Merry Christmas

"Bill Funk" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 14:36:01 -0800, "William Graham"
wrote:


"Bill Funk" wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 17:39:05 -0500, Alan Browne
wrote:

In a country that has a fundamental separation of Church and state, it
is a bit irksome (at least) when Bush is on the record as saying:

"I appreciate that question because I, in the state of Texas,
had heard a lot of discussion about a faith-based initiative
eroding the important bridge between church and state." GWB

Bush makes a lot of references to God in his speeches.

The US Supreme Court has historically been very conservative in its
interpretation of the establishment clause. In great part to avoid the
influence of any religion on government which was a plaguing problem in
Europe for the last 1000 years.

BTW: I have no "anti-religious" bias. OTOH, I don't have a moment of
patience for those who assert creationism as being truth.

What does George believe? Evolution or creationism?

Cheers,
Alan.

The First Amendment reads, in part:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"
This does not say anythign about the President, or his religiosity. It
specifically prohibits *Congress* from making certain laws.

But it was Congress who changed the pledge of allegiance to the flag to
include the words, "under God" instead of "indivisible", back in the
50's......

And what penalties did Congress set up to punish any and all who don't
utter the magic words?
None.
What means were set up to ensure that the Pledge is said by all ands
sundry at any given interval?
None.
So, where's the idea that any God is somehow the God of the
Government?

For the first 10 years or so of my life, I had to file into an auditorium at
school every morning, and mumble whatever my classmates were mumbling......I
don't appreciate my children having to file into one and mumble whatever
their classmates have to mumble....The least I can do is to break that
cycle.How far will I go? - Well, I'm not going to strap a bunch of dynamite
to my chest and blow myself up over it, but I sure as hell am going to cast
my vote over it whenever I get the chance. Today, there are a bunch of
religious nuts that are willing to blow themselves up over things like
this....Perhaps you guys should take a cue from that and back off a
little......

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...
William Graham wrote:

Yes. Hitler, (for one) believed in astrology.....He looked to the stars
for justification of his decisions.....

So did Ronald Reagan. A lot.

Yes....that's the party line, all right....Thing is, Reagan made a hell of a
lot of really good decisions, so why would I care where they came from?

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...
Mark² wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:

Mark² wrote:


He has said "God speaks to me", but that is quite different. The
two sound similar when not on a microphone, and I note that the
"supposed quote" was merely something someone "overheard".

Whether "to" or "through" these are extraordinary statements from a
head of state of a secular nation whose constitution clearly wishes
government and religion remain quite separate.

(As did Jesus Christ, by the way).


Tell that to the founding fathers.
They were clearly nuts...if it's nuts to believe you are led by God.

For their period it was as standard to profess belief in God as it was to
hide any doubts about such a belief.

Yeah.....In those days, you could be burned at the stake for failing to
profess your belief(e) in God. Today, you just lose the election.........

William Graham wrote:
"Bill Funk" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 14:36:01 -0800, "William Graham"
wrote:


"Bill Funk" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 17:39:05 -0500, Alan Browne
wrote:

In a country that has a fundamental separation of Church and
state, it is a bit irksome (at least) when Bush is on the record
as saying: "I appreciate that question because I, in the state of
Texas,
had heard a lot of discussion about a faith-based initiative
eroding the important bridge between church and state." GWB

Bush makes a lot of references to God in his speeches.

The US Supreme Court has historically been very conservative in
its interpretation of the establishment clause. In great part to
avoid the influence of any religion on government which was a
plaguing problem in Europe for the last 1000 years.

BTW: I have no "anti-religious" bias. OTOH, I don't have a
moment of patience for those who assert creationism as being
truth. What does George believe? Evolution or creationism?

Cheers,
Alan.

The First Amendment reads, in part:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"
This does not say anythign about the President, or his
religiosity. It specifically prohibits *Congress* from making
certain laws.

But it was Congress who changed the pledge of allegiance to the
flag to include the words, "under God" instead of "indivisible",
back in the 50's......

And what penalties did Congress set up to punish any and all who
don't utter the magic words?
None.
What means were set up to ensure that the Pledge is said by all ands
sundry at any given interval?
None.
So, where's the idea that any God is somehow the God of the
Government?

For the first 10 years or so of my life, I had to file into an
auditorium at school every morning, and mumble whatever my classmates
were mumbling......I don't appreciate my children having to file into
one and mumble whatever their classmates have to mumble....The least
I can do is to break that cycle.How far will I go? - Well, I'm not
going to strap a bunch of dynamite to my chest and blow myself up
over it, but I sure as hell am going to cast my vote over it whenever
I get the chance. Today, there are a bunch of religious nuts that are
willing to blow themselves up over things like this....Perhaps you
guys should take a cue from that and back off a little......

For as practical a guy as you otherwise seem, William, I'm frankly surprised
you'd burn so many calories...and so many votes...over these "mumblings."

--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
www.pbase.com/markuson

Mark² (lowest even number here) wrote:
William Graham wrote:
"Bill Funk" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 14:36:01 -0800, "William Graham"
wrote:


"Bill Funk" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 17:39:05 -0500, Alan Browne
wrote:

In a country that has a fundamental separation of Church and
state, it is a bit irksome (at least) when Bush is on the record
as saying: "I appreciate that question because I, in the state of
Texas,
had heard a lot of discussion about a faith-based initiative
eroding the important bridge between church and state." GWB

Bush makes a lot of references to God in his speeches.

The US Supreme Court has historically been very conservative in
its interpretation of the establishment clause. In great part to
avoid the influence of any religion on government which was a
plaguing problem in Europe for the last 1000 years.

BTW: I have no "anti-religious" bias. OTOH, I don't have a
moment of patience for those who assert creationism as being
truth. What does George believe? Evolution or creationism?

Cheers,
Alan.

The First Amendment reads, in part:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"
This does not say anythign about the President, or his
religiosity. It specifically prohibits *Congress* from making
certain laws.

But it was Congress who changed the pledge of allegiance to the
flag to include the words, "under God" instead of "indivisible",
back in the 50's......

And what penalties did Congress set up to punish any and all who
don't utter the magic words?
None.
What means were set up to ensure that the Pledge is said by all ands
sundry at any given interval?
None.
So, where's the idea that any God is somehow the God of the
Government?

For the first 10 years or so of my life, I had to file into an
auditorium at school every morning, and mumble whatever my classmates
were mumbling......I don't appreciate my children having to file into
one and mumble whatever their classmates have to mumble....The least
I can do is to break that cycle.How far will I go? - Well, I'm not
going to strap a bunch of dynamite to my chest and blow myself up
over it, but I sure as hell am going to cast my vote over it whenever
I get the chance. Today, there are a bunch of religious nuts that are
willing to blow themselves up over things like this....Perhaps you
guys should take a cue from that and back off a little......

For as practical a guy as you otherwise seem, William, I'm frankly surprised
you'd burn so many calories...and so many votes...over these "mumblings."

--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
www.pbase.com/markuson

I have just reviewed, looked over the 200 plus posts in this topic, and
I am now convinced that I am wasting my time in subscribing to it. No
one seems know what the group is about, it's purpose, and very little,
if anything, about medium format photography. All I see is people
running their mouth via the internet. Who cares and whose business is
it, if you believe, or do not believe in a god. All that is your own
business, and people who have to speak, often going on and on, are just
those who's beliefs need support and are seeking it by going public.
Unless pointedly asked, a true believer (in whatever) would not need to
state such information in public. At a meeting of people of the same
belief, he could and would, freely state his belief for all to hear!

Jim Simmons

Jim wrote:
Mark² (lowest even number here) wrote:
William Graham wrote:
"Bill Funk" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 14:36:01 -0800, "William Graham"
wrote:


"Bill Funk" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 17:39:05 -0500, Alan Browne
wrote:

In a country that has a fundamental separation of Church and
state, it is a bit irksome (at least) when Bush is on the record
as saying: "I appreciate that question because I, in the state
of Texas,
had heard a lot of discussion about a faith-based initiative
eroding the important bridge between church and state." GWB

Bush makes a lot of references to God in his speeches.

The US Supreme Court has historically been very conservative in
its interpretation of the establishment clause. In great part
to avoid the influence of any religion on government which was a
plaguing problem in Europe for the last 1000 years.

BTW: I have no "anti-religious" bias. OTOH, I don't have a
moment of patience for those who assert creationism as being
truth. What does George believe? Evolution or creationism?

Cheers,
Alan.

The First Amendment reads, in part:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"
This does not say anythign about the President, or his
religiosity. It specifically prohibits *Congress* from making
certain laws.

But it was Congress who changed the pledge of allegiance to the
flag to include the words, "under God" instead of "indivisible",
back in the 50's......

And what penalties did Congress set up to punish any and all who
don't utter the magic words?
None.
What means were set up to ensure that the Pledge is said by all
ands sundry at any given interval?
None.
So, where's the idea that any God is somehow the God of the
Government?

For the first 10 years or so of my life, I had to file into an
auditorium at school every morning, and mumble whatever my
classmates were mumbling......I don't appreciate my children having
to file into one and mumble whatever their classmates have to
mumble....The least I can do is to break that cycle.How far will I
go? - Well, I'm not going to strap a bunch of dynamite to my chest
and blow myself up over it, but I sure as hell am going to cast my
vote over it whenever I get the chance. Today, there are a bunch of
religious nuts that are willing to blow themselves up over things
like this....Perhaps you guys should take a cue from that and back
off a little......

For as practical a guy as you otherwise seem, William, I'm frankly
surprised you'd burn so many calories...and so many votes...over
these "mumblings."

--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
www.pbase.com/markuson

I have just reviewed, looked over the 200 plus posts in this topic,
and I am now convinced that I am wasting my time in subscribing to
it. No one seems know what the group is about, it's purpose, and
very little, if anything, about medium format photography. All I see
is people running their mouth via the internet. Who cares and whose
business is it, if you believe, or do not believe in a god. All that
is your own business, and people who have to speak, often going on
and on, are just those who's beliefs need support and are seeking it
by going public. Unless pointedly asked, a true believer (in
whatever) would not need to state such information in public. At a
meeting of people of the same belief, he could and would, freely
state his belief for all to hear!

Jim Simmons

It's very simple, Jim. Get yourself a decent, free newsreader, and simply
skip this particular thread. This is merely a naturaly side-track
conversation between photographers who frequent these groups...which started
with "Merry Christmas." This is "public," yes, but I am very familiar with
William Graham, Alan Browne, Bill Funk, and the others talking here.
They've been participating photographers here for years. We, in a sense,
"know" each other, and are some level above public strangers. And by the
way...I think your theory is bunk--about looking for validation here. I can
tell you that I rarely get that here if anything religious comes up. -But
why do YOU care one way or the other. Clearly you do or you wouldn't read
200 posts...only to gripe and moan...followed by YOUR OWN two cents on
religion! Even YOU felt compelled to enter in with your own take.
Isn't it funny how we're ALL hypocrites at one time or another?

Again... Get a news-reader, and all will be right with your NG world...

--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
www.pbase.com/markuson

Mark² wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:

William Graham wrote:


Yes. Hitler, (for one) believed in astrology.....He looked to the
stars for justification of his decisions.....

So did Ronald Reagan. A lot.


I think that was mostly his wife...

Do your Google searches.



--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

Jim wrote:

I have just reviewed, looked over the 200 plus posts in this topic, and
I am now convinced that I am wasting my time in subscribing to it. No
one seems know what the group is about, it's purpose, and very little,
if anything, about medium format photography.

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year Jim!

BTW: you don't "have" to read every thread and post, and you can filter
them out with the appropriate newsreader settings.

But, the most effective way to not read things you don't want to "waste
your time with" is to post fresh new topics for discussion and distract
us from our sidebar discussions.

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

"Mark²" mjmorgan(lowest even number wrote in message
...
Ron Hunter wrote:
Mark² wrote:
Ron Hunter wrote:
Mark² wrote:
Frank ess wrote:
Mark² wrote:
Ron Hunter wrote:
Mark² wrote:
Cynicor wrote:
Mark² wrote:
God doesn't need money, and when Bill Gates comes to the
"Pearly Gates" his money won't matter.
And God will be looking at the enormous good that Gates has
done for third-world countries through his charities.
Meanwhile you have
people like Larry Ellison giving money to try and counteract
Gates's charities. One's getting in, one isn't.
Actually, according to the Bible, God won't be looking at his
deeds
at all. He'll be looking at his relationship with God (or lack
of).
Deeds are great, but apparently not the end-all, be-all in
God's view. I should add, of course, that deeds often reflect
the heart and the relationship...but even a complete ass can
perform "good deeds." Heck, even T.O. of the Dallas Cowboys
has shown up at charity events...
While good works, alone, won't do the job, they don't hurt. It
is possible to be a good person, and to be rich. I recall M.
Dell funding insurance for uninsured children in central Texas
while the legislature debated their program to death. That has
to go on the plus side of the ledger.
Sure. It's good.
He also made sure that you heard all about it, and thatyou gave
him "credit" for it.
One of my pet peeves is when companies write a HUGE, 4-foot-long
check to some charity, and then throw themselves a big party to
show how charitable they are.

Yes...it's good and nice for the receiver...but it also becomes
self-serving at some point.
Doesn't everything?
No.
Not everything. There really is such a thing as self sacrifice or
selfless giving.


It is rather hard for someone in the Gates/Dell financial bracket to
make self-sacrificial charitable donations. Or, they could give
TIME rather than money. It is hard for us to assess their motives
for these donations.

I don't claim they had poor or selfish motives, since that's not
really up to me...but when you claim credit for these sort of gifts,
it's as though you've just cheapened the act of giving into a
sideshow for yourself. Giving can become means of attracting favor
or approval from the givee...or even onlookers, rather than the
simple willingness to make a personal sacrifice to give...that isn't
"paid" in return by receiving kudos on the 6 o'clock news. The
over-all effect of receiving gifts may be great and good to the
receiver...but in terms of the giver--to me they've basically given
THEMSELVES the "gift" of kudos. Brownie points... Keep giving...even if
it's 4 foot long checks, and the like. -Just
don't expect God to fall all over himself because you gave in that
way. There's an interesting story in the Bible about giving. Jesus
describes a rich man who makes a huge procession of his act of
"giving" to the temple--a HUGE quantity of cash, etc....but then
following this, he notices an impoverished widow who secretly drops
what little she had (a single "mite" in this case) into the box when
nobody was looking. Jesus sees her, and uses it to explain how God
views "giving." He notes that the rich man gave painlessly from his
wealth, while the widow gave only a tiny fraction...but a gift that
was truly a sacrifice for her. She received no fanfare, and no
outward appreciation for it, and yet Jesus describes hers as the
greater gift, and the only gift of significance to God. He goes on
to say that the attention the rich guy got from the crowds was all
the "reward" he'd receive...but said the widow's reward would be in
heaven. It's an interesting little glimpse of how God, according to
Jesus,
sees the act of giving.

Sometimes, the process of public giving motivates others to give
likewise.

Reminds me of "Miracle on 34th Street" where Macy and Gimble start arguing
over who gets to pay for the x-ray machine Kris Kringle want to buy for
his friend...

Yes....I see these things in a different perspective. If you can generate a
lot of money in a short period of time by doing whatever it is you are good
at, (Bill Gates, for example) then there is nothing wrong with giving some
of that money to a charitable cause, rather than your time, (which is much
more valuable to you and everyone else if you do whatever it is that you are
good at.) The idea that it doesn't mean anything if you don't "suffer" in
some way is ludicrous to me. I am sure the recipients of the charity neither
know nor care how the money was made, and I doubt whether God would care,
either. He would only care if making money was some kind of "sin", and as a
republican, I don't believe it is a sin to make money. Only liberal
democrats believe that everyone who is rich got that way by climbing up the
backs of the poor and the downtrodden. We enlightened Republicans know that
there are lots of people who made their money the old fashioned way, by
working hard for it, and saving and investing it, and there is no sin in
giving some of it to charity.........

"Mark²" mjmorgan(lowest even number wrote in message
...
For as practical a guy as you otherwise seem, William, I'm frankly
surprised you'd burn so many calories...and so many votes...over these
"mumblings."

But that's my point....I don't burn many calories over it.....In general, I
just leave it alone....After all, I spent the first 15 years of my life just
putting up with it......
It's just that I can't help identifying with us free thinkers who don't
like being forced (and, when you are only 6 or 7 years old, you are being
forced) to take part in other people's religious rituals. I just think the
religious nuts in this world should leave it alone....Don't mess with the
pledge of allegiance, or anything else that was set up by our forefathers.
After all, from my perspective, it's bad enough as it is. They were, for
the most part, Christians, and they let a large amount of that Christianity
creep into their writings and early American documents of state......All I'm
saying now is: Don't exacerbate the problem by increasing the presence of
that religious bias......Be satisfied with what you've got, which is
considerable, by the way......