wf3h@ptnosm.com (Bob) wrote:

On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 11:25:14 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote:

Alberich <Alberich@NoSpam.com> wrote:

On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 19:58:32 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote:

Alberich <Alberich@NoSpam.com> wrote:

On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 14:16:01 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote:

Alberich <Alberich@NoSpam.com> wrote:

On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 10:09:31 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote:

Al, it's dogma. There's nuthin to argue, dude. You either confess it,
or you go somewhere else. Free will.

really? proof that it's 'dogma'? because it's not.

Yes, it is.

But Catholicism isn't generic, not for myself, not even for "you".

Outside The Church there is no salvation.

that is incorrect. a catholic priest, father charles coughlin, was
excommunicated for preaching that

You MUST be joking. He was censured for antisemitism, basically, and
ordered back to parish work. Coughlin was not only the Limbaugh of his
day, in a sense, but had a FAR greater percentage of the population
for a radio audience.

wf3h@ptnosm.com (Bob) wrote:

On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 11:25:14 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote:

Alberich <Alberich@NoSpam.com> wrote:

On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 19:58:32 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote:

Alberich <Alberich@NoSpam.com> wrote:

On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 14:16:01 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote:

Alberich <Alberich@NoSpam.com> wrote:

On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 10:09:31 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote:

Al, it's dogma. There's nuthin to argue, dude. You either confess it,
or you go somewhere else. Free will.

really? proof that it's 'dogma'? because it's not.

Yes, it is.

But Catholicism isn't generic, not for myself, not even for "you".

Outside The Church there is no salvation.

that is incorrect. a catholic priest, father charles coughlin, was
excommunicated for preaching that

You MUST be joking. He was censured for antisemitism,

I missed that part in Revelation--the part where God says that outside
the Catholic Church there is no salvation. Which chapter? I'll find
the verse myself.

On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 11:50:34 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote:

Alberich <Alberich@NoSpam.com> wrote:

On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 09:01:39 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote:

Alberich <Alberich@NoSpam.com> wrote:

On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 06:05:38 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote:

temporary state of Religion, and whilst it lasts will hardly be seen
with pleasure at the helm. Even in its coolest state, it has much
oftener been a motive to oppression than a restraint from it.

Anglicanism, for example.

Witness the Church of England. That's a far different matter than
saying the sect must be suppressed by the power of the state. If a man
swear by a prayer, on the bench, what duty is it of gubment to chill
the expression, and force him to desist?

"That the people have an equal, natural and unalienable right, freely
and peaceably to exercise their religion according to the dictates of
conscience; and that no religious sect or society ought to be favored
or established by law in preference of others."
--Ratification of the Constitution by the State of New York,
September 1788

And none suppressed by another sect or society.

Btw - you forget the Alabama state constitution.

Roll tide!

Are you disagreeing with me? Some of what you quoted makes my point.

Oh, there ya finally are:

Wondered where this was going.

Your odd job of snipping makes your message entirely garbled. No
wonder maf and SumBuny mock your skewed vision of what's okay to cut
out...

What, that religion is flowers and bunnies?

Something like evolutionism? Btw, whatever happened to your statement
of The Theory of? Don't you believe in it, anymore? You got your
'darwin', and so on. But there's not a lot to the 'science' of
evolutionism, from what I read. It would be nice, though, to know if
you've finally seen the light, and given up on something which
practically even refuses to be defined.

Hide your head in the sand as much as you'd like. Some of the more
intelligent among us--not only on Usenet, but also in "real life"--do
not need to repeat themselves ad nauseam to remember what their
positions on varying topics are. Apparently, we *do* need to repeat
ourselves in order for those other, less intelligent, creatures to
remember our stances. But, rather than write it out (again), let me
refer you to groups.google (again). Search on Alberich, evolution,
and definition. I'm sure you're bound to come up with something.

(And again, if you ever desire to discuss the science of evolution,
I'm here for you!)

with you on that (although not quite so optimistically). But what
almost everything quoted shows is that government should not be in the
relgion business.

But that's not how America was founded. Read 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."


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 . .

First, what does Washington have to do with "how America was founded?"
If that's what you want, go back to the revolution, or possibly our
first president. If you mean to address how the *Constitution* was
founded, under which Washington *was* the first president, perhaps you
would be better served addressing those that drafted the Constitution.

They shouldn't even appear to be in the religion
business. The government should let religion do what it wants (as
long as the religion doesn't break arbitrary governmental laws

As I wrote:

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.

Didn't it? Since you seem to like hypotheticals (see below), answer
this: What do you think of putting the Star and Sickle in the foyer
to the U.S. Supreme Court? Or perhaps a giant Buddha behind the
podium in the Senate chambers?

Santeriasts have some trouble on those grounds), but the government
shouldn't appear to favor one religion at the expense of any other.
It's a basic point. But, by having the Ten Commandments placed in the
courthouse, the appearance is that the government, acting through its
agent, Judge Moore, favors Christianity.

I should hope so. Remember:

And there's your problem. Can you honestly not see how favoring one
religion would stifle others (apropos of the quote you continuously
post), or would "respect an establishment of religion," as from the
First Amendment?

So - when the ACLU sues to get rid of a stone block with the
Decalogue, in Alabama . . then . . . .

Tough question for you?

No, not at all. What would Madison say?

Alberich

I think he'd consider Congressional hearings - on the matter of the
ACLU and its attack on civil liberties. Then he'd have to address the
matter of court sectarianism, and the attempt to impose on others. I
don't know what he'd say about the Internal Revenue Service, not to
mention federal entitlements.

I notice how you answer nothing I ask and everything I haven't.
What's wrong? Can't find the answer you want in Madison's writings?

It was a hypothetical. The ACLU was founded by Commies long after
Madison died.

What you mean to say is: No, I can't find my answer in his writings,
so I'll rant and rave about irrelevant topics and then disparage the
ACLU.

(Do you like it when others do it to you?)


Alberich

Alberich <Alberich@NoSpam.com> wrote:

On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 06:05:38 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote:

They insisted upon a Judeo-Christian ethic informing public policy.
But they did not want to limit, or chill, the free exercise of
religion.

"3. Religion. The inefficacy of this restraint on individuals is well
known. The conduct of every popular Assembly, acting on oath, the
strongest of religious ties, shews that individuals join without
remorse in acts agst. which their consciences would revolt, if
proposed to them separately in their closets. When Indeed Religion is
kindled into enthusiasm, its force like that of other passions is
increased by the sympathy of a multitude. But enthusiasm is only a
temporary state of Religion, and whilst it lasts will hardly be seen
with pleasure at the helm. Even in its coolest state, it has much
oftener been a motive to oppression than a restraint from it.

Anglicanism, for example.

there must be different interests and parties in Society; and a
majority when united by a common interest or passion can not be
restrained from oppressing the minority, what remedy can be found in a
republican Government, where the majority must ultimately decide, but
that of giving such an extent to its sphere, that no common interest
or passion will be likely to unite a majority of the whole number in
an unjust pursuit. In a large Society, the people are broken into so
many interests and parties, that a common sentiment is less likely to
be felt, and the requisite concert less likely to be formed, by a
majority of the whole.

Little did Mr. Madison know. If only he'd lived to see ABC news, CNN,
sitcoms, and libral Madison Ave. 'culture'. You can get a whole bunch
o Dems marching in lockstep. You see it all the time.

The same security seems requisite for the
civil as for the religious rights of individuals. If the same sect
form a majority and have the power, other sects will be sure to be
depressed."
--James Madison to Thomas Jefferson, New York, 24 October 1787

Witness the Church of England. That's a far different matter than
saying the sect must be suppressed by the power of the state. If a man
swear by a prayer, on the bench, what duty is it of gubment to chill
the expression, and force him to desist?

"That the people have an equal, natural and unalienable right, freely
and peaceably to exercise their religion according to the dictates of
conscience; and that no religious sect or society ought to be favored
or established by law in preference of others."
--Ratification of the Constitution by the State of New York,
September 1788

And none suppressed by another sect or society.

Btw - you forget the Alabama state constitution.

Roll tide!

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

Thanks for acknowledging that the USA is not a "Christian Nation".

Granted, you might not like that fact

Wayne. YOU may not like this fact, but our founders insisted upon a
Judeo-Christian ethic that informed public policy. They thought the
nation would be lost without it.

History seems determined to prove them right. And the fight, going
into the 2004 election, is on between the GOP, many of whom have to be
dragged kicking and screaming to defend the notion, and the Dem who
now actively side with Norman Lear, the ACLU, and whatever have you.


Peace.

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

One mark of a deteriorating society is when its people cannot
discern truth from lies. Another is when they don't even bother
to try and will believe whatever their itching ears want to hear.

[Cal Thomas, 4 SEP 2000]

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

Thanks for acknowledging that the USA is not a "Christian Nation".

Granted, you might not like that fact

Wayne. YOU may not like this fact, but our founders insisted upon a
Judeo-Christian ethic that informed public policy. They thought the
nation would be lost without it.

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

Thanks for acknowledging that the USA is not a "Christian Nation".

Granted, you might not like that fact

Wayne. YOU may not like this fact, but our founders insisted upon a
Judeo-Christian ethic that informed public policy. They thought the
nation would be lost without it.

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."

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."

WOE TO THOSE WHO SAY:"LET US SEPARATE CHRIST AND STATE."