A Usenet persona calling itself Wilko wrote:



BCITORGB wrote:

weiser says:
=========
"If you have two operating feet, get up and walk
out of the ghetto.
=========

did i say something about a ghetto here?

and, frankly, i don't give a **** about what the people in kansas want
to teach their kids. but from where i sit, their actions and similar
"ban the books" from literature classes actions in the US bible belt
look awfully similar to what the taliban was up to.

Look awfully similar? I think they are basically the same thing.

The Taliban weren't exactly the most creative of folks, they got a lot
of their ideas from those who came up with a religion before them, the
christians and jews.

It's amazing how well they copied the ideas of some person forcing other
to do as they wish all because that one person claims to be more in
touch with something bigger than us all than the other person. Religion
is basically a power game, with just enough spirituality to keep the
simple people from seeing the truth. The truth is that by using religion
to make people conform to an idea, you can make those people do things
they would never do for money or by threat of direct force.

Freedom would be allowing people to believe in what they want, without
being worried that some religious leader immediately convicts what they
want or believe as herecy.

Does that include allowing the freedom to believe in a particular religion
and the free and open choice to subscribe to the teachings of that religion,
or are you demanding universal secularism?

The difference between the Taliban and the Catholic Church is that the
Taliban demanded that *everyone* believe in radical Islam, and they would
beat and/or kill you if you didn't do as the religious authorities demanded,
whether you were an adherent of Islam or not. The Catholic Church today does
not demand that ANYONE subscribe to it's dogma, although it does demand that
if you choose to be a Catholic, you obey the church in matters of
religiosity. No one is requiring non-Catholics to act as Catholics, it's
just that you can't BE a Catholic if you refuse to follow the teachings of
the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church is a private club, and it has
rules, and like any private club, if you don't obey the rules, you can't be
a member.

Funny how the church still advocates
abstinence (sp?) as a way to prevent AIDS

Abstinence just happens to be the ONLY way to entirely prevent
sexually-transmitted AIDS 100% of the time. That is a scientific fact.

What, I ask you, is wrong with advocating abstinence? It's not like they are
demanding abstinence and are proposing criminal sanctions for promiscuity.


or how it prevents the use of
birth control in countries where the population explosion is causing
gigantic problems.

How, exactly, is the Catholic Church "preventing" the use of birth control
anywhere in the world? The Catholic Church may *condemn* the use of birth
control, and may refuse to participate in the dissemination of information
and the distribution of birth control, but it has no legal power to
"prevent" anyone from using any form of birth control they choose. The
Catholic Church's stance on contraception is based in its religious beliefs,
which it is entitled to hold, even if you happen to disagree with them. Or
are you suggesting that the Catholic Church be denied its right of free
speech on the matter of contraception?


Also interesting how in most developed countries there is a direct
correlation between the level of education of the population and the
amount of people still believing in some kind of higher being.

Any proof for this remarkable assertion?

In most of Europe the amount of people still going to some kind of
church dwindles by the day, although a lot of people discover other, not
related to some church or constricting religion, forms of spirituality.

And yet the Catholic Church is one of the only religions on the planet that
is seeing an increase in members.


great! have your
regious freedom (if that's what you think it is)! i think it's a
purposeful dumbing down of your children.

That reminds me, funny how the catholic church in essence kept the
population dumb for centuries by picking the brightest people as their
priests, and letting everyone else procreate, effectively eliminating
many of the smartest people from every generation from adding to the
gene pool.

Interesting thesis, albeit entirely unfounded and untrue. Can you say
"Galieo?" How about "Da Vinci?" Should I go on?
--
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

A Usenet persona calling itself Galen Hekhuis wrote:

On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 15:22:54 -0700, Scott Weiser
wrote:

Again, you make the erroneous presumption that the theory of evolution is
"the truth."

If it is, care to explain why sharks are still sharks 400 million years
later? It only took 2 million years or so for man to evolve from monkey,
according to evolutionary theory, so why haven't sharks changed appreciably
in 400 million years. If evolution is "the truth," then the world should be
being run by incredibly intelligent sharks, who ought to have evolved far
beyond what they are today. They haven't.

Interesting conundrum, isn't it?

Not really. Sharks may well be more intelligent than man. They may have
such great intelligence that they thought about running the world, rejected
the idea, and then stayed in the sea, masking their far superior
intelligence from creatures like man. It's kind of easy to score highly on
"intelligence tests" that you make up the questions for, grade, referee,
etc.

Feel free to try to prove this asinine assertion. Get back to us when you've
been peer-reviewed.

--
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

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Weiser said:
==========
Not EU-wide. That
didn't happen till recently.
=========

yes it was eu-wide... germany, the benelux, france spain, italy etc...
the entire eu in 1972!

Um, evidently you missed it...the EU didn't exist in 1972.
--
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

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Weiser, referring to Danes says:
==========
Unless you happen to be a working stiff who has to fork over half your
income to pay for free drugs and healthcare for addlepated zombies and
useless leeches.
============

Isn't it strange then, that hundreds of thousands of hard-working Danes
aren't clamoring to get into the free-market haven (albeit with huge
subsidies - corporate welfare -- for shareholders who don't require
them) that you claim is USA?

There's no accounting for stupidity. Perhaps all that time spent in the dark
has shrunk their brains.

--
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

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

weiser says:
=========
Amphigory.
==========

did i miss a comma somewhere?

Among other things...
--
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

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

weiser says:
===========
It's true that the programs have to be carefully assessed and
monitored, but the occasional abuse of the programs doesn't impeach the
overall benefits.
============

i'd say that pretty-much sums up welfare of all sorts. the occasional
"welfare queen" hardly negates the value of giving the underpriviliged
temporary assistance.

As long as its temporary. Problem is that traditional welfare programs, not
just in the US, but everywhere, become permanent "entitlement" programs
instead. Therein lies the problem
--
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

On 16-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

Can you say
"Galieo?" How about "Da Vinci?" Should I go on?

While nominally Catholic, neither was religious. If you look further
back than the Renaisance, you'll see that his comments are essentially
true - only the clergy were taught to read and write and reading
in Latin was forbidden for the everyone else.

Mike

Scott weiser says:
===================
The difference between the Taliban and the Catholic Church is that the
Taliban demanded that *everyone* believe in radical Islam, and they
would
beat and/or kill you if you didn't do as the religious authorities
demanded,
====================

And my point is that religion, unfettered, becomes the Taliban. I see
that you refer to the Catholic Church today. But how do you account for
the Catholic Church of the Inquisition? Or the Catholic Church that
scared the beejeesus out of anyone doing science? I'll stick with my
initial proposition: there's only a fine line between one group of
fundamentalists and another.

Weiser says:
================
And yet the Catholic Church is one of the only religions on the planet
that
is seeing an increase in members.
====================

Is this a good thing?

But why is it losing people in Europe? Can it be that educated people
find little of value in the teachings of the church.?

frtzw906

Weiser says:
===============
Um, evidently you missed it...the EU didn't exist in 1972.
=================

Pedantic semantics again.

For your information:
"The first step in European integration was taken when six countries
(Belgium, the Federal Republic of Germany, France, Italy, Luxembourg
and the Netherlands) set up a common market in coal and steel...

The six member states then decided to build a European Economic
Community (EEC) based on a common market in a wide range of goods and
services. Customs duties between the six countries were completely
removed on 1 July 1968 and common policies - notably on trade and
agriculture - were also set up during the 1960s."

http://europa.eu.int/abc/12lessons/index2_en.htm

Since customs duties were removed in 1968, I obviously was able to
travel within the EEC (pre-cursor of the EU) in 1972 without stopping
at borders.

frtzw906

Weiser has obviously never been to Denmark.


frtzw906