i don't see that the lawsuite names stowe as a defendant. why should the assailants not be sued by the dodgers? and of course stowe himself will likely become a plantiff as well in his own lawsuit. just because an attorny suggests that the jury will be asked to determine who is liable for what hardly means that stowe will be found complicit. sure, the defendant's attorney may try to convince a jury that stowe was wholey or completely to blame but that hardly means the jury will agree. the dodgers have every right to sue as this incident has caused them financial harm in good will if nothing else. and these perps need to be made an example of what happens when fan emotions go too far.

1% of One! = .001, right?

i suppose i'm of the caveman mentality. you know, club her over the head, drag her into my cave.

worked for a guy i used to fly with. in a bar he'd tell maybe twenty gals to come to his room for a good time. he'd get slapped nineteen times but got laid every night.

worked for a guy i used to fly with. in a bar he'd tell maybe twenty gals to come to his room for a good time. he'd get slapped nineteen times but got laid every night.

can't know what's best. unknowable. just like god.

love john stewart. between him and cobert i need no other news source.

yes, as regards god there are no answers. the human mind is simply not capable of knowing the existance of god, the afterlife or other supernatural phenomena.

you cannot know that to be true.

you keep leaving out words. i said that i never negated the value of relion FOR COMING UP WITH GOOD ANSWERS and followed that with that the same good answers can be found without religion. this war on terrorism is certainly over religion. sure individuals abuse the intent of religions but the fact remains that without religion the intent could not be abused. you asked for the main differences in the religions. my answer is that there is no main difference. all of them worship a deity, all have been used to justify atrocity. you may dissagree but there it is.

dang, i missed it. how bout a little heads up next time now comes, jb?

many folks confuse the two documents. i've found it best to put the declaration completely out of mind when it comes to the question of how this country was designed to operate. if you'll think about it the DEO is nothing more than a letter to king george with copies to the rest of the planet that his rule no longer stands on american soil. we warred over the issue, we won and now the declaration is nothing more than a historical document having nothing to do with how our government runs.



here's another big mistake people make regarding the constitution. other than habeus corpus, the constitution gives NOBODY any rights. we the people gave certain POWERS to the president, the congress and the judiciary but we gave no RIGHTS whatsoever. show me where the constitution gives you the RIGHT to vote if you can. you won't be able to but it'll be educational for sure.



you keep mentioning "due process" as a right and yet somehow you cannot fathom that "due process of law" has been served with the patriot act. in fact it has not been ruled unconstitutional and until it is the patriot act IS law and the president or any agency acting within the scope of the act, [law], is acting with reqired "due process of law". we are not given a RIGHT requiring "probable cause" for the issuance of a warrant. again, you and i were born with that right and the fourth amendment mearly guarantees that particular "inalienable right" SHALL NOT BE VIOLATED as you quoted.

the inalienable rights that we spoke of earlier are not given to us by any government. that in essence is what we told king george in what amounted to our declaration of war to him. we are born with those rights and the only control government can have over them is either to protect CERTAIN INALIENABLE RIGHTS. but no government protects all rights. some are abridged, restricted, denied, etc. you don't have the right to drive without a licence for instance. in saudi arabia a woman does not have the right to drive at all.

our constitution simply protects certain rights and empowers the three branches while at the same time limiting those powers. perhaps you can show some case history where the patriot act has been challenged and ruled unconstitutional or that the president or any of the agencies over which he has control have violated due process of law. i'm all for educating myself as you are and if i missed something as important as this i'm not even the rank amature scholar of the supreme court and the constitution that i fancy myself.

and i've rejected those similarities. i've incorrectly used no definition of the word 'philosophy' as it's a part of the definition that YOU provided. obviously you seem to think that you can insert religion into the definition where webster's does not and that's perfectly fine. but don't expect everyone to agree that religion and philosophy are in any way similar.



i never negated the value of religion for arriving at good answers. my problem with religious dogma is that it affords great opportunity for arriving at the bad answers ans history and current events have shown all to well. obviously atrocities are commited outside the realm of religion for many reasons. but you began a thread regarding religion so this is obviously not the place to discuss the atrocities commited by hitler, stalin or other famous boogiemen.

i happen to think that if religion could somehow be purged from the human mind the world would be a much safer place. that won't happen, of course, so i've nothing to do but discuss my thinking on forums like this. i spend time on a skin head forum as well stating my views that their christian belief that whites are superior to other races has no basis in logic. still that's what they believe. i've participated on islamic forums talking down this jihad silliness. if i could find atrocious behavior being espoused on a secular forum i'd be there as well but i simply cannot find such a thing.

religions, all religions, simply provide nothing good to humanity that cannot be provided without religion. i'd put my volunteer services over the decades up against any religious person i know as a measure of doing good for others and along the way i've caused much less harm to others than many of my god fearing aquaintences. so in my view religion is not in the least neccessary for a peaceful society and often times is a detriment to that peace.

actually it's been my tradition for the past quarter century to dedicate forty five minutes or so every fourth of july reading the constitituon from "we the people" through the twenty seventh amendment and nowhere over those decades have i seen the words, "unalienable rights" anywhere in the document. but i certainly do agree that more should read the constitution so as not to confuse documents of law. let me know if you need a link to the parchment in it's entirety as i keep it in my favorites.

and any law written that has not been ruled unconstitution by a federal court remains fulling within the confines of the constitution. what you or i see as constitutional or unconstitutional is of little consequence. if you'd like to peruse some case history i can refer you to several sources including those dealing with the patriot act.

"due process?" i assume you meant "due process of law" since we're talking about the constitution. in that regard. the patriot act is law and acting within it is acting with due process of law. "forced health care" has already been ruled unconstitutional.

stephen hawking is a phd, doctor of philosopy, in theoretical physics but i'd never call him religious. i'll not get into an argument about a college definition being correct, as i see it, or, "this part" or "that part" that you see as correct. and nowhere in the definition is religion or theology even mentioned other than to exclude it from one definition. many words can be found in many dictionaries with several different definitions. we all simply apply the definition as we see fit. the word "religios" will have definitions that could be and often is used to describe an oakland raiders fan. so i'll go with the college definition that you provided. you go with what pleases you.








no it's not clear how religion was invented or how it came about. that is the very essence of why i question the dogma as i do. as for answers, the inquisitors thought they had the answers which they learned from christian teachings. had the dogma never been taught, the inquisition could not have happened. same can be said about the crusades, the salem witch trials and this fvcking jihad we must all put up with today. people were very carefully taught using the very scriptures that so many nold to have the answers that burning people at the stake and strapping bombs to themselves will bring them salvation in the name of god, allah or whatever the supreme flavor of the month. i haven't a religious bone in my body and my moral and ethical compass would never allow me to commit the atrocities against humanity that hss and still is being perpetrated by many god fearing folks. the "good and important answers" as you call them, were out there before the first words of the bible, quoran, talmud, whatever, were first put pen to paper. the good and important answers can be found without having to rely on the interpretation of scripture. if even webster cannot agree on definitions, as you've shown, how can two different people reading the bible agree on what it means?

sure, it's a deal breaker for many and for various reasons. i'm sure some men are looking for a serious ltr without kids in the picture. others more old fashioned like me, see that when you had your kids you entered into a contract to devote yourself to raising those kids in a manner that will cause the least drama and trauma in their lives. why you became a single mom i don't know but fact is you did and you owe it to those kids to devote all of your time and energy to them. my daughter is in her early forties and only now has become intimate with a man she will marry soon. she's been a single mother devoted entirely to her kids since here early twenties.

you haven't been to texas lately, huh mh?

i suppose it would serve me well, in an educational sense, to look at a few profiles of men my age. i have seen blanket statements about men on women's profiles which often seem to be gross overgeneralizations, something that will make me move on to the next profile in a heartbeat.

quote from the very definition that YOU provided; "exclusive of medicine, law, and theology".

is theology not religion?



i presume to tell nobody anything. a question was asked in the op. the only presumption i made was to answer the question as i see it. that i think the human mind incapable of knowing such things as god is no different than you thinking the human body is incapable of flight.



yes. put up a smiley face laugh if you think such adds to your point. it doesn't ofcourse but put it up anyway. obviously i don't know what others cannot know. i don't recall saying i know anything. i've simply tried to answer your question as best i could using my own thought process. of course you seem to already have all the answers so i wonder why you began the thread in the first place.



i realize that you and many, many others consider religion, especially your chosen religion, to be philosophical in nature but not everybody agrees and certainly the definition that you yourself posted illustrates that quite well. yes, religious dogma does provide some good answers regarding ethics but it fails miserably in others. and the good answers to ethical questions can all be elsewhere the most obvious being just plain common sense. a typical example of where religious dogma fails is in the golden rule. why do unto others as you'd have others do unto YOU when you can do unto others as others would have done unto THEM? yet countless people of faith spend their lives thinking of how they themselves like to be treated and rarely give a thought to how others wish to be treated. why is this? because it's part of the learned dogma, of course, and not part of simple human common sense thought.