From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Subject: Re: Steve Adams blows it again (was: Finkelstein & souls) 
Organization: SPSS Inc.
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 13:58:36 GMT



Oh my....my name in lights, courtesy of Dr. Peter Nykios...

nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>In <adams.724610957@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:

>>lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu writes:
>
>>>In a previous article, cj@eno.esd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio) wrote:
>>>
>>>>Then Loren F can explain why he thinks religion is a fit
>>>>basis for legislation.
>>>
>>>You want another example of religion being a fit basis for legislation?
>>>Here are a few
>>>
>>>"Thou shalt not kill"
>>>"Thou shalt not steal"
>>Neither of these have ANY religious requirement as a basis.  Depriving
>>someone of their life of property does not require a god to call it a bad
>>thing.   They can stand on their own without religious backing.  They are
>>rational.
>
>>>In parts of New Jersey, it is Illegal for most stores to be open on sunday.
>>This is garbage law.  It's a leftover from the theocratic past...and most
>>BlueLaws have been overturned as unconstitutional.  This law can't stand on
>>it's own without religious backing.
>
>>>In most states having more then 1 spouse is illegal.
>>Government interference.  These laws too, should be overturned or repealed.
>
>Could Steve Adams be contemplating conversion to the Latter Day Saints, or 
>Islam?!

Hardly.  The issue here is GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE.  If the Latter Day
Saints or Muslims want tens, scores or hundreds of wives, so be it.  It is
none of the government's business.

>Don't go away yet: this is NOT what the subject line refers to.  However, 
>it *is* my personal opinion that Steve blew it here too.

How so?  Exactly why should the government interfere in personal,
consensual actions?  What if they don't get legally married, but live
together?

>>Only the laws against killing and stealing are good.  And guess what?  They
>>don't need religion for them to make sense.
>
>Hey, Steve, how come you did not take Loren to task for using the word
>"killing"?  We've had a heated discussion about this one before, and I am
>of the opinion that "commit unjustifiable homicide" is a better
>translation, while you seem to be of the "commit murder" party. 
Which of course, I am.  In this case, the actual commandment WAS NOT AN
ISSUE.  You fail to see that this is a discussion of secular LAW, and the
application of religion, NOT a discussion of God's law.

>You even accused me, totally without cause, of ignorance, and when I tried
>to advance the discussion into this gray area, you deleted my words.
Fully with cause.  You were dead wrong.  And I didn't delete any words that
were germaine to the conversation.

>Yet here
>you even use the word "killing" yourself, despite the obvious fact 
>that it can be applied to a fetus as well as to a born human.  
In this case, I used the word of the poster.  It has NOTHING to do with my
belief about the Commandment against murder.  It was simply showing that
laws against killing CAN and ARE based on rationale other than the Tanach
or the NT.  You fail to see this.

>You have,
>on the other hand, stoutly asserted that sometimes abortion is the 
>responsible thing to do, then in the same post turned around and 
>said you were personally opposed to abortion.
No I have not.  I have never, ever said that abortion is *the* responsible
thing to do.  I have said that it is *a* responsible choice.  There is a
big difference.

>When will you get your act together, Steve?
My "act" is much more together than yours is, or ever will be.  Look at the
CONTEXT.

 -Steve
--
  The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                         -------------------
   adams@spss.com                                  Phone: (312) 329-3522
   Steve Adams        "Space-age cybernomad"       Fax:   (312) 329-3558