Free Republic

I'll give you two:

Forcing display of the (sectarian) Ten Commandments in public buildings and schools. Keep your god's rules out of my courthouse.

Changing science curricula to dilute the teaching of evolution. If your religion is so fragile that you need to prop it up in public schools with my tax dollars, and harm my kid's education in the process, you need a new religion.

Trouble is, it's not wasted money at all. From such orbital missions come trips to the moon and planets, and I for one don't want to see a big ol' red and yellow flag on the first lunar base, with the Chinese laying claim to the mineral wealth of the solar system by default.

Sweet mother of pearl!

What the heck would make anyone twig out like this on baby geese, for pity's sake!?

I know that geese can be aggressive and annoying, but it sounds like he actually tracked down the goslings across the parking lot and went after them deliverately.

Couple of days in a cell with Bubba serves this sicko right.

"And the slave must wait, while the master baits..."

Oh, wait a sec...

"Can't the Govt. stay out of controlling what people should eat, and let the individuals decide for themselves?"

I'm sure if kids wanted to bring chips and twinkees in their brown-bags for lunch, that would not be banned. They're talking about not _selling_ crap in the schools. If the schools are going to be selling food for lunch, I find nothing wrong with their selling healthy food.

The only "visit" to Mecca or Medina I would care to make would be from 40,000 feet, with a shiny red button under my thumb.

But that's just me.

Or, perhaps more effectively, why don't you organize a troop of men and go over there to protect those innocent victims from Muslim fundamentalist violence?

People from the US did it in the 1930's to protect Spain from Franco's fascists. Neo-Nazis did it in Bosnia in the 1990's. I see no reason why Christians in the 2000's aren't over there protecting their fellows from the depredations of Muslim fascists. (No, I'm not comparing Christians to neo-Nazis... I'm sure there are hundreds of examples I could have cited, but that one came to mind.)

It's one thing to whine and pray about these sorts of problems. It's another to DO something about it that will actually have some effect.

I have to wonder if we would have seen the same reaction to this story if the homosexuality angle had not been included.

My own mother was infertile, and was incapable of properly producing an egg. She and my father ended up adopting. But what a boon this technology would have been, if it had been available 40 years ago!

This isn't a "pro-homosexual" technology, people! They will probably be the first adopters, sure. They might even be the most prevalent users. But I can tell you-- from the most personal, intimate experience I can offer-- that there are heterosexual couples out there who need this technology as well.

For those who raise religious arguments about souls and soforth, I say you are wrong, and opposing a worthwhile technology for the wrong reasons. A smiling baby is the product of one sperm and one egg, and the fact that the sperm and/or the egg originated in a lab is as irrelevant as the arguments raised against IVF.

If "baby Louise" (the first "test-tube baby" born of invitrofertilization) has a soul, then I can't see why a baby born of this new technique does not.

Ping - I'm supposed to go to Caracas this summer for a conference. Might re-think that now.

All this hooplah about Spongebob. Nonsense. Now, if they had said the same thing about The Wiggles, I might have agreed...

As a parent of a three-year-old myself, I have to say this trend (which has been going on for a couple of decades now) is really disturbing to me. Not only does the government think it can tell me how to raise my child, but now they are turning the corner and actively preventing me from knowing critical information about my child's life!

I can't give my kid frigging Tylenol to take at school, but she can go off and get an ABORTION without my knowing? What's next? Is her guidance counselor going to take her to the local tattoo parlor? Something is very, very wrong with this philosophy.

First, just a quibble, my use of the term "emortal" in my "about" page doesn't require a [sic] on your part. It is a neologism, related to "immortal" but different in the sense that something immortal literally cannot die. Something emortal can die, but not of old age, disease, or "natural" causes (if you don't age, you can still get run over by a bus). See www.emortalists.org for more info.

Now, as far as the substance of your reply, you ask:

How can we make ourselves "like onto gods" and still remain neutral on religion? How can the state "give zero support to all" and still raise mankind to godhood as you propose?

Aside from the fact that "like unto gods" is obvious poetic license, I don't recall ever saying that "the state" should do anything in regards to our ascention beyond the limitations of the human form, other than to get the heck out of the way. It's probably best discussed in some other thread, but it is the drive to ban transhuman technologies (spearheaded by such people as Leon Kass and Francis Fukuyama, both prominent bioLuddites on the President's Counsil on Bioethics) to which I chiefly object.

There is nothing in that position which is inconsistent with my position on state involvement in religion; give zero support to all. You then write of the Establishment Clause:

You cannot stretch this clause far enough to justify prohibiting school prayer, prohibiting cities from displaying nativity scenes, forbidding towns from proclaiming God on their seals, or stopping school buses from driving past churches on their way to and from school.

Indeed, it is the very Establishment Clause you quoted (you tacked on the Free Exercise Clause as well, but again that's just a quibble), "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," that prohibits those very things you mention. "Establishment of religion", in this case, means religion in general. The Founding Fathers were nothing if not literate. They well knew the difference between saying "Congress shall make no law establishing a religion" and what they did indeed write.

Congress (and by extension the States and local governments) doesn't need to establish a specific religion to violate the Establishment Clause. Displaying a Nativity scene does indeed establish religion (the Christian religion). School prayer is a canard; voluntary private (and even group) prayer is already allowed; it's just prayer conducted under the authority of the school (which is an instrument of the government) that is prohibited. Referring to God on a town seal or motto does indeed establish religion (perhaps not a specific religion, but the Establishment clause doesn't say that's the hurdle; it just says "religion", not "a religion"). And so forth.

So, to your first point, there's nothing inconsistent in my position. The state should give precisely the same amount to any and all religions; none.

I just this afternoon glanced through a book titled "Moon Rush: Improving Life on Earth Using the Moon's Resources". I didn't pick it up, but I think I might after reading this excellent article. Back to the moon!!

Ever hear of Hitler and Stalin?

The Nazis weren't secularists; they thought they were doing God's work. The Wehrmacht had "Gott mit uns" (God is with us) stamped on their belts, for crying out loud!

As for Stalin, his murderous rampages were inspired more by personal paranoia than anything else. Atheism was, admittedly, the official stance of the Party, and they did indeed close churches and seize their property (which they also did to nearly every landover, btw...). But there wasn't any comprehensive campaign to exterminate people who believed in God. If so, 90% of the population would have been killed.

And you all bitch about us Atheists and secularists. At least we don't beat the hell out of people, slit their throats, and burn down buildings. NEWS FLASH: Islam is a MUCH greater threat than secularism.

This fellow's understanding of Roman history is flawed at best. His interpretation of its applicability to the modern EU is laughable. The one similarity between fifth century Rome and modern Europe is the influx of immigrants. The difference is that the barbarians of Rome's time embraced Roman society, political structures, language, military organization, and so forth. They were desperate to seem "Roman". On the other hand, the current European immigrants are truely invaders in every respect, because they refuse to adopt the culture into which they impose themselves.

ping

This legislation has been needed for twenty years. Being freed from legislative shackles is something the private space industry has desperately needed to proceed. The legislation that was signed says that civilian passengers on private space vehicles, essentially, know they're doing something risky, and protects the companies from lawsuits while at the same time protecting people living downrange from the launch sites from things falling through their roofs and squashing them. A great example of good legislation; getting the government out of the way of entrepeneurs in a new field, while at the same time reasonably protecting the public. A terrific Christmas present for those of us who want to see space developed.