"John Knight" <jwknight at polbox.com> wrote:
>>"Jd" <JDay123 at BellSouth.com> wrote in message
>news:3da610ab.35954736 at news1.lig.bellsouth.net...>> Bob LeChevalier <lojbab at lojban.org> wrote:
>>>> >>JDay123 at BellSouth.com (Jd) wrote:
>> >>The fact that YOU say "that there is none" (scientific basis) means
>> >>that YOU can't argue race scientifically just as you can't argue
>> >>religion scientifically if you say "there is no proof".
>> >There's a difference. We cannot argue religion on the basis of
>> >science because by definition religion deals with things that are
>> >supernatural and not natural.
>>>> But you can argue religion before the law just as you can argue race
>> before the law.
>>>> >Now if you want us to believe that the difference between races is
>> >supernatural in nature, then indeed science has nothing to say. But
>> >if there is a supposedly natural basis for race, then science should
>> >be able to detect it. But of course it cannot.
>>>> I want you to believe that science is insufficient when it comes to
>> addressing both race and religious issues compared to the way law
>> can and does address those issues.
>>>> >>Thereforescience is basically irrelevant to the point of being useless
>> >>reguards to 2 of the most important issues of today if you hold to
>> >>your view.
>>>> >Science is irrelevant to religion. Whether religion is an important
>> >issue depends on your point of view.
>>>> According to the law, religion is just as important as race. The
>> fact that either race or religion can be or are irrelevent to
>> science only shows the shortcomings of science.
>>>> According to the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, being born in
>> America entitles one to citizenship and to equal protection under
>> the law. That is were race, religion and or minority status comes
>> into play in that all are entitled to the same protection under the
>> law reguardless of the aforementioned.
>>>> >Science is quite relevant to race - it says that there are no races
>> >other than the human race. And race would not be an issue at all, if
>> >racists like you did not make it an issue. It certainly is not one of
>> >the most important issues of today.
>>>> Race is an issue because there are various races which at times,
>> claim that they are being discriminated against because of their
>>>> >>"Race" is associated with "color" in the U.S. Constitution, Bob.
>>>> >Actually it isn't. If race was based on color, then they would not
>> >have needed to use both words, only one of them.
>>>> Race and color are for all practical purposes, the same. "Color" has
>> been and is used as a legal term for identifying humans. Here's a
>> case from the Supreme Court (related to the 14th Amendment) which
>> proves it, beyond a "reasonable doubt"....
>>>> EVANS V. NEWTON 382 U.S. 296 NO. 61. ARGUED NOVEMBER 9-10, 1965. -
>> DECIDED JANUARY 17, 1966. - 220 GA. 280, 138 S.E.2D 573, REVERSED.
>>>> " QUESTIONS OF EQUAL PROTECTION OF ALL PEOPLE WITHOUT DISCRIMINATION
>> ON ACCOUNT OF COLOR ARE OF PARAMOUNT IMPORTANCE IN THIS GOVERNMENT
>> DEDICATED TO EQUAL JUSTICE FOR ALL" (Justice Black)
>>>> Also, the following proves (according to law) that if as you claim,
>> science says that there is only one race - you or science is wrong.
>> Fact of the matter is that law recognizes that whites and blacks are
>> 2 distictly different races. Again - from the Supreme Court which
>> is the law of the land....
>>>> SWAIN V. ALABAMA 380 U.S. 202 NO. 64. ARGUED DECEMBER 8, 1964. -
>> DECIDED MARCH 8, 1965. - 275 ALA. 508, 156 SO. 2D 368, AFFIRMED.
>>>> "VENIRES DRAWN FROM THE JURY BOX MADE UP IN THIS MANNER
>> UNQUESTIONABLY CONTAINED A SMALLER PROPORTION OF THE NEGRO COMMUNITY
>> THAN OF THE WHITE COMMUNITY. BUT A DEFENDANT IN A CRIMINAL CASE IS
>> NOT CONSTITUTIONALLY ENTITLED TO DEMAND A PROPORTIONATE NUMBER OF
>> HIS RACE ON THE JURY WHICH TRIES HIM NOR ON THE VENIRE OR JURY ROLL
>> FROM WHICH PETIT JURORS ARE DRAWN." VIRGINIA V. RIVES, 100 U.S. 313,
>> 322-323; GIBSON V. MISSISSIPPI, 162 U.S. 565; THOMAS V. TEXAS, 212
>> U.S. 278, 282; CASSELL V. TEXAS, 339 U.S. 282.
>>>> >>In fact, bills from the 107th Congress show that "race" is used in
>> >>conjuction with terms like "nationality" and "minorities" and they
>> >>show that lawmakers use findings of science in their efforts to pass
>> >>laws dealing with "race".
>>>> >Where is science used to pass laws dealing with race in the following?
>>>> I laid it out clearly. If you didn't get it perhaps you should
>> start from scratch and check those 3 encyclodedias of yours.
>> Didn't you say they had tons of information which my encyclopedia
>>>> >That a law mentions "race" does not mean anything about how race is
>> >determined. And as I've said, in practice, race is generally based on
>> >self-identification - you are whatever race you say you are.
>>>> That the Supreme Court addresses race and religion similarily shows
>> that folks look to law instead of science for answers to real life
>> issues. The highest court in the land acknowledges that it's
>> citizens cherish the right to vote along both racial and religious
>> lines, and that government has no right to interfere with those
>>>> WRIGHT V. ROCKEFELLER 376 U.S. 52 NO. 96. ARGUED NOVEMBER 19, 1963.
>> - DECIDED FEBRUARY 17, 1964. - 211 F. SUPP. 460, AFFIRMED.
>>>> "OF COURSE RACE, LIKE RELIGION, PLAYS AN IMPORTANT ROLE IN THE
>> CHOICES WHICH INDIVIDUAL VOTERS MAKE FROM AMONG VARIOUS CANDIDATES.
>> (FN12) BUT GOVERNMENT HAS NO BUSINESS DESIGNING ELECTORAL DISTRICTS
>> ALONG RACIAL OR RELIGIOUS LINES."
>>>> This is reality, Bob. Our government is FOR all of us voting for
>> the man of our color if we want too. They are FOR us voting
>> Christians into office simply because they are "Christian" if we
>> want to.
>>>> If you are against those things, well, I'll let the readers decide
>> for themselves whatever they want too about you.
>>>>The polls show that most Americans would immediately, if given the choice,
>exile jews and "liberals" and niggers. Proposition 187 was a vote based on
>RACE, regardless of what lojbab claims, and two thirds of Californians voted
>FOR this proposition AGAINST illegal immigration of more muds.
>http://christianparty.net/poll.htm>>There's really nothing more to discuss. We need to do exactly what our
>Founding Forefathers like Thomas Jefferson would have done--take decisive
>action to rid the nation of this scourge of jews and muds.
You're right, there isn't anything left to discuss. Even so, I keep
on keeping on less they be the only ones saying anything.