| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Not-easily-duped" |
| Date: |
24 Nov 2003 11:14:27 AM |
| Object: |
Separation Of Church And State Is It What God Wants? |
When you reach the Land that the Lord your God is giving you,
and occupy it, and settle down in it, and then declare to yourself:
"I must place a king over me like all the nations around me,"
make sure you place over you the king your God chooses.
You must choose one of your countrymen king over you.
You shall not put a foreigner over you who is not from among
your brethren...
As soon as he takes his seat on his royal throne, he must write
for himself a copy of this Law/Torah, he must keep it and
read it all the day of his life that he may learn to revere the Lord
his God, by being careful to observe all the Law and serve with
justice his fellow men. Deut 17:14-20
How can anyone tell me that this God is nolonger interested in
matters related to states, therefor we should separate Church and State?
This God is the source of Law and the God of principalities and dominions
How could he possibly be indiferent to politics?
WOE TO THOSE WHO SAY:"LET US SEPARATE CHRIST AND STATE."
.
|
|
| User: "Mark Johnson" |
|
| Title: Re: Still a Christian Nation (wasRe: Separation Of Church And State) |
06 Dec 2003 10:36:02 AM |
|
|
Beowulf <beowulf_is_not_here@hotmail.com> wrote:
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.
Gee, you sound so smart, and all. Surely you'd agree with me, then, as
someone of such acknowledged good sense and wisdom:
Our founding fathers 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: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Still a Christian Nation (wasRe: Separation Of Church And State) |
06 Dec 2003 11:12:23 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 08:36:02 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote:
Beowulf <beowulf_is_not_here@hotmail.com> wrote:
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.
Gee, you sound so smart, and all. Surely you'd agree with me, then, as
someone of such acknowledged good sense and wisdom:
Our founding fathers did not want to limit, or chill, the free
exercise of religion.
Peace.
which is why the decalogue does not belong in a govt building
---------------------------
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 02:32:43 PM |
|
|
(Bob) wrote:
Our founding fathers did not want to limit, or chill, the free
exercise of religion.
which is why the decalogue does not belong in a govt building
But then you'd have to wonder about:
"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."
Washington spoke of a commonality in that speech. And it extends to
public officials, mostly particularly:
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 03:14:08 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 12:32:43 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote:
wf3h@ptnosm.com (Bob) wrote:
Our founding fathers did not want to limit, or chill, the free
exercise of religion.
which is why the decalogue does not belong in a govt building
But then you'd have to wonder about:
"You only had about three Catholics.
and in some states catholics couldnt hold office. you agree with that?
Washington spoke of a commonality in that speech. And it extends to
public officials, mostly particularly:
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 . .
looks like markie would replace the constiution with washington's
farewell address.
---------------------------
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: "SumBuny" |
|
| Title: Re: Still a Christian Nation (wasRe: Separation Of Church And State) |
10 Dec 2003 05:30:14 PM |
|
|
"Mark Johnson" <102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:j1vdtvkjfophjusro7oadet2vreb8eb4s4@4ax.com...
wf3h@ptnosm.com (Bob) wrote:
On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 12:32:43 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote:
wf3h@ptnosm.com (Bob) wrote:
"You only had about three Catholics.
and in some states catholics couldnt hold office. you agree with that?
Even worse - in some states. As a Catholic, no, I wouldn't agree. I
would move to a . . Catholic state, as part of the United States.
How's your Cajun French? About as understandable as your Latin?
Buny
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Johnson" |
|
| Title: Re: Still a Christian Nation (wasRe: Separation Of Church And State) |
11 Dec 2003 04:09:50 PM |
|
|
"SumBuny" <sumbunyTHIS_DOES_NOT_BELONG_HERE@cox.net> wrote:
"Mark Johnson" <102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:j1vdtvkjfophjusro7oadet2vreb8eb4s4@4ax.com...
wf3h@ptnosm.com (Bob) wrote:
On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 12:32:43 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote:
wf3h@ptnosm.com (Bob) wrote:
"You only had about three Catholics.
and in some states catholics couldnt hold office. you agree with that?
Even worse - in some states. As a Catholic, no, I wouldn't agree. I
would move to a . . Catholic state, as part of the United States.
How's your Cajun French? About as understandable as your Latin?
Buny
My . . Latin? The only Latin I've posted is:
http://www.geocities.com/ymjcath/The_Mass.htm
And 'sum', that's got the bit that JUST DRIVES YOUOUOUOUOUUU UP THE
WALL, namely, the translation. It's got facing pages built in. And
that just drives you nuts, doesn't it? Because people can understand
the Latin. There's a translation.
So, 'sum', you just keep hatin. Nothing I can say to stop 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]
.
|
|
|
| User: "SumBuny" |
|
| Title: Re: Still a Christian Nation (wasRe: Separation Of Church And State) |
11 Dec 2003 04:49:01 PM |
|
|
"Mark Johnson" <102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:elqhtv4ncovjr1i5kbstc0adh3dflqd5ma@4ax.com...
"SumBuny" <sumbunyTHIS_DOES_NOT_BELONG_HERE@cox.net> wrote:
"Mark Johnson" <102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:j1vdtvkjfophjusro7oadet2vreb8eb4s4@4ax.com...
wf3h@ptnosm.com (Bob) wrote:
On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 12:32:43 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote:
wf3h@ptnosm.com (Bob) wrote:
"You only had about three Catholics.
and in some states catholics couldnt hold office. you agree with that?
Even worse - in some states. As a Catholic, no, I wouldn't agree. I
would move to a . . Catholic state, as part of the United States.
How's your Cajun French? About as understandable as your Latin?
Buny
My . . Latin? The only Latin I've posted is:
http://www.geocities.com/ymjcath/The_Mass.htm
You mentioned moving to a "Catholic State"....south Louisiana's Cajun
country is as close as you will get, being predominately Catholic...
Buny
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Johnson" |
|
| Title: Re: Still a Christian Nation (wasRe: Separation Of Church And State) |
12 Dec 2003 09:52:01 PM |
|
|
"SumBuny" <sumbunyTHIS_DOES_NOT_BELONG_HERE@cox.net> wrote:
"Mark Johnson" <102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:elqhtv4ncovjr1i5kbstc0adh3dflqd5ma@4ax.com...
"SumBuny" <sumbunyTHIS_DOES_NOT_BELONG_HERE@cox.net> wrote:
"Mark Johnson" <102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:j1vdtvkjfophjusro7oadet2vreb8eb4s4@4ax.com...
wf3h@ptnosm.com (Bob) wrote:
On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 12:32:43 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote:
wf3h@ptnosm.com (Bob) wrote:
You mentioned moving to a "Catholic State"....south Louisiana's Cajun
country is as close as you will get
Gee, a shame about Maryland, then.
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: "Lord Calvert" |
|
| Title: Re: Still a Christian Nation (wasRe: Separation Of Church And State) |
12 Dec 2003 11:27:51 PM |
|
|
You mentioned moving to a "Catholic State"....south Louisiana's Cajun
country is as close as you will get
Gee, a shame about Maryland, then.
Perhaps you wanted the Puritans to be successful?
1648, Maryland:
Richard Bennett leads 400-600 Virginia Puritans into Maryland to found
Annapolis. Remember - Maryland was founded on religious freedom and tolerance
and is a Catholic colony. And the Puritans knew this in advance: Maryland has
been there for 14 years.
April 21, 1649, Maryland:
Puritan-dominated Provincial Assembly, under siege from the founding Calverts,
adopts law granting legal equality to all who profess Jesus Christ to be the
son of God. The Puritans have been in Maryland for barely one year and they try
to eliminate religious freedom!
October 20, 1654, St. Marys, Maryland:
Puritan-dominated assembly repeals the Act Concerning Religion (religious
freedom) and replaces it with a law stating "none who profess and exercise the
popish religion ... can be protected in this province", thus denying legal
protection and civil rights to Catholics. The Puritans - who knowingly and
deliberately moved into an existing colony that they knew had obtained its
grant for the specific purpose of giving a place of haven for Catholics -
repeal the law they had been forced to adopt 5 years earlier and replace it
with a law denying Catholics inherent rights and legal protection in their own
colony! Is this religious freedom and tolerance?
1655, Maryland:
Immigrant Puritans rebel in Maryland, overthrowing the government of the
Calvert proprietors. Their first act is to repeal the Toleration Act. The
Puritans finish the job: they repeal the fundamental law of the colony! Is this
religious freedom?
1661, Maryland:
King of England intercedes in Maryland, restoring authority to the Calvert
proprietors and reimplementing the Toleration Act.
1692, Maryland
Toleration Act dissolved as William and Mary establish the Church of England as
the "One True Faith" in Maryland and all other English colonies.
1961, Maryland
Portions of Maryland constitution repealed requiring religious adherence for
public office by a 9-0 decision of the Supreme Court in Torcaso v. Watkins.
Peace.
With hate-mongering Taliban-wannabees like you around? probably not.
"Puritanism meant the direction and control of civil authority" - that is, of
government. "Puritans" are with us today, and they have not changed their
agenda! They are still determined to force all people to observe and obey every
speck of Puritan doctrine. They have changed their name, but they have not
changed anything else. As they did more than 300 years ago, today they first
attempt to impose their beliefs upon this nation through clearly
unconstitutional legislation. Failing that, also as they did more than 300
years ago, they readily kill and maim those who dare defy their dogma. If
today's Puritans get their way politically, what's next? Burning, drowning and
crushing witches again? Don't laugh - they have already killed doctors, nurses,
secretaries, and policemen! - From Sons of Liberty website.
Now go back to your cave, Osama.
Rich Goranson, Amherst, NY, USA (aa#MCMXCIX, a-vet#1)
EAC Department of Applied Rattan Use
"Without faith we might relapse into scientific or rational thinking, which
leads by a slippery slope toward constitutional democracy." - Robert Anton
Wilson
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Still a Christian Nation (wasRe: Separation Of Church And State) |
12 Dec 2003 11:08:39 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 19:52:01 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote:
"SumBuny" <sumbunyTHIS_DOES_NOT_BELONG_HERE@cox.net> wrote:
"Mark Johnson" <102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:elqhtv4ncovjr1i5kbstc0adh3dflqd5ma@4ax.com...
"SumBuny" <sumbunyTHIS_DOES_NOT_BELONG_HERE@cox.net> wrote:
"Mark Johnson" <102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:j1vdtvkjfophjusro7oadet2vreb8eb4s4@4ax.com...
wf3h@ptnosm.com (Bob) wrote:
On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 12:32:43 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote:
wf3h@ptnosm.com (Bob) wrote:
You mentioned moving to a "Catholic State"....south Louisiana's Cajun
country is as close as you will get
Gee, a shame about Maryland, then.
guess markie doesnt know that protestants took over maryland and
prohibited catholics from holding office until 1821.
---------------------------
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) |
13 Dec 2003 02:10:24 PM |
|
|
(Bob) wrote:
On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 19:52:01 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote:
"SumBuny" <sumbunyTHIS_DOES_NOT_BELONG_HERE@cox.net> wrote:
"Mark Johnson" <102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:elqhtv4ncovjr1i5kbstc0adh3dflqd5ma@4ax.com...
"SumBuny" <sumbunyTHIS_DOES_NOT_BELONG_HERE@cox.net> wrote:
"Mark Johnson" <102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:j1vdtvkjfophjusro7oadet2vreb8eb4s4@4ax.com...
(Bob) wrote:
On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 12:32:43 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote:
(Bob) wrote:
You mentioned moving to a "Catholic State"....south Louisiana's Cajun
country is as close as you will get
Gee, a shame about Maryland, then.
guess markie doesnt know
You guessie I don't knowie about what, now?
that protestants took over maryland and
prohibited catholics from holding office until 1821.
Maryland was founded a bit differently. I don't know about 1821, but
laws against Catholics were the result of specific Protestant attack,
and overthrown of the local government, literally, even on a religious
bigotry coming out of Virginia, against Catholics. Catholics were in a
war, in that region, before even the Revolutionary War.
Peace.
---------------------------------------
One mark of a deteriorating society is when its people cannot
discern truth from lies. Another is when they don't even bother
to try and will believe whatever their itching ears want to hear.
[Cal Thomas, 4 SEP 2000]
.
|
|
|
| User: "SumBuny" |
|
| Title: Re: Still a Christian Nation (wasRe: Separation Of Church And State) |
13 Dec 2003 05:27:14 PM |
|
|
"Mark Johnson" <102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:95rmtvcqihast5v2nfnth83s0fn764r8vv@4ax.com...
wf3h@ptnosm.com (Bob) wrote:
On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 19:52:01 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote:
"SumBuny" <sumbunyTHIS_DOES_NOT_BELONG_HERE@cox.net> wrote:
"Mark Johnson" <102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:elqhtv4ncovjr1i5kbstc0adh3dflqd5ma@4ax.com...
"SumBuny" <sumbunyTHIS_DOES_NOT_BELONG_HERE@cox.net> wrote:
"Mark Johnson" <102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:j1vdtvkjfophjusro7oadet2vreb8eb4s4@4ax.com...
wf3h@ptnosm.com (Bob) wrote:
On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 12:32:43 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote:
wf3h@ptnosm.com (Bob) wrote:
You mentioned moving to a "Catholic State"....south Louisiana's Cajun
country is as close as you will get
Gee, a shame about Maryland, then.
guess markie doesnt know
You guessie I don't knowie about what, now?
that protestants took over maryland and
prohibited catholics from holding office until 1821.
Maryland was founded a bit differently. I don't know about 1821, but
laws against Catholics were the result of specific Protestant attack,
and overthrown of the local government, literally, even on a religious
bigotry coming out of Virginia, against Catholics. Catholics were in a
war, in that region, before even the Revolutionary War.
Catholic French Louisianne didn't have that problem...
Buny
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Duca" |
|
| Title: Re: Still a Christian Nation (wasRe: Separation Of Church And State) |
14 Dec 2003 08:52:22 AM |
|
|
SumBuny wrote:
"Mark Johnson" <102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:95rmtvcqihast5v2nfnth83s0fn764r8vv@4ax.com...
wf3h@ptnosm.com (Bob) wrote:
On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 19:52:01 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote:
"SumBuny" <sumbunyTHIS_DOES_NOT_BELONG_HERE@cox.net> wrote:
"Mark Johnson" <102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:elqhtv4ncovjr1i5kbstc0adh3dflqd5ma@4ax.com...
"SumBuny" <sumbunyTHIS_DOES_NOT_BELONG_HERE@cox.net> wrote:
"Mark Johnson" <102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:j1vdtvkjfophjusro7oadet2vreb8eb4s4@4ax.com...
wf3h@ptnosm.com (Bob) wrote:
On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 12:32:43 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote:
wf3h@ptnosm.com (Bob) wrote:
You mentioned moving to a "Catholic State"....south Louisiana's Cajun
country is as close as you will get
Gee, a shame about Maryland, then.
guess markie doesnt know
You guessie I don't knowie about what, now?
that protestants took over maryland and
prohibited catholics from holding office until 1821.
Maryland was founded a bit differently. I don't know about 1821, but
laws against Catholics were the result of specific Protestant attack,
and overthrown of the local government, literally, even on a religious
bigotry coming out of Virginia, against Catholics. Catholics were in a
war, in that region, before even the Revolutionary War.
Catholic French Louisianne didn't have that problem...
Let's not forget HOW and WHY the Cajuns got to Louisiana...the
ENGLISH expelled the French settlers from Nova Scotia (read the history books
or Longfellow's poem "Evangeline").
In other words...the ANGLICAN PROTESTANTS were persecuting the
Catholics.
But Mark won't make any kind of a fuss about THAT, since England is
now our happy American cheerleader (so in this case the past can be dead and
buried, not exalted as better than now).
Paul
.
|
|
|
| User: "SumBuny" |
|
| Title: Re: Still a Christian Nation (wasRe: Separation Of Church And State) |
14 Dec 2003 12:14:26 PM |
|
|
"Paul Duca" <tomservo@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:3FDC799B.474A7F48@comcast.net...
SumBuny wrote:
"Mark Johnson" <102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:95rmtvcqihast5v2nfnth83s0fn764r8vv@4ax.com...
wf3h@ptnosm.com (Bob) wrote:
You mentioned moving to a "Catholic State"....south Louisiana's
Cajun
country is as close as you will get
Gee, a shame about Maryland, then.
guess markie doesnt know
You guessie I don't knowie about what, now?
that protestants took over maryland and
prohibited catholics from holding office until 1821.
Maryland was founded a bit differently. I don't know about 1821, but
laws against Catholics were the result of specific Protestant attack,
and overthrown of the local government, literally, even on a religious
bigotry coming out of Virginia, against Catholics. Catholics were in a
war, in that region, before even the Revolutionary War.
Catholic French Louisianne didn't have that problem...
Let's not forget HOW and WHY the Cajuns got to Louisiana...the
ENGLISH expelled the French settlers from Nova Scotia (read the history
books
or Longfellow's poem "Evangeline").
In other words...the ANGLICAN PROTESTANTS were persecuting the
Catholics.
The Frenchmen of Acadie refused to pledge allegience to the *English
king*....that resulted in their expulsion for Acadie...religion was not the
primary factor, the fact that they refused to become subject to the English
crown was...come to think of that, isn't that how the US became a country as
well?
Buny
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Still a Christian Nation (wasRe: Separation Of Church And State) |
28 Dec 2003 02:07:54 AM |
|
|
2000 NYTimes Almanac says USA is 38% RC
Here is a list of the 15 largest religious denominations in the United
States, according to the 2000 Religious Congregations & Membership
study by the Glenmary Research Center:
1. Roman Catholic, 62,035,042
2. Southern Baptist Convention, 19,881,467
3. United Methodist Church, 10,350,629
4. Jewish (estimate), 6,141,325
5. Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, 5,113,418
6. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 4,224,026
7. Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), 3,141,566
8. Assemblies of God, 2,561,998
9. Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, 2,521,062
10. Episcopal Church, 2,314,756
11. American Baptist Churches in the USA, 1,767,462
12. United Church of Christ, 1,698,918
13. Churches of Christ, 1,645,584
14. Muslim (estimate), 1,559,294
15. Christian Churches and Churches of Christ, 1,439,253
- = -
Vasos-Peter John Panagiotopoulos II, Columbia'81+, Bio$trategist
BachMozart ReaganQuayle EvrytanoKastorian
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/vjp2/vasos.htm
---{Nothing herein constitutes advice. Everything fully disclaimed.}---
[Homeland Security means private firearms not lazy obstructive guards]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" |
|
| Title: Re: Still a Christian Nation (wasRe: Separation Of Church And State) |
28 Dec 2003 09:51:52 AM |
|
|
<vjp2@biostrategist.com> wrote in message
news:bsm30q$hnv$1@reader2.panix.com...
2000 NYTimes Almanac says USA is 38% RC
Here is a list of the 15 largest religious denominations in the United
States, according to the 2000 Religious Congregations & Membership
study by the Glenmary Research Center:
1. Roman Catholic, 62,035,042
2. Southern Baptist Convention, 19,881,467
3. United Methodist Church, 10,350,629
4. Jewish (estimate), 6,141,325
5. Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, 5,113,418
6. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 4,224,026
7. Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), 3,141,566
8. Assemblies of God, 2,561,998
9. Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, 2,521,062
10. Episcopal Church, 2,314,756
11. American Baptist Churches in the USA, 1,767,462
12. United Church of Christ, 1,698,918
13. Churches of Christ, 1,645,584
14. Muslim (estimate), 1,559,294
15. Christian Churches and Churches of Christ, 1,439,253
Those numbers don't jive.
62M / .38 = 162M but the US population is more like 300M.
When you sum 1 through 15 above you get something
like 118M. I would think the 15 most popular religions
would account for way more than a third of the population.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Still a Christian Nation (wasRe: Separation Of Church And State) |
13 Dec 2003 10:46:04 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 12:10:24 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote:
wf3h@ptnosm.com (Bob) wrote:
On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 19:52:01 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote:
"SumBuny" <sumbunyTHIS_DOES_NOT_BELONG_HERE@cox.net> wrote:
"Mark Johnson" <102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:elqhtv4ncovjr1i5kbstc0adh3dflqd5ma@4ax.com...
"SumBuny" <sumbunyTHIS_DOES_NOT_BELONG_HERE@cox.net> wrote:
"Mark Johnson" <102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:j1vdtvkjfophjusro7oadet2vreb8eb4s4@4ax.com...
wf3h@ptnosm.com (Bob) wrote:
On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 12:32:43 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote:
wf3h@ptnosm.com (Bob) wrote:
You mentioned moving to a "Catholic State"....south Louisiana's Cajun
country is as close as you will get
Gee, a shame about Maryland, then.
guess markie doesnt know
You guessie I don't knowie about what, now?
that protestants took over maryland and
prohibited catholics from holding office until 1821.
Maryland was founded a bit differently. I don't know about 1821, but
laws against Catholics were the result of specific Protestant attack,
and overthrown of the local government, literally, even on a religious
bigotry coming out of Virginia, against Catholics. Catholics were in a
war, in that region, before even the Revolutionary War.
which has zip to do with the fact that, if you get your wish, and
america returns to its religious 'roots', catholics can, under law, be
disenfranchised and forced to pay for protestant ministers.
---------------------------
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) |
14 Dec 2003 03:10:04 AM |
|
|
(Bob) wrote:
Maryland was founded a bit differently. I don't know about 1821, but
laws against Catholics were the result of specific Protestant attack,
and overthrown of the local government, literally, even on a religious
bigotry coming out of Virginia, against Catholics. Catholics were in a
war, in that region, before even the Revolutionary War.
which has zip to do with the fact that, if you get your wish, and
america returns to its religious 'roots', catholics can, under law, be
disenfranchised and forced to pay for protestant ministers.
The Protestantism of some of our own founders was more radical, and
frankly a lot crazier, than that of Bob Jones or whoever you like.
And our founders did not want to chill the free exercise of religion:
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) |
14 Dec 2003 06:18:56 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 01:10:04 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote:
wf3h@ptnosm.com (Bob) wrote:
Maryland was founded a bit differently. I don't know about 1821, but
laws against Catholics were the result of specific Protestant attack,
and overthrown of the local government, literally, even on a religious
bigotry coming out of Virginia, against Catholics. Catholics were in a
war, in that region, before even the Revolutionary War.
which has zip to do with the fact that, if you get your wish, and
america returns to its religious 'roots', catholics can, under law, be
disenfranchised and forced to pay for protestant ministers.
The Protestantism of some of our own founders was more radical, and
frankly a lot crazier, than that of Bob Jones or whoever you like.
And our founders did not want to chill the free exercise of religion:
t
thats why the prohibited the govt from imposing one.
From Washington's farewell. Truer words . . as they say . .
which has as much force in law as bill clinton's farewell speech did.
---------------------------
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: "maf 1029" |
|
| Title: Re: Still a Christian Nation (wasRe: Separation Of Church And State) |
12 Dec 2003 02:58:39 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 14:09:50 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote:
"SumBuny" <sumbunyTHIS_DOES_NOT_BELONG_HERE@cox.net> wrote:
"Mark Johnson" <102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:j1vdtvkjfophjusro7oadet2vreb8eb4s4@4ax.com...
wf3h@ptnosm.com (Bob) wrote:
On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 12:32:43 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote:
wf3h@ptnosm.com (Bob) wrote:
"You only had about three Catholics.
and in some states catholics couldnt hold office. you agree with that?
Even worse - in some states. As a Catholic, no, I wouldn't agree. I
would move to a . . Catholic state, as part of the United States.
How's your Cajun French? About as understandable as your Latin?
Buny
My . . Latin? The only Latin I've posted is:
http://www.geocities.com/ymjcath/The_Mass.htm
And 'sum', that's got the bit that JUST DRIVES YOUOUOUOUOUUU UP THE
WALL, namely, the translation. It's got facing pages built in. And
that just drives you nuts, doesn't it? Because people can understand
the Latin. There's a translation.
So, 'sum', you just keep hatin. Nothing I can say to stop you.
"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:
Blow it your *****, Markie. Take care not to injure your head, though.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Still a Christian Nation (wasRe: Separation Of Church And State) |
05 Dec 2003 08:03:37 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 13:11:03 -0500, Beowulf
<beowulf_is_not_here@hotmail.com> posted in alt.atheism:
[piggybacking, because I never saw your post]
On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 00:11:59 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> ejaculated:
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
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?
I'm comparing all Christians with Thugees. As far as the law is
concerned all religions are equal - and none of them have the
"Religious freedom" to break the law.
Cause here's the problem you have with that:
No problem at all. Here's the problem YOU have with it. You knew
that you didn't know what "Thuggee" meant, didn't even bother to look
it up (there are dictionaries on line, so you have no excuse) and
assumed that I said something I didn't (which I don't do).
thug ( P ) Pronunciation Key (thg)
n.
(Thug) One of a band of professional assassins formerly active in
northern India who worshiped Kali and offered their victims to her.
IOW, Thuggee is a religion, specifically the worship of Kali. And
just as IT'S not allowed to practice the illegal parts of its belief,
neither are Christians. No one but fundies has a problem with that.
--
"So much blood has been shed by the Church because of an omission from the Gospel: "Ye
shall be indifferent as to what your neighbor's religion is." Not merely tolerant of it,
but indifferent to it. Divinity is claimed for many religions; but no religion is great
enough or divine enough to add that new law to its code."
- Mark Twain, a Biography
(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) |
06 Dec 2003 10:43:39 AM |
|
|
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 13:11:03 -0500, Beowulf
<beowulf_is_not_here@hotmail.com> posted in alt.atheism:
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?
I'm comparing all Christians with Thugees.
Because you're just THAT . . stupid?
Cause here's the problem you have with that:
No problem at all.
Well, let's review, just to be clear:
Cause here's the problem you have with that:
But they did not want to limit, or chill, the free exercise of
religion.
Okay - now back to you.
Here's the problem YOU have with it. You knew
that you didn't know what "Thuggee" meant
Yes - I did. I think many do.
just as IT'S not allowed to practice the illegal parts of its belief,
neither are Christians.
But you've a problem, there. It's the same old problem:
Our founding fathers did not want to limit, or chill, the free
exercise of religion.
You also remember what I said, now - right:
"That's not the gubment's business to stifle the free exercise of
religion. There may be harm in certain practices, violence and civil
crimes. But nothing like that occured in the case of Justice Moore and
his granite block."
And you remember what I said about the founders:
"Washington was said to be a mason, a theist, a deist. But he was
really Episcopalean. They say he wasn't really, because he wasn't
_really_ all that devout. But then what Episcopalean . . oh, I didn't
say that, right? Besides, his own words, such as in his farewell,
speak volumes."
"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."
So . . .
Peace.
---------------------------------------
One mark of a deteriorating society is when its people cannot
discern truth from lies. Another is when they don't even bother
to try and will believe whatever their itching ears want to hear.
[Cal Thomas, 4 SEP 2000]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Still a Christian Nation (wasRe: Separation Of Church And State) |
06 Dec 2003 06:12:57 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 08:43:39 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> posted in alt.atheism:
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 13:11:03 -0500, Beowulf
<beowulf_is_not_here@hotmail.com> posted in alt.atheism:
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?
I'm comparing all Christians with Thugees.
Because you're just THAT . . stupid?
Because Thuggee *IS* a religion, the same as Christianity is.
Cause here's the problem you have with that:
No problem at all.
Well, let's review, just to be clear:
Cause here's the problem you have with that:
But they did not want to limit, or chill, the free exercise of
religion.
Meaning that YOU can't force your religion on anyone else. Everyone
but you is free to reject your beliefs.
Okay - now back to you.
Here's the problem YOU have with it. You knew
that you didn't know what "Thuggee" meant
Yes - I did. I think many do.
Oh, then you were being deliberately dishonest. And you think
dishonesty makes you look better than lack of education?
just as IT'S not allowed to practice the illegal parts of its belief,
neither are Christians.
But you've a problem, there. It's the same old problem:
Our founding fathers did not want to limit, or chill, the free
exercise of religion.
So Thuggees ARE free to kill you in the name of their god without
suffering any repercussions? Telling them that they aren't would be
limiting THEIR free exercise of THEIR religion.
Or are you claiming that the founders just didn't want to limit the
free exercise of religions they agreed with?
You also remember what I said, now - right:
"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."
That you said it is beyond question. That it's incorrect is just as
beyond question.
And you remember what I said about the founders:
"Washington was said to be a mason, a theist, a deist. But he was
really Episcopalean. They say he wasn't really, because he wasn't
_really_ all that devout. But then what Episcopalean . . oh, I didn't
say that, right? Besides, his own words, such as in his farewell,
speak volumes."
Yes, but we already know how dishonest you are, so let's just accept
that, like most Deists of the time, he detested your religion. He
never said a word to the contrary, and he chose, as his Vice
President, a man who DID openly express his contempt for everything
Christian.
So when are you going to start being honest? Or do you agree that
lying for Jesus is no sin?
--
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious
conviction."
- Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)
(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) |
08 Dec 2003 02:16:01 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 08:43:39 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote:
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 13:11:03 -0500, Beowulf
<beowulf_is_not_here@hotmail.com> posted in alt.atheism:
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?
I'm comparing all Christians with Thugees.
B
Because I'm just THAT .. stupid?
Well, let's review, just to be clear:
Cause here's the problem I have with that:
But I do want to limit, and chill, the free exercise of
religion.
Okay - now back to me.
Here's the problem YOU have with it. You knew
that you didn't know what "Thuggee" meant
No, I didn't. I think many do.
just as IT'S not allowed to practice the illegal parts of its belief,
neither are Christians.
But I've a problem, there. It's the same old problem:
I do want to limit, and chill, the free
exercise of religion.
You also remember what I said, now - right:
"I want it to be _my_ business to stifle the free exercise of
religion."
And you remember what I said about me:
I do want to limit, and chill, the free
exercise of religion.
Apparently the ACLU - and you - disagree.
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 11:38:31 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 08:43:39 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote:
Well, let's review, just to be clear:
Cause here's the problem you have with that:
But they did not want to limit, or chill, the free exercise of
religion.
Okay - now back to you.
Is this the new soundbite? What happened? Couldn't hold your own on
evolution so you had to switch to a new topic? Anyway, I suggest you
study your American history before you delve too deeply here.
just as IT'S not allowed to practice the illegal parts of its belief,
neither are Christians.
But you've a problem, there. It's the same old problem:
Our founding fathers did not want to limit, or chill, the free
exercise of religion.
*Must* be the new soundbite!
You also remember what I said, now - right:
"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."
If you mean harm to you, sure.
"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."
Gee, there were Anglicans as well as Episcopaleans? What a remarkable
coincidence...
Alberich
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Johnson" |
|
| Title: Re: Still a Christian Nation (wasRe: Separation Of Church And State) |
06 Dec 2003 02:40:22 PM |
|
|
Alberich <Alberich@NoSpam.com> wrote:
On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 08:43:39 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote:
But they did not want to limit, or chill, the free exercise of
religion.
Okay - now back to you.
Is this the new soundbite? What happened? Couldn't hold your own on
evolution so you had to switch to a new topic?
If you haven't noticed, you guys all disappeared. What topic on
evolutionism? I think you guys realized you couldn't even a) figure
what it meant or b) figure what the evolutionists posting papers meant
in the jargon and technicalities. So _you_ moved on. Don't project.
Our founding fathers did not want to limit, or chill, the free
exercise of religion.
*Must* be the new soundbite!
You certainly would want to include this, as well:
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 . .
"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."
Gee, there were Anglicans as well as Episcopaleans? What a remarkable
coincidence...
Alberich
So, you think Washington was secretly as British agent? What are you
trying to say? He was at war with the Church of England.
The public prayers were said. The sense of that morality and religion
were to inform the public, and public policy, and public behavior.
That's what he's saying here:
Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity,
religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that
man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these
great pillars of human happiness - these firmest props of the duties
of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man,
ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all
their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be
asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life,
if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the
instruments of investigation in courts of justice?
From Washington's farewell. Truer words . . as they say . .
Peace.
---------------------------------------
One mark of a deteriorating society is when its people cannot
discern truth from lies. Another is when they don't even bother
to try and will believe whatever their itching ears want to hear.
[Cal Thomas, 4 SEP 2000]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Duca" |
|
| Title: Re: Still a Christian Nation (wasRe: Separation Of Church And State) |
07 Dec 2003 08:40:12 AM |
|
|
Mark Johnson wrote:
Alberich <Alberich@NoSpam.com> wrote:
On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 08:43:39 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote:
But they did not want to limit, or chill, the free exercise of
religion.
Okay - now back to you.
Is this the new soundbite? What happened? Couldn't hold your own on
evolution so you had to switch to a new topic?
If you haven't noticed, you guys all disappeared. What topic on
evolutionism? I think you guys realized you couldn't even a) figure
what it meant or b) figure what the evolutionists posting papers meant
in the jargon and technicalities. So _you_ moved on. Don't project.
Our founding fathers did not want to limit, or chill, the free
exercise of religion.
*Must* be the new soundbite!
You certainly would want to include this, as well:
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 . .
"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."
Gee, there were Anglicans as well as Episcopaleans? What a remarkable
coincidence...
Alberich
So, you think Washington was secretly as British agent? What are you
trying to say? He was at war with the Church of England.
The public prayers were said. The sense of that morality and religion
were to inform the public, and public policy, and public behavior.
That's what he's saying here:
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 . .
But unlike Washington, you will never get to marry a wealthy widow
with her own slaves.
Paul
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Alberich" |
|
| Title: Re: Still a Christian Nation (wasRe: Separation Of Church And State) |
06 Dec 2003 02:45:33 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 12:40:22 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote:
Alberich <Alberich@NoSpam.com> wrote:
On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 08:43:39 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote:
But they did not want to limit, or chill, the free exercise of
religion.
Okay - now back to you.
Is this the new soundbite? What happened? Couldn't hold your own on
evolution so you had to switch to a new topic?
If you haven't noticed, you guys all disappeared. What topic on
evolutionism? I think you guys realized you couldn't even a) figure
what it meant or b) figure what the evolutionists posting papers meant
in the jargon and technicalities. So _you_ moved on. Don't project.
If anything we realized that discussing evolution with the likes of
you was like teaching a pygmy how to slam-dunk a basketball.
Alberich
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Johnson" |
|
| Title: Discussing evolution (wasRe: Still a Christian Nation) |
10 Dec 2003 04:57:47 AM |
|
|
Alberich <Alberich@NoSpam.com> wrote:
If anything we realized that discussing evolution with the likes of
you was like teaching a pygmy how to slam-dunk a basketball.
Alberich
Maybe when asked for specifics, you found out that you had nothing to
say?
Peace.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Will" |
|
| Title: Re: Discussing evolution (wasRe: Still a Christian Nation) |
14 Dec 2003 12:22:26 AM |
|
|
Mark Johnson <102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote in message news:<pvudtv09lm2c6ud5jo6205vtqfdpmp34qs@4ax.com>...
Alberich <Alberich@NoSpam.com> wrote:
If anything we realized that discussing evolution with the likes of
you was like teaching a pygmy how to slam-dunk a basketball.
Alberich
Maybe when asked for specifics, you found out that you had nothing to
say?
Peace.
Mark, name an alternative to the theory of evolution, then tell us why
your alternative is a better theory. If you can do that persuasively,
maybe we'll all change our minds.
Will
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
