John Smith wrote:
N2EY wrote:
"ARRL is not a religion. That claim is incorrect."

... really, don't they mention "traditions" and manners of
ethical and
moral behaviors an amateur should conduct themselves by?

There's more to a religion than that.

If you consider any organization that mentions traditions and
ethical/moral behaviors that people should conduct themselves
by, then you consider all of the following to be "religions":

- Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts and similar organizations
- US Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Coast Guard
- AMA, ANA, and similar organizations
- IEEE and similar organizations
- No-Code International and similar organizations


And many others.

If so, they have many of the traits of a religion...

So do all of the organizations listed above.

and many "ARRL
zealots" look to be just as dangerous as some "religious
zealots"...

That claim is incorrect.

has scarred off a bunch of licenses from joining...

IMHO, if someone is sacred off by the current license
requirements, they really aren't interested.

wrote in message
oups.com...
John Smith wrote:
Then your argument is that it is totally logical to claim to follow a
"religion" (such as the ARRL)

ARRL is not a religion. That claim is incorrect.

but yet you are fully in your rights to
remove such pages as are un-suitable to you--but still should be
viewed
as logical as you begin picking and choosing exactly what is
pertinent
and what is not and following those things in the first mentioned
category only?

Has nothing to do with me.

The claim was made about certain things being labeled abominations
by the Bible.

I point out that there are all sorts of things labeled abominations
by that same Bible, yet people who call themselves Christians
regularly do precisely those things (like eating pork and other
foods labeled unclean).

IOW, many Christians pick and choose which "Old Testament"
abominations
to avoid, but then criticize others for not avoiding the same ones.

We also have Christians who claim the Bible to be literally true, and
insist that science agree with their literal interpretation. Yet they
don't seem to have read the very Book they want taken literally, for
it is full of contradictions *if taken literally*.

Hmmmm, interesting, just too bad we can't do that with the penal
code...
or FCC rules and regulations for that matter... it would look more
"logical" to me then...

Those rules are created by humans, and can be changed by humans.

--

Personally I prefer the Book of Bokonon.

--

wrote in message
oups.com...
John Smith wrote:
bb:

Or, have they torn those pages out of the bible, much in the
same way
gays have torn out the pages calling homosexuality an
abomination?

Which pages of the Bible do we follow, John?

Consider the first chapters of Genesis, where two different
creation stories are told. Both of them cannot be literally
true.

Or read the story of Lot and his family's escape from Sodm and
Gomorrah. Not just the pillar of salt thing but his actions
towards his daughters and their actions towards him.

Abominations? Plenty of them in the Bible - like eating pork,
or any scavengers (that means lobster too), or even rabbits.

Who decides which abominations "modern Christians" have to avoid?