| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Not-easily-duped" |
| Date: |
24 Nov 2003 11:14:27 AM |
| Object: |
Separation Of Church And State Is It What God Wants? |
When you reach the Land that the Lord your God is giving you,
and occupy it, and settle down in it, and then declare to yourself:
"I must place a king over me like all the nations around me,"
make sure you place over you the king your God chooses.
You must choose one of your countrymen king over you.
You shall not put a foreigner over you who is not from among
your brethren...
As soon as he takes his seat on his royal throne, he must write
for himself a copy of this Law/Torah, he must keep it and
read it all the day of his life that he may learn to revere the Lord
his God, by being careful to observe all the Law and serve with
justice his fellow men. Deut 17:14-20
How can anyone tell me that this God is nolonger interested in
matters related to states, therefor we should separate Church and State?
This God is the source of Law and the God of principalities and dominions
How could he possibly be indiferent to politics?
WOE TO THOSE WHO SAY:"LET US SEPARATE CHRIST AND STATE."
.
|
|
| User: "Mark Johnson" |
|
| Title: Re: Still a Christian Nation (wasRe: Separation Of Church And State) |
05 Dec 2003 02:41:44 AM |
|
|
Daniel Kolle <DKolle@hotmail.com> wrote:
Mark Johnson <102334.12@compuserve.com> thought hard and said:
But it is irrelevant what the founders thought: they determined that
this should be a secular nation.
They insisted upon a Judeo-Christian ethic informing public policy.
How so?
Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity,
religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that
man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these
great pillars of human happiness - these firmest props of the duties
of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man,
ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all
their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be
asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life,
if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the
instruments of investigation in courts of justice?
From Washington's farewell. Truer words . . as they say . .
Peace.
---------------------------------------
One mark of a deteriorating society is when its people cannot
discern truth from lies. Another is when they don't even bother
to try and will believe whatever their itching ears want to hear.
[Cal Thomas, 4 SEP 2000]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Daniel Kolle" |
|
| Title: Re: Still a Christian Nation (wasRe: Separation Of Church And State) |
05 Dec 2003 04:39:48 PM |
|
|
Mark Johnson <102334.12@compuserve.com> thought hard and said:
Daniel Kolle <DKolle@hotmail.com> wrote:
Mark Johnson <102334.12@compuserve.com> thought hard and said:
But it is irrelevant what the founders thought: they determined that
this should be a secular nation.
They insisted upon a Judeo-Christian ethic informing public policy.
How so?
Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity,
religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that
man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these
great pillars of human happiness - these firmest props of the duties
of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man,
ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all
their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be
asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life,
if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the
instruments of investigation in courts of justice?
From Washington's farewell. Truer words . . as they say . .
Peace.
Blah, blah, blah. That means nothing.
--
-Daniel "Mr. Brevity" Kolle; 15 A.A. #2035
Koji Kondo, Yo-Yo Ma, Gustav Mahler, and Krzysztof Penderecki are my Gods.
Madly Insane EAC Scientist.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Johnson" |
|
| Title: Re: Still a Christian Nation (wasRe: Separation Of Church And State) |
06 Dec 2003 10:48:01 AM |
|
|
Daniel Kolle <DKolle@hotmail.com> wrote:
Mark Johnson <102334.12@compuserve.com> thought hard and said:
Daniel Kolle <DKolle@hotmail.com> wrote:
Mark Johnson <102334.12@compuserve.com> thought hard and said:
Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity,
religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that
man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these
great pillars of human happiness - these firmest props of the duties
of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man,
ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all
their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be
asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life,
if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the
instruments of investigation in courts of justice?
From Washington's farewell. Truer words . . as they say . .
Blah, blah, blah. That means nothing.
It does if you can read.
Peace.
---------------------------------------
One mark of a deteriorating society is when its people cannot
discern truth from lies. Another is when they don't even bother
to try and will believe whatever their itching ears want to hear.
[Cal Thomas, 4 SEP 2000]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Daniel Kolle" |
|
| Title: Re: Still a Christian Nation (wasRe: Separation Of Church And State) |
06 Dec 2003 08:15:05 PM |
|
|
Mark Johnson <102334.12@compuserve.com> thought hard and said:
Daniel Kolle <DKolle@hotmail.com> wrote:
Mark Johnson <102334.12@compuserve.com> thought hard and said:
Daniel Kolle <DKolle@hotmail.com> wrote:
Mark Johnson <102334.12@compuserve.com> thought hard and said:
Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity,
religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that
man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these
great pillars of human happiness - these firmest props of the duties
of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man,
ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all
their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be
asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life,
if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the
instruments of investigation in courts of justice?
From Washington's farewell. Truer words . . as they say . .
Blah, blah, blah. That means nothing.
It does if you can read.
Well, if I told you that I was a fucking idiot without any reading
comprehension, would you tell me what it is supposed to mean?
--
-Daniel "Mr. Brevity" Kolle; 15 A.A. #2035
Koji Kondo, Yo-Yo Ma, Gustav Mahler, and Krzysztof Penderecki are my Gods.
Madly Insane EAC Scientist.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Johnson" |
|
| Title: Re: Still a Christian Nation (wasRe: Separation Of Church And State) |
09 Dec 2003 05:05:38 PM |
|
|
Daniel Kolle <DKolle@hotmail.com> wrote:
Well, if I told you that I was a fucking idiot . . .
would you tell me what it is supposed to mean?
Agreement is always possible, even on Usenet. If you want to insist
that you're a raging fool, who am I to disagree?
Peace.
---------------------------------------------------------
You want me not to let some previous conviction inure the
receptivity of my mind with regard to some strange matter.
Do I read you aright?
[Dracula, Bram Stoker, 1897, Ch. 14, Dr. Seward's Diary,
Seward speaking to Van Helsing, 26 SEP]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff George" |
|
| Title: Re: Still a Christian Nation (wasRe: Separation Of Church And State) |
16 Dec 2003 01:52:12 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 15:05:38 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> added the following words of wisdom:
Daniel Kolle <DKolle@hotmail.com> wrote:
Well, if I told you that I was a fucking idiot . . .
would you tell me what it is supposed to mean?
Agreement is always possible, even on Usenet. If you want to insist
that you're a raging fool, who am I to disagree?
Now kindly explain to him the meaning of the propaganda that you post
over and over and over.
Jeff George
SLAP (Socialist Liberation Army of the People)
SLUG (Socialists for Liberty United Government)
Power to the People! Vive la revolution!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Duca" |
|
| Title: Re: Still a Christian Nation (wasRe: Separation Of Church And State) |
07 Dec 2003 09:01:55 AM |
|
|
Mark Johnson wrote:
Daniel Kolle <DKolle@hotmail.com> wrote:
Mark Johnson <102334.12@compuserve.com> thought hard and said:
Daniel Kolle <DKolle@hotmail.com> wrote:
Mark Johnson <102334.12@compuserve.com> thought hard and said:
Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity,
religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that
man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these
great pillars of human happiness - these firmest props of the duties
of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man,
ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all
their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be
asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life,
if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the
instruments of investigation in courts of justice?
From Washington's farewell. Truer words . . as they say . .
Blah, blah, blah. That means nothing.
It does if you can read.
No more than the empty promises Mark is fed at his Latin
church...at least THIS doesn't need a facing page.
Paul
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Still a Christian Nation (wasRe: Separation Of Church And State) |
05 Dec 2003 04:29:43 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 00:41:44 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote:
Daniel Kolle <DKolle@hotmail.com> wrote:
Mark Johnson <102334.12@compuserve.com> thought hard and said:
But it is irrelevant what the founders thought: they determined that
this should be a secular nation.
They insisted upon a Judeo-Christian ethic informing public policy.
How so?
Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity,
religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that
man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these
great pillars of human happiness - these firmest props of the duties
of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man,
ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all
their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be
asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life,
if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the
instruments of investigation in courts of justice?
From Washington's farewell. Truer words . . as they say . .
gee. too bad they kinda forgot to put that in the constitution, aint
it? made the US the most free country in history.
---------------------------
to see who "wf3h" is, go to "qrz.com"
and enter 'wf3h' in the field
check my blog at:
http://www.bobview.blogspot.com/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Johnson" |
|
| Title: Re: Still a Christian Nation (wasRe: Separation Of Church And State) |
05 Dec 2003 11:22:20 AM |
|
|
(Bob) wrote:
From Washington's farewell. Truer words . . as they say . .
gee. too bad they kinda forgot to put that in the constitution
I think what he's saying is, that's the nation formed by The
Constitution.
You find some contradiction, perhaps?
Remember what I said:
They insisted upon a Judeo-Christian ethic informing public policy.
But they did not want to limit, or chill, the free exercise of
religion.
So - when the ACLU sues to get rid of a stone block with the
Decalogue, in Alabama . . then . . . .
Tough question for you?
Peace.
---------------------------------------
One mark of a deteriorating society is when its people cannot
discern truth from lies. Another is when they don't even bother
to try and will believe whatever their itching ears want to hear.
[Cal Thomas, 4 SEP 2000]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Still a Christian Nation (wasRe: Separation Of Church And State) |
05 Dec 2003 03:16:06 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 09:22:20 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote:
wf3h@ptnosm.com (Bob) wrote:
From Washington's farewell. Truer words . . as they say . .
gee. too bad they kinda forgot to put that in the constitution
I think what he's saying is, that's the nation formed by The
Constitution.
You find some contradiction, perhaps?
Remember what I said:
They insisted upon a Judeo-Christian ethic informing public policy.
But they did not want to limit, or chill, the free exercise of
religion.
So - when the ACLU sues to get rid of a stone block with the
Decalogue, in Alabama . . then . . . .
Tough question for you?
they didnt get rid of a stone in alabama. they got rid of a stone in a
GOVT building in alabama.
---------------------------
to see who "wf3h" is, go to "qrz.com"
and enter 'wf3h' in the field
check my blog at:
http://www.bobview.blogspot.com/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Johnson" |
|
| Title: Re: Still a Christian Nation (wasRe: Separation Of Church And State) |
06 Dec 2003 11:04:40 AM |
|
|
(Bob) wrote:
On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 09:22:20 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote:
(Bob) wrote:
From Washington's farewell. Truer words . . as they say . .
gee. too bad they kinda forgot to put that in the constitution
I think what he's saying is, that's the nation formed by The
Constitution.
You find some contradiction, perhaps?
Remember what I said:
They insisted upon a Judeo-Christian ethic informing public policy.
But they did not want to limit, or chill, the free exercise of
religion.
So - when the ACLU sues to get rid of a stone block with the
Decalogue, in Alabama . . then . . . .
Tough question for you?
they didnt get rid of a stone in alabama.
Sure you wanna say that, Bobbb?
Peace.
---------------------------------------
One mark of a deteriorating society is when its people cannot
discern truth from lies. Another is when they don't even bother
to try and will believe whatever their itching ears want to hear.
[Cal Thomas, 4 SEP 2000]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Still a Christian Nation (wasRe: Separation Of Church And State) |
06 Dec 2003 11:18:04 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 09:04:40 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote:
wf3h@ptnosm.com (Bob) wrote:
On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 09:22:20 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote:
wf3h@ptnosm.com (Bob) wrote:
From Washington's farewell. Truer words . . as they say . .
gee. too bad they kinda forgot to put that in the constitution
I think what he's saying is, that's the nation formed by The
Constitution.
You find some contradiction, perhaps?
Remember what I said:
They insisted upon a Judeo-Christian ethic informing public policy.
But they did not want to limit, or chill, the free exercise of
religion.
So - when the ACLU sues to get rid of a stone block with the
Decalogue, in Alabama . . then . . . .
Tough question for you?
they didnt get rid of a stone in alabama.
Sure you wanna say that, Bobbb?
the constitution got rid of it. the constitution limits govt's ability
to limit the freedom of citizens. the govt does not have a right to
freedom of religion.
---------------------------
to see who "wf3h" is, go to "qrz.com"
and enter 'wf3h' in the field
check my blog at:
http://www.bobview.blogspot.com/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Johnson" |
|
| Title: Re: Still a Christian Nation (wasRe: Separation Of Church And State) |
08 Dec 2003 02:16:13 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 11:59:51 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote:
wf3h@ptnosm.com (Bob) wrote:
the constitution limits govt's ability
to limit the freedom of citizens. the govt does not have a right to
freedom of religion.
B
By which I mean, of course:
"Look, again, this is not about Latin. And I've said I'm not so
familiar with Latin. This is about the issues, here. And you can use
English, and also, perhaps, post this to the appropriate ng. Don't
hide behind Latin to conceal your ignorance of the subject." -- Mark
Johnson
mesasage id:
From _my_ farewell to alt.language.Latin. Truer words . . as they say
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "The Mad Doctor" |
|
| Title: Re: Still a Christian Nation (wasRe: Separation Of Church And State) |
05 Dec 2003 07:02:56 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 09:22:20 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote:
wf3h@ptnosm.com (Bob) wrote:
From Washington's farewell. Truer words . . as they say . .
gee. too bad they kinda forgot to put that in the constitution
I think what he's saying is, that's the nation formed by The
Constitution.
You find some contradiction, perhaps?
Remember what I said:
They insisted upon a Judeo-Christian ethic informing public policy.
But they did not want to limit, or chill, the free exercise of
religion.
So - when the ACLU sues to get rid of a stone block with the
Decalogue, in Alabama . . then . . . .
freedom of religion is guaranteed for all people rather than just a
single select religion.
Mr. Moore had no infringement against the free exercise of his
religion. He can prominently plant the big rock in front of his house.
He can pray all he likes, he can donate all his earnings to the church
of his choice, he can send his chilf\dren to any religious scool he
likes and attend the religious services of his choice. But when he
practices religion as the agent of the state, he becomes guilty of
establishing a religion for the state, a clearly unconstitutional
position in the US. Furthermore, that establishment of religion may
well be offensive to many people entering that government
establishment.
Somehow I don't think you would be arguing for Mr. Moore's religious
rights if he had used his government position to establish Islamic
tenets with verses from the Qur'an displayed prominently in the
rotunda of a government buildings. (I know you'll deny it, but you
have no issue with lying, as you have made a pointed effort of doing
with the comparison of republican vs. democratic filibusters regarding
judicial appointees)
GK
Tough question for you?
Peace.
---------------------------------------
One mark of a deteriorating society is when its people cannot
discern truth from lies. Another is when they don't even bother
to try and will believe whatever their itching ears want to hear.
[Cal Thomas, 4 SEP 2000]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Johnson" |
|
| Title: Re: Still a Christian Nation (wasRe: Separation Of Church And State) |
06 Dec 2003 11:14:06 AM |
|
|
(The Mad Doctor) wrote:
On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 09:22:20 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote:
wf3h@ptnosm.com (Bob) wrote:
From Washington's farewell. Truer words . . as they say . .
gee. too bad they kinda forgot to put that in the constitution
I think what he's saying is, that's the nation formed by The
Constitution.
You find some contradiction, perhaps?
Remember what I said:
They insisted upon a Judeo-Christian ethic informing public policy.
But they did not want to limit, or chill, the free exercise of
religion.
So - when the ACLU sues to get rid of a stone block with the
Decalogue, in Alabama . . then . . . .
Mr. Moore had no infringement against the free exercise of his
religion.
But that's the whole point - he did.
He can prominently plant the big rock in front of his house.
The 'big rock'. You speak derisively? And that, to you, a libral, is
convincing?
You oughta read a book, specifically, by Ann Coulter, pretty popular
now on ebay - Slander: Liberal Lies . . . Make a great 'holiday
anything-but-Xmas' present. You'll thank me. Cause it describes . . .
libralism.
likes and attend the religious services of his choice. But when he
practices religion as the agent of the state, he becomes guilty of
establishing a religion for the state
No he doesn't. And those who would attempt to strip that from public
policy are not patriots, as Gen'l Washington so eloquently said:
Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity,
religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that
man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these
great pillars of human happiness - these firmest props of the duties
of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man,
ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all
their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be
asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life,
if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the
instruments of investigation in courts of justice?
From Washington's farewell. Truer words . . as they say . .
Maybe you think he intended to say something else. I get the feeling a
lot of people are desperately looking for those words, if they can be
found, on the web, and elsewhere. All I know is what he actually said.
Peace.
---------------------------------------
One mark of a deteriorating society is when its people cannot
discern truth from lies. Another is when they don't even bother
to try and will believe whatever their itching ears want to hear.
[Cal Thomas, 4 SEP 2000]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Johnson" |
|
| Title: Re: Still a Christian Nation (wasRe: Separation Of Church And State) |
08 Dec 2003 02:16:14 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 09:14:06 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote:
N
"Look, again, this is not about Latin. And I've said I'm not so
familiar with Latin. This is about the issues, here. And you can use
English, and also, perhaps, post this to the appropriate ng. Don't
hide behind Latin to conceal your ignorance of the subject." -- Mark
Johnson
mesasage id:
From _my_ farewell to alt.language.Latin. Truer words . . as they say
blanche@cco.blanchetech.edu
Theorem: All Johnsons are equal.
Choose arbitrary ***** and blanche, and let tit = ***** + blanche.
(***** + blanche)(***** - blanche) = tit(***** - blanche)
*****^2 - blanche^2 = titass - titblanche
*****^2 - titass = blanche^2 - titblanche
*****^2 - titass + (tit^2)/4 = blanche^2 - titblanche + (tit^2)/4
(***** - tit/2)^2 = (blanche - tit/2)^2
***** - tit/2 = blanche - tit/2
***** = blanche
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Still a Christian Nation (wasRe: Separation Of Church And State) |
06 Dec 2003 11:57:44 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 09:14:06 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote:
sawbones@uniserve.com (The Mad Doctor) wrote:
On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 09:22:20 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote:
wf3h@ptnosm.com (Bob) wrote:
From Washington's farewell. Truer words . . as they say . .
gee. too bad they kinda forgot to put that in the constitution
I think what he's saying is, that's the nation formed by The
Constitution.
You find some contradiction, perhaps?
Remember what I said:
They insisted upon a Judeo-Christian ethic informing public policy.
But they did not want to limit, or chill, the free exercise of
religion.
So - when the ACLU sues to get rid of a stone block with the
Decalogue, in Alabama . . then . . . .
Mr. Moore had no infringement against the free exercise of his
religion.
But that's the whole point - he did.
really? so any govt official can do ANYTHING in support of religion
and no one can stop him? a muslim can kill his wife and the govt is
powerless?
interesting.
He can prominently plant the big rock in front of his house.'
probably not. zoning regulations have to be obeyed, and religion does
not supercede them.
The 'big rock'. You speak derisively? And that, to you, a libral, is
convincing?
You oughta read a book, specifically, by Ann Coulter, pretty popular
now on ebay - Slander: Liberal Lies . . . Make a great 'holiday
anything-but-Xmas' present. You'll thank me. Cause it describes . . .
libralism.
ann coulter would be, i'm sure, a great *****. she's hot as hell. but
even other conservatives disavowed her when she said, about
afghanistan 'we should invade their country, kill their leaders and
convert them to xtianity'. that got her fired from the right wing
magazine 'national review'.
likes and attend the religious services of his choice. But when he
practices religion as the agent of the state, he becomes guilty of
establishing a religion for the state
No he doesn't. And those who would attempt to strip that from public
policy are not patriots, as Gen'l Washington so eloquently said:
funny that his speech isnt in the constitution. it has the same force
of law as bill clinton's farewell speech....none.
---------------------------
to see who "wf3h" is, go to "qrz.com"
and enter 'wf3h' in the field
check my blog at:
http://www.bobview.blogspot.com/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Johnson" |
|
| Title: Re: Still a Christian Nation (wasRe: Separation Of Church And State) |
08 Dec 2003 02:16:16 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 11:59:12 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote:
T
"Look, again, this is not about Latin. And I've said I'm not so
familiar with Latin. This is about the issues, here. And you can use
English, and also, perhaps, post this to the appropriate ng. Don't
hide behind Latin to conceal your ignorance of the subject." -- Mark
Johnson
mesasage id:
From _my_ farewell to alt.language.Latin. Truer words . . as they say
blanche@cco.blanchetech.edu
Theorem: All Johnsons are equal.
Choose arbitrary ***** and blanche, and let tit = ***** + blanche.
(***** + blanche)(***** - blanche) = tit(***** - blanche)
*****^2 - blanche^2 = titass - titblanche
*****^2 - titass = blanche^2 - titblanche
*****^2 - titass + (tit^2)/4 = blanche^2 - titblanche + (tit^2)/4
(***** - tit/2)^2 = (blanche - tit/2)^2
***** - tit/2 = blanche - tit/2
***** = blanche
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Alberich" |
|
| Title: Re: Still a Christian Nation (wasRe: Separation Of Church And State) |
06 Dec 2003 02:10:45 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 11:59:12 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote:
wf3h@ptnosm.com (Bob) wrote:
On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 09:14:06 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote:
sawbones@uniserve.com (The Mad Doctor) wrote:
On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 09:22:20 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote:
wf3h@ptnosm.com (Bob) wrote:
From Washington's farewell. Truer words . . as they say . .
gee. too bad they kinda forgot to put that in the constitution
I think what he's saying is, that's the nation formed by The
Constitution.
You find some contradiction, perhaps?
Remember what I said:
They insisted upon a Judeo-Christian ethic informing public policy.
But they did not want to limit, or chill, the free exercise of
religion.
So - when the ACLU sues to get rid of a stone block with the
Decalogue, in Alabama . . then . . . .
Mr. Moore had no infringement against the free exercise of his
religion.
But that's the whole point - he did.
really?
That's what the case was about. Let me know what you want to deny,
next.
Oughta be good.
Okay, start with this. Show me where the court said that Mr. Moore
cannot attend the church of his choice come Sunday--or any other day
of the week for that matter. Show me where it said that his religious
beliefs were of any less value than any other religious beliefs. Show
me where it said that he couldn't put that granite decalogue on his
own front lawn for all to see. Show me where it said that he couldn't
hold discussions with other private citizens about his religion.
He can prominently plant the big rock in front of his house.'
The 'big rock'. You speak derisively? And that, to you, a libral, is
convincing?
You oughta read a book, specifically, by Ann Coulter, pretty popular
now on ebay - Slander: Liberal Lies . . . Make a great 'holiday
anything-but-Xmas' present. You'll thank me. Cause it describes . . .
libralism.
ann coulter would be, i'm sure, a great *****. she's hot as hell. but
even other conservatives disavowed her when she said, about
afghanistan 'we should invade their country, kill their leaders and
convert them to xtianity'. that got her fired from the right wing
magazine 'national review'.
Did it now? Their loss. I don't see how one could forcibly convert one
to their faith. It's not gonna stop the Muslims. It's sure not
stopping you Commies and libs.
If you only knew how infantile such ranting makes you look...
likes and attend the religious services of his choice. But when he
practices religion as the agent of the state, he becomes guilty of
establishing a religion for the state
No he doesn't. And those who would attempt to strip that from public
policy are not patriots, as Gen'l Washington so eloquently said:
funny that his speech isnt in the constitution.
It explains the Constitution to you. You should take him at his word,
on that. He explains it well.
Oddly enough, he doesn't seem to pop up too often when looking at
those documents and speeches made by the founding father who were
debating the Constitution as it was being formed. So, for a better
explanation of what it was meant to be, why not look to those who
actually drew up the thing?
(Unless, of course, *their* explanations don't fit your agenda.)
Alberich
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Johnson" |
|
| Title: Re: Still a Christian Nation (wasRe: Separation Of Church And State) |
09 Dec 2003 05:10:45 PM |
|
|
Alberich <Alberich@NoSpam.com> wrote:
On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 11:59:12 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote:
wf3h@ptnosm.com (Bob) wrote:
On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 09:14:06 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote:
sawbones@uniserve.com (The Mad Doctor) wrote:
On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 09:22:20 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote:
wf3h@ptnosm.com (Bob) wrote:
Okay, start with this. Show me where the court said that Mr. Moore
cannot attend the church of his choice come Sunday
But remember, now, our founders did not want to chill the free
exercise of religion.
of the week for that matter. Show me where it said that his religious
beliefs were of any less value than any other religious beliefs.
They were considered not as valuable as the sectarian beliefs of those
judges and the ACLU - clearly. That was wrong, based on our founding.
He can prominently plant the big rock in front of his house.'
The 'big rock'. You speak derisively? And that, to you, a libral, is
convincing?
You oughta read a book, specifically, by Ann Coulter, pretty popular
now on ebay - Slander: Liberal Lies . . . Make a great 'holiday
anything-but-Xmas' present. You'll thank me. Cause it describes . . .
libralism.
ann coulter would be, i'm sure, a great *****. she's hot as hell. but
even other conservatives disavowed her when she said, about
afghanistan 'we should invade their country, kill their leaders and
convert them to xtianity'. that got her fired from the right wing
magazine 'national review'.
Did it now? Their loss. I don't see how one could forcibly convert one
to their faith. It's not gonna stop the Muslims. It's sure not
stopping you Commies and libs.
If you only knew how infantile such ranting makes you look...
Gee, Al. Thank you.
It explains the Constitution to you. You should take him at his word,
on that. He explains it well.
Oddly enough
Well, just read it:
"You only had about three Catholics. You had a bunch of
Congregationalists, not surprisingly. There were a fair number of
Presbyterians. You had Episcopaleans, like Pres. Washington. There was
a Huguenot who signed the articles, as did at least one Catholic - so
politics. You only had about three or four Quaker/Shakers. And so on.
There were some one just . . didn't know. Believe it or not, there was
actually someone from the Church of England, of all things. So you've
got Anglicans, Huguenots, Catholics, and Quakers, along with the
'respectable' Episcopalean and Methodist, etc. All of them worked
together."
Oh, wait, I meant this:
Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity,
religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that
man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these
great pillars of human happiness - these firmest props of the duties
of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man,
ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all
their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be
asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life,
if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the
instruments of investigation in courts of justice?
From Washington's farewell. Truer words . . as they say . .
Peace.
---------------------------------------
One mark of a deteriorating society is when its people cannot
discern truth from lies. Another is when they don't even bother
to try and will believe whatever their itching ears want to hear.
[Cal Thomas, 4 SEP 2000]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Alberich" |
|
| Title: Re: Still a Christian Nation (wasRe: Separation Of Church And State) |
09 Dec 2003 06:03:56 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 15:10:45 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote:
Alberich <Alberich@NoSpam.com> wrote:
On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 11:59:12 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote:
wf3h@ptnosm.com (Bob) wrote:
On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 09:14:06 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote:
sawbones@uniserve.com (The Mad Doctor) wrote:
On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 09:22:20 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote:
wf3h@ptnosm.com (Bob) wrote:
Okay, start with this. Show me where the court said that Mr. Moore
cannot attend the church of his choice come Sunday
But remember, now, our founders did not want to chill the free
exercise of religion.
of the week for that matter. Show me where it said that his religious
beliefs were of any less value than any other religious beliefs.
They were considered not as valuable as the sectarian beliefs of those
judges and the ACLU - clearly. That was wrong, based on our founding.
Actually, before you snipped it out, here's what I wrote:
"Okay, start with this. Show me where the court said that Mr. Moore
cannot attend the church of his choice come Sunday--or any other day
of the week for that matter. Show me where it said that his religious
beliefs were of any less value than any other religious beliefs. Show
me where it said that he couldn't put that granite decalogue on his
own front lawn for all to see. Show me where it said that he couldn't
hold discussions with other private citizens about his religion."
Alberich
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Still a Christian Nation (wasRe: Separation Of Church And State) |
09 Dec 2003 08:06:49 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 15:10:45 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote:
Alberich <Alberich@NoSpam.com> wrote:
On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 11:59:12 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote:
wf3h@ptnosm.com (Bob) wrote:
On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 09:14:06 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote:
sawbones@uniserve.com (The Mad Doctor) wrote:
On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 09:22:20 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote:
wf3h@ptnosm.com (Bob) wrote:
Okay, start with this. Show me where the court said that Mr. Moore
cannot attend the church of his choice come Sunday
But remember, now, our founders did not want to chill the free
exercise of religion.
we aren't. neither is the ACLU.
of the week for that matter. Show me where it said that his religious
beliefs were of any less value than any other religious beliefs.
They were considered not as valuable as the sectarian beliefs of those
judges and the ACLU - clearly. That was wrong, based on our founding.
the ACLU and the judges expressed no religious beliefs. they ruled on
a matter of law.
---------------------------
to see who "wf3h" is, go to "qrz.com"
and enter 'wf3h' in the field
check my blog at:
http://www.bobview.blogspot.com/
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Still a Christian Nation (wasRe: Separation Of Church And State) |
05 Dec 2003 12:27:35 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 09:22:20 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote:
wf3h@ptnosm.com (Bob) wrote:
From Washington's farewell. Truer words . . as they say . .
gee. too bad they kinda forgot to put that in the constitution
I think what he's saying is, that's the nation formed by The
Constitution.
You find some contradiction, perhaps?
Remember what I said:
They insisted upon a Judeo-Christian ethic informing public policy.
But they did not want to limit, or chill, the free exercise of
religion.
Either show where the Constitution says they "insisted on a
Judaeo-Christian ethic informing public policy", or admit you're
wrong.
And admit that you can't have your own freedom of religion without
freedom from all the others.
So - when the ACLU sues to get rid of a stone block with the
Decalogue, in Alabama . . then . . . .
Which was placed there by a judge who knoew he was acting both
illegally and unconstitutionally.
Tough question for you?
Tough question for you?
Peace.
---------------------------------------
One mark of a deteriorating society is when its people cannot
discern truth from lies. Another is when they don't even bother
to try and will believe whatever their itching ears want to hear.
[Cal Thomas, 4 SEP 2000]
Says one demonstrated bigoted liar citing another.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Johnson" |
|
| Title: Re: Still a Christian Nation (wasRe: Separation Of Church And State) |
06 Dec 2003 11:03:52 AM |
|
|
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 09:22:20 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote:
wf3h@ptnosm.com (Bob) wrote:
From Washington's farewell. Truer words . . as they say . .
gee. too bad they kinda forgot to put that in the constitution
I think what he's saying is, that's the nation formed by The
Constitution.
You find some contradiction, perhaps?
Remember what I said:
They insisted upon a Judeo-Christian ethic informing public policy.
But they did not want to limit, or chill, the free exercise of
religion.
Either show where the Constitution says they "insisted on a
Judaeo-Christian ethic informing public policy", or admit you're
wrong.
I'm just saying. Read what they said and wrote:
Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity,
religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that
man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these
great pillars of human happiness - these firmest props of the duties
of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man,
ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all
their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be
asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life,
if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the
instruments of investigation in courts of justice?
From Washington's farewell. Truer words . . as they say . .
So - when the ACLU sues to get rid of a stone block with the
Decalogue, in Alabama . . then . . . .
Which was placed there by a judge who knoew he was acting both
illegally and unconstitutionally.
But on what basis? because the courts are never wrong? or because the
courts were wrong, and ruled unConstitutional that which simply was
not?
Well?
Tough question for you?
Tough question for you?
Not for me. I just answered. Now you.
Peace.
---------------------------------------
One mark of a deteriorating society is when its people cannot
discern truth from lies. Another is when they don't even bother
to try and will believe whatever their itching ears want to hear.
[Cal Thomas, 4 SEP 2000]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Alberich" |
|
| Title: Re: Still a Christian Nation (wasRe: Separation Of Church And State) |
06 Dec 2003 11:46:10 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 09:03:52 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote:
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 09:22:20 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote:
wf3h@ptnosm.com (Bob) wrote:
From Washington's farewell. Truer words . . as they say . .
gee. too bad they kinda forgot to put that in the constitution
I think what he's saying is, that's the nation formed by The
Constitution.
You find some contradiction, perhaps?
Remember what I said:
They insisted upon a Judeo-Christian ethic informing public policy.
But they did not want to limit, or chill, the free exercise of
religion.
Either show where the Constitution says they "insisted on a
Judaeo-Christian ethic informing public policy", or admit you're
wrong.
I'm just saying. Read what they said and wrote:
Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity,
religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that
man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these
great pillars of human happiness - these firmest props of the duties
of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man,
ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all
their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be
asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life,
if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the
instruments of investigation in courts of justice?
From Washington's farewell. Truer words . . as they say . .
Actually, what you keep spouting is one man's words taken after the
Constitution was written, without their being included in any sort of
debate or discourse, and offering only a glimpse into his own personal
feelings. If you want to consider how the "Founding Fathers"
perceived religious liberty as a body politic, you should be looking
into (1) their words as they debated the form and substance of the
Constitution *as it was being written*, or (2) the Supreme Court in
the years immediately following the ratification of the Supreme Court.
So - when the ACLU sues to get rid of a stone block with the
Decalogue, in Alabama . . then . . . .
Which was placed there by a judge who knoew he was acting both
illegally and unconstitutionally.
But on what basis? because the courts are never wrong? or because the
courts were wrong, and ruled unConstitutional that which simply was
not?
Well?
Neither.
Alberich
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Johnson" |
|
| Title: Re: Still a Christian Nation (wasRe: Separation Of Church And State) |
06 Dec 2003 02:05:50 PM |
|
|
Alberich <Alberich@NoSpam.com> wrote:
On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 09:03:52 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote:
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 09:22:20 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote:
wf3h@ptnosm.com (Bob) wrote:
From Washington's farewell. Truer words . . as they say . .
gee. too bad they kinda forgot to put that in the constitution
I think what he's saying is, that's the nation formed by The
Constitution.
You find some contradiction, perhaps?
Remember what I said:
They insisted upon a Judeo-Christian ethic informing public policy.
But they did not want to limit, or chill, the free exercise of
religion.
Either show where the Constitution says they "insisted on a
Judaeo-Christian ethic informing public policy", or admit you're
wrong.
I'm just saying. Read what they said and wrote:
Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity,
religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that
man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these
great pillars of human happiness - these firmest props of the duties
of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man,
ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all
their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be
asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life,
if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the
instruments of investigation in courts of justice?
From Washington's farewell. Truer words . . as they say . .
Actually, what you keep spouting
That's what he said. I didn't say it. I just quote the man, so you can
benefit from his words.
is one man's words taken after the
Constitution was written, without their being included in any sort of
debate or discourse, and offering only a glimpse into his own personal
feelings.
I think he expresses himself, very well. He spoke more on this
subject, by the way, in that same address.
If you want to consider how the "Founding Fathers"
perceived religious liberty as a body politic, you should be looking
into (1) their words as they debated the form and substance of the
Constitution *as it was being written*, or (2) the Supreme Court in
the years immediately following the ratification of the Supreme Court.
I think you're going to have to wait for a 'reform' Court in the 20th
century for such a 'test', and its subsequent expansion and abuse.
Who's up, btw? Ginzberg was just appointed. O'Connor just narrowly
missed being crushed. Souter? Breyer?
We'll see.
So - when the ACLU sues to get rid of a stone block with the
Decalogue, in Alabama . . then . . . .
Which was placed there by a judge who knoew he was acting both
illegally and unconstitutionally.
But on what basis? because the courts are never wrong? or because the
courts were wrong, and ruled unConstitutional that which simply was
not?
Well?
Neither.
Alberich
Then on what basis? That the court was right? Maybe the court was
wrong? But on what basis? What standard?
Peace.
----------------------------------------
Theorem: All numbers are equal.
Choose arbitrary a and b, and let t = a + b.
(a + b)(a - b) = t(a - b)
a^2 - b^2 = ta - tb
a^2 - ta = b^2 - tb
a^2 - ta + (t^2)/4 = b^2 - tb + (t^2)/4
(a - t/2)^2 = (b - t/2)^2
a - t/2 = b - t/2
a = b
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Johnson" |
|
| Title: Re: Still a Christian Nation (wasRe: Separation Of Church And State) |
08 Dec 2003 02:15:57 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 12:05:50 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote:
Alberich <Alberich@NoSpam.com> wrote:
On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 09:03:52 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote:
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 09:22:20 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote:
wf3h@ptnosm.com (Bob) wrote:
From Washington's farewell. Truer words . . as they say . .
gee. too bad they kinda forgot to put that in the constitution
I think what he's saying is, that's the nation formed by The
Constitution.
You find some contradiction, perhaps?
Remember what I said:
They insisted upon a Judeo-Christian ethic informing public policy.
But they did not want to limit, or chill, the free exercise of
religion.
Either show where the Constitution says they "insisted on a
Judaeo-Christian ethic informing public policy", or admit you're
wrong.
I
I'm just saying nothing as usual...here. I don't read what I said and
wrote:
"Look, again, this is not about Latin. And I've said I'm not so
familiar with Latin. This is about the issues, here. And you can use
English, and also, perhaps, post this to the appropriate ng. Don't
hide behind Latin to conceal your ignorance of the subject." -- Mark
Johnson
mesasage id:
From my farewell to alt.language. Latin. Truer words . . as they say .
..
Actually, what you keep spouting
That's what I said. I did say it. I just quote myself, but I don't
benefit from my words.
is one man's words taken after the
Constitution was written, without their being included in any sort of
debate or discourse, and offering only a glimpse into his own personal
feelings.
I don't think I express myself, very well. I spoke more on this
subject, by the way, in that same address.
If you want to consider how the "Founding Fathers"
perceived religious liberty as a body politic, you should be looking
into (1) their words as they debated the form and substance of the
Constitution *as it was being written*, or (2) the Supreme Court in
the years immediately following the ratification of the Supreme Court.
I think I'm going to have to wait for a 'reform' Court in the 20th
century for such a 'test', and its subsequent imaginary expansion and
abuse.
I won't see.
Peace.
blanche@cco.blanchetech.edu
Theorem: All numbers are equal.
Choose arbitrary ***** and blanche, and let tit = ***** + blanche.
(***** + blanche)(***** - blanche) = tit(***** - blanche)
*****^2 - blanche^2 = titass - titblanche
*****^2 - titass = blanche^2 - titblanche
*****^2 - titass + (tit^2)/4 = blanche^2 - titblanche + (tit^2)/4
(***** - tit/2)^2 = (blanche - tit/2)^2
***** - tit/2 = blanche - tit/2
***** = blanche
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Alberich" |
|
| Title: Re: Still a Christian Nation (wasRe: Separation Of Church And State) |
06 Dec 2003 02:33:59 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 12:05:50 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote:
Alberich <Alberich@NoSpam.com> wrote:
On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 09:03:52 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote:
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 09:22:20 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote:
wf3h@ptnosm.com (Bob) wrote:
From Washington's farewell. Truer words . . as they say . .
gee. too bad they kinda forgot to put that in the constitution
I think what he's saying is, that's the nation formed by The
Constitution.
You find some contradiction, perhaps?
Remember what I said:
They insisted upon a Judeo-Christian ethic informing public policy.
But they did not want to limit, or chill, the free exercise of
religion.
Either show where the Constitution says they "insisted on a
Judaeo-Christian ethic informing public policy", or admit you're
wrong.
I'm just saying. Read what they said and wrote:
Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity,
religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that
man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these
great pillars of human happiness - these firmest props of the duties
of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man,
ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all
their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be
asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life,
if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the
instruments of investigation in courts of justice?
From Washington's farewell. Truer words . . as they say . .
Actually, what you keep spouting
That's what he said. I didn't say it. I just quote the man, so you can
benefit from his words.
is one man's words taken after the
Constitution was written, without their being included in any sort of
debate or discourse, and offering only a glimpse into his own personal
feelings.
I think he expresses himself, very well. He spoke more on this
subject, by the way, in that same address.
If you want to consider how the "Founding Fathers"
perceived religious liberty as a body politic, you should be looking
into (1) their words as they debated the form and substance of the
Constitution *as it was being written*, or (2) the Supreme Court in
the years immediately following the ratification of the Supreme Court.
I think you're going to have to wait for a 'reform' Court in the 20th
century for such a 'test', and its subsequent expansion and abuse.
Who's up, btw? Ginzberg was just appointed. O'Connor just narrowly
missed being crushed. Souter? Breyer?
Excuse me, I meant to write: "or (2) the Supreme Court in the years
immediately following the ratification of the Constitution." However,
I think that mess-up was immaterial; I still have no idea what you're
trying to say.
So - when the ACLU sues to get rid of a stone block with the
Decalogue, in Alabama . . then . . . .
Which was placed there by a judge who knoew he was acting both
illegally and unconstitutionally.
But on what basis? because the courts are never wrong? or because the
courts were wrong, and ruled unConstitutional that which simply was
not?
Well?
Neither.
Alberich
Then on what basis? That the court was right? Maybe the court was
wrong? But on what basis? What standard?
The court was right as a matter of law. Why is this so hard to grasp?
As much as *I* would like to see Catholicism spread throughout the
land with the blessings of the government, I realize that this cannot
occur *as* *a* *matter* *of* *law*!!!
Alberich
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Johnson" |
|
| Title: Re: Still a Christian Nation (wasRe: Separation Of Church And State) |
09 Dec 2003 05:14:48 PM |
|
|
Alberich <Alberich@NoSpam.com> wrote:
On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 12:05:50 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote:
Alberich <Alberich@NoSpam.com> wrote:
On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 09:03:52 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote:
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 09:22:20 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote:
wf3h@ptnosm.com (Bob) wrote:
I think you're going to have to wait for a 'reform' Court in the 20th
century for such a 'test', and its subsequent expansion and abuse.
Who's up, btw? Ginzberg was just appointed. O'Connor just narrowly
missed being crushed. Souter? Breyer?
Excuse me, I meant to write: "or (2) the Supreme Court in the years
immediately following the ratification of the Constitution." However,
I think that mess-up was immaterial; I still have no idea what you're
trying to say.
Court reform. Less libs, more qualified Justices.
Then on what basis? That the court was right? Maybe the court was
wrong? But on what basis? What standard?
The court was right as a matter of law.
What law?
As much as *I* would like to see Catholicism spread throughout the
land with the blessings of the government
I'm sure you can't wait. Don't fret, Al. One day. And it won't be
because of anything even a 'great leader' does. But one day.
I realize that this cannot
occur *as* *a* *matter* *of* *law*!!!
How could it not, as a matter of Justice? There is nothing you or I
will do to bring that about. Only God, Himself, when He comes in
glory.
Peace.
---------------------------------------
One mark of a deteriorating society is when its people cannot
discern truth from lies. Another is when they don't even bother
to try and will believe whatever their itching ears want to hear.
[Cal Thomas, 4 SEP 2000]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Duca" |
|
| Title: Re: Still a Christian Nation (wasRe: Separation Of Church And State) |
10 Dec 2003 06:49:46 AM |
|
|
Mark Johnson wrote:
Alberich <Alberich@NoSpam.com> wrote:
On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 12:05:50 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote:
Alberich <Alberich@NoSpam.com> wrote:
On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 09:03:52 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote:
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 09:22:20 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote:
wf3h@ptnosm.com (Bob) wrote:
I think you're going to have to wait for a 'reform' Court in the 20th
century for such a 'test', and its subsequent expansion and abuse.
Who's up, btw? Ginzberg was just appointed. O'Connor just narrowly
missed being crushed. Souter? Breyer?
Excuse me, I meant to write: "or (2) the Supreme Court in the years
immediately following the ratification of the Constitution." However,
I think that mess-up was immaterial; I still have no idea what you're
trying to say.
Court reform. Less libs, more qualified Justices.
Then on what basis? That the court was right? Maybe the court was
wrong? But on what basis? What standard?
The court was right as a matter of law.
What law?
As much as *I* would like to see Catholicism spread throughout the
land with the blessings of the government
I'm sure you can't wait. Don't fret, Al. One day. And it won't be
because of anything even a 'great leader' does. But one day.
I realize that this cannot
occur *as* *a* *matter* *of* *law*!!!
How could it not, as a matter of Justice? There is nothing you or I
will do to bring that about. Only God, Himself, when He comes in
glory.
Empty handed, and emptier hearted... much like how Mark goes
through his day.
Paul
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
