Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 20:03:28 -0500, HK wrote:


Besides, Obama merely attends the church; he isn't its pastor or its
former pastor, nor is he out praising Jesus or thanking heaven on a
public, daily basis for his political successes.

"Moreover, it's wrong to ask believers to leave their religion at the
door before entering the public square. Abraham Lincoln, William
Jennings Bryan, Martin Luther King Jr. — indeed, the majority of great
reformers in American history — were not only motivated by faith, they
also used religious language to argue for their cause. To say men and
women should not inject their "personal morality" into policy debates
is a practical absurdity; our law is by definition a codification of
morality."

Barak Obama, USA Today, 7/10/2006


So?

There's no conflict in the two statements. Obama isn't shoveling
religion, and neither did Lincoln or King. Bryan, of course, did.

On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 21:09:41 -0500, HK wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 20:03:28 -0500, HK wrote:


Besides, Obama merely attends the church; he isn't its pastor or its
former pastor, nor is he out praising Jesus or thanking heaven on a
public, daily basis for his political successes.

"Moreover, it's wrong to ask believers to leave their religion at the
door before entering the public square. Abraham Lincoln, William
Jennings Bryan, Martin Luther King Jr. — indeed, the majority of great
reformers in American history — were not only motivated by faith, they
also used religious language to argue for their cause. To say men and
women should not inject their "personal morality" into policy debates
is a practical absurdity; our law is by definition a codification of
morality."

Barak Obama, USA Today, 7/10/2006

So?

There's no conflict in the two statements. Obama isn't shoveling
religion, and neither did Lincoln or King. Bryan, of course, did.

Again, I am blinded by your ability to rationalize.

It's an incredible talent - you missed your calling, you should have
taken up the religious life. Probably would be Pope by now if you had
been Catholic. :)

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 21:09:41 -0500, HK wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 20:03:28 -0500, HK wrote:


Besides, Obama merely attends the church; he isn't its pastor or its
former pastor, nor is he out praising Jesus or thanking heaven on a
public, daily basis for his political successes.
"Moreover, it's wrong to ask believers to leave their religion at the
door before entering the public square. Abraham Lincoln, William
Jennings Bryan, Martin Luther King Jr. — indeed, the majority of great
reformers in American history — were not only motivated by faith, they
also used religious language to argue for their cause. To say men and
women should not inject their "personal morality" into policy debates
is a practical absurdity; our law is by definition a codification of
morality."

Barak Obama, USA Today, 7/10/2006
So?

There's no conflict in the two statements. Obama isn't shoveling
religion, and neither did Lincoln or King. Bryan, of course, did.

Again, I am blinded by your ability to rationalize.

It's an incredible talent - you missed your calling, you should have
taken up the religious life. Probably would be Pope by now if you had
been Catholic. :)


Pope Harry?

Sorry, I don't believe this country can endure another naive simpleton
in the White House after eight years of Bush, and to me, Huckabee, nice
as he is (and I do think he is a swell fella) knows no more about the
world than Bush did when he presumed his office.

JimH wrote:
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 21:09:41 -0500, HK wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 20:03:28 -0500, HK wrote:


Besides, Obama merely attends the church; he isn't its pastor or its
former pastor, nor is he out praising Jesus or thanking heaven on a
public, daily basis for his political successes.
"Moreover, it's wrong to ask believers to leave their religion at the
door before entering the public square. Abraham Lincoln, William
Jennings Bryan, Martin Luther King Jr. - indeed, the majority of great
reformers in American history - were not only motivated by faith, they
also used religious language to argue for their cause. To say men and
women should not inject their "personal morality" into policy debates
is a practical absurdity; our law is by definition a codification of
morality."

Barak Obama, USA Today, 7/10/2006
So?

There's no conflict in the two statements. Obama isn't shoveling
religion, and neither did Lincoln or King. Bryan, of course, did.
Again, I am blinded by your ability to rationalize.

It's an incredible talent - you missed your calling, you should have
taken up the religious life. Probably would be Pope by now if you had
been Catholic. :)

Reggie has the same talent. Perhaps the 2 of them could go into politics.
;-)




Reggie has too wide a stance.

On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 01:56:20 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 01:06:39 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

When's the last time you read anything by Thomas Merton?

Gee - I'd have to think about that.

I read "Seven Story Mountain" first in high school, then again in
college along with "Sign of Jonas" during a two semester course in
Comparative Theology (oddly, both of my best friends were so moved by
Merton's work that they decided to join the religious life - one is a
Methodist minister and the other a Franciscan Priest) - say 35 years
or so +/-.

Why?

I wondered if you noticed something interesting about Merton. He was a great
example of how religion should be done: with modesty. It's like a dog. Keep
it on your own property and don't let it bark incessantly at people who are
just minding their own business.

Well, we have some common ground at least. I am not one who
appreciates proselytizing be it religious or political.

It's a valid point - lead by example.

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 18:42:20 -0500, HK wrote:



BTW, I've never seen an entire Chuck Norris movie, either. I've seen
bits and pieces of several while channel flipping, and what I saw was a
pretty bad actor in pretty bad movies.

I watched the one filmed in Chicago the whole way through, trying to
pick out locations. These guy were acting like Norris movies were so
beneath them they never even ran across them. VCR's/DVD's, Norris,
family and friends make that damn near impossible. There's a chance
they just didn't want to knock Norris movies, but that's not how they
came across.

For martial arts, I prefer Bruce Lee, and any number of Japanese or
Chinese movies.

I enjoyed some of the early Seagal stuff. Before he started looking
and moving like a corpse. Van Damme, who my son calls Slam Ham
did some decent stuff. Jackie Chan is funny.
I can take it or leave it.

--Vic

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 18:42:20 -0500, HK wrote:



BTW, I've never seen an entire Chuck Norris movie, either. I've seen
bits and pieces of several while channel flipping, and what I saw was a
pretty bad actor in pretty bad movies.

I watched the one filmed in Chicago the whole way through, trying to
pick out locations. These guy were acting like Norris movies were so
beneath them they never even ran across them. VCR's/DVD's, Norris,
family and friends make that damn near impossible. There's a chance
they just didn't want to knock Norris movies, but that's not how they
came across.

For martial arts, I prefer Bruce Lee, and any number of Japanese or
Chinese movies.

I enjoyed some of the early Seagal stuff. Before he started looking
and moving like a corpse. Van Damme, who my son calls Slam Ham
did some decent stuff. Jackie Chan is funny.
I can take it or leave it.

--Vic

What's not to like about Chuck Norris movies. Lots of action, lots of
explosions. Good guy movie. No Jeff Gordon movie. Seagal was good, before
he decided he could write and direct movies. Van Damme, movies. Just SUX.
Jackie Chan is a good comedian. And I like good comedians.

On Sat, 5 Jan 2008 18:39:54 -0800, "Calif Bill"
wrote:




What's not to like about Chuck Norris movies. Lots of action, lots of
explosions. Good guy movie. No Jeff Gordon movie. Seagal was good, before
he decided he could write and direct movies. Van Damme, movies. Just SUX.
Jackie Chan is a good comedian. And I like good comedians.

Hey, Van Damme always had a naked butt scene and the girls in the
house must have found it titillating.
IMO, just about any episode of the "A-Team" had more good stuff than a
Norris movie. Peppard saying "I love it when a plan comes together"
displayed more acting talent than the entire cast of a Norris movie
saying all their lines. But maybe I wasn't paying close attention.

--Vic

On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 21:02:32 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Sat, 5 Jan 2008 18:39:54 -0800, "Calif Bill"
wrote:




What's not to like about Chuck Norris movies. Lots of action, lots of
explosions. Good guy movie. No Jeff Gordon movie. Seagal was good, before
he decided he could write and direct movies. Van Damme, movies. Just SUX.
Jackie Chan is a good comedian. And I like good comedians.

Hey, Van Damme always had a naked butt scene and the girls in the
house must have found it titillating.
IMO, just about any episode of the "A-Team" had more good stuff than a
Norris movie. Peppard saying "I love it when a plan comes together"
displayed more acting talent than the entire cast of a Norris movie
saying all their lines. But maybe I wasn't paying close attention

"I pity the fool"

Loved the A Team.

If they were going to reimage or remake a TV show into a movie, The A
Team would be one of my candidates.

As for kung fu movies - I like the cheap, cheesy Chinese ones made in
Taiwan or Hong Kong.

Damn movies are hysterically funny.

Sort of related - one of my favorite movies - tied for # one with
three others - "Big Trouble in Little China".

Favorite quote: "Okay, I get the picture White Tigers, Lords of Death,
guys in funny suits throwing plastic explosives while poison arrows
fall from the sky and the pillars of heaven shake, huh? Sure, okay, I
see Charlie Chan, Fu Manchu and a hundred howlin' monkey temples, and
that's just for starters, right? Fine! I'm ready, goddammit let me at
'em!"

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 00:59:10 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

I was going to ask if you were OK with religion getting too involved with
government, but I forgot something: You'll never provide a straight answer
to that question.

Well, that's an interesting question if only because there isn't a
"straight" answer - or at least one that you will find sufficiently
acceptable just because of who you are.

If you mean in the sense that government (or the State) should never
put itself in the position advancing or promoting one religion over
another, then I would agree.

If you mean using religious or faith based argument as a basis for
forming policy, then I would not agree. There is a place for faith
based argument just as there is a place for secular based argument.
The State has to consider all sides of the discussion, not just one
side in forming it's decisions or policies. If one side or the other
prevails in those discussions, that's how the system works.

While secularists don't like to admit it, we are largely a Christian
nation - or at least most Americans will identify themselves as such.

Let's disconnect religion from god for a moment and talk about the Brady
Bunch, another group of religious fanatics. Like certain god sects, they
also think they have the right to determine how everyone should live
(gun-less). I'm sure you don't like the Brady religion, right?

Secularists in general believe they have the right to tell everyone
else how to live. As do those steeped in religious thought. The very
fact that government exists to tell us what to do and how to behave is
necessary to organized society.

What's your point?


The point is that you probably don't want the Brady Bunch meddling with
government. Why would you give the benefit of the doubt to religious
extremists? Do they get special privileges because they believe in a deity?