| 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) |
06 Dec 2003 10:47:27 AM |
|
|
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 00:59:51 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> posted in alt.atheism:
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 06:05:38 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> posted in alt.atheism:
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
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.
Why would Deists - many of whom held Christianity in the highest
contempt
Many who did not.
Try reading their words, instead of trying to put words in their
mouths.
You might take your own advice. It wasn't that some didn't hate
Catholicism with a passion. An Adams, or two, in hindsight, might seem
like he might have been wearing an aluminum foil hat, rather than
receiving foreign potentates in the nation's capitol.
The founders beliefs were, varied, to say the least.
And most of them were not Christians.
Washington was said to be a mason, a theist, a deist. But he was
really Episcopalean. They say he wasn't really, because he wasn't
_really_ all that devout. But then what Episcopalean . . oh, I didn't
say that, right?
Sure you did - you claimed to know his thoughts better than he did.
Episcopalean. I was just cracking wise about 'mainstream' Prots.
I think Pres. Washington's own words speak eloquently to what he
believed as a Protestant. Read his farewell address.
As I wrote:
Besides, his own words, such as in his farewell,
speak volumes.
But not the volume that says that he was Christian.
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.
If the rest of your count is as accurate as that they must have all
been Satanists.
I'm sorry it doesn't conform to your 'carefully taught' education. But
read it, again:
"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."
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: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Still a Christian Nation (wasRe: Separation Of Church And State) |
06 Dec 2003 06:16:50 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 08:47:27 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> posted in alt.atheism:
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 00:59:51 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> posted in alt.atheism:
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 06:05:38 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> posted in alt.atheism:
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
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.
Why would Deists - many of whom held Christianity in the highest
contempt
Many who did not.
Try reading their words, instead of trying to put words in their
mouths.
You might take your own advice. It wasn't that some didn't hate
Catholicism with a passion. An Adams, or two, in hindsight, might seem
like he might have been wearing an aluminum foil hat, rather than
receiving foreign potentates in the nation's capitol.
Which is why the entire Senate ratified a treaty that claimed that
this country was NOT founded on Christian principles?
Evidently you haven't read their words.
The founders beliefs were, varied, to say the least.
And most of them were not Christians.
Washington was said to be a mason, a theist, a deist. But he was
really Episcopalean. They say he wasn't really, because he wasn't
_really_ all that devout. But then what Episcopalean . . oh, I didn't
say that, right?
Sure you did - you claimed to know his thoughts better than he did.
Episcopalean.
Very few Deists are Episcopalian. So few, in fact, that you can count
them on the fingers of one foot.
I think Pres. Washington's own words speak eloquently to what he
believed as a Protestant. Read his farewell address.
He was speaking to the people, not to Deists. Washington was the
consummate politician.
I'm sorry it doesn't conform to your 'carefully taught' education. But
read it, again:
"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."
Why do you think that repeating your dishonesty makes it honest?
--
"I am a deeply religious nonbeliever.... This is a somewhat new kind of religion."
- Letter to Hans Muehsam March 30, 1954; Einstein Archive 38-434
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Johnson" |
|
| Title: Re: Still a Christian Nation (wasRe: Separation Of Church And State) |
09 Dec 2003 05:03:27 PM |
|
|
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 08:47:27 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> posted in alt.atheism:
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 00:59:51 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> posted in alt.atheism:
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 06:05:38 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> posted in alt.atheism:
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
You might take your own advice. It wasn't that some didn't hate
Catholicism with a passion. An Adams, or two, in hindsight, might seem
like he might have been wearing an aluminum foil hat, rather than
receiving foreign potentates in the nation's capitol.
Which is why the entire Senate ratified a treaty that claimed that
this country was NOT founded on Christian principles?
And yet it clearly was, and had to be, as Gen'l Washington explained
to you:
"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 . .
Episcopalean.
Very few Deists are Episcopalian.
George Washington was a Prot.
I think Pres. Washington's own words speak eloquently to what he
believed as a Protestant. Read his farewell address.
He was speaking to the people, not to Deists. Washington was the
consummate politician.
So he lied? Well - of course - _you'd_ have to say that. I hope you
convinced yourself. You'd do better, though, to read what he said.
"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."
Why do you think that repeating your dishonesty makes it honest?
I'm sorry, guy - but them's the history. That's who the signers of the
Constitution or Declaration were.
Just how it was. Maybe it's not . . your America, or that of the ACLU.
But maybe your America . . . isn't American.
You know?
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: "Jeff George" |
|
| Title: Re: Still a Christian Nation (wasRe: Separation Of Church And State) |
16 Dec 2003 01:40:55 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 15:03:27 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> added the following words of wisdom:
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 08:47:27 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> posted in alt.atheism:
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 . .
What relevance does his opinion hold on anything?
Episcopalean.
Very few Deists are Episcopalian.
George Washington was a Prot.
Protestant covers a big area.
I think Pres. Washington's own words speak eloquently to what he
believed as a Protestant. Read his farewell address.
He was speaking to the people, not to Deists. Washington was the
consummate politician.
So he lied? Well - of course - _you'd_ have to say that. I hope you
convinced yourself. You'd do better, though, to read what he said.
And achieve what?
"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."
Why do you think that repeating your dishonesty makes it honest?
I'm sorry, guy - but them's the history. That's who the signers of the
Constitution or Declaration were.
Just how it was. Maybe it's not . . your America, or that of the ACLU.
But maybe your America . . . isn't American.
And maybe yours isn't. You know?
You know?
Jeff George
SLAP (Socialist Liberation Army of the People)
SLUG (Socialists for Liberty United Government)
Power to the People! Vive la revolution!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Johnson" |
|
| Title: Re: Still a Christian Nation (wasRe: Separation Of Church And State) |
17 Dec 2003 01:59:44 AM |
|
|
Jeff George <george666@comcast.net.munged> wrote:
On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 15:03:27 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> added the following words of wisdom:
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 08:47:27 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> posted in alt.atheism:
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 . .
What relevance does his opinion hold on anything?
He was the first President of the United States, arguably the greatest
US President, whose presence was almost the ground of founding the new
nation.
That kind of relevance.
George Washington was a Prot.
Protestant covers a big area.
Episcopalean.
I think Pres. Washington's own words speak eloquently to what he
believed as a Protestant. Read his farewell address.
He was speaking to the people, not to Deists. Washington was the
consummate politician.
So he lied? Well - of course - _you'd_ have to say that. I hope you
convinced yourself. You'd do better, though, to read what he said.
And achieve what?
Learn.
Why do you think that repeating your dishonesty makes it honest?
I'm sorry, guy - but them's the history. That's who the signers of the
Constitution or Declaration were.
Just how it was. Maybe it's not . . your America, or that of the ACLU.
But maybe your America . . . isn't American.
And maybe yours isn't.
But as I said, maybe that's not ACLU America, or your America, but it
IS that of Americans.
And now you know. As I said in other messages, I think the American
people are getting real tired of the socialist act. I think the Dem
Party is on the permanent decline.
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: "Jeff George" |
|
| Title: Re: Still a Christian Nation (wasRe: Separation Of Church And State) |
17 Dec 2003 10:32:49 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 23:59:44 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> added the following words of wisdom:
What relevance does his opinion hold on anything?
He was the first President of the United States, arguably the greatest
US President, whose presence was almost the ground of founding the new
nation.
That kind of relevance.
It has no relevance whatsoever to the Constitution.
I think Pres. Washington's own words speak eloquently to what he
believed as a Protestant. Read his farewell address.
He was speaking to the people, not to Deists. Washington was the
consummate politician.
So he lied? Well - of course - _you'd_ have to say that. I hope you
convinced yourself. You'd do better, though, to read what he said.
And achieve what?
Learn.
There is nothing to learn from that speech.
Why do you think that repeating your dishonesty makes it honest?
I'm sorry, guy - but them's the history. That's who the signers of the
Constitution or Declaration were.
Just how it was. Maybe it's not . . your America, or that of the ACLU.
But maybe your America . . . isn't American.
And maybe yours isn't.
But as I said, maybe that's not ACLU America, or your America, but it
IS that of Americans.
That's just your opinion, not a fact.
And now you know. As I said in other messages, I think the American
people are getting real tired of the socialist act. I think the Dem
Party is on the permanent decline.
What do Democrats have to do with Socialists? Democrats are just
Republicans with a different name.
Jeff George
SLAP (Socialist Liberation Army of the People)
SLUG (Socialists for Liberty United Government)
Power to the People! Vive la revolution!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Johnson" |
|
| Title: Re: Still a Christian Nation (wasRe: Separation Of Church And State) |
17 Dec 2003 08:52:59 PM |
|
|
Jeff George <george666@comcast.net.munged> wrote:
On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 23:59:44 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> added the following words of wisdom:
What relevance does his opinion hold on anything?
He was the first President of the United States, arguably the greatest
US President, whose presence was almost the ground of founding the new
nation.
That kind of relevance.
It has no relevance whatsoever to the Constitution.
Thought that was a question. And I answered your question.
He was the first President of the United States, arguably the greatest
US President, whose presence was almost the ground of founding the new
nation.
I think Pres. Washington's own words speak eloquently to what he
believed as a Protestant. Read his farewell address.
He was speaking to the people, not to Deists. Washington was the
consummate politician.
So he lied? Well - of course - _you'd_ have to say that. I hope you
convinced yourself. You'd do better, though, to read what he said.
And achieve what?
Learn.
There is nothing to learn from that speech.
Here's an excerpt that would change any reasonable person's mind:
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: "Paul Duca" |
|
| Title: Re: Still a Christian Nation (wasRe: Separation Of Church And State) |
21 Dec 2003 10:58:59 AM |
|
|
Jeff George wrote:
On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 15:03:27 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> added the following words of wisdom:
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 08:47:27 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> posted in alt.atheism:
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 . .
What relevance does his opinion hold on anything?
Episcopalean.
Very few Deists are Episcopalian.
George Washington was a Prot.
Protestant covers a big area.
As will the fundie preachers and politicians and pundits who sing the
same song Mark does about abortion and gay marriage and flag-waving and the
acquistion of wealth, Washington got special dispensation to enter Catholic
Heaven (TM).
Paul
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Johnson" |
|
| Title: Re: Still a Christian Nation (wasRe: Separation Of Church And State) |
08 Dec 2003 02:15:35 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 08:47:27 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote:
If the rest of your count is as accurate as that they must have all
been Satanists.
I
I'm sorry I don't conform to any education. But
read it, again:
"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:
Peace.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "maf 1029" |
|
| Title: Re: Still a Christian Nation (wasRe: Separation Of Church And State) |
04 Dec 2003 01:43:05 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 06:05:38 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote:
So - when the ACLU sues to get rid of a stone block with the
Decalogue, in Alabama . . then . . . .
I applaud and do a jig of glee, why do you ask?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Still a Christian Nation (wasRe: Separation Of Church And State) |
04 Dec 2003 05:04:24 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 19:43:05 GMT, maf 1029 <m@bringonthespambaby.de>
wrote:
On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 06:05:38 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote:
So - when the ACLU sues to get rid of a stone block with the
Decalogue, in Alabama . . then . . . .
I applaud and do a jig of glee, why do you ask?
saw a note the other day that, in the past few years, alabama has paid
the ACLU $700,000 for legal expenses regarding religious lawsuits.
this, in a state that cant afford textbooks for its kids.
---------------------------
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: "DeanDoom" |
|
| Title: Re: Still a Christian Nation (wasRe: Separation Of Church And State) |
04 Dec 2003 05:25:20 PM |
|
|
"Bob" <wf3h@ptnosm.com> wrote in message
news:3fcfbd44.76350216@usenet.ptd.net...
On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 19:43:05 GMT, maf 1029 <m@bringonthespambaby.de>
wrote:
On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 06:05:38 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote:
So - when the ACLU sues to get rid of a stone block with the
Decalogue, in Alabama . . then . . . .
I applaud and do a jig of glee, why do you ask?
saw a note the other day that, in the past few years, alabama has paid
the ACLU $700,000 for legal expenses regarding religious lawsuits.
this, in a state that cant afford textbooks for its kids.
Yes, the greedy ACLU lawyers see absolutely nothing wrong with draining
taxpayer money away from the kids' education and stuffing into their own
pockets.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Still a Christian Nation (wasRe: Separation Of Church And State) |
04 Dec 2003 07:45:44 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 23:25:20 GMT, "DeanDoom" <SusanRTyler@att.net>
wrote:
"Bob" <wf3h@ptnosm.com> wrote in message
news:3fcfbd44.76350216@usenet.ptd.net...
On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 19:43:05 GMT, maf 1029 <m@bringonthespambaby.de>
wrote:
On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 06:05:38 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote:
So - when the ACLU sues to get rid of a stone block with the
Decalogue, in Alabama . . then . . . .
I applaud and do a jig of glee, why do you ask?
saw a note the other day that, in the past few years, alabama has paid
the ACLU $700,000 for legal expenses regarding religious lawsuits.
this, in a state that cant afford textbooks for its kids.
Yes, the greedy ACLU lawyers see absolutely nothing wrong with draining
taxpayer money away from the kids' education and stuffing into their own
pockets.
ROFLMAO!! really? the rednecks in alabama keep trying to talibanize
the state, and it's the fault of the US constitution?
---------------------------
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 02:30:29 AM |
|
|
(Bob) wrote:
ROFLMAO!! really? the rednecks in alabama keep trying to talibanize
the state, and it's the fault of the US constitution?
Yeah, but the only ones trying to chill the free exercise of religion,
and attempting to impose their own beliefs are the ACLU, in this case,
and the courts that backed their play. That was wrong. The founders
did not want a government, particularly the courts, to chill the free
exercise of religion. I may not agree with Moore's sect. But the
founders' particular sects were just all over the place. The flaw in
Washington's insistence upon the Judeo-Christian ethic informing
public policy was in the already degenerate nature of that ethic,
having departed from Catholicism. In the seeds of that Protestantism
was its own demise. It took well over a century, to be fair. But so
the system described in the Constitution is more or less as founded.
And states right have been almost submerged under the fed. But the
sort of 'generic Christianity' that the founders demanded, itself,
predictably collapsed, mostly following the second world war, but one
could see it tumbling among regular common-folk, even before that. So
you have, now, committed zealots - your 'taliban' - in high gubment
offices, assisted by a fair number of the voting public, attempting to
impose this militant secularism on all other faiths and sects, that
don't share the beliefs of this 'taliban', if you prefer that
reference. This is something, new, historically, in this country. And
it's now how this country was founded.
I'm just saying.
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: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Still a Christian Nation (wasRe: Separation Of Church And State) |
05 Dec 2003 07:29:17 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 00:30:29 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote:
wf3h@ptnosm.com (Bob) wrote:
ROFLMAO!! really? the rednecks in alabama keep trying to talibanize
the state, and it's the fault of the US constitution?
Yeah, but the only ones trying to chill the free exercise of religion,
The only people trying to that are the religious right - to other
people and their religions.
You can't have free exercise without freedom to let other people
practice (or not) their religions (or not). Because that gives freedom
from all the others religions.
and attempting to impose their own beliefs are the ACLU, in this case,
Why do you lie? You know as well as the rest of us that the ACLU
stands up for the individual's rights under the Constitution.
[rest of this bigoted ignorance snipped]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Johnson" |
|
| Title: Re: Still a Christian Nation (wasRe: Separation Of Church And State) |
05 Dec 2003 11:31:16 AM |
|
|
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 00:30:29 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote:
wf3h@ptnosm.com (Bob) wrote:
ROFLMAO!! really? the rednecks in alabama keep trying to talibanize
the state, and it's the fault of the US constitution?
Yeah, but the only ones trying to chill the free exercise of religion,
The only people trying to that are the religious right - to other
people and their religions.
No - that's just the opposite, in fact. But the only ones trying to
chill the free exercise of religion, and attempting to impose their
own beliefs are the ACLU, in this case, and the courts that backed
their play. That was wrong. The founders did not want a government,
particularly the courts, to chill the free exercise of religion.
You can't have free exercise without freedom to let other people
practice (or not) their religions (or not). Because that gives freedom
from all the others religions.
That's not the gubment's business to stifle the free exercise of
religion. There may be harm in certain practices, violence and civil
crimes. But nothing like that occured in the case of Justice Moore and
his granite block.
and attempting to impose their own beliefs are the ACLU, in this case,
Why do you lie? You know as well as the rest of us that the ACLU
stands up for the individual's rights under the Constitution.
Againt the Constitution, you meant to say.
The founders did not want a government, particularly the courts, to
chill the free exercise of religion.
The ACLU - and you - clearly disagree. Let's just be honest.
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: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Still a Christian Nation (wasRe: Separation Of Church And State) |
05 Dec 2003 12:38:04 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 09:31:16 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote:
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 00:30:29 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote:
wf3h@ptnosm.com (Bob) wrote:
ROFLMAO!! really? the rednecks in alabama keep trying to talibanize
the state, and it's the fault of the US constitution?
Yeah, but the only ones trying to chill the free exercise of religion,
The only people trying to that are the religious right - to other
people and their religions.
No - that's just the opposite, in fact. But the only ones trying to
chill the free exercise of religion, and attempting to impose their
own beliefs are the ACLU, in this case, and the courts that backed
their play. That was wrong. The founders did not want a government,
particularly the courts, to chill the free exercise of religion.
Stop lying. You want to impose YOUR religion, and are lying about it
being the foundation of the country. The ACLU stops the government
doing that for you. Look up "the tyranny of the majority".
Nobody, neither the ACLU or the courts are chilling the free exercise
of religion BY INDIVIDUALS.
Why do you pretend you don't understand the difference between
individuals and agents of government?
You can't have free exercise without freedom to let other people
practice (or not) their religions (or not). Because that gives freedom
from all the others religions.
That's not the gubment's business to stifle the free exercise of
religion. There may be harm in certain practices, violence and civil
crimes. But nothing like that occured in the case of Justice Moore and
his granite block.
Judge Moore was an agent of government acting in is official capacity,
putting the block in a government insitution that is required to be
religiously neutral.
He knew he was acting both illegally and unconstitutionally and did it
to pick a fight.
and attempting to impose their own beliefs are the ACLU, in this case,
Why do you lie? You know as well as the rest of us that the ACLU
stands up for the individual's rights under the Constitution.
Againt the Constitution, you meant to say.
Stop lying. If I'd meant to that I would have said it.
The founders did not want a government, particularly the courts, to
chill the free exercise of religion.
They don't, liar.
They restrict THE GOVERNMENT from imposing a religion, even if it is
the majority one. And even your in-your-face extremist and
authoritarian version of Christianity isn't the majority one.
As a Catholic I would have thought you would have been rather more
sensitive to this than the rest of the religious right. I suggest you
do a web search on the Philadelphia bible riots, which happened
because the local Protestant majority ran the government and imposed
protestant bible readings on Catholic kids.
Did you look up "tyrrany of the majority" as I suggested?
The ACLU - and you - clearly disagree. Let's just be honest.
It would help if you were honest for a change instead of regurgitating
the religious right's falsehoods about the ACLU.
Peace.
Hardly.
---------------------------------------
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 religiously bigoted liar citing another.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Johnson" |
|
| Title: Re: Still a Christian Nation (wasRe: Separation Of Church And State) |
06 Dec 2003 11:34:27 AM |
|
|
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
Stop lying. You want to impose YOUR religion
No, I don't. Even in Christendom, The Church didn't impose itself. In
fact, even at the height of the Middle Ages, they couldn't always
count on this or that potentate sending his armies into the field on
behalf of other Catholics under seige, etc.
being the foundation of the country. The ACLU stops the government
doing that for you. Look up "the tyranny of the majority".
You mean like 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 . .
That's not the gubment's business to stifle the free exercise of
religion. There may be harm in certain practices, violence and civil
crimes. But nothing like that occured in the case of Justice Moore and
his granite block.
Judge Moore was an agent of government acting in is official capacity
Exactly.
putting the block in a government insitution that is required to be
religiously neutral.
Then your America, isn't the America that Gen'l Washington fought to
create. It's not the America of the very First Amendment to the
Constitution. It's not the America in which the founders lived, in
whichever of the states. Just not how it was, or was ever intended to
be. Again - America. And ACLU America. It's just not the same.
The founders did not want a government, particularly the courts, to
chill the free exercise of religion.
They don't, liar.
They restrict THE GOVERNMENT from imposing a religion
That's something else. The founders did not want a government,
particularly the courts, to chill the free exercise of religion.
As a Catholic I would have thought you would have been rather more
sensitive to this than the rest of the religious right. I suggest you
do a web search on the Philadelphia bible riots, which happened
because the local Protestant majority ran the government and imposed
protestant bible readings on Catholic kids.
Heck, that _was_ the early history in some of the colonies, and later
states. That's the sad history of - intolerance - at the state level.
I don't approve of it. I don't approve of Anglicanism, and what they
did, historically. But neither do I approve of the overarching reach
of the fed, which began even as some of the founders, themselves, were
elected to the Presidency, in the early decades.
It would help if you were honest for a change instead of regurgitating
the religious right's falsehoods about the ACLU.
You consider the anti-religious left to possess the welle of truth? I
don't.
Peace.
Hardly.
Up to you libs, I guess. I think America is growing tired of you, to
tell the truth.
---------------------------------------
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 religiously bigoted liar citing another.
Don't project. You know what they say about . . that:
"[His] outstanding defense mechanism is one commonly called
PROJECTION. It is a technique by which the ego of an individual
defends itself against unpleasant impulses, tendencies or
characteristics by denying their existence in himself while he
attributes them to others."
At least as far as that particular part of the report went, it seems
they, and Ann Coulter today, have got you libs down. She's got a good
book, too - probably available inexpensively on ebay - Slander:
Liberal Lies . . . Definitely read it.
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 02:16:07 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 09:34:27 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote:
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
Stop lying. You want to impose YOUR religion
N
Yes, I do. Even in Christendom, The Church did impose itself. In
fact, even at the height of my Middle Age, I couldn't always
count on this or that prostate sending my thingie into Ann Coulter on
behalf of my Catholic seige, etc.
being the foundation of the country. The ACLU stops the government
doing that for you. Look up "the tyranny of the majority".
Y
You mean like this? :
"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
Then my America, isn't the America that Gen'l Washington fought to
create. Mine is not the America of the very First Amendment to the
Constitution. Mine is not the America in which the founders lived, in
whichever of the states. Just not how it was, or I ever intended to
be. Again - America. And _my_ America. It's just not the same.
I
I do want a government,
particularly _me_, to chill the free exercise of religion.
D
I project. I know what they say about . . that:
"[Mark Johnson's] outstanding defense mechanism is one commonly called
PROJECTION. It is a technique by which the ego of an individual
defends itself against unpleasant impulses, tendencies or
characteristics by denying their existence in himself while he
attributes them to others."
At least as far as that particular part of the report went, it seems
they, and my honey Ann Coulter today, have got our crabs down. She's
got a good *****, too - probably available inexpensively on ebay -
Definitely eat it.
Peace.
---------------------------------------
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Still a Christian Nation (wasRe: Separation Of Church And State) |
05 Dec 2003 03:15:21 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 09:31:16 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote:
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 00:30:29 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote:
wf3h@ptnosm.com (Bob) wrote:
ROFLMAO!! really? the rednecks in alabama keep trying to talibanize
the state, and it's the fault of the US constitution?
Yeah, but the only ones trying to chill the free exercise of religion,
The only people trying to that are the religious right - to other
people and their religions.
No - that's just the opposite, in fact. But the only ones trying to
chill the free exercise of religion, and attempting to impose their
own beliefs are the ACLU, in this case, and the courts that backed
their play. That was wrong. The founders did not want a government,
particularly the courts, to chill the free exercise of religion.
really? you mean disenfranchising jews and catholics is not a chilling
of the free exercise? because, if we go back to YOUR view as it was
when state constitutions had state religions, jews and catholics would
not be able to hold office.
how is that not 'chilling' the free exercise of religion?
You can't have free exercise without freedom to let other people
practice (or not) their religions (or not). Because that gives freedom
from all the others religions.
That's not the gubment's business to stifle the free exercise of
religion. There may be harm in certain practices, violence and civil
crimes. But nothing like that occured in the case of Justice Moore and
his granite block.
it wasnt 'his' granite block. if it was, he has no more right to
display it in the court house than he did to display his dirty
underwear.
and attempting to impose their own beliefs are the ACLU, in this case,
Why do you lie? You know as well as the rest of us that the ACLU
stands up for the individual's rights under the Constitution.
Againt the Constitution, you meant to say.
The founders did not want a government, particularly the courts, to
chill the free exercise of religion.
you, however, do.
---------------------------
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: "LeftistMeltdown" |
|
| Title: Re: Still a Christian Nation (wasRe: Separation Of Church And State) |
05 Dec 2003 03:21:21 PM |
|
|
"Bob" <wf3h@ptnosm.com> wrote in message
news:3fd0f4e9.156065695@usenet.ptd.net...
On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 09:31:16 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote:
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 00:30:29 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote:
wf3h@ptnosm.com (Bob) wrote:
ROFLMAO!! really? the rednecks in alabama keep trying to talibanize
the state, and it's the fault of the US constitution?
Yeah, but the only ones trying to chill the free exercise of religion,
The only people trying to that are the religious right - to other
people and their religions.
No - that's just the opposite, in fact. But the only ones trying to
chill the free exercise of religion, and attempting to impose their
own beliefs are the ACLU, in this case, and the courts that backed
their play. That was wrong. The founders did not want a government,
particularly the courts, to chill the free exercise of religion.
really? you mean disenfranchising jews and catholics is not a chilling
of the free exercise?
Who, other than you, is proposing to do such a thing? False Planted Axiom.
because, if we go back to YOUR view as it was
when state constitutions had state religions, jews and catholics would
not be able to hold office.
Presumption on your part. No evidence from you that he wants to do that.
False Planted Axiom again.
You need to learn to make sense, Bob.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Still a Christian Nation (wasRe: Separation Of Church And State) |
05 Dec 2003 05:03:54 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 21:21:21 GMT, "LeftistMeltdown"
<DemsNeed2GetReal@coastallink.net> wrote:
"Bob" <wf3h@ptnosm.com> wrote in message
news:3fd0f4e9.156065695@usenet.ptd.net...
really? you mean disenfranchising jews and catholics is not a chilling
of the free exercise?
Who, other than you, is proposing to do such a thing? False Planted Axiom.
ignorance of history.
protestant christianity was the state religion in many states before
the US constitution. in virginia, baptists were forced to pay for CoE
ministers. in maryland, catholics couldnt hold office until 1821. the
state constitution of s. carolina stated that the 'official religion
was protestant christianity'.
now, i know you're not too bright on the issue, but DO try to study
history BEFORE you revise it. if you want to go BACK to the way it
was, THAT was the way it was.
because, if we go back to YOUR view as it was
when state constitutions had state religions, jews and catholics would
not be able to hold office.
Presumption on your part. No evidence from you that he wants to do that.
False Planted Axiom again.
really? you mean he's NOT arguing that we should restore the original
intent of the constitution?
seems rather than logic, you should study remedial reading.
You need to learn to make sense, Bob.
and you need to learn some history, leftist.
---------------------------
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 11:15:42 AM |
|
|
(Bob) wrote:
and you need to learn some history, leftist.
Now, now, 'Bobbb'. Be nice. Remember Our Founder's words:
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: "Mark Johnson" |
|
| Title: Re: Still a Christian Nation (wasRe: Separation Of Church And State) |
08 Dec 2003 02:16:09 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 09:15:42 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote:
wf3h@ptnosm.com (Bob) wrote:
and you need to learn some history, leftist.
N
Now, now, Bob. I should be nicer. I don't remember my own words:
"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: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Still a Christian Nation (wasRe: Separation Of Church And State) |
06 Dec 2003 11:54:28 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 09:15:42 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote:
wf3h@ptnosm.com (Bob) wrote:
and you need to learn some history, leftist.
Now, now, 'Bobbb'. Be nice. Remember Our Founder's words:
markie keeps hoping that, if he dumps the macro with washington's
address onto the net often enough it will, MIRABILE DICTU!!, become
part of the constitution. hold on a sec.....
nope. just checked my copy of the constitution...washington's address
aint there. and his farewell address has the same force of law as bill
clinton's farewell address...that is, 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 02:16:10 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 12:07:15 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote:
wf3h@ptnosm.com (Bob) wrote:
On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 09:15:42 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote:
wf3h@ptnosm.com (Bob) wrote:
and you need to learn some history, leftist.
Now, now, 'Bobbb'. Be nice. Remember Our Founder's words:
markie keeps hoping that, if he dumps the macro with washington's
address
T
The 'markie'? Bob. I asked myself to be nice. I just cut n paste. I
copy it, here, just for me. I don't you want to read the words of our
first President, the man who would NOT be king, unlike me:
"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: "Alberich" |
|
| Title: Re: Still a Christian Nation (wasRe: Separation Of Church And State) |
06 Dec 2003 02:31:24 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 12:07:15 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote:
wf3h@ptnosm.com (Bob) wrote:
On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 09:15:42 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote:
wf3h@ptnosm.com (Bob) wrote:
and you need to learn some history, leftist.
Now, now, 'Bobbb'. Be nice. Remember Our Founder's words:
markie keeps hoping that, if he dumps the macro with washington's
address
The 'macro'? 'Bobbb'. I asked you to be nice. It's just cut n paste. I
copy it, here, just for you. Don't you want to read the words of our
first President, the man who would NOT be king:
Sorry, Mark, nice reference to Kipling aside, Washington was assuredly
*not* the United States' first president.
Alberich
.
|
|
|
| User: "SumBuny" |
|
| Title: Re: Still a Christian Nation (wasRe: Separation Of Church And State) |
07 Dec 2003 02:06:41 PM |
|
|
"Alberich" <Alberich@NoSpam.com> wrote in message
news:i3f4tvclvm17na073chdn0i4m8qus1shal@4ax.com...
On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 12:07:15 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote:
wf3h@ptnosm.com (Bob) wrote:
On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 09:15:42 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote:
wf3h@ptnosm.com (Bob) wrote:
and you need to learn some history, leftist.
Now, now, 'Bobbb'. Be nice. Remember Our Founder's words:
markie keeps hoping that, if he dumps the macro with washington's
address
The 'macro'? 'Bobbb'. I asked you to be nice. It's just cut n paste. I
copy it, here, just for you. Don't you want to read the words of our
first President, the man who would NOT be king:
Sorry, Mark, nice reference to Kipling aside, Washington was assuredly
*not* the United States' first president.
OK, you got me looking....are you going back to the Mayflower Compact, or
the Articles of Confederation? I am asking, because my son is studying US
History I (and I will be in the spring), and he has finals in a couple
weeks...
Buny
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Johnson" |
|
| Title: Re: Still a Christian Nation (wasRe: Separation Of Church And State) |
09 Dec 2003 05:23:29 PM |
|
|
"SumBuny" <sumbunyTHIS_DOES_NOT_BELONG_HERE@cox.net> wrote:
Sorry, Mark, nice reference to Kipling aside, Washington was assuredly
*not* the United States' first president.
OK, you got me looking....are you going back to the Mayflower Compact, or
AOC? No, 'sum', he's a dumb as you - and probably even more
inebriated.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/gw1.html
In case you actually needed to be told.
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: "SumBuny" |
|
| Title: Re: Still a Christian Nation (wasRe: Separation Of Church And State) |
09 Dec 2003 05:52:06 PM |
|
|
"Mark Johnson" <102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:29mctv0mbev0k7ctk90qspcijj0ln2nncs@4ax.com...
"SumBuny" <sumbunyTHIS_DOES_NOT_BELONG_HERE@cox.net> wrote:
Sorry, Mark, nice reference to Kipling aside, Washington was assuredly
*not* the United States' first president.
OK, you got me looking....are you going back to the Mayflower Compact, or
AOC? No, 'sum', he's a dumb as you - and probably even more
inebriated.
Do you know the details of the Mayflower Compact? Do you know the forms of
government in this country before 1776? Ignorance can be remedied, willful
denial often cannot...
Buny
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
Separation of church and state myth buster. Founder wants GOD in gov.
Nebraska Democratic State Senator Sues God Over Natural Disasters
Re: God Signed with Noah on Ararat on 27.02.601 the Eternal Covenant to inherit Earth, His Kingdom, and enforce His Law of Love for Him and Neighbor by His Ministers, Colored Hamito-Semites as Criminals for denying, and to deny them, such State, but
Thank God for Seporation of Church from State
Our Christian Nation & God in the State Constitutions
Re: God Signed with Noah on Ararat on 27.02.601 the Eternal Covenant to inherit Earth, His Kingdom, and enforce His Law of Love for Him and Neighbor by His Ministers, Colored Hamito-Semites as Criminals for denying, and to deny them, such State, but
Re: God fixin' to Maim and Kill some red-state neo-con Repugnikkkans ... yeeeeeeeeee haaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
Nebraska state senator sues God
| Re: State constitutions recognize God as source of rights and freedom
Mention of God in state preambles
is god just a state of mind? the gravitational pullery o |
|
