| 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: "Jeff George" |
|
| Title: Re: Still a Christian Nation (wasRe: Separation Of Church And State) |
16 Dec 2003 01:47:17 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 00:26:17 GMT, Alberich <Alberich@NoSpam.com> added
the following words of wisdom:
<Non-responsive answer snipped.>
Show me where Washington said "precisely" that the Ten Commandments
should be in a state courthouse. Do you understand the word
"precisely?"
Alberich
Hm, it looks like the believer isn't going to answer the questions.
And I was really interested in seeing what credentials he had in the
study of American law, too.
Jeff George
SLAP (Socialist Liberation Army of the People)
SLUG (Socialists for Liberty United Government)
Power to the People! Vive la revolution!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Johnson" |
|
| Title: Re: Still a Christian Nation (wasRe: Separation Of Church And State) |
17 Dec 2003 01:45:31 AM |
|
|
Jeff George <george666@comcast.net.munged> wrote:
And I was really interested in seeing what credentials he had in the
study of American law, too.
Well, here's something you might study:
Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity,
religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that
man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these
great pillars of human happiness - these firmest props of the duties
of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man,
ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all
their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be
asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life,
if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the
instruments of investigation in courts of justice?
From Washington's farewell. Truer words . . as they say . .
Peace.
---------------------------------------
One mark of a deteriorating society is when its people cannot
discern truth from lies. Another is when they don't even bother
to try and will believe whatever their itching ears want to hear.
[Cal Thomas, 4 SEP 2000]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff George" |
|
| Title: Re: Still a Christian Nation (wasRe: Separation Of Church And State) |
17 Dec 2003 10:35:21 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 23:45:31 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> added the following words of wisdom:
Jeff George <george666@comcast.net.munged> wrote:
And I was really interested in seeing what credentials he had in the
study of American law, too.
Well, here's something you might study:
No answers for the questions asked directly to you? Is this your
standard response when you don't have an answer? Are you going to
answer this question with the same tired piece of drivel?
Jeff George
SLAP (Socialist Liberation Army of the People)
SLUG (Socialists for Liberty United Government)
Power to the People! Vive la revolution!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Johnson" |
|
| Title: Re: Still a Christian Nation (wasRe: Separation Of Church And State) |
17 Dec 2003 08:55:55 PM |
|
|
Jeff George <george666@comcast.net.munged> wrote:
On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 23:45:31 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> added the following words of wisdom:
Jeff George <george666@comcast.net.munged> wrote:
No answers for the questions asked directly to you?
About Washington, and it simply being one man's ignorant opinion
against a 21st socialist loon? Well, he was the first President of the
United States, arguably the greatest US President, whose presence was
almost the ground of founding the new nation. And he said:
Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity,
religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that
man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these
great pillars of human happiness - these firmest props of the duties
of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man,
ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all
their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be
asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life,
if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the
instruments of investigation in courts of justice?
From Washington's farewell. Truer words . . as they say . .
Peace.
---------------------------------------
One mark of a deteriorating society is when its people cannot
discern truth from lies. Another is when they don't even bother
to try and will believe whatever their itching ears want to hear.
[Cal Thomas, 4 SEP 2000]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Duca" |
|
| Title: Re: Still a Christian Nation (wasRe: Separation Of Church And State) |
21 Dec 2003 10:54:06 AM |
|
|
Mark Johnson wrote:
Jeff George <george666@comcast.net.munged> wrote:
On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 23:45:31 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> added the following words of wisdom:
Jeff George <george666@comcast.net.munged> wrote:
No answers for the questions asked directly to you?
About Washington, and it simply being one man's ignorant opinion
against a 21st socialist loon? Well, he was the first President of the
United States, arguably the greatest US President, whose presence was
almost the ground of founding the new nation.
And a man who Congress gave a fixed salary for the position,
to keep from bankrupting the country.
George was also the father of padding one's expense account.
He worked for expenses during the Revolutionary War--and it was computed
that compared the flat salary originally consided, he cost the new nation
an additional $400,000. I don't know if that includes any cost for a
birthday party for Martha, but when you're in charge and put on a
pedestal by the Mark Johnsons of the world, you presume you're allowed to
do that.
Paul
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "maf 1029" |
|
| Title: Re: Still a Christian Nation (wasRe: Separation Of Church And State) |
10 Dec 2003 01:03:25 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 16:16:10 GMT, Alberich <Alberich@NoSpam.com>
wrote:
On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 02:14:58 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote:
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
Freedom from religion merely means that I don't have freedom to be any
kind of theist as long as I believe in a god, but that I'm free to not
believe in any god, or to believe in any god I believe in - whether
it's a mainstream god, or I'm the only one in the world who believes
in that god. It has nothing to do with the government - which is NOT
free to recognize religion in any way at all.
State courts are one thing. It's not the business of the fed.
Let me ask you one more time to state your credentials in the field of
American law...
But yet
you want the courts to make law against the Decalogue in a state
building, precisely where it ought to be, as Gen'l Washington
explained:
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?
Show me where Washington said "precisely" that the Ten Commandments
should be in a state courthouse. Do you understand the word
"precisely?"
OOHH!!! OOHH!!
Mr. Alberich, may I answer this one?
<maf clears throat>
His Assholiness, St. Mark Johnson, thinks that "precisely" means:
"The Mass as we knew it is dead. I didn't say that. One of your
reformist buddies did."
Thank you.
May I have a cookie?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Still a Christian Nation (wasRe: Separation Of Church And State) |
06 Dec 2003 12:48:25 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 6 Dec 2003 12:17:18 -0600, "SumBuny"
<sumbunyTHIS_DOES_NOT_BELONG_HERE@cox.net> wrote:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:79e2tv82mbl7qsq0dal5kfl5fc6slp3sub@Pern.rk...
On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 00:11:59 -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."
One is not permitted the "free exercise" of an illegal act, whether
the reason for doing so is religious or not. Freedom of religion is
NOT unlimited.
Isn't there a (perhaps not so-)subtle difference between freedom *of*
religion and freedom *from* religion? I always thought that the US was
based on the latter, not the former. Which is why, as a Catholic Christian,
I still agree that the Decalogue should not be overtly displayed on public
property...because that opens up the ability of *all* religions to display
their equivilant...i.e., how many of the "in-your-face, holier-than-thouc
Christians" who are fighting to keep this display would be just as vocal
keeping out others, say, Wicca, Islam, Jewish, etc???
that, and catholics were among the first victims when america had
state religions.
---------------------------
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) |
06 Dec 2003 01:41:04 PM |
|
|
"Bob" <wf3h@ptnosm.com> wrote in message
news:3fd22462.233556071@usenet.ptd.net...
On Sat, 6 Dec 2003 12:17:18 -0600, "SumBuny"
<sumbunyTHIS_DOES_NOT_BELONG_HERE@cox.net> wrote:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:79e2tv82mbl7qsq0dal5kfl5fc6slp3sub@Pern.rk...
On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 00:11:59 -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."
One is not permitted the "free exercise" of an illegal act, whether
the reason for doing so is religious or not. Freedom of religion is
NOT unlimited.
Isn't there a (perhaps not so-)subtle difference between freedom *of*
religion and freedom *from* religion? I always thought that the US was
based on the latter, not the former. Which is why, as a Catholic
Christian,
I still agree that the Decalogue should not be overtly displayed on
public
property...because that opens up the ability of *all* religions to
display
their equivilant...i.e., how many of the "in-your-face, holier-than-thouc
Christians" who are fighting to keep this display would be just as vocal
keeping out others, say, Wicca, Islam, Jewish, etc???
that, and catholics were among the first victims when america had
state religions.
The Puritans did seem to believe in freedom to practice *their* religion,
no?
Buny
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "nullus fides" |
|
| Title: Re: Still a Christian Nation (wasRe: Separation Of Church And State) |
05 Dec 2003 08:33:50 PM |
|
|
And so upon Sat, 06 Dec 2003 02:05:21 +0000 didst Al Klein speak thusly:
On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 00:11:59 -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."
One is not permitted the "free exercise" of an illegal act, whether
the reason for doing so is religious or not. Freedom of religion is
NOT unlimited.
Well, that depends on whether you define any right as enabling willful
harm to others. Which I don't. Or as a professor of mine put it many years
ago, your right to swing your arms ends at my nose.
Trampling the rights of others is, I think, simply not a right. There is,
for example, no such "right" as killing people because "god said so." And
it is not "limiting" freedom of religion to prevent someone from doing
such. They never had the right to begin with.
--
The infrequently updated, terribly pointless
blog nobody reads can be found at:
http://nullusfides.blogspot.com/
(may be helpful for insomnia)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Johnson" |
|
| Title: Re: Still a Christian Nation (wasRe: Separation Of Church And State) |
06 Dec 2003 11:20:59 AM |
|
|
nullus fides <dev@null.none> wrote:
Trampling the rights of others is, I think, simply not a right. There is,
for example, no such "right" as killing people because "god said so." And
it is not "limiting" freedom of religion to prevent someone from doing
such. They never had the right to begin with.
As I wrote:
That's not the gubment's business to stifle the free exercise of
religion. There may be harm in certain practices, violence and civil
crimes. But nothing like that occured in the case of Justice Moore and
his granite block.
Rather, our founder's insisted upon religion informing policy and the
good conduct of the nation, and its leaders:
Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity,
religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that
man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these
great pillars of human happiness - these firmest props of the duties
of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man,
ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all
their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be
asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life,
if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the
instruments of investigation in courts of justice?
From Washington's farewell. Truer words . . as they say . .
Peace.
---------------------------------------
One mark of a deteriorating society is when its people cannot
discern truth from lies. Another is when they don't even bother
to try and will believe whatever their itching ears want to hear.
[Cal Thomas, 4 SEP 2000]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Johnson" |
|
| Title: Re: Still a Christian Nation (wasRe: Separation Of Church And State) |
08 Dec 2003 02:15:41 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 09:20:59 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote:
nullus fides <dev@null.none> wrote:
Trampling the rights of others is, I think, simply not a right. There is,
for example, no such "right" as killing people because "god said so." And
it is not "limiting" freedom of religion to prevent someone from doing
such. They never had the right to begin with.
A
As Mark Johnson 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:
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Still a Christian Nation (wasRe: Separation Of Church And State) |
08 Dec 2003 08:47:07 AM |
|
|
And so upon Mon, 08 Dec 2003 08:15:41 +0000 didst Mark Johnson speak
thusly:
On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 09:20:59 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote:
nullus fides <dev@null.none> wrote:
Trampling the rights of others is, I think, simply not a right. There is,
for example, no such "right" as killing people because "god said so." And
it is not "limiting" freedom of religion to prevent someone from doing
such. They never had the right to begin with.
A
As Mark Johnson 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
Um... what?
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
http://nullusfides.blogspot.com/
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Still a Christian Nation (wasRe: Separation Of Church And State) |
06 Dec 2003 11:48:46 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 09:20:59 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote:
nullus fides <dev@null.none> wrote:
Trampling the rights of others is, I think, simply not a right. There is,
for example, no such "right" as killing people because "god said so." And
it is not "limiting" freedom of religion to prevent someone from doing
such. They never had the right to begin with.
As I wrote:
That's not the gubment's business to stifle the free exercise of
religion. There may be harm in certain practices, violence and civil
crimes. But nothing like that occured in the case of Justice Moore and
his granite block.
Rather, our founder's insisted upon religion informing policy and the
good conduct of the nation, and its leaders:
funny, they forgot to mention that in the constitution. well, it's too
late now...
From Washington's farewell.
washington's farewell has no more force of law than bill clinton's
farewell.
---------------------------
to see who "wf3h" is, go to "qrz.com"
and enter 'wf3h' in the field
check my blog at:
http://www.bobview.blogspot.com/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Johnson" |
|
| Title: Re: Still a Christian Nation (wasRe: Separation Of Church And State) |
08 Dec 2003 02:15:49 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 12:19:10 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote:
wf3h@ptnosm.com (Bob) wrote:
On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 09:20:59 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote:
Rather, our founder's insisted upon religion informing policy and the
good conduct of the nation, and its leaders:
funny, they forgot to mention that in the constitution. well, it's too
late now...
B
But of course, I did - didn't I? This is what I am telling 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:
Peace, even to me
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: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Still a Christian Nation (wasRe: Separation Of Church And State) |
05 Dec 2003 07:19:00 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 00:11:59 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> 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:
Whoooooshhh....The sounmd of a remark passing totally over his head.
He didn't say thug but thuggee. Which is the orogin of the word thug -
followers of Kali who ritually killed people for Kali, using a
garotting cord. It think these guys were also known as the Hashishim -
the origin of the word assassin, because they were high on hash at the
time.
"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: "Mark Johnson" |
|
| Title: Re: Still a Christian Nation (wasRe: Separation Of Church And State) |
05 Dec 2003 11:04:57 AM |
|
|
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 00:11:59 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> 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:
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:
Whoooooshhh....The sounmd of a remark passing totally over his head.
He didn't say thug but thuggee. Which is the orogin of the word thug
Yes, I realize that.
followers of Kali who ritually killed people for Kali, using a
garotting cord. It think these guys were also known as the Hashishim -
the origin of the word assassin, because they were high on hash at the
time.
"But they did not want to limit, or chill, the free exercise of
religion."
And just to repeat myself, because I don't believe you realize what
_I'm_ saying:
"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: "Mekkala" |
|
| Title: Re: Still a Christian Nation (wasRe: Separation Of Church And State) |
05 Dec 2003 01:11:11 PM |
|
|
On 05 Dec 2003, Mark Johnson <102334.12@compuserve.com> screwed up his
face, groaned, pushed hard, and farted out the following message in
news:mje1tv0d5c665c2dm9letbnlse3t3n9gea@4ax.com:
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 00:11:59 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> 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:
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:
Whoooooshhh....The sounmd of a remark passing totally over his head.
He didn't say thug but thuggee. Which is the orogin of the word thug
Yes, I realize that.
followers of Kali who ritually killed people for Kali, using a
garotting cord. It think these guys were also known as the Hashishim -
the origin of the word assassin, because they were high on hash at the
time.
"But they did not want to limit, or chill, the free exercise of
religion."
And just to repeat myself, because I don't believe you realize what
_I'm_ saying:
"But they did not want to limit, or chill, the free exercise of
religion."
I'm sorry, but you've said that several times so far and as far as
anyone here can tell it means nothing other than "they did not want to
limit, or chill, the free exercise of religion." If it means something
else, please enlighten us because I don't think we're quite catching
your drift, if ya know what I mean.
Evidently *you* intend it to mean something else because in its literal
meaning the phrase has absolutely no relevance to the post you responded
to, and indeed makes no sense at all in this context. So please, tell
us what you mean by that, since as far as I know, nobody in the NG is a
mind-reader.
--
Mekkala, Atheist #2148
"Atheism is ... the bed-rock of sanity in a world of madness."
--Emmett F. Fields
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Still a Christian Nation (wasRe: Separation Of Church And State) |
05 Dec 2003 08:08:42 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 09:04:57 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> posted in alt.atheism:
And just to repeat myself, because I don't believe you realize what
_I'm_ saying:
"But they did not want to limit, or chill, the free exercise of
religion."
And just to repeat myself, because I don't believe you realize what
*I'm* saying:
You can't murder someone in the name of religion without being
punished for murder. Freedom of religion is NOT unlimited. It's
limited to those things allowed if the reason were other than
religious. Violating the law in the name of religion is a violation
of law.
--
"religion did for *****, what Stonehenge did for rocks"
- The World Famous Tink
(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 10:34:49 AM |
|
|
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 09:04:57 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> posted in alt.atheism:
And just to repeat myself, because I don't believe you realize what
_I'm_ saying:
"But they did not want to limit, or chill, the free exercise of
religion."
And just to repeat myself, because I don't believe you realize what
*I'm* saying:
You can't murder someone in the name of religion
Because it would be murder. But Justice Moore murdered no one.
Remember now:
Our founding fathers did not want to limit, or chill, the free
exercise of religion.
Apparently the ACLU - and you - disagree.
Peace.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Bernard: Argentina's not coming. There's a bit of luck.
Graham: Because of the Falklands?
Bernard: No, because their anthem goes on for about six minutes.
- Yes, Prime Minister, A Diplomatic Incident
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Still a Christian Nation (wasRe: Separation Of Church And State) |
06 Dec 2003 06:04:21 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 08:34:49 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> posted in alt.atheism:
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 09:04:57 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> posted in alt.atheism:
And just to repeat myself, because I don't believe you realize what
_I'm_ saying:
"But they did not want to limit, or chill, the free exercise of
religion."
And just to repeat myself, because I don't believe you realize what
*I'm* saying:
You can't murder someone in the name of religion
Because it would be murder. But Justice Moore murdered no one.
You can't post religious statements on government property. Moore
posted a religious statement on government property. Maybe not as
serious a violation of law, but a violation of law nonetheless.
Remember now:
Our founding fathers did not want to limit, or chill, the free
exercise of religion.
Remember now:
1) Our founding fathers didn't want the government involved in
religion in ANY way.
2) Our founding fathers were NOT founding a Christian nation.
3) One CAN NOT violate the law in the name of religion without being
prosecuted for violating the law.
Apparently the ACLU - and you - disagree.
Apparently they - and our founders - agree.
Peace.
As soon as you agree to get your religion out of our faces.
--
"I am a deeply religious nonbeliever.... This is a somewhat new kind of religion."
- Letter to Hans Muehsam March 30, 1954; Einstein Archive 38-434
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Johnson" |
|
| Title: Re: Still a Christian Nation (wasRe: Separation Of Church And State) |
10 Dec 2003 03:47:09 AM |
|
|
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
Apparently the ACLU - and you - disagree.
Apparently they - and our founders - agree.
The ACLU America obviously isn't the founders America. No one disputes
that. But if you want to recall what Gen'l Washington said about the
matter, about the First Amendment, 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: "MarkkJohnson" |
|
| Title: Re: Still a Christian Nation (wasRe: Separation Of Church And State) |
10 Dec 2003 08:44:33 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 01:47:09 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote:
T
I am obviously not the founders America. I dispute
that. But if you want to recall what I said about the
matter, about me, 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:
From _my_ farewell to alt.language.Latin. Truer words . . as they say
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kate " |
|
| Title: Re: Still a Christian Nation (wasRe: Separation Of Church And State) |
06 Dec 2003 01:52:07 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 08:34:49 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote:
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 09:04:57 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> posted in alt.atheism:
And just to repeat myself, because I don't believe you realize what
_I'm_ saying:
"But they did not want to limit, or chill, the free exercise of
religion."
And just to repeat myself, because I don't believe you realize what
*I'm* saying:
You can't murder someone in the name of religion
Because it would be murder. But Justice Moore murdered no one.
No - but he did steal.
He stole advertising space.
and you can't do that in the name of religion either.
Remember now:
Our founding fathers did not want to limit, or chill, the free
exercise of religion.
Apparently the ACLU - and you - disagree.
Not hardly
You apparently disagree that this country was not created to support
your religion. That makes you un-american.
Peace.
Trolls are pathetic.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Duca" |
|
| Title: Re: Still a Christian Nation (wasRe: Separation Of Church And State) |
07 Dec 2003 08:37:56 AM |
|
|
Kate wrote:
On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 08:34:49 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote:
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 09:04:57 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> posted in alt.atheism:
And just to repeat myself, because I don't believe you realize what
_I'm_ saying:
"But they did not want to limit, or chill, the free exercise of
religion."
And just to repeat myself, because I don't believe you realize what
*I'm* saying:
You can't murder someone in the name of religion
Because it would be murder. But Justice Moore murdered no one.
No - but he did steal.
He stole advertising space.
and you can't do that in the name of religion either.
Justice Moore apparently has made the short list of
non-Catholics Mark will allow into his restricted country club Heaven.
Paul
Remember now:
Our founding fathers did not want to limit, or chill, the free
exercise of religion.
Apparently the ACLU - and you - disagree.
Not hardly
You apparently disagree that this country was not created to support
your religion. That makes you un-american.
Peace.
Trolls are pathetic.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Johnson" |
|
| Title: Re: Still a Christian Nation (wasRe: Separation Of Church And State) |
08 Dec 2003 02:16:00 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 08:34:49 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote:
R
Remember now:
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: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Still a Christian Nation (wasRe: Separation Of Church And State) |
05 Dec 2003 11:54:54 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 09:04:57 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote:
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 00:11:59 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> 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:
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:
Whoooooshhh....The sounmd of a remark passing totally over his head.
He didn't say thug but thuggee. Which is the origin of the word thug
Yes, I realize that.
THEN YOU KNEW HE DIDN'T MEAN WHAT YOU PRETENDED TO INFER ABOUT "thugs,
terrorists, whatever they claim" and the rest of your paragraph was
merely a dishonest strawman that you fabricated.
You can't have it both ways.
followers of Kali who ritually killed people for Kali, using a
garotting cord. It think these guys were also known as the Hashishim -
the origin of the word assassin, because they were high on hash at the
time.
"But they did not want to limit, or chill, the free exercise of
religion."
And just to repeat myself, because I don't believe you realize what
_I'm_ saying:
And you didn't realise what Al said, otherwise you would not have
dishonestly invented something he didn't.
"But they did not want to limit, or chill, the free exercise of
religion."
The only people doing that in the US are the Christian extremists, who
want to limit everybody else's freedom of (and from) religion by
imposing theirs.
Peace.
Hardly.
---------------------------------------
One mark of a deteriorating society is when its people cannot
discern truth from lies. Another is when they don't even bother
to try and will believe whatever their itching ears want to hear.
[Cal Thomas, 4 SEP 2000]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Johnson" |
|
| Title: Re: Still a Christian Nation (wasRe: Separation Of Church And State) |
06 Dec 2003 10:31:54 AM |
|
|
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 09:04:57 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote:
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 00:11:59 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> 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."
And just to repeat myself, because I don't believe you realize what
_I'm_ saying:
"But they did not want to limit, or chill, the free exercise of
religion."
The only people doing that in the US are the Christian extremists
And by "Christian extremists' you mean, of course, libs like the ACLU
and 'professional humanists', and the like.
want to limit everybody else's freedom of (and from) religion by
imposing theirs.
They do. That's the ACLU. You still carrying their card?
Remember our founders, instead:
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 08:35:42 AM |
|
|
Mark Johnson wrote:
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 09:04:57 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote:
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 00:11:59 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> 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."
And just to repeat myself, because I don't believe you realize what
_I'm_ saying:
"But they did not want to limit, or chill, the free exercise of
religion."
The only people doing that in the US are the Christian extremists
And by "Christian extremists' you mean, of course, libs like the ACLU
and 'professional humanists', and the like.
want to limit everybody else's freedom of (and from) religion by
imposing theirs.
They do. That's the ACLU. You still carrying their card?
Remember our founders, instead:
They did not want to limit, or chill, the free exercise of religion.
Now they're dead...and they find religion is not doing as much
for them as Mark Johnson presumes.
Paul
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Johnson" |
|
| Title: Re: Still a Christian Nation (wasRe: Separation Of Church And State) |
08 Dec 2003 02:15:56 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 08:31:54 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote:
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 09:04:57 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote:
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 00:11:59 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> 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."
And just to repeat myself, because I don't believe you realize what
_I'm_ saying:
"But they did not want to limit, or chill, the free exercise of
religion."
The only people doing that in the US are the Christian extremists
A
And by "Christian extremists like me' you mean, of course, me, and me,
and me, and the like.
want to limit everybody else's freedom of (and from) religion by
imposing theirs.
T
I do. That's not the ACLU.
Remember me, instead:
I do want to limit, or chill, the free exercise of religion.
Peace.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Still a Christian Nation (wasRe: Separation Of Church And State) |
08 Dec 2003 08:50:14 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 08:15:56 GMT, Mark Johnson
<1002334.12@compuserve.com> posted in alt.atheism:
I do want to limit, or chill, the free exercise of religion.
As long as it's YOUR religion that everyone's free to exercise.
--
"If we really know Truth, we do not fear hearing falsehoods or half-truths; if we are not sure of the truth - we shudder and try to shout down every utterance." - A. J. Mims
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
