| 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: "Alberich" |
|
| Title: Re: Still a Christian Nation (wasRe: Separation Of Church And State) |
09 Dec 2003 06:00:15 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 15:23:29 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote:
"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
http://www.constitution.org/hist/first8pres.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff George" |
|
| Title: Re: Still a Christian Nation (wasRe: Separation Of Church And State) |
16 Dec 2003 01:59:47 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 09:47:39 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> added the following words of wisdom:
Alberich <Alberich@NoSpam.com> wrote:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/gw1.html
That's the one, Al. The United States of America. The first President
of the United States of America was . . and you can read, above.
Face it - you wuz wrong. You got drunk, or something. You just started
typing away. Come morning - look at what you posted. Just let it go.
Jesus fucking Kerrist on a donkey! Are you some kind of George
Washington fanatic or something?
Jeff George
SLAP (Socialist Liberation Army of the People)
SLUG (Socialists for Liberty United Government)
Power to the People! Vive la revolution!
.
|
|
|
| User: "RetroProphet" |
|
| Title: Re: Still a Christian Nation (wasRe: Separation Of Church And State) |
16 Dec 2003 02:36:37 PM |
|
|
http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/gw1.html
That's the one, Al. The United States of America. The first President
of the United States of America was . . and you can read, above.
Face it - you wuz wrong. You got drunk, or something. You just started
typing away. Come morning - look at what you posted. Just let it go.
Jesus fucking Kerrist on a donkey! Are you some kind of George
Washington fanatic or something?
The U.S. in Washington's time was quite fanatical about him.
Definitely a "cult of personality".
I think Mark has an affinity for cultish ideas.
Maybe he's channeling a Revolutionary era bishop.
Hey, Washington was great and all but, it must be remembered
that even though Washington was popular, he never won
the popular vote. Let's be honest about that.
You can email the White House and they'll tell you it's true.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Johnson" |
|
| Title: Re: Still a Christian Nation (wasRe: Separation Of Church And State) |
17 Dec 2003 01:54:48 AM |
|
|
RetroProphet <RetroProphet_member@newsguy.com> wrote:
The U.S. in Washington's time was quite fanatical about him.
Definitely a "cult of personality".
I would say so.
Hey, Washington was great and all but, it must be remembered
that even though Washington was popular, he never won
the popular vote. Let's be honest about that.
You can email the White House and they'll tell you it's true.
That's not really what you want though. You want to say that George
Washington was NOT the first President of the United States, likely
because that excerpt from his farewell is not something that you'd
been 'carefully taught'. And it offended you, greatly. It just sounded
so American. And we can't be having any of that, correct? Well, I
suggested the solution to your problem. Now it's up to you. You have
history to rewrite. And time's awastin. The White House awaits.
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) |
17 Dec 2003 01:46:25 AM |
|
|
Jeff George <george666@comcast.net.munged> wrote:
Jesus fucking Kerrist on a donkey! Are you some kind of George
Washington fanatic or something?
People who have never read Washington's farewell might speak as
ignorantly as you. But here you are:
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: "Jeff George" |
|
| Title: Re: Still a Christian Nation (wasRe: Separation Of Church And State) |
17 Dec 2003 10:34:13 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 23:46:25 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> added the following words of wisdom:
Jeff George <george666@comcast.net.munged> wrote:
Jesus fucking Kerrist on a donkey! Are you some kind of George
Washington fanatic or something?
People who have never read Washington's farewell might speak as
ignorantly as you. But here you are:
I've read it about 50 times in the last day and it still is the same
thing it was the first time I read, i.e. one man's opinion.
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 08:54:14 PM |
|
|
Jeff George <george666@comcast.net.munged> wrote:
On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 23:46:25 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> added the following words of wisdom:
Jeff George <george666@comcast.net.munged> wrote:
I've read it about 50 times in the last day and it still is the same
thing it was the first time I read, i.e. one man's opinion.
It read:
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 . .
And remember, 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.
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 10:55:48 AM |
|
|
Mark Johnson wrote:
Jeff George <george666@comcast.net.munged> wrote:
On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 23:46:25 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> added the following words of wisdom:
Jeff George <george666@comcast.net.munged> wrote:
I've read it about 50 times in the last day and it still is the same
thing it was the first time I read, i.e. one man's opinion.
It read:
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 . .
And remember, 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.
Since you and I will NEVER be President, why should be bow down
to some God in the pathetic hope that will happen?
Paul
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Alberich" |
|
| Title: Re: Still a Christian Nation (wasRe: Separation Of Church And State) |
07 Dec 2003 02:21:56 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 7 Dec 2003 14:06:41 -0600, "SumBuny"
<sumbunyTHIS_DOES_NOT_BELONG_HERE@cox.net> wrote:
"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
Articles of Confederation. Although the Mayflower Compact was
certainly an influential document, it had no force at all upon an
independent United States. But the first president under the Articles
was either Huntingdon or Hanson (depending on the historian you ask).
For a couple views, and some interesting links, check out:
http://www.constitution.org/hist/first8pres.htm
http://www.davidicke.net/tellthetruth/facts/1stpres.html
Alberich
.
|
|
|
| User: "SumBuny" |
|
| Title: Re: Still a Christian Nation (wasRe: Separation Of Church And State) |
07 Dec 2003 03:00:58 PM |
|
|
"Alberich" <Alberich@NoSpam.com> wrote in message
news:7m27tvc40ghdv9o78n3c9994o9reeen5p1@4ax.com...
On Sun, 7 Dec 2003 14:06:41 -0600, "SumBuny"
<sumbunyTHIS_DOES_NOT_BELONG_HERE@cox.net> wrote:
"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
Articles of Confederation. Although the Mayflower Compact was
certainly an influential document, it had no force at all upon an
independent United States. But the first president under the Articles
was either Huntingdon or Hanson (depending on the historian you ask).
For a couple views, and some interesting links, check out:
http://www.constitution.org/hist/first8pres.htm
http://www.davidicke.net/tellthetruth/facts/1stpres.html
Thanks...I *thought* it went back before the Constitution when you started
tweaking MJ (and sorry that I had to ruin it for you), but couldn't
remember...
I wonder if said son will get extra credit for noting that?
Buny
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Johnson" |
|
| Title: Re: Still a Christian Nation (wasRe: Separation Of Church And State) |
09 Dec 2003 05:25:12 PM |
|
|
"SumBuny" <sumbunyTHIS_DOES_NOT_BELONG_HERE@cox.net> wrote:
Thanks...I *thought* it went back before the Constitution
Nope. Just the Constitution. You didn't realize there was a weaker
effort to combine the states in such a confederacy? No, 'sum', the
first President of the United States - wassszzzz - and always will be
-
http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/gw1.html
In case you need 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: "Alberich" |
|
| Title: Re: Still a Christian Nation (wasRe: Separation Of Church And State) |
07 Dec 2003 03:13:06 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 7 Dec 2003 15:00:58 -0600, "SumBuny"
<sumbunyTHIS_DOES_NOT_BELONG_HERE@cox.net> wrote:
"Alberich" <Alberich@NoSpam.com> wrote in message
news:7m27tvc40ghdv9o78n3c9994o9reeen5p1@4ax.com...
On Sun, 7 Dec 2003 14:06:41 -0600, "SumBuny"
<sumbunyTHIS_DOES_NOT_BELONG_HERE@cox.net> wrote:
"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
Articles of Confederation. Although the Mayflower Compact was
certainly an influential document, it had no force at all upon an
independent United States. But the first president under the Articles
was either Huntingdon or Hanson (depending on the historian you ask).
For a couple views, and some interesting links, check out:
http://www.constitution.org/hist/first8pres.htm
http://www.davidicke.net/tellthetruth/facts/1stpres.html
Thanks...I *thought* it went back before the Constitution when you started
tweaking MJ (and sorry that I had to ruin it for you), but couldn't
remember...
I wonder if said son will get extra credit for noting that?
Buny
I would hope so. And I'd give even odds that his teacher wouldn't
know if he were right or not!
Alberich
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Johnson" |
|
| Title: Re: Still a Christian Nation (wasRe: Separation Of Church And State) |
09 Dec 2003 05:26:05 PM |
|
|
Alberich <Alberich@NoSpam.com> wrote:
I would hope so. And I'd give even odds that his teacher wouldn't
know if he were right or not!
Alberich
Sorry Al. But the first President of the United States was - and
always will be -
http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/gw1.html
But at least, now, you can't say you don't 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: "Mark Johnson" |
|
| Title: Re: Still a Christian Nation (wasRe: Separation Of Church And State) |
09 Dec 2003 05:22:01 PM |
|
|
Alberich <Alberich@NoSpam.com> wrote:
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
He wouldn't be King. And, Al, you're not really that stupid . . are
ya? You must be drunk:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/gw1.html
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 06:48:36 AM |
|
|
Mark Johnson wrote:
Alberich <Alberich@NoSpam.com> wrote:
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
He wouldn't be King. And, Al, you're not really that stupid . . are
ya? You must be drunk:
If only George took the offer and was Catholic---Mark presumably
would be a Lord in that America.
Paul
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Alberich" |
|
| Title: Re: Still a Christian Nation (wasRe: Separation Of Church And State) |
09 Dec 2003 06:00:30 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 15:22:01 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote:
Alberich <Alberich@NoSpam.com> wrote:
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
He wouldn't be King. And, Al, you're not really that stupid . . are
ya? You must be drunk:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/gw1.html
http://www.constitution.org/hist/first8pres.htm
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Still a Christian Nation (wasRe: Separation Of Church And State) |
05 Dec 2003 04:28:40 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,
and attempting to impose their own beliefs are the ACLU,
i wasnt aware that defending the constitution was 'imposing their
beliefs' as opposed to the thugs in the alabama legislature
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.
orwellian logic. the PEOPLE have a right to free exercise. the
GOVERNMENT does not. the GOVT does not have the right to establish
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.
protestantism was the official religion of many states. you saying the
US should go back to the way it was, except it should not go back to
the way it was?
.. 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
secularism is what saved the US from becoming afghanistan. no
religious govt in history ever was democratic. none ever protected
human rights. they were all failures. religious govts, like other
forms of socialism, lead to police states.
---------------------------
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 11:27:36 AM |
|
|
(Bob) wrote:
On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 00:30:29 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote:
(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,
i wasnt aware that defending the constitution was 'imposing their
beliefs'
What Constitution? Remember:
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?
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.
orwellian logic. the PEOPLE have a right to free exercise. the
GOVERNMENT does not. the GOVT does not have the right to establish
religion.
But they did not want to limit, or chill, the free exercise of
religion.
Obviously - you do. But that's not . . in the Constitution, pal.
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.
protestantism was the official religion of many states. you saying the
US should go back to the way it was
And turn back Protestantism, too? I'm not saying the founding was
perfect. There's some sense to those, here, who INSIST the country was
founded as an experiment in 'enlightenment' thinking. But it was much
more liberal, and tolerant, than anything seen since. As people will
believe - anything - today, they will not tolerate that which would
ask that they believe in God. Just going back, that far, would be a
vast improvement.
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
secularism is what saved the US from becoming afghanistan.
But the point is, that intolerance, is now found in gubment officials.
That's wrong. And, frankly, as Pres. Washington said - it's downright
unAmerican, and tyrannical (he explained what he meant there, as well,
in the same speech, below). Do not call such men . . patriots.
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: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Still a Christian Nation (wasRe: Separation Of Church And State) |
05 Dec 2003 03:12:53 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 09:27:36 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote:
wf3h@ptnosm.com (Bob) 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,
and attempting to impose their own beliefs are the ACLU,
i wasnt aware that defending the constitution was 'imposing their
beliefs'
What Constitution? Remember:
They insisted upon a Judeo-Christian ethic informing public policy.
if they did, why didnt they write it in the constitution?
you keep wanting to play activist...arbitrarily inserting god in the
constitution. the fact is, god aint mentioned there, regardless if you
say he is.
But they did not want to limit, or chill, the free exercise of
religion.
by individuals. the govt has no right to religious expression.
So - when the ACLU sues to get rid of a stone block with the
Decalogue, in Alabama . . then . . . .
uh, no. when the ACLU sues to get rid of the decalogue IN A GOVT
BUILDING....
tough question for you?
orwellian logic. the PEOPLE have a right to free exercise. the
GOVERNMENT does not. the GOVT does not have the right to establish
religion.
But they did not want to limit, or chill, the free exercise of
religion.
the government does not have a right to religious expression. that is
reserved to the people. if they'd wanted god to be in govt, they could
have mentioned it in the constitution. they didnt.
protestantism was the official religion of many states. you saying the
US should go back to the way it was
And turn back Protestantism, too? I'm not saying the founding was
perfect.
you're arguing for a return to the way you think it was. you cant have
a cafeteria constitution. if you want it back that way, then it comes
with all its imperfections, including disenfranchisement of jews and
catholics.
There's some sense to those, here, who INSIST the country was
founded as an experiment in 'enlightenment' thinking. But it was much
more liberal, and tolerant, than anything seen since. As people will
believe - anything - today, they will not tolerate that which would
ask that they believe in God. Just going back, that far, would be a
vast improvement.
why? you uncomfortable with the idea that jews and catholics can hold
public office?
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
secularism is what saved the US from becoming afghanistan.
But the point is, that intolerance, is now found in gubment officials.
secularism is not 'intolerance'. secularism is MAXIMUM tolerance since
it takes NO position among competing religions.
That's wrong. And, frankly, as Pres. Washington said - it's downright
unAmerican, and tyrannical (he explained what he meant there, as well,
in the same speech, below). Do not call such men . . patriots.
gee. if washington had thought god so important, why didnt he try to
get him mentioned in the CONSTITUTION? it's irrelevant WHAT washington
thought about god. his 'thoughts' are not the constitution of the
united states/
---------------------------
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 03:16:06 PM |
|
|
"Bob" <wf3h@ptnosm.com> wrote in message
news:3fd0f38e.155718456@usenet.ptd.net...
On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 09:27:36 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote:
wf3h@ptnosm.com (Bob) 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,
and attempting to impose their own beliefs are the ACLU,
i wasnt aware that defending the constitution was 'imposing their
beliefs'
What Constitution? Remember:
They insisted upon a Judeo-Christian ethic informing public policy.
if they did, why didnt they write it in the constitution?
you keep wanting to play activist...arbitrarily inserting god in the
constitution. the fact is, god aint mentioned there, regardless if you
say he is.
But they did not want to limit, or chill, the free exercise of
religion.
by individuals. the govt has no right to religious expression.
The government IS a collection of individuals. The government is us. By,
for, and of the people, remember?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Still a Christian Nation (wasRe: Separation Of Church And State) |
05 Dec 2003 04:59:38 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 21:16:06 GMT, "LeftistMeltdown"
<DemsNeed2GetReal@coastallink.net> wrote:
"Bob" <wf3h@ptnosm.com> wrote in message
news:3fd0f38e.155718456@usenet.ptd.net...
by individuals. the govt has no right to religious expression.
The government IS a collection of individuals. The government is us. By,
for, and of the people, remember?
wrong. the govt is REPRESENTATIVE of the people is it NOT the people.
this is not a socialist republic. the people are not the state and the
state is not the people.
that's why those prepositions are there. the govt is OF the people. it
is NOT the people. thats why the govt has no 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) |
06 Dec 2003 11:18:18 AM |
|
|
(Bob) wrote:
wrong. the govt is REPRESENTATIVE of the people is it NOT the people.
this is not a socialist republic.
ACLU? Welfare state? Fed override of state's rights? Tax . . and tax
some more? Their money . . not yours? and so on?
that's why those prepositions are there. the govt is OF the people. it
is NOT the people. thats why the govt has no right to freedom of
religion.
Except of course for the words of our founders:
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: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Still a Christian Nation (wasRe: Separation Of Church And State) |
06 Dec 2003 11:50:56 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 09:18:18 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote:
wf3h@ptnosm.com (Bob) wrote:
wrong. the govt is REPRESENTATIVE of the people is it NOT the people.
this is not a socialist republic.
ACLU? Welfare state? Fed override of state's rights? Tax . . and tax
some more? Their money . . not yours? and so on?
seeking redress for govt wrongs is a basic right in the constitution.
and that's what the ACLU has done. again, you just dont like the
constitution. you seem to think the govt acts infallibly on matters of
faith and morals.
that's why those prepositions are there. the govt is OF the people. it
is NOT the people. thats why the govt has no right to freedom of
religion.
Except of course for the words of our founders:
which they did not, somehow, see fit to put in the constitution.
it sucks to be you.
From Washington's farewell. Truer words . . as they say . .
washington's farewell has as much force of law as bill clinton's
farewell. neither is in the 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: "Alberich" |
|
| Title: Re: Still a Christian Nation (wasRe: Separation Of Church And State) |
06 Dec 2003 02:30:29 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 12:14:46 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote:
wf3h@ptnosm.com (Bob) wrote:
On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 09:18:18 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote:
wf3h@ptnosm.com (Bob) wrote:
wrong. the govt is REPRESENTATIVE of the people is it NOT the people.
this is not a socialist republic.
ACLU? Welfare state? Fed override of state's rights? Tax . . and tax
some more? Their money . . not yours? and so on?
seeking redress for govt wrongs is a basic right in the constitution.
and that's what the ACLU has done
But not based on the Constitution, but rather a libral interpretation
obviously at odds with the intent of our founding fathers. Thus the
desperate filibusters . . as such . . in the Congress, by the Dem.
They don't see the court as courts of justice. They obviously, and the
GOP obviously do not, see the courts as an instrument of political
power, to implement the party platform. The GOP would appoint those
faithful to the intent of the founders, and otherwise skilled and
professional in their duties. The Dem would appoint those who would
stop at nothing to get what they want, namely, an entirely different
country, one which the founders knew, over 200 years ago - could never
work!
If you want to be taken seriously, don't sound like such an idiot.
washington's farewell has as much force of law as bill clinton's
farewell. neither is in the constitution.
Bill Clinton didn't have much use for the Constitution. He's gone now.
He's a disgraced ex-Pres, who dirtied the office he held, and put this
nation at risk, in so many ways.
Yes, so unlike the Republicans like Harding and Nixon. And what about
that Lincoln fellow? Tried to get rid of slavery, when there was
absolutely no basis for it in the Constitution. What the hell was he
thinking? Bring the country to civil war for something not even
addressed in the Constitution???
Alberich
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Duca" |
|
| Title: Re: Still a Christian Nation (wasRe: Separation Of Church And State) |
07 Dec 2003 08:54:34 AM |
|
|
Alberich wrote:
On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 12:14:46 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote:
wf3h@ptnosm.com (Bob) wrote:
On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 09:18:18 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote:
wf3h@ptnosm.com (Bob) wrote:
wrong. the govt is REPRESENTATIVE of the people is it NOT the people.
this is not a socialist republic.
ACLU? Welfare state? Fed override of state's rights? Tax . . and tax
some more? Their money . . not yours? and so on?
seeking redress for govt wrongs is a basic right in the constitution.
and that's what the ACLU has done
But not based on the Constitution, but rather a libral interpretation
obviously at odds with the intent of our founding fathers. Thus the
desperate filibusters . . as such . . in the Congress, by the Dem.
They don't see the court as courts of justice. They obviously, and the
GOP obviously do not, see the courts as an instrument of political
power, to implement the party platform. The GOP would appoint those
faithful to the intent of the founders, and otherwise skilled and
professional in their duties. The Dem would appoint those who would
stop at nothing to get what they want, namely, an entirely different
country, one which the founders knew, over 200 years ago - could never
work!
If you want to be taken seriously, don't sound like such an idiot.
washington's farewell has as much force of law as bill clinton's
farewell. neither is in the constitution.
Bill Clinton didn't have much use for the Constitution. He's gone now.
He's a disgraced ex-Pres, who dirtied the office he held, and put this
nation at risk, in so many ways.
Yes, so unlike the Republicans like Harding and Nixon. And what about
that Lincoln fellow? Tried to get rid of slavery, when there was
absolutely no basis for it in the Constitution. What the hell was he
thinking? Bring the country to civil war for something not even
addressed in the Constitution???
Oh, it WAS addressed in the Constitution....for calcuating
representation in Congress, one slave was equal to 3/5th of a free (ususally
white) man.
Paul
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Duca" |
|
| Title: Re: Still a Christian Nation (wasRe: Separation Of Church And State) |
10 Dec 2003 06:47:24 AM |
|
|
Mark Johnson wrote:
Alberich <Alberich@NoSpam.com> wrote:
If you want to be taken seriously, don't sound like such an idiot.
Don't fret, Al. This thinking thing will come you, eventually. Just
keep at it. Don't give up.
washington's farewell has as much force of law as bill clinton's
farewell. neither is in the constitution.
Bill Clinton didn't have much use for the Constitution. He's gone now.
He's a disgraced ex-Pres, who dirtied the office he held, and put this
nation at risk, in so many ways.
Yes, so unlike the Republicans like Harding and Nixon.
Nixon? Why, because he pulled out . . of Vietnam, and set up that
Commie bloodbath that followed? That why?
And what about
that Lincoln fellow? Tried to get rid of slavery, when there was
absolutely no basis for it in the Constitution.
But this is the stuff you might want to think about - if you were
able. This also undercuts the arguments you, previously, were trying
to make.
Bring the country to civil war for something not even
addressed in the Constitution???
Alberich
It was put off until later. Slavery was addressed. It was a
compromise. And it led to the bloodiest war in US history. No film, no
movie can capture that carnage of thousands dead after a single
battle. They'd have to go CGI, like LOTR.
The fed went to war with the southern states. And you have to ask
yourself - on what basis? You remember my asking you that, right?
After all, having cheap quasi-human household and sex maachines is
one the things Mark adores about the South---and he resents their having to
give them up.
Paul
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Alberich" |
|
| Title: Re: Still a Christian Nation (wasRe: Separation Of Church And State) |
09 Dec 2003 06:11:48 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 15:31:06 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote:
Alberich <Alberich@NoSpam.com> wrote:
If you want to be taken seriously, don't sound like such an idiot.
Don't fret, Al. This thinking thing will come you, eventually. Just
keep at it. Don't give up.
washington's farewell has as much force of law as bill clinton's
farewell. neither is in the constitution.
Bill Clinton didn't have much use for the Constitution. He's gone now.
He's a disgraced ex-Pres, who dirtied the office he held, and put this
nation at risk, in so many ways.
Yes, so unlike the Republicans like Harding and Nixon.
Nixon? Why, because he pulled out . . of Vietnam, and set up that
Commie bloodbath that followed? That why?
Yes, that far over-shadowed Watergate. And Teapot Dome? Forget about
it...
And what about
that Lincoln fellow? Tried to get rid of slavery, when there was
absolutely no basis for it in the Constitution.
But this is the stuff you might want to think about - if you were
able. This also undercuts the arguments you, previously, were trying
to make.
And that sentence is the sort of sentence - if it were a sentence -
which you would try to make which should not be made if you want to
make a real sentence because it is not even close to being a sentence
though it tries.
Bring the country to civil war for something not even
addressed in the Constitution???
Alberich
It was put off until later. Slavery was addressed. It was a
compromise. And it led to the bloodiest war in US history. No film, no
movie can capture that carnage of thousands dead after a single
battle. They'd have to go CGI, like LOTR.
The fed went to war with the southern states. And you have to ask
yourself - on what basis? You remember my asking you that, right?
Easy, on the basis that the Southern states seceded. Almost every
history book you can find will state that Lincoln would have
compromised even still with the South to keep them from seceding.
Alberich
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Still a Christian Nation (wasRe: Separation Of Church And State) |
04 Dec 2003 06:14:15 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.
Where do they do that? Alabama acts illegally and then has to pay the
bill for it.
In a more civilised country the lawmakers would be personally liable
rather than the taxpayers.
.
|
|
|
| User: "DemsSuk" |
|
| Title: Re: Still a Christian Nation (wasRe: Separation Of Church And State) |
04 Dec 2003 06:26:21 PM |
|
|
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:sbjvsvcucnag5a9gu91ofkc3d6r5tt7lvl@4ax.com...
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.
Where do they do that?
In Alabama. The ACLU billed the taxpayers of Alabama $700,000 for "legal
expenses".
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Mad Doctor" |
|
| Title: Re: Still a Christian Nation (wasRe: Separation Of Church And State) |
04 Dec 2003 11:33:13 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 00:26:21 GMT, "DemsSuk"
<PainfulReality@comcast.net> wrote:
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:sbjvsvcucnag5a9gu91ofkc3d6r5tt7lvl@4ax.com...
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.
Where do they do that?
In Alabama. The ACLU billed the taxpayers of Alabama $700,000 for "legal
expenses".
Because the government in Alabama continues to do things that are
unconstitutional.
If you speed and get caught you pay the fine.
GK
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 of goddery.
Re: God fixin' to Maim and Kill some red-state neo-con Repugnikkkans ... yeeeeeeeeee haaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
God blessed the Great State of Texas again by moving Rita to Louisiana
Re: State constitutions recognize God as source of rights and freedom
Texans vote to add 'God' to state pledge
|
|
|
