On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 09:20:30 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote:

aiken@unity.ncsu.edu (Wayne Aiken) wrote:

Mark Johnson (102334.12@compuserve.com) wrote:
: forlornh@aol.complex (Lord Calvert) wrote:
: Which derives from Christendom, of course, since all stand equal
: before God.
Equal....as groveling slaves, not as sovereign individuals.

Precisely not as slaves, but of all standing before God with equal
dignity, and equal humility.

*****. Demonstrate that it exists outside your overworked

imagination. We're in the real world now, where it is merely one of
hundreds of different deity-beliefs.

You need to go back and consider these issues as even the founders saw
them.

Why don't you take your own advice?

Why don't you read what they ACTUALLY say?

Its funny how Christianity had no concept of individual rights before
that pesky "Enlightenment" era came about.

But the whole point was - it did. It was the 'enlightenment' which
sought to remove liberties from people in preference to state control,
as we've seen. France was submerged in The Terror. The old model
trusted the individual. The new holds people in contempt, and in need
of nannying.

Evidence for this?

: >individual property
: Particularly from Christendom, and for all, not just the few.
Yet another case of Christianity jumping on the individualism bandwagon.

Or rather those breaking with Catholicism, which the locus of
Christendom.

The only people who give a flying ***** about Catholicism are

I think a thousand years of serfs might have something to say about that
"not just the few" claim.

Maybe you don't understand how things were - or have been ignorantly
instructed.

Maybe you don't understand how things were - or have been ignorantly
instructed.

---------------------------------------

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]

One demonstrated bigoted liar citing another.

On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 09:16:14 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote:

Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:

On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 00:19:50 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote:

forlornh@aol.complex (Lord Calvert) wrote:

Dogmatic religion is Communism taken to its metaphysical extreme.

No - the Democratic Party would be like Communism take to its norm.
You remember - filibusters . . over . . . court . . . . . .
appointments? You remember the criticism of the esteemed FDR - the
Court-packer? No? Yes?

Which were used even more by the Republicans

No - they weren't. That's the whole point . . . now.

Yes they were. Very few Bush appointees have been filibustered out,
and they're the most extreme ones. On the other hand the Republicans
used the filibuster and other means to stall most of Clinton's
appointees.

The idiot GOP let through some of the worst Court appointments in
history. Ruth Ginzberg - anyone? The GOP did not understand that the
court system was the means to implement public policy. The Dem do see
it, that way, in an effort to build the courts into something they
were never meant to be, contrary to Pres. Washington's admonitions,
yet again.

I see. Like the repugs loading the courts with those who would want to
decide cother folks's conscience for them?

why religion will always be the biggest enemy of a free society because the
concept of individual rights

Which derives from Christendom, of course, since all stand equal
before God.

*****. Individual rights derive from the individuals concerned

Before God. That's whence it derives. That's the Judeo-Christian
basis, based on Catholicism, based on the Life/Passion of God.

Stop lying. NOTHING AT ALL derives from your deity, outside the
imagination of believers who don't know where the real world takes
over from your religion.

Human rights are innate. By right of being born human. They are
nothing to do with your pretend friend, or with Catholicism. Which
deity gives citizens of India their individual rights? Or the
Japanese?

individual property

Particularly from Christendom, and for all, not just the few.

More *****. Christendom imposes itself on others.

You're thinking of the Democrats, again. Christendom was liberating,
and humanizing.

Stop lying. I know exactly whom I'm thinking of. Christians like you
who want to impose their religion on everybody else and lie about
those who stand up to it.

evangelising missionary religion that is intolerant of anybody outside
it.

Again, you haven't been watching the behavior of the ACLU, then.
There's intolerance.

Stop lying. The ACLU stands up for the INDIVIDUAL'S rights under the
constitution. Including individual believers.

Evangelising, missionarying, imposition of SOMEBODY ELSE'S religion
etc are intolerance.

The ACLU and everybody else has no problem with individuals
praqctising their religion. They stand up for the constitution when
government and its agents impose religion.

Why else does it send people where they are neither wanted nor
needed, to annoy everybody else?

That's why the GOP are the majority party, now - and not the Dem. And
it looks worse for the Dem, in future. People don't like to be
nannied, and taxed, and have their ethics constantly imposed upon by
those at war with what the founders wanted.

Idiot. The GOP are the majority party because they have been taken
over from the grass roots by the religious extremists who now have
their own at all levels, and because they got out to vote.

And why do you lie about what the founders wanted?

What they wanted was what they wrote in the Constitution and clarified
in the Bill of Rights. Neither of which describe what you pretend.

Right?

Wrong.

and individual worth

More *****.

Read what's here. You obviously could stand to learn a few things.

Oh, the irony.

You could obviously learn a few things if you take of your religious
extremist blinders.

I'm here to hep you.

*****.

Why don't you learn what "we the people" and "by the consent of the
governed" mean?

Christendom, right there.

*****. Christendom equates to narrow minded authoritarian bigots

Again, you're thinking of the Dem, historically, and now with regard
to conservatives and people of goodwill.

Stop lying. I'm thinking of the religious extremists who have taken
over the republican party.

like you without the intelligence of even common sense to interact
decently with others.

Just you, it seems.

Hardly. I was describing you: a religiously motaivated bigot who lacks
the common sense to think outside the box, and the ability to hold any
kind of discussion with those outside it because he imagines his
doctrinal premises and presumptions apply to everybody else.

is completely alien to it.

But property is alien to the Dem/socialists you obviously defend.
Rights are those which are convenient to them, at the time. And
individual worth? If you can't be bought off with a pittance, and if
you won't otherwise vote Dem, or forget to mail one or more ballots,
then your 'worth' isn't much . . . to a Dem.

Oh, and add "liars to "narrow-minded authoritarian bigots".

The Dem? Okay.

No. *Y*O*U*.

I mean, there's no question they make it a policy to lie about GOP
policies. That's on record, particularly during Clintonism when the
GOP was elected to control all of Congress, and began with The
Contract for America, and other things. I mean, the only time I've
ever heard 'unbiased reporters' and the Dem fret and worry about a
welfare system increasing the deficit, was when a GOP President
suggested a perhaps ill-advised prescription drug subsidy.

Eh? The "Contract for America" was Newt Gingrich.

The only liars about GOP policies have been the GOP themselves.

I can't think of a single time when Bush told the truth about
anything. He got in by pretending he would be a middle-of-the-road
compassionate conservatine, and from day one was the most extremist
right wing president we've ever had.

"Without faith we might relapse into scientific or rational thinking, which
leads by a slippery slope toward constitutional democracy." - Robert Anton
Wilson

If that's Constitional, then it's a different Constitution than the
founders signed. Let's just be honest, here.

Where did he ever say it was, moron?

So you're referring to a different constitution? moron? As I said, if
he thought that was Constitutional, then it wasn't in the
Constitution. He must have been imagining something else.

Hardly, moron. We started off as a constitutional democracy which
protected the rights of the minority from the tyrrany of the majority.
But the religious extremists like you, the religious right and now the
repugs are doing your darndest to subvert that.

Peace.

Peace will come when you hypocrites learn to live and let live

Well, the Dem are waning now. Maybe, in future, they'll have time to
protest, and complain, and write revised histories, and do what they
prefer, when they can no longer get elected to office, or appoint
idiots to the court - and the nation can get on with the business of
the nation.

Why do you keep bringing up the Dem? It's the repugs who have
polarised things. The liberals are live-and-let-live.

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.

Oh, the irony.

[Cal Thomas, 4 SEP 2000]

A demonstrated liar citing another.

On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 09:16:14 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote:

Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:

On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 00:19:50 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote:

forlornh@aol.complex (Lord Calvert) wrote:

Dogmatic religion is Communism taken to its metaphysical extreme.

No - the Democratic Party would be like Communism take to its norm.
You remember - filibusters . . over . . . court . . . . . .
appointments? You remember the criticism of the esteemed FDR - the
Court-packer? No? Yes?

Which were used even more by the Republicans

No - they weren't. That's the whole point . . . now.

Yes they were. Very few Bush appointees have been filibustered out,
and they're the most extreme ones. On the other hand the Republicans
used the filibuster and other means to stall most of Clinton's
appointees.

The idiot GOP let through some of the worst Court appointments in
history. Ruth Ginzberg - anyone? The GOP did not understand that the
court system was the means to implement public policy. The Dem do see
it, that way, in an effort to build the courts into something they
were never meant to be, contrary to Pres. Washington's admonitions,
yet again.

I see. Like the repugs loading the courts with those who would want to
decide cother folks's conscience for them?

why religion will always be the biggest enemy of a free society because the
concept of individual rights

Which derives from Christendom, of course, since all stand equal
before God.

*****. Individual rights derive from the individuals concerned

Before God. That's whence it derives. That's the Judeo-Christian
basis, based on Catholicism, based on the Life/Passion of God.

Stop lying. NOTHING AT ALL derives from your deity, outside the
imagination of believers who don't know where the real world takes
over from your religion.

Human rights are innate. By right of being born human. They are
nothing to do with your pretend friend, or with Catholicism. Which
deity gives citizens of India their individual rights? Or the
Japanese?

individual property

Particularly from Christendom, and for all, not just the few.

More *****. Christendom imposes itself on others.

You're thinking of the Democrats, again. Christendom was liberating,
and humanizing.

Stop lying. I know exactly whom I'm thinking of. Christians like you
who want to impose their religion on everybody else and lie about
those who stand up to it.

evangelising missionary religion that is intolerant of anybody outside
it.

Again, you haven't been watching the behavior of the ACLU, then.
There's intolerance.

Stop lying. The ACLU stands up for the INDIVIDUAL'S rights under the
constitution. Including individual believers.

Evangelising, missionarying, imposition of SOMEBODY ELSE'S religion
etc are intolerance.

The ACLU and everybody else has no problem with individuals
praqctising their religion. They stand up for the constitution when
government and its agents impose religion.

Why else does it send people where they are neither wanted nor
needed, to annoy everybody else?

That's why the GOP are the majority party, now - and not the Dem. And
it looks worse for the Dem, in future. People don't like to be
nannied, and taxed, and have their ethics constantly imposed upon by
those at war with what the founders wanted.

Idiot. The GOP are the majority party because they have been taken
over from the grass roots by the religious extremists who now have
their own at all levels, and because they got out to vote.

And why do you lie about what the founders wanted?

What they wanted was what they wrote in the Constitution and clarified
in the Bill of Rights. Neither of which describe what you pretend.

Right?

Wrong.

and individual worth

More *****.

Read what's here. You obviously could stand to learn a few things.

Oh, the irony.

You could obviously learn a few things if you take of your religious
extremist blinders.

I'm here to hep you.

*****.

Why don't you learn what "we the people" and "by the consent of the
governed" mean?

Christendom, right there.

*****. Christendom equates to narrow minded authoritarian bigots

Again, you're thinking of the Dem, historically, and now with regard
to conservatives and people of goodwill.

Stop lying. I'm thinking of the religious extremists who have taken
over the republican party.

like you without the intelligence of even common sense to interact
decently with others.

Just you, it seems.

Hardly. I was describing you: a religiously motaivated bigot who lacks
the common sense to think outside the box, and the ability to hold any
kind of discussion with those outside it because he imagines his
doctrinal premises and presumptions apply to everybody else.

is completely alien to it.

But property is alien to the Dem/socialists you obviously defend.
Rights are those which are convenient to them, at the time. And
individual worth? If you can't be bought off with a pittance, and if
you won't otherwise vote Dem, or forget to mail one or more ballots,
then your 'worth' isn't much . . . to a Dem.

Oh, and add "liars to "narrow-minded authoritarian bigots".

The Dem? Okay.

No. *Y*O*U*.

I mean, there's no question they make it a policy to lie about GOP
policies. That's on record, particularly during Clintonism when the
GOP was elected to control all of Congress, and began with The
Contract for America, and other things. I mean, the only time I've
ever heard 'unbiased reporters' and the Dem fret and worry about a
welfare system increasing the deficit, was when a GOP President
suggested a perhaps ill-advised prescription drug subsidy.

Eh? The "Contract for America" was Newt Gingrich.

The only liars about GOP policies have been the GOP themselves.

I can't think of a single time when Bush told the truth about
anything. He got in by pretending he would be a middle-of-the-road
compassionate conservatine, and from day one was the most extremist
right wing president we've ever had.

"Without faith we might relapse into scientific or rational thinking, which
leads by a slippery slope toward constitutional democracy." - Robert Anton
Wilson

If that's Constitional, then it's a different Constitution than the
founders signed. Let's just be honest, here.

Where did he ever say it was, moron?

So you're referring to a different constitution? moron? As I said, if
he thought that was Constitutional, then it wasn't in the
Constitution. He must have been imagining something else.

Hardly, moron. We started off as a constitutional democracy which
protected the rights of the minority from the tyrrany of the majority.
But the religious extremists like you, the religious right and now the
repugs are doing your darndest to subvert that.

Peace.

Peace will come when you hypocrites learn to live and let live

Well, the Dem are waning now. Maybe, in future, they'll have time to
protest, and complain, and write revised histories, and do what they
prefer, when they can no longer get elected to office, or appoint
idiots to the court - and the nation can get on with the business of
the nation.

Why do you keep bringing up the Dem? It's the repugs who have
polarised things. The liberals are live-and-let-live.

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.

Oh, the irony.

[Cal Thomas, 4 SEP 2000]

A demonstrated liar citing another.