| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Harry Sachz" |
| Date: |
18 Aug 2003 08:24:03 PM |
| Object: |
Re: US 666-belated thought |
Pat OConnell wrote:
He's Catholic, and that means he's not a fundie.
WHAT? You can be a fundie about anything. I've even known fundamentalist
atheists.
If you can't find fundamentalist catholics, just read about the Crusades or
the Inquisition. Or else hang out in alt.atheism for a few minutes, they
pop up there constantly (and are exposed for the fools they are.)
The 666 number
change, from NM's point of view, had more to do with sign thefts than
anything else.
*****. Gov. Bitchardson said himself that the reason they renumbered the
road was because of the "satanic" connotations.
And I quote: ""After 77 years of concern and discontent we have finally
removed any reference to the devil from this highway," said Gov. Bill
Richardson in a ceremonial dedication."
Read it for yourself at
http://www.x-stream.co.uk/cgi-bin/news/newswire.cgi/news/reuters/2003/07/31/
odd/endofroadforhighwaytohell.html&template=/news/templates/newswire/news_st
ory_reuters.html
And if they are so concerned with sign theft, then why the ***** didn't they
renumber New Mexico 420, which is located in Harding and Union Counties?
And since Colorado is just as guilty as New Mexico, then why do they allow
Colorado 69 (which I have almost clinched) which runs from Walsenburg to US
50 remain?
Another revealing article is at:
http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36%257E53%257E1543319,00.html
And I quote: "Transportation leaders from the three Western states all
applied for the change to U.S. 491 because of what some saw as the old
number's satanic connotation. Leaders of the Navajo Nation also had sought
the change."
This was a BLATANT disregard of the First Amendment. The Constitition is
now null and void, and this is only a small example.
For reference, here's the First Amendment.
And I quote: "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. "
And if you're one of those fundies who claims that "Congress didn't make the
law", here's the Tenth Amendment.
And I quote: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states
respectively, or to the people. "
Therefore, "Congress" applies to any branch of government in the US.
And finally, here's a take on the situation from somebody who has an IQ of
over 67: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/8666/ea-nmhighway666.html
.
|
|
| User: "H.B. Elkins" |
|
| Title: Re: US 666-belated thought |
19 Aug 2003 08:39:37 AM |
|
|
"Harry Sachz" <watuziNOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote:
This was a BLATANT disregard of the First Amendment. The Constitition is
now null and void, and this is only a small example.
For reference, here's the First Amendment.
And I quote: "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. "
There is no establishment of religion here. We've been over this a
dozen times. Religious considerations may -- and I stress may -- have
played a role in this. That does not constitute "an establishment of
religion" nor does it prohibit the free exercise of religion.
And if you're one of those fundies who claims that "Congress didn't make the
law", here's the Tenth Amendment.
And I quote: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states
respectively, or to the people. "
Therefore, "Congress" applies to any branch of government in the US.
The 10th Amendment doesn't equate "Congress" to any branch of
government. It says that the Constitution gives certain powers to the
federal government and the states, or the people, retain the rest of
the powers. AASHTO isn't a federal agency, anyway. It's a coalition of
state transportation departments. If you want to look for
Constitutional problems with highway numbering, I-99 is probably more
of a violation than US 491.
And finally, here's a take on the situation from somebody who has an IQ of
over 67: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/8666/ea-nmhighway666.html
You only say that because this person agrees with you. I think we're
just gonna have to agree to disagree on this one. I'm a First
Amendment purist, given my long career in the newspaper business, so I
don't take that document lightly. We just interpret it differently.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
H.B. Elkins -- Beattyville, KY
http://www.millenniumhwy.net hbelkins(at)mis.net
"There's no doubt he's the best race driver in the world."
--Dale Jarrett, on the late Dale Earnhardt
Go Big Blue (Kentucky Wildcats)! Go #15 (Michael Waltrip, NAPA Chevy)!
Vote Ernie Fletcher for Governor of Kentucky! http://www.fletcher2003.com
To reply, just remove the restrictorplates...
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
.
|
|
|
| User: "Harry Sachz" |
|
| Title: Re: US 666-belated thought |
19 Aug 2003 09:42:32 AM |
|
|
H.B. Elkins wrote:
You only say that because this person agrees with you. I think we're
just gonna have to agree to disagree on this one. I'm a First
Amendment purist, given my long career in the newspaper business, so I
don't take that document lightly. We just interpret it differently.
If the government were promoting a religion that you didn't practice, you
would most likely interpret it the way I do.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: US 666-belated thought |
19 Aug 2003 12:07:46 PM |
|
|
In article <bhru7i$2i0f7$1@ID-138129.news.uni-berlin.de>,
watuziNOSPAM@yahoo.com says...
Pat OConnell wrote:
He's Catholic, and that means he's not a fundie.
WHAT? You can be a fundie about anything. I've even known fundamentalist
atheists.
If you can't find fundamentalist catholics, just read about the Crusades or
the Inquisition. Or else hang out in alt.atheism for a few minutes, they
pop up there constantly (and are exposed for the fools they are.)
The 666 number
change, from NM's point of view, had more to do with sign thefts than
anything else.
*****. Gov. Bitchardson said himself that the reason they renumbered the
road was because of the "satanic" connotations.
Plus, road signs get stolen on lots of stretches of road. I'd like to
see Richardson provide some statistics on the total number of route 66
signs being stolen. I bet that it's not very significant. I'd also
argue that it's worth the price of the loss of a few signs in order to
have a famous stretch of highway that brings in tourists.
And I quote: ""After 77 years of concern and discontent we have finally
removed any reference to the devil from this highway," said Gov. Bill
Richardson in a ceremonial dedication."
Actually, many stretches of the road have always just been labelled 66.
Route 66 is part of american culture. There was a TV show by the same
name. Most people have heard the refrain of the song, "Get your kicks on
route 66". The song never called it "route 666". There are many
references to Route 66 in books and movies and famous artwork and popular
culture. It is almost never called route 666, since that additional
designation only officially referred to one tiny portion of route 66.
Many businesses along this historic east-west thoroughfare incorporated
the name of the road into their name. Maps and souvenirs were printed
with the name. I think that people should sue over the illegally
motivated, religiously-based renaming. This name change not only
requires expensive reprinting of many things, but it may harm the tourism
industry in the state. It doesn't matter if the state claims secular
excuses. Part of the decision was clearly made on purely religious
grounds.
There are many places with the word "Devil" or "Diablo" in them. Are we
going to rename them as well? Richardson's action sets a very bad
precedent.
--
_____________________________________________________
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: US 666-belated thought |
19 Aug 2003 12:52:49 PM |
|
|
In article <bhru7i$2i0f7$1@ID-138129.news.uni-berlin.de>,
watuziNOSPAM@yahoo.com says...
over 67: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/8666/ea-nmhighway666.html
BTW, in this article there are a couple of things with which I take
issue. First off it claims, "It's a fact that New Mexico leads the
nation in highway fatalities." This is not quite true as this link
shows.
http://www.alcoholalert.com/statistics.htm
If you sort those stats you will find that new mexico ranks 32nd highest
in total fatalities. Now, it's true that New Mexico's population is
rather small, so their fatalities per capita will be higher than their
absolute ranking implies. But it's also a very big state geographically
and long distance driving is more necessary, especially in rural areas.
This leads to the next point.
Philips says, "Believe me, I am expressing no bigotry when I say that
the problem is the 'drunken Native Americans' in this corner of New
Mexico." While it is the case that many of the accidents happen on the
northern Navajo reservation, he does leave out an important fact that
could help make his point better. The reservation is dry (I.e. does not
sell alcohol). In order to get alcohol people have to drive for over an
hour. Once they get plastered at bars off the reservation then they
often have impaired judgment and try to drive back home. Phillips is
right, of course, that the name of the road has nothing to do with the
fatalities at this point. It's the length of the drive and the poor
policies from the BIA, the reservation and the county that combine to
make alcohol something that can only be obtained via a long road trip.
--
_____________________________________________________
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: US 666-belated thought |
19 Aug 2003 02:45:56 PM |
|
|
In article <bhtogg$3213n$1@ID-138129.news.uni-berlin.de>,
bugoNOSPAM@hotmail.com says...
quibbler wrote:
Philips says, "Believe me, I am expressing no bigotry when I say
that the problem is the 'drunken Native Americans' in this corner of
New Mexico." While it is the case that many of the accidents happen
on the northern Navajo reservation, he does leave out an important
fact that could help make his point better. The reservation is dry
(I.e. does not sell alcohol). In order to get alcohol people have to
drive for over an hour. Once they get plastered at bars off the
reservation then they often have impaired judgment and try to drive
back home. Phillips is right, of course, that the name of the road
has nothing to do with the fatalities at this point. It's the length
of the drive and the poor policies from the BIA, the reservation and
the county that combine to make alcohol something that can only be
obtained via a long road trip.
That's the case here in west-central Arkansas, to buy beer you must drive to
Oklahoma. And the beer in Oklahoma is 3.2% alcohol, unless you get it in a
liquor store, which means an extra half-hour drive.
Yep, both of those states are listed fairly high up in drunk driving
fatalities. I bet that religion is also a big reason that they oppose
alcohol sales. But not allowing any alcohol, just because their religion
says it's bad, is clearly discrimination for religious reasons and
denying rights to people with other religious views. It establishes the
view of one religious tradition over the views of others and should not
be constitutional.
--
_____________________________________________________
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
| User: "Harry Sachz" |
|
| Title: Re: US 666-belated thought |
19 Aug 2003 04:03:49 PM |
|
|
quibbler wrote:
Yep, both of those states are listed fairly high up in drunk driving
fatalities. I bet that religion is also a big reason that they oppose
alcohol sales.
It's the only reason.
But not allowing any alcohol, just because their
religion says it's bad, is clearly discrimination for religious
reasons and
denying rights to people with other religious views. It establishes
the
view of one religious tradition over the views of others and should
not
be constitutional.
It is unconstitutional. So are the laws that ban Sunday liquor sales.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Burn Gum! It Melts!" |
|
| Title: Re: US 666-belated thought |
18 Aug 2003 08:31:40 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 20:24:03 -0500, "Harry Sachz"
<watuziNOSPAM@yahoo.com> said:
If you can't find fundamentalist catholics, just read about the Crusades or
the Inquisition.
....or the Bro$$art Taliban.
And if they are so concerned with sign theft, then why the ***** didn't they
renumber New Mexico 420, which is located in Harding and Union Counties?
Why didn't they just abolish traffic signs altogether? Traffic signs are
stolen all the time.
Therefore, "Congress" applies to any branch of government in the US.
That's true. A lot of people don't seem to grasp this nowadays, but the
intent of the authors of the Bill of Rights was to protect people from
not just the federal government but also state and local government.
--
I think. Therefore, I am not a conservative!
----- http://members.iglou.com/bandit ------
Check out my blog blogga blog at http://bandit73.pitas.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
