Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety canbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Thu, 04 Dec 03 10:23:56 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
>>Marriage, in our culture (Judeo/Christian) has been historically
>
>But the US government, not being JudeoChristian or any religion, should not
>reflect religious bias, should it?
Depends on how you look at it.
The government is made up of 'the people'.
Those people's lives are, at least in part, shaped by their religion.
To expect their government to be completely divorced from that
religion (whatever religion it is, or even the combination of
religions it is here) is being unrealistic. It's asking the people to
ignore what they believe in.
It is a goal of our government, at this time, to attempt to divorce
itself from all religion. Is that good?
How can we expect our government to come up with laws that have no
base? No anchor at all? How can we possibly expect to base our laws on
the human experience, and then expect to deny a large part of that
experience?
I'm not proposing a theocracy, but I do think that trying to deny all
religious beliefs is simply impossible, and, as such, should be
recognized.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
wrote:
>>Marriage, in our culture (Judeo/Christian) has been historically
>
>But the US government, not being JudeoChristian or any religion, should not
>reflect religious bias, should it?
Depends on how you look at it.
The government is made up of 'the people'.
Those people's lives are, at least in part, shaped by their religion.
To expect their government to be completely divorced from that
religion (whatever religion it is, or even the combination of
religions it is here) is being unrealistic. It's asking the people to
ignore what they believe in.
It is a goal of our government, at this time, to attempt to divorce
itself from all religion. Is that good?
How can we expect our government to come up with laws that have no
base? No anchor at all? How can we possibly expect to base our laws on
the human experience, and then expect to deny a large part of that
experience?
I'm not proposing a theocracy, but I do think that trying to deny all
religious beliefs is simply impossible, and, as such, should be
recognized.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety canbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Thu, 04 Dec 03 10:23:56 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
>>Marriage, in our culture (Judeo/Christian) has been historically
>
>But the US government, not being JudeoChristian or any religion, should not
>reflect religious bias, should it?
Depends on how you look at it.
The government is made up of 'the people'.
Those people's lives are, at least in part, shaped by their religion.
To expect their government to be completely divorced from that
religion (whatever religion it is, or even the combination of
religions it is here) is being unrealistic. It's asking the people to
ignore what they believe in.
It is a goal of our government, at this time, to attempt to divorce
itself from all religion. Is that good?
How can we expect our government to come up with laws that have no
base? No anchor at all? How can we possibly expect to base our laws on
the human experience, and then expect to deny a large part of that
experience?
I'm not proposing a theocracy, but I do think that trying to deny all
religious beliefs is simply impossible, and, as such, should be
recognized.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
wrote:
>>Marriage, in our culture (Judeo/Christian) has been historically
>
>But the US government, not being JudeoChristian or any religion, should not
>reflect religious bias, should it?
Depends on how you look at it.
The government is made up of 'the people'.
Those people's lives are, at least in part, shaped by their religion.
To expect their government to be completely divorced from that
religion (whatever religion it is, or even the combination of
religions it is here) is being unrealistic. It's asking the people to
ignore what they believe in.
It is a goal of our government, at this time, to attempt to divorce
itself from all religion. Is that good?
How can we expect our government to come up with laws that have no
base? No anchor at all? How can we possibly expect to base our laws on
the human experience, and then expect to deny a large part of that
experience?
I'm not proposing a theocracy, but I do think that trying to deny all
religious beliefs is simply impossible, and, as such, should be
recognized.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"Brandon Sommerville" <grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote in message
news:54a3dad8256e081d45f06f9cd2eb6993@news.teranew s.com...
> On Thu, 4 Dec 2003 13:59:59 -0500, "The Ancient One"
> <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Brandon Sommerville" <grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote in message
> >news:027ccc8327688e937bc1d3dddb7c8994@news.terane ws.com...
> >> On Thu, 4 Dec 2003 11:49:02 -0500, "The Ancient One"
> >> <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >"Daniel J. Stern" <dastern@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
> >>
>news:Pine.SOL.4.44.0312032057380.21202-100000@alumni.engin.umich.edu...
> >>
> >> >> Mine is based on getting very suddenly struck down with a large and
lodged
> >> >> kidney stone at 4 in the morning while in Toronto. Extremely
painful, but
> >> >> not life threatening. I was diagnosed, treated, operated upon and
> >> >> prescribed suitable meds in a fast, efficient, capable, thorough
manner.
> >> >
> >> >You were lucky they still had money in the budget at that time,
otherwise
> >> >you would have been placed on a waiting list.
> >>
> >> Have you ever been to Canada?
> >
> >Yes I have. I also have friends in Canada, England, Scotland, Japan and
> >Germany, and I have discussed their "free" healthcare with them many
times.
>
> It's just that your picture of Canadian health care is so divorced
> from the reality of living here that I have to wonder.
No more than your's is of the US. I'm happy with ours, you're happy with
your's. Now we just need to shut Lloyd up and we can all die happy.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"Brandon Sommerville" <grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote in message
news:54a3dad8256e081d45f06f9cd2eb6993@news.teranew s.com...
> On Thu, 4 Dec 2003 13:59:59 -0500, "The Ancient One"
> <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Brandon Sommerville" <grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote in message
> >news:027ccc8327688e937bc1d3dddb7c8994@news.terane ws.com...
> >> On Thu, 4 Dec 2003 11:49:02 -0500, "The Ancient One"
> >> <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >"Daniel J. Stern" <dastern@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
> >>
>news:Pine.SOL.4.44.0312032057380.21202-100000@alumni.engin.umich.edu...
> >>
> >> >> Mine is based on getting very suddenly struck down with a large and
lodged
> >> >> kidney stone at 4 in the morning while in Toronto. Extremely
painful, but
> >> >> not life threatening. I was diagnosed, treated, operated upon and
> >> >> prescribed suitable meds in a fast, efficient, capable, thorough
manner.
> >> >
> >> >You were lucky they still had money in the budget at that time,
otherwise
> >> >you would have been placed on a waiting list.
> >>
> >> Have you ever been to Canada?
> >
> >Yes I have. I also have friends in Canada, England, Scotland, Japan and
> >Germany, and I have discussed their "free" healthcare with them many
times.
>
> It's just that your picture of Canadian health care is so divorced
> from the reality of living here that I have to wonder.
No more than your's is of the US. I'm happy with ours, you're happy with
your's. Now we just need to shut Lloyd up and we can all die happy.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"Brandon Sommerville" <grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote in message
news:54a3dad8256e081d45f06f9cd2eb6993@news.teranew s.com...
> On Thu, 4 Dec 2003 13:59:59 -0500, "The Ancient One"
> <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Brandon Sommerville" <grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote in message
> >news:027ccc8327688e937bc1d3dddb7c8994@news.terane ws.com...
> >> On Thu, 4 Dec 2003 11:49:02 -0500, "The Ancient One"
> >> <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >"Daniel J. Stern" <dastern@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
> >>
>news:Pine.SOL.4.44.0312032057380.21202-100000@alumni.engin.umich.edu...
> >>
> >> >> Mine is based on getting very suddenly struck down with a large and
lodged
> >> >> kidney stone at 4 in the morning while in Toronto. Extremely
painful, but
> >> >> not life threatening. I was diagnosed, treated, operated upon and
> >> >> prescribed suitable meds in a fast, efficient, capable, thorough
manner.
> >> >
> >> >You were lucky they still had money in the budget at that time,
otherwise
> >> >you would have been placed on a waiting list.
> >>
> >> Have you ever been to Canada?
> >
> >Yes I have. I also have friends in Canada, England, Scotland, Japan and
> >Germany, and I have discussed their "free" healthcare with them many
times.
>
> It's just that your picture of Canadian health care is so divorced
> from the reality of living here that I have to wonder.
No more than your's is of the US. I'm happy with ours, you're happy with
your's. Now we just need to shut Lloyd up and we can all die happy.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety canbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 14:25:55 GMT, Brandon Sommerville
<grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote:
>On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 17:06:25 -0700, Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 18:21:10 GMT, Brandon Sommerville
>><grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote:
>>
>>>This confuses me greatly. If two men or two women want to be joined
>>>as a family in a marriage, how does it detract from your marriage?
>>
>>It doesn't.
>>
>>Marriage, in our culture (Judeo/Christian) has been historically
>>defined by the religious society, and then codified by the
>>governments.
>
>So change the codification slightly. Instead of specifying that it's
>a man and woman specify that it's two people. Problem solved, no
>other laws need to be changed.
I've been saying just that that.
>
>As far as the religious society, it's got a few issues of it's own to
>deal with before passing judgement on anyone else. Covering up
>pedophiles while condemning gay marriage seems a little hypocritical
>to me, don't you think?
Let's not confuse some Catholic churches with the whole of religious
society.
>
>>This is why the idea of gay marriage rankles so much.
>
>That's not an explanation of why it rankles, it's an explanation of
>what it is.
Ok, I have a problem with unreferrenced pronouns.
What is the "it" here?
Marriage? Gay marriage? The idea of gay marriage?
The rankling?
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
<grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote:
>On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 17:06:25 -0700, Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 18:21:10 GMT, Brandon Sommerville
>><grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote:
>>
>>>This confuses me greatly. If two men or two women want to be joined
>>>as a family in a marriage, how does it detract from your marriage?
>>
>>It doesn't.
>>
>>Marriage, in our culture (Judeo/Christian) has been historically
>>defined by the religious society, and then codified by the
>>governments.
>
>So change the codification slightly. Instead of specifying that it's
>a man and woman specify that it's two people. Problem solved, no
>other laws need to be changed.
I've been saying just that that.
>
>As far as the religious society, it's got a few issues of it's own to
>deal with before passing judgement on anyone else. Covering up
>pedophiles while condemning gay marriage seems a little hypocritical
>to me, don't you think?
Let's not confuse some Catholic churches with the whole of religious
society.
>
>>This is why the idea of gay marriage rankles so much.
>
>That's not an explanation of why it rankles, it's an explanation of
>what it is.
Ok, I have a problem with unreferrenced pronouns.
What is the "it" here?
Marriage? Gay marriage? The idea of gay marriage?
The rankling?
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety canbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 14:25:55 GMT, Brandon Sommerville
<grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote:
>On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 17:06:25 -0700, Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 18:21:10 GMT, Brandon Sommerville
>><grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote:
>>
>>>This confuses me greatly. If two men or two women want to be joined
>>>as a family in a marriage, how does it detract from your marriage?
>>
>>It doesn't.
>>
>>Marriage, in our culture (Judeo/Christian) has been historically
>>defined by the religious society, and then codified by the
>>governments.
>
>So change the codification slightly. Instead of specifying that it's
>a man and woman specify that it's two people. Problem solved, no
>other laws need to be changed.
I've been saying just that that.
>
>As far as the religious society, it's got a few issues of it's own to
>deal with before passing judgement on anyone else. Covering up
>pedophiles while condemning gay marriage seems a little hypocritical
>to me, don't you think?
Let's not confuse some Catholic churches with the whole of religious
society.
>
>>This is why the idea of gay marriage rankles so much.
>
>That's not an explanation of why it rankles, it's an explanation of
>what it is.
Ok, I have a problem with unreferrenced pronouns.
What is the "it" here?
Marriage? Gay marriage? The idea of gay marriage?
The rankling?
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
<grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote:
>On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 17:06:25 -0700, Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 18:21:10 GMT, Brandon Sommerville
>><grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote:
>>
>>>This confuses me greatly. If two men or two women want to be joined
>>>as a family in a marriage, how does it detract from your marriage?
>>
>>It doesn't.
>>
>>Marriage, in our culture (Judeo/Christian) has been historically
>>defined by the religious society, and then codified by the
>>governments.
>
>So change the codification slightly. Instead of specifying that it's
>a man and woman specify that it's two people. Problem solved, no
>other laws need to be changed.
I've been saying just that that.
>
>As far as the religious society, it's got a few issues of it's own to
>deal with before passing judgement on anyone else. Covering up
>pedophiles while condemning gay marriage seems a little hypocritical
>to me, don't you think?
Let's not confuse some Catholic churches with the whole of religious
society.
>
>>This is why the idea of gay marriage rankles so much.
>
>That's not an explanation of why it rankles, it's an explanation of
>what it is.
Ok, I have a problem with unreferrenced pronouns.
What is the "it" here?
Marriage? Gay marriage? The idea of gay marriage?
The rankling?
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety canbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 14:25:55 GMT, Brandon Sommerville
<grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote:
>On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 17:06:25 -0700, Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 18:21:10 GMT, Brandon Sommerville
>><grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote:
>>
>>>This confuses me greatly. If two men or two women want to be joined
>>>as a family in a marriage, how does it detract from your marriage?
>>
>>It doesn't.
>>
>>Marriage, in our culture (Judeo/Christian) has been historically
>>defined by the religious society, and then codified by the
>>governments.
>
>So change the codification slightly. Instead of specifying that it's
>a man and woman specify that it's two people. Problem solved, no
>other laws need to be changed.
I've been saying just that that.
>
>As far as the religious society, it's got a few issues of it's own to
>deal with before passing judgement on anyone else. Covering up
>pedophiles while condemning gay marriage seems a little hypocritical
>to me, don't you think?
Let's not confuse some Catholic churches with the whole of religious
society.
>
>>This is why the idea of gay marriage rankles so much.
>
>That's not an explanation of why it rankles, it's an explanation of
>what it is.
Ok, I have a problem with unreferrenced pronouns.
What is the "it" here?
Marriage? Gay marriage? The idea of gay marriage?
The rankling?
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
<grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote:
>On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 17:06:25 -0700, Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 18:21:10 GMT, Brandon Sommerville
>><grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote:
>>
>>>This confuses me greatly. If two men or two women want to be joined
>>>as a family in a marriage, how does it detract from your marriage?
>>
>>It doesn't.
>>
>>Marriage, in our culture (Judeo/Christian) has been historically
>>defined by the religious society, and then codified by the
>>governments.
>
>So change the codification slightly. Instead of specifying that it's
>a man and woman specify that it's two people. Problem solved, no
>other laws need to be changed.
I've been saying just that that.
>
>As far as the religious society, it's got a few issues of it's own to
>deal with before passing judgement on anyone else. Covering up
>pedophiles while condemning gay marriage seems a little hypocritical
>to me, don't you think?
Let's not confuse some Catholic churches with the whole of religious
society.
>
>>This is why the idea of gay marriage rankles so much.
>
>That's not an explanation of why it rankles, it's an explanation of
>what it is.
Ok, I have a problem with unreferrenced pronouns.
What is the "it" here?
Marriage? Gay marriage? The idea of gay marriage?
The rankling?
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety canbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 09:50:40 -0500, Jenn Wasdyke
<wasdyke68@pobox.nospam> wrote:
>> So change the codification slightly. Instead of specifying that it's
>> a man and woman specify that it's two people. Problem solved, no
>> other laws need to be changed.
>
>Why should it be only two people? If three consenting people wish to be
>married, why discriminate against them?
I think that's already covered.
Such unions are called 'corporations'. :-)
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
<wasdyke68@pobox.nospam> wrote:
>> So change the codification slightly. Instead of specifying that it's
>> a man and woman specify that it's two people. Problem solved, no
>> other laws need to be changed.
>
>Why should it be only two people? If three consenting people wish to be
>married, why discriminate against them?
I think that's already covered.
Such unions are called 'corporations'. :-)
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety canbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 09:50:40 -0500, Jenn Wasdyke
<wasdyke68@pobox.nospam> wrote:
>> So change the codification slightly. Instead of specifying that it's
>> a man and woman specify that it's two people. Problem solved, no
>> other laws need to be changed.
>
>Why should it be only two people? If three consenting people wish to be
>married, why discriminate against them?
I think that's already covered.
Such unions are called 'corporations'. :-)
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
<wasdyke68@pobox.nospam> wrote:
>> So change the codification slightly. Instead of specifying that it's
>> a man and woman specify that it's two people. Problem solved, no
>> other laws need to be changed.
>
>Why should it be only two people? If three consenting people wish to be
>married, why discriminate against them?
I think that's already covered.
Such unions are called 'corporations'. :-)
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"