| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
04 Sep 2003 03:55:46 AM |
| Object: |
Re: Gray, Bob, and Joni |
"Jeff Strickland" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote:
:|For the record, I am also neither a Constitutional scholar nor an educator.
For the record you are a uninformed opinionated (thus compelled) person who
posts whatever comes to mind, mostly without any idea of the evidence or
facts. More times than not that which you post is seriously incorrect.
For the record you seem to think your personal opinions are worth something
and are at least as good as if not better than actual evidence and actual
facts.
:|I happen to believe strongly in our Constitution,
You happen to believe strongly in your opinion of and about the
Constitution. You have demonstrated time and time again there is much about
it, what it says, why it says it etc that you are totally clueless about.
That opinion is seriously flawed in a number of ways.
:|and that it has been
:|severely subverted by people that like to think they are the center of the
:|universe,
Who are these people?
In what ways did they do this in your personal opinion?
Where is your evidence?
:|and they are willing to destroy everything just so they can remain
:|at the center.
Your unsubstantiated claim is noted.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. If you're going to
claim something outlandish you're going to need some pretty extraordinary,
irrefutable proof to back up such a claim. "Where's the beef?" Where's
the extraordinary proof for their extraordinary claims? If one is not
responding with extraordinary, *factual* proof, then the claim is not worth
considering
----------------------------------------------------------------------
[ as Homer@nospam said]
Why is asking for "proof" considered truculence? Do you consider it
truculence for a judge to ask for evidence in a trial. Would you rather
that
people just testified that they believed in the guilt of the suspect?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
| User: "Jeff Strickland" |
|
| Title: Re: Gray, Bob, and Joni |
04 Sep 2003 01:41:06 PM |
|
|
<buckeye-ELO@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:cdvdlvgppnebg7j7clgu0br466t6eakka8@4ax.com...
"Jeff Strickland" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote:
:|For the record, I am also neither a Constitutional scholar nor an
educator.
For the record you are a uninformed opinionated (thus compelled) person
who
posts whatever comes to mind, mostly without any idea of the evidence or
facts. More times than not that which you post is seriously incorrect.
For the record you seem to think your personal opinions are worth
something
and are at least as good as if not better than actual evidence and actual
facts.
My opinions are shared by more people that I know than objected to. It just
so happens that they do not come here.
:|I happen to believe strongly in our Constitution,
You happen to believe strongly in your opinion of and about the
Constitution. You have demonstrated time and time again there is much
about
it, what it says, why it says it etc that you are totally clueless about.
That opinion is seriously flawed in a number of ways.
:|and that it has been
:|severely subverted by people that like to think they are the center of
the
:|universe,
Who are these people?
In what ways did they do this in your personal opinion?
Where is your evidence?
You, for one. The evidence speaks for itself.
:|and they are willing to destroy everything just so they can remain
:|at the center.
Your unsubstantiated claim is noted.
Unsubstantiated? Yeah, right. You give substantiation every time you post.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roger" |
|
| Title: Re: Gray, Bob, and Joni |
04 Sep 2003 06:08:53 PM |
|
|
"Jeff Strickland" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:vlf1u0qehof1c4@corp.supernews.com...
<buckeye-ELO@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:cdvdlvgppnebg7j7clgu0br466t6eakka8@4ax.com...
"Jeff Strickland" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote:
:|For the record, I am also neither a Constitutional scholar nor an
educator.
For the record you are a uninformed opinionated (thus compelled) person
who
posts whatever comes to mind, mostly without any idea of the evidence or
facts. More times than not that which you post is seriously incorrect.
For the record you seem to think your personal opinions are worth
something
and are at least as good as if not better than actual evidence and
actual
facts.
My opinions are shared by more people that I know than objected to. It
just
so happens that they do not come here.
Justice isn't a popularity contest. That's why we have the constitution.
:|I happen to believe strongly in our Constitution,
You happen to believe strongly in your opinion of and about the
Constitution. You have demonstrated time and time again there is much
about
it, what it says, why it says it etc that you are totally clueless
about.
That opinion is seriously flawed in a number of ways.
:|and that it has been
:|severely subverted by people that like to think they are the center
of
the
:|universe,
Who are these people?
In what ways did they do this in your personal opinion?
Where is your evidence?
You, for one. The evidence speaks for itself.
:|and they are willing to destroy everything just so they can remain
:|at the center.
Your unsubstantiated claim is noted.
Unsubstantiated? Yeah, right. You give substantiation every time you post.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Gray, Bob, and Joni |
05 Sep 2003 05:09:22 AM |
|
|
"Jeff Strickland" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote:
:|
:|<buckeye-ELO@nospam.net> wrote in message
:|news:cdvdlvgppnebg7j7clgu0br466t6eakka8@4ax.com...
:|> "Jeff Strickland" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote:
:|>
:|> >:|For the record, I am also neither a Constitutional scholar nor an
:|educator.
:|>
:|> For the record you are a uninformed opinionated (thus compelled) person
:|who
:|> posts whatever comes to mind, mostly without any idea of the evidence or
:|> facts. More times than not that which you post is seriously incorrect.
:|>
:|> For the record you seem to think your personal opinions are worth
:|something
:|> and are at least as good as if not better than actual evidence and actual
:|> facts.
:|>
:|
:|My opinions are shared by more people that I know than objected to. It just
:|so happens that they do not come here.
:|
"My opinions are shared by more people that I know than objected to."
That doesn't even make sense.
I think you might have been trying to say,
My opinions are shared by more people than objected to them.
However, that is false.
In th 12 plus months you have been compelled to be on this trolling rampage
of yours, rarely, if ever, have I ever noticed anyone join you in
defending one of your OPINIONS. Even other loons such as Dana, Mcphillips,
Lentz, idon'treply, Nemesis, etc. pretty much stay away.
However, on the other side of the coin I have seen well over a dozen, or
more different people rip you to pieces with facts, evidence, logic,
Remember you felt the "compelled" call around the end of June 2002 and you
have been trolling pretty steady ever since, in a number of threads in
several different newsgroups.
In fact, it seems like anytime a new topic appears, one will find Jeffy
there. I saw a new topic begin yesterday 12 step programs, guess who i find
there this morning being compelled to offer more uninformed stupid
opinions? none other than jeffy .
People who respond to you, jeffy, do so for entertainment. They find you
funny, you provide comic relief for them.
You come across as exactly who and what you are, an opinionated, but
uninformed Monday through Friday, probably at your employer's expense,
poster who uses speculation, rumor, lies, and make it up, instead of
evidence, facts, education and finding out as the basis of these silly
opinions you are so proud of.
I will agree with you on one thing though, there world is full of
opinionated but uninformed and incorrect fools. So, in that respect, there
are a lot like you.
:|> >:|I happen to believe strongly in our Constitution,
:|>
:|> You happen to believe strongly in your opinion of and about the
:|> Constitution. You have demonstrated time and time again there is much
:|about
:|> it, what it says, why it says it etc that you are totally clueless about.
:|> That opinion is seriously flawed in a number of ways.
:|> >:|and that it has been
:|> >:|severely subverted by people that like to think they are the center of
:|the
:|> >:|universe,
:|>
:|> Who are these people?
:|> In what ways did they do this in your personal opinion?
:|> Where is your evidence?
:|>
:|
:|You, for one.
False.
The evidence speaks for itself.
What evidence?
Jeffy, your personal opinions are not evidence, in case you didn't know
that.
:|> >:|and they are willing to destroy everything just so they can remain
:|> >:|at the center.
:|>
:|> Your unsubstantiated claim is noted.
:|
:|Unsubstantiated? Yeah, right. You give substantiation every time you post.
:|
Yes, actually I pretty much substantiate every claim I make when i post.
And you know that, you ***** about it enough.
Jeffy, your personal opinions are not evidence, in case you didn't know
that.
I cite court opinions, even ones I don't agree with, (however, those I
don't agree with I say why and I cite facts and evidence showing the flaws
I feel are there)
You offer Jeffy says LOL
I cite the comments and informed opinions of respected scholars, you give
us Jeffy says LOL
The fact of the matter is jeffy, you are totally incapable of carrying on
an intelligent discussion, of presenting your case and supporting your case
with data from valid respected bona fide sources outside of yourself.
All you are capable of doing is providing others with some chuckles and
outright laughter with your jeffy says flawed opinions based on make it up
as you go, speculation, rumor, lies, guesses, unsubstantiated predictions
all pulled from the seat of your britches, etc.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: Gray, Bob, and Joni |
04 Sep 2003 04:18:02 PM |
|
|
"Jeff Strickland" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote:
For the record you seem to think your personal opinions are worth something
and are at least as good as if not better than actual evidence and actual
facts.
My opinions are shared by more people that I know than objected to. It just
so happens that they do not come here.
Then why should we believe that anyone shares them? After all, when
NO ONE on 9 different newsgroups bothers to agree with you, and
several people gang up to rip you to shreds, most people with common
sense would get the hint.
:|and they are willing to destroy everything just so they can remain
:|at the center.
Your unsubstantiated claim is noted.
Unsubstantiated? Yeah, right. You give substantiation every time you post.
I see no evidence that anyone is willing to destroy everything OR that
anyone wants to remain at the center.
lojbab
--
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Strickland" |
|
| Title: Re: Gray, Bob, and Joni |
04 Sep 2003 06:35:45 PM |
|
|
"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote in message
news:uraflvsv14kdr205is2aaonsombn8hgn6r@4ax.com...
"Jeff Strickland" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote:
For the record you seem to think your personal opinions are worth
something
and are at least as good as if not better than actual evidence and
actual
facts.
My opinions are shared by more people that I know than objected to. It
just
so happens that they do not come here.
Then why should we believe that anyone shares them? After all, when
NO ONE on 9 different newsgroups bothers to agree with you, and
several people gang up to rip you to shreds, most people with common
sense would get the hint.
You could accept at face value that I say my opinions are shared by many. I
do not question that your opinion is shared, I assume it is shared. The
nature of the groups is predisposed to disagree with me, and the nature of
those that agree with me is that they not hang around places like this. I
see no contradiction at all.
:|and they are willing to destroy everything just so they can remain
:|at the center.
Your unsubstantiated claim is noted.
Unsubstantiated? Yeah, right. You give substantiation every time you
post.
I see no evidence that anyone is willing to destroy everything OR that
anyone wants to remain at the center.
That is because you agree that trashing the 10 Commandments is the right
thing to do. That is because you see that reverting the Pledge to pre-1954
verbiage is the right thing to do. That is because you see that adult women
making out on TV is the right thing to do.
I would never admit that all that I think is right is leading to the
destruction of everything, nor would I recoginze it as wanting to remain the
center of the universe. The fact is, my arguments on morality have very
little to do with me personally, I only seek to apply things uniformly. When
we begin to quiet one voice, we quiet all voices. Nothing I have said would
ever quiet anybody, what you repeatedly say will quite the religious
freedoms that is a cornerstone of our society. Just because some of us enjoy
religion, there is no requirement whatsoever that you participate. I have
called for personal restraint, and given specific examples mostly as a means
of illustration, but you have twisted that restraint to mean that I want a
law, and you have dialed in on the illustration specifically instead of
grasping the concept generally.
You are precisely one of those that I charge with "willing to destroy
everything and wanting to remain at the center." I can only see that there
is some kind of personal gain that you think will come of this. I have no
personal gain at all, and I detect no personal assault that you say is all
around us. Indeed, you are the assaulter not the assaulted.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: Gray, Bob, and Joni |
04 Sep 2003 09:41:09 PM |
|
|
"Jeff Strickland" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Bob LeChevalier" < > wrote in message
news:uraflvsv14kdr205is2aaonsombn8hgn6r@4ax.com...
Then why should we believe that anyone shares them? After all, when
NO ONE on 9 different newsgroups bothers to agree with you, and
several people gang up to rip you to shreds, most people with common
sense would get the hint.
You could accept at face value that I say my opinions are shared by many.
Why would I accept anything you say at face value, when you have a
record on this newsgroup of being wrong in practically every post that
you make?
The nature of the groups is predisposed to disagree with me, and the nature of
those that agree with me is that they not hang around places like this.
The nature of those that agree with you is NOT to hang around groups
like "alt.religion.christian" and "alt.politics.republican"?
Why don't you find groups that ARE likely to agree with you once in a
while. I suggest alt.idiots or alt.morons.
I see no evidence that anyone is willing to destroy everything OR that
anyone wants to remain at the center.
That is because you agree that trashing the 10 Commandments is the right
thing to do.
No I don't. I think that trashing a particular statue would be the
right thing to do, but the 10 Commandments are a fine thing where they
belong.
That is because you see that reverting the Pledge to pre-1954
verbiage is the right thing to do.
You are correct for once.
That is because you see that adult women
making out on TV is the right thing to do.
I don't see any such thing; I turn off the TV so I DON'T see it.
The fact is, my arguments on morality have very
little to do with me personally,
They have everything to do with you personally, because no other
person on earth shares your exact code of morality, and the vast
majority have a quite different code.
I only seek to apply things uniformly.
That is because you are a totalitarian wannabe.
Nothing I have said would ever quiet anybody,
Except the sound of Madonna smooching.
what you repeatedly say will quite the religious
freedoms that is a cornerstone of our society.
Nope.
Just because some of us enjoy
religion, there is no requirement whatsoever that you participate.
I do participate in the enjoyment of religion, but not in religious
orgies in state buildings.
You are precisely one of those that I charge with "willing to destroy
everything and wanting to remain at the center." I can only see that there
is some kind of personal gain that you think will come of this.
That is because you are clueless as to what your opponents are
actually thinking.
lojbab
--
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Strickland" |
|
| Title: Re: Gray, Bob, and Joni |
05 Sep 2003 12:06:10 PM |
|
|
The nature of those that agree with you is NOT to hang around groups
like "alt.religion.christian" and "alt.politics.republican"?
I am not posting in those groups, I am posting in
alt.politics.usa.constitution. The people in the other groups could very
well have sent you to the killfile long ago, and they don't even see this
exchange.
Why don't you find groups that ARE likely to agree with you once in a
while. I suggest alt.idiots or alt.morons.
Perhaps I can make a moron like you see the light. Maybe ...
I see no evidence that anyone is willing to destroy everything OR that
anyone wants to remain at the center.
That is because you agree that trashing the 10 Commandments is the right
thing to do.
No I don't. I think that trashing a particular statue would be the
right thing to do, but the 10 Commandments are a fine thing where they
belong.
That is because you see that reverting the Pledge to pre-1954
verbiage is the right thing to do.
You are correct for once.
That is because you see that adult women
making out on TV is the right thing to do.
I don't see any such thing; I turn off the TV so I DON'T see it.
But you protect their right to do it even if you don't see it. I also
protect the right to do it, but I am telling them they ought not do it, you
do nothing which encourages them to do it more.
The fact is, my arguments on morality have very
little to do with me personally,
They have everything to do with you personally, because no other
person on earth shares your exact code of morality, and the vast
majority have a quite different code.
I only seek to apply things uniformly.
That is because you are a totalitarian wannabe.
Nothing I have said would ever quiet anybody,
Except the sound of Madonna smooching.
I only said that Madonna should exercise restraint. She should consider her
surroundings and her audience, just like everybody should consider their
surroundings and audience.
what you repeatedly say will quite the religious
freedoms that is a cornerstone of our society.
Nope.
Just because some of us enjoy
religion, there is no requirement whatsoever that you participate.
I do participate in the enjoyment of religion, but not in religious
orgies in state buildings.
I don't participate in religious orgies in state buildings either, but I am
not offended by a religious monument anywhere that I might encounter one. I
am under no obligation to look at the monument or accept it for anything
other than its possible artistic merit.
You are precisely one of those that I charge with "willing to destroy
everything and wanting to remain at the center." I can only see that
there
is some kind of personal gain that you think will come of this.
That is because you are clueless as to what your opponents are
actually thinking.
My opponents are PC idiots. They are afraid for their own salvation while I
am secure in mine. They resent that I can have this security and they reject
the source of that security and seek to tear down and destroy that security
wherever it might appear. We have fools in our society, and we have idiots.
Which are you?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: Gray, Bob, and Joni |
05 Sep 2003 02:00:25 PM |
|
|
"Jeff Strickland" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote:
The nature of those that agree with you is NOT to hang around groups
like "alt.religion.christian" and "alt.politics.republican"?
I am not posting in those groups, I am posting in
alt.politics.usa.constitution.
You are posting to 9 groups. If you do not remove the groups from
your newsgroups line, then you are posting to all of them. I am not
reading alt.politics.usa.constitution, but rather alt.education.
Still I am forced to put up with your uneducated baloney.
That is because you see that adult women
making out on TV is the right thing to do.
I don't see any such thing; I turn off the TV so I DON'T see it.
But you protect their right to do it even if you don't see it. I also
protect the right to do it, but I am telling them they ought not do it, you
do nothing which encourages them to do it more.
You misunderstand. They do such things precisely because it gets
idiots like you upset.
Except the sound of Madonna smooching.
I only said that Madonna should exercise restraint. She should consider her
surroundings and her audience,
She did. That is precisely why they did it. Britney in a later
interview said that this was the first time she ever kissed a woman.
That is because you are clueless as to what your opponents are
actually thinking.
My opponents are PC idiots. They are afraid for their own salvation while I
am secure in mine.
Actually, most of your opponents don't give a ***** about salvation.
Meanwhile, some like myself are quite as secure in their salvation as
you are.
lojbab
--
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Gray, Bob, and Joni |
05 Sep 2003 12:40:04 PM |
|
|
In article <vlhgoen77fbqd4@corp.supernews.com> "Jeff Strickland" <beerman@yahoo.com> writes:
[Bob, unattributed as usual:]
<>
{...}
<>
<> I don't see any such thing; I turn off the TV so I DON'T see it.
<>
<But you protect their right to do it even if you don't see it. I also
<protect the right to do it, but I am telling them they ought not do it, you
<do nothing which encourages them to do it more.
Damn straight! People like Bob just make me so..... OOOOH! It's
all because of people like him that I'm going to have to watch
all these kids KISSING each other in public and stuff. In
my day, kids didn't go around KISSING in public, I'll tell you
what. They kissed in the back seats of cars parked on dark
roads, like decent folk.
{...}
<>
<> Except the sound of Madonna smooching.
<>
<
<I only said that Madonna should exercise restraint. She should consider her
<surroundings and her audience, just like everybody should consider their
<surroundings and audience.
Madonna is Madonna because she's something of a genius at considering
her surroundings and her audience. She's done a whole lot starting with
not all that much, precisely because of her abilities at guaging her
audience.
I find Rush Limbaugh every bit as reprehensible as you find Madonna,
and I might even argue that what he does has the potential to
be far more destructive than what she does.
So I don't listen to him. See how easy this is?
{...}
<>
<> That is because you are clueless as to what your opponents are
<> actually thinking.
<>
<
<My opponents are PC idiots. They are afraid for their own salvation while I
<am secure in mine. They resent that I can have this security and they reject
<the source of that security and seek to tear down and destroy that security
<wherever it might appear. We have fools in our society, and we have idiots.
<Which are you?
I might wonder if someone who gets so very upset because there's one tiny
area of the country that's put off limits to the trappings of that salvation
-- leaving him confined to home, church, street, park, mall, radio, television,
magazine, door-to-door, streetcorner, theater, arena, internet -- someone who
has nearly all of society to play at his religion in, but when told he
cannot add the courthouse to that list, begins talking about "tearing
down" society -- I'd question if that person is really feeling all that secure.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gray Shockley" |
|
| Title: Re: Gray, Bob, and Joni |
05 Sep 2003 12:45:41 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 5 Sep 2003 12:06:10 -0500, Jeff Strickland wrote
(in message <vlhgoen77fbqd4@corp.supernews.com>):
My opponents are PC idiots.
Obviously not of the quality of you.
They are afraid for their own salvation while I
am secure in mine.
So why do you feel the necessity of bringing it up? Maybe just a mite bit
nervous that you may have made the wrong guess on the multi-choice quiz on
religions?
They resent
And your proofe (or even illustration) of this is?
that I can have this security
You mean the one that you keep saying you have?
and they reject the source of that security
Why should others' beliefs be of any concern to you?
and seek to tear down and destroy that security
wherever it might appear.
You mean like in the rotunda of a taxpayer paid-for building? Is this an
admission of the failure of parents and churches? Your particular sect of
your particular religion needs government support because you can't do the
job well in the family and in the churches?
We have fools in our society, and we have idiots.
Which are you?
Wow; sort of a multiple-choice true-or-false test.
The choice of answers seem to be:
Agree with Jeff Strickland and you're a fool.
or
Agree with Jeff Strickland and you're an idiot.
Is that, exclusively, the only choices? I mean couldn't one agree with Jeff
Strickland and be both a fool and an idiot?
Gray Shockley
-------------------------------------------------
Pain is evitable but suffering is optional.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Carol Lee Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: Gray, Bob, and Joni |
05 Sep 2003 01:54:21 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 5 Sep 2003, Gray Shockley wrote:
You mean like in the rotunda of a taxpayer paid-for building? Is this an
admission of the failure of parents and churches? Your particular sect of
your particular religion needs government support because you can't do the
job well in the family and in the churches?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12210-2003Sep1.html
-------excerpt--------------
But it is the nature of religion to go too far. That is its history -- in
the distant past and just yesterday as well. All over the world, people
are hideously butchered in the name of God, which is to say condemned to
death on account of an accident of birth. (This, after all, is how most of
us get our religious convictions.) Religion can have a hard time being
tolerant. To many adherents, the stakes are too high.
I am at a loss to explain this mentality. But I am at a loss, too, to
explain why the all-powerful deity needs some schoolteacher to lead a
prayer -- why, for instance, the religious do not tend to this matter
before their children leave for class. I do not understand why a God who
once smote with abandon and authored miracles that science could never
explain needs a statue here or a display there to remind us of his
omnipresence.
The only explanation is that these are not just subtle reminders of a
higher authority -- higher than the law, for instance -- but not-so subtle
attempts at using government to set things straight: Yours is a misguided
religion, a back-of-the-bus belief that is not quite what the state
prefers. Get with the program.
Religious minorities in this country fiercely hold to their beliefs with
no help whatever from the government, save constitutional protections.
They, not Moore and his supporters, ought to be our lesson for the day.
Their God is vibrant and strong and very much a presence in their lives --
not dead and not on the dole either.
We have fools in our society, and we have idiots.
Which are you?
Wow; sort of a multiple-choice true-or-false test.
The choice of answers seem to be:
Agree with Jeff Strickland and you're a fool.
or
Agree with Jeff Strickland and you're an idiot.
Is that, exclusively, the only choices? I mean couldn't one agree with Jeff
Strickland and be both a fool and an idiot?
Boy, you ask the most tasking questions!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Gray, Bob, and Joni |
04 Sep 2003 07:18:47 PM |
|
|
In article <vlfj6hei6586cb@corp.supernews.com> "Jeff Strickland" <beerman@yahoo.com> writes:
<
<"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote in message
<news:uraflvsv14kdr205is2aaonsombn8hgn6r@4ax.com...
<>
{...}
<>
<> I see no evidence that anyone is willing to destroy everything OR that
<> anyone wants to remain at the center.
<>
<That is because you agree that trashing the 10 Commandments is the right
<thing to do. That is because you see that reverting the Pledge to pre-1954
<verbiage is the right thing to do. That is because you see that adult women
<making out on TV is the right thing to do.
<
<I would never admit that all that I think is right is leading to the
<destruction of everything, nor would I recoginze it as wanting to remain the
<center of the universe. The fact is, my arguments on morality have very
<little to do with me personally, I only seek to apply things uniformly. When
<we begin to quiet one voice, we quiet all voices. Nothing I have said would
<ever quiet anybody, what you repeatedly say will quite the religious
<freedoms that is a cornerstone of our society.
Quite the contrary. What Bob is endorsing implies greater religious
freedom. The complete disentaglement of secular authority from
religion is explicitly designed to allow full expression of the
religious impulse, whatever form it may take. The greater part of
European history up to the time of the founding of this country
demonstrates that the greater the involvement of the authorities
in religion, the less chance there is for anything other than
the officially approved version to flourish.
You're annoyed because Bob doesn't want the government endorsing
YOUR particular flavor of religion. Which is precisely the
entire point, in a nutshell.
{...}
<You are precisely one of those that I charge with "willing to destroy
<everything and wanting to remain at the center." I can only see that there
<is some kind of personal gain that you think will come of this.
No one could possibly see things in ways other than you do, unless
there was some kind of personal short-term gain involved?
You really ought to think about that...
-- cary
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gray Shockley" |
|
| Title: Re: Gray, Bob, and Joni |
04 Sep 2003 07:39:00 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 4 Sep 2003 18:35:45 -0500, Jeff Strickland wrote
(in message <vlfj6hei6586cb@corp.supernews.com>):
That is because you agree that trashing the 10 Commandments is the right
thing to do.
Do you really believe that taking the 1st Amendment seriously "trashes"
something or another?
That is because you see that reverting the Pledge to pre-1954
verbiage is the right thing to do.
Well, the ole 1st Amendment is not as vague as a lot of people seem to think.
Pretty straightforward in this case.
Oh course, the Alabama ***** is also violating his state's Constitution.
That is because you see that adult women
making out on TV is the right thing to do.
I'm not qualified on this; I've never seen MTV (my teevee skips over most
channels except for AMC, TMC, Disc and Sc-Fi).
Gray Shockley / CyberCoffee
--------------------------------------------------------
Behold, I will corrupt your seed, and spread dung
upon your faces, even the dung of your solemn feasts;
and one shall take you away with it.
- Malachi 2:3
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gray Shockley" |
|
| Title: Re: Gray, Bob, and Joni |
04 Sep 2003 03:05:12 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 4 Sep 2003 13:41:06 -0500, Jeff Strickland wrote
(in message <vlf1u0qehof1c4@corp.supernews.com>):
My opinions are shared by more people that I know than objected to. It just
so happens that they do not come here.
"Sixty Million Frenchmen Canšt Be Wrong"?
[see: Vichy France, history and politics of]
Gray Shockley
--------------------------------------------------------
From Vichy France to
Bitchy France in
one generation
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
