Kosher Slaughter Rites Again ...

RSS
Email

0 Kudo

Author	Comment
Scott Smith 01	Kosher Slaughter Rites Again ...		Lead	[-]
Member Posts: 15269 29-Jun-2009 16:06 humble, lovable shoeshine boy	Tags : None Well, the problem is that slitting the throat is pretty much how animals have historically been slaughtered, regardless of Jews. It is not for the squeamish. My sister supposedly became a vegetarian after watching farm animals get slaughtered in Idaho. Not too many Jews in Idaho. In fact, I can only think of about three that I knew the whole time that I lived in Idaho, and one of these worked at the TV station where I worked as the News Director. (Lots of Jews in the mass-media, but I did not see too many of them working on farms or meat-packing plants that city people never see.) However, nowadays there are now more humane ways to slaughter animals, such as to stun them first with an air-bolt to the head before bleeding them out (which is probably what actually kills them). This is more humane but still not for the squeamish. If you don't have that kind of equipment you can use a good sized bullet to the head to dispatch the animal. I've done that will a .45 + P and they still took a while to go down, unlike in the movies. It is still not for the squeamish. The problem that I see here is this: The Kosher slaughter rites are obsolete because there are more humane ways to slaughter animals today--and this should be reflected by the law. The problem with Orthodox or Ultra-Orthodox Jews is that (like Christian Fundamentalists and their New Testament), the Jews view the Torah as the literal Word of God. Therefore anything in the Torah is by definition the sacred truth as laid down by God, whether we are talking about Kosher slaughter, infant circumcision, not eating shellfish, or not marrying your niece on the Sabbath unless the Rabbi gets the dowry (or whatever). It is not wrong because God says so (even if not all Believers actually practice all of the old laws nowadays). This is all nonsense and much of it should definitely NOT be legal in countries with separation of Church and State. If Jews (or Fundamentalist Christians and Muslims for that matter) want to behave according to their own mythologies, then they should move to Israel or Saudi Arabia, or some theocracy. (posted at RODOH) --- On Sun, 6/28/09, hoaxbuster <hoaxbuster@earthlink.net> wrote: From: hoaxbuster <hoaxbuster@earthlink.net> Subject: Fw: Re: Kosher slaughter protected by EU To: "hoaxbuster@earthlink.net" <hoaxbuster@earthlink.net> Date: Sunday, June 28, 2009, 10:12 PM For me that is the last straw. All people who practice or condone the kosher slaughter of animals deserve to be butchered in the exact same way. That will be a learning experience for them, and they deserve nothing better. Friedrich Paul Berg Learn everything at www.nazigassings.com Nazi Gassings Never Happened! Niemand wurde vergast -----Original Message----- From: New Order Sent: Jun 28, 2009 10:25 AM To: neworder@execpc.com Subject: Kosher slaughter protected by EU *EXEMPTION FOR ANIMAL CRUELTY IN RELIGIOUS PRACTICE* *Kosher slaughter protected* by EU Religious Slaughter Safeguarded by EU** By ERICA MORRIS Totally Jewish Sunday, 25 June 2009 [Photo not in original article.] THIS IS KOSHER Lying in a pool of blood, a hapless beast finally expires following excruciating minutes, in which it is subjected to numerous cuts as it is sliced open while still alive and conscious. LONDON A regulation protecting religious slaughter in the European Union was welcomed by British Jewry this week, following a ruling enshrining into EU law legislation that will protect shechita from those who may seek to ban it in the future. The new law, which was approved last month and formally voted through on Monday, recognizes the validity of slaughter through religious methods and enforces that kosher meat may be sold freely throughout EU member states. Shechita UK Chairman Henry Grunwald told the Jewish News the ruling "shows just what can be achieved with communal cooperation", adding: "The new EU regulation will ensure that our community and communities across Europe will continue to practice shechita. This regulation protects the fundamental rights of Europe's religious minorities." The news came as several media outlets reported on findings from the Farm Animal Welfare Council claiming kosher and halal slaughter practices which require the animal not be pre-stunned before killing- cause the beasts "significant pain and distress". 'Tremendous achievement for the Jewish community' The report, published originally on 28 May, called on the British government to "launch a debate" with the Jewish and Muslim communities to end religious slaughter. Shimon Cohen, spokesman for Shechita UK, insisted that the council's report will not affect kosher practices, instead pointing to the EU's encouraging ruling in protecting the rite: "The suggestion that the British government would ban shechita isn't justified; it just would not happen. "The EU's ruling is a tremendous achievement for the Jewish community, and an enormous help for protecting kosher practices from those who might seek to obstruct it." Moshe Kantor, president of the European Jewish Congress, added that he was "delighted" with the EU's ruling, saying: "This regulation protects the fundamental rights of Europe's religious minorities. The alliance of the European Jewish Congress, the Conference of European Rabbis and Shechita EU have been working closely together to achieve these positive outcomes." Conference of European Rabbis Executive Director Aba Dunner also praised the move, commenting: "The regulation specifically makes provision for the killing of animals for food by religious communities to be exempted from the requirement for pre-stunning, and it contains no discriminatory labeling requirements for meat slaughtered using the shechita method nor for post-cut stunning to be enforced. No member state will be allowed to prevent hideous practice "Furthermore, no member state will be able to prevent meat slaughtered according to the Jewish religious method being traded in its territory." The issue of religious slaughter has been debated for years, following a 2003 report by the FAWC calling on the UK to repeal the right of the Jewish community to practice the religious rite, claiming that slaughter without pre-stunning was inhumane. The government eventually acknowledged the method of slaughter was humane following scientific support from the shechita body in March 2005. Now, the EU's ruling will act as a barrier from future attempts to ban the practice. But Kantor cautioned that this might not mean the end of opposition against religious slaughter, saying: "We must remain vigilant to ensure that individual governments do not seek to impose new requirements on religious slaughter." http://www.totallyjewish.com/news/national/?content_id=12015 One of the very first things Adolf Hitler did upon coming to power was to enact a comprehensive set of animal protection laws, which included a ban on kosher slaughter. Continuing the fight for a better world NEW ORDER Dept E PO Box 270486 Milwaukee WI 53227 http://www.theneworder.org We have to think the unthinkable to take science forward, even if it annoys the establishment. [...] Science proceeds by questioning its own assumptions and regarding every "fact" as provisional, so alternative hypotheses should be given an airing, if only to reaffirm the strength of orthodoxy. Science that pulls up the drawbridge on new ideas risks becoming sterile. [...] A paper questioning one aspect of Evolution is not evidence that Evolution itself is in trouble. Quite the opposite. It is science doing what it is supposed to do. We cannot censor ideas just because we are worried that a small bunch of religious fanatics will twist them for their own ends. *~ New Scientist* ( 6/20/2009 ) ISSN: 0262-4079** Last Edited By: Scott Smith 01 29-Jun-2009 22:14. Edited 3 times.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
davidwoolfe		#1	[url]	[-]
Member Posts: 1616 29-Jun-2009 17:20	Scott Smith 01 wrote: This is all nonsense and much of it should definitely NOT be legal in countries with separation of Church and State. If Jews (or Fundamentalist Christians and Muslims for that matter) want to behave according to their own mythologies, then they should move to Israel or Saudi Arabia, or some theocracy. I agree with you in general regarding the nuttiness of religious fundamentalism. Another good example is Christian scientists refusing to take their sick children to the hospital and whether or not that runs afoul of child endangerment laws. However, your comment above that I have bolded is flawed. Separation of church and state is reflected in the establishment clause of our first amendment ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"), meaning that the government may not pass laws or promulgate regulations which either explictly or implicitly endorse religion in general, or any particular religion. However, the questions of kosher slaughter, Christian scientists and medical care, native Americans and peyote rituals, etc. are "free exercise" issues ("or prohiting the free excercise thereof.") The free exercise clause is corralory to the establishment clause and is the flip side of separation of church and state. The government must not endorse religion, but at the same time it cannot interfere with its free exercise in the private sector. The Kosher slaughter issue squarely implicates the free exercise clause - namely your proposal to ban a religious practice on the grounds of secular, humanistic concerns. In order to justify this, the state must show a interest in doing so that is so compelling as to override the doctrine of free excerise. This is not really an issue of separation of church and state, but a moral-legal question that turns on the particularlities of the issue. For example, how strong is the state's interest in a) protecting child health and welfare, b) preventing unnecessary cruelty to animals, or c) ensuring that no one uses peyote? The end result may vary depending on the strength of the competing interest, but usually free exercise wins out. That, however, does not mean we do not have separation of church and state. I'm not really intimating an opinion on any moral issues raised by kosher slaughter here. I'm just pointing out that your thinking is a bit muddled on this point. Edit: my point above requires some clarification. The establishment clause is our primary legal framework for enforcing the doctrine of separation of church and state. However, the free exercise clause also relates to the issue in less direct manner. If the state can ban religious practices, it can certainly do so in a selective manner. So if the state decides that Christianity is to be the one, true religion, it can selectively ban particular practices of other religions, be they Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, etc. Allowing unfettered banning of religious practice on the basis of secular concerns is therefore a backdoor to eroding the barrier between church and state. Accordingly, your argument is bassackwards. - Dave Last Edited By: davidwoolfe 29-Jun-2009 17:30. Edited 1 time.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
deathonacracker		#2	[url]	[-]
Member Posts: 5367 29-Jun-2009 18:07	I highly recommend the articles by Marci Hamilton. Mike Remember what Irma Grese said right after the trial? I'll remind you: "It was our duty to exterminate anti-social elements, so that Germany's future would be assured."
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
Joachim Neander	Minority Rights	#3	[url]	[-]
Member Posts: 466 29-Jun-2009 18:42	The issue is, indeed, more complicated and not tied only to religiously motivated ways of butchering animals (Jewish and Moslem, too!). David mentioned the case of religious groups that deny their members generally accepted medical treatment (it does not only concern Christian Science). We here in Poland have problems with the Roma (Gypsy) minority, where child-age girls are married to older men (or boys) by their families, which is against State law. Another problem is that many Roma families don't send their children to school (it concerns first and foremost girls), which is also against State law. Lack of formal education is the biggest obstacle at the labor market, and so the circle of poverty/social exclusion closes. The liberal Left and the Roma spokespersons, of course, put the blame solely on the non-Roma majority, and because of the Nazi persecution of Roma, the executive is very reluctant in law enforcement. The situation is still worse in Germany, where a significant part of the 4 million Muslims freely practice their own, religiously motivated and justified, way of life apart from that of the non-Muslim (not only ethnically German!) majority, including blatant discrimation against women up to killing (which is done, however, by a family member under the age of 14 who cannot be punished). In theory, all German (and Polish) citizens are equal before the Law, but in practice, "some are more equal." This situation - and not, as politicians want to tell us, denying the Holocaust - is one of the main reasons for voting for Rightist parties in Germany. Superstition is nonsense, but the study of superstition is scholarship. Saul Lieberman, talmudist.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
Scott Smith 01		#4	[url]	[-]
Member Posts: 15270 29-Jun-2009 22:08 humble, lovable shoeshine boy	I agree with the point that religious practices should not always be banned, even if they violate the cultural tastes of the non-religious. But secular law should not pay any concessions whatever to religious "law." None. I believe that the First Amendment supports me on this. What I am objecting to is the notion that something cannot be wrong "because God said so," whether it is in the New Testament or the Torah, Koran, etc. For example, Americans routinely (or at least they used to) circumcise infant boys born in hospitals; this was done because during the 20th century religious Fundamentalists and Jews in the medical industry promoted the idea that this worked better than soap and water, and doctors like to routinely bill insurance companies for an easy procedure, which is in reality a religious-based rite (though most denominations do not actually demand it). Feminist history courses also note that medical literature from about a hundred years ago also claimed that routine circumcision would also reduce the horror of masturbation in boys--though it is hard to believe that physicians rather than pastors actually took this seriously. In any case, nobody asked the infants about this--and they don't even ask the parents most of the time either unless they don't have insurance. However, what if the procedure was more personally invasive, like a female circumcision, as practiced by matriarchs in African societies? Or Chinese foot binding, as practiced by matriarchs and wannabe upper class mothers of girls in pre-1911 China? Would religious or cultural "Fundamentalism" still take precedence--and even if this were a substantial minority that thought so? And should this be so even if it were coming from the majority? The current view is that religious practices trump most everything unless the majority has never really practiced it, like Native Americans smoking peyote--or the Maori tatooing the face. I am objecting strongly to that--not the peyote, as I could care less if Indians past the age of consent smoke it during their rain dances--but the notion that it cannot be legally or morally wrong because the church sanctions it, or because "God said so in Scripture." Berg is trying to make the argument (from the neo-Nazi mailing) that Jews are filthy degenerates because Kosher slaughter uses ancient practices which are less humane than current ones practices by non-Jews. I think this is a poor argument. I do agree with them that Kosher slaughtering practices are inhumane because there are better methods available that the Prophets didn't think about when the Pentateuch mythology was written. Also, I am guessing that he doesn't know very much about dressing out game animals and slaughtering livestock. I'm no woodsman but some of my relatives are real ranchers, and I have raised animals on a farm before. My Grandmother even used to dispatch bears in traps with a .22 pistol, one shot, and it was an instant kill if you hit a spot on their forehead about the size of a 25 cent coin. She did this because during the 1940s my Grandfather was employed as a U.S. Government trapper protecting livestock from predators during the war, when agricultural production needed to be maximized and the herds and wild animal habitats often conflicted. I suppose you could dispatch cattle more efficiently too if you worked in a slaughterhouse and knew what you were doing with an air-bolt or a pistol--I am just saying that this was not my (albeit very limited) experience and it was pretty gruesome, just the same--and no Jews were involved, LOL. We have to think the unthinkable to take science forward, even if it annoys the establishment. [...] Science proceeds by questioning its own assumptions and regarding every "fact" as provisional, so alternative hypotheses should be given an airing, if only to reaffirm the strength of orthodoxy. Science that pulls up the drawbridge on new ideas risks becoming sterile. [...] A paper questioning one aspect of Evolution is not evidence that Evolution itself is in trouble. Quite the opposite. It is science doing what it is supposed to do. We cannot censor ideas just because we are worried that a small bunch of religious fanatics will twist them for their own ends. *~ New Scientist* ( 6/20/2009 ) ISSN: 0262-4079**
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
davidwoolfe		#5	[url]	[-]
Member Posts: 1618 29-Jun-2009 22:46	Scott Smith 01 wrote: I agree with the point that religious practices should not always be banned, even if they violate the cultural tastes of the non-religious. But secular law should not pay any concessions whatever to religious "law." None. I believe that the First Amendment supports me on this. No, that's what I tried to explain above. The First Amendment does not back you up - it explictly precludes the passing of laws that interfere with the free exercise of religion... However, what if the procedure was more personally invasive, like a female circumcision, as practiced by matriarchs in African societies? Or Chinese foot binding, as practiced by matriarchs and wannabe upper class mothers of girls in pre-1911 China? Would religious or cultural "Fundamentalism" still take precedence--and even if this were a substantial minority that thought so? And should this be so even if it were coming from the majority? In extreme cases, the state's interest in precluding certain behavior can outweigh the free excercise clause. It's an open moral-legal question whether or not this should be done in a given case. One thing we cannot have, however, is a system whereby Congress can ban religious activities every single time the majority disapproves of the activities, in part because the "majority" will tend to be less understanding of the practices of non-majority religions, and hence the state is then being used as a vehicle to favor one religion over another. The free exercise clause would be moot if that was the case. I think you are familiar enough with colonial history, including who settled here and why, to understand why we have a free exercise clause, no? The current view is that religious practices trump most everything unless the majority has never really practiced it, like Native Americans smoking peyote--or the Maori tatooing the face. I am objecting strongly to that--not the peyote, as I could care less if Indians past the age of consent smoke it during their rain dances--but the notion that it cannot be legally or morally wrong because the church sanctions it, or because "God said so in Scripture." I wouldn't conflate "morally" with "legally" here. The two are not the same, and positively should not be the same. No one says you cannot morally condemn a practice even if it cannot be made illegal because the Constitution says it can't. There are all kinds of things that are arguably immoral which are not illegal, and should never be, and on the flipside all kinds of things which are not immoral that are nonetheless illegal. I more or less agree with the balance of your remarks. - Dave
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
nexgen586		#6	[url]	[-]
Member Posts: 1512 30-Jun-2009 00:44	Diversion ahead Mr.Smith, peyote tends to be chewed and ingested, the delivery method is far more effective that way than smoking of it I believe. Though when dried and prepared - that too is possible. I'm not a shaman. Have you not read your Carlos Castaneda and The Teachings of Don Juan Mr. Smith? Your contempt for religion and belief extends far. Being well aware of the controversy surrounding Carlos and being genuinely interested myself in hoaxes here is the truth about peyote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlos_Castaneda Misrepresentation of psychotropic substances His accounts of hallucinations from psychotropic plants paralleled the "Mind Expansion" hippy ideas of the 60's, and sold in large volumes to the hippies. In contrast, the indigenous Mexican indians that ingest Peyote and Datura do so very rarely, only once a year for peyote, in a deeply sacred communal ceremony, rather than on their own for philosophical insights. What Burroughs would have made of that is anybodies guess in his search in South America for yage. Speaking of South America I think that shooting bears sounds to me a far more humane method than does the gassing of whole families of water rodenta in situ. My Great Uncle worked for the Coypu Control in the wilds of Inglan's East Anglia in the 60's. The CC.was setup to deal with the problem of coypu destruction. He had a nice little job culling these beaver-toothed, soft under furred 1 metre long creatures with gas. These rats came from South America originally and were bred for their soft fur called, "nutria." I say "wilds," I of course really mean the flat and marshy terrain with windmills, dykes and ditches and reeds everywhere. It did result finally in the enormous toothed beasts being entirely eradicated by 1989 however. Although I hear that one small colony of survivors have been reported, no firm enough sightings make this a now almost cryptozoological phenomena instead of one which was once every-day. Here is a humourous flavour (purely for the lulz) of the pre Final solution of the escaped Coypu problem in the Norfolk marshes. My relative had not the heart to kill all the coypu he found in one particular burrow so he allowed the runt of the litter to live. He subsequently named it, "Joey" and kept it in an old little grey rabbit hutch. It drunk beer bizarrely enough outside the local pub, went for walkies with him and ate an entirely herbivorous diet similar to that of Mr. Moose's. Mainly of lettuce. It also terrified ladies with its awesoma rat like powerz - particularly when he appeared on stage with it. Joey died naturally of heart failure and not of gas. I wonder if Bradley has taken peyote? End of Diversion carri-on! Edit well quite a bit of additional info and some resetting out of the text. NexGen Ralph: "I would think that neo-nazis would support the "exterminationist" line, as then a precedent would have been established for future conduct, so that the anti-"exterminationists" are objectively anti-neo-nazis." See The Last Political Testament of ADOLF HITLER for an overview of this, especially the more humane means section where the concept of any keeping of a Great State Secret viz a viz this odd business of the Evacuation of the Jews is made null, made void, made man-made, death. Last Edited By: nexgen586 30-Jun-2009 12:45. Edited 1 time.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
KentFord9		#7	[url]	[-]
Member Posts: 1910 30-Jun-2009 00:53	Vodoun and Santeria have run afoul of these double binds--free exercise of religion, on the one hand, and laws prohibiting certain practices which the freely exercising religions hold dear, on the other. Also, in the US, the Anabaptist sects--Hutterite and Amish--face these dilemmas. I don't think that they're easily resolved, although, despite my irreligiosity, I tend to come down in favor of the religious practices held dear. All this would be absurd if it weren't happening. -- Jose Saramago
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
Scott Smith 01		#8	[url]	[-]
Member Posts: 15271 30-Jun-2009 00:57 humble, lovable shoeshine boy	Crap, I hit send and my system dumped. I lost a huge post in response to David's response. Crap. We have to think the unthinkable to take science forward, even if it annoys the establishment. [...] Science proceeds by questioning its own assumptions and regarding every "fact" as provisional, so alternative hypotheses should be given an airing, if only to reaffirm the strength of orthodoxy. Science that pulls up the drawbridge on new ideas risks becoming sterile. [...] A paper questioning one aspect of Evolution is not evidence that Evolution itself is in trouble. Quite the opposite. It is science doing what it is supposed to do. We cannot censor ideas just because we are worried that a small bunch of religious fanatics will twist them for their own ends. *~ New Scientist* ( 6/20/2009 ) ISSN: 0262-4079**
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
nexgen586		#9	[url]	[-]
Member Posts: 1514 30-Jun-2009 01:02	I thought you used notepad Mr. Smith and then copypasta that into the yuku. I find preview a God send. Bah. Never mind the Internets aren't everything... Anyway I'm off to bed now. NexGen Ralph: "I would think that neo-nazis would support the "exterminationist" line, as then a precedent would have been established for future conduct, so that the anti-"exterminationists" are objectively anti-neo-nazis." See The Last Political Testament of ADOLF HITLER for an overview of this, especially the more humane means section where the concept of any keeping of a Great State Secret viz a viz this odd business of the Evacuation of the Jews is made null, made void, made man-made, death.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
KentFord9		#10	[url]	[-]
Member Posts: 1911 30-Jun-2009 01:05	mutter mutter grumble harumph Scottish speed freak grumble mutter mutter All this would be absurd if it weren't happening. -- Jose Saramago
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
Jonathan Harrison		#11	[url]	[-]
Member Posts: 4180 30-Jun-2009 01:40	Scott Smith 01 wrote: Crap, I hit send and my system dumped. I lost a huge post in response to David's response. Crap. It was a mercy killing.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
deathonacracker		#12	[url]	[-]
Member Posts: 5369 30-Jun-2009 12:35	KentFord9 wrote: mutter mutter grumble harumph Scottish speed freak grumble mutter mutter The same thing has happened to me. I finally write the perfect response and bomb. It's lost. I debate doing it over, but it just isn't the same. Notepad is a pain, but next time . . . Mike Remember what Irma Grese said right after the trial? I'll remind you: "It was our duty to exterminate anti-social elements, so that Germany's future would be assured."
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
nexgen586		#13	[url]	[-]
Member Posts: 1516 30-Jun-2009 12:59	You can always pull it down on a Windoze box by pressing "control" and "escape" together then selecting "run" and typing "notepad" or "wordpad" in the little box then pressing "enter." wordpad has more options. Save early and save often. coypugassingsneverhappened.com learn everything. Maybe they didn't actually - looking at what is available upon the Internets, it seems that trapping and shooting was the more humane method. I'm awaiting further details... NexGen Ralph: "I would think that neo-nazis would support the "exterminationist" line, as then a precedent would have been established for future conduct, so that the anti-"exterminationists" are objectively anti-neo-nazis." See The Last Political Testament of ADOLF HITLER for an overview of this, especially the more humane means section where the concept of any keeping of a Great State Secret viz a viz this odd business of the Evacuation of the Jews is made null, made void, made man-made, death.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
Scott Smith 01		#14	[url]	[-]
Member Posts: 15272 30-Jun-2009 17:01 humble, lovable shoeshine boy	nexgen586 wrote: I thought you used notepad Mr. Smith and then copypasta that into the yuku. I find preview a God send. I do if I'm not in a hurry. D'oh! We have to think the unthinkable to take science forward, even if it annoys the establishment. [...] Science proceeds by questioning its own assumptions and regarding every "fact" as provisional, so alternative hypotheses should be given an airing, if only to reaffirm the strength of orthodoxy. Science that pulls up the drawbridge on new ideas risks becoming sterile. [...] A paper questioning one aspect of Evolution is not evidence that Evolution itself is in trouble. Quite the opposite. It is science doing what it is supposed to do. We cannot censor ideas just because we are worried that a small bunch of religious fanatics will twist them for their own ends. *~ New Scientist* ( 6/20/2009 ) ISSN: 0262-4079**
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
nexgen586		#15	[url]	[-]
Member Posts: 1521 30-Jun-2009 17:34	better not use quick reply next time then... Ralph: "I would think that neo-nazis would support the "exterminationist" line, as then a precedent would have been established for future conduct, so that the anti-"exterminationists" are objectively anti-neo-nazis." See The Last Political Testament of ADOLF HITLER for an overview of this, especially the more humane means section where the concept of any keeping of a Great State Secret viz a viz this odd business of the Evacuation of the Jews is made null, made void, made man-made, death.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

Kosher Slaughter Rites Again ...

Kosher Slaughter Rites Again ...

Misrepresentation of psychotropic substances

Quick Reply