line of work as a result, which is why violent
crime rates drop so drastically where CCW is legal.

Moreover, in more than 60 percent of cases where firearms are used by
law-abiding citizens for self defense, no shots are ever fired, and the mere
presence of the gun in the hands of a potential victim is enough to thwart
the crime.

This is just as true with police officers. That's why they rarely hesitate
to draw their guns and *threaten* the use of deadly force when encountering
a criminal suspect who may be armed. The threat of the use of deadly force
is, of course, a lesser application of physical force than even laying hands
on a suspect or hitting him with a baton. I doubt you'll find many officers
who lament that kind of use of their guns. I do see your point as it applies
to actually having to shoot someone. That is a tough thing for anyone,
civilian or police officer.

Still, when placed between that rock and hard place, one has to weigh the
relief the potential victim feels at not being harmed against the
self-generated consequences to the violent criminal who underestimated his
victim.

On balance, the good of protecting and preserving innocent life far
outweighs the ill of doing to a criminal what the criminal himself required
to be done to him through his actions.


--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

"Scott Weiser" wrote in message
...
A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

They are never used for good. They are only used for different
degrees of
ill.

What a remarkably ignorant statement. The vast majority of the time,
guns
are used to provide pleasure, and the only thing "harmed" is a piece
of
paper or a tin can.

But your assertion utterly ignores the obvious fact that guns can be,
and
very frequently are used to protect the innocent against violent
attack.
That you would classify self-defense as a "degree of ill" indicates
that
you
have lost touch with reality.

Take a pill.

Get off whatever pills you are taking.

People (normal people) don't feel good after they act in self-defense.

No one but you suggested anything of the kind.

They
wish they never had to do it in the first place. Find a cop that
doesn't
describe using his gun as a "necessary evil" and I'll find you a cop
that
should be off the force.

Your statement is non sequitur.

Not at all.

You said:

"That you would classify self-defense as a "degree of ill" indicates that
you have lost touch with reality."

I am saying that good police officers (which is most of them) view using
their guns as a necessary evil.

Ah, I see. Thanks for being more explicit. I would agree with you in that
it
is always lamentable that one is forced into the position of having to
harm
another person for any reason, even in self defense.

I wouldn't water down my own sentiments to quite that degree, but your
manner of response is appreciated.

That's one of the most beneficial effects of legal CCW...it puts criminals
at serious risk of death or serious bodily harm, and they know it, so many
of them choose a different line of work as a result, which is why violent
crime rates drop so drastically where CCW is legal.

Moreover, in more than 60 percent of cases where firearms are used by
law-abiding citizens for self defense, no shots are ever fired, and the
mere
presence of the gun in the hands of a potential victim is enough to thwart
the crime.

Or back to reality, the criminal realizes he needs to shoot everyone and
deaths occur where they needed to be one.

Or the vigilante mentality of a wanne-be like yourself results in the death
of innocent parties.

This is just as true with police officers. That's why they rarely hesitate
to draw their guns and *threaten* the use of deadly force when
encountering
a criminal suspect who may be armed. The threat of the use of deadly force
is, of course, a lesser application of physical force than even laying
hands
on a suspect or hitting him with a baton. I doubt you'll find many
officers
who lament that kind of use of their guns. I do see your point as it
applies
to actually having to shoot someone. That is a tough thing for anyone,
civilian or police officer.

Still, when placed between that rock and hard place, one has to weigh the
relief the potential victim feels at not being harmed against the
self-generated consequences to the violent criminal who underestimated his
victim.

On balance, the good of protecting and preserving innocent life far
outweighs the ill of doing to a criminal what the criminal himself
required
to be done to him through his actions.

Protecting and preserving innocent life is not accomplished by everyone
carrying a gun. That's the end of civilization, not a sign of progress.