TonyaK911 wrote:

"Yechidah" <TheHealingShelf@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%uurb.18789$9M3.15293@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...

"L Alpert" <alpertl@xxcomcast.net> wrote in message
news:q3urb.154516$Fm2.134544@attbi_s04...

TonyaK911 wrote:

"L Alpert" <alpertl@xxcomcast.net> wrote in message

Job Chapter 6

25 How forcible are words of uprightness! But what doth your arguing
argue? 26 Do ye hold words to be an argument, but the speeches of
one that is desperate to be wind?
27 Yea, ye would cast lots upon the fatherless, and dig a pit for
your friend.

Yechida, this ***** is no friend of mine, neither he is a friend of
Israel.
Here's how he's presented Jews a few posts above - it sounds as ugly
as if it was cut and pasted straight from the "Protocols of the
Elders of Zion":

"We run the socio-economic systems of the major countries of the
world. We fund American politics and opinions. We scarf up 3 billion
a year from the American taxpayer just for Israel, even more to fund
other activities in or outside of US borders.
Weep, yes, but for the goyim scum. They never knew what hit them."

"We are still the landlords, of America, and we still reap interest
from christian money. We shall do what we want when we want to.
If there are roadblocks we will use our political clout to remove
them."

Some might think this is a simple-minded Jewish idiot.
I believe he is a provocateur with a not-so-well-hidden anti-Semitic
agenda.

Well, you make your own choice...

TK9

It seems you have issues with recognizing sarcasm. I believe there are
quite a few in this group that recognize when I give the usual toads a

of their own medicine.

TonyaK911 wrote:

"Yechidah" <TheHealingShelf@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%uurb.18789$9M3.15293@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...

"L Alpert" <alpertl@xxcomcast.net> wrote in message
news:q3urb.154516$Fm2.134544@attbi_s04...

TonyaK911 wrote:

"L Alpert" <alpertl@xxcomcast.net> wrote in message

Job Chapter 6

25 How forcible are words of uprightness! But what doth your arguing
argue? 26 Do ye hold words to be an argument, but the speeches of
one that is desperate to be wind?
27 Yea, ye would cast lots upon the fatherless, and dig a pit for
your friend.

Yechida, this ***** is no friend of mine, neither he is a friend of
Israel.
Here's how he's presented Jews a few posts above - it sounds as ugly
as if it was cut and pasted straight from the "Protocols of the
Elders of Zion":

"We run the socio-economic systems of the major countries of the
world. We fund American politics and opinions. We scarf up 3 billion
a year from the American taxpayer just for Israel, even more to fund
other activities in or outside of US borders.
Weep, yes, but for the goyim scum. They never knew what hit them."

"We are still the landlords, of America, and we still reap interest
from christian money. We shall do what we want when we want to.
If there are roadblocks we will use our political clout to remove
them."

Some might think this is a simple-minded Jewish idiot.
I believe he is a provocateur with a not-so-well-hidden anti-Semitic
agenda.

Well, you make your own choice...

TK9

It seems you have issues with recognizing sarcasm. I believe there are
quite a few in this group that recognize when I give the usual toads a

of their own medicine.

Lo, many moons past, on Sun, 09 Nov 2003 16:41:10 GMT, a stranger
called by some "L Alpert" <alpertl@xxcomcast.net> came forth and told
this tale in alt.atheism

That is the point. It can be done by any culture, or at the family
or even the individual level. It is all about choices. One can
either focus on education, or idolize gangsta rappa's and wear baggy
clothes and have a "busta cap in someones *****" mentality, among
other things.

An attitude seen among Irish immigrants to the US in the mid-19th
century. Seen among any minority group with a history of being
oppressed.

On Sun, 09 Nov 2003 16:41:10 +0000, L Alpert wrote:

Mark K. Bilbo wrote:

On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 15:28:32 +0000, L Alpert wrote:

Mark K. Bilbo wrote:

On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 05:32:58 +0000, TonyaK911 wrote:

"Mark K. Bilbo" <iskanipa-y@hoo.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2003.11.08.05.03.36.528300@eac.org...

On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 20:58:14 +0000, TonyaK911 wrote:

Pleanty of very serious scientists and people who brought
technological innovations into this world happened to be
religious people - among them Guillaume Amontons, Sir Isaac
Newton, Elie Metchnikoff, Albert Einstein, Werner Karl
Heisenberg, Thomas Alva Edison, Igor Ivanovich Sikorsky, etc.,
etc., etc....

And not once was their religion useful in creating those
inventions... Mark K. Bilbo

How do you know that?

Show how religion can be used to demonstrate anything scientific.

Ivan Petrovich Pavlov (Pavlov's reflex, remember?) was a deeply
religious man. He explicitely wrote that without his belief in
G-d he wouldn't have been able to make any of his discoveries.

So? Does that show an actual connection or just speculation?

Did you ever have a chance to read Metchnikoff's "The Nature of
Man" (1938)? Try reading it - his assessment of importance
religion had for his scientific pursuits might surprise you.

I'd rather see how one can actually generate *actual science
beginning with religion.

Newton's science was closely related to his theology. In the
General Scholium of his Principia, he states that the sole
purpose of his science was to establish the existence of God
(Westfall, 205,290; Clark, 12; Brooke, p.169; Mandelbrote,
p.292,300). It was to combat atheism (Mandelbrote, p.292),
challenge the mechanical explanation, and point to the need for
a wise and benevolent deity and an intelligent Creator
(Harrison, p.27). He believed that the universe was governed by
general, natural laws set up by God, and preserved by special
providence.

Which belief is utterly irrelevant. Believing "the universe is
governed by general, natural laws" does not have effect on whether
it is or not. "Set up by 'god' and preserved by 'special
providence'" cannot be shown.

Science works the same for Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus,
pagans, atheists, and agnostics. Belief in gods is arbitrary with
regard to science. The work can be done with any or no belief in
gods.

If you want play the correlation game then there is that
discoveries in science have accelerated over time. The
discoveries in the 20th exceed everything prior back to the
beginning of recorded history. During that period, belief among
all working scientists has been a minority (currently, only about
40%).

During the same period--as science accelerated--belief among those
scientists recognized as making the greatest contributions in
their fields has fallen. Currently, at least 90% of the
scientists in the US recognized for major contributions are
atheist/agnostic.

Over the same period, more scientists lived than have existed in
the entire span of recorded history prior. A "supermajority" of
the largest group are atheist/agnostic.

If you want to try to push correlation as causality, the numbers
will back you into a corner as more and more *significant science
has been done *without belief than with.

I'm always amused when people who try to link "faith" with science
start listing 19th century (and prior) scientists as their
"evidence." Especially because you *can list them.

Today, just the top, most recognized scientists in the US *alone*
constitute about 2,200 people. At least 90% of which are
atheist/agnostic.

So until someone can list at *least 1,980 19th century and prior
scientists who were religious, there isn't even anything to talk
about...

It is my belief the success of Jews is not based soley on religion,
but based on culture. There is a cultural emphasis on education
that will lend itself to a higher percentage of engineering,
business and scientific leaders.
As other cultures move towards this type of emphasis, their
individual percentages in high level contributers will rise as
well. It has nothing to do with being more capable.

That's pretty much a universal. Cultures that value education do
well. Those that don't, don't...

That is the point. It can be done by any culture, or at the family
or even the individual level. It is all about choices. One can
either focus on education, or idolize gangsta rappa's and wear baggy
clothes and have a "busta cap in someones *****" mentality, among
other things.

Yes. But also, you cannot ignore that when any group is marginalized
and no longer feels that their efforts will have any effect, they'll
often give up.

Humans are humans. Some groups in US society have been taught for
*decades that should they even try to build anything, it'll be torn
down. Often when they act based on the message being sent, then the
dominant culture will say "see, you can't help 'those people.'"

Since your reference is to African-Americans, I can't help but point
out that the current period has roots in what I think is demonstrably
an *attack* by the dominant culture. If you go back to, oh, somewhere
in the WWII range, black communities were, indeed, pulling themselves
up by their own efforts.

One of the reasons the dominant culture launched an assault was the
rise of people such as Malcom X. I'll grant the Nation of Islam has
some *serious problems but they also had (have) a strong position of
"do it yourself and don't expect handouts." That makes people too
independent. Too hard to control.

Interesting bit of history I ran across recently is that the first bus
strike happened in New Orleans. Before any of the more famous, better
known events. The solidarity of the black community was quite
amazing. The public transit system of the city essentially shut down.
The "powers that be" had to negotiate. They did not enjoy that.

When the "civil rights" era began, it was filled with events of black
citizens demonstrating political *power. That had to be co-opted. I
have long though that the welfare state was created in part by well
meaning--but patronizing--folk allied (without necessarily realizing
it) with those who realized that if you make a class of people
dependent, you *rule them.

Long aside...

Which lesson the US retained from Indian policy. It used to be openly
*stated the point was to force the tribes into utter dependence so
they could be ruled and eventually dismantled and destroyed. The
policy was working. The only reason it wasn't "finished" was we hit
the "reform" period and entered the "benign neglect" stage. Natives
just weren't powerful enough politically to register anymore.

At least not until we reached the more current period where it was
discovered the "useless land" that was allocated to many of them sits
on some of the last remaining coal and uranium deposits on the US.

Then, of course, we came to the casino era and the US is back at
trying to seize control, drain resources, and meddle in internal
tribal affairs. It's an interesting game. The tribal nations are
"sovereign" and we can't lift a finger when they need help. But
they're "quasi-sovereign" (as the BIA styles it) when they have money
or resources and we want some.

(And, no, this isn't "ancient history," this is right now, even
Ahhhnold over in CA is campaigning to steal tribal money)

Anyway...

The current mess is largely the end result of the policies pursued by
the dominant culture. To the extent that anything good is growing
among the marginalized groups, it's that the dominant culture is
hoist by its own petard and has to behave decently because the world
can see now (one good thing about global communications).

And interestingly enough, of all "racial" groups, once blacks begin
the climb up the economic ladder, they rise faster than *any *other
group. So soon as the door was open even some, they started simply
pouring through it.

The current mess is a leftover of old policies of co-option and
domination. Which mess is going to disappear by the efforts of the
people *in* the group. It's already true that areas of LA which were
once the "black ghetto" are turning into latin enclaves.

And it's not like the black community isn't criticizing itself for
that "gangsta" thing. Read Boondocks or listen to Chris Rock. Better
the criticism come from within than without.

But coming back around to education as an issue, isn't it interesting
now that the black middle class is rising and moving *so fast,
that--suddenly--people are just *wild* over any policy of affirmative
action? Oh they love to style it as "equality" but I can't help but
suspect somebody is trying to shove that door closed...