 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeArticlesDiving DestinationsLearning Scuba DivingMarine LifeMiscellaneousDiscussion GroupsGeneralScuba EquipmentScuba LocationsAustralian ScubaUK ScubaDirectoryScuba Clubs |
Scuba Forum / General / January 2005Iowa Diving ?
Got a call from a headhunter yesterday wanting to know if I would entertain the concept of a contract for DoD contractor up in eastern Iowa... Other than corn, is there anything *else* up in Iowa? Any diving? From what I've been able to gather, you get to have the benefit of cold weather without the benefit of mountains for scenery or skiing... The headhunter said something like, "Yeah, it's in the middle of nowhere, but it's not as desolute as it sounds"... >Got a call from a headhunter yesterday wanting to know if I would entertain >the concept of a contract for DoD contractor up in eastern Iowa... Other [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >like, "Yeah, it's in the middle of nowhere, but it's not as desolute as it >sounds"... My father used to say that Air Force f.ck ups went to one of four places, Adack, Thule, Minot or Diego Garcia. What did you f.ck up so badly that you find yourself looking at eastern Iowa?  Signaturedillon "When the French are against it, you know we can't be far wrong." - Adm. Bobbie Ray Inman > What did you f.ck up so badly that you find yourself looking at > eastern Iowa? LOL... It's a short term contract and the rate is not too bad... I go where the money is, but I don't jump contract until the contract is over... The one that brought me here from Houston has ended, although Grace's is still ongoing (for now)... If it means commuting back and forth between here and Iowa, so be it... The New Orleans market is not that great for my specialty and I really don't want to be forced to get into application / business programming... From what I understand, this project deals with the avionics package on the Army's Apache helicopter, so it should be somewhat more interesting than the Navy contract that initially got me to the New Orleans area... A security clearance doesn't get you much in the civilian market, but it definitely helps on DoD contracts... Hell, some of the contracts I've even had to pass on because they required a Top Secret and all I had ever gotten / previously needed was just a Secret... >> What did you f.ck up so badly that you find yourself looking at >> eastern Iowa? [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >even had to pass on because they required a Top Secret and all I had ever >gotten / previously needed was just a Secret... And, at the other extreme, I found out how worthless my code word clearance was when I couldn't tell the prospective employer what it was or who it was from. The most useless, however, probably goes to my CNWD. Read the followup post to see what that is. Signaturedillon "When the French are against it, you know we can't be far wrong." - Adm. Bobbie Ray Inman > And, at the other extreme, I found out how worthless my code word > clearance was when I couldn't tell the prospective employer what it > was or who it was from. Yeah, there is that type of other situation... In my case, the Top Secret would be required because *some* of the systems *sometimes* have data classified as Top Secret even if I might not even have access to the data anyway... Forget about the concept of "Need To Know" even entering into the picture... When I got my Secret initially, it was because of the systems that I worked on in the Navy... At NASA, we had the DoD missions that required clearances to even get on that floor of the MCC... > The most useless, however, probably goes to my CNWD. Read the > followup post to see what that is. A ex-Navy friend of mine has the Presidential Detail clearance and is kept active... The way he describes it, if he farts, the FBI knows about it and has a form filled out in triplicate before the smell has even left his shorts... He was an E8 and had been selected for it, but he made E9 before being assigned to it and since there was no billet for an E9, he didn't get it... I would think that this would definitely rate pretty high up on the list of clearances that you could get which would prove rather useless in life other than that one particular job... > A ex-Navy friend of mine has the Presidential Detail clearance and is kept > active... The way he describes it, if he farts, the FBI knows about it and [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > list of clearances that you could get which would prove rather useless in > life other than that one particular job... I'm curious whether you sniffed his fart to determine whether it was real or not. Isn't it rather funny that these higher-up clearanced folk brag about their higher clearances when you think they'd want to keep them secret in order to prevent the enemy from knowing whom to capture and torture? > Isn't it rather funny that these higher-up clearanced folk brag about their > higher clearances when you think they'd want to keep them secret in order to > prevent the enemy from knowing whom to capture and torture? Well, considering that we were both on a DoD (Navy) contract at the time, it wasn't like there were any terrorists listening in on us... As far as bragging, nawh, it was just the usual shooting the sh.t and sea stories, being that we were both ex-Navy... As far as my own clearances go, when I was in the Navy, I ended up working on systems so out of date that we should have been glad if the Russians had wanted to use them... Tubes... Big honkin' tubes... >> Isn't it rather funny that these higher-up clearanced folk brag about >their [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >have been glad if the Russians had wanted to use them... Tubes... Big >honkin' tubes... Tubes, nuke hardened by default. Signaturedillon "When the French are against it, you know we can't be far wrong." - Adm. Bobbie Ray Inman >> Isn't it rather funny that these higher-up clearanced folk brag about > their >> higher clearances when you think they'd want to keep them secret LOL! LOL! LOL! >>> What did you f.ck up so badly that you find yourself looking at >>> eastern Iowa? [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >The most useless, however, probably goes to my CNWD. Read the >followup post to see what that is. Critical Nuclear Weapons Design Information Signaturedillon "When the French are against it, you know we can't be far wrong." - Adm. Bobbie Ray Inman > Got a call from a headhunter yesterday wanting to know if I would entertain > the concept of a contract for DoD contractor up in eastern Iowa... Other [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > like, "Yeah, it's in the middle of nowhere, but it's not as desolute as it > sounds"... How far east in "eastern" Iowa? I have a non-diving friend who lives in Bettendorf, which as one of the "Quad Cities" on the Mississippi River is as far east as you can get in Iowa...if it is in this area, drop me an offline note. The Quad Cities are: Bettendorf & Davenport, IA, and Moline & Rock Island, IL. Rock Island is the local Army base. IIRC, his general comment about similar matters is that it doesn't take too many hours to drive over to Chicago. You could try contacting: http://www.scubaadventuresqca.com/ as they claim that they're the premier 5 star dive shop for the area. Their website mentions Haigh Quary, "located 60 miles south of Chicago": http://www.haighquarry.com/ That's probably a ~2.5 hour drive. -hh > How far east in "eastern" Iowa? About 70 miles from the border -- Cedar Rapids..... > > How far east in "eastern" Iowa? > > About 70 miles from the border -- Cedar Rapids..... Collins? > Collins? He said Rockwell... From what I've been able to research on the web, it's Rockwell Collins... I've contracted for NASA and the Navy, so I guess I might as work on one for the Army... <grin> > > Collins? > > He said Rockwell... From what I've been able to research on the web, it's > Rockwell Collins... I've contracted for NASA and the Navy, so I guess I > might as work on one for the Army... <grin> it sounded familiar. I have read a number of manuals (cessna, piper, and 4,14,15,16,18) and the avionics, so the adress sounded familiar. > IIRC, his general comment about similar matters is that it doesn't take > too many hours to drive over to Chicago. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > website mentions Haigh Quary, "located 60 miles south of Chicago": > http://www.haighquarry.com/ That's probably a ~2.5 hour drive. Haigh quarry is NOT worth the drive from Chigago, much less from Iowa. IIRC, it is about 4.5 hours from IA to Chicago. While Haigh quarry is ok for a training class, it is not worth a 10 minute drive to dive for fun. > -hh SignatureThe constitution promises freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion. Think about it, It ain't that hard to figure out. If your religion is none, then deal with it. I strongly urge everyone reading this to check out WWW.anysoldier.com, and support our troops with a letter, a package or a donation. > The constitution promises freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM > religion. Think about it, It ain't that hard to figure out. If your > religion is none, then deal with it. > > I strongly urge everyone reading this to check out WWW.anysoldier.com, > and support our troops with a letter, a package or a donation. David The phrase "freedom of religion" is NOT in the constitution. There are limits to the practice of religion. For example, bigamy is outlawed in our country and people who believe in it are often "persecuted" by the state for practicing it. Parents who refuse medical treatment for their children on religious grounds are sometimes prosecuted for their actions. In the South, those who wish to handle snakes as a show of faith are sometimes singled out for "harrassment" by law enforcement officials. There is no such thing as a completely unfettered freedom of religion in this country and there is nothing in the constitution that even implies there is unfettered freedom of religion. There are those who believe homosexuals should be killed but the law prohibits them from acting out on those beliefs. There are some who believe all Christians should observe the Saturday Sabbath but they are rendered powerless by the government from imposing that belief on others. Still others believe heretics should be killed but there are laws that keep them from carrying these penalties out. In short, there is no such thing as total unfettered freedom of religion in the constitution and since the phrase itself doesn't even appear in the constitution any inference drawn from that particular phrase is invalid. The phrase itself is an inference, and is in the same category as freedom of speech or freedom of the press. Freedom of the press and speech are not unfettered either, as there are laws that prohibit certain kinds of speech in certain circumstances. Certainly "freedom of the press" (an inference from the constitution) doesn't mean we are NOT free from the press, no more than "freedom of speech" means we are NOT free from speech. We certainly have freedom FROM speech if we so desire and are not required to submit to any speech nor to have to listen to any speech we deem offensive. Just as freedom of speech has its limits (imagine if no one was guaranteed freedom ~from~ speech, then atheists would be allowed to enter churches and speak out during the services without legal liability) so does any supposed freedom of religion. Since the phrase is not found in the constitution we must rely on inferences and there is absolutely nothing in the constitution that demands we MUST have a religion. Moreover, there is nothing in the constitution that denies us the freedom FROM religion. True freedom of religion cannot be had if we must choose a religion, even one that denies our basic beliefs or principles. Those who infer the principle of freedom of religion from the constitution are wrong when they claim the principle of freedom of religon denies us the freedom from religion. Such a belief is mean-spirited and dangerous and must be opposed. Naturally those who don't care about the feelings of others will complain if they are opposed and will call such opposition "persecution" but that is okay. It has always been a tradition of some Christians to scream "persecution" at every opportunity. We get used to it. The principles found in the constitution do not prohibit one from seeking out the religion of their choice, as long as any laws of the land are not broken, but the priniple is clear that we all have the freedom to refuse religion as well. There is no true freedom of religion when you have no freedom to refuse one. Just as freedom to choose good includes the freedom to refuse good (free-will is a basic tenent of Christianity) so the freedom of religion inferred from the constitution grants us the freedom to choose no religion. The phrase "freedom of religion but not freedom from religion" has become sort of a mantra among evangelicals but it so obviously wrong and mean-spirited that it is not meant to speak truth but to destroy the real freedom that Christianity was built on. That freedom - freewill and the freedom to choose or not to choose a religion is inherent within Christianity itself. The founding fathers were well acquanted with this Christian principle of free will and there is absolutely nothing in the Constitution that denies us the right to practice free will, even if that free will leads us to refuse religion. Lastly, there is nothing in the Constitution that claims we are not free from religion. Our freedoms are not freedoms at all if we do not have the basic human right to choose according to our conscience. Even pure Christianity gives you that much. In summary: Don't let the soi-disant Christians that inhabit the fringe bully you into silence. These fools think that the Constitution guarantees only people who believe in God rights. They believe the constitution guarantees ~only~ freedom OF religion but since the phrase "freedom of religion" isn't even in the constitution, any inference drawn from the phrase itself is useless for determing what isn't or what is allowed. Just because the constitution doesn't specifically spell out in excruciating detail that we are allowed certain things doesn't mean we do not have the right to those things or the freedom from choosing certain things. >>The constitution promises freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM >>religion. Think about it, It ain't that hard to figure out. If your [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >>and support our troops with a letter, a package or a donation. <snip> a bunch of drivel congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise therof; or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press or the right of the people to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. SignatureThe constitution promises freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion. Think about it, It ain't that hard to figure out. If your religion is none, then deal with it. I strongly urge everyone reading this to check out WWW.anysoldier.com, and support our troops with a letter, a package or a donation. > >>The constitution promises freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM > >>religion. Think about it, It ain't that hard to figure out. If your [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > or of the press or the right of the people to assemble, and to petition > the Government for a redress of grievances. snip usual neo-con and religious right drivel... The phrase "freedom of religion" is NOT in the constitution. There are limits to the practice of religion. For example, bigamy is outlawed in our country and people who believe in it are often "persecuted" by the state for practicing it. Parents who refuse medical treatment for their children on religious grounds are sometimes prosecuted for their actions. In the South, those who wish to handle snakes as a show of faith are sometimes singled out for "harrassment" by law enforcement officials. There is no such thing as a completely unfettered freedom of religion in this country and there is nothing in the constitution that even implies there is unfettered freedom of religion. There are those who believe homosexuals should be killed but the law prohibits them from acting out on those beliefs. There are some who believe all Christians should observe the Saturday Sabbath but they are rendered powerless by the government from imposing that belief on others. Still others believe heretics should be killed but there are laws that keep them from carrying these penalties out. In short, there is no such thing as total unfettered freedom of religion in the constitution and since the phrase itself doesn't even appear in the constitution any inference drawn from that particular phrase is invalid. The phrase itself is an inference, and is in the same category as freedom of speech or freedom of the press. Freedom of the press and speech are not unfettered either, as there are laws that prohibit certain kinds of speech in certain circumstances. Certainly "freedom of the press" (an inference from the constitution) doesn't mean we are NOT free from the press, no more than "freedom of speech" means we are NOT free from speech. We certainly have freedom FROM speech if we so desire and are not required to submit to any speech nor to have to listen to any speech we deem offensive. Just as freedom of speech has its limits (imagine if no one was guaranteed freedom ~from~ speech, then atheists would be allowed to enter churches and speak out during the services without legal liability) so does any supposed freedom of religion. Since the phrase is not found in the constitution we must rely on inferences and there is absolutely nothing in the constitution that demands we MUST have a religion. Moreover, there is nothing in the constitution that denies us the freedom FROM religion. True freedom of religion cannot be had if we must choose a religion, even one that denies our basic beliefs or principles. Those who infer the principle of freedom of religion from the constitution are wrong when they claim the principle of freedom of religon denies us the freedom from religion. Such a belief is mean-spirited and dangerous and must be opposed. Naturally those who don't care about the feelings of others will complain if they are opposed and will call such opposition "persecution" but that is okay. It has always been a tradition of some Christians to scream "persecution" at every opportunity. We get used to it. The principles found in the constitution do not prohibit one from seeking out the religion of their choice, as long as any laws of the land are not broken, but the priniple is clear that we all have the freedom to refuse religion as well. There is no true freedom of religion when you have no freedom to refuse one. Just as freedom to choose good includes the freedom to refuse good (free-will is a basic tenent of Christianity) so the freedom of religion inferred from the constitution grants us the freedom to choose no religion. The phrase "freedom of religion but not freedom from religion" has become sort of a mantra among evangelicals but it so obviously wrong and mean-spirited that it is not meant to speak truth but to destroy the real freedom that Christianity was built on. That freedom - freewill and the freedom to choose or not to choose a religion is inherent within Christianity itself. The founding fathers were well acquanted with this Christian principle of free will and there is absolutely nothing in the Constitution that denies us the right to practice free will, even if that free will leads us to refuse religion. Lastly, there is nothing in the Constitution that claims we are not free from religion. Our freedoms are not freedoms at all if we do not have the basic human right to choose according to our conscience. Even pure Christianity gives you that much. In summary: Don't let the soi-disant Christians that inhabit the fringe bully you into silence. These fools think that the Constitution guarantees only people who believe in God rights. They believe the constitution guarantees ~only~ freedom OF religion but since the phrase "freedom of religion" isn't even in the constitution, any inference drawn from the phrase itself is useless for determing what isn't or what is allowed. Just because the constitution doesn't specifically spell out in excruciating detail that we are allowed certain things doesn't mean we do not have the right to those things or the freedom from choosing certain things. Dazed and CONFUSED... Your argument is of the form if the constitution doesn't promise us freedom from X (where X can be anything of importance) then we do not have freedom from X. How do you arrive at this conclusion or interpretation? If the constitution doesn't promise you freedom from speech does that mean you are not free from speech? Does that mean an atheist could enter your church and subject your congregation to speech and you and your friends would be required by law to listen to it? If the constitution does not promise you freedom from homosexuality does that mean you don't have freedom ~from~ homosexuality? Does that mean the silence of the constitution on that issue mean you must submit to homosexual advances even if you didn't like it? Or, do you have the right to reject such advances? I am interested in how you reason on "If the constitution doesn't specify freedom from X, then you have no freedom from X." How does one imply the other? Dazed and CONFUSED, how about answering the points brought out in this post instead of ignoring them as you did above and simply regurgitate the same, worn-out, right-wing vomit? I really don't expect your simple brain to grasp the issues as you are just another right-wing toady that accepts whatever his soi-disant Christian buddies spew from the pulpit. What is funny is the Christian religion itself is built on the freedom to choose or not to choose, yet dunderhead is too steeped in right-wing dogma to grasp that point. A mind is a terrible thing to waste. Dazed and CONFUSED wrote: The constitution promises freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion. David Yea? Prove it. Dazed and CONFUSED wrote: Think about it, It ain't that hard to figure out. David Yes, think about it. Thin about it long and hard. Since the constitution does not allow you unfettered freedom of religion, think about it some more. Moreover, "Freedom of Religion" is not even found in the constitution, so think about that and chew on it. You can search the constitution and you will not find "freedom of religion" anywhere because there is no true unadulterated freedom of religion in the first place. As I noted above, religious "freedom" comes with strings attached and there are limits on freedom of religion, just as there are with freedom of speech and freedom of the press. And finally, the constitution nowhere denies us the right to be free from religion, so your asinine assertion above doesn't follow. You need to learn how to interpret the constitution you big baby. Boo-hoo, Boo-hoo, you don't get to push your religion on everyone, boo-hoo, boo-hoo, that's persecution, waaahhhh. Dazed and CONFUSED wrote: If your religion is none, then deal with it. David Your argument is of the form if the constitution doesn't promise us freedom from X (where X can be anything of importance) then we do not have freedom from X. How do you arrive at this conclusion or interpretation? If the constitution doesn't promise you freedom from speech does that mean you are not free from speech? Does that mean an atheist could enter your church and subject your congregation to speech and you and your friends would be required by law to listen to it? If the constitution does not promise you freedom from homosexuality does that mean you don't have freedom ~from~ homosexuality? Does that mean the silence of the constitution on that issue mean you must submit to homosexual advances even if you didn't like it? Or, do you have the right to reject such advances? I am interested in how you reason on "If the constitution doesn't specify freedom from X, then you have no freedom from X." How does one imply the other? It is right-wing nut jobs like you that are going to bring down the judgement of God on this nation, and also the world. God gives every man the freedom to choose or not choose a religion and these principles are inherent within every soul. The religious right is determined to destroy that God-given right and throw down a stumbling block for many others by demading they must choose a religion. That is a lie from hell. Christians alienate people with their snotty and elitist attitudes then scream "persecution" if someone calls them on it. So I repeat this (and please offer supporting reasons for your answer): I am interested in how you reason on "If the constitution doesn't specify freedom from X, then you have no freedom from X." How does one imply the other? <snip a huge wad of leftist manipulation/masturbation> Man, you need a life. > <snip a huge wad of leftist manipulation/masturbation> > > Man, you need a life. I have a life, thank you. Do you have one? Since your life is so barren of purpose and you barged into this, perhaps YOU can offer an answer to a very important question. The question is: Since when is defending a position against another indicate one doesn't have a life? I suppose according to your logic anyone who defends a deeply held belief doesn't have a life, am I correct? But I bet deep down you don't ~really~ believe that. I bet deep down you believe that defending a position one holds dear is commendable and at times courageous. Am I far off the mark here? The only question remaining is your selective use of this belief. If it is someone who agrees with you in your beliefs and they defend that position in a newsgroup whose subject matter is scuba diving that is perfectly okay with you. Heck, you don't write them missives complaining about their lack of a life, do you? Of course not! It's perfectly okay for someone to write an off-topic post and rant about this and that as if they didn't own a life and you won't speak a word to them, not even a gentle admonition to return to the topic of the newsgroup. After all, they agree with you! But if someone dares try to correct the individual who holds the same position you do great is your displeasure and you will certainly make it known. You haven't written dazed and confused and chided him on his lack of a life for defending HIS position on a completely off-topic post. Why not? Why is it okay with you if dazed and confused writes a ranting, slavering post and you don't care but good God, if someone calls him on it and challenges him on it, you get all miffed? You're just another neo-con crybaby. You have a double standard and you use selective judgments. You responded to my post critically because you didn't like what it said. It hit home and that hurts. I am hoping that by exposing such hypocrisy that idiots like dazed and confused and you will drop the subject and return to the purpose of this newsgroup and that is scuba diving. If you want to argue Separation of Church and State then there are appropriate groups you can go to in order to discuss that topic. Now, go get your hankies and have a good cry. Must be aweful lonely up there on your throne, all alone, saving the world from logic and common sense. > Must be aweful lonely up there on your throne, all alone, saving the world > from logic and common sense. Nope, Not lonely at all. However, it must be awful lonely for you down there wallowing in willful ignorance. An education and some consistency may be some help. I pray it isn't to late. > Man, you need a life. I have a life, thank you. Do you have one? Since your life is so barren of purpose and you barged into this, perhaps YOU can offer an answer to a very important question. The question is: Since when is defending a position against another indicate one doesn't have a life? I suppose according to your logic anyone who defends a deeply held belief doesn't have a life, am I correct? But I bet deep down you don't ~really~ believe that. I bet deep down you believe that defending a position one holds dear is commendable and at times courageous. Am I far off the mark here? The only question remaining is your selective use of this belief. If it is someone who agrees with you in your beliefs and they defend that position in a newsgroup whose subject matter is scuba diving that is perfectly okay with you. Heck, you don't write them missives complaining about their lack of a life, do you? Of course not! It's perfectly okay for someone to write an off-topic post and rant about this and that as if they didn't own a life and you won't speak a word to them, not even a gentle admonition to return to the topic of the newsgroup. After all, they agree with you! But if someone dares try to correct the individual who holds the same position you do great is your displeasure and you will certainly make it known. You haven't written dazed and confused and chided him on his lack of a life for defending HIS position on a completely off-topic post. Why not? Why is it okay with you if dazed and confused writes a ranting, slavering post and you don't care but good God, if someone calls him on it and challenges him on it, you get all miffed? You're just another neo-con crybaby. You have a double standard and you use selective judgments. You responded to my post critically because you didn't like what it said. It hit home and that hurts. I am hoping that by exposing such hypocrisy that idiots like dazed and confused and you will drop the subject and return to the purpose of this newsgroup and that is scuba diving. If you want to argue Separation of Church and State then there are appropriate groups you can go to in order to discuss that topic. Now, go get your hankies and have a good cry. > I pray it isn't to late. This monument to hypocrisy from the arrogant jackass promoting atheism and equality. Equality and diversity for everyone as long as they think like you want them to. > > I pray it isn't to late. > > This monument to hypocrisy from the arrogant jackass promoting atheism and > equality. I? An arrogant jackass? How am I hypocritical? Are you a black pot? Since when have I ever promoted "atheism"? Since I am not an atheist that would be a neat feat to pull off, heh? And as for equality I believe in it to a certain extent (such as equal pay for equal work and equal treatment under law regardless of race, religion, or gender). > Equality and diversity for everyone as long as they think like you want them > to. Why are you against equal treatment for people? I thought Christians believed all of God's children are equal, male of female, old or young, gentile or Jew. Do you think people should be treated better than others based on their race, religion, or gender? Before you jump to conclusions regarding someone's beliefs, I would recommend you either do a google search and read some of their past postings or you simply ask them what they believe. It makes you look less foolish and helps you to keep your foot out of your mouth. But since you brought up the topic of atheism, I am NOT an atheist. I am a Jew and I believe in the one true God. I do not believe that Christianity is true and I believe that the Messiah is still to come. However, if you have this uncontrollable urge to discuss this topic, I suggest we take out thread elsewhere, such as alt.messianic. There we will at least be on topic. To discuss this topic on a group devoted exclusively to scuba diving is inappropriate. I am sure most readers will agree. How about it? You and I skip over to alt.messianic and discuss my "atheism" there? >>Must be aweful lonely up there on your throne, all alone, saving the > [quoted text clipped - 68 lines] > go get > your hankies and have a good cry. My reply was regarding the lack of worthwhile diving at Haigh Quarry. My sigfile is my own opinion, which you are free to ignore or not at your pleasure. SignatureThe constitution promises freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion. Think about it, It ain't that hard to figure out. If your religion is none, then deal with it. I strongly urge everyone reading this to check out WWW.anysoldier.com, and support our troops with a letter, a package or a donation. The constitution promises freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion. Think about it, It ain't that hard to figure out. If your religion is none, then deal with it. David Your argument is of the form if the constitution doesn't promise us freedom from X (where X can be anything of importance) then we do not have freedom from X. How do you arrive at this conclusion or interpretation? If the constitution doesn't promise you freedom from speech does that mean you are not free from speech? Does that mean an atheist could enter your church and subject your congregation to speech and you and your friends would be required by law to listen to it? If the constitution does not promise you freedom from homosexuality does that mean you don't have freedom ~from~ homosexuality? Does that mean the silence of the constitution on that issue mean you must submit to homosexual advances even if you didn't like it? Or, do you have the right to reject such advances? I am interested in how you reason on "If the constitution doesn't specify freedom from X, then you have no freedom from X." How does one imply the other?
|
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.