Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:

On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 12:23:54 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> posted in alt.atheism:

Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:

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:

I mean authoritarion religionists like YOU

But I'm not the militant lib, here, am I?

No, you're the militant Christian.

Of the Church, Militant? Sure. But I'm not the militant lib, here. I
don't think the lie is sacred. I don't think public newscasts should
be effectively written at Dem Party HQs. I don't believe in political
correctness, or the Big Lie. And you can't say that for the libral.

I'm not the one trying to
get the Decalogue removed from a courthouse

No, you're the one in favor of forcing that same religion

But our founders did not want to chill the free exercise of religion.
Indeed, it was to inform public policy, public behavior, and
particularly in the judgments of public officials, as Pres. Washington
explained so 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 . .

in a state whose very constitution refers to "God, Almighty".

If a state constitution disagrees with the federal constitution, it's
the part of the state constitution that's in violation that's ignored.

But it's not in violation of the US Constitution, at any rate. It may
violate the ACLU constitution, or your constitution.

But you want a different America than Americans do. You want an
America virtually opposed, in most every way, to the vision of the
founders of this country.

Federal law takes precedence over state law.

Fed court orders, you mean. Federal courts can be wrong, particularly
when stacked with incompetent libs, appointed only because they passed
political tests, as under certain regimes, historically. As they say,
this too, will pass. And then, all of sudden, you won't be talking
"federal law", "state law", but will be screaming to your ACLU to get
the law changed. The fact that something is deemed federal law by a
court is of no concern to someone like you. The only thing that
matters to you is whether you think they are right to rule as they do.
And that puts you alongside 'original intent' judges, save that your
standard is entirely foreign to what they read of the founders.

Yes you do. And I really believe that people are getting tired of you
libs. I really do.

Too bad. Live in a country in which you have the right to impose
religion on others.

But I don't approve of your religion, your sect, your opinions, and
your ideas. They've been imposed long enough. I hope people are
getting to the point where they are just fed up with what you guys
preach, and even the way you go about it.

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?

No, moron, the ACLU supports indivisual freedoms.

I see. But when you say freedom, you actually mean, persecution, and
suppression, not liberty.

No, he means freedoms.

I think I had it right, the first time. Correcting an inversion.

Christians redefine words in order to win arguments

The inversion wasn't mine. I set it right. The inversion was his.
Clearly, the history of the ACLU is not to open up liberty, according
to the founders vision, to help ensure stability and tranquility and a
just state with freedom for all (even with those you disagree), but to
impose a libral orthodoxy according to the same standards as their
original Commie founders.

As I wrote:

But our founders established a different
country than that preferred by Commies

Yes - a country in which Christians DON'T have the right to impose
their beliefs on others.

Our founders did not want to limit, or chill, the free exercise of
religion.

country WASN'T founded on Christian principles.

But it clearly was, and these were considered essential to the proper
administration of the country, as Pres. Washington explained to you:

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 . .

wf3h@ptnosm.com (Bob) wrote:

On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 12:23:54 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote:

Yes you do. And I really believe that people are getting tired of you
libs. I really do.

I sure hope so, anyways.

as an atheist, i hope so too. then, maybe, you'll stop being stupid
and get a life.

I think, as I said, that people are just getting tired of you libs.
And I hope that's true.

I see. But when you say freedom, you actually mean, persecution, and
suppression, not liberty. But our founders established a different
country than that preferred by Commies (after all, who founded the
ACLU?).

they also supported civil rights

So did the founders - some. Others supported slavery. It was an issue
make to 'go away', to be settled at a later date by the Civil War. The
GOP pressed for, perhaps ironically in a sense, an expansion of the
fed over any claim to state's rights in the effort to preserve an
unbreakable union, in which all men were created equal under God. The
support for the GOP, today, in the south, is based more on notions of
smaller gubment, less taxation and programs, effective fiscal policy,
proper use of military force, and more than a nod given to traditional
American values, as explained by Pres. Washington in that excerpt of
his farewell that I keep quoting.

They did not want to limit, or chill, the free exercise of religion.

The INDIVIDUAL's free exercise. Which thecannot be had if the
government imposes its own choice of religion.

Which informs the public, and the leaders, of the nation, as
explained:

i dont need the govt to inform me.

Inform them:

Which informs the public, and the leaders, of the nation, as
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?

From Washington's farewell. Truer words . . as they say . .

On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 12:23:54 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote:

Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:

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.

No, liar. Again, if I had meant that I would have said it.

W

Well, I might want to think about it.

But I'm the militant butt, here, I am.

who can't cope with the
real world outside your religion and want to use the force of
government to impose it on everybody else.

Y

Yes I do. And I really believe that people are getting tired of me
I really do.

I sure hope so, anyways.

On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 12:29:42 -0800, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> posted in alt.atheism:

Remember, our founders did not want to stifle the free exercise of religion.

And the way they did that was to ensure that the government stayed
COMPLETELY out of ANY entanglement with religion of ANY sort.

Now it seems the ACLU - and you - may not agree with that.

The ACLU - and we - agree that a) this country was NOT founded on
Christian principles

and b) government is prohibited from being
involved in religion in any way

Our founders did not want to chill the free expression of religion

Which is why they forbid the government to get involved in religion.

govt tells you your children have to learn that being gay is fine

Gee, I thought that's what they were trying to do

And you're fighting it

after you said that the government shouldn;t be limited in what it does.

And that would be wrong. Again, for the morality, here, at
least in the view of the founders I think they would insist it was
purely a state matter.

Which means that the government should, since it *is* "the state", be
involved in it.

But since, even under some of the founders, as
they were elected, even to the Presidency, this federal, unifying
government began to quickly intrude. With states rights so went a fair
number of assumptions, I think, on the part of our founders.

They clearly made government (federal or state) involvement in
religion illegal.

So you agree that they did not want to limit, or chill, the free
exercise of religion?

Of course. They didn't want the government to limit the individual's
right to practice religion

except where absolutely necessary, as in
the case of religions that advocate doing things that are clearly
violations of law.

How is the government putting a representation of
a particular religion's laws in a government building allowing the
*INDIVIDUAL* the free exercise of religion

without violating the law?

Moore, remember, didn't put his stone in the court house as an
individual.

Justice Moore should still be on the bench?

He was removed by duly appointed citizens of the state.

The 'bama constitution has it right?

Not if it conflicts with the federal constitution.

And that granite monument should be still be sitting there, in public view?

Anywhere any private citizen has permission to put it. That *IS* what
the founders guaranteed - freedom for the *individual* to practice
non-illgal forms of worship.