On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 22:23:54 -0500,
"Al" <agg@spammenot.net> wrote:

"Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com> wrote>

jessie <pub@austin.com> wrote:

Craig chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com> wrote:

Al <agg@spammenot.net> wrote:

Craig Chilton <xanadu222@mchsi.com> wrote:

Al <agg@spammenot.net> wrote:

Charles Hohenstein <chohenste@skyenet.net> wrote:

[ ... ]

Thanks for posting this, Al. It reveals the idiocy of those

believe

that the framers intended to establish a "wall of separation"

between

religion and public life.

Wrong. Washington had a perfect right to **state his

in that manner, and since that's all that it was, it was no
infringement upon the very REAL, nacessary, and valuable wall of
separation between church and state that FAIR-minded Americans
will never allow anything to impair. As for "idiots" -- you need

look

no farther than your nearest theocat wanna-be to find one. And

that's

probably as close as your nearest mirror.

I particularly like the opening phrase -- "Whereas it is the

of all

Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey

will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his

protection

and favor..." -- which just vexes the heck out of the humanistic

liberal

leftists.

Hey!! As SENSIBLE and INTELLIGENT as most socially-liberal
humanists tend to be (and forget that "leftist" hate-crap -- that
applies to old-syle communists, which are pretty much extinct, and
people who call fair-minded egalitarians that sount like total

when they do it), they would say that George Washington had a
perfect right to voice his OPINION in that manner. His comment

no force of law, infringed with no one's rights, and anyone who

wanted

to had a perfect right to completely disregard it.

So -- BOTTOM LINE: It probably wouldn't bother ANY person,

the above-stated reasons. Probably not even the atheists.

Unfortunately, Craig, you have an anti-God view of history...

No, I don't. I have an ACCURATE view of history.

...not unusual for humanistic liberals.

I wouldn't know about that, since I'm a Christian. And like MOST
sensible, fair-minded and tolerant christians -- which is about 94%

all American Christians -- I'm a *social* liberal.

This country was founded on a belief in God Almighty...

Partially. Along with a lot of other things that were germaine

the times.

...and the founding fathers did not hide that fact.

NOR did some of them subscribe to it, particularly.

God is mentioned in numerous documents dating to the founding
of our country. In fact, belief and faith in God was a given.

Nothing wrong with that, as long as the state isn't given any
authority over the church, or vice-versa.

BTW, church and state separation is nowhere found in the
Declaration of Independence nor the Constitution.

It's CLEARLY implied in the First Amendment of the Constitution.
Which, fortunately, has the force of law. Unlike Jefferson's
well-written "wall of separation" document.

And NOW, more than ever before, Americans must REJECT very
vocally and forcibly (withing legal parameters) any and all attempt

this nations's 5% theocratic wanna-bes to push its several hateful

mindless, bigoted agendas. You can COUNT on my being in the midst
of them for that fight. Until the beautiful day comes, hopefully,

four years when we can say Good-bye FOREVER to Warmonger-in-
Thief Bush and welcome HILLARY to the Presidency!

-- Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com>

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Every time a person supports bigotry in public, and presents NO
relevant FACTS to back his/her stance in behalf of a loathsome
agenda against individual liberties and human rights, that person
has -- ironically -- further **damaged** the cause he/she supports.

And every time a fair-minded and sensible egalitarian opposes
such a bigot, publicly, and **presents** relevant FACTS that are
damaging to the bigot's agenda, that TOO is an additional nail in
the coffin lid of the agenda, and a push of that casket CLOSER
to the Drain of Extinction -- its well-deserved ultimate

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

(E-Mail address is valid when removing _ from it.)

From the time of Christ Christians have been persecuted often in

their

own countries. Anti-Christian behavior is racist and should be made
illegal. For we can no longer tolerate this persecution of

by the secularists and other religious groups.

Uh-huh. Right. Since you brought that up, let's see the nature of
persecution vis-a-vis Christianity, today. Some time back, D. James
Kennedy (one of the 8 notorious oligarchical leaders of the RRR cult)
inspired THIS response to one of his "crusades" against personal
liberties in the name of "opposing persecution." ---

D. JAMES KENNEDY'S CRUSADE
to SUBVERT CHRISTIANITY

Part 3 of 5

D. James Kennedy of Coral Ridge Ministries released (in 1999)
his so-called "Spiritual State of the Nation" Survey. This 5-part
series of posts will take his questions and look at them, point-by-
point, with an eye to seeing how relevant they are, and how well they
square with the Bible, with respect to the following premise:

PREMISE --

The Bible's primary theme is that Christians should love their
neigbors, as well as God. And Jesus' Geat Commission to
his followers is to spread the gospel to all the world, and lead
others to Him.

PROBLEM --

Even though the Bible contains NO directive for Christian
believers to attempt to IMPOSE its values upon non-believers
(and in at least one place specifically instructs us NOT to --
1 Cor. 5:12-13), D. James Kennedy and some other highly-visible
Christian leaders (such as Jerry Falwell, Beverly La Haye, Gary
Bauer, Charles Colson, James Dobson, Donald Wildmon, and Pat
Robertson, with syndicated newspaper columnist Cal Thomas
assisting)* who share his views have MISSED that point, and seem
quite willing to try to impose CHURCH discipline (strictly reserved
per the Bible for employment with respect to fellow believers ONLY)
upon society **in general**. This approach has three MAJOR flaws:
(1) God never appointed Christians to be enforcers of His Word
uponthe world; the bible authorizes NO such Gestapo, (2) most non-
Christians have no interest in attempting to distinguish between the
deluded Christians/pseudo-Christians that comprise only a mere
6% or so of America's professed Christians who subscribe and
adhere to the phony dogmas of False Teacher D. James Kennedy
and his fellow RRR cult leaders... and the remaining 94% of
fair-minded and sensible Christians who are tolerant, friendly, and
generally (to the extent possible by humans in varying degrees)
Bible-following and -believing. The latter wanting and having
NOTHING TO DO with such change-the-world-against-its-will
philosophies as are practiced by the tiny misguided and wrong-
headed minority -- the RRR cult's lemmings.

* Note the ABSENCE of Billy Graham from this list. Graham
is a perfect example of a Christian believer who practices
his faith, and preaches, BIBLICALLY, without the taint of
false doctrine.

Thus, Flaw #3 occurs: The misperception by non-Christians that
obtrusive people who seek to restrict or destroy many of their
individual rights is REPRESENTATIVE of Christians as a whole is
subverting the efforts of the OTHER 94% of America's Christians to
effectively accomplish what they were commanded to do: Carry out
the Great Commission. Because after the world's non-Christians
have observed the intolerant antics of the tiny, but highly-vocal and
-visible, minority, many of them want NOTHING TO DO with Christianity.
And THIS is leading to a FOURTH problem: The likelihood that a
backlash against Christians as a whole will develop due to the
intolerance of the few misguided ones. Leading, eventually, to the
prophecied persecution of Christians described in the Bible. How
ironic that such persecution may well become a reality simply
because 6% of purported Christians in just one high-profile nation
never bothered to **challenge** their false-teacher leaders phony
dogmas, but chose instead to follow them down that precipitous path!

KENNEDY'S SURVEY --

...Is utterly meaningless and worthless, with respect to ever
being useful in convincing any but the most gullible observer of its
results. That's because it is administered only to those on Kennedy's
mailing list, and to those who request it after watching one of his
broadcasts. It's a survey to his "choir" ONLY, and in NO way
represents the views of the American people, or even American
Christians, as a whole. It is FURTHER degraded by the fact that it
carries the name and address of its respondent, in each case, thus
destroying any hope of eliciting candid objectivity and complete
honesty on the part of the respondents.

The ONLY possible uses to anyone that I can see from this device
are: (1) It enables Kennedy to see how much he's in touch with the
lemmings to whom he's been preaching, and to see the degree to
which they're towing his lying and hateful line, and (2) It's a fund-
raising vehicle forKennedy, since he asks for money at the end of it
in THIS order of denominations: $50 $25 $100 $____

(Isn't it strange that he doesn't seem to know that "25" comes
BEFORE "50?" :) )

ANALYSIS OF THE SURVEY: Part 3 of 5

Section D -- RELIGIOUS FREEDOM ISSUES

Question #1 -- "Should Congress approve a measure to
secure the rights of religious freedom and
expression in public life?"

Yes No Undecided/No Answer

Analysis: A silly question. I suggest that Kennedy have another
look at the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Those
rights ALREADY exist, and are limited ONLY in a few areas
wherein the U.S. Supreme Court has fairly determined that
reasonable separation of church and state should be maintained.

Question #2 -- "Should pastors and others be allowed
to publicly speak out against sexual sins,
including homosexuality, without fear of
being charged with a 'hate-crime?'"

Analysis: First of all, "sexual sins" in the eyes of WHOM?
God? He hasn't appointed anyone to be an ENFORCER of
his precepts. Kennedy? Let's think about this one for a moment.

Would it be regarded a hate crime if someone got up on a
soapbox (pulpit or otherwise) and began pewing bigotry against
Jews... or blacks... and ADVOCATED the **denial** of their
rights? If you don't thinks so, try doing it and see what happens.

The same applies to doing likewise with respect to homo-sexuals,
who do no more harm than do Jews and blacks.

Inciting hatred is a criminal act, and should be treated as such.
Such speech plainly is no more worthy of protection by the First
Amendment than is shouting "FIRE!!" in a crowded theater when
no fire exists., or inciting a crowd to riot.

Question #3 -- "Should Congress approve a measure
protecting the public display of the Ten
Commandments so the ACLU cannot
destroy this right?

Analysis: One needs to keep Kennedy's views in perspective
with this one. Even though the ACLU pretty much always stands
as a key DEFENDER of our individual freedoms and rights,
Kennedy hatefully and vehemently OPPOSES them and slanders
them regularly and frequently. WHY? Because the ACLU includes,
among the rights it defends, ones that KENNEDY seeks to forestall
or destroy. Such as much having to do with freedom of the press.
And almost everything having to do with homosexuals being guar-
anteed EQUAL rights, including same-sex marriage. And the right
of women to choose the enormously-beneficial remedy of abortion.

The Ten Commandments thing is just a red herring that Kennedy's
using in his constant crusade to make the ACLU look bad. And in
the end, I expect that simple public DISPLAY of the 10 Command-
ments will be found to be just fine with everyone! After all, to be
in line with the First Amendment pronciple of the separation of church
and state, all that needs to be avoided is the display of them on or
in PUBLIC lands and buildings. There is NO prohibition of religious
displays on/in PRIVATE lands and buildings. And if enough people
desired to do that, there's little way that people wouldn't be seeing
them constanlly, no matter where they looked! There could be
MILLIONS of such displays, and neither the ACLU nor anyone else
would have any objection. (Now isn't THAT somewhere around
98% on the Irony Meter?)

Question #4 -- "Should Congress and the President
pressure governments around the world
to stop the persecution of Christians?"

Analysis: Isn't it STRANGE that Kennedy didn't word this question
just a little BIT differently? Such as... "...around the world to
stop religious persecution?"

Would Kennedy be just as quick to defend BUDDHISTS suffering
persecution in other parts of the world? Muslims? Or WICCANS,
perhaps?

If not, then Kennedy is merely a shallow hypocrite.

And... bottom line... NO form of religious persecution, ANY-
WHERE in the world, should be condoned or tolerated by
ANY society of government. Nor should any other group be
persecuted, such as gays, races of people, ethnic groups, etc.

What a shame that D. James Kennedy knows so little about
TOLERANCE and ACCEPTANCE. And as an RRR dult leader,
he is **typical** of the others in that moral deficiency

It is pure hate that is being poured out on Christians and is by

far

the most pervasive form of bigotry and racists activity in the world.

ALONG with GENDER discrimination against literally hundreds of
millions of the world's women... and homophobia... and ethnic
discrimination... and discrimination against OTHER religious groups,
such as Jews, Wiccans, Hindus, etc. The latter often being at the
hands of PSEUDO-Christians.

Anything that someone says that might upset a Christian is
anti-Christian and racist and pure hate speak.

We can no longer stand by and see any Christian persecuted.

OR any homosexuals. OR any Jews. OR any women.
OR any Serbs. OR any egalitarians, who **defend**
EVERYONE'S personal liberties.

We must organize like the other special interest groups
and demand equal treatment under the law.

Fine. Just don't OMIT anyone from that equal treatment!

What does this protestant junk have to do with Holy Orthodoxy,
the one and only True Church?

"Peotestant junk?" What color is the sky on YOUR planet? All I
did was present the FACTS.

And what in the hell is the "Church of Holy Orthodoxy?" Some-
thing that someone came up with in Podunk, Iowa? Never heard
of it... but if it claims to be the "only True Church," then it must
be another cult. ALL churches that make THAT ludicrous claim
are cults.



-- Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com>

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Every time a person supports bigotry in public, and presents NO
relevant FACTS to back his/her stance in behalf of a loathsome
agenda against individual liberties and human rights, that person
has -- ironically -- further **damaged** the cause he/she supports.

And every time a fair-minded and sensible egalitarian opposes
such a bigot, publicly, and **presents** relevant FACTS that are
damaging to the bigot's agenda, that TOO is an additional nail in
the coffin lid of the agenda, and a push of that casket CLOSER
to the Drain of Extinction -- its well-deserved ultimate destination.
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

(E-Mail address is valid when removing _ from it.)