| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
28 May 2007 10:19:35 PM |
| Object: |
Re: G. Washington's Religion? Part I |
On May 28, 2:01 pm, wrote:
Hehehehe.
Prof. Jon Rowe quoted McDonald.
Yes, then you came behind him and reposted his post in order to make
YOUR own point. This is one of the biggest problems with your
methodology. You are so reckless in your posting, you often post crap
that is bogus because you take no caution.
Are you now also claiming McDonald is a shoddy historian?
If McDonald, or Rowe, or you cannot provide some primary evidence that
Washington was addicted to gambling and prostitution, then McDonald is
shoddy for saying so, and you and Rowe are shoddy for posting McDonald
in that same regard.
.
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: G. Washington's Religion? Part I |
31 May 2007 08:40:02 AM |
|
|
wrote:
:|On May 28, 2:01 pm, wrote:
:|>
:|> Hehehehe.
:|>
:|> Prof. Jon Rowe quoted McDonald.
:|
:|Yes, then you came behind him and reposted his post in order to make
:|YOUR own point. This is one of the biggest problems with your
:|methodology. You are so reckless in your posting, you often post crap
:|that is bogus because you take no caution.
:|
LOL,
my point? My point was your dishonest posting.
I proved that point.
:|> Are you now also claiming McDonald is a shoddy historian?
:|
:|If McDonald, or Rowe, or you cannot provide some primary evidence that
:|Washington was addicted to gambling and prostitution, then McDonald is
:|shoddy for saying so, and you and Rowe are shoddy for posting McDonald
:|in that same regard.
Take that up with McDonald since he is the source of the information.
Take it up with Rowe if that will make you feel better since he introduced
it to this fourm.
You want to make it a issue with me, you will get nowhere since I have
nothign to do with it beyoind showing you left that little piece of
information otu when you were ranting and raving.
Thus I provided it as context for the lurkers to see your style at work.
have a great day dude
***************************************************************
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
HRSepCnS · Historical Reality SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
***************************************************************
.. . . 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: "PhaedraCeleste" |
|
| Title: Re: G. Washington's Religion? Part I |
31 May 2007 06:11:53 PM |
|
|
I'm a bit perplexed by the personality clash that appears to be going
on-that aside, assuming the SMHG issue is still the topic of
discussion I am curious as to why whether Washington actually said the
aforementioned is an issue of such major significance....If he did say
it did that place any more emphasis on his oath, I feel that, orthodox
or otherwise, Washington had at least some grounding in religious
values and simply using a "pat phase" would not make what he said of
greater or lesser import. I think this is further evidenced by the
total hypocrisy evidenced by those who have used the words SHMG since
Washington's swearing in. I mean really, just using certain
phraseolgy(or not) only impacts those who have a moral fiber running
through their soul as a compass. People(presidents or otherwise) are
going to act in a manner they feel is best (whether for themselves or
the good of the group as a whole);therefore,when they say, "I'm going
to do such and such..."the phase SHMG itself doesn't impact their
inclination to follow through on ther promise. On a lighter note if I
say "SHMG, if I hear that song one more time I'm going to throw my
radio out the window" does that mean, being a Christian, I am
compelled to do so the next time I hear said song?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "PhaedraCeleste" |
|
| Title: Re: G. Washington's Religion? Part I |
31 May 2007 06:33:42 PM |
|
|
On May 31, 9:40 am, wrote:
ambrosesea...@yahoo.com wrote:
:|On May 28, 2:01 pm, wrote:
:|>
:|> Hehehehe. =20
:|>
:|> Prof. Jon Rowe quoted McDonald. =20
:|
:|Yes, then you came behind him and reposted his post in order to make
:|YOUR own point. This is one of the biggest problems with your
:|methodology. You are so reckless in your posting, you often post crap
:|that is bogus because you take no caution.
:|
LOL, =20
my point? My point was your dishonest posting.
I proved that point.
:|> Are you now also claiming McDonald is a shoddy historian?
:|
:|If McDonald, or Rowe, or you cannot provide some primary evidence that
:|Washington was addicted to gambling and prostitution, then McDonald is
:|shoddy for saying so, and you and Rowe are shoddy for posting McDonald
:|in that same regard.
Take that up with McDonald since he is the source of the information.
Take it up with Rowe if that will make you feel better since he introduced
it to this fourm.
You want to make it a issue with me, you will get nowhere since I have
nothign to do with it beyoind showing you left that little piece of
information otu when you were ranting and raving.
Thus I provided it as context for the lurkers to see your style at work.
have a great day dude =20
***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of Americahttp://members.tripod.com/~ca=
ndst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Presenthttp://members.tripod.com/~candst/th=
eocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and Statehttp://member=
s=2Etripod.com/~candst/index.html
HRSepCnS =B7 Historical Reality SepChurch&Statehttp://groups.yahoo.com/g=
roup/HRSepCnS/
***************************************************************
. . . 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. Eisne=
r,
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: "PhaedraCeleste" |
|
| Title: Re: G. Washington's Religion? Part I |
31 May 2007 06:25:06 PM |
|
|
On May 31, 9:40 am, wrote:
ambrosesea...@yahoo.com wrote:
:|On May 28, 2:01 pm, wrote:
:|>
:|> Hehehehe. =20
:|>
:|> Prof. Jon Rowe quoted McDonald. =20
:|
:|Yes, then you came behind him and reposted his post in order to make
:|YOUR own point. This is one of the biggest problems with your
:|methodology. You are so reckless in your posting, you often post crap
:|that is bogus because you take no caution.
:|
LOL, =20
my point? My point was your dishonest posting.
I proved that point.
:|> Are you now also claiming McDonald is a shoddy historian?
:|
:|If McDonald, or Rowe, or you cannot provide some primary evidence that
:|Washington was addicted to gambling and prostitution, then McDonald is
:|shoddy for saying so, and you and Rowe are shoddy for posting McDonald
:|in that same regard.
Take that up with McDonald since he is the source of the information.
Take it up with Rowe if that will make you feel better since he introduced
it to this fourm.
You want to make it a issue with me, you will get nowhere since I have
nothign to do with it beyoind showing you left that little piece of
information otu when you were ranting and raving.
Thus I provided it as context for the lurkers to see your style at work.
have a great day dude =20
***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of Americahttp://members.tripod.com/~ca=
ndst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Presenthttp://members.tripod.com/~candst/th=
eocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and Statehttp://member=
s=2Etripod.com/~candst/index.html
HRSepCnS =B7 Historical Reality SepChurch&Statehttp://groups.yahoo.com/g=
roup/HRSepCnS/
***************************************************************
. . . 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. Eisne=
r,
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
****************************************************************
I'm a bit perplexed by the personality clash that appears to be going
on-that aside, assuming the SMHG issue is still the topic of
discussion I am curious as to why whether Washington actually said the
aforementioned is an issue of such major significance....If he did say
it did that place any more emphasis on his oath, I feel that, orthodox
or otherwise, Washington had at least some grounding in religious
values and simply using a "pat phase" would not make what he said of
greater or lesser import. I think this is further evidenced by the
total hypocrisy evidenced by those who have used the words SHMG since
Washington's swearing in. I mean really, just using certain
phraseolgy(or not) only impacts those who have a moral fiber running
through their soul as a compass. People(presidents or otherwise) are
going to act in a manner they feel is best (whether for themselves or
the good of the group as a whole);therefore,when they say, "I'm going
to do such and such..."the phase SHMG itself doesn't impact their
inclination to follow through on ther promise. On a lighter note if I
say "SHMG, if I hear that song one more time I'm going to throw my
radio out the window" does that mean, being a Christian, I am
compelled to do so the next time I hear said song?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
