| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
12 Jul 2006 05:28:46 AM |
| Object: |
When did marriage become a Christian institution? |
http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_975.shtml
[excerpt]
When did marriage become a Christian institution?
By Jeff Nall, Online Journal Contributing Writer
Jul 10, 2006
Republicans are reaching into the God, Guns and Country bag of tricks
once again to molest the most ignorant and prejudice of American
minds. In an effort led by zealots on the religious right along with
Republicans desperate to survive President Bush's plunge at the
polls, House Republicans, fueled by their love of freedom, no doubt,
are poised to push the amendment to ban gay marriage to a vote the
week of July 17.
[end excerpt]
***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the US and a couple from overseas as well]
***************************************************************
.. . . 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)
.. . .
****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote
"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"
That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.
It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.
*****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
|
| User: "Jeff Strickland" |
|
| Title: Re: When did marriage become a Christian institution? |
12 Jul 2006 10:54:21 AM |
|
|
<buckeye-elo@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:lmj9b21hpfaeoa7h9j8d4ps33jgu0h9sdu@4ax.com...
http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_975.shtml
[excerpt]
When did marriage become a Christian institution?
By Jeff Nall, Online Journal Contributing Writer
Jul 10, 2006
The premise of the question is flawed. Marriage is not a Christian
institution, it is may well be a religious institution that all religions
recognize and encourage, but do not fool yourself that it is a Christian
institution. .
<snip rest>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: When did marriage become a Christian institution? |
12 Jul 2006 11:44:22 AM |
|
|
"Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com>
<buckeye-elo@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:lmj9b21hpfaeoa7h9j8d4ps33jgu0h9sdu@4ax.com...
http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_975.shtml
[excerpt]
When did marriage become a Christian institution?
By Jeff Nall, Online Journal Contributing Writer
Jul 10, 2006
The premise of the question is flawed. Marriage is not a Christian
institution, it is may well be a religious institution that all religions
recognize and encourage, but do not fool yourself that it is a Christian
institution. .
Actually, you are advised to avoid it if possible, aren't you?
Odd that not only do more than nine out of ten Christians
ignore that urging, many churches actually promote the
ideal of marriage.
Go figure...
-- cary
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Strickland" |
|
| Title: Re: When did marriage become a Christian institution? |
13 Jul 2006 01:50:55 PM |
|
|
"Cary Kittrell" <cary@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
news:e938t6$7qq$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
"Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com>
<buckeye-elo@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:lmj9b21hpfaeoa7h9j8d4ps33jgu0h9sdu@4ax.com...
http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_975.shtml
[excerpt]
When did marriage become a Christian institution?
By Jeff Nall, Online Journal Contributing Writer
Jul 10, 2006
The premise of the question is flawed. Marriage is not a Christian
institution, it is may well be a religious institution that all religions
recognize and encourage, but do not fool yourself that it is a Christian
institution. .
Actually, you are advised to avoid it if possible, aren't you?
Odd that not only do more than nine out of ten Christians
ignore that urging, many churches actually promote the
ideal of marriage.
Ignore what? Marriage?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: When did marriage become a Christian institution? |
13 Jul 2006 02:42:31 PM |
|
|
"Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com>
"Cary Kittrell" <cary@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
news:e938t6$7qq$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
"Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com>
<buckeye-elo@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:lmj9b21hpfaeoa7h9j8d4ps33jgu0h9sdu@4ax.com...
http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_975.shtml
[excerpt]
When did marriage become a Christian institution?
By Jeff Nall, Online Journal Contributing Writer
Jul 10, 2006
The premise of the question is flawed. Marriage is not a Christian
institution, it is may well be a religious institution that all religions
recognize and encourage, but do not fool yourself that it is a Christian
institution. .
Actually, you are advised to avoid it if possible, aren't you?
Odd that not only do more than nine out of ten Christians
ignore that urging, many churches actually promote the
ideal of marriage.
Ignore what?
The instruction in your Bible to avoid marriage if you
have sufficient character to keep it in your pants.
See First Corinthinas, chapter 7.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Strickland" |
|
| Title: Re: When did marriage become a Christian institution? |
13 Jul 2006 03:24:14 PM |
|
|
"Cary Kittrell" <cary@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
news:e967n7$t6k$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
"Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com>
"Cary Kittrell" <cary@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
news:e938t6$7qq$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
"Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com>
<buckeye-elo@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:lmj9b21hpfaeoa7h9j8d4ps33jgu0h9sdu@4ax.com...
http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_975.shtml
[excerpt]
When did marriage become a Christian institution?
By Jeff Nall, Online Journal Contributing Writer
Jul 10, 2006
The premise of the question is flawed. Marriage is not a Christian
institution, it is may well be a religious institution that all
religions
recognize and encourage, but do not fool yourself that it is a
Christian
institution. .
Actually, you are advised to avoid it if possible, aren't you?
Odd that not only do more than nine out of ten Christians
ignore that urging, many churches actually promote the
ideal of marriage.
Ignore what?
The instruction in your Bible to avoid marriage if you
have sufficient character to keep it in your pants.
See First Corinthinas, chapter 7.
That says to remain celebate OR to marry and remain married. It also says
marriage is between one man and one woman.
Jesus does not command us to remain single, he says we must remain single or
commit to one woman, or a woman to one man. Nowhere does it suggest that two
men or two women should marry, or that marriage should consist of multiple
partners.
But, all of this is beside the point of the OP, which suggests that marriage
is a uniquely Christian institution.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: When did marriage become a Christian institution? |
14 Jul 2006 08:38:06 AM |
|
|
"Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote:
:|But, all of this is beside the point of the OP, which suggests that marriage
:|is a uniquely Christian institution.
Here was the original post *****
buckeye-elo@nospam.net wrote:
http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_975.shtml
[excerpt]
When did marriage become a Christian institution?
By Jeff Nall, Online Journal Contributing Writer
Jul 10, 2006
Republicans are reaching into the God, Guns and Country bag of tricks
once again to molest the most ignorant and prejudice of American
minds. In an effort led by zealots on the religious right along with
Republicans desperate to survive President Bush's plunge at the
polls, House Republicans, fueled by their love of freedom, no doubt,
are poised to push the amendment to ban gay marriage to a vote the
week of July 17.
[end excerpt]
***************************************************************************
I excerpted that particular item for what it said.
You seem to have totally overlooked that and concentrated solely on the
title. Haven't you leantred yet that titles are frequently constructed to
attract attetion to them and thus the article.
Thus titles can exaggerate a bit.
I guess that has escaped you all thses years just like facts and truth
escape you.
It is equally obvious that you didn't read the actual article, but that is
par for the course for you.
Here is some more of the article
When did marriage become a Christian institution?
By Jeff Nall
Online Journal Contributing Writer
[excerpt again]
Jul 10, 2006, 00:35
Republicans are reaching into the God, Guns and Country bag of tricks once
again to molest the most ignorant and prejudice of American minds. In an
effort led by zealots on the religious right along with Republicans
desperate to survive President Bush’s plunge at the polls, House
Republicans, fueled by their love of freedom, no doubt, are poised to push
the amendment to ban gay marriage to a vote the week of July 17.
The effort comes just over a month after Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist
led a failed attempt to pass the amendment in June.
In an affront to the freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution, H. J. RES. 88
seeks to engrave discrimination and a prejudice for Fundamentalist
Christianity in the Constitution with these words:
`Section 2. Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union
of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of
any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal
incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man
and a woman.'.
The Federal Marriage Amendment, which, if passed, would be called the
`Marriage Protection Amendment,’ was first introduced in 2002 by Rep.
Marilyn Musgrave (R-CO) and Sen. Wayne Allard (R-CO) and again in 2004 when
it was defeated in the House and the Senate.
According to the Human Rights Campaign, a gay and lesbian civil rights
organization, the amendment “could forever invalidate civil unions or other
legal protections for same-sex couples, like the right to partner health
benefits or fair taxation upon the death of a partner -- even if state
legislatures passed them and voters approved them.”
Americans United for Separation of Church and State contends that the
amendment would “favor the marriage doctrines and rituals of some religious
groups over others.” AU executive director, Rev. Barry W. Lynn said the
proposed amendment “is a blatant attempt by conservative religious leaders
to enshrine their doctrines and marriage practices into the Constitution.”
[1]
[end excerpt again]
***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the US and a couple from overseas as well]
***************************************************************
.. . . 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)
.. . .
****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote
"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"
That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.
It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.
*****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: When did marriage become a Christian institution? |
18 Jul 2006 06:25:22 AM |
|
|
"Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote:
:|
:|A BASIC RULE OF WRITING is that the content of the article support the
:|Subject, i.e.; the TITLE.
Your unsubstantiated claim is noted.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ordinary or extraordinary claims require ordinary or extraordinary proof.
If you're going to claim something and especially something outlandish
you're going to need some pretty extraordinary and/or irrefutable proof to
back up such a claim. "Where's the beef?" Where's the ordinary or
extraordinary proof for their ordinary or extraordinary claims? If one is
not responding with ordinary or extraordinary, *factual* proof, then the
claim is not worth considering
----------------------------------------------------------------------
[ as Homer@nospam said]
Why is asking for "proof" considered truculence? Do you consider it
truculence for a judge to ask for evidence in a trial. Would you rather
that
people just testified that they believed in the guilt of the suspect?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
[as Gray Shockley said:]
Your "opinion" is not an adequate citation.
You forgot your citations.
Or, are your opinions more valid than facts?
You do realize, do you not?, that opinion without substantiation is just
propaganda for those without critical thinking abilities and originate with
those who are attempting to manipulate rather than those who are attempting
to clarify.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote
"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"
That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.
It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.
*****************************************************************
When did marriage become a Christian institution?
By Jeff Nall
Online Journal Contributing Writer
Jul 10, 2006, 00:35
Jeff Nall is a community activist and freelance writer. He regularly
contributes to publications such as Toward Freedom, the Humanist, and
Impact Press.
Jeff Nall is a writer who has had a number of articles published by various
publications.
Pardon me, what did you say your writing expertise and credentials are?
:|Your posting does not support the title, AND the title asserts that marriage
:|is as uniquely Christian institution.
Those who publish articles by Jeff Nall don't seem to have a problem with
how he constructs his articles.
BTW jeffy did you know that publishers often times suggest titles for
articles or in some instances put their onw title in?. You see publishers
are interested in getting the attention of the targeted audience. They
want to reach put and grab the audience and reel them in.
Edgar Allen Poe was famous for using his opening sentence to do that same
thing oftentimes.
One more time you insist on trying to defend/spin your original foot in
mouth blunder and probably once again failed to read the entire article.
Had you read the actual article from start to finish and had you had the
intelligence to comprehend what you were reading you would have actually
noticed that he does make the point that goes along with the title.
For example dippy think which religion seems to have its knickers in such
a bunch over this whole marriage thing.
Does that help you any dippy? Probably not, it requires thinking.
I am such a nice guy that I am going to try to help you out:
Some excerpts
#1
Republicans are reaching into the God, Guns and Country bag of tricks once
again to molest the most ignorant and prejudice of American minds. In an
effort led by zealots on the religious right along with Republicans
desperate to survive President Bush's plunge at the polls, House
Republicans, fueled by their love of freedom, no doubt, are poised to push
the amendment to ban gay marriage to a vote the week of July 17.
#2
In an affront to the freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution, H. J. RES. 88
seeks to engrave discrimination and a prejudice for Fundamentalist
Christianity in the Constitution with these words:
#3
Americans United for Separation of Church and State contends that the
amendment would “favor the marriage doctrines and rituals of some religious
groups over others.” AU executive director, Rev. Barry W. Lynn said the
proposed amendment “is a blatant attempt by conservative religious leaders
to enshrine their doctrines and marriage practices into the Constitution.”
#4
Beyond the hyperbole and absurdity of associating the love of two
consenting adults with bestiality and pedophilia, conservative Christian
pundits make it clear that their real intention is to protect what they see
as the specifically Christian nature of marriage and the family.
#5
As the Christian right ushers the so-called marriage protection amendment
to the Senate, vowing to valorously defend the sanctity of ‘Christian’
wedlock, we should all be asking: Is marriage really a Christian
institution? Are Christians really an authority on the sanctity of marriage
and the family?
#6
While Christianity is perceived as a kind of moral authority when it comes
to the family, it hasn’t always been this way. Early on, Romans felt that
Christians were the ones who threatened the fabric of the traditional
family. Conservative Romans like Celsus (ca.185) were disturbed by
Christian calls to renounce traditional religion, the Roman state, and the
traditional family.
#7
When it came to marriage, historian Edward Gibbon writes that early
Christians tolerated it as “a defect,” and exalted celibacy “as the nearest
approach to the divine perfection.”
#8
Researcher and writer Barbara Walker reports that “Origen declared,
‘Matrimony is impure and unholy, a means of sexual passion.’
#9
Today’s Christians exalt marriage and the family life as values anchored in
their faith’s tradition. But the historical reality is that early attitudes
among Christians about such things were very different than they are today.
#10
In the context of Christianity‘s historical rejection of the family life
and its advocacy of chastity, the religious right‘s crusade against gays
and lesbians, specifically the right to marriage and adoption, is highly
selective at best and absolutely groundless at worst.
#11
If Christian Fundamentalists succeed in passing the Marriage Protection
Amendment on grounds that a valid marriage must conform to Christian
tradition, non-Christians, secular and religious alike, will be left
wondering: when will my love, my marriage be outlawed?
Have you realized your blunder yet idiot?
:|
:|And, you've been drinking again -- as evidenced by several typos and
:|misspellings. .
Actually stupid I don't drink. That silly need seems to be yours.
I don't type, I hunt and peck, but that is compounded by being totally
blind in one eye and having varying visual acuity with the other eye One
day the vision in that eye might be 20/25 the next 20/80 or worse as a
result of Uvietus that goes into remission for a time then returns, etc,
and a ripening cataract
When I am in a hurry I don't always remember to spell check and even when i
do I still at times have trouble picking the correct spelling from the
list offered.
Get over it or deal with it dippy.
***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the US and a couple from overseas as well]
***************************************************************
.. . . 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)
.. . .
****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote
"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"
That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.
It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.
*****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: When did marriage become a Christian institution? |
14 Jul 2006 07:01:18 PM |
|
|
Jeff Strickland wrote:
So now you repeat the same assertion that marriage is somehow a uniquely
Christian experience,
He didn't do that.
and provide the same article as your source? You, or
the original author if you are not willing to take his position as your own,
are suggesting that rejection of gay marriage is also a uniquely Christian
experience.
Can't you read?
Great.
"Polls show that many Americans--32 percent, according to a November
2004 CBS News/New York Times survey--support civil unions which would
provide gay couples with many of the econonmic and legal benefits of
marriage. Add to that the 21 percent who support gay marriage, and it
suggests that a slim majority of the population favor legal
recognition for gay couples. That's an enormouse victory for gay
rights--after all, thirty years ago gay people were scarcely
acknowledged in public. (The American Psychiatric Association
classified homosexuality as a mental disorder until 1973.)"
"But this growing acceptance has led to a mounting militancy among the
significant minority of Americans who hate and fear homosexuality. As
a whole, America may be moving fitfully forward toward gay equality.
Beneath that aggregate progress, though, parts of the country are
veering in radically different directions. America's big cities and
some of its Northeastern states are increasingly making marriage or
something like it available to gay couples. That in turn has helped
turn gay people and their relationships into devil figures for the
Christian nationalist movement, which sets the agenda for much of the
Republican party. The headline of a 2004 Washington Post story about
the intensity of the fight called gay marriage "the new abortion."
p. 65, KINGDOM COMING, by Michelle Goldberg
To read reviews and to buy the book, see amazon.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: When did marriage become a Christian institution? |
14 Jul 2006 07:01:53 PM |
|
|
Jeff Strickland wrote:
So now you repeat the same assertion that marriage is somehow a uniquely
Christian experience,
He didn't do that.
and provide the same article as your source? You, or
the original author if you are not willing to take his position as your own,
are suggesting that rejection of gay marriage is also a uniquely Christian
experience.
Can't you read?
Great.
"Polls show that many Americans--32 percent, according to a November
2004 CBS News/New York Times survey--support civil unions which would
provide gay couples with many of the econonmic and legal benefits of
marriage. Add to that the 21 percent who support gay marriage, and it
suggests that a slim majority of the population favor legal
recognition for gay couples. That's an enormouse victory for gay
rights--after all, thirty years ago gay people were scarcely
acknowledged in public. (The American Psychiatric Association
classified homosexuality as a mental disorder until 1973.)"
"But this growing acceptance has led to a mounting militancy among the
significant minority of Americans who hate and fear homosexuality. As
a whole, America may be moving fitfully forward toward gay equality.
Beneath that aggregate progress, though, parts of the country are
veering in radically different directions. America's big cities and
some of its Northeastern states are increasingly making marriage or
something like it available to gay couples. That in turn has helped
turn gay people and their relationships into devil figures for the
Christian nationalist movement, which sets the agenda for much of the
Republican party. The headline of a 2004 Washington Post story about
the intensity of the fight called gay marriage "the new abortion."
p. 65, KINGDOM COMING, by Michelle Goldberg
To read reviews and to buy the book, see amazon.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: When did marriage become a Christian institution? |
17 Jul 2006 12:58:32 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 09:26:37 -0700, "Jeff Strickland"
<crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote:
A BASIC RULE OF WRITING is that the content of the article support the
Subject, i.e.; the TITLE.
So, when you cite biblical evidence in support of your
claims, we're supposed to accept them as fact?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Strickland" |
|
| Title: Re: click@knickolas.com's meds are wearing off |
17 Jul 2006 02:31:22 PM |
|
|
<CLICK@KNICKLAS.COM> wrote in message
news:8sjnb25hung0u37o8rpkic9mscokcjn98s@4ax.com...
On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 09:26:37 -0700, "Jeff Strickland"
<crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote:
A BASIC RULE OF WRITING is that the content of the article support the
Subject, i.e.; the TITLE.
So, when you cite biblical evidence in support of your
claims, we're supposed to accept them as fact?
When I post a Subject Line like that, then provide the message body like
this to support the subject line, then I observe the basic rules of writing.
Your comment makes no sense, and must be the result of a low dose of your
medication(s). I create a topic, then support it with fact. You might
dispute the facts, or provide another version of them, but my facts support
my claim, and that is the point.
Do you see how jalison posted some busllshit subject line, then used a
message body that is completely off topic?
No, I don't think you see that at all. Neither does he.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: click@knickolas.com's meds are wearing off |
18 Jul 2006 10:49:19 AM |
|
|
"Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote:
:|
:|<CLICK@KNICKLAS.COM> wrote in message
:|news:8sjnb25hung0u37o8rpkic9mscokcjn98s@4ax.com...
:|> On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 09:26:37 -0700, "Jeff Strickland"
:|> <crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote:
:|>
:|>
:|>>A BASIC RULE OF WRITING is that the content of the article support the
:|>>Subject, i.e.; the TITLE.
:|>
:|> So, when you cite biblical evidence in support of your
:|> claims, we're supposed to accept them as fact?
:|>
:|
:|When I post a Subject Line like that, then provide the message body like
:|this to support the subject line, then I observe the basic rules of writing.
:|Your comment makes no sense, and must be the result of a low dose of your
:|medication(s). I create a topic, then support it with fact.
LIAR
You never provide facts dude, only your unsubstantiated opinions
You also have a habit of making things up as you go along
That is exactly why people have said the following and much more about you
over the past couple years
Jeff Strickland displays his "intelligence and knowledge"
"Jeff Strickland" wrote:
:|But the Adams son was a child, or relative child, when the Adams father was
:|Prez.
ACTUAL FACTS:
John Adams 1735-1826.
President 1797-1801
John Q. Adams 1767-1848
President 1825-1829
J.Q. Adams was approx 30 years old when his father was elected president.
That hardly makes him a child or relative child
One more time jeffy dazzles us with his ignorance
********************************************************************
NOTE THE CONFUSION IN HIS OWN THINKING:
Not mandatory, but federal law permits, indeed it compels--or nearly
compels—
hehehehe
Jeffy strickland wrote
:|But reciting the Pledge is not a mandatory activity, the clients can opt out
:|of the daily exercise if they want to. Even Newdow's own daughter could opt
:|out, but he was not satisfied with that because she was still exposed to the
:|word, God coming from the other children.
:|
:|And Federal Law permits the recital of the Pledge, indeed it compels -- or
:|nearly compels -- the recital. State Education Code is attempting to follow
:|Federal Law in this regard.
ACTUAL FACTS:
Jeffy - I don't know sh*t about law - strickland messes up AGAIN
Ever hear of this before
http://66.34.103.193/ufc/Other/Gov-Religion/Pledge.htm
1943: The Supreme Court rules that students can not be forced to recite
the pledge. (West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette)
The USSC has also stated that "opting out, such as leaving the room, etc is
not acceptable.
************************************
Jeffy - I am "against" vouchers but I have offered every pro voucher
argument ever offered on the internet in voucher discussions for at least a
year to two years now - strickland
******************************************
[Jeffy had asked another]
Why do you feel the constant need to be nasty?
To you? Because you are an ignoramus who not only does not check his
facts, but posts endlessly repeating stuff that has been disproven
several times. You also seem to think that your unsupported opinion
is of interest to other people.
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier,
**********************************
[To that I add]
Jeff - I don't have a clue what I am talking about, but I am good at
pretending and making it up as I go along so don't confuse me with the
facts, my mind is made up. I stereotype and prejudge. It has always worked
well in the past, why change now - Strickland
**********
Jeffy -- maybe, I heard, but didn't bother to do any independent research,
[ He says it gives him a headache] I like to believe things I want to hear.
I don't like knowing the facts if they aren't going to agree with what I
want to believe and I especially love passing along on the internet, as
facts, things I haven't a clue about their accuracy -- Strickland )
*******************************
[To Jeff Strickland]
I find it "interesting" that you are so incredibly stupid that you totally
missed the citation to the _New York Times_.
You seem to have remembered to take your one-a-day stupid pills.
Gray Shockley
**********
"Jeff Strickland" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote:
I think I see more intolerance.
"Gray Shockley" <gray-87a@cybercoffee.org> wrote in message
Oh, no, no, no.
You neither "think" nor "see".
Is that better?
*******************************
"Jeff Strickland" wrote:
As far as I know, they did not lower the goals.
Since you don't know *anything*, that is unsurprising.
lojbab
*******************************
Jeff Strickland wrote:
I find it interesting that when Carol is unable to find the link, you ignore
the request for assistance. But, when I am unable to find the link (and
volunteer twice that I have looked), you jump in with a snide remark that
"the search was not too difficult," as though I am the idiot.
[Joni said]
I'm sorry. I didn't mean to imply you are an idiot. I meant to just
come right out and say you are an idiot.
**************************************
[another time Joni asked Jeffy]
Were you born this stupid or did you take a class?
**************************************
On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 14:12:45 -0500, Jeff Strickland wrote
The ACLU is not mentioned in this story, but I believe they have been
mentioned in other stories on the same topic with the same county. Perhaps I
am being a bit reactionary to point my boney fingers at the ACLU,
You don't mind that some of us consider you a pschopathetic liar, do you?
After all, you seem to create "facts" just like your spiritual
great-great-great-great-great grandfather, Richard "I'll ***** You" Cheney.
Are you so [drunk, stoned, Bushed, freaked out] that you even realize how
much - and how many - of your posts are lies?
Are you truly stupid or totally insane?
Gray Shockley
**************************************
[jeffy was asked]
Can you back this up with truthful citations or is this just more of your
"lies manufactured especially for any and all occasions by Jeffie
Strickland"?
Gray Shockley
Vicksburg, MS
**************************************
As you, Jeffie the Wack Strickland, are quite obviously the product of no
education whatsoever.
Gray Shockley
**************************************
[jeffy had said]
It is the mother that has custodial and full guardianship
rights of the child. Newdow has no rights relative to this child and her
rearing.
YOU STUPID FUCKING ILLITERATE MORON, READ WHAT YOU AGREED
WITH EARLIER! THE COURTS HAVE RULED THAT NONCUSTODIAL
PARENTS **DO** HAVE RIGHTS TO THE RELIGIOUS UPBRINGING
OF THEIR CHILDREN, YOU BRAIN-DAMAGED TURD!
Merlyn LeRoy
*********************************************************
Said to Jeff Strickland
Because you are clueless, seeing an objection when there is none, and
failing to understand the objection that I do have.
Aren't you again showing your cluelessness? Yes.
lojbab
********************************************************
[Larry Hewitt said to Jeff Strickland]
Seeing that you deleted my links to the US census and a current news
report
that both proved you to be factually incorrect, I conclude that you
acknowledge your failure and chose to try to lie your way out of your
defeat.
larry
[jeff replied ]
Those links show NOTHING relative to this discussion.
[Larry naidled jeff with]
So you deleted them because you were afraid I was making a fool of myself
in
public, and you wanted to shield me from that humiliation??
Nah, you're just a rightard liar.
Larry
*********************************************************
Jeff Strickland said
Attack the messenger, never the message. How many times have I seen this
before?
Lots. Because you're a stupid *****.
I'm not even saying this to be insulting. You really are genuinely stupid.
You enter legal discussions without having the slightest idea of the legal
issues involved, and you show no signs of being educable.
Merlyn LeRoy
**************************************************************
Strickland said
Your language demonstrates a certain level of education in itself.
No, it demonstrates that I don't suffer fools gladly.
You demonstrate that you can't reason well, because
using phrases like "stupid *****" indicates nothing about
the speaker's education level.
Merlyn LeRoy
----------------------------------------------------
strickland
Because I take a position opposite of yours? That's rich.
No, because you're obviously stupid, and ignorant of how the courts
work, yet that doesn't stop you from shooting your mouth off.
You really are an ignorant *****.
Merlyn LeRoy
----------------------------------------------------------------------
strickland
Yeah, "ignorant *****" is precise. Idiot.
Yes, for you, it is. You shoot your mouth off in complete ignorance.
Repeatedly. You're an "ignorant *****".
Merlyn LeRoy
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: click@knickolas.com's meds are wearing off |
18 Jul 2006 10:48:15 AM |
|
|
"Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote:
:|Do you see how jalison posted some busllshit subject line, then used a
:|message body that is completely off topic?
LIAR
This is one of your denial tricks
When you stick you foot in your mouth or ***** and get called on it you
resort to claiming people are posting off topic
Here is the bottom line to that game of yours
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pay particular attention to this one
[as Gray Shockley said:]
Your "opinion" is not an adequate citation.
You forgot your citations.
Or, are your opinions more valid than facts?
You do realize, do you not?, that opinion without substantiation is just
propaganda for those without critical thinking abilities and originate with
those who are attempting to manipulate rather than those who are attempting
to clarify.
---------------------------------------------------
Your unsubstantiated claim is noted.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ordinary or extraordinary claims require ordinary or extraordinary proof.
If you're going to claim something and especially something outlandish
you're going to need some pretty extraordinary and/or irrefutable proof to
back up such a claim. "Where's the beef?" Where's the ordinary or
extraordinary proof for their ordinary or extraordinary claims? If one is
not responding with ordinary or extraordinary, *factual* proof, then the
claim is not worth considering
----------------------------------------------------------------------
[ as Homer@nospam said]
Why is asking for "proof" considered truculence? Do you consider it
truculence for a judge to ask for evidence in a trial. Would you rather
that
people just testified that they believed in the guilt of the suspect?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
[as Gray Shockley said:]
Your "opinion" is not an adequate citation.
You forgot your citations.
Or, are your opinions more valid than facts?
You do realize, do you not?, that opinion without substantiation is just
propaganda for those without critical thinking abilities and originate with
those who are attempting to manipulate rather than those who are attempting
to clarify.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote
"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"
That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.
It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.
*****************************************************************
Now would you mind showing exactly how, where and why the following is off
topic
http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_975.shtml
[excerpt]
When did marriage become a Christian institution?
By Jeff Nall, Online Journal Contributing Writer
Jul 10, 2006
Jeff Nall is a community activist and freelance writer. He regularly
contributes to publications such as Toward Freedom, the Humanist, and
Impact Press.
Jeff Nall is a writer who has had a number of articles published by various
publications.
Pardon me, what did you say your writing expertise and credentials are?
:|Your posting does not support the title, AND the title asserts that marriage
:|is as uniquely Christian institution.
Those who publish articles by Jeff Nall don't seem to have a problem with
how he constructs his articles.
BTW jeffy did you know that publishers often times suggest titles for
articles or in some instances put their onw title in?. You see publishers
are interested in getting the attention of the targeted audience. They
want to reach put and grab the audience and reel them in.
Edgar Allen Poe was famous for using his opening sentence to do that same
thing oftentimes.
One more time you insist on trying to defend/spin your original foot in
mouth blunder and probably once again failed to read the entire article.
Had you read the actual article from start to finish and had you had the
intelligence to comprehend what you were reading you would have actually
noticed that he does make the point that goes along with the title.
For example dippy think which religion seems to have its knickers in such
a bunch over this whole marriage thing.
Does that help you any dippy? Probably not, it requires thinking.
I am such a nice guy that I am going to try to help you out:
Some excerpts
#1
Republicans are reaching into the God, Guns and Country bag of tricks once
again to molest the most ignorant and prejudice of American minds. In an
effort led by zealots on the religious right along with Republicans
desperate to survive President Bush's plunge at the polls, House
Republicans, fueled by their love of freedom, no doubt, are poised to push
the amendment to ban gay marriage to a vote the week of July 17.
#2
In an affront to the freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution, H. J. RES. 88
seeks to engrave discrimination and a prejudice for Fundamentalist
Christianity in the Constitution with these words:
#3
Americans United for Separation of Church and State contends that the
amendment would “favor the marriage doctrines and rituals of some religious
groups over others.” AU executive director, Rev. Barry W. Lynn said the
proposed amendment “is a blatant attempt by conservative religious leaders
to enshrine their doctrines and marriage practices into the Constitution.”
#4
Beyond the hyperbole and absurdity of associating the love of two
consenting adults with bestiality and pedophilia, conservative Christian
pundits make it clear that their real intention is to protect what they see
as the specifically Christian nature of marriage and the family.
#5
As the Christian right ushers the so-called marriage protection amendment
to the Senate, vowing to valorously defend the sanctity of ‘Christian’
wedlock, we should all be asking: Is marriage really a Christian
institution? Are Christians really an authority on the sanctity of marriage
and the family?
#6
While Christianity is perceived as a kind of moral authority when it comes
to the family, it hasn’t always been this way. Early on, Romans felt that
Christians were the ones who threatened the fabric of the traditional
family. Conservative Romans like Celsus (ca.185) were disturbed by
Christian calls to renounce traditional religion, the Roman state, and the
traditional family.
#7
When it came to marriage, historian Edward Gibbon writes that early
Christians tolerated it as “a defect,” and exalted celibacy “as the nearest
approach to the divine perfection.”
#8
Researcher and writer Barbara Walker reports that “Origen declared,
‘Matrimony is impure and unholy, a means of sexual passion.’
#9
Today’s Christians exalt marriage and the family life as values anchored in
their faith’s tradition. But the historical reality is that early attitudes
among Christians about such things were very different than they are today.
#10
In the context of Christianity‘s historical rejection of the family life
and its advocacy of chastity, the religious right‘s crusade against gays
and lesbians, specifically the right to marriage and adoption, is highly
selective at best and absolutely groundless at worst.
#11
If Christian Fundamentalists succeed in passing the Marriage Protection
Amendment on grounds that a valid marriage must conform to Christian
tradition, non-Christians, secular and religious alike, will be left
wondering: when will my love, my marriage be outlawed?
Have you realized your blunder yet idiot?
***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the US and a couple from overseas as well]
***************************************************************
.. . . 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)
.. . .
****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote
"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"
That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.
It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.
*****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Strickland" |
|
| Title: Re: click@knickolas.com's meds are wearing off |
18 Jul 2006 01:52:00 PM |
|
|
<jalison@cox.net> wrote in message
news:uj0qb2dun2e17ju9ve8ag7a87hhtlag5fi@4ax.com...
"Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote:
:|Do you see how jalison posted some busllshit subject line, then used a
:|message body that is completely off topic?
LIAR
Please allow me to clear things up.
The OP in this thread posted a Subject Line, "When did marriage become a
Christian institution?"
The OP then posted a Message Body that has no bearing whatsoever on the
Subject Line.
The OP is buckeye-elo@nospam.net, buckeye and jalison are one and the same
on different machines.
The OP posted some ***** subject line then used a message body that is
completely off topic. THEN he weakly attempted to support his practice with
the lame excuse that titles and writings do not have to be in synch with one
another. As a writer for going on 20 years, I am pretty sure that it is
customary for an author to come up with a title that his writing supports.
It does little good for a writer to come out with a title that purports THE
SKY IS FALLING, then write a story about good weather. If the sky really is
falling, then the story should say that. If the weather really is good, then
the title should say that.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: click@knickolas.com's meds are wearing off |
18 Jul 2006 11:09:25 PM |
|
|
"Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote:
<jalison@cox.net> wrote in message
news:uj0qb2dun2e17ju9ve8ag7a87hhtlag5fi@4ax.com...
"Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote:
:|Do you see how jalison posted some busllshit subject line, then used a
:|message body that is completely off topic?
LIAR
Please allow me to clear things up.
The OP in this thread posted a Subject Line, "When did marriage become a
Christian institution?"
Yes.
The OP then posted a Message Body that has no bearing whatsoever on the
Subject Line.
Liar. You obviously never read said message carefully.
jalison did things the PROPER way. Rather than quote an entire
article and violate copyright, he posted the URL (which I requote
below) and gave a brief excerpt. The subject line was the title of
the article on the page that he excerpted and gave the URL from. If
that title is inappropriate, you can complain to the author of the
article.
The OP posted some ***** subject line then used a message body that is
completely off topic.
Liar repeating the lie.
Go read the cited article.
http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_975.shtml
Lest you question that jalison included it, note the first line in his
message:
<buckeye-elo@nospam.net wrote:
<>http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_975.shtml
<>[excerpt]
<>When did marriage become a Christian institution?
<>By Jeff Nall, Online Journal Contributing Writer
<>Jul 10, 2006
<>
....
<>[end excerpt]
THEN he weakly attempted to support his practice with
the lame excuse that titles and writings do not have to be in synch with one
another.
Whether you like his excuse or not, the simple answer is TOUGH.
Usenet posts do not have to follow your rules.
As a writer for going on 20 years, I am pretty sure that it is
customary for an author to come up with a title that his writing supports.
Sorry, but Usenet follows its own rules and subject lines are not
"titles". If the author of the cited article used a poor title,
complain to the author, or perhaps the newspaper since headlines
aren't always chosen by the authors of an article (though I suspect
that it is more likely in the case of an op-ed piece like this.
jalison did nothing wrong unless you have a problem with the excessive
crosspost (and if you do, jalison will disagree, and you lose the
impasse. You have ZERO standing as a net.cop, and screwing this one
up just makes you look sillier.).
How much should I bet that you won't apologize to jalison for lying
about his post.
lojbab
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Strickland" |
|
| Title: Re: click@knickolas.com's meds are wearing off |
19 Jul 2006 11:27:56 AM |
|
|
"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote in message
news:2bbrb2pa32p8lua7f2ers56rof6f29e0id@4ax.com...
"Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote:
<jalison@cox.net> wrote in message
news:uj0qb2dun2e17ju9ve8ag7a87hhtlag5fi@4ax.com...
"Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote:
:|Do you see how jalison posted some busllshit subject line, then used a
:|message body that is completely off topic?
LIAR
Please allow me to clear things up.
The OP in this thread posted a Subject Line, "When did marriage become a
Christian institution?"
Yes.
The OP then posted a Message Body that has no bearing whatsoever on the
Subject Line.
Liar. You obviously never read said message carefully.
I did read it. The inferrence is that marriage is somehow uniquely
Christian, and that the institution of marriage has changed in favor of
Christians. I maintian that marriage is not uniquely Christian at all, and
if the instutution of marriage has changed, it is a change that is counter
to the Christian experience.
Given both of these points -- neither of which is addressed in the OPs
Message Body -- it is my opinion that the title and the message have no
relation to one another.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: click@knickolas.com's meds are wearing off |
19 Jul 2006 10:58:08 PM |
|
|
"Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote in message
news:2bbrb2pa32p8lua7f2ers56rof6f29e0id@4ax.com...
The OP then posted a Message Body that has no bearing whatsoever on the
Subject Line.
Liar. You obviously never read said message carefully.
I did read it. The inferrence is that marriage is somehow uniquely
Christian, and that the institution of marriage has changed in favor of
Christians. I maintian that marriage is not uniquely Christian at all, and
if the instutution of marriage has changed, it is a change that is counter
to the Christian experience.
That's nice. Then argue with the guy who authored the article about
the inference of his title. jalison did not choose the title, and he
did not post the cite article in order to argue with people about it.
It's his way to try to keep people informed, and he isn't going to
change whether you approve or not.
Given both of these points -- neither of which is addressed in the OPs
Message Body -- it is my opinion that the title and the message have no
relation to one another.
Having said what I said above - that your argument is with the author
of the article, I disagree with your statement. The cited article
(not the tiny bit excerpted) addressed the topic at considerable
length, and you obviously did not read the cited article - just the
paragraph that jalison excerpted. You may have a valid complaint that
jalison chose a poor excerpt given the title, which he did not choose,
but then the original author was building to his question over the
entire text of the article, and it would be improper for jalison to
quote that entire text merely to have the title make sense to a
dipshit like you who won't check the cites when he doesn't understand
something.
He are some excerpts from the article that address your complaint
<Beyond the hyperbole and absurdity of associating the love of two
< consenting adults with bestiality and pedophilia, conservative
< Christian pundits make it clear that their real intention is to
< protect what they see as the specifically Christian nature of
< marriage and the family. Organizations like the American Family
< Association (AFA), a Christian group maintaining NoGayMarriage.com,
< claim gay marriage threatens the “God-ordained institution of
< marriage.” AFA founder and chairman Donald E. Wildmon wants to ban
< gay marriage and civil unions, contending that allowing gay marriage
< would bring an end to “Not only Western Civilization, which came out
< of the mind of Christ, but the whole of civilization will be
< drastically changed. Forget the family -- mother, father, children --
< because it will not exist in that brave new world. Look for the state
< to take on more and more responsibilities for children.” [3]
<According to Dobson’s book, Marriage Under Fire, Why We Must Win This
< Battle, “the institution of marriage is one of the Creator’s most
< marvelous and enduring gifts to humankind.” Adding, marriage is a
< “sacrament designed by God that serves as a metaphor for the
< relationship between Christ and His church.”
....
<As the Christian right ushers the so-called marriage protection
< amendment to the Senate, vowing to valorously defend the sanctity of
< ‘Christian’ wedlock, we should all be asking: Is marriage really a
< Christian institution? Are Christians really an authority on the
< sanctity of marriage and the family?
<
<Ironically, based on the early history of the church, the simple
< answer to both questions is, no. In fact, the Christian
< Fundamentalists seeking to ‘enshrine their doctrines and marriage
< practices into the constitution’ are in need of a serious history
< lesson when it comes to marriage‘s place in their religion’s history.
<
<While Christianity is perceived as a kind of moral authority when it
< comes to the family, it hasn’t always been this way. Early on, Romans
< felt that Christians were the ones who threatened the fabric of the
< traditional family. Conservative Romans like Celsus (ca.185) were
< disturbed by Christian calls to renounce traditional religion, the
< Roman state, and the traditional family.
....
<If Christian Fundamentalists succeed in passing the Marriage
< Protection Amendment on grounds that a valid marriage must conform to
< Christian tradition, non-Christians, secular and religious alike,
< will be left wondering: when will my love, my marriage be outlawed?
Now again, I call you a liar. You could not have read that and then
criticized the article as having nothing to do with the title/subject
line. You just read jalison's excerpt, and expected it to contain the
gist of the entire article in a couple of sentences.
If you want Readers Digest, you can pay for it. Otherwise you need to
read the WHOLE article to find out what someone is trying to say, not
judge it on the basis of one paragraph, and especially not criticizing
the *title* because the one paragraph isn't obviously connected to
the title.
lojbab
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: click@knickolas.com's meds are wearing off |
17 Jul 2006 05:16:40 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 12:31:22 -0700, "Jeff Strickland"
<crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote:
<CLICK@KNICKLAS.COM> wrote in message
news:8sjnb25hung0u37o8rpkic9mscokcjn98s@4ax.com...
On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 09:26:37 -0700, "Jeff Strickland"
<crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote:
A BASIC RULE OF WRITING is that the content of the article support the
Subject, i.e.; the TITLE.
So, when you cite biblical evidence in support of your
claims, we're supposed to accept them as fact?
When I post a Subject Line like that, then provide the message body like
this to support the subject line, then I observe the basic rules of writing.
You always support your claims by biblical authority
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Strickland" |
|
| Title: Re: click@knickolas.com's meds are wearing off |
17 Jul 2006 07:53:33 PM |
|
|
<CLICK@KNICKLAS.COM> wrote in message
news:j03ob256aj357cf71k3sno7jvnrkok844h@4ax.com...
On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 12:31:22 -0700, "Jeff Strickland"
<crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote:
<CLICK@KNICKLAS.COM> wrote in message
news:8sjnb25hung0u37o8rpkic9mscokcjn98s@4ax.com...
On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 09:26:37 -0700, "Jeff Strickland"
<crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote:
A BASIC RULE OF WRITING is that the content of the article support the
Subject, i.e.; the TITLE.
So, when you cite biblical evidence in support of your
claims, we're supposed to accept them as fact?
When I post a Subject Line like that, then provide the message body like
this to support the subject line, then I observe the basic rules of
writing.
You always support your claims by biblical authority
That's a lie.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Jeffy says "Bilble IS fallible" |
18 Jul 2006 06:29:02 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 17:53:33 -0700, "Jeff Strickland"
<crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote:
You always support your claims by biblical authority
That's a lie.
Make up your mind.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: When did marriage become a Christian institution? |
14 Jul 2006 08:38:19 AM |
|
|
(Cary Kittrell) wrote:
:|"Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com>
:|> partners.
:|>
:|> But, all of this is beside the point of the OP, which suggests that marriage
:|> is a uniquely Christian institution.
:|
:|
:|It did? I came in late. Well, obviously marriage is in no way
:|uniquely Christian -- all cultures have some form of marriage
:|(and a number of those include gays)
:|
:|
:|-- cary
:|
Jeffy did his usual and only read the title
see below:
"Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote:
:|But, all of this is beside the point of the OP, which suggests that marriage
:|is a uniquely Christian institution.
Here was the original post *****
buckeye-elo@nospam.net wrote:
http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_975.shtml
[excerpt]
When did marriage become a Christian institution?
By Jeff Nall, Online Journal Contributing Writer
Jul 10, 2006
Republicans are reaching into the God, Guns and Country bag of tricks
once again to molest the most ignorant and prejudice of American
minds. In an effort led by zealots on the religious right along with
Republicans desperate to survive President Bush's plunge at the
polls, House Republicans, fueled by their love of freedom, no doubt,
are poised to push the amendment to ban gay marriage to a vote the
week of July 17.
[end excerpt]
***************************************************************************
I excerpted that particular item for what it said.
You seem to have totally overlooked that and concentrated solely on the
title. Haven't you learned yet that titles are frequently constructed to
attract attention to them and thus the article.
Thus titles can exaggerate a bit.
I guess that has escaped you all these years just like facts and truth
escape you.
It is equally obvious that you didn't read the actual article, but that is
par for the course for you.
Here is some more of the article
When did marriage become a Christian institution?
By Jeff Nall
Online Journal Contributing Writer
[excerpt again]
Jul 10, 2006, 00:35
Republicans are reaching into the God, Guns and Country bag of tricks once
again to molest the most ignorant and prejudice of American minds. In an
effort led by zealots on the religious right along with Republicans
desperate to survive President Bush’s plunge at the polls, House
Republicans, fueled by their love of freedom, no doubt, are poised to push
the amendment to ban gay marriage to a vote the week of July 17.
The effort comes just over a month after Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist
led a failed attempt to pass the amendment in June.
In an affront to the freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution, H. J. RES. 88
seeks to engrave discrimination and a prejudice for Fundamentalist
Christianity in the Constitution with these words:
`Section 2. Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union
of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of
any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal
incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man
and a woman.'.
The Federal Marriage Amendment, which, if passed, would be called the
`Marriage Protection Amendment,’ was first introduced in 2002 by Rep.
Marilyn Musgrave (R-CO) and Sen. Wayne Allard (R-CO) and again in 2004 when
it was defeated in the House and the Senate.
According to the Human Rights Campaign, a gay and lesbian civil rights
organization, the amendment “could forever invalidate civil unions or other
legal protections for same-sex couples, like the right to partner health
benefits or fair taxation upon the death of a partner -- even if state
legislatures passed them and voters approved them.”
Americans United for Separation of Church and State contends that the
amendment would “favor the marriage doctrines and rituals of some religious
groups over others.” AU executive director, Rev. Barry W. Lynn said the
proposed amendment “is a blatant attempt by conservative religious leaders
to enshrine their doctrines and marriage practices into the Constitution.”
[1]
[end excerpt again]
***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the US and a couple from overseas as well]
***************************************************************
.. . . 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)
.. . .
****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote
"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"
That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.
It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.
*****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: When did marriage become a Christian institution? |
12 Jul 2006 11:39:05 AM |
|
|
Jeff Strickland wrote:
<buckeye-elo@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:lmj9b21hpfaeoa7h9j8d4ps33jgu0h9sdu@4ax.com...
http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_975.shtml
[excerpt]
When did marriage become a Christian institution?
By Jeff Nall, Online Journal Contributing Writer
Jul 10, 2006
The premise of the question is flawed. Marriage is not a Christian
institution, it is may well be a religious institution that all
religions recognize and encourage, but do not fool yourself that it is a
Christian institution. .
<snip rest>
But the original post was regarding the political maneuvering to make
the religio-philes fall into line.
The ploy will be that "They're trying to take God out of marriage."
There's no god in my marriage, so their argument falls flat to me, but
to a zealot, it won't.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: When did marriage become a Christian institution? |
13 Jul 2006 11:52:24 AM |
|
|
Dave <supradave@yahoo.com> wrote:
:|Jeff Strickland wrote:
:|>
:|> <buckeye-elo@nospam.net> wrote in message
:|> news:lmj9b21hpfaeoa7h9j8d4ps33jgu0h9sdu@4ax.com...
:|>> http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_975.shtml
:|>> [excerpt]
:|>> When did marriage become a Christian institution?
:|>> By Jeff Nall, Online Journal Contributing Writer
:|>> Jul 10, 2006
:|>>
:|>
:|>
:|> The premise of the question is flawed. Marriage is not a Christian
:|> institution, it is may well be a religious institution that all
:|> religions recognize and encourage, but do not fool yourself that it is a
:|> Christian institution. .
:|>
:|>
:|>
:|> <snip rest>
:|
:|But the original post was regarding the political maneuvering to make
:|the religio-philes fall into line.
Jeffy doesn't deal with original posts much
Too complicated for him, requires reading which gives him a headache, etc
***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the US and a couple from overseas as well]
***************************************************************
.. . . 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)
.. . .
****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote
"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"
That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.
It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.
*****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Strickland" |
|
| Title: Re: When did marriage become a Christian institution? |
13 Jul 2006 01:49:54 PM |
|
|
<buckeye-elo@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:vgucb211glvhnmciea07ectpi9pdl8ia0l@4ax.com...
Dave <supradave@yahoo.com> wrote:
:|Jeff Strickland wrote:
:|>
:|> <buckeye-elo@nospam.net> wrote in message
:|> news:lmj9b21hpfaeoa7h9j8d4ps33jgu0h9sdu@4ax.com...
:|>> http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_975.shtml
:|>> [excerpt]
:|>> When did marriage become a Christian institution?
:|>> By Jeff Nall, Online Journal Contributing Writer
:|>> Jul 10, 2006
:|>>
:|>
:|>
:|> The premise of the question is flawed. Marriage is not a Christian
:|> institution, it is may well be a religious institution that all
:|> religions recognize and encourage, but do not fool yourself that it is
a
:|> Christian institution. .
:|>
:|>
:|>
:|> <snip rest>
:|
:|But the original post was regarding the political maneuvering to make
:|the religio-philes fall into line.
Jeffy doesn't deal with original posts much
Too complicated for him, requires reading which gives him a headache, etc
Odd you should say that, I was the first responder to this thread, and am
often the first to respond to your posts.
At least I express an opinion to the crap you post, all you do is copy and
paste stuff, then run and hide. You occasionally stick your head out of your
spider hole to hurl an insult or two, but seldom contribute anything to the
discussion, and even more seldom carry on a discussion.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: When did marriage become a Christian institution? |
14 Jul 2006 09:23:22 AM |
|
|
"Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote:
:|
:|<buckeye-elo@nospam.net> wrote in message
:|> Dave <supradave@yahoo.com> wrote:
:|>
:|>>:|Jeff Strickland wrote:
:|>>:|> The premise of the question is flawed. Marriage is not a Christian
:|>>:|> institution, it is may well be a religious institution that all
:|>>:|> religions recognize and encourage, but do not fool yourself that it is
:|>>a
:|>>:|> Christian institution. .
:|>>:|>
:|>>:|>
:|>>:|>
:|>>:|> <snip rest>
:|>>:|
:|>>:|But the original post was regarding the political maneuvering to make
:|>>:|the religio-philes fall into line.
:|>
:|>
:|> Jeffy doesn't deal with original posts much
:|>
:|> Too complicated for him, requires reading which gives him a headache, etc
:|>
:|
:|
:|Odd you should say that, I was the first responder to this thread, and am
:|often the first to respond to your posts.
:|
:|At least I express an opinion to the crap you post, all you do is copy and
:|paste stuff, then run and hide. You occasionally stick your head out of your
:|spider hole to hurl an insult or two, but seldom contribute anything to the
:|discussion, and even more seldom carry on a discussion.
Here is proof you lie:
Have you addressed this:
The Soledad Cross, Keeping "under God" in the pledge, Keeping "In God we
trust" on the money, posted in schools, in court houses, as the 1950s
"national motto" Getting the Ten Commandments posted in schools, court
houses, as many public/government places as possible, getting as many
Christian religios tenents, doctrines, concepts codified into law about
POWER, nothing more, nothing less
IT'S ABOUT POWER:
(1)
(a) [EMPHASIS (VIA CAPS) ADDED]]
.. . . Wherever one stands with respect to belief in God, it can hardly give
comfort or satisfaction to have the Deity subjected to empty, nonreligious
uses "of a patriotic or ceremonial character." The bland amalgamation of
God and the state, while it may meet the test of the Establishment Clause,
leads at best to a kind of cant that all of us may find embarrassing.
In the same class, though perhaps more debatably, I'd put the
improvement on the Pledge of Allegiance fashioned by Congress in 1954. That
was a year, it will be recalled, when Senator Joseph McCarthy was still
exploring how low we might be sunk in his ersatz but grimly destructive
crusade against "subversives." It was also a year McCarthy's colleagues
found it meet to insert the words "under God" after the reference to this
"one nation" in the pledge. The House Report on the bill that became this
law said that "it would serve to deny the atheistic and materialistic
concepts of communism with its attendant subservience of the individual.
"17 Some very brief remarks on the floor reaffirmed that inserting the
words "under God" would "strengthen the national resistance to
communism."18 The only cerebration manifested on the subject of the bill
had to do with the number and placement of commas in the revised pledge
-i.e., whether it should be simply "one nation under God" or "one Nation,
under God," as the legislative judgment finally determined. The short
debate on this subject was suitably placid. There was no debate at all on
the merits of the revision and no vote against it. Who, after all, would be
caught in the open excluding God?
The uses of God as a "ceremonial and patriotic" implement go
forward steadily in more obtrusive and questionable forms. The insistent
demand to have creches and menorahs in public sites continues to present
tough questions leading to the varieties of intricate and disputed answers
mentioned in Chapter i. The legal issues are tricky enough to promise a
continued supply of test cases. To oversimplify a lot, the hardest cases
-where private groups want to put their creches or menorahs in the public
park or on City Hall plaza-pit the First Amendment free-speech rights of
those groups against the claim of the objectors that this placement of the
symbols indicates government endorsement of the religion symbolized.
Without questioning the difficulty of these cases, it is fair to conjure
with the question why they keep happening. The answer lies, I think, in the
very nature of hostile and competitive patriotism out of which one might
wish that God could have been kept. The creche on the public square--to
"put Christ back into Christmas," as its sponsors say--plants the religious
flag of the angry nativists winning theirs back from the alien, infidel
intruders. (Who do they think they are?) The menorah sponsors are a
kindred but more pathetic story. (If the goyim can do it, so can we.) Both
are joined together as enemies of the mutual forbearance that is at the
heart of religious freedom in a pluralist society.
The gist of the demand is that THE MUSCLE OF YOUR RELIGION be
displayed in the public space. THE SUBJECT as is usual with facile shows of
patriotism, IS POWER. It is put, to be sure, as a matter of free expression
by the creche and menorah advocates, but that is largely fraud or
self-delusion.. There are ample private spaces in every community, amply
visible, for displaying religious icons. The insistence on the public
space, the space that belongs to all of us, is to show those others, the
nonadherents. The distinction is readily, if not always malevolently,
blurred. . .
Whatever misunderstandings may beset a recent refugee from Soviet
atheism, there is no ground for similar confusion, and probably no similar
confusion, among most people who want their religious symbols standing on
public property. The symbols make a statement-not of religious faith. They
are not needed for that. They assert simply and starkly, as I've said,
POWER OVER the nonbelievers. This was underscored fot me in a fleeting
moment of a case that ended 4-4 in the Supreme Court, the equal division
(Justice Powell was ill and absent) resulting in a defeat for the village
of Scarsdale (with me as unsuccessful counsel) when it sought to deny a
place for a creche in a public circle.20 In the course of that proceeding,
one of the sponsors of the creche was asked about his interest in viewing
it while it stood on Scarsdale's Boniface Circle during the Christmas
season. TO MY SURPRISE AS THE QUESTIONER, IT TURNED OUT
THAT HE NEVER BOTHERED TO GO LOOK AT THE CRECHE
AT ALL LET ALONE TO ADMIRE OR DRAW INSPIRATION FROM
ITt. BUT ON REFLECTION THAT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SO
SURPRISING. THE CRECHE WAS NOT THERE FOR HIM TO SEE
OR APPRECIATE FOR ITS INSTRINSIC SPIRITUAL VALUE IN HIS
RELIGIOUS UNIVERSE. IT WAS THERE FOR OTHERS, WHO
PROFESSED OTHER RELIGIONS OR NONE, SO THAT THE CLOUT
OF HIS RELIGIOUS GROUP SHOULD BE MADE MANIFEST ABOVE
ALL TO ANY IN THE SHARPLY DIVIDED VILLAGE WHO WOULD HAVE
PREFERRED THAT IT NOT BE THERE. This is the low road., followed by at least
a good number of those who seek for their religion and its symbols the
imprimatur of government. If it is religious at all, this stance betokens a
weak and self-doubting species of faith.
SOURCE: Excerpts from FAIT | | | | | |
