Religions > Atheism > Re: Does Anyone Believe This Is A Christian Nation Out There?
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
18 Jul 2006 12:12:13 PM |
| Object: |
Re: Does Anyone Believe This Is A Christian Nation Out There? |
"Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote:
:|Your premise is flawed.
:|
:|I think that virtually everybody that thinks we are a Christian nation, only
:|thinks that is true from a cultural perspective. I do not know anybody that
:|thinks we should run the country through Biblical law.
:|
:|I know lots of people that will site Biblical principle as the basis for the
:|cultural argument, and make the case that culture stands for something
:|within the law. But, this is different than setting law based on the Bible.
:|
:|I could be wrong about this, but I don't think so.
This only shows how far up your ***** you have your head.
I post this at the end of 95% of my posts and replies
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
I am willing to bet you have never examined it nor will you ever examine
it.
I have also posted it to you directly and others have posted similar
things to you
***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the US and a couple from overseas as well]
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote
"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"
That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.
It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.
*****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
|
| User: "Jeff Strickland" |
|
| Title: Re: Does Anyone Believe This Is A Christian Nation Out There? |
18 Jul 2006 01:38:22 PM |
|
|
<buckeye-elo@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:8j5qb21lpb9bu9gdie7s1g0av9ku5rf2kb@4ax.com...
"Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote:
:|Your premise is flawed.
:|
:|I think that virtually everybody that thinks we are a Christian nation,
only
:|thinks that is true from a cultural perspective. I do not know anybody
that
:|thinks we should run the country through Biblical law.
:|
:|I know lots of people that will site Biblical principle as the basis for
the
:|cultural argument, and make the case that culture stands for something
:|within the law. But, this is different than setting law based on the
Bible.
:|
:|I could be wrong about this, but I don't think so.
This only shows how far up your ***** you have your head.
I post this at the end of 95% of my posts and replies
Exactly. You post the same line of crap whether it actually applies to the
topic of discussion or not. You NEVER post anything original. Maybe your
view is blocked by the foggy window in your navel and you can't see out
while your head is up your *****. Which reminds me, your proctologist called.
He found your head.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Does Anyone Believe This Is A Christian Nation Out There? |
22 Jul 2006 09:05:14 AM |
|
|
"Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote:
:|Exactly. You post the same line of crap whether it actually applies to the
:|topic of discussion or not. You NEVER post anything original. Maybe your
:|view is blocked by the foggy window in your navel and you can't see out
:|while your head is up your *****. Which reminds me, your proctologist called.
:|He found your head.
Bawl, whime, bellyache. gnash your teeth and rent your clothes *****.
Now go get u a six pack and settle down in front of the TV to watch Fox
news
Jeff Strickland displays his "intelligence and knowledge"
"Jeff Strickland" wrote:
:|But the Adams son was a child, or relative child, when the Adams father was
:|Prez.
ACTUAL FACTS:
John Adams 1735-1826.
President 1797-1801
John Q. Adams 1767-1848
President 1825-1829
J.Q. Adams was approx 30 years old when his father was elected president.
That hardly makes him a child or relative child
One more time jeffy dazzles us with his ignorance
********************************************************************
NOTE THE CONFUSION IN HIS OWN THINKING:
Not mandatory, but federal law permits, indeed it compels--or nearly
compels—
hehehehe
Jeffy strickland wrote
:|But reciting the Pledge is not a mandatory activity, the clients can opt out
:|of the daily exercise if they want to. Even Newdow's own daughter could opt
:|out, but he was not satisfied with that because she was still exposed to the
:|word, God coming from the other children.
:|
:|And Federal Law permits the recital of the Pledge, indeed it compels -- or
:|nearly compels -- the recital. State Education Code is attempting to follow
:|Federal Law in this regard.
ACTUAL FACTS:
Jeffy - I don't know sh*t about law - strickland messes up AGAIN
Ever hear of this before
http://66.34.103.193/ufc/Other/Gov-Religion/Pledge.htm
1943: The Supreme Court rules that students can not be forced to recite
the pledge. (West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette)
The USSC has also stated that "opting out, such as leaving the room, etc is
not acceptable.
************************************
Jeffy - I am "against" vouchers but I have offered every pro voucher
argument ever offered on the internet in voucher discussions for at least a
year to two years now - strickland
******************************************
[Jeffy had asked another]
Why do you feel the constant need to be nasty?
To you? Because you are an ignoramus who not only does not check his
facts, but posts endlessly repeating stuff that has been disproven
several times. You also seem to think that your unsupported opinion
is of interest to other people.
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier,
**********************************
[To that I add]
Jeff - I don't have a clue what I am talking about, but I am good at
pretending and making it up as I go along so don't confuse me with the
facts, my mind is made up. I stereotype and prejudge. It has always worked
well in the past, why change now - Strickland
**********
Jeffy -- maybe, I heard, but didn't bother to do any independent research,
[ He says it gives him a headache] I like to believe things I want to hear.
I don't like knowing the facts if they aren't going to agree with what I
want to believe and I especially love passing along on the internet, as
facts, things I haven't a clue about their accuracy -- Strickland )
*******************************
[To Jeff Strickland]
I find it "interesting" that you are so incredibly stupid that you totally
missed the citation to the _New York Times_.
You seem to have remembered to take your one-a-day stupid pills.
Gray Shockley
**********
"Jeff Strickland" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote:
I think I see more intolerance.
"Gray Shockley" <gray-87a@cybercoffee.org> wrote in message
Oh, no, no, no.
You neither "think" nor "see".
Is that better?
*******************************
"Jeff Strickland" wrote:
As far as I know, they did not lower the goals.
Since you don't know *anything*, that is unsurprising.
lojbab
*******************************
Jeff Strickland wrote:
I find it interesting that when Carol is unable to find the link, you ignore
the request for assistance. But, when I am unable to find the link (and
volunteer twice that I have looked), you jump in with a snide remark that
"the search was not too difficult," as though I am the idiot.
[Joni said]
I'm sorry. I didn't mean to imply you are an idiot. I meant to just
come right out and say you are an idiot.
**************************************
[another time Joni asked Jeffy]
Were you born this stupid or did you take a class?
**************************************
On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 14:12:45 -0500, Jeff Strickland wrote
The ACLU is not mentioned in this story, but I believe they have been
mentioned in other stories on the same topic with the same county. Perhaps I
am being a bit reactionary to point my boney fingers at the ACLU,
You don't mind that some of us consider you a pschopathetic liar, do you?
After all, you seem to create "facts" just like your spiritual
great-great-great-great-great grandfather, Richard "I'll ***** You" Cheney.
Are you so [drunk, stoned, Bushed, freaked out] that you even realize how
much - and how many - of your posts are lies?
Are you truly stupid or totally insane?
Gray Shockley
**************************************
[jeffy was asked]
Can you back this up with truthful citations or is this just more of your
"lies manufactured especially for any and all occasions by Jeffie
Strickland"?
Gray Shockley
Vicksburg, MS
**************************************
As you, Jeffie the Wack Strickland, are quite obviously the product of no
education whatsoever.
Gray Shockley
**************************************
[jeffy had said]
It is the mother that has custodial and full guardianship
rights of the child. Newdow has no rights relative to this child and her
rearing.
YOU STUPID FUCKING ILLITERATE MORON, READ WHAT YOU AGREED
WITH EARLIER! THE COURTS HAVE RULED THAT NONCUSTODIAL
PARENTS **DO** HAVE RIGHTS TO THE RELIGIOUS UPBRINGING
OF THEIR CHILDREN, YOU BRAIN-DAMAGED TURD!
Merlyn LeRoy
*********************************************************
Said to Jeff Strickland
Because you are clueless, seeing an objection when there is none, and
failing to understand the objection that I do have.
Aren't you again showing your cluelessness? Yes.
lojbab
********************************************************
[Larry Hewitt said to Jeff Strickland]
Seeing that you deleted my links to the US census and a current news
report
that both proved you to be factually incorrect, I conclude that you
acknowledge your failure and chose to try to lie your way out of your
defeat.
larry
[jeff replied ]
Those links show NOTHING relative to this discussion.
[Larry naidled jeff with]
So you deleted them because you were afraid I was making a fool of myself
in
public, and you wanted to shield me from that humiliation??
Nah, you're just a rightard liar.
Larry
*********************************************************
Jeff Strickland said
Attack the messenger, never the message. How many times have I seen this
before?
Lots. Because you're a stupid *****.
I'm not even saying this to be insulting. You really are genuinely stupid.
You enter legal discussions without having the slightest idea of the legal
issues involved, and you show no signs of being educable.
Merlyn LeRoy
**************************************************************
Strickland said
Your language demonstrates a certain level of education in itself.
No, it demonstrates that I don't suffer fools gladly.
You demonstrate that you can't reason well, because
using phrases like "stupid *****" indicates nothing about
the speaker's education level.
Merlyn LeRoy
----------------------------------------------------
strickland
Because I take a position opposite of yours? That's rich.
No, because you're obviously stupid, and ignorant of how the courts
work, yet that doesn't stop you from shooting your mouth off.
You really are an ignorant *****.
Merlyn LeRoy
----------------------------------------------------------------------
strickland
Yeah, "ignorant *****" is precise. Idiot.
Yes, for you, it is. You shoot your mouth off in complete ignorance.
Repeatedly. You're an "ignorant *****".
Merlyn LeRoy
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
To Jeffy Strickland
Now again, I call you a liar. You could not have read that and then
criticized the article as having nothing to do with the title/subject
line. You just read jalison's excerpt, and expected it to contain the
gist of the entire article in a couple of sentences.
If you want Readers Digest, you can pay for it. Otherwise you need to
read the WHOLE article to find out what someone is trying to say, not
judge it on the basis of one paragraph, and especially not criticizing
the *title* because the one paragraph isn't obviously connected to
the title.
lojbab
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To Jeffy Strickland
Liar. You obviously never read said message carefully.
jalison did things the PROPER way. Rather than quote an entire
article and violate copyright, he posted the URL (which I requote
below) and gave a brief excerpt. The subject line was the title of
the article on the page that he excerpted and gave the URL from. If
that title is inappropriate, you can complain to the author of the
article.
The OP posted some ***** subject line then used a message body that is
completely off topic.
Liar repeating the lie.
Go read the cited article.
http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_975.shtml
Lest you question that jalison included it, note the first line in his
message:
<buckeye-elo@nospam.net wrote:
<>http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_975.shtml
<>[excerpt]
<>When did marriage become a Christian institution?
<>By Jeff Nall, Online Journal Contributing Writer
<>Jul 10, 2006
<>
....
<>[end excerpt]
THEN he weakly attempted to support his practice with
the lame excuse that titles and writings do not have to be in synch with one
another.
Whether you like his excuse or not, the simple answer is TOUGH.
Usenet posts do not have to follow your rules.
As a writer for going on 20 years, I am pretty sure that it is
customary for an author to come up with a title that his writing supports.
Sorry, but Usenet follows its own rules and subject lines are not
"titles". If the author of the cited article used a poor title,
complain to the author, or perhaps the newspaper since headlines
aren't always chosen by the authors of an article (though I suspect
that it is more likely in the case of an op-ed piece like this.
jalison did nothing wrong unless you have a problem with the excessive
crosspost (and if you do, jalison will disagree, and you lose the
impasse. You have ZERO standing as a net.cop, and screwing this one
up just makes you look sillier.).
How much should I bet that you won't apologize to jalison for lying
about his post.
lojbab
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "ef_hutterite" |
|
| Title: Re: Does Anyone Believe This Is A Christian Nation Out There? |
18 Jul 2006 12:32:42 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 13:12:13 -0400, wrote:
I post this at the end of 95% of my posts and replies
Thus making yourself a boring repetitive *****.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Does Anyone Believe This Is A Christian Nation Out There? |
22 Jul 2006 09:05:53 AM |
|
|
ef_hutterite <efhutterite@montanan.org> wrote:
:|On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 13:12:13 -0400, wrote:
:|
:|>I post this at the end of 95% of my posts and replies
:|
:|Thus making yourself a boring repetitive *****.
Makes me someone who can routinely trash your posts with valid evidence
***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the US and a couple from overseas as well]
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote
"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"
That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.
It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.
*****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
