 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 14:40:03 -0800, Darren New wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Now tell me how a declaration of a National Day of Prayer by the
>> executive branch is (a) Congress establishing a law respecting the
>> establishment of religion, or (b) prohibits the free exercise thereof.
>
> I'll just point out again that it wasn't the executive branch, but the
> congress, that declared a national day of prayer.
Somehow I missed that, but at the same time, I fail to see how telling
people "if you believe in something, practice it" comes even close to
establishing a state-sponsored religion (especially the way the founders
were viewing it as it occurred in England).
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Of course it is. It's an implicit encouragement from the government for
> people to follow a religious custom.
Does this mean Black History Month implies you should go out and be Black
for a few weeks?
(Sorry. Just being silly.)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Serving Suggestion:
"Don't serve this any more. It's awful."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> he willingly broke the first amendment with
> complete disregard of the ruling.
Yep. Just like the last 60 years or so. :-) Plus, of course, the judge said
"I think it's unconstitutional, but let's push it all the way up before we
actually prohibit it." So he didn't break the law. He broke the law as
interpreted by one judge who admitted her interpretation might not be correct.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Serving Suggestion:
"Don't serve this any more. It's awful."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 14:40:03 -0800, Darren New wrote:
>
>> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> Now tell me how a declaration of a National Day of Prayer by the
>>> executive branch is (a) Congress establishing a law respecting the
>>> establishment of religion, or (b) prohibits the free exercise thereof.
>> I'll just point out again that it wasn't the executive branch, but the
>> congress, that declared a national day of prayer.
>
> Somehow I missed that,
Yeah. NDoP was established back when we were fighting the godless communists
in the 1950's.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Serving Suggestion:
"Don't serve this any more. It's awful."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 14:48:14 -0800, Darren New wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 14:40:03 -0800, Darren New wrote:
>>
>>> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>> Now tell me how a declaration of a National Day of Prayer by the
>>>> executive branch is (a) Congress establishing a law respecting the
>>>> establishment of religion, or (b) prohibits the free exercise
>>>> thereof.
>>> I'll just point out again that it wasn't the executive branch, but the
>>> congress, that declared a national day of prayer.
>>
>> Somehow I missed that,
>
> Yeah. NDoP was established back when we were fighting the godless
> communists in the 1950's.
Yes, back in 1952, but such a thing did actually exist off and on going
back to the 1700s in the US. The Continental Congress declared an NDP
back in 1775, and Washington proclaimed a day of public thanksgiving and
prayer back in 1795. (Obviously, the 1775 reference predates the US
Constitution). President Madison also declared an observance around 1813
as well.
So did Lincoln back in 1863.
Jefferson opposed it the idea in 1808.
The law as it stands today, just requires the President select a day for
NDP - it doesn't really say anything about what such prayer should be or
which denomination/religion/belief system should be the basis for such
selection.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 14:43:59 -0800, Darren New wrote:
> Warp wrote:
>> Of course it is. It's an implicit encouragement from the government
>> for
>> people to follow a religious custom.
>
> Does this mean Black History Month implies you should go out and be
> Black for a few weeks?
>
> (Sorry. Just being silly.)
Silliness is a good thing. :-)
Maybe if more people went out and stood in the shoes of minorities,
though, they'd have a better appreciation for what being a minority in
the US is really like.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> When the president speaks to the country on a televised official ceremony,
> that's quite different from the president talking with a friend.
Apparently, the Congress requires the President to announce the national day
of prayer. Obama is the most atheist-friendly president we've ever had, afaik.
"""
The Congress, by Public Law 100-307, as amended, has called on the President
to issue each year a proclamation designating the first Thursday in May as a
"National Day of Prayer."
"""
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Serving Suggestion:
"Don't serve this any more. It's awful."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 12/01/2011 9:06 AM, Warp wrote:
>
> AFAIK snakes have vestigial limbs (usually quite obvious when looking
> at their skeletons).
>
Yes. I said as much. Vestigial.
Snakes are tetrapods and yet you cannot find 5 digits on the end of a
limb in the vast majority of individuals. Some individuals may have
more evidence than the average. Rarely a quite recognisable but non
functional leg. All may have some relic or indication of where limbs
existed in ancestral forms.
The original assertion that 'fingers' always number 5 in tetrapods is
not totally correct.
There is a strong connection between limb development and the overall
foetal development path. And genital development is a big part of that
as well. The 'Homeobox' or 'Hox' genes are what Darren had read about
and the gist of what he said is true enough. All tetrapods (as far as
is known) have 5 'buds' or zones per limb during development that are
eligible to become fingers / toes.
But there are variations in the Hox genes that alter limb development
and are not fatal. There can be other genes involved that modify the
basic structures and even cause them to disappear as the foetus develops.
As shown by polydactylism in humans and cats there can be more than 5
fully formed functional digits on each limb. From what I've read, the
mechanism leading to this is duplication of one of the existing digits
rather than a completely new type of digit. Having an exact copy of a
digit alongside the original doesn't seem to have enough advantage to
overcome the associated risks to the rest of the development process.
Evolutionary development can proceed from a duplicate gene. So long as
it isn't fatal the possibility exists that some other mutation or gene
variant will modify the duplicate some time in the future to be actually
useful.
As a conjecture, there is probably selection for mechanisms that provide
genetic flexibility. A species that has a certain degree of variablity
is more likely to have individuals within it that can survive some
change in the environment than one that doesn't. So evolving the
ability to have mutations and carry variations has its own advantage.
On the flip side, really optimising for a niche may come at the cost of
that variability. Evolution of the mechanism of evolution!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 11/01/2011 23:35, Darren New a écrit :
> Warp wrote:
>> Darren New <dne### [at] san rrcom> wrote:
>>> Warp wrote:
>>>> life on Earth wouldn't exist because
>>>> all bodies of water would freeze from the bottom up, killing all living
>>>> organisms.
I would ponder to "all massive living organisms".
Bacteria & such would be still be fine.
Can a cloud/colony of bacteria develops as an intelligent
being/population and make something fancy ?
>>
>>> Well, unless they evolved in San Diego. ;-)
>>
>> The reference is completely lost on me.
>
> Water outside doesn't freeze in San Diego. It rarely goes below freezing
> here, let alone long enough to make water freeze solid outdoors.
>
If you compress it hard enough, even in San Diego, even oxygen could
freeze...
Water is paradoxal in that at high pressure the more compact form is
liquid rather than solid.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> but maybe that's just because we haven't figured out yet what is
>> driving those events, so they just *appear* random to us.
>
> FWIW, the answer to this speculation is "no, we have proven that's not
> the case." :-)
Really? How?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
