Re: Question for atheists...

From: \ (jonez_at_norcom.ca)
Date: 03/23/05 

Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 11:40:14 -0700

Les Hellawell wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 08:24:42 -0600, "Mark K. Bilbo"
> <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote:
>
> > In our last episode <0lt2411u79ceh31eg24jbnfu5ngh9dsvst@4ax.com>,
> > Les Hellawell pirouetted gracefully and with great fanfare
> > proclaimed:
> >
> > > On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 07:00:04 -0600, "Mark K. Bilbo"
> > > <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote:
> > >
> > > > In our last episode
> > > > <e2m241lkbeicjsc08odcnemjdo59diiuir@4ax.com>, Les Hellawell
> > > > pirouetted gracefully and with great fanfare proclaimed:
> > > >
> > > > > On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 22:33:07 -0600, wcb
> > > > > <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Les Hellawell wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 11:09:01 -0700, " \"- Prof. Jonez©\""
> > > > > > > <jonez@norcom.ca> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Les Hellawell wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 18:22:27 -0600, Daniel Kolle
> > > > > > > > > <Daniel.Kolle@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 16:57:40 -0800, qstn
> > > > > > > > > > <qu@est.ion> thought hard and said:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > One of the criticisms that atheists often have
> > > > > > > > > > > against believers is that only
> > > > > > > > > > > dumb/foolish/uneducated/low class type people
> > > > > > > > > > > would believe in God or participate in religion.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > This atheist does not believe what you have written.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Nort this one. It is patently false though I must
> > > > > > > > > admit I cannot understand why an intelligent person,
> > > > > > > > > especially a scientist would accept something that to
> > > > > > > > > me patently only mere irrational belief and dependant
> > > > > > > > > entirely on blind 'faith'.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Religion is a
> > > > > > > > > > personal matter and a person should not be judged
> > > > > > > > > > by it. The content of their character should be
> > > > > > > > > > what you use to determine a person. If you are an
> > > > > > > > > > ***, goddamn it, I am going to call you an
> > > > > > > > > > ***; religious or no.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I think I would be very wary of voting for a
> > > > > > > > > believer. If they accept the Christian religion
> > > > > > > > > without question (and that is the only way to accept)
> > > > > > > > > what other things are they likely to believe and base
> > > > > > > > > decisions on? After all Blair believed Saddam had WMD
> > > > > > > > > and invaded supported by the US and others on that
> > > > > > > > > belief.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Amd we always though you Brits, being a notch higher
> > > > > > > > intellectually, has rejected such poppy*** as
> > > > > > > > religion, certainly in your elected leaders. So the
> > > > > > > > question is, why is that lying deluded babble-thumpin'
> > > > > > > > war criminal Toady Blair still holding office in your
> > > > > > > > country?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Well I did not vote for Blair and will not again at the
> > > > > > > upcoming election. The fourth of May is the most likely
> > > > > > > date (always on a Thursday)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What are the polls running as far as the Liberal Democrat
> > > > > > party is concerned?
> > > > >
> > > > > Yesterdays ICM poll gives 20% down from 21. Labour up 3 to
> > > > > 40% the tories down 2 to 32%.
> > > >
> > > > I can't believe Labour is doing even that well with Blair's
> > > > unpopularity...
> > >
> > > It's not so much his popularity but the alternatives unpopularity
> > > and record of failure. I suspect that as the election gets under
> > > way the Lib-Dems willrise in the polls gaining some from Labour
> > > and much from the Tories though this might be wishful thinking .
> > > The leader of the Lib-Dems BTW consistently opposed the war
> > > whilst the Tories were more enthusiastic about the war than Blair
> > > but, then attempted to backtrack after when the war turned out to
> > > be unpopular.
> > >
> > > Also bear in mind that domestically the government is doing an
> > > excellent job where the tories failed. We are are still enjoying
> > > the longest period of economic growth since records began
> > > following tory recessions and we have more people in work
> > > than ever before. Our national debt is down on the record levels
> > > set by the tories and inflation is low and staying low. We have
> > > record numbers of Police with overall crime well down. --
> >
> > Interesting. Sounds like Labour would do well to dump Blair. Is
> > that even possible in your system? I'm not all that clear on how
> > the PM is selected...
>
> When the two main parties are in opposition the leader is choosen
> by a ballot of the party as a whole. When in power the MP's only
> decide.
>
> The PM requires support in the House of Commons to survive as PM
> from his MP's Their survival at an election, of course, is very much
> determined by how well the party is doing and to the public the leader
> is the party. So their pragmatic decision is whether he is a liaility
> or an asset as regards their re-election. All they need do really is
> make it plain that the leader is no longer wanted and if sensible the
> leader will resign and go in a dignified way. There are formal rules
> for challenge though I am not exactly sure what they are. When
> Thatcher went it was a result of a called for ballot. She actually won
> the ballot (first round If memory serves) but the dissenters were
> enough for the 'movers and shakers' of the party to persuade her to
> go.
>
> If it came to an extreme and the PM refused to resign, all it would
> require would be a formal vote of no confidence from the Commons.
> (If top of head serves that's how they got rid of Chamberlin at the
> start of WW2 and Churchill took over with a coalition) The opposition
> would be happy to propose the vote of course! If the government lose
> the vote they can clearly no longer govern and be forced to resign and
> call an election. This is what Chamberlin tried to do. There are all
> sorts of possibilities now. The last residual powers of the monarch is
> the right to call elections and appoint the PM and his government*. So
> the Queen could accept the governments resignation but refuse to call
> an election as the King did. Under these circumstances the majority
> party would then be able to try and choose an acceptable candidate. In
> WW2 the opposition and the majority party jointly agreed Churchill to
> head a wartime coalition. CAs this then commanded majority support
> the King accepted. Of course if no candidate emerges able to command
> a majority the monarch would have to call an election.
>
> *even then she is strictly proscribed in what she can do. Normally
> these are just formalities andthe PM decides in reality but they are
> a very important safeguard against tyranny and useful in a
> constitutional crisis as the above situation would be. In these cases
> she must take advice from the privvy council its member having the
> right to consult.
>
> BTW one archiac means of getting rid of an unpopular minister is
> propose a reduction in salary!

Is there now any doubt you Brits molded your due process from
that of the Byzantine empire?