Pelagic
Posted: Fri Dec 09, 2005 6:13 am
Relating to or occurring or living in the ocean.
Hey, portokalos, do you think that πελαγος is related to πελεκαν?ar·chi·pel·a·go (är'kə-pĕl'ə-gō') pronunciation
n., pl. -goes or -gos.
1. A large group of islands: the Philippine archipelago.
2. A sea, such as the Aegean, containing a large number of scattered islands.
[Italian Arcipelago, the Aegean Sea, alteration (influenced by arci-, chief, archi-) of Medieval Latin Ēgēopelagus : Latin Aegaeus, Ēgēus, Aegean (from Greek Aigaios) + Latin pelagus, sea (from Greek pelagos).]
Probably not. For that precisely that reason, the authors of the US Constitution (that was the context in which I was writing) - with the help of a pointed reminder by Thomas Jefferson - decided that religion (whether to believe in the supernatural or not, and if so, what to believe and in what sort of cult to enshrine that belief) is best left to private decision. Otherwise, by attempting to regulate belief, the state attempts, in your metaphor, to make all wear the same trousers. For an example that may be closer to home for you, portokalos, than that of so young a country as the United States, consider the history of the Greek Church, with its long list of doctrinal struggles related to Arianism, Nestorianism, monophysitism, iconoclasism, etc, etc, which also show the difficulties in trying to make everybody wear those same trousers. For those who believe in an Intelligence greater than that vouchsafed to humankind, the (to me, at least) obvious conclusion must be that our attempts to interpret that Intelligence must be fallible and limited. Given this fact, we should let everybody choose their own trousers, or indeed, if they prefer, to wear shorts instead....... Can all the people wear the same trouser?
I have some difficulty in understanding what you mean by «give them to the viuses (sic) of people». If you can elucidate further, I shall attempt to respond....Life and death is too important realities to give them to viuses of people.God gave us mind.
Just for clarification, the "what to believe" was left to the individual only in the sense that the different states were free to have a "state religion" or not!the authors of the US Constitution (that was the context in which I was writing) - with the help of a pointed reminder by Thomas Jefferson - decided that religion (whether to believe in the supernatural or not, and if so, what to believe and in what sort of cult to enshrine that belief) is best left to private decision. Otherwise, by attempting to regulate belief, the state attempts, in your metaphor, to make all wear the same trousers.
In American constitutional law, the section of the First Amendment concerning religion is generally divided into two clauses: the Establishment Clause - “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion;” and the Free Exercise Clause - “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” At the time of adoption, and for over a hundred years after, the Bill of Rights was construed to apply only to the federal legislature.
Religious Freedom in the United States of AmericaThus, the whole power over the subject of religion is left exclusively to the State Governments to be acted upon according to their sense of justice and the state constitutions.
Yes, indeed, most notably in the coup d'état of 2000, in which jurisdiction over voting procedures in the State of Florida was unconstitutionally lifted from the Supreme Court of that state to the Supreme Court of the United States. Surprisingly (to some), expediency won out over principles among supporters of States' Rights.......
States' rights have undergone an unfortunate subjugation to Federal domination, ...
Ah, you get what you pay for on The Internet, and you pay for what you get.. . . I pulled my harpoon out of my dirty red bandana
Harp in this case is not that ethereal-sounding stringed insturment but rather a mouth harp or harmonica.I pulled out my harp out from my dirty red bandana