<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2523" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff"
bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face="Verdana Ref" size=4>Rose, et al,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Verdana Ref" size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Verdana Ref" size=4>Briefly:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Verdana Ref" size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Verdana Ref" size=4>The main fallacy in Dale's argument given
below in Rose's post (and is in most of his arguments) is
over-simplification. The universe is much more complex than is presumed in
his views and arguments.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Verdana Ref" size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Verdana Ref" size=4>However, the main point to be argued as
Rose points out is not whether religious professionals sermonized about
political matters in the past (they clearly did) but how much credence
should be placed in their superstition/religion based arguments today
and in the future.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Verdana Ref" size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Verdana Ref" size=4>There are many different religions which
say vastly different things on ethical, political, and behavioral
matters. Even among those sects/cults/businesses called Christianity,
there are a myriad of different, conflicting views on what is ethical.
There is currently no way to tell which of these different views, if any, is
correct.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Verdana Ref" size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Verdana Ref" size=4>We do not know now, nor probably will we
ever know, all the facts germane to making a particular ethical
decision. However, the testable, verifiable facts/probabilities that we do
know seem to be a much better basis for making ethical/political choices than
mere unverifiable superstition/religion no matter how many people are duped into
believing such superstition/religion.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Verdana Ref" size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Verdana Ref" size=4>Dale and his master, Douglas Wilson, seek
to impose on us a complex superstitious world view dictating our actions,
castrating our aspirations, and limiting our freedom of choice and
action. In other places, others seek to impose similar or dissimilar
superstitious views.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Verdana Ref" size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Verdana Ref" size=4>Contrary to Dale's and other CCCers
beliefs, ethical systems have existed at least from the beginning of recorded
philosophy that do not rely on the alleged existence and the alleged word
of any superstitious being/object/thing/force/etc.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Verdana Ref" size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Verdana Ref" size=4>Since neither Dale nor his analogues of
various persuasions all over the world (and maybe elsewhere in the universe) can
produce any verifiable proof of the correctness of their superstitions, many of
us will not accept the imposition of the values dictated solely by those
superstitious beliefs but will continue to rely on observation and
testing. [And some of us less shy people will continue to argue against
and poke fun at the asininity of many superstitious/religious
claims/myths/scams/flimflams.]</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Verdana Ref" size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Verdana Ref" size=4>Adding another point to consider: Of
the Ten Commandments, the first four are clearly not applicable to a secular
society -- they are prescriptions about worshipping some one alleged god,
one of tens of thousands worshipped in the world today. It is interesting
to note that some of the heroes of the god of the bible flout many of the last
six commandments with impunity, e.g David, but are lavishly rewarded by this
same alleged god.</FONT></DIV><FONT face="Verdana Ref" size=4>
<DIV><BR>Wayne</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Wayne A. Fox<BR><A href="mailto:waf@moscow.com">waf@moscow.com</A><BR>PO
Box 9421<BR>Moscow, ID 83843<BR>208 882-7975</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Verdana Ref" size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Verdana Ref" size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Verdana Ref" size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=DonaldH675@aol.com
href="mailto:DonaldH675@aol.com">DonaldH675@aol.com</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=vision2020@moscow.com
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Friday, November 19, 2004 9:32
AM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> [Vision2020] Historic
Precedence</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Visionaries:</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Dale C. argues:</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>"...there was no sense that preaching about political matters from the
pulpit was a violation of church and state. Second, they had the belief that
"all human activities fall under the jurisdiction of God's Word". The pietists
would have us believe that only what happens between our two ears is what
should be influencing us from the pulpit. Finally, the most politically and
socially important members of the community processed to church and listened
carefully to what the preacher said. Now, lest someone accuse me of
trying to have all of Moscow's City Counsel march to a local congregation,
that's not my point at all. My point is -- there's a historical precedent in
American history for churches to have election day sermons; and to have
political input and influence. Anything less is historical revisionism
-- which our Intolerants are oh-so good at." <A title=http://right-mind.us/
href="http://right-mind.us/">http://right-mind.us/</A></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> I (dimly) recall that a logical construction which relies
on intellectual precedence may be a fallacy of authority (help me
out here, Wayne) i.e. because someone thought or did something a certain way
in the past does not necessarily justify presence actions or thoughts. It
is hardly necessary to point out that during the same time period that Dale
refers to, other activities in America were taking place that would probably
not be invoked to justify continued application: slavery, debtor's prison,
witch trials, genocide of Native Americans. All these unhappy activities,
and frankly, in my opinion, sinful behaviors, were endorsed from the
pulpit by the same folks who gave election day sermons. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>No trained historian would deny that these sermons (and other behaviors I
listed) occurred. So where does the revisionism come in? </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Sorry, Dale. Poor argument, false conclusions, and gratuitous
insults.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Rose</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT lang=0 face=Verdana size=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" PTSIZE="10">"One
cannot level one's moral lance at every evil in the universe. There are just
too many of them. But you can do something, and the difference between doing
something and doing nothing is everything." Daniel Berrigan<BR></FONT><FONT
lang=0 face=Arial color=#000000 size=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF"
PTSIZE="10"><BR></DIV></FONT>
<P>
<HR>
<P></P>_____________________________________________________<BR> List
services made available by First Step Internet, <BR> serving the
communities of the Palouse since 1994.
<BR>
http://www.fsr.net
<BR>
mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com<BR>ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>