| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
11 Jun 2005 08:09:14 AM |
| Object: |
WELCOME TO THE CHRISTIAN EXODUS |
http://www.christianexodus.org/index.php?module=PostWrap&page=home
WELCOME TO THE CHRISTIAN EXODUS
ChristianExodus.org is moving thousands of Christians to South
Carolina to reestablish constitutionally limited government founded
upon Christian principles. This includes the return to South Carolina
of all "powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,
nor prohibited by it to the States." 1 It is evident that the U.S.
Constitution has been abandoned under our current federal system, and
the efforts of Christian activism to restore our Godly republic have
proven futile over the past three decades. The time has come for
Christian Constitutionalists to protect our American principles in a
State like South Carolina by interposing the State's sovereign
authority retained under the 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
THE PROBLEM
Christians have actively tried to return the United States to their
moral foundations for more than 30 years. We now have a professing
Christian president, a Republican Congress and a Republican Supreme
Court. Yet consider this:
* Abortion continues against the wishes of many States
* Sodomite and lesbian "marriage" is now legal in Massachusetts
(and coming soon to a neighborhood near you)
* Children who pray in public schools are subject to prosecution 1
* Our schools continue to teach the discredited theory of
Darwinian evolution
* The Bible is still not welcome in schools except under
unconstitutional FEDERAL guidelines
* The 10 Commandments remain banned from public display
* Sodomy is now legal AND celebrated as "diversity" rather than
condemned as perversion
* Preaching Christianity will soon be outlawed as "hate speech" 1 2 3
Attempts at reform have proven futile. Future elections will not stop
the above atrocities, but rather will lead us down an even more deadly
path because both national parties routinely disobey the U.S.
Constitution.
THE SOLUTION
So what can be done? ChristianExodus.org offers the opportunity to try
a strategy not yet employed by Bible-believing Christians. Rather than
spend resources in continued efforts to redirect the entire nation, we
will redeem States one at a time. Millions of Christian conservatives
are geographically spread out and diluted at the national level.
Therefore, we must concentrate our numbers in a geographical region
with a sovereign government we can influence through the electoral
process.
ChristianExodus.org is orchestrating the move of thousands of
Christians to reacquire our Constitutional rights by electing State
and local officials who will interpose on behalf of the people and
refuse to enforce illegal federal acts. Click on our Plan of Action
page to find out how we can experience God-honoring governance once again.
If you are tired of government-endorsed sin, then stand up and be
counted! Join us
******************************************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and the discussion group for the above site listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members]
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
"Dedicated to combatting 'history by sound bite'."
Now including a re-publication of Tom Peters
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE HOME PAGE
and
Audio links to Supreme Court oral arguments and
Speech by civil rights/constitutional lawyer and others.
This site is a member of the following web rings:
Freethought Ring--&--Freethought, Religion & Beliefs Ring
The First Amendment Ring--&--The Church-State Ring
American History WebRing--&--The History Ring
Let Freedom Ring--&--Religious Freedom Ring
Law Issues Ring--&--Legal Research Ring
****************************************************************
.
|
|
| User: "GoDrex" |
|
| Title: Re: WELCOME TO THE CHRISTIAN EXODUS |
11 Jun 2005 12:04:59 PM |
|
|
<buckeye-ELO@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:mjola1tu73pla8el2s2flocskj46tut59q@4ax.com...
http://www.christianexodus.org/index.php?module=PostWrap&page=home
WELCOME TO THE CHRISTIAN EXODUS
it's too bad they can't go to mars or something
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: WELCOME TO THE CHRISTIAN EXODUS |
11 Jun 2005 03:56:54 PM |
|
|
"GoDrex" <godrex35@hotmail.com> wrote:
:|
:|<buckeye-ELO@nospam.net> wrote in message
:|news:mjola1tu73pla8el2s2flocskj46tut59q@4ax.com...
:|> http://www.christianexodus.org/index.php?module=PostWrap&page=home
:|>
:|>
:|> WELCOME TO THE CHRISTIAN EXODUS
:|>
:|
:|it's too bad they can't go to mars or something
:|
LOL
You are invited to check out the following:
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and the discussion group for the above site listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members]
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
"Dedicated to combatting 'history by sound bite'."
Now including a re-publication of Tom Peters
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE HOME PAGE
and
Audio links to Supreme Court oral arguments and
Speech by civil rights/constitutional lawyer and others.
This site is a member of the following web rings:
Freethought Ring--&--Freethought, Religion & Beliefs Ring
The First Amendment Ring--&--The Church-State Ring
American History WebRing--&--The History Ring
Let Freedom Ring--&--Religious Freedom Ring
Law Issues Ring--&--Legal Research Ring
****************************************************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "Masked Avenger" |
|
| Title: Re: WELCOME TO THE CHRISTIAN EXODUS |
12 Jun 2005 06:34:14 AM |
|
|
wrote:
"GoDrex" <godrex35@hotmail.com> wrote:
:|
:|< > wrote in message
:|news:mjola1tu73pla8el2s2flocskj46tut59q@4ax.com...
:|> http://www.christianexodus.org/index.php?module=PostWrap&page=home
:|>
:|>
:|> WELCOME TO THE CHRISTIAN EXODUS
:|>
:|
:|it's too bad they can't go to mars or something
:|
LOL
You are invited to check out the following:
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and the discussion group for the above site listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members]
***************************************************************
. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
. . .
****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
"Dedicated to combatting 'history by sound bite'."
Now including a re-publication of Tom Peters
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE HOME PAGE
and
Audio links to Supreme Court oral arguments and
Speech by civil rights/constitutional lawyer and others.
This site is a member of the following web rings:
Freethought Ring--&--Freethought, Religion & Beliefs Ring
The First Amendment Ring--&--The Church-State Ring
American History WebRing--&--The History Ring
Let Freedom Ring--&--Religious Freedom Ring
Law Issues Ring--&--Legal Research Ring
****************************************************************
and what does South Carolina think of all this ? ........ Do you think
the people there are going to accept you ?
--
Masked Avenger
aa#2224
EAC Chief Technician in charge of remotely rigging Fundie 'Spell
Checkers' so they all look like hick home schooled yokels
Does Schroedinger's cat have 18 half lives ?
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: WELCOME TO THE CHRISTIAN EXODUS |
12 Jun 2005 01:05:41 PM |
|
|
Masked Avenger <cootey_59@yahoo.com> wrote:
:|buckeye-ELO@nospam.net wrote:
:|> "GoDrex" <godrex35@hotmail.com> wrote:
:|>
:|>
:|>>:|
:|>>:|<buckeye-ELO@nospam.net> wrote in message
:|>>:|news:mjola1tu73pla8el2s2flocskj46tut59q@4ax.com...
:|>>:|> http://www.christianexodus.org/index.php?module=PostWrap&page=home
:|>>:|>
:|>>:|>
:|>>:|> WELCOME TO THE CHRISTIAN EXODUS
:|>>:|>
:|>>:|
:|>>:|it's too bad they can't go to mars or something
:|>>:|
:|>
:|>
:|>
:|> LOL
:|>
:|>
:|>
:|
:|and what does South Carolina think of all this ? ........ Do you think
:|the people there are going to accept you ?
Accept me?
Why would they accept me, I'm not going there.
You are invited to check out the following:
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and the discussion group for the above site listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members]
***************************************************************
. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
. . .
****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
"Dedicated to combatting 'history by sound bite'."
Now including a re-publication of Tom Peters
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE HOME PAGE
and
Audio links to Supreme Court oral arguments and
Speech by civil rights/constitutional lawyer and others.
This site is a member of the following web rings:
Freethought Ring--&--Freethought, Religion & Beliefs Ring
The First Amendment Ring--&--The Church-State Ring
American History WebRing--&--The History Ring
Let Freedom Ring--&--Religious Freedom Ring
Law Issues Ring--&--Legal Research Ring
****************************************************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "Masked Avenger" |
|
| Title: Re: WELCOME TO THE CHRISTIAN EXODUS |
13 Jun 2005 07:26:49 AM |
|
|
wrote:
Masked Avenger <cootey_59@yahoo.com> wrote:
:| wrote:
:|> "GoDrex" <godrex35@hotmail.com> wrote:
:|>
:|>
:|>>:|
:|>>:|<> wrote in message
:|>>:|news:mjola1tu73pla8el2s2flocskj46tut59q@4ax.com...
:|>>:|> http://www.christianexodus.org/index.php?module=PostWrap&page=home
:|>>:|>
:|>>:|>
:|>>:|> WELCOME TO THE CHRISTIAN EXODUS
:|>>:|>
:|>>:|
:|>>:|it's too bad they can't go to mars or something
:|>>:|
:|>
:|>
:|>
:|> LOL
:|>
:|>
:|>
:|
:|and what does South Carolina think of all this ? ........ Do you think
:|the people there are going to accept you ?
Accept me?
Why would they accept me, I'm not going there.
You are invited to check out the following:
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and the discussion group for the above site listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members]
***************************************************************
. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
. . .
****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
"Dedicated to combatting 'history by sound bite'."
Now including a re-publication of Tom Peters
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE HOME PAGE
and
Audio links to Supreme Court oral arguments and
Speech by civil rights/constitutional lawyer and others.
This site is a member of the following web rings:
Freethought Ring--&--Freethought, Religion & Beliefs Ring
The First Amendment Ring--&--The Church-State Ring
American History WebRing--&--The History Ring
Let Freedom Ring--&--Religious Freedom Ring
Law Issues Ring--&--Legal Research Ring
****************************************************************
No worries .... I'm all for Separation of Church and State ...... but
why the Introduction about the Christian Exodus to South Carolina ? It
appears as if you are supporting this ridiculous notion .... I gather
you aren't ? .......
--
Masked Avenger
aa#2224
EAC Chief Technician in charge of remotely rigging Fundie 'Spell
Checkers' so they all look like hick home schooled yokels
Does Schroedinger's cat have 18 half lives ?
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: WELCOME TO THE CHRISTIAN EXODUS |
13 Jun 2005 12:47:36 PM |
|
|
Masked Avenger <cootey_59@yahoo.com> wrote:
:|buckeye-ELO@nospam.net wrote:
:|> Masked Avenger <cootey_59@yahoo.com> wrote:
:|>
:|>
:|>>:|buckeye-ELO@nospam.net wrote:
:|>>:|> "GoDrex" <godrex35@hotmail.com> wrote:
:|>>:|>
:|>>:|>
:|>>:|>>:|
:|>>:|>>:|<buckeye-ELO@nospam.net> wrote in message
:|>>:|>>:|news:mjola1tu73pla8el2s2flocskj46tut59q@4ax.com...
:|>>:|>>:|> http://www.christianexodus.org/index.php?module=PostWrap&page=home
:|>>:|>>:|>
:|>>:|>>:|>
:|>>:|>>:|> WELCOME TO THE CHRISTIAN EXODUS
:|>>:|>>:|>
:|>>:|>>:|
:|>>:|>>:|it's too bad they can't go to mars or something
:|>>:|>>:|
:|>>:|>
:|>>:|>
:|>>:|>
:|>>:|> LOL
:|>>:|>
:|>>:|>
:|>>:|>
:|>>:|
:|>>:|and what does South Carolina think of all this ? ........ Do you think
:|>>:|the people there are going to accept you ?
:|>
:|>
:|> Accept me?
:|> Why would they accept me, I'm not going there.
:|>
:|> You are invited to check out the following:
:|>
:|> The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
:|> http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
:|>
:|> [and the discussion group for the above site listed below]
:|>
:|> HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads SepChurch&State
:|> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
:|>
:|> [Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members]
:|>
:|> ***************************************************************
:|>
:|> . . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
:|> respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
:|> take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why a
:|> page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
:|> 256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
:|> Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
:|> . . .
:|>
:|>
:|> ****************************************************************
:|>
:|> THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
:|> SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
:|>
:|> http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
:|>
:|> "Dedicated to combatting 'history by sound bite'."
:|>
:|> Now including a re-publication of Tom Peters
:|> SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE HOME PAGE
:|> and
:|> Audio links to Supreme Court oral arguments and
:|> Speech by civil rights/constitutional lawyer and others.
:|>
:|> This site is a member of the following web rings:
:|>
:|> Freethought Ring--&--Freethought, Religion & Beliefs Ring
:|>
:|> The First Amendment Ring--&--The Church-State Ring
:|>
:|> American History WebRing--&--The History Ring
:|>
:|> Let Freedom Ring--&--Religious Freedom Ring
:|>
:|> Law Issues Ring--&--Legal Research Ring
:|>
:|> ****************************************************************
:|>
:|
:| No worries .... I'm all for Separation of Church and State ...... but
:|why the Introduction about the Christian Exodus to South Carolina ? It
:|appears as if you are supporting this ridiculous notion .... I gather
:|you aren't ? .......
Well it was sent to me via Yahoo IM from a friend who lives in SC. It was
sent to me because this person knows I oppose the radical religious right
I in turn posted it on the Yahoo group mentioned above which I run as well
as posting it here to inform people of the progressing radical attempts to
turn this country into a theocracy
Now if you support church state speculation I invite u specifically to join
us at the about yahoo group
but would also like some of the opposing persuasion as well. it makes it
more interesting
.
|
|
|
| User: "Masked Avenger" |
|
| Title: Re: WELCOME TO THE CHRISTIAN EXODUS |
14 Jun 2005 06:05:35 AM |
|
|
wrote:
Masked Avenger <cootey_59@yahoo.com> wrote:
:| wrote:
:|> Masked Avenger <cootey_59@yahoo.com> wrote:
:|>
:|>
:|>>:| wrote:
:|>>:|> "GoDrex" <godrex35@hotmail.com> wrote:
:|>>:|>
:|>>:|>
:|>>:|>>:|
:|>>:|>>:|<> wrote in message
:|>>:|>>:|news:mjola1tu73pla8el2s2flocskj46tut59q@4ax.com...
:|>>:|>>:|> http://www.christianexodus.org/index.php?module=PostWrap&page=home
:|>>:|>>:|>
:|>>:|>>:|>
:|>>:|>>:|> WELCOME TO THE CHRISTIAN EXODUS
:|>>:|>>:|>
:|>>:|>>:|
:|>>:|>>:|it's too bad they can't go to mars or something
:|>>:|>>:|
:|>>:|>
:|>>:|>
:|>>:|>
:|>>:|> LOL
:|>>:|>
:|>>:|>
:|>>:|>
:|>>:|
:|>>:|and what does South Carolina think of all this ? ........ Do you think
:|>>:|the people there are going to accept you ?
:|>
:|>
:|> Accept me?
:|> Why would they accept me, I'm not going there.
:|>
:|> You are invited to check out the following:
:|>
:|> The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
:|> http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
:|>
:|> [and the discussion group for the above site listed below]
:|>
:|> HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads SepChurch&State
:|> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
:|>
:|> [Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members]
:|>
:|> ***************************************************************
:|>
:|> . . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
:|> respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
:|> take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why a
:|> page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
:|> 256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
:|> Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
:|> . . .
:|>
:|>
:|> ****************************************************************
:|>
:|> THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
:|> SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
:|>
:|> http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
:|>
:|> "Dedicated to combatting 'history by sound bite'."
:|>
:|> Now including a re-publication of Tom Peters
:|> SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE HOME PAGE
:|> and
:|> Audio links to Supreme Court oral arguments and
:|> Speech by civil rights/constitutional lawyer and others.
:|>
:|> This site is a member of the following web rings:
:|>
:|> Freethought Ring--&--Freethought, Religion & Beliefs Ring
:|>
:|> The First Amendment Ring--&--The Church-State Ring
:|>
:|> American History WebRing--&--The History Ring
:|>
:|> Let Freedom Ring--&--Religious Freedom Ring
:|>
:|> Law Issues Ring--&--Legal Research Ring
:|>
:|> ****************************************************************
:|>
:|
:| No worries .... I'm all for Separation of Church and State ...... but
:|why the Introduction about the Christian Exodus to South Carolina ? It
:|appears as if you are supporting this ridiculous notion .... I gather
:|you aren't ? .......
Well it was sent to me via Yahoo IM from a friend who lives in SC. It was
sent to me because this person knows I oppose the radical religious right
I in turn posted it on the Yahoo group mentioned above which I run as well
as posting it here to inform people of the progressing radical attempts to
turn this country into a theocracy
Now if you support church state speculation I invite u specifically to join
us at the about yahoo group
but would also like some of the opposing persuasion as well. it makes it
more interesting
well you won't get any argument from me .... I'm a firm believer in
separation .......... I don't live in the USA but the same issue rears
it's ugly head here from time to time ...... I was really more curious
as to what the South Carolinians think of having their State overrun by
religious extremists ....... has anyone asked them ?
I think I'll be checking out your site, looks interesting ......
--
Masked Avenger
aa#2224
EAC Chief Technician in charge of remotely rigging Fundie 'Spell
Checkers' so they all look like hick home schooled yokels
Does Schroedinger's cat have 18 half lives ?
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: WELCOME TO THE CHRISTIAN EXODUS |
14 Jun 2005 08:54:46 AM |
|
|
Masked Avenger <cootey_59@yahoo.com> wrote:
:|
:|well you won't get any argument from me .... I'm a firm believer in
:|separation .......... I don't live in the USA but the same issue rears
:|it's ugly head here from time to time ...... I was really more curious
:|as to what the South Carolinians think of having their State overrun by
:|religious extremists ....... has anyone asked them ?
South Carolina is very much a Bible Belt state. While there are non
religious types there, progressives there, the state is pretty firmly on
the Radical Religious Right side of the ledger.
:|I think I'll be checking out your site, looks interesting ......
Kewl I suspect you might find it interesting we even have a couple
celebrities who are members of
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
*********************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
and the discussion group for the above site listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members]
***************************************************************
. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why
a page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v.
Eisner, 256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes,
J.). Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir.
1992)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Masked Avenger" |
|
| Title: Re: WELCOME TO THE CHRISTIAN EXODUS |
15 Jun 2005 05:29:48 AM |
|
|
wrote:
Masked Avenger <cootey_59@yahoo.com> wrote:
:|
:|well you won't get any argument from me .... I'm a firm believer in
:|separation .......... I don't live in the USA but the same issue rears
:|it's ugly head here from time to time ...... I was really more curious
:|as to what the South Carolinians think of having their State overrun by
:|religious extremists ....... has anyone asked them ?
South Carolina is very much a Bible Belt state. While there are non
religious types there, progressives there, the state is pretty firmly on
the Radical Religious Right side of the ledger.
They're not planning on Firing on Fort Sumnter are they ? ........
--
Masked Avenger
aa#2224
EAC Chief Technician in charge of remotely rigging Fundie 'Spell
Checkers' so they all look like hick home schooled yokels
Does Schroedinger's cat have 18 half lives ?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gray Shockley" |
|
| Title: Re: WELCOME TO THE CHRISTIAN EXODUS |
13 Jun 2005 11:44:50 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 07:26:49 -0500, Masked Avenger wrote
No worries .... I'm all for Separation of Church and State ...... but
why the Introduction about the Christian Exodus to South Carolina ? It
appears as if you are supporting this ridiculous notion .... I gather
you aren't ? .......
A local preacher had an ad on a radio station in which he
said, "There is an ancient Chinese blessing, 'May you live
in interesting times'."
I betcha he believes in the intelligent design of cancer,
too.
++ gray
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gray Shockley" |
|
| Title: re: Welcome To The Christian Exodus |
12 Jun 2005 06:50:23 PM |
|
|
anonymous poster whimpered:
: and what does South Carolina think of all this ? ........ Do you think
: the people there are going to accept you ?
And on Sun, 12 Jun 2005 13:05, buckeye-ELO wrote:
Accept me?
Why would they accept me, I'm not going there.
As well you might want to avoid South Carolina.
Fer instance:
---------------------------------------
<http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=
36&printable=1>
Extremist Cults
Gay-bashing preacher hit with sex charges
For more than 20 years, Brother R.G. Stair called sinners
to his South Carolina compound, telling them to abandon
their earthly life and railing for hours at a time about
the supposed sexual deviance of his favorite target ‹
homosexuals.
"The last two Gay Pride Days have resulted in an awesome
earthquake that shook the entire Western area of the
country and a flood that devastated the entire Midwest,"
the right-wing radio evangelist thundered in a typical
broadcast. "You mark my words, ladies and gentlemen, they
are going to bring total destruction to a pagan, immoral,
un-Godly, wicked, sin-loving nation such as ours."
But the real sinner, police charge, is Brother Stair.
Ralph Gordon Stair, the 69-year-old founder and leader of
the Overcomer Ministry, was charged with two counts of
criminal sexual conduct in May.
After two young women claimed that the preacher forced them
to have sex with him over 70 times, police charged that he
"used coercion to accomplish this battery by enforcing his
religious/personal beliefs with the victim." In other
words, they said, Stair told the women that God wanted them
to do his bidding. Bond was denied.
Stair was also charged with two counts of breach of trust.
Police say he took a total of $29,635 from an unnamed man's
retirement investments.
Brother Stair is a self-proclaimed prophet who preaches to
a worldwide audience over AM and shortwave radio, including
a 24-hour-a-day broadcast over one of the 100,000-watt
transmitters of Nashville shortwave station WWCR, home to
many extremist shows.
While he has concentrated for years on gays, Stair also
targets Catholics as "Mary worshippers" and the pope as
"the great *****." And he has specialized in doomsday
predictions, like the times he prophesied that the American
economy would collapse, Philadelphia would be destroyed by
nuclear war, and Ronald Reagan would shortly be "removed
from office."
For years, Stair has asked Americans to sell their
possessions, leave the cities, and come join his community,
which until recently had about 100 members, in Canadys,
near Walterboro, S.C. Now, former members, who have
reportedly turned over amounts ranging up to $500,000 to
Stair, are saying they were deceived.
The former members describe a world in which sex between
married couples is allowed only if specifically authorized
by Stair. Television, alcohol, tobacco, sugar and profanity
are outlawed ‹ as is laughter. Members are allowed no
money, and are discouraged from communicating with outside
friends or family. Many have accused Stair of engaging in
numerous sexual liaisons with young women.
"He is very cunning, very artful and very practiced,"
Michael Rowland, a former follower, told the Intelligence
Report. "What he does is use the Bible for his springboard,
which is a great tool, a very powerful tool to back him
up."
---------------------------------------
Y'all come now, yeh hear?
Gray Shockley
--------------------------
Vicksburg, MS US
.
|
|
|
| User: "Curly Surmudgeon" |
|
| Title: re: Welcome To The Christian Exodus |
13 Jun 2005 12:17:46 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 18:50:23 -0500, Gray Shockley wrote:
anonymous poster whimpered:
: and what does South Carolina think of all this ? ........ Do you think
: the people there are going to accept you ?
And on Sun, 12 Jun 2005 13:05, buckeye-ELO wrote:
Accept me?
Why would they accept me, I'm not going there.
As well you might want to avoid South Carolina.
Fer instance:
---------------------------------------
<http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=
36&printable=1>
Extremist Cults
Gay-bashing preacher hit with sex charges
The worst part of this is that "mainstream" religionists refuse to
denounce the con artists who use their 'Good Book" to defraud the infirm,
elderly and mentally handicapped. This allows the Bennie Hinds, Gene
Scotts, and Paul Crouches of the world carte blanc to screw those who can
least afford the loss.
But permitting their religion to be used for fraud all christians who
remain silent, from church-goer to the Pope, share the guilt.
-- Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://curlysurmudgeon.com/weird/political/bushle.gif
------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gray Shockley" |
|
| Title: Re: WELCOME TO THE CHRISTIAN EXODUS |
11 Jun 2005 09:03:21 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 12:04:59 -0500, GoDrex wrote
<buckeye-ELO@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:mjola1tu73pla8el2s2flocskj46tut59q@4ax.com...
http://www.christianexodus.org/index.php?module=PostWrap&page=home
WELCOME TO THE CHRISTIAN EXODUS
it's too bad they can't go to mars or something
That would - under galactic law - be littering.
Punishable by up to 50 zareoosters and/or 12.23987 zalacks.
You have been warned.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rich Travsky " |
|
| Title: Re: WELCOME TO THE CHRISTIAN EXODUS |
12 Jun 2005 11:50:18 PM |
|
|
Gray Shockley wrote:
On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 12:04:59 -0500, GoDrex wrote
<buckeye-ELO@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:mjola1tu73pla8el2s2flocskj46tut59q@4ax.com...
http://www.christianexodus.org/index.php?module=PostWrap&page=home
WELCOME TO THE CHRISTIAN EXODUS
it's too bad they can't go to mars or something
That would - under galactic law - be littering.
Punishable by up to 50 zareoosters and/or 12.23987 zalacks.
You have been warned.
It's probably considered littering in South Carolina too.
RT
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jimmy B." |
|
| Title: Re: WELCOME TO THE CHRISTIAN EXODUS |
12 Jun 2005 02:45:31 PM |
|
|
wrote:
http://www.christianexodus.org/index.php?module=PostWrap&page=home
WELCOME TO THE CHRISTIAN EXODUS
ChristianExodus.org is moving thousands of Christians to South
Carolina to reestablish constitutionally limited government founded
Sucks to be South Carolina.
upon Christian principles. This includes the return to South Carolina
of all "powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,
nor prohibited by it to the States." 1 It is evident that the U.S.
Constitution has been abandoned under our current federal system, and
the efforts of Christian activism to restore our Godly republic have
proven futile over the past three decades. The time has come for
Christian Constitutionalists to protect our American principles in a
State like South Carolina by interposing the State's sovereign
authority retained under the 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
THE PROBLEM
Christians have actively tried to return the United States to their
moral foundations for more than 30 years. We now have a professing
Christian president, a Republican Congress and a Republican Supreme
Court. Yet consider this:
* Abortion continues against the wishes of many States
* Sodomite and lesbian "marriage" is now legal in Massachusetts
(and coming soon to a neighborhood near you)
* Children who pray in public schools are subject to prosecution 1
* Our schools continue to teach the discredited theory of
Darwinian evolution
* The Bible is still not welcome in schools except under
unconstitutional FEDERAL guidelines
* The 10 Commandments remain banned from public display
* Sodomy is now legal AND celebrated as "diversity" rather than
condemned as perversion
* Preaching Christianity will soon be outlawed as "hate speech" 1 2 3
Attempts at reform have proven futile. Future elections will not stop
the above atrocities, but rather will lead us down an even more deadly
path because both national parties routinely disobey the U.S.
Constitution.
THE SOLUTION
So what can be done? ChristianExodus.org offers the opportunity to try
a strategy not yet employed by Bible-believing Christians. Rather than
spend resources in continued efforts to redirect the entire nation, we
will redeem States one at a time. Millions of Christian conservatives
are geographically spread out and diluted at the national level.
Therefore, we must concentrate our numbers in a geographical region
with a sovereign government we can influence through the electoral
process.
ChristianExodus.org is orchestrating the move of thousands of
Christians to reacquire our Constitutional rights by electing State
and local officials who will interpose on behalf of the people and
refuse to enforce illegal federal acts. Click on our Plan of Action
page to find out how we can experience God-honoring governance once again.
If you are tired of government-endorsed sin, then stand up and be
counted! Join us
******************************************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and the discussion group for the above site listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members]
***************************************************************
. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
. . .
****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
"Dedicated to combatting 'history by sound bite'."
Now including a re-publication of Tom Peters
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE HOME PAGE
and
Audio links to Supreme Court oral arguments and
Speech by civil rights/constitutional lawyer and others.
This site is a member of the following web rings:
Freethought Ring--&--Freethought, Religion & Beliefs Ring
The First Amendment Ring--&--The Church-State Ring
American History WebRing--&--The History Ring
Let Freedom Ring--&--Religious Freedom Ring
Law Issues Ring--&--Legal Research Ring
****************************************************************
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: WELCOME TO THE CHRISTIAN EXODUS |
11 Jun 2005 03:47:22 PM |
|
|
wrote:
http://www.christianexodus.org/index.php?module=PostWrap&page=home
WELCOME TO THE CHRISTIAN EXODUS
ChristianExodus.org is moving thousands of Christians to South
Carolina to reestablish constitutionally limited government founded
upon Christian principles. This includes the return to South Carolina
of all "powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,
nor prohibited by it to the States." 1 It is evident that the U.S.
Constitution has been abandoned under our current federal system, and
the efforts of Christian activism to restore our Godly republic have
proven futile over the past three decades. The time has come for
Christian Constitutionalists to protect our American principles in a
State like South Carolina by interposing the State's sovereign
authority retained under the 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
I always thought Abraham should have had his ***** kicked for trying
to bring the assheads in the Confederacy back into the Unites States.
He should have let them float out to sea and drown in their own
red-neck ignorance.
****************************
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gray Shockley" |
|
| Title: Re: WELCOME TO THE CHRISTIAN EXODUS |
12 Jun 2005 12:23:32 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 08:09:14 -0500, buckeye quoted:
http://www.christianexodus.org/index.php?module=PostWrap&pa
ge=home
WELCOME TO THE CHRISTIAN EXODUS
ChristianExodus.org is moving thousands of Christians to
South Carolina to reestablish constitutionally limited
government founded upon Christian principles. This
includes the return to South Carolina of all "powers not
delegated to the United States by the Constitution,
nor prohibited by it to the States." 1 It is evident that
the U.S. Constitution has been abandoned under our current
federal system, and the efforts of Christian activism to
restore our Godly republic have proven futile over the
past three decades. The time has come for Christian
Constitutionalists to protect our American principles in a
State like South Carolina by interposing the State's
sovereign authority retained under the 10th Amendment of
the U.S. Constitution.
THE PROBLEM
Christians have actively tried to return the United States
to their moral foundations for more than 30 years. We now
have a professing Christian president, a Republican
Congress and a Republican Supreme Court. Yet consider
this:
We are not allowed to stone Muslims to death.
We are not allowed to stone AmerInds to death.
We are not allowed to stone Jews to death.
We are not allowed to stone male homosexuals to death.
We are not allowed to stone female homosexuals to death.
We are not allowed to stone Episcopalians to death.
We are not allowed to stone Methodists to death.
We are not allowed to stone politicians with whom we
disagree to death.
We are not allowed to stone niggers to death.
We are not allowed to stone slant-eyes to death.
We are not allowed to stone merchants who don't contribute
enough to death.
We are not allowed to stone police who don't carry out our
god-given morality to death.
We are not allowed to stone firemen who rescue "those
people" to death.
We are not allowed to stone military who won't kill the
people we say to kill to death.
We are not allowed to stone owners of companies that hire
non-our people to death.
We are not allowed to stone women who have had sex with men
(or their husbands) to death.
We are not allowed to stone non-virgins to death.
We are not allowed to stone college professors (who aren't
on "our list") to death.
We are not allowed to stone people without our "special
mark" to death.
We are not allowed to stone everybody who works for
Wal*Mart on Sunday (and Saturday) to death.
We are not allowed to stone parents who send their children
to public schools to death.
We are not allowed to stone children who attend public
schools to death.
We are not allowed to stone politicians with whom we
disagree to death.
We are not allowed to stone people we don't like to death.
We are not allowed to stone people who we used to like but
don't anymore to death.
We are not allowed to stone to death people who give any of
us dirty looks.
We are not allowed to stone people in states we don't like
to death.
We are not allowed to stone Ayn Randists to death even
though they're Goddamned atheists.
We are not allowed to stone people who go to plays to
death.
We are not allowed to stone people who go to movies unless
it is a Mel Gibson movie about either Jesus or exploding
toilets to death.
We are not allowed to stone people who get stoned to death.
We are not allowed to stone people who, publicly, buy
alcoholic beverages to death.
We are not allowed to stone Presbyterians - even when
they're uppidy - to death.
We are not allowed to stone left-wing communists like the
Ku Klux Klan to death.
We are not allowed to stone the entire families of people
that appear suspicious to death.
And all the XPians like me who are being punished for our
faith are going to hold our breath and jump up and down and
when we die, you'll all be sorry.
So there!
It'll all be your fault!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Info Junkie" |
|
| Title: Re: WELCOME TO THE CHRISTIAN EXODUS |
11 Jun 2005 08:59:08 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 09:09:14 -0400, wrote:
"snip"
THE SOLUTION
So what can be done? ChristianExodus.org offers the opportunity to try
a strategy not yet employed by Bible-believing Christians. Rather than
spend resources in continued efforts to redirect the entire nation, we
will redeem States one at a time. Millions of Christian conservatives
are geographically spread out and diluted at the national level.
Therefore, we must concentrate our numbers in a geographical region
with a sovereign government we can influence through the electoral
process.
ChristianExodus.org is orchestrating the move of thousands of
Christians to reacquire our Constitutional rights by electing State
and local officials who will interpose on behalf of the people and
refuse to enforce illegal federal acts. Click on our Plan of Action
page to find out how we can experience God-honoring governance once again.
If you are tired of government-endorsed sin, then stand up and be
counted! Join us
One may reasonably conclude then neither you nor those with a similar mindset
wrt "seperation of church and state" won't be supporting Senator Hilary Rodham
Clinton in her 2008 bid for the Presidency?
Especially since, "In a speech at a fund-raising dinner for a Boston-based
organization that promotes faith-based solutions to social problems, (Senator
Hillary Rodham) Clinton said there has been a "false division" between
faith-based approaches to social problems and respect for the separation of
church of state.
"There is no contradiction between support for faith-based initiatives and
upholding our constitutional principles," said Clinton, a New York Democrat who
often is mentioned as a possible presidential candidate in 2008."
(http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2005/01/20/sen_clinton_urges_use_of_faith_based_initiatives?mode=PF)
ROTFLMHO
"...every person must be his own watchman for truth... -Justice Jackson
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: WELCOME TO THE CHRISTIAN EXODUS |
15 Jun 2005 02:21:11 PM |
|
|
(Info Junkie) wrote:
:|On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 09:09:14 -0400, wrote:
:|
:|"snip"
:|
:|>THE SOLUTION
:|>
:|>So what can be done? ChristianExodus.org offers the opportunity to try
:|>a strategy not yet employed by Bible-believing Christians. Rather than
:|>spend resources in continued efforts to redirect the entire nation, we
:|>will redeem States one at a time. Millions of Christian conservatives
:|>are geographically spread out and diluted at the national level.
:|>Therefore, we must concentrate our numbers in a geographical region
:|>with a sovereign government we can influence through the electoral
:|>process.
:|>
:|>ChristianExodus.org is orchestrating the move of thousands of
:|>Christians to reacquire our Constitutional rights by electing State
:|>and local officials who will interpose on behalf of the people and
:|>refuse to enforce illegal federal acts. Click on our Plan of Action
:|>page to find out how we can experience God-honoring governance once again.
:|>
:|>If you are tired of government-endorsed sin, then stand up and be
:|>counted! Join us
:|
:|One may reasonably conclude then neither you nor those with a similar mindset
:|wrt "seperation of church and state" won't be supporting Senator Hilary Rodham
:|Clinton in her 2008 bid for the Presidency?
The above wasn't about Clinton, he or her, or the 2008 elections.
Now, do you have anything to say about the above?
No?
Ahhhh, well.
It would be hard to find some grounds to defend those kooks even for you.
You are invited to check out the following:
{an offer which you, of course, would never accept, you might get
embarrassed]
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and the discussion group for the above site listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members]
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
"Dedicated to combatting 'history by sound bite'."
Now including a re-publication of Tom Peters
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE HOME PAGE
and
Audio links to Supreme Court oral arguments and
Speech by civil rights/constitutional lawyer and others.
This site is a member of the following web rings:
Freethought Ring--&--Freethought, Religion & Beliefs Ring
The First Amendment Ring--&--The Church-State Ring
American History WebRing--&--The History Ring
Let Freedom Ring--&--Religious Freedom Ring
Law Issues Ring--&--Legal Research Ring
****************************************************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "Info Junkie" |
|
| Title: Re: WELCOME TO THE CHRISTIAN EXODUS |
16 Jun 2005 10:52:00 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 15:21:11 -0400, wrote:
bondrock@ifx.net (Info Junkie) wrote:
:|On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 09:09:14 -0400, wrote:
:|
:|"snip"
:|
:|>THE SOLUTION
:|>
:|>So what can be done? ChristianExodus.org offers the opportunity to try
:|>a strategy not yet employed by Bible-believing Christians. Rather than
:|>spend resources in continued efforts to redirect the entire nation, we
:|>will redeem States one at a time. Millions of Christian conservatives
:|>are geographically spread out and diluted at the national level.
:|>Therefore, we must concentrate our numbers in a geographical region
:|>with a sovereign government we can influence through the electoral
:|>process.
:|>
:|>ChristianExodus.org is orchestrating the move of thousands of
:|>Christians to reacquire our Constitutional rights by electing State
:|>and local officials who will interpose on behalf of the people and
:|>refuse to enforce illegal federal acts. Click on our Plan of Action
:|>page to find out how we can experience God-honoring governance once again.
:|>
:|>If you are tired of government-endorsed sin, then stand up and be
:|>counted! Join us
:|
:|One may reasonably conclude then neither you nor those with a similar mindset
:|wrt "seperation of church and state" won't be supporting Senator Hilary Rodham
:|Clinton in her 2008 bid for the Presidency?
The above wasn't about Clinton, he or her, or the 2008 elections.
When read in context Mr buckeye (alias jalison), comprehension becomes clearer.
Based on your obsession wrt the issue of "separation of church and state", one
may conclude that based on her comments, you would not support Senator Clinton
should she decide to run for the office of President of the US....unless of
course, you prefer to be a hypocrite and invoke double-standards. Her comments
and potential candidacy would involved all states, South Carolina included.
Now, do you have anything to say about the above?
I did, you avoided the question.
No?
Strange you would ask and answer a question posed for me in the same post. This
is Usenet, not a chat room.
Ahhhh, well.
It would be hard to find some grounds to defend those kooks even for you.
It would appear Mr buckeye (alias jalison) that *I*, unlike you, would defend
the "ground" that you are free to post in Usenet...whether we agreed on any
issue or not.
You are invited to check out the following:
{an offer which you, of course, would never accept, you might get
embarrassed]
I'm not the one that should be embarassed about a website that promotes only one
side of an emotional issue.
"...every person must be his own watchman for truth... -Justice Jackson
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: WELCOME TO THE CHRISTIAN EXODUS |
19 Jun 2005 11:50:38 AM |
|
|
For Junkie
You are invited to check out the following:
{an offer which you, of course, would never accept, you might get
embarrassed]
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and the discussion group for the above site listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members]
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
"Dedicated to combatting 'history by sound bite'."
Now including a re-publication of Tom Peters
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE HOME PAGE
and
Audio links to Supreme Court oral arguments and
Speech by civil rights/constitutional lawyer and others.
This site is a member of the following web rings:
Freethought Ring--&--Freethought, Religion & Beliefs Ring
The First Amendment Ring--&--The Church-State Ring
American History WebRing--&--The History Ring
Let Freedom Ring--&--Religious Freedom Ring
Law Issues Ring--&--Legal Research Ring
****************************************************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "Info Junkie" |
|
| Title: Re: WELCOME TO THE CHRISTIAN EXODUS |
19 Jun 2005 01:56:07 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 12:50:38 -0400, wrote:
For Junkie
You are invited to check out the following:
{an offer which you, of course, would never accept, you might get
embarrassed]
Once again you've attempted to avoid (ducked) the question/comment. So for
clarification and the final request Mr buckeye (alias jalison):
A.: NG readers may reasonably conclude that based on a speech Senator Clinton
made in Boston (URL below), you Mr buckeye (alias jalison) would not support her
candidacy should she announce her intention to run for the office of President
of the United States?
This is to request clarification that based on your obsession of support and
endorsement for the "separation of Church and State", and on the basis of
Senator Clinton's speech where she stated: "There is no contradiction between
support for faith-based initiatives and upholding our constitutional
principles", you would not support her candidacy for President of the United
States.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2005/01/20/sen_clinton_urges_use_of_faith_based_initiatives?mode=PF
Failure to answer the question as asked may allow NG readers to arrive at
another conclusion...about you Mr buckeye (alias jalison):
Should you Mr buckeye (alias jalison), promote, support, endorse or favor (in
writing, financially, personally or through another organization) the candidacy
of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton for United States President, you would be
validating your stated beliefs regarding the promotion, suport, and endorsement
for the separation of Church and State are but a smoke-screen*, and you've
validated your intention to implement a double standard**; one standard for
leftist-liberals and a different standard for conservatives; i.e. a hypocrite.
Pick one Mr buckeye (alias jalison).
*For clarification:
"Smoke screen 2 : something designed to obscure, confuse, or mislead"
(http://www.m-w.com)
"Double Standard:
2 : a set of principles that applies differently and usually more
rigorously to one group of people or circumstances than to another;
(http://ww.m-w.com)
B. I'm not the one that should be embarassed about a website that promotes only
one side of an emotional issue.
"...every person must be his own watchman for truth... -Justice Jackson
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: WELCOME TO THE CHRISTIAN EXODUS |
22 Jun 2005 01:18:15 PM |
|
|
(Info Junkie) wrote:
:|On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 12:50:38 -0400, wrote:
:|
:|>For Junkie
:|>
:|>
:|>You are invited to check out the following:
:|>{an offer which you, of course, would never accept, you might get
:|>embarrassed]
:|
:|Once again you've attempted to avoid (ducked) the question/comment. So for
:|clarification and the final request
Whine, whimper bawll
Hey Junkie
You want answers to questions I have a suggestion come on over the join
here. You might find the very answers you seek (grin) (I suspect you
might find even more things you didn't seek.
You are invited to check out the following:
{an offer which you, of course, would never accept, you might get
embarrassed]
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and the discussion group for the above site listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
:|B. I'm not the one that should be embarassed about a website that promotes only
:|one side of an emotional issue.
If you think there is only one side presented on the Con Principle website,
you:
(1) have never bothered to actually read very much, if anything on it,
(2) have a reading comprehension problem
(3) are a fool
(4) are a liar
(5) are living up to your jerk game playing dishonest M.O.
I know #3-5 are true, I suspect there is might be at least a kernel of
truth to #1 & 2 as well.
But since you brought this up I assume, you being all fair and honest (NOT)
I can expect to see comments in posts and replies of yours where you are
taking other to task for actually having one sided web sites.
Would you like an email address for David Barton so you can email him
complaining about his very one sided website?
That would apply to all the other radical religious right websites too.
Want email addresses for them and how about those authors who only present
their position? What are you going to do about them?
Sorry, junkie ( AKA JERK), our website doesn't qualify as being only one
sided.
Ahem, I suspect a Yahoo Group is not technically considered to be a
website.
The yahoo group has people on it that would spank you in a big hurry
You would get booted in hurry anyways since there are rules there against
some of the tactics you use.
I am quite proud of the Con Principle website. On top of that it has been
very successful and seems to bother you since you tend to mention it far
more than most people I spank do.
It has accomplished more than your feeble efforts on here have ever
produced or accomplished as facts can document.
The Yahoo group is fun and interesting and has a potential for
accomplishing some interesting things as well
Why shucks, it even has a couple celebrities in church state circles as
members.
You are invited to check out the following:
{an offer which you, of course, would never accept, you might get
embarrassed]
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and the discussion group for the above site listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members]
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
"Dedicated to combatting 'history by sound bite'."
Now including a re-publication of Tom Peters
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE HOME PAGE
and
Audio links to Supreme Court oral arguments and
Speech by civil rights/constitutional lawyer and others.
This site is a member of the following web rings:
Freethought Ring--&--Freethought, Religion & Beliefs Ring
The First Amendment Ring--&--The Church-State Ring
American History WebRing--&--The History Ring
Let Freedom Ring--&--Religious Freedom Ring
Law Issues Ring--&--Legal Research Ring
****************************************************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "Info Junkie" |
|
| Title: Re: WELCOME TO THE CHRISTIAN EXODUS |
25 Jun 2005 07:40:18 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 14:18:15 -0400, wrote:
bondrock@ifx.net (Info Junkie) wrote:
:|On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 12:50:38 -0400, wrote:
:|
:|>For Junkie
:|>
:|>
:|>You are invited to check out the following:
:|>{an offer which you, of course, would never accept, you might get
:|>embarrassed]
:|
:|Once again you've attempted to avoid (ducked) the question/comment. So for
:|clarification and the final request
Whine, whimper bawll
IOW, you've no interest in answering the question as asked. Understood.
Hey Junkie
You want answers to questions I have a suggestion come on over the join
here. You might find the very answers you seek (grin) (I suspect you
might find even more things you didn't seek.
Over where? I'm in Usenet, primarily the alt.politics.usa.constitution NG and
have been for a long time. I've no interest in the religious matter vs the
constitution if it pertains to a website that clearly states it's intent in it's
very name.
"snip" that which was already addressed..
"...every person must be his own watchman for truth... -Justice Jackson
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: WELCOME TO THE CHRISTIAN EXODUS |
18 Jul 2005 09:50:43 AM |
|
|
(Info Junkie) wrote:
:|On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 12:50:38 -0400, wrote:
:|
:|>For Junkie
:|>
:|>
:|>You are invited to check out the following:
:|>{an offer which you, of course, would never accept, you might get
:|>embarrassed]
:|
:|Once again you've attempted to avoid (ducked) the question/comment. So for
:|clarification and the final request
Whine, whimper bawll
Hey Junkie
You want answers to questions I have a suggestion come on over the join
here. You might find the very answers you seek (grin) (I suspect you
might find even more things you didn't seek.
You are invited to check out the following:
{an offer which you, of course, would never accept, you might get
embarrassed]
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and the discussion group for the above site listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
:|B. I'm not the one that should be embarassed about a website that promotes only
:|one side of an emotional issue.
If you think there is only one side presented on the Con Principle website,
you:
(1) have never bothered to actually read very much, if anything on it,
(2) have a reading comprehension problem
(3) are a fool
(4) are a liar
(5) are living up to your jerk game playing dishonest M.O.
I know #3-5 are true, I suspect there is might be at least a kernel of
truth to #1 & 2 as well.
But since you brought this up I assume, you being all fair and honest (NOT)
I can expect to see comments in posts and replies of yours where you are
taking other to task for actually having one sided web sites.
Would you like an email address for David Barton so you can email him
complaining about his very one sided website?
That would apply to all the other radical religious right websites too.
Want email addresses for them and how about those authors who only present
their position? What are you going to do about them?
Sorry, junkie ( AKA JERK), our website doesn't qualify as being only one
sided.
Ahem, I suspect a Yahoo Group is not technically considered to be a
website.
The yahoo group has people on it that would spank you in a big hurry
You would get booted in hurry anyways since there are rules there against
some of the tactics you use.
I am quite proud of the Con Principle website. On top of that it has been
very successful and seems to bother you since you tend to mention it far
more than most people I spank do.
It has accomplished more than your feeble efforts on here have ever
produced or accomplished as facts can document.
The Yahoo group is fun and interesting and has a potential for
accomplishing some interesting things as well
Why shucks, it even has a couple celebrities in church state circles as
members.
You are invited to check out the following:
{an offer which you, of course, would never accept, you might get
embarrassed]
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and the discussion group for the above site listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members]
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
"Dedicated to combatting 'history by sound bite'."
Now including a re-publication of Tom Peters
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE HOME PAGE
and
Audio links to Supreme Court oral arguments and
Speech by civil rights/constitutional lawyer and others.
This site is a member of the following web rings:
Freethought Ring--&--Freethought, Religion & Beliefs Ring
The First Amendment Ring--&--The Church-State Ring
American History WebRing--&--The History Ring
Let Freedom Ring--&--Religious Freedom Ring
Law Issues Ring--&--Legal Research Ring
****************************************************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "Info Junkie" |
|
| Title: Re: WELCOME TO THE CHRISTIAN EXODUS |
22 Jul 2005 07:44:47 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 10:50:43 -0400, wrote:
bondrock@ifx.net (Info Junkie) wrote:
:|On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 12:50:38 -0400, wrote:
:|
:|>For Junkie
:|>
:|>
:|>You are invited to check out the following:
:|>{an offer which you, of course, would never accept, you might get
:|>embarrassed]
:|
:|Once again you've attempted to avoid (ducked) the question/comment. So for
:|clarification and the final request
Whine, whimper bawll
Hey Junkie
You want answers to questions I have a suggestion come on over the join
here. You might find the very answers you seek (grin) (I suspect you
might find even more things you didn't seek.
You are invited to check out the following:
{an offer which you, of course, would never accept, you might get
embarrassed]
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and the discussion group for the above site listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
:|B. I'm not the one that should be embarassed about a website that promotes only
:|one side of an emotional issue.
If you think there is only one side presented on the Con Principle website,
you:
(1) have never bothered to actually read very much, if anything on it,
(2) have a reading comprehension problem
(3) are a fool
(4) are a liar
(5) are living up to your jerk game playing dishonest M.O.
I know #3-5 are true, I suspect there is might be at least a kernel of
truth to #1 & 2 as well.
But since you brought this up I assume, you being all fair and honest (NOT)
I can expect to see comments in posts and replies of yours where you are
taking other to task for actually having one sided web sites.
Would you like an email address for David Barton so you can email him
complaining about his very one sided website?
That would apply to all the other radical religious right websites too.
Want email addresses for them and how about those authors who only present
their position? What are you going to do about them?
Sorry, junkie ( AKA JERK), our website doesn't qualify as being only one
sided.
Ahem, I suspect a Yahoo Group is not technically considered to be a
website.
The yahoo group has people on it that would spank you in a big hurry
You would get booted in hurry anyways since there are rules there against
some of the tactics you use.
I am quite proud of the Con Principle website. On top of that it has been
very successful and seems to bother you since you tend to mention it far
more than most people I spank do.
It has accomplished more than your feeble efforts on here have ever
produced or accomplished as facts can document.
The Yahoo group is fun and interesting and has a potential for
accomplishing some interesting things as well
Why shucks, it even has a couple celebrities in church state circles as
members.
You are invited to check out the following:
{an offer which you, of course, would never accept, you might get
embarrassed]
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and the discussion group for the above site listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members]
Why would you resend the exact same post I addressed in Message-ID:
<42bd4946.5867284@news.ifx.net>? Slow day Mr buckeye (alias jalison)?
"...every person must be his own watchman for truth... -Justice Jackson
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: WELCOME TO THE CHRISTIAN EXODUS |
19 Jun 2005 03:22:19 PM |
|
|
(Info Junkie) wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 12:50:38 -0400, wrote:
You are invited to check out the following:
{an offer which you, of course, would never accept, you might get
embarrassed]
Once again you've attempted to avoid (ducked) the question/comment. So for
clarification and the final request Mr buckeye (alias jalison):
A.: NG readers may reasonably conclude that based on a speech Senator Clinton
made in Boston (URL below), you Mr buckeye (alias jalison) would not support her
candidacy should she announce her intention to run for the office of President
of the United States?
That would presume that
a) one would conclude anything at all based on one speech by a
politician
b) that most people would determine which candidate they support based
on one speech by a politician
c) that the position of a candidate on one facet of one issue is
sufficient to determine support or non-support, regardless of the
positions of the other candidates.
I wouldn't consider any of these to be reasonable. But jerks like you
undoubtedly do, so there is no telling for taste.
*For clarification:
"Smoke screen 2 : something designed to obscure, confuse, or mislead"
Key word "designed".
"Double Standard:
2 : a set of principles that applies differently and usually more
rigorously to one group of people or circumstances than to another;
What principle applies differently?
The principle of separation of church and state applies to all sides
and all candidates. However, all constitutional principles come into
collision with other principles under some circumstances. Thus,
relatively few people would suggest impeaching a president for
misusing his office to promote one particular religious view.
And how would this country survive if Jews or Moslems or atheists
could not vote for any Christian candidate, and Catholics could not
vote for a non-Catholic while non-Catholics could not vote for a
Catholic?
Is it a "double standard" to have a religious belief, and then to
support a candidate who has a different religious belief? If so, then
may this country be ruled by the "double standard" forever. And if
one can survive a "double standard" based on religious Truth, one can
certainly survive a double standard based on political opinions and
principles.
Jerk.
lojbab
--
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
.
|
|
|
| User: "Info Junkie" |
|
| Title: Re: WELCOME TO THE CHRISTIAN EXODUS |
19 Jun 2005 06:53:25 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 16:22:19 -0400, Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote:
bondrock@ifx.net (Info Junkie) wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 12:50:38 -0400, wrote:
You are invited to check out the following:
{an offer which you, of course, would never accept, you might get
embarrassed]
Once again you've attempted to avoid (ducked) the question/comment. So for
clarification and the final request Mr buckeye (alias jalison):
A.: NG readers may reasonably conclude that based on a speech Senator Clinton
made in Boston (URL below), you Mr buckeye (alias jalison) would not support her
candidacy should she announce her intention to run for the office of President
of the United States?
That would presume that
a) one would conclude anything at all based on one speech by a
politician
b) that most people would determine which candidate they support based
on one speech by a politician
c) that the position of a candidate on one facet of one issue is
sufficient to determine support or non-support, regardless of the
positions of the other candidates.
Which is why I stated (and you conveniently "snipped") my point to Mr buckeye
(alias jalison); "This is to request clarification that based on your obsession
of support and endorsement for the "separation of Church and State", and on the
basis of Senator Clinton's speech..."
| | | | | | | |