Religions > Atheism > Vote As Pope Says, Or No Body Of Jesus For You: Says Catholic Bishop
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Armageddon Watch" |
| Date: |
12 Jan 2004 12:16:31 AM |
| Object: |
Vote As Pope Says, Or No Body Of Jesus For You: Says Catholic Bishop |
The Catholic Church is getting serious. If you will not vote as the
Pope says, no more crispy and yummy body of Jesus, and no more sweet
blood of Jesus for you - ever!
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/nation/7677205.htm
Posted on Sat, Jan. 10, 2004
Bishop: No Communion for Abortion Backers
JULIET WILLIAMS
Associated Press
MILWAUKEE - A Roman Catholic bishop who waded into politics with a
decree that lawmakers who support abortion rights can no longer receive
Holy Communion has ignited a debate over the separation of church and
state.
Bishop Raymond Burke of La Crosse cited Vatican doctrine, canon law and
teachings by the U.S. bishops in an announcement telling diocesan
priests to withhold communion from such lawmakers until they "publicly
renounce" their support of abortion rights.
"This is about as stark a decree to come down against Catholic
politicians as we've seen in recent history," said Barry W. Lynn,
executive director of the Washington, D.C.-based Americans United for
the Separation of Church and State.
"The problem with it is that elected officials have to represent people
of all faiths and none, and not adhere to one religious demand like the
bishop's," he said.
Pope John Paul II appointed Burke, 55, archbishop of St. Louis in
December. Burke signed the decree in November, when he still had the
authority to do so, but it was not made public until Thursday.
Burke is to be installed in St. Louis on Jan. 26 - raising concerns
among some of his opponents that he may issue the same decree there.
The Vatican and U.S. Bishops have for years urged Catholic legislators
to consider their faith when they vote, and a task force of bishops is
weighing whether to recommend sanctions for Catholic politicians who
support policies contrary to church teachings.
In November, Burke wrote letters to at least three Catholic lawmakers,
telling them they risked being forbidden from taking the Sacrament by
continuing to vote for measures he termed anti-life, including abortion
and euthanasia.
Democratic U.S. Rep. David Obey, who received a letter from Burke, said
Friday that he respects the sacred oath he took to uphold the U.S.
Constitution.
Obey said Burke can instruct him on faith and morals in his private
life, but should use "persuasion, not dictation" to affect his
political votes. He said Burke had "crossed the line into unacceptable
territory."
State Senate Minority Leader Jon Erpenbach, a Democrat who was raised
Catholic but is no longer practicing, expressed a similar view.
"Dictating public policy for people of all faiths by holding sacraments
hostage from those who believe does not sound right," Erpenbach said.
Burke has also come under criticism from some Catholic scholars.
Dan Maguire, a professor of theology at the Jesuit Marquette University
in Milwaukee, called Burke a "fanatic" who has embarrassed the Catholic
Church by using bullying tactics.
"He is not a theologian and he is making terrible mistakes that have
been addressed in theology in the past," Maguire said. "He's making a
fool of himself. And the politicians are absolutely within their
Catholic rights to ignore him."
Sister Mary Ann Walsh of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops said
she had not seen the decree and could not comment on it, but "those
generally are matters to be decided between a bishop and a person he's
dealing with."
In his notification, Burke said his duty as bishop is "to explain,
persuade, correct and admonish those in leadership positions who
contradict the Gospel of life through their action and policies."
Other Wisconsin dioceses say they are not likely to follow suit.
"There's been no indication in the five months Bishop (Robert)
Morlino's been here that he's ever done something like that or plans to
do that," said Bill Brophy, spokesman for the Diocese of Madison.
Pro-Life Wisconsin hailed Burke's decree as a moral victory against
abortion, saying it would help the group hold all Christian politicians
and voters responsible for upholding "natural and moral law."
Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin spokeswoman Lisa Boyce said politicians
are the servants of the public, not religious groups.
"This is a much more coercive tactic than any special interest group
could get away with," she said.
--
Sent by abba from aah in area net
This is a spam protected message. Please answer with reference header.
Posted via http://www.usenet-replayer.com
.
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Take religion out of politics |
17 Jan 2004 11:36:37 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 17:21:55 GMT, BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:
In article <2opi00p052nb0ch62gqvn0760u89a8i655@4ax.com>, duke
<duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 08:38:27 -0600, David Jensen
Do you accept all gods? If you do not, why aren't you fooling yourself?
There is only one **supreme being** - by definition.
And which one is that?
It's thought control as applied to Christians, Moslems and Jews. It
allows them to equivocate between generic god and specific God, and
because they think in terms of the specific one named "(the) God" they
cannot conceive of any other.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Take religion out of politics |
17 Jan 2004 01:17:50 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 17:21:55 GMT, BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
In article <2opi00p052nb0ch62gqvn0760u89a8i655@4ax.com>, duke
<duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 08:38:27 -0600, David Jensen
Do you accept all gods? If you do not, why aren't you fooling yourself?
There is only one **supreme being** - by definition.
And which one is that?
Almighty God, the one I worship.
.
|
|
|
| User: "BTR1701" |
|
| Title: Re: Take religion out of politics |
17 Jan 2004 01:59:34 PM |
|
|
In article <vh2j005g0eerfq4nj1lrhdrbnbb8j8dhgd@4ax.com>, duke
<duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 17:21:55 GMT, BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
In article <2opi00p052nb0ch62gqvn0760u89a8i655@4ax.com>, duke
<duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 08:38:27 -0600, David Jensen
Do you accept all gods? If you do not, why aren't you fooling
yourself?
There is only one **supreme being** - by definition.
And which one is that?
Almighty God, the one I worship.
So you deny the existence of the almighty god other cultures worship?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: Take religion out of politics |
17 Jan 2004 10:34:49 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 13:17:50 -0600, in wi.general
duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in
<vh2j005g0eerfq4nj1lrhdrbnbb8j8dhgd@4ax.com>:
On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 17:21:55 GMT, BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
In article <2opi00p052nb0ch62gqvn0760u89a8i655@4ax.com>, duke
<duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 08:38:27 -0600, David Jensen
Do you accept all gods? If you do not, why aren't you fooling yourself?
There is only one **supreme being** - by definition.
And which one is that?
Almighty God, the one I worship.
This seems to say more about you than about the god that is the supreme
being.
I suspect that most religious folks, particularly the intolerant ones
would say the same. "The God I worship is the Almighty God." Strangely,
few describe their god or their religion in the same manner.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: Take religion out of politics |
17 Jan 2004 10:32:25 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 10:56:38 -0600, in wi.general
duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in
<2opi00p052nb0ch62gqvn0760u89a8i655@4ax.com>:
On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 08:38:27 -0600, David Jensen <david@BYEdajensen-family.com>
wrote:
Yet I can provide evidence that God does exist. And I live by it.
Of course you cannot, but we can ignore that for the moment.
Of course I can, but you cannot provide evidence for "no God".
I have no reason to try. How do you prove evidence for nothing?
Remember: Me: win (hopefully)/no win. Atheist: lose/no win. No win comes
into play if there is no Almighty God.
Put your money on the table and spin the wheel.
How do you respond to Homer's Response to Pascal? Let's say that there
is a god and he hates Christianity, but doesn't care about other
religions. Christians are just making him madder and madder. Then you
are better off ignoring him completely, aren't you?
But there is a God almighty, and Christianity is his son.
Do you reject all of the other gods?
Maybe there is the God that Christians teach, but He is offended by the
false claims that Fundamentalists and Young Earth Heretics are making.
He might be, but he decided to let us exercise our free will.
Is there free will? Why? Does that mean God invented evil?
The lack of real evidence about God and what He wants lets unscrupulous
leaders tell people anything and try to back it up with the threat of
Hell.
Sorry, but everything you can see, feel, taste, smell, and hear is evidence of a
supreme being. Or an accident. Which one do you profess?
Assertions about nature are not evidence. BTW you forgot 'the inexorable
results of natural law.'
That is different than saying "there is NO God".
Right now there is no evidence that any gods exist.
Sorry, but everything you can see, feel, taste, smell, and hear is evidence of a
supreme being. Or an accident.
Assertions about nature are still not evidence. BTW you again forgot
'the inexorable results of natural law.'
You say "there is no God".
Perhaps you have a referrent for that so we can see the context, if
indeed I said it?
No, I don't. I'm merely trying to show those that profess no God that they are
more fooling themselves than they realize. To say "NO GOD" is a positive
statement basis some knowledge. I simply then point out that they are really
only saying "I don't believe because I don't find the evidence convincing".
Do you accept all gods? If you do not, why aren't you fooling yourself?
There is only one **supreme being** - by definition.
Are there other gods then? Which god is the supreme being? Why?
Simply put, there is a world of difference between "I'm simply not convinced"
versus "There is **no** God".
Possibly true in logic, but not in science. The total lack of evidence
for something in science tends to lead scientists to the conclusion that
it should be ignored as nonexistent for the time being.
Then why do so many scientists, and especially doctors, etc believe in God?
I don't have anything against people believing in God. Belief is not the
question here.
OK, let's see what you got.
I have no direct evidence regarding a deity of any kind. Do you?
We both have the same evidence, and it is my proof and your disbelief but no
proof
You have no evidence for any god.
Every thing you can see, feel, taste, hear, or smell.
Or it's an accident.
You keep repeating this mantra as if it means something.
ev·i·dence (µv“¹-d…ns) n. 1. A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion
or judgment:
proof (pr›f) n. Abbr. prf. 1. The evidence or argument that compels the mind to
accept an assertion as true.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Carol Lee Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: Take religion out of politics |
17 Jan 2004 07:11:25 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 17 Jan 2004, duke wrote:
On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 18:58:24 -0600, Carol Lee Smith <human@csd.uwm.edu> w=
rote:
Asking someone to prove that something doesn't exist--anything--is askin=
g
them to prove a negative. =20
all that means is that it is impossible to prove that
something--anything--does not exist.
Yet I can provide evidence that God does exist. And I live by it.
I am all ears.
Remember: Me: win (hopefully)/no win. Atheist: lose/no win. No win c=
omes
into play if there is no Almighty God.
Put your money on the table and spin the wheel.
You don't say you don't believe there is a God because you feel the ev=
idence
isn't convincing. =20
I do believe that, and I am sure I have written such somewhere around
here.
That is different than saying "there is NO God".
That's what I was trying to tell you.
You say "there is no God".=20
Perhaps you have a referrent for that so we can see the context, if
indeed I said it?
No, I don't. I'm merely trying to show those that profess no God that th=
ey are
more fooling themselves than they realize. To say "NO GOD" is a positive
statement basis some knowledge. I simply then point out that they are re=
ally
only saying "I don't believe because I don't find the evidence convincing=
".
I think it is much more likely that an atheist is going to say that since
there is no evidence for any gods, they don't need to believe in them.
Do you believe in Zeus? Zarathustra? If not, why not?
Simply put, there is a world of difference between "I'm simply not convin=
ced"
versus "There is **no** God".
Some would say there are no gods. This individual does, and says he can
prove it.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_drange/wager.html
OK, let's see what you got.
I have no direct evidence regarding a deity of any kind. Do you?
We both have the same evidence, and it is my proof and your disbelief but=
no
proof
Well, any proof you have you share. Anything I can hear? Anything I can
see? Anything I can touch? Or are you going on faith in the unseen,
unheard, unknown. Are you believing other people or did you come up with
this idea on your own?
ev=B7i=B7dence (=B5v=93=B9-d=85ns) n. 1. A thing or things helpful in for=
ming a conclusion
or judgment:
proof (pr=9Bf) n. Abbr. prf. 1. The evidence or argument that compels the=
mind to
accept an assertion as true.
Your evidence doesn't compel my mind.
You can vote for the Easter Bunny.
You can't prove that he doesn't exist.
You can vote for Santa Clause.
You can't prove that he doesn't exist.
You can even vote for the tooth fairy if you want to.
Sure, and you can vote for satan.
Is his name on the ballot?
Just like santa and the Easter bunny.
If not, you can be sure I am not writing it in. I don't put imaginary
entities on the ballot. Do you?
Nope.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Carol Lee Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: Take religion out of politics |
13 Jan 2004 07:40:12 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 13 Jan 2004, duke wrote:
On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 Carol Lee Smith <human@csd.uwm.edu> posted:
WHAD 90.7 FM
For Program On: Monday, January 12, 2004 at 3:00 PM
Listen on line: http://wpr.org/webcasting/
This program is available via the archives at:
http://snipurl.com/3rxi
Ben Merens
January 12, 2004
What this nation needs in a leader who isn't afraid to take religion out
of politics. So says Ben Merens' guest, after three. Guest: Susan Jacoby,
director of the Center for Inquiry-Metro New York, and author of the
forthcoming book "Freethinkers: A History of American Secularism". Her
article appeared in the January 8th edition of the New York Times.
Why should religion be taken out of politics when religion is such an integral
part of our lives?
One's religion or religious beliefs is not part of one's credentials to
run for or hold public office. Religious tests for office are
unconstitutional.
I have freedom of speech, to vote, etc and I do so in accordance with what I
profess, and that clearly includes religion.
As a private citizen you certainly have those freedoms you have mentioned.
What you depend upon to form your opinions is your business.
If you were an elected official, or an appointed governmental agent of any
sort, you would not be allowed to preach your religion or endorse your
religion as part of your office.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Take religion out of politics |
14 Jan 2004 08:52:54 AM |
|
|
"Carol Lee Smith" <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.OSF.3.96.1040113193533.26436B-100000@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...
Why should religion be taken out of politics when religion is such an
integral
part of our lives?
One's religion or religious beliefs is not part of one's credentials to
run for or hold public office. Religious tests for office are
unconstitutional.
So if I, as a Catholic, determined that I would only vote for candidates
for office whose views mirrored my own, I am BREAKING THE LAW?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Strickland" |
|
| Title: Re: Take religion out of politics |
14 Jan 2004 02:50:33 PM |
|
|
"KRP@verizon.net" <web2457k@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:aJcNb.12388$4l3.1855@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
"Carol Lee Smith" <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.OSF.3.96.1040113193533.26436B-100000@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...
Why should religion be taken out of politics when religion is such an
integral
part of our lives?
One's religion or religious beliefs is not part of one's credentials to
run for or hold public office. Religious tests for office are
unconstitutional.
So if I, as a Catholic, determined that I would only vote for
candidates
for office whose views mirrored my own, I am BREAKING THE LAW?
Not at all. You as an individual can put any test you want on a candidate.
We as a society can not make the religion of a candidate a qualification for
public office, but we as individuals can certainly look at a candidate and
see if his religion makes him predisposed to doing what we want our elected
officials to do for us. To the extent he might do what we want, we will vote
for him, or not vote for him.
As a Catholic, you should be able to vote for the best candidate, not just
the Catholics that might be on the ballot but the "best candidate" to you
might not be the same as the best candidate for me -- which is the whole
point of voting.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Take religion out of politics |
14 Jan 2004 07:18:50 PM |
|
|
"Jeff Strickland" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:100bb0u7j3ogk8b@corp.supernews.com...
So if I, as a Catholic, determined that I would only vote for
candidates
for office whose views mirrored my own, I am BREAKING THE LAW?
Not at all. You as an individual can put any test you want on a candidate.
We as a society can not make the religion of a candidate a qualification
for
public office, but we as individuals can certainly look at a candidate and
see if his religion makes him predisposed to doing what we want our
elected
officials to do for us. To the extent he might do what we want, we will
vote
for him, or not vote for him.
As a Catholic, you should be able to vote for the best candidate, not just
the Catholics that might be on the ballot but the "best candidate" to you
might not be the same as the best candidate for me -- which is the whole
point of voting.
Your opinion is in the minority here.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Strickland" |
|
| Title: Re: Take religion out of politics |
15 Jan 2004 10:53:50 AM |
|
|
"KRP@verizon.net" <web2457k@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:_TlNb.12667$4P6.2920@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
"Jeff Strickland" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:100bb0u7j3ogk8b@corp.supernews.com...
So if I, as a Catholic, determined that I would only vote for
candidates
for office whose views mirrored my own, I am BREAKING THE LAW?
Not at all. You as an individual can put any test you want on a
candidate.
We as a society can not make the religion of a candidate a qualification
for
public office, but we as individuals can certainly look at a candidate
and
see if his religion makes him predisposed to doing what we want our
elected
officials to do for us. To the extent he might do what we want, we will
vote
for him, or not vote for him.
As a Catholic, you should be able to vote for the best candidate, not
just
the Catholics that might be on the ballot but the "best candidate" to
you
might not be the same as the best candidate for me -- which is the whole
point of voting.
Your opinion is in the minority here.
Perhaps, but is is my opinion just the same. And, common sense says it is a
reasonable opinion to have.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Take religion out of politics |
16 Jan 2004 08:13:10 AM |
|
|
"Jeff Strickland" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:100dhh3qdd53ufc@corp.supernews.com...
As a Catholic, you should be able to vote for the best candidate, not
just
the Catholics that might be on the ballot but the "best candidate" to
you
might not be the same as the best candidate for me -- which is the
whole
point of voting.
Your opinion is in the minority here.
Perhaps, but is is my opinion just the same. And, common sense says it is
a
reasonable opinion to have.
I respect your opinion Jeff, however the drive amongs organiations that
purport to speak for "ALL" Atheists has an opposing vie from the tolerant
one you express. If there were such a thing as a truth serum, or wonder
woman's magic rope, I think you would find that the core belief is to outlaw
religion. The problem is that for the most part Atheism doesn't exist in a
vacuum, it travels with political company, such as extremist
socialism/communism and radical extremist feminism. And this magnifies the
agenda. They "USE" the first amendment as a cloak for the real agenda.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Second One" |
|
| Title: Re: Take religion out of politics |
16 Jan 2004 01:46:41 PM |
|
|
"KRP@verizon.net" <web2457k@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:WjSNb.21036$4P6.6567@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
"Jeff Strickland" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:100dhh3qdd53ufc@corp.supernews.com...
As a Catholic, you should be able to vote for the best candidate,
not
just
the Catholics that might be on the ballot but the "best candidate"
to
you
might not be the same as the best candidate for me -- which is the
whole
point of voting.
Your opinion is in the minority here.
Perhaps, but is is my opinion just the same. And, common sense says it
is
a
reasonable opinion to have.
I respect your opinion Jeff, however the drive amongs organiations
that
purport to speak for "ALL" Atheists has an opposing vie from the tolerant
one you express. If there were such a thing as a truth serum, or wonder
woman's magic rope, I think you would find that the core belief is to
outlaw
religion. The problem is that for the most part Atheism doesn't exist in a
vacuum, it travels with political company, such as extremist
socialism/communism and radical extremist feminism.
I know plenty of ateists and agnostics and have communicated with many on
line. I know of none that fit that description. You are demonizing a belief
you know nothing about merely because it scares you that they can live full
moral lives without any need for your god.
And this magnifies the
agenda. They "USE" the first amendment as a cloak for the real agenda.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Take religion out of politics |
16 Jan 2004 04:50:59 PM |
|
|
"Second One" <nospam@all.com> wrote in message
news:BcXNb.1019$9U6.267@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
I respect your opinion Jeff, however the drive amongst organiations
that
purport to speak for "ALL" Atheists, has an opposing view from the
tolerant
one you express. If there were such a thing as a truth serum, or wonder
woman's magic rope, I think you would find that the core belief is to
outlaw
religion. The problem is that for the most part Atheism doesn't exist in
a
vacuum, it travels with political company, such as extremist
socialism/communism and radical extremist feminism.
I know plenty of ateists and agnostics and have communicated with many on
line. I know of none that fit that description. You are demonizing a
belief
you know nothing about merely because it scares you that they can live
full
moral lives without any need for your god.
Too bad you missed a post here earlier this week that made that point
you deny exists. Do you speak for American Atheists? The Freedom FROM
Religion Foundation? Mike Newdow?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Second One" |
|
| Title: Re: Take religion out of politics |
16 Jan 2004 05:48:54 PM |
|
|
"KRP@verizon.net" <web2457k@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:nVZNb.3472$ko5.62@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
"Second One" <nospam@all.com> wrote in message
news:BcXNb.1019$9U6.267@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
I respect your opinion Jeff, however the drive amongst
organiations
that
purport to speak for "ALL" Atheists, has an opposing view from the
tolerant
one you express. If there were such a thing as a truth serum, or
wonder
woman's magic rope, I think you would find that the core belief is to
outlaw
religion. The problem is that for the most part Atheism doesn't exist
in
a
vacuum, it travels with political company, such as extremist
socialism/communism and radical extremist feminism.
I know plenty of ateists and agnostics and have communicated with many
on
line. I know of none that fit that description. You are demonizing a
belief
you know nothing about merely because it scares you that they can live
full
moral lives without any need for your god.
Too bad you missed a post here earlier this week that made that point
you deny exists
Maybe in your baseless opinion it is true, but I assure you it is not.
Not one person I know nor anyone I've encountered on the usenet fits your
description. I am an agnostic so I know of what I speak. You obviously have
a bone to pick and feel it necessary to tether them to communism and the
like simply to demonize unbelievers. I'd be willing to go out on a limb and
say that a good portion of atheists that I know are libertarians which makes
them ideologically opposed to that sort of politics. I know of only one
admitted communist in my circle of friends and she is a devout pacifist and
Christian.
.. Do you speak for American Atheists? The Freedom FROM
Religion Foundation? Mike Newdow?
I speak for myself. What voice in your head do you speak for?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Strickland" |
|
| Title: Re: Take religion out of politics |
16 Jan 2004 11:07:09 AM |
|
|
I respect your opinion Jeff, however the drive amongs organiations
that
purport to speak for "ALL" Atheists has an opposing vie from the tolerant
one you express. If there were such a thing as a truth serum, or wonder
woman's magic rope, I think you would find that the core belief is to
outlaw
religion. The problem is that for the most part Atheism doesn't exist in a
vacuum, it travels with political company, such as extremist
socialism/communism and radical extremist feminism. And this magnifies the
agenda. They "USE" the first amendment as a cloak for the real agenda.
Agreed.
They are like the terrorists that would use our Constitution to destroy our
Constitution.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Take religion out of politics |
16 Jan 2004 04:38:12 PM |
|
|
"Jeff Strickland" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:100g6mep7er43d6@corp.supernews.com...
I respect your opinion Jeff, however the drive amongs organiations
that
purport to speak for "ALL" Atheists has an opposing vie from the
tolerant
one you express. If there were such a thing as a truth serum, or wonder
woman's magic rope, I think you would find that the core belief is to
outlaw
religion. The problem is that for the most part Atheism doesn't exist in
a
vacuum, it travels with political company, such as extremist
socialism/communism and radical extremist feminism. And this magnifies
the
agenda. They "USE" the first amendment as a cloak for the real agenda.
Agreed.
They are like the terrorists that would use our Constitution to destroy
our Constitution.
Read Carol closely. I don't think she has a clue on how her words read
outside her coven!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Strickland" |
|
| Title: Re: Take religion out of politics |
19 Jan 2004 11:56:00 AM |
|
|
Read Carol closely. I don't think she has a clue on how her words read
outside her coven!
I don't get Carol anymore.
I used to enjoy talking to her because I found that she presented thoughtful
arguments even if her arguments opposed my own. But, it seems to me lately
that her subscription to the Prozac Club of America has expired, and she has
become difficult to understand. I am clearly outside of her coven, and I
can't understand a thing she says. I think you are correct ...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Second One" |
|
| Title: Re: Take religion out of politics |
19 Jan 2004 01:48:01 PM |
|
|
"Jeff Strickland" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:100o6kqfd9pi7fd@corp.supernews.com...
Read Carol closely. I don't think she has a clue on how her words read
outside her coven!
I don't get Carol anymore.
I used to enjoy talking to her because I found that she presented
thoughtful
arguments even if her arguments opposed my own. But, it seems to me lately
that her subscription to the Prozac Club of America has expired, and she
has
become difficult to understand. I am clearly outside of her coven, and I
can't understand a thing she says. I think you are correct ...
Carol is quite logical, reasonable, and consistent. The problem you have is
that you have been shown the door by her so many times and have been unable
to present any sort of argument against her position that you have resorted
to attacking her personally. You can't win so you try to marginalize her.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Strickland" |
|
| Title: Re: Take religion out of politics |
20 Jan 2004 04:04:13 PM |
|
|
"Second One" <nospam@all.com> wrote in message
news:RvWOb.9172$MV4.6660@nwrddc03.gnilink.net...
"Jeff Strickland" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:100o6kqfd9pi7fd@corp.supernews.com...
Read Carol closely. I don't think she has a clue on how her words read
outside her coven!
I don't get Carol anymore.
I used to enjoy talking to her because I found that she presented
thoughtful
arguments even if her arguments opposed my own. But, it seems to me
lately
that her subscription to the Prozac Club of America has expired, and she
has
become difficult to understand. I am clearly outside of her coven, and I
can't understand a thing she says. I think you are correct ...
Carol is quite logical, reasonable, and consistent. The problem you have
is
that you have been shown the door by her so many times and have been
unable
to present any sort of argument against her position that you have
resorted
to attacking her personally. You can't win so you try to marginalize her.
I ignor her. I do not attack her personally. I do not marginalize her. I
simply ignor her.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Second One" |
|
| Title: Re: Take religion out of politics |
20 Jan 2004 07:54:43 PM |
|
|
"Jeff Strickland" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:100r9h7607785bb@corp.supernews.com...
"Second One" <nospam@all.com> wrote in message
news:RvWOb.9172$MV4.6660@nwrddc03.gnilink.net...
"Jeff Strickland" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:100o6kqfd9pi7fd@corp.supernews.com...
Read Carol closely. I don't think she has a clue on how her words
read
outside her coven!
I don't get Carol anymore.
I used to enjoy talking to her because I found that she presented
thoughtful
arguments even if her arguments opposed my own. But, it seems to me
lately
that her subscription to the Prozac Club of America has expired, and
she
has
become difficult to understand. I am clearly outside of her coven, and
I
can't understand a thing she says. I think you are correct ...
Carol is quite logical, reasonable, and consistent. The problem you have
is
that you have been shown the door by her so many times and have been
unable
to present any sort of argument against her position that you have
resorted
to attacking her personally. You can't win so you try to marginalize
her.
I ignor her. I do not attack her personally. I do not marginalize her. I
simply ignor her.
I just replied to a post of yours where you attack her and marginalize her.
Prozac club?
Coven?
Don't you even read your own posts?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Strickland" |
|
| Title: Re: Take religion out of politics |
20 Jan 2004 08:23:36 PM |
|
|
"Second One" <nospam@all.com> wrote in message
news:DZkPb.22079$MV4.9686@nwrddc03.gnilink.net...
"Jeff Strickland" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:100r9h7607785bb@corp.supernews.com...
"Second One" <nospam@all.com> wrote in message
news:RvWOb.9172$MV4.6660@nwrddc03.gnilink.net...
"Jeff Strickland" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:100o6kqfd9pi7fd@corp.supernews.com...
Read Carol closely. I don't think she has a clue on how her words
read
outside her coven!
I don't get Carol anymore.
I used to enjoy talking to her because I found that she presented
thoughtful
arguments even if her arguments opposed my own. But, it seems to me
lately
that her subscription to the Prozac Club of America has expired, and
she
has
become difficult to understand. I am clearly outside of her coven,
and
I
can't understand a thing she says. I think you are correct ...
Carol is quite logical, reasonable, and consistent. The problem you
have
is
that you have been shown the door by her so many times and have been
unable
to present any sort of argument against her position that you have
resorted
to attacking her personally. You can't win so you try to marginalize
her.
I ignor her. I do not attack her personally. I do not marginalize her. I
simply ignor her.
I just replied to a post of yours where you attack her and marginalize
her.
Prozac club?
Coven?
Don't you even read your own posts?
Coven is not my word. And Prozac Club is not an attack.
And, I spelled ignore incorrectly. I ignore her now. I do not marginalize
her, I just ignore her.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Second One" |
|
| Title: Re: Take religion out of politics |
20 Jan 2004 09:28:26 PM |
|
|
"Jeff Strickland" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:100rononu9lsu18@corp.supernews.com...
"Second One" <nospam@all.com> wrote in message
news:DZkPb.22079$MV4.9686@nwrddc03.gnilink.net...
"Jeff Strickland" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:100r9h7607785bb@corp.supernews.com...
"Second One" <nospam@all.com> wrote in message
news:RvWOb.9172$MV4.6660@nwrddc03.gnilink.net...
"Jeff Strickland" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:100o6kqfd9pi7fd@corp.supernews.com...
Read Carol closely. I don't think she has a clue on how her
words
read
outside her coven!
I don't get Carol anymore.
I used to enjoy talking to her because I found that she presented
thoughtful
arguments even if her arguments opposed my own. But, it seems to
me
lately
that her subscription to the Prozac Club of America has expired,
and
she
has
become difficult to understand. I am clearly outside of her coven,
and
I
can't understand a thing she says. I think you are correct ...
Carol is quite logical, reasonable, and consistent. The problem you
have
is
that you have been shown the door by her so many times and have been
unable
to present any sort of argument against her position that you have
resorted
to attacking her personally. You can't win so you try to marginalize
her.
I ignor her. I do not attack her personally. I do not marginalize her.
I
simply ignor her.
I just replied to a post of yours where you attack her and marginalize
her.
Prozac club?
Coven?
Don't you even read your own posts?
Coven is not my word.
Yet you repeated it.
And Prozac Club is not an attack.
Yes it certainly is.
And, I spelled ignore incorrectly. I ignore her now. I do not marginalize
her, I just ignore her.
Nope, you participated in an attack that involved making fun of her and
ignoring the facts. You attacked the messenger, idiot, and avoided a direct
confrontation. You are an ignorant, lying coward for saying you did none of
these.
You are afraid of her because you are insecure of your own position. If not,
apologize and defend yourself honestly. You won't.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Strickland" |
|
| Title: Re: Take religion out of politics |
22 Jan 2004 11:55:36 AM |
|
|
Yet you repeated it.
In fact, I only said that I am not of her coven. She has a set of beliefs
that I can not agree with. she has every right to have those beliefs, and I
have every right to not agree. The fact that I do not agree is not an
attack, it is a fact.
And Prozac Club is not an attack.
Yes it certainly is.
In fact, I explained that Carol and I have had many discussions, and it is
my opinion that her prozac has worn off because she no longer makes any
sense at all. Not an attack, an opinion. More precisely, an observation. It
could very well be in inaccurate opinion or observation, but it is mine just
the same.
And, I spelled ignore incorrectly. I ignore her now. I do not
marginalize
her, I just ignore her.
Nope, you participated in an attack that involved making fun of her and
ignoring the facts. You attacked the messenger, idiot, and avoided a
direct
confrontation. You are an ignorant, lying coward for saying you did none
of
these.
You are afraid of her because you are insecure of your own position. If
not,
apologize and defend yourself honestly. You won't.
I am not afraid of her. I am tired of her. Much different.
My position needs no defense. It does, apparently, need some clarification.
I hope I have clarified it now.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Second One" |
|
| Title: Re: Take religion out of politics |
22 Jan 2004 12:29:21 PM |
|
|
"Jeff Strickland" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:10103nmsqo1agd0@corp.supernews.com...
Yet you repeated it.
In fact, I only said that I am not of her coven. She has a set of beliefs
that I can not agree with. she has every right to have those beliefs, and
I
have every right to not agree. The fact that I do not agree is not an
attack, it is a fact.
And Prozac Club is not an attack.
Yes it certainly is.
In fact, I explained that Carol and I have had many discussions, and it is
my opinion that her prozac has worn off because she no longer makes any
sense at all. Not an attack, an opinion. More precisely, an observation.
It
could very well be in inaccurate opinion or observation, but it is mine
just
the same.
You don't even have the integrity to admit what you did. You were attacked
her character with words like coven and making a smart-assed and baseless
claim that she was on Prozac. Quit trying to back out and take some
responsibility.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Strickland" |
|
| Title: Re: Take religion out of politics |
26 Jan 2004 03:54:40 PM |
|
|
"Second One" <nospam@all.com> wrote in message
news:5EUPb.13865$h77.7772@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
"Jeff Strickland" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:10103nmsqo1agd0@corp.supernews.com...
Yet you repeated it.
In fact, I only said that I am not of her coven. She has a set of
beliefs
that I can not agree with. she has every right to have those beliefs,
and
I
have every right to not agree. The fact that I do not agree is not an
attack, it is a fact.
And Prozac Club is not an attack.
Yes it certainly is.
In fact, I explained that Carol and I have had many discussions, and it
is
my opinion that her prozac has worn off because she no longer makes any
sense at all. Not an attack, an opinion. More precisely, an observation.
It
could very well be in inaccurate opinion or observation, but it is mine
just
the same.
You don't even have the integrity to admit what you did. You were attacked
her character with words like coven and making a smart-assed and baseless
claim that she was on Prozac. Quit trying to back out and take some
responsibility.
I take full responsibility for my observation that her Prozac has worn off.
Somebody else equated her beliefs and those that followed her beliefs as
belonging to a coven. I do not belong to her coven, and take full
responsibility for the total and unequivocal rejection of it. It might not
be a coven, but I reject her beliefs just the same. And, I ignore her.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Take religion out of politics |
21 Jan 2004 12:03:28 PM |
|
|
"Jeff Strickland" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote:
:|I ignor her. I do not attack her personally. I do not marginalize her. I
:|simply ignor her.
Your ignore list keeps growing as more and more people expose you for the
troll and idiot you are. As more and more people expose your lack of
knowing anything, etc.
Zap, they go at once to your ignore list. They don't go by go, they don't
collect 200.00
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "dpr why" |
|
| Title: Re: Take religion out of politics |
19 Jan 2004 08:26:34 PM |
|
|
"Second One" <nospam@all.com> wrote in message
news:RvWOb.9172$MV4.6660@nwrddc03.gnilink.net...
Carol is quite logical, reasonable, and consistent.
One bigot supporting another bigot, how cute.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Take religion out of politics |
19 Jan 2004 04:57:12 PM |
|
|
"Jeff Strickland" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:100o6kqfd9pi7fd@corp.supernews.com...
Read Carol closely. I don't think she has a clue on how her words read
outside her coven!
I don't get Carol anymore.
I used to enjoy talking to her because I found that she presented
thoughtful
arguments even if her arguments opposed my own. But, it seems to me lately
that her subscription to the Prozac Club of America has expired, and she
has
become difficult to understand. I am clearly outside of her coven, and I
can't understand a thing she says. I think you are correct ...
The difference here is that I am able to often strip away Carol's mask
and make her show her face as it REALLY IS! And she HATES me for that!
Which explains her attention to me to TRY to discredit me. She has always
been a naked propagandist. She is usually subtle about it. I just push the
right buttons on Carol and show her without her costume. Look at the George
Washington thread, you'll get REAL insight into how she works. I took today
to using HTML to play with her. I gavce her ALL the infor needed to
estanlish that Washington is a clear committed theist. Carol keeps
"SNIPPING" the points that prove my point.
Carol is really ***** poort at playing connect the dots. The simple logis
is that is she didn't disagree with me on any given point, she would NOT be
angrily demanding that I prove the point so repeatedly. That she ATTACKS me
on it, and keeps LOUDLY demanding I prove it after I already HAVE, really
does speak for her REAL agenda. She hopes nobody sees that. Look how she
SNIPS the refeneces on WHAT 33rd Degree Masons ARE!
I deialed several links. One explains the HISTORY of the mAsons. One
explains the ORGANIZATION. One explains WHAT a 33rd degree Mason is, and
another explained that Washington WAS a 33rd degree Mason BEFORE the
revolution. I can't help that she ignores the FACTS. Her empress is TOTALLY
BUCK NAKED!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Strickland" |
|
| Title: Re: Take religion out of politics |
20 Jan 2004 04:10:39 PM |
|
|
"KRP@verizon.net" <web2457k@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:chZOb.28484$ko5.4370@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
"Jeff Strickland" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:100o6kqfd9pi7fd@corp.supernews.com...
Read Carol closely. I don't think she has a clue on how her words read
outside her coven!
I don't get Carol anymore.
I used to enjoy talking to her because I found that she presented
thoughtful
arguments even if her arguments opposed my own. But, it seems to me
lately
that her subscription to the Prozac Club of America has expired, and she
has
become difficult to understand. I am clearly outside of her coven, and I
can't understand a thing she says. I think you are correct ...
The difference here is that I am able to often strip away Carol's mask
and make her show her face as it REALLY IS! And she HATES me for that!
Which explains her attention to me to TRY to discredit me. She has always
been a naked propagandist. She is usually subtle about it. I just push the
right buttons on Carol and show her without her costume. Look at the
George
Washington thread, you'll get REAL insight into how she works. I took
today
to using HTML to play with her. I gavce her ALL the infor needed to
estanlish that Washington is a clear committed theist. Carol keeps
"SNIPPING" the points that prove my point.
I made similar arguments with her, and got a headache from making the same
points over and over and over again. She completely missed the point that
was being made, and adopted tactics like JAlison, she uses miles and miles
of unrelated and out-of-context crapola that did nothing to clear anything
up.
Carol is really ***** poort at playing connect the dots. The simple
logis
is that is she didn't disagree with me on any given point, she would NOT
be
angrily demanding that I prove the point so repeatedly. That she ATTACKS
me
on it, and keeps LOUDLY demanding I prove it after I already HAVE, really
does speak for her REAL agenda. She hopes nobody sees that. Look how she
SNIPS the refeneces on WHAT 33rd Degree Masons ARE!
I deialed several links. One explains the HISTORY of the mAsons. One
explains the ORGANIZATION. One explains WHAT a 33rd degree Mason is, and
another explained that Washington WAS a 33rd degree Mason BEFORE the
revolution. I can't help that she ignores the FACTS. Her empress is
TOTALLY
BUCK NAKED!
You are a better man at this game than I am. I haven't the knowledge base to
go out and get my support. I rely on common sense and a lifetime of
experience to know in my bones that she is just plain wrong most of the
time. For instance, she supports freedom FROM religion, when the real
freedom is freedom OF religion. There is a subtle but significant difference
in "from" and "of". She misses this difference.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
