| 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 06:02:32 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 15:14:48 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote:
Then on what basis? That the court was right? Maybe the court was
wrong? But on what basis? What standard?
The court was right as a matter of law.
What law?
The First and Fourteenth Amendments
I realize that this cannot
occur *as* *a* *matter* *of* *law*!!!
How could it not, as a matter of Justice? There is nothing you or I
will do to bring that about. Only God, Himself, when He comes in
glory.
Quite possibly. But you must realize that the U.S. government isn't
concerned with bringing that about, but with enforcing the law of the
land.
Alberich
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Duca" |
|
| Title: Re: Still a Christian Nation (wasRe: Separation Of Church And State) |
07 Dec 2003 08:59:24 AM |
|
|
Alberich wrote:
On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 12:05:50 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote:
Alberich <Alberich@NoSpam.com> wrote:
On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 09:03:52 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote:
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 09:22:20 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote:
wf3h@ptnosm.com (Bob) wrote:
From Washington's farewell. Truer words . . as they say . .
gee. too bad they kinda forgot to put that in the constitution
I think what he's saying is, that's the nation formed by The
Constitution.
You find some contradiction, perhaps?
Remember what I said:
They insisted upon a Judeo-Christian ethic informing public policy.
But they did not want to limit, or chill, the free exercise of
religion.
Either show where the Constitution says they "insisted on a
Judaeo-Christian ethic informing public policy", or admit you're
wrong.
I'm just saying. Read what they said and wrote:
Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity,
religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that
man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these
great pillars of human happiness - these firmest props of the duties
of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man,
ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all
their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be
asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life,
if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the
instruments of investigation in courts of justice?
From Washington's farewell. Truer words . . as they say . .
Actually, what you keep spouting
That's what he said. I didn't say it. I just quote the man, so you can
benefit from his words.
is one man's words taken after the
Constitution was written, without their being included in any sort of
debate or discourse, and offering only a glimpse into his own personal
feelings.
I think he expresses himself, very well. He spoke more on this
subject, by the way, in that same address.
If you want to consider how the "Founding Fathers"
perceived religious liberty as a body politic, you should be looking
into (1) their words as they debated the form and substance of the
Constitution *as it was being written*, or (2) the Supreme Court in
the years immediately following the ratification of the Supreme Court.
I think you're going to have to wait for a 'reform' Court in the 20th
century for such a 'test', and its subsequent expansion and abuse.
Who's up, btw? Ginzberg was just appointed. O'Connor just narrowly
missed being crushed. Souter? Breyer?
Excuse me, I meant to write: "or (2) the Supreme Court in the years
immediately following the ratification of the Constitution." However,
I think that mess-up was immaterial; I still have no idea what you're
trying to say.
So - when the ACLU sues to get rid of a stone block with the
Decalogue, in Alabama . . then . . . .
Which was placed there by a judge who knoew he was acting both
illegally and unconstitutionally.
But on what basis? because the courts are never wrong? or because the
courts were wrong, and ruled unConstitutional that which simply was
not?
Well?
Neither.
Alberich
Then on what basis? That the court was right? Maybe the court was
wrong? But on what basis? What standard?
The court was right as a matter of law. Why is this so hard to grasp?
As much as *I* would like to see Catholicism spread throughout the
land with the blessings of the government, I realize that this cannot
occur *as* *a* *matter* *of* *law*!!!
Considering that Mark Johnson has gotten NO blessings worth
mentioning from Catholicism, despite what he pretends, I see no need to
listen to him.
Paul
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Still a Christian Nation (wasRe: Separation Of Church And State) |
06 Dec 2003 11:16:59 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 09:03:52 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote:
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 09:22:20 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote:
wf3h@ptnosm.com (Bob) wrote:
From Washington's farewell. Truer words . . as they say . .
gee. too bad they kinda forgot to put that in the constitution
I think what he's saying is, that's the nation formed by The
Constitution.
You find some contradiction, perhaps?
Remember what I said:
They insisted upon a Judeo-Christian ethic informing public policy.
But they did not want to limit, or chill, the free exercise of
religion.
Either show where the Constitution says they "insisted on a
Judaeo-Christian ethic informing public policy", or admit you're
wrong.
I'm just saying. Read what they said and wrote:
what they DIDNT write was god into the constitution. their OPINIONS
are irrelevant.
---------------------------
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 02:06:33 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 12:00:36 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote:
wf3h@ptnosm.com (Bob) wrote:
what they DIDNT write was god into the constitution. their OPINIONS
are irrelevant.
Read the Federalist Papers? How about Solberg's notes?
Trust me, that's not a road to go down to support your position.
Alberich
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Johnson" |
|
| Title: Re: Still a Christian Nation (wasRe: Separation Of Church And State) |
09 Dec 2003 05:16:08 PM |
|
|
Alberich <Alberich@NoSpam.com> wrote:
On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 12:00:36 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote:
wf3h@ptnosm.com (Bob) wrote:
what they DIDNT write was god into the constitution. their OPINIONS
are irrelevant.
Read the Federalist Papers? How about Solberg's notes?
Trust me, that's not a road to go down to support your position.
You said their opinions were irrelevant. I said - their opinions were
relevant. I didn't say what their opinions were, only that they were
not irrelevant.
Peace.
---------------------------------------
One mark of a deteriorating society is when its people cannot
discern truth from lies. Another is when they don't even bother
to try and will believe whatever their itching ears want to hear.
[Cal Thomas, 4 SEP 2000]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Alberich" |
|
| Title: Re: Still a Christian Nation (wasRe: Separation Of Church And State) |
09 Dec 2003 06:01:18 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 15:16:08 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote:
Alberich <Alberich@NoSpam.com> wrote:
On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 12:00:36 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote:
wf3h@ptnosm.com (Bob) wrote:
what they DIDNT write was god into the constitution. their OPINIONS
are irrelevant.
Read the Federalist Papers? How about Solberg's notes?
Trust me, that's not a road to go down to support your position.
You said their opinions were irrelevant. I said - their opinions were
relevant. I didn't say what their opinions were, only that they were
not irrelevant.
Actually, that was Bob that said it. I think their opinions are
entirely relevant.
Alberich
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Johnson" |
|
| Title: Re: Still a Christian Nation (wasRe: Separation Of Church And State) |
08 Dec 2003 02:16:12 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 09:03:52 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote:
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 09:22:20 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote:
wf3h@ptnosm.com (Bob) wrote:
Either show where the Constitution says they "insisted on a
Judaeo-Christian ethic informing public policy", or admit you're
wrong.
I
I'm just babbling. Read what I said and wrote:
"Look, again, this is not about Latin. And I've said I'm not so
familiar with Latin. This is about the issues, here. And you can use
English, and also, perhaps, post this to the appropriate ng. Don't
hide behind Latin to conceal your ignorance of the subject." -- Mark
Johnson
mesasage id:
From _my_ farewell to alt.language.Latin. Truer words . . as they say
Tough question for you?
N
Yes for me. I didn't answer.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Wayne Aiken" |
|
| Title: Re: Still a Christian Nation (wasRe: Separation Of Church And State) |
04 Dec 2003 08:09:38 AM |
|
|
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.
:
: So - when the ACLU sues to get rid of a stone block with the
: Decalogue, in Alabama . . then . . . .
:
: Tough question for you?
Why is it so tough for christ-aholics to see the difference between the
Decalogue on GOVERNMENT property and any similar display on PRIVATE
property?
-----
Wayne Aiken (#304) / NC Director \ Getting AANEWS? Send msg to:
PO Box 30904 / American Atheists \ <AANEWS-on@atheists.org> to
Raleigh, NC 27622 / \ start your Free subscription
(919) 954-5956 / http://www.atheists.org/nc/ AIM: slackx42
.
|
|
|
| User: "DeanAJoke" |
|
| Title: Re: Still a Christian Nation (wasRe: Separation Of Church And State) |
04 Dec 2003 08:13:55 AM |
|
|
"Wayne Aiken" <aiken@unity.ncsu.edu> wrote in message
news:bqnf72$aqc$1@uni00nw.unity.ncsu.edu...
Mark Johnson (102334.12@compuserve.com) wrote:
: They insisted upon a Judeo-Christian ethic informing public policy.
: But they did not want to limit, or chill, the free exercise of
: religion.
:
: So - when the ACLU sues to get rid of a stone block with the
: Decalogue, in Alabama . . then . . . .
:
: Tough question for you?
Why is it so tough for christ-aholics to see the difference between the
Decalogue on GOVERNMENT property and any similar display on PRIVATE
property?
Perhaps because they recognize that AtheistAssholes fail to understand that
the government is of the people, by the people, and FOR the people.
Government is NOT the exclusive domain of the AtheistAsshole, you see.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peacenik" |
|
| Title: Re: Still a Christian Nation (wasRe: Separation Of Church And State) |
05 Dec 2003 05:50:02 PM |
|
|
"DeanAJoke" <CharlesMTaylor@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:DiHzb.24650$_M.102852@attbi_s54...
"Wayne Aiken" <aiken@unity.ncsu.edu> wrote in message
news:bqnf72$aqc$1@uni00nw.unity.ncsu.edu...
Why is it so tough for christ-aholics to see the difference between the
Decalogue on GOVERNMENT property and any similar display on PRIVATE
property?
Perhaps because they recognize that AtheistAssholes fail to understand
that
the government is of the people, by the people, and FOR the people.
The US government is also a government beholden to a Constitution, one of
whose functions it to protect the People against a tyrrany of the majority.
Government is NOT the exclusive domain of the AtheistAsshole, you see.
Lack of government endorsement of religion does not equal government
endorsement of atheism. The US Constitution's Separation of Church and State
requires the government to remain neutral on religious issues. That is
central to religious freedom.
Suggested reading: The First Amendment of the US Constitution.
--
Peacenik
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Johnson" |
|
| Title: Re: Still a Christian Nation (wasRe: Separation Of Church And State) |
06 Dec 2003 11:25:27 AM |
|
|
"Peacenik" <criskity999@com999cast.removeallnines.net> wrote:
Suggested reading: The First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Indeed. This is what the man was talking about, essentially:
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: "Peacenik" |
|
| Title: Re: Still a Christian Nation (wasRe: Separation Of Church And State) |
06 Dec 2003 08:44:31 PM |
|
|
"Mark Johnson" <102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:p644tvcsqsjba7jvfbdb0qhd6kofio9i9v@4ax.com...
"Peacenik" <criskity999@com999cast.removeallnines.net> wrote:
Suggested reading: The First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Indeed. This is what the man was talking about, essentially:
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 . .
Washington's farewell address is not US Law; it is opinion. I suggest you
read the First Amendment of the Constitution, which requires a separation of
church and state. I would also suggest you read Jefferson's letter to the
Danbury Baptists. (Jefferson was one of the principal framers of the
Constitution, unlike Washington.)
--
Peacenik
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michelle Malkin" |
|
| Title: Re: Still a Christian Nation (wasRe: Separation Of Church And State) |
07 Dec 2003 01:00:34 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 02:44:31 GMT, "Peacenik"
<criskity999@com999cast.removeallnines.net> wrote:
"Mark Johnson" <102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:p644tvcsqsjba7jvfbdb0qhd6kofio9i9v@4ax.com...
"Peacenik" <criskity999@com999cast.removeallnines.net> wrote:
Suggested reading: The First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Indeed. This is what the man was talking about, essentially:
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 . .
Washington's farewell address is not US Law; it is opinion. I suggest you
read the First Amendment of the Constitution, which requires a separation of
church and state. I would also suggest you read Jefferson's letter to the
Danbury Baptists. (Jefferson was one of the principal framers of the
Constitution, unlike Washington.)
Not exactly. James Madison and Jefferson were great friends and wrote
back and forth about it while it was being put together, but Madison,
while greatly influenced by Jefferson, was a man with a mind of his
own with great intelligence and knowledge.
James Madison and Alexander Hamilton were the main framers of the
Constitution. Jefferson wasn't even at the Constitutional Convention.
(I think he was the Governor of Virginia at that time.) Washington was
there as a Representative of Virginia and as the President of the
Constitutional Convention.
Michelle Malkin (Mickey)
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
Hands that work are better than mouths that pray -
Robert Ingersoll
****************************************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robert Neinast" |
|
| Title: Re: Still a Christian Nation (wasRe: Separation Of Church And State) |
07 Dec 2003 04:16:22 PM |
|
|
In article <tch5tvomd2n7kubob0sigbs1kpe08vl4bt@4ax.com>,
hypatiab7@earthlink.net says...
Not exactly. James Madison and Jefferson were great friends and wrote
back and forth about it while it was being put together, but Madison,
while greatly influenced by Jefferson, was a man with a mind of his
own with great intelligence and knowledge.
James Madison and Alexander Hamilton were the main framers of the
Constitution. Jefferson wasn't even at the Constitutional Convention.
(I think he was the Governor of Virginia at that time.) Washington was
there as a Representative of Virginia and as the President of the
Constitutional Convention.
Whoa. Jefferson was in France. Also, Hamilton was not one
of the main framers of the Constitution. In fact, if I remember
correctly, he left during much of the middle (since he kept
getting outvoted by the rest of the New York delegation).
Hamilton did come back at the end, and provided some critical
votes (after another of the NY delegation left, Hamilton's votes
then were in the majority)(reminder: the voting in the convention
was by states, so each state delegation would vote amongst
themselves, and the result of that vote was what counted).
What Hamilton did was *defend* the final product of the
Constitutional Convention, writing about half of the
Federalist Papers.
Bob
--
.. . . and shun the Frumious Bandersnatch
Robert A. Neinast
Pickerington, OH
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Alberich" |
|
| Title: Re: Still a Christian Nation (wasRe: Separation Of Church And State) |
06 Dec 2003 11:42:36 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 09:25:27 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote:
"Peacenik" <criskity999@com999cast.removeallnines.net> wrote:
Suggested reading: The First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Indeed. This is what the man was talking about, essentially:
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 . .
I commend to your reading the Abbot-Iredell debate on religious tests
(30 July 1788).
Alberich
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Johnson" |
|
| Title: Re: Still a Christian Nation (wasRe: Separation Of Church And State) |
06 Dec 2003 02:31:44 PM |
|
|
Alberich <Alberich@NoSpam.com> wrote:
Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity,
religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that
man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these
great pillars of human happiness - these firmest props of the duties
of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man,
ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all
their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be
asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life,
if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the
instruments of investigation in courts of justice?
From Washington's farewell. Truer words . . as they say . .
I commend to your reading the Abbot-Iredell debate
I suggest you read what the man said - right there. Don't ignore it.
Don't ignore him. Washington is telling you about the First Amendment,
whether you realize it, or not.
Peace.
----------------------------------------
Theorem: All numbers are equal.
Choose arbitrary a and b, and let t = a + b.
(a + b)(a - b) = t(a - b)
a^2 - b^2 = ta - tb
a^2 - ta = b^2 - tb
a^2 - ta + (t^2)/4 = b^2 - tb + (t^2)/4
(a - t/2)^2 = (b - t/2)^2
a - t/2 = b - t/2
a = b
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Johnson" |
|
| Title: Re: Still a Christian Nation (wasRe: Separation Of Church And State) |
08 Dec 2003 02:16:04 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 12:31:44 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote:
Alberich <Alberich@NoSpam.com> wrote:
O
"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
I commend to your reading the Abbot-Iredell debate
Y
You suggest I read what I said - right there. I ignore it.
I ignore everyone. I am not telling you about the First Amendment,
whether I realize it, or not.
Peace.
----------------------------------------
blanche@cco.blanchetech.edu
Theorem: All numbers are equal.
Choose arbitrary ***** and blanche, and let tit = ***** + blanche.
(***** + blanche)(***** - blanche) = tit(***** - blanche)
*****^2 - blanche^2 = titass - titblanche
*****^2 - titass = blanche^2 - titblanche
*****^2 - titass + (tit^2)/4 = blanche^2 - titblanche + (tit^2)/4
(***** - tit/2)^2 = (blanche - tit/2)^2
***** - tit/2 = blanche - tit/2
***** = blanche
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Alberich" |
|
| Title: Re: Still a Christian Nation (wasRe: Separation Of Church And State) |
06 Dec 2003 02:41:54 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 12:31:44 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote:
Alberich <Alberich@NoSpam.com> wrote:
Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity,
religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that
man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these
great pillars of human happiness - these firmest props of the duties
of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man,
ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all
their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be
asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life,
if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the
instruments of investigation in courts of justice?
From Washington's farewell. Truer words . . as they say . .
I commend to your reading the Abbot-Iredell debate
I suggest you read what the man said - right there. Don't ignore it.
Don't ignore him. Washington is telling you about the First Amendment,
whether you realize it, or not.
Washington was more or less conspicuously absent during the debates
over the Constitution. His view of the first amendment has little
more force than that of your friend Ginsburg (whose name I'm sure you
don't intentionally mis-spell). If his view has *any* authority, it
is solely for his being proximate in time to the ratification of the
Constitution.
Alberich
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Duca" |
|
| Title: Re: Still a Christian Nation (wasRe: Separation Of Church And State) |
10 Dec 2003 06:44:59 AM |
|
|
Mark Johnson wrote:
Alberich <Alberich@NoSpam.com> wrote:
On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 12:31:44 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote:
Alberich <Alberich@NoSpam.com> wrote:
Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity,
religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that
man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these
great pillars of human happiness - these firmest props of the duties
of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man,
ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all
their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be
asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life,
if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the
instruments of investigation in courts of justice?
From Washington's farewell. Truer words . . as they say . .
Washington was more or less conspicuously absent during the debates
over the Constitution. His view of the first amendment has little
more force than that of your friend Ginsburg (whose name I'm sure you
don't intentionally mis-spell). If his view has *any* authority, it
is solely for his being proximate in time to the ratification of the
Constitution.
Alberich
Al, the first, and arguably, greatest President of the United States.
The entire nation mourned his passing. He was offered a kingdom, and
chose republican government, instead.
Now maybe he's just a menial serf in God's kingdom....
Paul
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Alberich" |
|
| Title: Re: Still a Christian Nation (wasRe: Separation Of Church And State) |
10 Dec 2003 10:18:03 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 02:21:41 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote:
Alberich <Alberich@NoSpam.com> wrote:
On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 12:31:44 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote:
Alberich <Alberich@NoSpam.com> wrote:
Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity,
religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that
man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these
great pillars of human happiness - these firmest props of the duties
of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man,
ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all
their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be
asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life,
if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the
instruments of investigation in courts of justice?
From Washington's farewell. Truer words . . as they say . .
Washington was more or less conspicuously absent during the debates
over the Constitution. His view of the first amendment has little
more force than that of your friend Ginsburg (whose name I'm sure you
don't intentionally mis-spell). If his view has *any* authority, it
is solely for his being proximate in time to the ratification of the
Constitution.
Alberich
Al, the first, and arguably, greatest President of the United States.
The entire nation mourned his passing. He was offered a kingdom, and
chose republican government, instead.
And Madeline Albright was offered the presidency of (I think it was)
the Czech Republic, but opted to be Sec'y of State here. You must
admire the holy tar out of her, too.
"Thus in the creation of the longest-lived and most widely-copied
constitution in human history, as in the winning of American
independence previously, we see the impossibility of separating the
character of Washington from the early nation's accomplishments."
[http://www.pbs.org/georgewashington/multimedia/arnn/constitutional_convention.html]
PBS is not any authority on American history and law. If this is the
best source you have to back your claim, you're in trouble.
Alberich
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Johnson" |
|
| Title: Re: Still a Christian Nation (wasRe: Separation Of Church And State) |
10 Dec 2003 11:45:53 AM |
|
|
Alberich <Alberich@NoSpam.com> wrote:
On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 02:21:41 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote:
Alberich <Alberich@NoSpam.com> wrote:
On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 12:31:44 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote:
Alberich <Alberich@NoSpam.com> wrote:
Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity,
religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that
man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these
great pillars of human happiness - these firmest props of the duties
of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man,
ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all
their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be
asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life,
if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the
instruments of investigation in courts of justice?
From Washington's farewell. Truer words . . as they say . .
Washington was more or less conspicuously absent during the debates
over the Constitution. His view of the first amendment has little
more force than that of your friend Ginsburg (whose name I'm sure you
don't intentionally mis-spell). If his view has *any* authority, it
is solely for his being proximate in time to the ratification of the
Constitution.
Alberich
Al, the first, and arguably, greatest President of the United States.
The entire nation mourned his passing. He was offered a kingdom, and
chose republican government, instead.
And Madeline Albright was offered the presidency of
That makes sense to you, I'm sure. You're comparing the failed
Albright with arguably the greatest President in US history.
ookay.
Besides, you don't know who 'Soldier Willie' would have appointed to
take her place. This is the guy who promoted Ruth Ginzberg, Janet
Reno, Joyceln Elders, Robert Reich, Ron Brown, James Carville, Paul
Begalla, and so forth. And that's just a partial list of the 'winners'
the old 'Soldier' forced on America.
"Thus in the creation of the longest-lived and most widely-copied
constitution in human history, as in the winning of American
independence previously, we see the impossibility of separating the
character of Washington from the early nation's accomplishments."
[http://www.pbs.org/georgewashington/multimedia/arnn/constitutional_convention.html]
PBS is not any authority on American history and law.
You disagree? They did good Frontline on The Battle of the Bulge. They
used to run the BBS The World at War. I thought that was very good.
Even Victory at Sea wasn't bad. You might only cringe at Capra's
handling of the Soviets in Why We Fight. That was pretty sad. The NY
Times is thinking of giving back some prizes awarded in the late 30s
for shading things in precisely that way.
Of course, PBS does a lot of Vietnam stuff. And that's not always,
exactly, historical. It just depends. Vietname is the Dem fixation, as
you see from the current debates. PBS IS the libral public network,
after all - at least out this way. I see from other PBS pledge drives,
that in other parts of the country, PBS locally, if not for the
national feed and programs, might be almost conservative. But I still
haven't made the move to TX or TN. So I wouldn'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) |
08 Dec 2003 02:16:03 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 09:25:27 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote:
I
Indeed. This is what I was babbling about, essentially:
"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.
blanche@cco.blanchetech.edu
Theorem: All numbers are equal.
Choose arbitrary ***** and blanche, and let tit = ***** + blanche.
(***** + blanche)(***** - blanche) = tit(***** - blanche)
*****^2 - blanche^2 = titass - titblanche
*****^2 - titass = blanche^2 - titblanche
*****^2 - titass + (tit^2)/4 = blanche^2 - titblanche + (tit^2)/4
(***** - tit/2)^2 = (blanche - tit/2)^2
***** - tit/2 = blanche - tit/2
***** = blanche
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Still a Christian Nation (wasRe: Separation Of Church And State) |
04 Dec 2003 08:53:51 AM |
|
|
In article <DiHzb.24650$_M.102852@attbi_s54>, DeanAJoke says...
"Wayne Aiken" <aiken@unity.ncsu.edu> wrote in message
news:bqnf72$aqc$1@uni00nw.unity.ncsu.edu...
Mark Johnson (102334.12@compuserve.com) wrote:
: They insisted upon a Judeo-Christian ethic informing public policy.
: But they did not want to limit, or chill, the free exercise of
: religion.
:
: So - when the ACLU sues to get rid of a stone block with the
: Decalogue, in Alabama . . then . . . .
:
: Tough question for you?
Why is it so tough for christ-aholics to see the difference between the
Decalogue on GOVERNMENT property and any similar display on PRIVATE
property?
Perhaps because they recognize that AtheistAssholes fail to understand that
the government is of the people, by the people, and FOR the people.
Government is NOT the exclusive domain of the AtheistAsshole, you see.
Neither is the goverment the exclusive domain of christianity, jackass.
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dr Dave W" |
|
| Title: Re: Still a Christian Nation (wasRe: Separation Of Church And State) |
04 Dec 2003 12:40:27 PM |
|
|
Mark Johnson <102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote in
news:gctusv0cvnlp45rkimsv8jrgt7qv6m9ojf@4ax.com:
Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote:
In article <DiHzb.24650$_M.102852@attbi_s54>, DeanAJoke says...
"Wayne Aiken" <aiken@unity.ncsu.edu> wrote in message
news:bqnf72$aqc$1@uni00nw.unity.ncsu.edu...
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.
: So - when the ACLU sues to get rid of a stone block with the
: Decalogue, in Alabama . . then . . . .
: Tough question for you?
Why is it so tough for christ-aholics to see the difference between
the Decalogue on GOVERNMENT property and any similar display on
PRIVATE property?
Perhaps because they recognize that AtheistAssholes fail to
understand that the government is of the people, by the people, and
FOR the people. Government is NOT the exclusive domain of the
AtheistAsshole, you see.
Neither is the goverment the exclusive domain of christianity,
jackass.
If I may answer that:
But they did not want to limit, or chill, the free exercise of
religion.
To do that, the government needs to remain neutral and uninvolved in
religion. Placing the 10C in a courthouse rotunda is exactly respecting a
religion. Courts have ruled on that repeatedly.
--
Dave W a.a.#1967
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Still a Christian Nation (wasRe: Separation Of Church And State) |
04 Dec 2003 08:58:29 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 09:58:25 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> posted in alt.atheism:
But they did not want to limit, or chill, the free exercise of
religion.
Freedom of religion is not unlimited. Thuggees, for example, are not
free to practice their religion here.
--
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of
themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts."
- Bertrand Russell
(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) |
05 Dec 2003 02:11:59 AM |
|
|
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 09:58:25 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> posted in alt.atheism:
But they did not want to limit, or chill, the free exercise of
religion.
Freedom of religion is not unlimited. Thuggees, for example, are not
free to practice their religion here.
You mean thugs, terrorists, whatever religion they claim. Are you
comparing Catholics and 'born-again' Prots with mafia thugs - or
something? Cause here's the problem you have with that:
"But they did not want to limit, or chill, the free exercise of
religion."
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) |
07 Dec 2003 08:33:26 AM |
|
|
Mark Johnson wrote:
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 09:58:25 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> posted in alt.atheism:
But they did not want to limit, or chill, the free exercise of
religion.
Freedom of religion is not unlimited. Thuggees, for example, are not
free to practice their religion here.
You mean thugs, terrorists, whatever religion they claim. Are you
comparing Catholics and 'born-again' Prots with mafia thugs - or
something? Cause here's the problem you have with that:
Are we sensative because Tony Soprano has more money and a
nicer house and hotter broads on the side (and an SUV) than Mark even
dreams of the GropenFuhrer providing him?
Paul
.
|
|
|
| User: "SumBuny" |
|
| Title: Re: Still a Christian Nation (wasRe: Separation Of Church And State) |
07 Dec 2003 02:00:56 PM |
|
|
Mark Johnson wrote:
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 09:58:25 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> posted in alt.atheism:
But they did not want to limit, or chill, the free exercise of
religion.
Freedom of religion is not unlimited. Thuggees, for example, are not
free to practice their religion here.
You mean thugs, terrorists, whatever religion they claim. Are you
comparing Catholics and 'born-again' Prots with mafia thugs - or
something? Cause here's the problem you have with that:
MJ, get a clue...you have been told several times that these are
practitioners of a religion (worship of Kali)....
http://www.patnadaily.com/readerswrite/rakesh_chaubey.html
Try to keep up and stop trying to insinuate...
Buny
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Still a Christian Nation (wasRe: Separation Of Church And State) |
07 Dec 2003 06:22:02 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 7 Dec 2003 14:00:56 -0600, "SumBuny"
<sumbunyTHIS_DOES_NOT_BELONG_HERE@cox.net> posted in alt.atheism:
Mark Johnson wrote:
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 09:58:25 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> posted in alt.atheism:
But they did not want to limit, or chill, the free exercise of
religion.
Freedom of religion is not unlimited. Thuggees, for example, are not
free to practice their religion here.
You mean thugs, terrorists, whatever religion they claim. Are you
comparing Catholics and 'born-again' Prots with mafia thugs - or
something? Cause here's the problem you have with that:
MJ, get a clue...you have been told several times that these are
practitioners of a religion (worship of Kali)....
http://www.patnadaily.com/readerswrite/rakesh_chaubey.html
Try to keep up and stop trying to insinuate...
All he's got is deliberate misunderstanding and lying. He has no real
argument.
--
"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of all that exists, but
not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and actions of human beings."
-A. Einstein (1929 -- Einstein Archive 33-272)
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Beowulf" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: Still a Christian Nation (wasRe: Separation Of Church And State) |
05 Dec 2003 12:11:03 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 00:11:59 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> ejaculated:
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 09:58:25 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> posted in alt.atheism:
But they did not want to limit, or chill, the free exercise of
religion.
Freedom of religion is not unlimited. Thuggees, for example, are not
free to practice their religion here.
You mean thugs, terrorists, whatever religion they claim. Are you
comparing Catholics and 'born-again' Prots with mafia thugs - or
something? Cause here's the problem you have with that:
No, the problem is that you are ignorant.
Go watch Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom to find out what a
Thuggee is, if you can't manage to find your way into a library.
--
Jesus is my crush.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
