an_old_friend wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote:

wrote:

Michael Coslo wrote:


wrote:


Mike Coslo wrote:

I ridicule many things.

Bravo!

You do too!


I don't make fun of other people's religious faith.

So what? Is a persons faith a sacred cow? Should Mormons (the men of
course) be allowed to marry as many women as they want?


As many as they want? maybe not, as many as they can convince to marry
sure, why not?

Not the point.

why should polygamy be banned? why for that matter shoudl polyandry be
banned?

Not the point. The point is a lot of people *don't* like either. A
number of people do. But turning it into a religious matter, ala some
religions, and then expecting all others to accept that, with no comment
is simply incorrect. Brian has a big problem with my making fun of what
I consider some of the more silly aspects of religion.

Some people find that 2 wives is one too many. Some say the same of 1
wife......


Are religious radicals sacred?

Okay, let me make fun of atheists.....

Q. What is the worst part about being an atheist?

A. No one to talk to during Orgasm.....




So where do we stop, Brian?

Has it started?

Oh absolutely.


Is it when they call for the government to
assassinate the leader of a country that they don't like?


Is that when they called to assassinate Bush Sr's life?

No it wasn't. It was when Pat Robertson called for the US to assassinate
Chavez. I'm not talking about politicos, I'm talking about religious
leaders.


Chavez should file charges. Let due process work. BTW, that due
process was set up by evil religious people.

Ummm, where?


Not sure wher Pat is a resident, but in the state where Pat lives is a
good place to start


Clinton sent a
couple of missiles into an emply office building to show that you can't
just go around threatening the President.

Is it when



they call for holy war?

Yeh, I think we should draw the line at Jihad.

There ya go!


Bravo! I was wondering if you were racist and only hated WASP's that
call for Jihad.

Where do you get this stuff Brian? I don't like any religion that tries
to impress it's beliefs on others, that engages in killing in the name
of God, and in general allows people of "faith" to use that faith to
cause harm.


indeed then you are much a fan of Cristain beliefs then I take it
cut

Huh? I don't quite get that, Mark.

- Mike KB3EIA -

K4YZ wrote:
wrote:

K4YZ wrote:

nobodys_old_friend wrote:

Mike Coslo wrote:

wrote:

why should polygamy be banned? why for that matter
shoudl polyandry be banned?

Let's start of with inability to support the extended family for
one.

Why would that be a concern? We don't prevent people from having
lots of kids they cannot afford.


How many families of 20 or more children do you know of in
Pennsylvania, Jim?


Many if not most families-with-children I know have all the adults
working outside the home. Having more adults available
would make things easier, not harder.


But these guys don't LET the women work...They are expected to
stay at home and multiply...Period.


The number one problem in polygamy-prone communities is abject
poverty.

But is that due to the polygamy, or due to other factors such as
rejection by the mainstream culture?


Uhhhhhhhhhh.........How many families with more than three or four
kids do you know of that "lives well", Jim?


Follow that with chronic medical problems associated with in-
breeding.

That's a problem caused by marrying too-close relatives, not
polygamy or polyandry.


Most of the polygamy colonies in Utah are fiercely close and shun
outsiders, Jim. Where's the fresh DNA come from?


The reason such arrangements are against the law is that our
society has decided to define "marriage" as one woman and one man
joined in a legally-sanctioned way, protected by the laws of the
various levels of government.


And part of the reason they have done this is to prevent
intra-family breeding.


There's nothing to prevent a multi-spouse arrangement, as long as
those involved don't demand government sanction and protection.


Common sense and the health and welfare of the children will
prevent it, Jim.


I am sure the "evil religious people" he was refring to were the
Founding Fathers who took it upon themselves to put ambiguous language
about "seperation of church and state" in the Constitution, however
liberally sprinkle "relgion" throughout the political process.

Where?


Start with your folding money.


Most of the Founders were Deists. They also cherished religious liberty
and did not want churches to be supported by tax dollars.


As well they shouldn't. However Christian principles were the
basis for most of thier beliefs and were codified into early American
law.

Who among them could have foretold the silliness that prevails in
today's "religious" pursuits?


Bingo! It is no exaggeration to note that the biggest atheists here in
the US are almost all filled to the gills with "Christian Values". We
all have to have some sort of values, save for the rare and sick few.

And there is nothing wrong with most of those values. The ten
commandments? A lot of that is good stuff. We better not stand too hard
on that "covet thy neighbors goods stuff, tho'. And "not having any
other God before me" kind of makes it a problem to post it in the
courthouse.

We are what we are, and our heritage is where it comes from.

I suppose that it is a great comfort to many people to "know" just how
things are supposed to be, and to have great faith in that "knowing".
But the faithful have had a long and storied history of depriving others
of what they believe is their own faith's fundamental rights.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Mike Coslo wrote:
K4YZ wrote:
wrote:
K4YZ wrote:
nobodys_old_friend wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote:
wrote:
why should polygamy be banned? why for that matter
shoudl polyandry be banned?

Let's start of with inability to support the extended family for
one.

Why would that be a concern? We don't prevent people from having
lots of kids they cannot afford.


How many families of 20 or more children do you know of in
Pennsylvania, Jim?


Many if not most families-with-children I know have all the adults
working outside the home. Having more adults available
would make things easier, not harder.


But these guys don't LET the women work...They are expected to
stay at home and multiply...Period.


The number one problem in polygamy-prone communities is abject
poverty.

But is that due to the polygamy, or due to other factors such as
rejection by the mainstream culture?


Uhhhhhhhhhh.........How many families with more than three or four
kids do you know of that "lives well", Jim?


Follow that with chronic medical problems associated with in-
breeding.

That's a problem caused by marrying too-close relatives, not
polygamy or polyandry.


Most of the polygamy colonies in Utah are fiercely close and shun
outsiders, Jim. Where's the fresh DNA come from?


The reason such arrangements are against the law is that our
society has decided to define "marriage" as one woman and one man
joined in a legally-sanctioned way, protected by the laws of the
various levels of government.


And part of the reason they have done this is to prevent
intra-family breeding.


There's nothing to prevent a multi-spouse arrangement, as long as
those involved don't demand government sanction and protection.


Common sense and the health and welfare of the children will
prevent it, Jim.


I am sure the "evil religious people" he was refring to were the
Founding Fathers who took it upon themselves to put ambiguous language
about "seperation of church and state" in the Constitution, however
liberally sprinkle "relgion" throughout the political process.

Where?


Start with your folding money.


Most of the Founders were Deists. They also cherished religious liberty
and did not want churches to be supported by tax dollars.


As well they shouldn't. However Christian principles were the
basis for most of thier beliefs and were codified into early American
law.

Who among them could have foretold the silliness
that prevails in today's "religious" pursuits?

Bingo! It is no exaggeration to note that the
biggest atheists here in
the US are almost all filled to the gills
with "Christian Values".

?? I'm not sure what you mean, Mike.

We all have to have some sort of values, save
for the rare and sick few.

But all value systems are not created equal.

And there is nothing wrong with most of those values. The ten
commandments? A lot of that is good stuff.

Sure - but a lot of that is also not necessarily only
derived from religion.

Most of what is in the Ten Commandments can be easily
derived from a pair of questions:

"What would a society be like if everyone obeyed that rule?"

"What would a society be like if everyone disobeyed that rule?"

For example, take stealing. A society composed solely of thieves
(people who live by theft rather than production) cannot exist, because
pretty soon there will be nothing left to steal. But a society composed
of people who don't steal can prosper, because
production is the basis of wealth. Therefore stealing is
intrinsically "wrong" because it's not productive.

We better not stand too hard
on that "covet thy neighbors goods stuff, tho'.

Depends how you define "covet".

If my neighbor has a new car, and I want one too, and I work
hard and save up to buy one, that's a good thing!

But if my neighbor has a new car, and I want one too, and I hate
him for it, try to steal or damage it, that's a bad thing!

And "not having any
other God before me" kind of makes it a problem to post it in
the courthouse.

Why should a courthouse, which is paid for by taxes, be a place
where the specific words of one religion are publicized to the
exclusion of others?

I see no problem with private citizens posting their Commandments
on public property *if* other private citizens have the same right.

We are what we are, and our heritage is where it comes from.

But not just our heritage. We've gotten beyond a heritage
of some people owning other people as property. We've gotten
beyond a heritage where people of one gender can vote and
people of the other gender cannot. Etc.

I suppose that it is a great comfort to many
people to "know" just how
things are supposed to be, and to have great faith
in that "knowing".

Of course.

But the faithful have had a long and storied
history of depriving others
of what they believe is their own faith's fundamental rights.

Every freedom carries with it at least one responsibility.
Freedom of religion can only extend to those religions that
can tolerate each other. (For example, a religion that taught
that unbelievers must be murdered cannot claim that such
behavior is protected by religious freedom. That case is
obvious but many similar cases aren't.)

73 de Jim, N2EY

wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote:

K4YZ wrote:

wrote:

K4YZ wrote:

nobodys_old_friend wrote:

Mike Coslo wrote:

wrote:

why should polygamy be banned? why for that matter
shoudl polyandry be banned?


Let's start of with inability to support the extended family for
one.

Why would that be a concern? We don't prevent people from having
lots of kids they cannot afford.


How many families of 20 or more children do you know of in
Pennsylvania, Jim?



Many if not most families-with-children I know have all the adults
working outside the home. Having more adults available
would make things easier, not harder.


But these guys don't LET the women work...They are expected to
stay at home and multiply...Period.



The number one problem in polygamy-prone communities is abject
poverty.

But is that due to the polygamy, or due to other factors such as
rejection by the mainstream culture?


Uhhhhhhhhhh.........How many families with more than three or four
kids do you know of that "lives well", Jim?



Follow that with chronic medical problems associated with in-
breeding.

That's a problem caused by marrying too-close relatives, not
polygamy or polyandry.


Most of the polygamy colonies in Utah are fiercely close and shun
outsiders, Jim. Where's the fresh DNA come from?



The reason such arrangements are against the law is that our
society has decided to define "marriage" as one woman and one man
joined in a legally-sanctioned way, protected by the laws of the
various levels of government.


And part of the reason they have done this is to prevent
intra-family breeding.



There's nothing to prevent a multi-spouse arrangement, as long as
those involved don't demand government sanction and protection.


Common sense and the health and welfare of the children will
prevent it, Jim.



I am sure the "evil religious people" he was refring to were the
Founding Fathers who took it upon themselves to put ambiguous language
about "seperation of church and state" in the Constitution, however
liberally sprinkle "relgion" throughout the political process.

Where?


Start with your folding money.



Most of the Founders were Deists. They also cherished religious liberty
and did not want churches to be supported by tax dollars.


As well they shouldn't. However Christian principles were the
basis for most of thier beliefs and were codified into early American
law.

Who among them could have foretold the silliness
that prevails in today's "religious" pursuits?


Bingo! It is no exaggeration to note that the
biggest atheists here in
the US are almost all filled to the gills
with "Christian Values".


?? I'm not sure what you mean, Mike.

Even though a person may proclaim to be an atheist, that person was
raised in a society that is pretty much Christian, and overwhelmingly
Judeo-Christian. The atheist person is going to have most of those same
values as the rest of the society.


We all have to have some sort of values, save
for the rare and sick few.


But all value systems are not created equal.

Of course not. Now compare the other value systems to ours, and you see
why even atheists have Christian values even if they were raised in a
Christian country


And there is nothing wrong with most of those values. The ten
commandments? A lot of that is good stuff.

Sure - but a lot of that is also not necessarily only
derived from religion.

The religions were some of original social order came from.

Most of what is in the Ten Commandments can be easily
derived from a pair of questions:

"What would a society be like if everyone obeyed that rule?"

"What would a society be like if everyone disobeyed that rule?"

For example, take stealing. A society composed solely of thieves
(people who live by theft rather than production) cannot exist, because
pretty soon there will be nothing left to steal. But a society composed
of people who don't steal can prosper, because
production is the basis of wealth. Therefore stealing is
intrinsically "wrong" because it's not productive.


We better not stand too hard
on that "covet thy neighbors goods stuff, tho'.


Depends how you define "covet".

Keeping up with the Joneses kind of works that way for me.

If my neighbor has a new car, and I want one too, and I work
hard and save up to buy one, that's a good thing!

That is keeping up with the Joneses

But if my neighbor has a new car, and I want one too, and I hate
him for it, try to steal or damage it, that's a bad thing!

A redundant commandment?


And "not having any
other God before me" kind of makes it a problem to post it in
the courthouse.


Why should a courthouse, which is paid for by taxes, be a place
where the specific words of one religion are publicized to the
exclusion of others?

We agree.

I see no problem with private citizens posting their Commandments
on public property *if* other private citizens have the same right.

I want a turtle holding up the world statue! Turtles all the way down!

We are what we are, and our heritage is where it comes from.


But not just our heritage. We've gotten beyond a heritage
of some people owning other people as property. We've gotten
beyond a heritage where people of one gender can vote and
people of the other gender cannot. Etc.

There are some for whom this new state of being is a problem.


I suppose that it is a great comfort to many
people to "know" just how
things are supposed to be, and to have great faith
in that "knowing".


Of course.


But the faithful have had a long and storied
history of depriving others
of what they believe is their own faith's fundamental rights.


Every freedom carries with it at least one responsibility.
Freedom of religion can only extend to those religions that
can tolerate each other. (For example, a religion that taught
that unbelievers must be murdered cannot claim that such
behavior is protected by religious freedom. That case is
obvious but many similar cases aren't.)

Do you think that Fundies actually want freedom? Certainly for
themselves, but I wonder about others.....

- Mike KB3EIA -

wrote:

Every freedom carries with it at least one responsibility.
Freedom of religion can only extend to those religions that
can tolerate each other. (For example, a religion that taught
that unbelievers must be murdered cannot claim that such
behavior is protected by religious freedom. That case is
obvious but many similar cases aren't.)

73 de Jim, N2EY

We seem to allow religious leaders to say or advocate many, many
things. Freedom of religion, freedom of speech. But it's not the
leaders that carry out the atrocities.

Mike Coslo wrote:
an_old_friend wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote:

wrote:

I don't make fun of other people's religious faith.

So what? Is a persons faith a sacred cow? Should Mormons (the men of
course) be allowed to marry as many women as they want?

As many as they want? maybe not, as many as they can convince to marry
sure, why not?

Not the point.

why should polygamy be banned? why for that matter shoudl polyandry be
banned?

Not the point. The point is a lot of people *don't* like either. A
number of people do.

Gay marriage?

But turning it into a religious matter, ala some
religions, and then expecting all others to accept that, with no comment
is simply incorrect. Brian has a big problem with my making fun of what
I consider some of the more silly aspects of religion.

Would you require people that have had a religious marriage ceremony to
then have a civil ceremony to make it all legal?

Remember seperation of Church/State.

Some people find that 2 wives is one too many. Some say the same of 1
wife......

More than a few men have trouble keeping even one happy.

wrote:

Mike Coslo wrote:

an_old_friend wrote:

Mike Coslo wrote:


wrote:


I don't make fun of other people's religious faith.

So what? Is a persons faith a sacred cow? Should Mormons (the men of
course) be allowed to marry as many women as they want?

As many as they want? maybe not, as many as they can convince to marry
sure, why not?

Not the point.


why should polygamy be banned? why for that matter shoudl polyandry be
banned?

Not the point. The point is a lot of people *don't* like either. A
number of people do.


Gay marriage?

Pretty much the same thing.

But turning it into a religious matter, ala some

religions, and then expecting all others to accept that, with no comment
is simply incorrect. Brian has a big problem with my making fun of what
I consider some of the more silly aspects of religion.


Would you require people that have had a religious marriage ceremony to
then have a civil ceremony to make it all legal?

I wouldn't. But it could be an interesting discussion.

Couple bonding is one of the best aspects of religion. No silliness
there. It doesn't bother me that people cohabitate all the time. But I
have big problems with unmarried couples having children.

Remember seperation of Church/State.


Some people find that 2 wives is one too many. Some say the same of 1
wife......


More than a few men have trouble keeping even one happy.

And how!

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Michael Coslo" wrote


Couple bonding is one of the best aspects of religion.

"Couple bonding" isn't an aspect of religion. It's an aspect of human nature
(some might even say of animal nature).


But I have big problems with unmarried couples having children.


Why? The notion of formal marriage is a fairly recent religious invention,
perhaps less than 5,000 years old. Many historic civilizations got along just
fine without it.

73, de Hans, K0HB

K=D8HB wrote:
"Michael Coslo" wrote


Couple bonding is one of the best aspects of religion.

"Couple bonding" isn't an aspect of religion. It's an aspect of human na=
ture
(some might even say of animal nature).


But I have big problems with unmarried couples having children.


Why? The notion of formal marriage is a fairly recent religious inventio=
n,
perhaps less than 5,000 years old. Many historic civilizations got along=
just
fine without it.

as do some modern ones like in Iceland, and other Nordic countries
nobody thinks much about young girls having babies before they get
married (and not always by the fellow they marry either)
=20
73, de Hans, K0HB

KØHB wrote:

"Michael Coslo" wrote


Couple bonding is one of the best aspects of religion.


"Couple bonding" isn't an aspect of religion. It's an aspect of human nature
(some might even say of animal nature).

The social contract of the couple bonding is.

And without the social contract nature, is the species going to settle
with one mate? I am firmly convinced that it wouldn't. Porno is pretty
good evidence it isn't human nature. Porno is simply the outlet from
suppression of the instinct to "get some strange".



But I have big problems with unmarried couples having children.



Why?

The couple should have that social commitment before having children.

Children should be raised by two parents - a father and a mother. The
parents should be pretty certain that they are going to stay together if
they plan on raising kids.


The notion of formal marriage is a fairly recent religious invention,
perhaps less than 5,000 years old.

It is one of the good ideas in religion. We are no longer in a struggle
to survive, in which humans need to boink as often as possible with as
many partners as possible in order to ensure the survival of the
species. We live a lot longer. So we can (attempt to) do better, to
raise the kids in a good two parent household. It tends to make for
better adjusted adults, not simply creatures who simply survive to 14 or
15 years, then make new critters, and die of old age at 35.....


Many historic civilizations got along just
fine without it.

Which ones?

- Mike KB3EIA -