The separation of church and state is part of the US constitution, isn't it? I mean, part of the original document, not tacked on as an amendment?
No. The first Amendment specifically states:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Subsequent writings by Thomas Jefferson indicated, among other things, that the First Amendment creates a "veritable wall of separation between church and state...".
With consideration to both the Amendment and Thomas:
Constitutionalists interpret the First Amendment and Thomas Jefferson's comment to means that Congress cannot intrude upon religion. It does not mean that an individual congressional member is prohibited from having their religion influence their decisions.
Jurists of the more recent "living Constitution" perspective, interpret the First Amendment to mean that no religious belief - other than Humanistic - should be allowed to influence our governmental leaders.
Whether or not the latter was Thomas Jefferson's argument is debated with great excitement and with each side convinced of its own correctness.
The poster probably should have said a conservative bench. Regrettably, I suspect the President and many republicans will not be pleased with the determination that such issues are not the Federal government's business.
That is interesting. A clean install of 10.4 on a freshly initialized disk had the general sharing services off but also had my firewall disabled. I was quite surprised and retraced my steps to make sure that I had not somehow messed up the install. If I did, I never figured out what it was. (I mean, it is a Mac so it is not like I had THAT many options.) To this day I still want to think that I must have messed up something but I sure don't know what it would have been.
No he doesn't. You fuckin' hi-jacked his question and then got all pissed-off at him. His question was that IF this had been done by the democrats would all the people (presumably republican supporters) who are saying this is NOT A BIG DEAL still argue this or would it suddenly become a BIG WRONG?
It is a bit of a lawyer's hypothetical since, as you point out, this is not what happened but it is still a question the poster is interested in and is fairly on topic.
What I like to propose, though, is that the people who go on a crusade, a jihad or some related adventure don't do this after studying their holy book thoroughly. I'd consider it more likely that these people are simply doing what everyone around them is doing or what is told by some Ayatollah or Immam. Also, I suspect that the root cause for these more aggressive forms of fundamentalism is of a demographic rather than a philosophical nature.
Good comment. This is the most insightful post I have read in a long time.
Sure, but the bible also has quite a number of passages in it where the slaying of non-believers is preached.
Name one.
No where in the New Testament is the slaying or harming of anyone advocated. Ever. You did mention the Bible, not just the New Testament but you also mentioned Christians. The Old Testament provides a necessary context and provides innumerable valuable lessons but Christians espouse and follow the Good News of the New Testament. When Christians fail to follow the commandments of the Bible, their failing is that they don't display God's love to the lost well enough. It is not that they fail to fulfill commandments for violence.
As a side note, not-with-standing the description of Israel's invasion of the Holy Lands, I do not believe that the Old Testament advocates the destruction of the Non-believer either; I would be curious to see which verses you use to justify your claim. I am not, however, as familiar with the Old Testament so cannot unequivocally make the same statement about it that I do the New Testament.
Yeah. You mean like the time the fundies burnt down that museum that displayed the artwork showing a crucifix in piss?
Oh wait. That didn't happen.
Though I vehemently disagree with the current politicization of Christianity, to suggest the fundamental elements of the two are on par is just not rational.
You may have been rated "off topic" but I also, or actually (if you were being funny), misread and thought that the article was about cloning clams... and was very very confused.
changing the block size used by the transaction log is something that should only be done by experts
Why? Doesn't this merely increase or decrease the sized of the TL before it recycles? As a n00b PostgreSQL administrator (non production as of yet) I am always on the look-out for information I may have overlooked.
I doubled the TL block size because I wanted to obtain a lengthy historical record. This was completed in the config file so the recompilation issue does not apply but now I am curious whether or not this will have unintended consequences. I have noticed no negative consequences but have not yet benchmarked very extensively.
You have good points but, in a sense, I think this isn't a non-story. It is just that the wrong story got reported. The story is that, after Jobs' earlier refusal, an EMI exec is attempting to strong-arm Jobs into doing what the RIAA wants by presenting their desire as a "done-deal" publicly. They can then claim outrage when Apple "backs out" of the agreement.
Did you read the grandparent? The assertion was that a "rapture" (ie. removal of believers) was not present in the Bible. It made reference to Catholicism so I presumed the author was referencing the Bible as the Canonical Christian collection of books. The author also references "pan-christian" and while I am not specifically sure which groups the GP wanted to include in this group, certainly Catholic and Protestant should be included.
That said, I fail to see your point on circular reasoning based upon the translation. Apart from the King James version, translations of the New Testament are directly from the Greek, and, in the better translations, the Old Testament are translated directly from the Hebrew. (The Gospels, of course, do have, to a small extent, Aramaic.) The Greek Biblical scholars under which I studied never raised the issue of a translation problem concerning the rapture nor did they indicate that the claim of a rapture was contentious, in doubt, or beyond the context of the text. While I do not read historical Greek, the credentials of my professors were impeccable. Sir, I do not know your credentials.
You assert that I should look to the jews for proper meanings. I do not understand what you mean by this. Do you mean Christian Jews? As far as I know, other Jews do not recognize Jesus as the Christ, nor do they recognize the New Testament. Though the New Testament is undisputedly founded upon the Old Testament, what authority would an Old Testament Hebrew scholar have to discuss a topic that is only described in the New Testament that would trump anyone else with equal credentials?
Reviewing the GP, parent, your post, and my response, it occurs to me that I may have mistaken what might be in contention. When the GP stated that
"it [rapture] isn't Biblical either and thus is certainly not pan-christian. It is pure, out-of-the-pontiff's-head, Catholic dogma without foundation,"
I took this to mean the concept of rapture, not simply the word itself. It is correct that the word rapture does not appear. If that was the assertion, I concede.
For the record, it isn't Biblical either and thus is certainly not pan-christian. It is pure, out-of-the-pontiff's-head, Catholic dogma without foundation.
What you say just simply is not true. Whether your perspective is that the Bible is fact, myth, metaphor, or pure fairy-tale, the assertion that believers will be "taken" by Jesus Christ most certainly is Biblical.
"...and the dead in Christ shall rise first: then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air..." (1Thes.4:16,17)
And also, "...Behold, I tell you a mystery: We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed -- in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye..." (ICor.15:51,52)
Though the Canonical texts are slightly different depending upon whether the Bible of reference is Catholic or Protestant, 1 Corinthians and 1 Thessalonians are included within the Canonical works by both groups.
Again, you may not believe that the event known as the rapture will occur, but the Bible most certainly does specifically address the event.
Slashdot Mirror
If he didn't, it is the only thing Bush hasn't increased funding for.
The separation of church and state is part of the US constitution, isn't it? I mean, part of the original document, not tacked on as an amendment?
No. The first Amendment specifically states:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Subsequent writings by Thomas Jefferson indicated, among other things, that the First Amendment creates a "veritable wall of separation between church and state...".
With consideration to both the Amendment and Thomas:
Constitutionalists interpret the First Amendment and Thomas Jefferson's comment to means that Congress cannot intrude upon religion. It does not mean that an individual congressional member is prohibited from having their religion influence their decisions.
Jurists of the more recent "living Constitution" perspective, interpret the First Amendment to mean that no religious belief - other than Humanistic - should be allowed to influence our governmental leaders.
Whether or not the latter was Thomas Jefferson's argument is debated with great excitement and with each side convinced of its own correctness.
Hmmm. A dead cat? Sounds like a winner.
The poster probably should have said a conservative bench. Regrettably, I suspect the President and many republicans will not be pleased with the determination that such issues are not the Federal government's business.
That is interesting. A clean install of 10.4 on a freshly initialized disk had the general sharing services off but also had my firewall disabled. I was quite surprised and retraced my steps to make sure that I had not somehow messed up the install. If I did, I never figured out what it was. (I mean, it is a Mac so it is not like I had THAT many options.) To this day I still want to think that I must have messed up something but I sure don't know what it would have been.
Hush. I believe we should encourage more PETA anti-circus protests. http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?Art Num=129404
It is a bit of a lawyer's hypothetical since, as you point out, this is not what happened but it is still a question the poster is interested in and is fairly on topic.
sheesh.
What I like to propose, though, is that the people who go on a crusade, a jihad or some related adventure don't do this after studying their holy book thoroughly. I'd consider it more likely that these people are simply doing what everyone around them is doing or what is told by some Ayatollah or Immam. Also, I suspect that the root cause for these more aggressive forms of fundamentalism is of a demographic rather than a philosophical nature.
Good comment. This is the most insightful post I have read in a long time.Sure, but the bible also has quite a number of passages in it where the slaying of non-believers is preached.
Name one.
No where in the New Testament is the slaying or harming of anyone advocated. Ever. You did mention the Bible, not just the New Testament but you also mentioned Christians. The Old Testament provides a necessary context and provides innumerable valuable lessons but Christians espouse and follow the Good News of the New Testament. When Christians fail to follow the commandments of the Bible, their failing is that they don't display God's love to the lost well enough. It is not that they fail to fulfill commandments for violence.
As a side note, not-with-standing the description of Israel's invasion of the Holy Lands, I do not believe that the Old Testament advocates the destruction of the Non-believer either; I would be curious to see which verses you use to justify your claim. I am not, however, as familiar with the Old Testament so cannot unequivocally make the same statement about it that I do the New Testament.
Oh wait. That didn't happen.
Though I vehemently disagree with the current politicization of Christianity, to suggest the fundamental elements of the two are on par is just not rational.
The difference is that nobody forces me at gunpoint to give money to Citibank.
You sir, have obviously never missed a payment.(It's funny, laugh.)
You may have been rated "off topic" but I also, or actually (if you were being funny), misread and thought that the article was about cloning clams... and was very very confused.
A. Must be nice to have computer literate parents, and
B. I gotta quit reading posts by 15 year olds.
changing the block size used by the transaction log is something that should only be done by experts
Why? Doesn't this merely increase or decrease the sized of the TL before it recycles? As a n00b PostgreSQL administrator (non production as of yet) I am always on the look-out for information I may have overlooked.
I doubled the TL block size because I wanted to obtain a lengthy historical record. This was completed in the config file so the recompilation issue does not apply but now I am curious whether or not this will have unintended consequences. I have noticed no negative consequences but have not yet benchmarked very extensively.
You have good points but, in a sense, I think this isn't a non-story. It is just that the wrong story got reported. The story is that, after Jobs' earlier refusal, an EMI exec is attempting to strong-arm Jobs into doing what the RIAA wants by presenting their desire as a "done-deal" publicly. They can then claim outrage when Apple "backs out" of the agreement.
I can't believe you have not been moderated to +5 for sardonic hilarity. I actually burst-out laughing.
Yes. It is always best to go to a professional.
How many times do we have to go over this? Non-copyright-infringement is not theft.
True. In fact, non-copyright infringement isn't a crime at all. One can not infringe the copyright of anyone they wish.
lol. For some reason I found this particularly humorous. Thanks.
Agree with you 100%.
Did you read the grandparent? The assertion was that a "rapture" (ie. removal of believers) was not present in the Bible. It made reference to Catholicism so I presumed the author was referencing the Bible as the Canonical Christian collection of books. The author also references "pan-christian" and while I am not specifically sure which groups the GP wanted to include in this group, certainly Catholic and Protestant should be included.
That said, I fail to see your point on circular reasoning based upon the translation. Apart from the King James version, translations of the New Testament are directly from the Greek, and, in the better translations, the Old Testament are translated directly from the Hebrew. (The Gospels, of course, do have, to a small extent, Aramaic.) The Greek Biblical scholars under which I studied never raised the issue of a translation problem concerning the rapture nor did they indicate that the claim of a rapture was contentious, in doubt, or beyond the context of the text. While I do not read historical Greek, the credentials of my professors were impeccable. Sir, I do not know your credentials.
You assert that I should look to the jews for proper meanings. I do not understand what you mean by this. Do you mean Christian Jews? As far as I know, other Jews do not recognize Jesus as the Christ, nor do they recognize the New Testament. Though the New Testament is undisputedly founded upon the Old Testament, what authority would an Old Testament Hebrew scholar have to discuss a topic that is only described in the New Testament that would trump anyone else with equal credentials?
Reviewing the GP, parent, your post, and my response, it occurs to me that I may have mistaken what might be in contention. When the GP stated that
"it [rapture] isn't Biblical either and thus is certainly not pan-christian. It is pure, out-of-the-pontiff's-head, Catholic dogma without foundation,"
I took this to mean the concept of rapture, not simply the word itself. It is correct that the word rapture does not appear. If that was the assertion, I concede.
For the record, it isn't Biblical either and thus is certainly not pan-christian. It is pure, out-of-the-pontiff's-head, Catholic dogma without foundation.
What you say just simply is not true. Whether your perspective is that the Bible is fact, myth, metaphor, or pure fairy-tale, the assertion that believers will be "taken" by Jesus Christ most certainly is Biblical.
"...and the dead in Christ shall rise first: then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air..." (1Thes.4:16,17)
And also, "...Behold, I tell you a mystery: We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed -- in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye..." (ICor.15:51,52)
Though the Canonical texts are slightly different depending upon whether the Bible of reference is Catholic or Protestant, 1 Corinthians and 1 Thessalonians are included within the Canonical works by both groups.
Again, you may not believe that the event known as the rapture will occur, but the Bible most certainly does specifically address the event.
It is more likely +5 insightful and very very sad.
Sorry, re-reading TFA I see Russia was not where they were busted - another post made it seem so. My mistake.
Their best jails would likely not come up to the level of our worst.
One would think so.
http://www.mosnews.com/news/2005/08/26/prisonsex.s html
Why the A/C? That was funny.