HOW OLD IS THE GRAND CANYON? PARK SERVICE WON’T SAY

"sechumlib" wrote in message
...
On 2007-01-02 22:11:20 -0500, "Billzz" said:

Spent some time in Egypt where they happily promote the ancient
religions.

Egypt isn't bound by US constitutional law.

No, but there is a parallel. They are overwhelmingly Muslim, and you will
see hundreds of people pause for the prayers, but they are not confused
about the ancient religions, nor worried that someone might convert to the
religion of Isis after a tour of the temple.

If one is arguing the fine print, then strictly interpret. Common sense
says no one is going to be converted to anything by the mere presence of
religious artifacts.

Have a nice day. That's all from me. I don't care if they have a book of
Wiccan there. When they take every tenth tourist and make a human
sacrifice, then I'll worry.

On Wed, 3 Jan 2007 10:04:35 -0800, "Billzz"
wrote:

"sechumlib" wrote in message
...
On 2007-01-02 22:11:20 -0500, "Billzz" said:

Spent some time in Egypt where they happily promote the ancient
religions.

Egypt isn't bound by US constitutional law.

No, but there is a parallel. They are overwhelmingly Muslim, and you will
see hundreds of people pause for the prayers, but they are not confused
about the ancient religions, nor worried that someone might convert to the
religion of Isis after a tour of the temple.

I just want to point out that Navajo, the subject religion a few
posts up the thread, is not an ancient religion.


--
************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

On 2007-01-03 13:04:35 -0500, "Billzz" said:

No, but there is a parallel. They are overwhelmingly Muslim, and you
will see hundreds of people pause for the prayers, but they are not
confused about the ancient religions, nor worried that someone might
convert to the religion of Isis after a tour of the temple.

How does this have anything to do with any part of what has previously
been posted?

Oh, I get it. You think someone posting is REALLY worried about some
Christian converting to an ancient Native American religion. Well, it
would be an improvement, but I don't see it happening.

"sechumlib" wrote in message
...
On 2007-01-03 13:04:35 -0500, "Billzz" said:

No, but there is a parallel. They are overwhelmingly Muslim, and you
will see hundreds of people pause for the prayers, but they are not
confused about the ancient religions, nor worried that someone might
convert to the religion of Isis after a tour of the temple.

How does this have anything to do with any part of what has previously
been posted?

Oh, I get it. You think someone posting is REALLY worried about some
Christian converting to an ancient Native American religion. Well, it
would be an improvement, but I don't see it happening.

Okay, one last time. I don't see anyone converting to anything because
there are some religious items anywhere. In fact it would be an interesting
cite to find out if anyone has ever converted to anything because they
visited a place where religious items were displayed/present/for sale
whatever. But I really don't care.

As an aside, the Israeli police, in Jerusalem, are on the lookout for people
who are unaturally predisposed to go into some religious rapture, simply
because they are there. "See Jerusalem and go crazy," they call it. But
that is a manifestation of the individual, not the fact that there are some
religious items around, somewhere. Okay, now I quit.

On 2007-01-03 13:04:35 -0500, "Billzz" said:

"sechumlib" wrote in message
...
On 2007-01-02 22:11:20 -0500, "Billzz" said:

Spent some time in Egypt where they happily promote the ancient religions.

Egypt isn't bound by US constitutional law.

No, but there is a parallel. They are overwhelmingly Muslim, and you
will see hundreds of people pause for the prayers, but they are not
confused about the ancient religions, nor worried that someone might
convert to the religion of Isis after a tour of the temple.

Have you ever considered that that might change? Look at the Muslims in
Afghanistan, who destroyed ancient statues of Buddha because they were
worried about something like that.

sechumlib wrote:

I know (by being related to several) how pig-headed the average
fundamentalist is about getting you to believe everything he/she
believes.


Ah, there you go then. Sounds like your problem is with pig-headed
relatives, not the Bible.

"sechumlib" wrote in message
...
On 2007-01-03 13:04:35 -0500, "Billzz" said:

"sechumlib" wrote in message
...
On 2007-01-02 22:11:20 -0500, "Billzz" said:

Spent some time in Egypt where they happily promote the ancient
religions.

Egypt isn't bound by US constitutional law.

No, but there is a parallel. They are overwhelmingly Muslim, and you
will see hundreds of people pause for the prayers, but they are not
confused about the ancient religions, nor worried that someone might
convert to the religion of Isis after a tour of the temple.

Have you ever considered that that might change? Look at the Muslims in
Afghanistan, who destroyed ancient statues of Buddha because they were
worried about something like that.

Well, yes. The current Islamic resurgence (but only in some countries) was
predicted....
From my response elswhere....


Read "The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order".

by Samuel P. Huntington.

Although written in 1996 it tells what has happened, is happening, and what
will happen, especially in the upcoming conflict of the western civilized
world versus the Islamic challenge.

"Sam Huntington, one of the West's most eminent political scientists,
presents a challenging framework for understanding the realities of global
politics in the next century. "The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking
of World Order" is one of the most important books to have emerged since the
end of the cold war." - Henry A. Kissinger

"An intellectual tour de force: bold, imaginative, and provocative. A
seminal work that will revolutionize our understanding of international
affairs." - Zbigniew Brzezinski

Samuel P Huntington is the Albert J. Weatherhead III University Professor at
Harvard University, where he is also the director of the John M. Olin
Institute for Stategic Studies and the Chairman of the Harvard Academy for
International and Area Studies. He was the director of security planning
for the National Security Council in the Carter administration, the founder
and coeditor of "Foreign Policy" and the president of the American Political
Science Association.

page 209 - "Some Westerners, including President Bill Clinton, have argued
that the West does not have problems with Islam but only with violent
Islamist extremists. Fourteen hundred years of history demonstrate
otherwise."

page 257 - " Three different compilations of data thus yield the same
conclusion: In the early 1900s Muslims were engaged in more intergroup
violence than were non-muslims, and two-thirds to three-quarters of
intercivilizational wars were between Muslims and non-Muslims. Islam's
borders are bloody and so are its innards."

Hatunen wrote:
I just want to point out that Navajo, the subject religion a few
posts up the thread, is not an ancient religion.

And the Grand Canyon couldn't possibly be older than 6,011 years
because James Ussher, who was born this date in 1581, became a bishop
and calculated that Earth began November 23, 4004 BCE.


sechumlib wrote:
Icono Clast said:
sechumlib wrote:
Besides, it doesn't raise any constitutional questions at all.
Anything on Native American religions would be an educational
item, not proselytizing and therefore not constitutionally
barred.

That's a rather twisted point of view. Their religions are
educational and those of other peoples are not? I agree that
they're not but you're advocating just what the Pilgrims
escaped: Favoring some religions over some others. Very
unAmerican and clearly unconstitutional.

Why do you say that? Teaching ABOUT religions ("comparative
religion") at government expense is constitutionally OK;
advocating a specific religion is not.

I agree with that but that's not how I read what you initially said.

Sort of like a school history course. Does anyone with half a
brain REALLY think there's any chance of "converting" someone
to a Native American aboriginal cult?

I find it extremely difficult to believe that anyone with half a
brain can be converted to any cult whatsoever yet there are a
billion Catholics, a billion Muslims and countless others
blathering within other cults. So, yes! The evidence is that
it's quite possible!

I'm talking some kind of realism, not hypotheticals.

I fail to see disagreement.

The Christian stuff they're talking about, on the other hand,
has no purpose other than to convince people of the supposed
truth of Christianity, and therefore it's religious and
constitutionally barred.

That differs from the Hopi, Navajo, and other tribal stuff? How?
I presume you've read it; I've not.

Read what? The Bible? Yes, I have.

So have I. I mean the Hopi, Navajo, and other peoples' equivalents.

how pig-headed the average fundamentalist is about getting you to
believe everything he/she believes.

I presume most of us are familiar with them.

-- __________________________________________________ ______________
A San Franciscan whose reverence for each god is equal.
http://geocities.com/dancefest/ --- http://geocities.com/iconoc/
ICQ: http://wwp.mirabilis.com/19098103 ------- IClast at Gmail com

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On 2007-01-04 00:31:06 -0500, (Nile) said:

sechumlib wrote:
I know (by being related to several) how pig-headed the average
fundamentalist is about getting you to believe everything he/she
believes.

Ah, there you go then. Sounds like your problem is with pig-headed
relatives, not the Bible.

Nope, my problem is ANYONE who says the Bible is the "revealed Word of
God". It's no more than any other book, written by humans and subject
to (and clear evidence of) human foibles & faults.