| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Dana" |
| Date: |
17 Jun 2005 07:50:51 PM |
| Object: |
Why The Left Hates The Ten Commandments |
Why The Left Hates The Ten Commandments
By Doug Patton (08/27/03)
Do not expect Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore to surrender in his fight to
keep the Ten Commandments on display in the rotunda of the state's Supreme
Court building. Moore, a principled man whose judicial temperament is guided
and molded by his belief that there is a God and He is watching, is not
motivated by what may happen to his career as a judge. He is not moved by
the whims of other judges whose rulings are based not in law, but rather in
the blowing, drifting opinions of contemporary societal mores.
Most Americans have no idea of the gravity of the drama unfolding at the
Supreme Court building in Montgomery. Jaded and numbed by fifty years of
abuse by an out-of-control judiciary that usurps the will of the people and
their elected representatives by making law from the bench, it seems we no
longer have any collective memory of what our precious founding documents
say, let alone what they mean.
Just what is it that engenders such hatred by liberals toward The Ten
Commandments? Which of these laws of nature and of nature's God strikes such
fear and loathing in the hearts of the Left?
Is it Commandment number six ("Thou shalt not kill" - or, more accurately
translated, "Thou shalt not commit murder")?
Perhaps it is number eight ("Thou shalt not steal").
Or maybe they just can't stand number nine, ("Thou shalt not bear false
witness).
Is there any thinking person who could look at those three rules and say
that society would be better off if they were disregarded?
How about number ten ("Thou shalt not covet")?
The truth is that it is the first few commandments that cause apoplectic
fits on the Left. Number one especially drives them crazy: "Thou shalt have
no other gods before me." This is followed by, "Thou shalt not make unto
thee any graven image," "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in
vain" and the ever-popular "Remember the Sabbath Day to keep it holy."
Add to those the admonition to "Honor thy father and mother" and to hear the
Left talk you would think that Ayatollah Roy had set up shop in the Alabama
Supreme Court building.
John Adams once said that the American Constitution was written for a moral
and a religious people, and that it is wholly inadequate for the governing
of any other.
Today's liberals would scoff at such a sentiment. They would claim that
Adams wanted to limit American citizenship exclusively to Christians. Quite
the contrary. Adams understood that free people cannot be coerced into
believing anything against their will. But he also understood that a free
people can recognize the truth when they see it, and that it was only the
self-governing man or woman who can truly be free.
Adams and the other Founders possessed a wisdom that comes only to people
who know that their rights are granted by their Creator, not by other men,
and that government is instituted among men to acknowledge and defend those
rights.
The Founders recognized that lawlessness breeds anarchy, which brings the
terrible power of tyranny down upon the people. They knew that those who
fled to these shores seeking religious and economic freedom did so not for
the right simply to do what they wanted to do, but rather for the right to
do what they ought to do.
In a perfect America, where the Constitution was revered and God was
exalted, we would all know such freedom. Instead, we have traded our
birthright for a society filled with self-indulgence and a debate over
whether it is appropriate to acknowledge God in public.
May God give us a million more Roy Moores.
--
I read the Prize Cases to stand for the proposition
that the President has independent authority to repel
aggressive acts by third parties even without specific
congressional authorization, and courts may not review
the level of force selected.
Campbell v. Clinton, 203 F.3d 19, 27 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (Silberman,
J., concurring)
.
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Why The Left Hates Turkeys called CANYONLOON (pt 2) |
17 Jul 2005 06:23:28 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 14:02:38 -0400, Steven Canyon
<stevencanyon@yaaa.hoo> wrote:
...and here's Greywolf making fun of Christian rituals
BZZZZZZZTT
Here's StevieLoon desperately trying to conjure up some turkey
response to his continued snout-smacking
Both Greywolf and Zepp have made the following claims:
Greywolf, Zepp and I have all called you a pathetic, dumb *****,
STEVIE-LOON
In your universe, if at least two say it, it must be true, right?
=======================================================================
On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 23:37:05 +0000, Black Dragon <Caligastia145@yahoo.com>
wrote about RCLOON:
("Archie-Leach@Getit.Com" <rcman777@excite.com>)
"What a sad piece of work this guy - or rather, this automated process
possessing a human body - is. Nobody's going to be convinced of
anything by this but this person's idiocy."
.
|
|
|
| User: "1761 Dead zepp1761#2211finestplanet.com" |
|
| Title: Re: Why The Left Hates Turkeys called CANYONLOON (pt 2) |
17 Jul 2005 07:37:52 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 17:23:28 -0600,
wrote:
On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 14:02:38 -0400, Steven Canyon
<stevencanyon@yaaa.hoo> wrote:
...and here's Greywolf making fun of Christian rituals
BZZZZZZZTT
Here's StevieLoon desperately trying to conjure up some turkey
response to his continued snout-smacking
Both Greywolf and Zepp have made the following claims:
Greywolf, Zepp and I have all called you a pathetic, dumb *****,
STEVIE-LOON
Actually, Greywolf hasn't ever spoken to Stevie the Wonder Hen on
these groups. But I suspect that if asked he might have some choice
phrases. My wife says that I'm the polite, friendly, one on the
groups.
I don't know if Stevie has ever edited on of Wolf's posts or not, but
I suspect he had to cherry pick pretty carefully, since his opinion of
guys like Henny are even lower than mine.
In your universe, if at least two say it, it must be true, right?
=======================================================================
On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 23:37:05 +0000, Black Dragon <Caligastia145@yahoo.com>
wrote about RCLOON:
("Archie-Leach@Getit.Com" <rcman777@excite.com>)
"What a sad piece of work this guy - or rather, this automated process
possessing a human body - is. Nobody's going to be convinced of
anything by this but this person's idiocy."
"I have not ordered the use of force. I hope
the use of force will not become necessary.
Hopefully this can be done peacefully.
Hopefully we can do this without any
military action."
--Putsch, three months after telling Blair he planned
to attack as soon as he had the phony intelligence
and propaganda all in place.
Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_news
For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_essays
a.a. #2211 -- Bryan Zepp Jamieson
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Canyon" |
|
| Title: Re: Why The Left Hates Turkeys called CANYONLOON (pt 2) |
18 Jul 2005 05:32:45 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 17:37:52 -0700, 1761 Dead
<zepp1761#2211finestplanet.com> wrote:
On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 17:23:28 -0600,
wrote:
On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 14:02:38 -0400, Steven Canyon
<stevencanyon@yaaa.hoo> wrote:
...and here's Greywolf making fun of Christian rituals
BZZZZZZZTT
Here's StevieLoon desperately trying to conjure up some turkey
response to his continued snout-smacking
Both Greywolf and Zepp have made the following claims:
Greywolf, Zepp and I have all called you a pathetic, dumb *****,
STEVIE-LOON
Actually, Greywolf hasn't ever spoken to Stevie the Wonder Hen on
these groups. But I suspect that if asked he might have some choice
phrases. My wife says that I'm the polite, friendly, one on the
groups.
Your wife probably tells you that all your homosexual fantasies don't
bother her either.
I don't know if Stevie has ever edited on of Wolf's posts or not, but
IT's pretty easy to check them out since I post all the google URLs.
I suspect he had to cherry pick pretty carefully, since his opinion of
guys like Henny are even lower than mine.
The more times Jamieson denies the obvious fact that he was Greywolf,
the more times he's outed as a liar. Greywolf claimed ownership of
the same dogs as Zepp claims, Greywolf claims the same job, hobby, and
lifestyle history, Greywolf used Zepp's computer and spends time in
Zepp's home and yet both Greywolf and Zepp claim to be married and
live only with one other person.
The fact that Zepp runs away and hides from his Greywolf posts tells
you all you need to know. If he could explain all the "coincidental"
evidence, he would surely do it. OTOH, when I first posted some
Greywolf posts, Zepp jumped up and down and accused me of prying into
his private life, which confirmed my suspicions that Greywolf was
indeed Zepp.
--
Did Zepp Jamieson really think he was going to get away with
posting as "Greywolf the Wanderer" long ago, writing his homosexual
fantasies about the startrek characters and his belief that he was
a werewolf?
Are the similarities just a coincidence?
Both Greywolf and Zepp have made the following claims:
Both lived in Scotland and in B.C. Canada.
Both lived in USA for decades W/O gaining citizenship
Both were sysops in Santa Barbara.
Both now live near Mt Shasta in California.
Both complain of bad eyesight.
Both worked at an airport.
Both worked as a janitor.
Both worked at a hospital.
Both have a house full of cats and dogs.
Both have 2 samoyeds and a cocker/Brittany cross
Both have samoyeds named Monk.
Both have samoyeds named Moon.
Both complain of "rhuematiz."
Both say they are dyslexic.
Both like author Robert Heinlein
Both like Heinlein's "Moon is a Harsh Mistress."
Both like Jethro Tull.
Both claim to be writers.
Both are dedicated Sci fi fans.
Both use the phrase "I is suitably impressed."
Both use the phrase evolution in action"
Both use the phrase "The moon howls"
Both are overweight
Both have had drinking problems
Greywolf says that he's a wiccan and Zepp does a lot of writing about
wiccans.
Greywolf used Zepp's ISP account and Zepp's computer and claimed to live
with Zepp, also claiming that his household consisted of only two people.
Zepp also claims that Greywolf lives in his household, but also claims that
he lives only with his wife.
When Zepp first saw the Greywolf stuff reposted, he claimed that it was
his private affair.
So is Zepp the same person as Greywolf? And if so, what does Zepp's homely
wife think of Greywolf posting his homosexual fantasies on Usnet.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kurt Nicklas" |
|
| Title: Re: Why The Left Hates Turkeys called CANYONLOON (pt 2) |
18 Jul 2005 06:11:44 AM |
|
|
In article <a91nd11h31d299hcdt8fmhcb36357305pm@4ax.com>, Steven Canyon says...
On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 17:37:52 -0700, 1761 Dead
<zepp1761#2211finestplanet.com> wrote:
On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 17:23:28 -0600,
wrote:
On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 14:02:38 -0400, Steven Canyon
<stevencanyon@yaaa.hoo> wrote:
...and here's Greywolf making fun of Christian rituals
BZZZZZZZTT
Here's StevieLoon desperately trying to conjure up some turkey
response to his continued snout-smacking
Both Greywolf and Zepp have made the following claims:
Greywolf, Zepp and I have all called you a pathetic, dumb *****,
STEVIE-LOON
Actually, Greywolf hasn't ever spoken to Stevie the Wonder Hen on
these groups. But I suspect that if asked he might have some choice
phrases. My wife says that I'm the polite, friendly, one on the
groups.
Your wife probably tells you that all your homosexual fantasies don't
bother her either.
I don't know if Stevie has ever edited on of Wolf's posts or not, but
IT's pretty easy to check them out since I post all the google URLs.
I suspect he had to cherry pick pretty carefully, since his opinion of
guys like Henny are even lower than mine.
The more times Jamieson denies the obvious fact that he was Greywolf,
the more times he's outed as a liar. Greywolf claimed ownership of
the same dogs as Zepp claims, Greywolf claims the same job, hobby, and
lifestyle history, Greywolf used Zepp's computer and spends time in
Zepp's home and yet both Greywolf and Zepp claim to be married and
live only with one other person.
The fact that Zepp runs away and hides from his Greywolf posts tells
you all you need to know. If he could explain all the "coincidental"
evidence, he would surely do it. OTOH, when I first posted some
Greywolf posts, Zepp jumped up and down and accused me of prying into
his private life, which confirmed my suspicions that Greywolf was
indeed Zepp.
That Brian lies about his Greywolf persona is obvious. He's a habitual liar on
Usenet and feels that any lie is justified as long as he has the proper
'intentions'.
--
Did Zepp Jamieson really think he was going to get away with
posting as "Greywolf the Wanderer" long ago, writing his homosexual
fantasies about the startrek characters and his belief that he was
a werewolf?
Are the similarities just a coincidence?
Both Greywolf and Zepp have made the following claims:
Both lived in Scotland and in B.C. Canada.
Both lived in USA for decades W/O gaining citizenship
Both were sysops in Santa Barbara.
Both now live near Mt Shasta in California.
Both complain of bad eyesight.
Both worked at an airport.
Both worked as a janitor.
Both worked at a hospital.
Both have a house full of cats and dogs.
Both have 2 samoyeds and a cocker/Brittany cross
Both have samoyeds named Monk.
Both have samoyeds named Moon.
Both complain of "rhuematiz."
Both say they are dyslexic.
Both like author Robert Heinlein
Both like Heinlein's "Moon is a Harsh Mistress."
Both like Jethro Tull.
Both claim to be writers.
Both are dedicated Sci fi fans.
Both use the phrase "I is suitably impressed."
Both use the phrase evolution in action"
Both use the phrase "The moon howls"
Both are overweight
Both have had drinking problems
Greywolf says that he's a wiccan and Zepp does a lot of writing about
wiccans.
Greywolf used Zepp's ISP account and Zepp's computer and claimed to live
with Zepp, also claiming that his household consisted of only two people.
Zepp also claims that Greywolf lives in his household, but also claims that
he lives only with his wife.
When Zepp first saw the Greywolf stuff reposted, he claimed that it was
his private affair.
So is Zepp the same person as Greywolf? And if so, what does Zepp's homely
wife think of Greywolf posting his homosexual fantasies on Usnet.
--
Kurt Nicklas
"I'm stating truths, not making an
argument."
---Scott Erb (scotterb@worldnet.att.net)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Canyon" |
|
| Title: Re: Why The Left Hates Turkeys called CANYONLOON (pt 2) |
18 Jul 2005 06:57:26 AM |
|
|
On 18 Jul 2005 04:11:44 -0700, Kurt Nicklas <kurtnicklas@aport2000.ru>
wrote:
In article <a91nd11h31d299hcdt8fmhcb36357305pm@4ax.com>, Steven Canyon says...
On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 17:37:52 -0700, 1761 Dead
<zepp1761#2211finestplanet.com> wrote:
On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 17:23:28 -0600,
wrote:
On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 14:02:38 -0400, Steven Canyon
<stevencanyon@yaaa.hoo> wrote:
...and here's Greywolf making fun of Christian rituals
BZZZZZZZTT
Here's StevieLoon desperately trying to conjure up some turkey
response to his continued snout-smacking
Both Greywolf and Zepp have made the following claims:
Greywolf, Zepp and I have all called you a pathetic, dumb *****,
STEVIE-LOON
Actually, Greywolf hasn't ever spoken to Stevie the Wonder Hen on
these groups. But I suspect that if asked he might have some choice
phrases. My wife says that I'm the polite, friendly, one on the
groups.
Your wife probably tells you that all your homosexual fantasies don't
bother her either.
I don't know if Stevie has ever edited on of Wolf's posts or not, but
IT's pretty easy to check them out since I post all the google URLs.
I suspect he had to cherry pick pretty carefully, since his opinion of
guys like Henny are even lower than mine.
The more times Jamieson denies the obvious fact that he was Greywolf,
the more times he's outed as a liar. Greywolf claimed ownership of
the same dogs as Zepp claims, Greywolf claims the same job, hobby, and
lifestyle history, Greywolf used Zepp's computer and spends time in
Zepp's home and yet both Greywolf and Zepp claim to be married and
live only with one other person.
The fact that Zepp runs away and hides from his Greywolf posts tells
you all you need to know. If he could explain all the "coincidental"
evidence, he would surely do it. OTOH, when I first posted some
Greywolf posts, Zepp jumped up and down and accused me of prying into
his private life, which confirmed my suspicions that Greywolf was
indeed Zepp.
That Brian lies about his Greywolf persona is obvious. He's a habitual liar on
Usenet and feels that any lie is justified as long as he has the proper
'intentions'.
The dishonesty of Greywolf and other leftists is readily apparent in
the Wilson affair.
First of all, it's obvious to anyone that's looked into the situation
that Wilson did *NOT* disprove Bush's claim that the Brits believed
that Iraq had been looking to buy yellowcake from Niger, because he
only said that he's sen no evidence of it being bought. And the
Brits, of course, confirmed that Bush's statement was completely true.
Further, Wilson himself confirmed that indeed, Iraq had been looking
to buy.
Secondly, it's clear that Rove did not "out" Plame since all he did
was say that she worked for the CIA and most everyone already knew
that anyway, and she hadn't been undercover for 7 years. We know that
the Democrats are simply lying about the whole thing... so, in view
of Jamieson's dishonesty about that and all the other dishonest things
he's done on Usenet, I have no qualms about airing out his Greywolf
posts so everyone can see what a freakshow he's been all of his life.
--
"Me, I'm a half-***** empath, and if I ingest the right chemicals,
telepath too -- but I *hate* it. Folks don't *like* it when ye
look inside their heads. Lost me some friends that way, and it
sucks. I do psychometry sometimes -- pick up vibes off objects
or things. And that sucks, too. Ever hold a murder weapon in
yer hand, and flash on it? You don't want to. I was handed a
real Nazi dagger once, by an ***** pseudo-friend who thought
it'd be a real trip. When I got done pukin' I busted his nose
for him."
--Greywolf Zepp Jamieson Sep 13 1997
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.horror.werewolves/msg/aa602f6537936ca5?hl=en&
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Why The Left Hates Turkeys called KNICKLAS, CANYONLOON (pt 2) |
18 Jul 2005 10:11:00 PM |
|
|
On 18 Jul 2005 04:11:44 -0700, Kurt Nicklas <kurtnicklas@aport2000.ru>
wrote:
That Brian lies about his Greywolf persona is obvious. He's a habitual liar on
Usenet and feels that any lie is justified as long as he has the proper
'intentions'.
Speaking of liars, KNICKKERS
Tell us you didn't make drunken hang-up phone calls from your home
phone.
------------------------------------------------------
houston toilet for ladies
</groups?q=author:danaraffaniello%40worldnet.
att.net&start=210&hl=en&lr=&ie=UT>F-8&selm=63j
060%24j0j%40bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net&rnum=225>
use me as your toilet. will be toilet for female parties.
can also be used as a rug, so you can walk on me.
.
|
|
|
| User: "1761 Dead zepp1761#2211finestplanet.com" |
|
| Title: Re: Why The Left Hates Turkeys called KNICKLAS, CANYONLOON (pt 2) |
19 Jul 2005 08:06:43 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 21:11:00 -0600,
wrote:
On 18 Jul 2005 04:11:44 -0700, Kurt Nicklas <kurtnicklas@aport2000.ru>
wrote:
That Brian lies about his Greywolf persona is obvious. He's a habitual liar on
Usenet and feels that any lie is justified as long as he has the proper
'intentions'.
Speaking of liars, KNICKKERS
Tell us you didn't make drunken hang-up phone calls from your home
phone.
We could always revisit his claim that his family had all been killed
and that this was why he had moved to Russia. I think he was still
drinking heavily at that point.
------------------------------------------------------
houston toilet for ladies
</groups?q=author:danaraffaniello%40worldnet.
att.net&start=210&hl=en&lr=&ie=UT>F-8&selm=63j
060%24j0j%40bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net&rnum=225>
use me as your toilet. will be toilet for female parties.
can also be used as a rug, so you can walk on me.
"I have not ordered the use of force. I hope
the use of force will not become necessary.
Hopefully this can be done peacefully.
Hopefully we can do this without any
military action."
--Putsch, three months after telling Blair he planned
to attack as soon as he had the phony intelligence
and propaganda all in place.
Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_news
For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_essays
a.a. #2211 -- Bryan Zepp Jamieson
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Canyon" |
|
| Title: Re: Why The Left Hates Turkeys called KNICKLAS, CANYONLOON (pt 2) |
19 Jul 2005 10:22:09 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 06:06:43 -0700, 1761 Dead
<zepp1761#2211finestplanet.com> wrote:
We could always revisit his claim that his family had all been killed
and that this was why he had moved to Russia. I think he was still
drinking heavily at that point.
Irony anyone?
"Been about seventeen years or so since the last time I got popped
for drunk-and-disorderly! ;-)"
Greywolf Zepp Jamieson May 31 1996
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.horror.werewolves/msg/c4c58d3743c58b1f?hl=en&
"I *used* to have a big problem with controlling wolvish
behaviour; things like wanting to curl up my lips and snarl
on crowded buses, or bite people that bump into me...
Didn't usually DO it, but I went through merry hell trying
NOT to. Nowadays I don't drink booze any more, and that's
made quite a difference. Drink near-beer (Kaliber, for
preference), and I stay out of trouble a lot better!
<toothy embarrassed grin> Also, just plain getting older
and a bit mellower as I go along... Been about seventeen
years or so since the last time I got popped for
drunk-and-disorderly! ;-)"
Greywolf Zepp Jamieson May 31 1996
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.horror.werewolves/msg/c4c58d3743c58b1f?hl=en&
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kurt Nicklas" |
|
| Title: Re: Why The Left Hates Turkeys called KNICKLAS, CANYONLOON (pt 2) |
20 Jul 2005 05:59:32 AM |
|
|
In article <896qd11sie1avet5p0nhh2g29skqguosb7@4ax.com>, Steven Canyon says...
On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 06:06:43 -0700, 1761 Dead
<zepp1761#2211finestplanet.com> wrote:
We could always revisit his claim that his family had all been killed
and that this was why he had moved to Russia. I think he was still
drinking heavily at that point.
Irony anyone?
Pork stock Jamieson needs to pack up his wife and pets and leave
this country. We'll all be the better for it.
"Been about seventeen years or so since the last time I got popped
for drunk-and-disorderly! ;-)"
Greywolf Zepp Jamieson May 31 1996
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.horror.werewolves/msg/c4c58d3743c58b1f?hl=en&
"I *used* to have a big problem with controlling wolvish
behaviour; things like wanting to curl up my lips and snarl
on crowded buses, or bite people that bump into me...
Didn't usually DO it, but I went through merry hell trying
NOT to. Nowadays I don't drink booze any more, and that's
made quite a difference. Drink near-beer (Kaliber, for
preference), and I stay out of trouble a lot better!
<toothy embarrassed grin> Also, just plain getting older
and a bit mellower as I go along... Been about seventeen
years or so since the last time I got popped for
drunk-and-disorderly! ;-)"
Greywolf Zepp Jamieson May 31 1996
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.horror.werewolves/msg/c4c58d3743c58b1f?hl=en&
--
Kurt Nicklas
"I'm stating truths, not making an
argument."
---Scott Erb (scotterb@worldnet.att.net)
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Why The Left Hates Drunken, late-night, hang-up Phone callers like KNICKLAS |
20 Jul 2005 10:23:18 AM |
|
|
On 20 Jul 2005 03:59:32 -0700, Kurt Nicklas <kurtnicklas@aport2000.ru>
wrote:
In article <896qd11sie1avet5p0nhh2g29skqguosb7@4ax.com>, Steven Canyon says...
Pork stock Jamieson needs to pack up his wife and pets and leave
this country. We'll all be the better for it.
Well, we'd still have you to make those drunken late-night calls,
wouldn't we Knicklas
How's about telling StevieLoon about it.
Make us all laugh at you more.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NOSPAMrocketmail.com (Kurt Nicklas) wrote as if right wingers had a
clue
Rapidnet has ALREADY had 9 complaints against you?
Really? Your ISP allows threats of violence? Interesting........
Rapid net allows laughing at dumb assholes,
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Canyon" |
|
| Title: Re: Why The Left Hates Turkeys called KNICKLAS, CANYONLOON (pt 2) |
20 Jul 2005 06:43:20 AM |
|
|
On 20 Jul 2005 03:59:32 -0700, Kurt Nicklas <kurtnicklas@aport2000.ru>
wrote:
In article <896qd11sie1avet5p0nhh2g29skqguosb7@4ax.com>, Steven Canyon says...
On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 06:06:43 -0700, 1761 Dead
<zepp1761#2211finestplanet.com> wrote:
We could always revisit his claim that his family had all been killed
and that this was why he had moved to Russia. I think he was still
drinking heavily at that point.
Irony anyone?
Pork stock Jamieson needs to pack up his wife and pets and leave
this country. We'll all be the better for it.
He needs to explain his claim that he's not Greywolf in respect to all
the evidence that says otherwise.
"Been about seventeen years or so since the last time I got popped
for drunk-and-disorderly! ;-)"
Greywolf Zepp Jamieson May 31 1996
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.horror.werewolves/msg/c4c58d3743c58b1f?hl=en&
"I *used* to have a big problem with controlling wolvish
behaviour; things like wanting to curl up my lips and snarl
on crowded buses, or bite people that bump into me...
Didn't usually DO it, but I went through merry hell trying
NOT to. Nowadays I don't drink booze any more, and that's
made quite a difference. Drink near-beer (Kaliber, for
preference), and I stay out of trouble a lot better!
<toothy embarrassed grin> Also, just plain getting older
and a bit mellower as I go along... Been about seventeen
years or so since the last time I got popped for
drunk-and-disorderly! ;-)"
Greywolf Zepp Jamieson May 31 1996
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.horror.werewolves/msg/c4c58d3743c58b1f?hl=en&
--
Did Zepp Jamieson really think he was going to get away with
posting as "Greywolf the Wanderer" long ago, writing his homosexual
fantasies about the startrek characters and his belief that he was
a werewolf?
Are the similarities just a coincidence?
Both Greywolf and Zepp have made the following claims:
Both lived in Scotland and in B.C. Canada.
Both lived in USA for decades W/O gaining citizenship
Both were sysops in Santa Barbara.
Both now live near Mt Shasta in California.
Both complain of bad eyesight.
Both worked at an airport.
Both worked as a janitor.
Both worked at a hospital.
Both have a house full of cats and dogs.
Both have 2 samoyeds and a cocker/Brittany cross
Both have samoyeds named Monk.
Both have samoyeds named Moon.
Both complain of "rhuematiz."
Both say they are dyslexic.
Both like author Robert Heinlein
Both like Heinlein's "Moon is a Harsh Mistress."
Both like Jethro Tull.
Both claim to be writers.
Both are dedicated Sci fi fans.
Both use the phrase "I is suitably impressed."
Both use the phrase evolution in action"
Both use the phrase "The moon howls"
Both are overweight
Both have had drinking problems
Greywolf says that he's a wiccan and Zepp does a lot of writing about
wiccans.
Greywolf used Zepp's ISP account and Zepp's computer and claimed to live
with Zepp, also claiming that his household consisted of only two people.
Zepp also claims that Greywolf lives in his household, but also claims that
he lives only with his wife.
When Zepp first saw the Greywolf stuff reposted, he claimed that it was
his private affair.
So is Zepp the same person as Greywolf? And if so, what does Zepp's homely
wife think of Greywolf posting his homosexual fantasies on Usnet.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Why The Left Hates Turkeys called CANYONLOON (pt 2 1/2) |
18 Jul 2005 10:09:43 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 06:32:45 -0400, Steven Canyon
<stevencanyon@yaaa.hoo> wrote:
On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 17:37:52 -0700, 1761 Dead
<zepp1761#2211finestplanet.com> wrote:
On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 17:23:28 -0600,
wrote:
On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 14:02:38 -0400, Steven Canyon
<stevencanyon@yaaa.hoo> wrote:
...and here's Greywolf making fun of Christian rituals
BZZZZZZZTT
Here's StevieLoon desperately trying to conjure up some turkey
response to his continued snout-smacking
Both Greywolf and Zepp have made the following claims:
Greywolf, Zepp and I have all called you a pathetic, dumb *****,
STEVIE-LOON
Actually, Greywolf hasn't ever spoken to Stevie the Wonder Hen on
these groups. But I suspect that if asked he might have some choice
phrases. My wife says that I'm the polite, friendly, one on the
groups.
Your wife probably tells you that all your homosexual fantasies don't
bother her either.
I don't know if Stevie has ever edited on of Wolf's posts or not, but
IT's pretty easy to check them out since I post all the google URLs.
I suspect he had to cherry pick pretty carefully, since his opinion of
guys like Henny are even lower than mine.
The more times Jamieson denies the obvious fact that he was Greywolf,
the more times he's outed as a liar.
The more times you respond with your nonsense, the easier it is to
call you a dumb ***** and be proven correct.
You're as bad as poor Knickkkers who finally began making dozens of
late-night hang-up phone calls in a drunken stupor.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:
Date: May 17, 2002
Subject: Roselles
I see that Roselles is giving you fits.
Why not circulate a story about the weasel group and
say we have someone there feeding us information.
The problem is that Beck has already acknowledged that he sent
mail to him, and knicklas is keeping silent about his phone call.
But we can play this up and use it to discredit him.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Why The Left Hates Turkeys called CANYONLOON |
17 Jul 2005 11:48:52 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 11:46:49 -0400, Steven Canyon
<stevencanyon@yaaa.hoo> wrote:
On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 07:59:52 -0700, 1761 Dead
<zepp1761#2211finestplanet.com> wrote:
It is? What kind of religious event is celebrated here?
It's the one where Jesus turns into a turkey and throws mashed
potatoes at the Romans.
...and here's Greywolf making fun of Christian rituals
BZZZZZZZTT
Here's StevieLoon desperately trying to conjure up some turkey
response to his continued snout-smacking
Only a seriously retarded dumb ***** would spend so much time
plastering the same retarded crap you do about "zepp" over and over,
when, in fact, it's doing nothing but making you look more stupid than
you really are.
You're a fucking turkey, you ritualistic little *****.
=============================================================================
Adolph Hitler explaining Conservative justification for Flag
Amendment---
"....Socialists therefore make the holy promise never to rest in
raising the honor
of this flag, making it our symbol of self discipline, obedience, and
order.
Let it be to us a symbol of eternal struggle. We see in this flag the
victorious
sign of freedom and the purity of our blood. We want this flag to be a
symbol
of salvation, a sign that faith in these great possessions is alive in
our people.
May in the coming years a party rally occur at which five times as
many people
march, even if their sacrifice is still greater than ever before! "
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Why The Left Hates The Ten Commandments |
29 Jun 2005 09:25:25 AM |
|
|
(Western World) wrote:
:|I am amazed at the ignorance of people like the Tony Perkins of this
:|world. People like Dana and CB mindlessly parrot the words of the
:|religious punditry. They havent the slightest clue what they are
:|talking about.
:|
:|Lets get to the meat of the matter. We can all agree that James Madison
:|had a HUGE hand in crafting the US Constitution and its initial
:|amendments that addressed issues of liberty.
:|
:|Lets see what HE THOUGHT! I think that what the AUTHOR of the
:|establishment clause thinks should be taken seriously.
:|
:|The problem that right wingers have is that they have a compulsion to
:|shove their religion down peopkle's throats and they simply dont care if
:|the establishent clause reaslly does separate church and state,
:|mandating a religion neutral government that guarantees religious
:|liberty and a religiously diverse nation.
:|
:|So, lets see what the AUTHOR thought of the idea of church and state
:|being separated:
Here are the cites for those quotes along with some other things:
Madison's vetoes: Some of The First Official Meanings Assigned to The
Establishment Clause
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/madvetos.htm
and
************************************************************
James Madison on Separation of Church and State
Direct references to separation to be found in the writings of James
Madison
----------------------------------------
OCTOBER 1, 1803
Notes for annual message, Oct. 17, 1803: alterations and additions, etc [1]
(3) after "assure"-are proposed "in due season, and under prudent
arrangements, important aids to our Treasury, as well as," an ample etc.
Quere: if the two or three succeeding paragraphs be not more
adapted to the separate and subsequent communication, if adopted as above
suggested.
(4) For the first sentence, may be substituted "In the territory between
the Mississippi and the Ohio another valuable acquisition has been made by
a treaty etc."[3.] As it stands, it does not sufficiently distinguish the
nature of the one acquisition from that of the other, and seems to imply
that the acquisition from France was wholly on the other side of the
Mississippi
May it not be as well to omit the detail of the stipulated
considerations, and particularly that of the Roman Catholic Pastor. The
jealousy of some may see in it a principle, not according with the
exemption of Religion from Civil power. In the Indian Treaty it will be
less noticed than in a President's speech.[4.]
FOOTNOTES:
[1.] For TJ's third annual message to Congress, Oct. 17, 1803, see Ford,
VIII, pp. 266-7)
[3.] TI's message announced the acquisition of territory by treaty from the
Kaskaskia Indians; see
Ford, VIII, pp. 269-70.
[4.] TJ accepted JM's suggestion to omit any discussion of Indian treaty
requirements to maintain a Roman Catholic priest, leaving the stipulations
in the treaty to "the competence of both
houses.... as soon as the senate shall have advised its ratification"; see
ibid.
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: James Madison to Thomas Jefferson, Washington, Oct.
1, 1803, Notes for annual message, Oct. 17, 1803: alterations and
additions, etc.[1.],
The Republic of Letters, the Correspondence between Thomas Jefferson and
James Madison, 1776-1826, Edited by James Morton Smith, Vol. II, 1790
-1804, W. W. Norton & Company, New York, London, (1995) pp 1297-98)
---------------------------------------------------
JUNE 3, 1811
"To the Baptist Churches on Neal's Greek on Black Creek, North Carolina I
have received, fellow-citizens, your address, approving my objection to the
Bill containing a grant of public land to the Baptist Church at Salem
Meeting House, Mississippi Territory. Having always regarded the practical
distinction between Religion and Civil Government as essential to the
purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States,
I could not have other wise discharged my duty on the
occasion which presented itself"
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Letter to Baptist Churches in North Carolina, June
3, 1811. Letters And Other Writings of James Madison Fourth President Of
The United States In Four Volumes Published By the Order Of Congress,
Vol..II, J. B. Lippincott & Co., Philadelphia, (1865) pp 511-512)
-----------------------------------------------------------
MARCH 2, 1819
"The civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated
hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs its functions
with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of
the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly
increased by the total separation of the church from the State."
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Excert of a letter to Robert Walsh from James
Madison. MARCH 2, 1819 Letters and Other writings of James Madison, in
Four Volumes, Published by Order of Congress. VOL. III, J. B. Lippincott &
Co. Philadelphia, (1865), pp 121-126. James Madison on Religious Liberty,
Robert S.Alley, Prometheus Books, Buffalo, N.Y. (1985) pp 82-83)
----------------------------------------------------------
1817-1833
"Strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and Gov't in the
Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by
Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents' already furnished
in their short history"
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Excerpt from Madison's Detached Memoranda. This
document was discovered in 1946 among the papers of William Cabell Rives, a
biographer of Madison. Scholars date these observations in Madison's hand
sometime between 1817 and 1832. The entire document was published by
Elizabeth Fleet in the William and Mary Quarterly of October 1946.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
JULY 10, 1822
"Every new and successful example, therefore, of a perfect separation
between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance; and I have
no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done,
in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity
the less they are mixed together"
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Excerpt of letter to Edward Livingston from James
Madison, July 10, 1822. Letters and Other writings of James Madison, in
Four Volumes, Published by Order of Congress. VOL. III, J. B. Lippincott &
Co. Philadelphia, (1865), pp 273-276. James Madison on Religious Liberty,
Robert S.Alley, Prometheus Books, Buffalo, N.Y. (1985) pp 82-83)
--------------------------------------------------------------
SEPTEMBER 1833
"I must admit moreover that it may not be easy, in every possible case, to
trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the civil
authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and doubts on
unessential points. The tendency to a usurpation on one side or the other
or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them will be best guarded
against by entire abstinence of the government from interference in any way
whatever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order and protecting
each sect against trespasses on its legal rights by others".
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Letter written by James Madison to Rev. Jasper
Adams, September, 1833.Writings of James Madison, edited by Gaillard Hunt,
[not sure what the volume number is but have enough information presented
here to locate the letter] microform Z1236.L53, pp 484-488. )
*********************************************************************
followed by
Some Thoughts on Religion and Law
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/bthot-lr.htm"
****************************************************************************************
FEBRUARY 2, 1790
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Madison's interest in preserving the separation between Church and State
led, as we shall see later, to his having some misgivings regarding Federal
Thanksgiving Day proclamations.(294) It also led to a very interesting
debate in the House of Representatives, February 2, 1790, when the question
of the Federal census was under consideration. The bill, as reported,
provided for the enumeration of farmers, mechanics, and other groups, but
did not include the learned professions. Theodore Sedgwick of Massachusetts
(1746-1813) suggested that it should "specify every class of citizens, into
which the community was divided, in order to ascertain the actual state of
the society." Mr. Madison, in his reply, said:
"The gentleman from Massachusetts has asked, why the learned professions
were not included? I have no objection to giving a column to the general
body. I think the work would be rendered more complete by the addition, and
if the decision of such a motion turned upon my voice, they shall be added.
But it may nevertheless be observed, that in such a character they can
never be objects of legislative attention or cognizance. As to those who
are employed in teaching and inculcating the duties ot religion, there may
be some indelicacy in singling them out, as the (General Government is
proscribed from interfering, in any manner whatever, in matters respecting
religion; and it may be thought to do this, in ascertaining who, and who
are not ministers of the Gospel. Conceiving the extension of the plan to be
useful however], and not difficult, I hope it may meet the ready
concurrence of this House."(295)
Here, as in the case of the Thanksgiving Day proclamations, he had some
question as to the advisability of including a reference to ministers of
religion in the census because of his strong belief in the entire
separation of Church and State. He was no extremist in such matters if the
fundamental principles of separation were observed, and his sense of what
was fitting led him to see that the arguments in favor of both actions
probably outweighed those against them. The case of chaplaincies to be
supported from public funds seemed to him more serious and he opposed their
appointment.
His reasons were stated at some length in an essay on the subject first
printed only a generation ago. He asked the question, "is the appointment
of chaplains to the two Houses of Congress consistent with the
Constitution, and with the pure prinsiple of religious freedom)" Madison
made it clear that his opposition to the chaplaincy, whether in Congress or
in the Army and Navy, was not to having services for these groups but to
their being conducted as a function of government and paid for by public
funds.
Similarly, he opposed the incorporation by the Federal government of
religious institutions, believing that such action would tend to break down
the "wall of separation" between Church and State. He sent special messages
to Congress vetoing proposals for incorporating the Episcopal Church in
Georgetown near Washington, and also for setting apart land in Mississippi
territory for a Baptist congregation.(297)
SOURCE OF INFORMATION: CHURCH AND STATE IN THE UNITED STATES VOLUME I Anson
Phelps Stokes pages 346-347 Haper & Brothers New York, (1950)
*************************************************************************************
Although the reverend John Courtney Murray, S.J., Did not approve of
Madison's opinions, [in his M&R], he granted the correctness of the
statement that the "Memorial" discloses Madison's opposition to "every form
and degree of official relation between religion and civil authority. For
him religion was wholly a private matter beyond the scope of civil power
either to restrain or support." (43)
(43) John Courtney Murray, "Law and Prepossessions," in Law and
Contemporary problems, 14 (Winter 1949): 28, quoting J. Rutledge in the
Everson Case, 330 U.S. 1, 39-40 (1947)
Father Murray added that the theme of the "Memorial" is that religion "must
be absolutely free from government restriction and likewise absolutely free
from government aid. . . . For Madison, as for John Locke, his master,
religion could not by law be made a concern of the commonwealth as such,
deserving in any degree of public recognition or aid, for the essentially
theological reason that religion is of its nature a personal, private,
internal matter of the individual conscience, having no relevance to the
public concerns of the state."(44)
(44) Murray, "Law and Prepossessions," p. 29.
"THE ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE Religion and the First Amendment." Second
Edition, Revised, Leonard W. Levy. The University of North Carolina press,
Chapel Hill (1994) p 129
****************************************************************************************
Madison was a strict separationist:
******************************************************************************
:|
:|"The civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated
:|hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs its functions
:|with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality
:|of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly
:|increased by the total separation of the church from the State (Letter
:|to Robert Walsh, Mar. 2, 1819).
:|
:|Strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and & Gov't in
:|the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by
:|Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already
:|furnished in their short history (Detached Memoranda, circa 1820).
:|
:|I must admit moreover that it may not be easy, in every possible case,
:|to trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the
:|civil authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and doubts
:|on unessential points. The tendency to a usurpation on one side or the
:|other or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them will be best
:|guarded against by entire abstinence of the government from interference
:|in any way whatever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order and
:|protecting each sect against trespasses on its legal rights by others.
:|(Letter Rev. Jasper Adams, Spring 1832).
:|
:|To the Baptist Churches on Neal's Greek on Black Creek, North Carolina I
:|have received, fellow-citizens, your address, approving my objection to
:|the Bill containing a grant of public land to the Baptist Church at
:|Salem Meeting House, Mississippi Territory. Having always regarded the
:|practical distinction between Religion and Civil Government as essential
:|to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the
:|United States, I could not have otherwise discharged my duty on the
:|occasion which presented itself (Letter to Baptist Churches in North
:|Carolina, June 3, 1811).
:|
:|The experience of the United States is a happy disproof of the error so
:|long rooted in the unenlightened minds of well-meaning Christians, as
:|well as in the corrupt hearts of persecuting usurpers, that without a
:|legal incorporation of religious and civil polity, neither could be
:|supported. A mutual independence is found most friendly to practical
:|Religion, to social harmony, and to political prosperity (Letter to F.L.
:|Schaeffer, Dec 3, 1821).
:|
:|Notwithstanding the general progress made within the two last centuries
:|in favour of this branch of liberty, and the full establishment of it in
:|some parts of our country, there remains in others a strong bias towards
:|the old error, that without some sort of alliance or coalition between
:|Government and Religion neither can be duly supported. Such, indeed, is
:|the tendency to such a coalition, and such its corrupting influence on
:|both the parties, that the danger cannot be too carefully guarded
:|against. And in a Government of opinion like ours, the only effectual
:|guard must be found in the soundness and stability of the general
:|opinion on the subject. Every new and successful example, therefore, of
:|a perfect separation between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of
:|importance; and I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as
:|every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will
:|both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together.
:|
:|It was the belief of all sects at one time that the establishment of
:|Religion by law was right and necessary; that the true religion ought to
:|be established in exclusion of every other; and that the only question
:|to be decided was, which was the true religion. The example of Holland
:|proved that a toleration of sects dissenting from the established sect
:|was safe, and even useful. The example of the colonies, now States,
:|which rejected religious establishments altogether, proved that all
:|sects might be safely and even advantageously put on a footing of equal
:|and entire freedom; and a continuance of their example since the
:|Declaration of Independence has shown that its success in Colonies was
:|not to be ascribed to their connection with the parent country. if a
:|further confirmation of the truth could be wanted, it is to be found in
:|the examples furnished by the States which had abolished their religious
:|establishments.
:|
:|I cannot speak particularly of any of the cases excepting that of
:|Virginia, where it is impossible to deny that religion prevails with
:|more zeal and a more exemplary priesthood than it ever did when
:|established and patronized by public authority. We are teaching the
:|world the great truth, that Governments do better without kings and
:|nobles than with them. The merit will be doubled by the other lesson:
:|the Religion flourishes in greater purity without, than with the aid of
:|Government (Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822).
:|
:|[T]he prevailing opinion in Europe, England not excepted, has been that
:|religion could not be preserved without the support of government nor
:|government be supported without an established religion that there must
:|be at least an alliance of some sort between them. It remained for North
:|America to bring the great and interesting subject to a fair, and
:|finally a decisive test.
:|It is true that the New England states have not discontinued
:|establishments of religions formed under very peculiar circumstances;
:|but they have by successive relaxations advanced toward the prevailing
:|example; and without any evidence of disadvantage either to religion or
:|good government.
:|
:|But the existing character, distinguished as it is by its religious
:|features, and the lapse of time now more than 50 years since the legal
:|support of religion was withdrawn sufficiently proved that it does not
:|need the support of government and it will scarcely be contended that
:|government has suffered by the exemption of religion from its
:|cognizance, or its pecuniary aid. (Letter to Rev. Jasper Adams, Spring
:|1832).
:|
:|GET OVER IT, FUNDIES! YOU HAVE LIBERTY OF CONSCIENCE WHICH MOST PEOPLE
:|NEVER HAD UNTIL OUR CONSTITUTION.
:|
:|GROW UP!
:|
:|HOME
:|http://www.stopthereligiousright.org
:|
:|CHRISTIAN HISTORY AND RELIGIOUS LIBERTY
:|http://community-2.webtv.net/tales_of_the_western_world/RL
:|
:|CHRISTIANITY VS SUFFRAGE
:|http://community-2.webtv.net/westernmind/SUFFRAGE
:|
:|CHRISTIANITY VS MIXED RACE MARRIAGES
:|http://community-2.webtv.net/westernmind/MISCEGENY
:|
:|CHRISTIANITY AND DICTATORSHIPS' TREATMENT OF HOMOSEXUALS
:|http://community-2.webtv.net/REICHOFFICE
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "CB" |
|
| Title: Re: Why The Left Hates The Ten Commandments |
28 Jun 2005 12:29:43 PM |
|
|
This is the only argument needed...
Atheism teaches that there is no God, hence no God-given rights. That
ideology coupled with a system that believed in the superiority of the
stateat the expense of the individual was murderously synergistic.
--Charles W Moore
Deny God as Thee Highest Ruling Moral Authority then Liberals courts are
free to deny all inalienable rights bestowed to man.
Of course you'll not understand what I mean due to your own denial of what
the original meaning of 'Separation' means.
CB
--
Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is
liberty.
2 Corinthians 3:17
There to you'll no doubt disagree but one only has to look back in history
to see that progressive Liberalism has both alienated God from and but has
also degraded the Grace God has shown on America.
"Western World" <Tales_of_the_Western_World@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:28902-42C15A97-573@storefull-3173.bay.webtv.net...
whoya@whoya.com (Dana) blabbers incoherently:
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
As usual, a fundy has nothing to say so lets take a deeper look:
http://community-2.webtv.net/tales_of_the_western_world/TENCOMMANDMENTS
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS VS THE US CONSTITUTION
Over and over we hear that the ten commandments are the foundation of
our laws. After making these claims, there are never any arguments in
support of this. It is said without explanation other than using quotes.
Never have I seen any religious fundamentalist actually compare the
commandments with the constitution. If they did, theuir argument falls
flat on it's face when dealing with the issues of liberty.
Of course, when they talk of "our laws", the question arises as to which
laws are they talking about? Are they talking about the laws of the
Puritans that made unbelief a capital offense? Yes, they were Christians
and religiously intolerant ones, too. People were exiled. People were
murdered. And it was legal to so in a place where laws were derived
directly from the Bible, a book of religious and ideological intolerance
from cover to cover.
Or should we be talking about the United States Constitution which is a
legal document which, contrary to Biblical principles, protects
religious and ideological diversity? The fatal flaw in the argument of
the fundamentalists is equating heritage with law. While western nations
have a Christian heritage (after its classical heritage of proto-science
and philosophy) which is full of religious intolerance and violence, the
US Constitution, legally speaking, marks the end of that age of Biblical
law as national law.
For over two centuries, old laws that are rooted in the ancient regimes
are being struck down. When the 6th article banned religious tests for
oaths of office, it separated church and state, setting in motion the
disestablishment of all the state supported religion long held
sacrosanct in the colonies. Within a couple of decades, all state
constitutions had complied with the US Constitution by banning religious
tests. Religious tests which demand an affirmation of trinitarian faith
were based on the Biblical requirement for all to confess Christ. The
6th Article outlawed that Biblically founded requirement made into state
law that required one to make a declaration of faith. Before the
ratification, all but two colonies had laws just like England that
supported one religion, required a confession of said religion, and
discriminated against others. The west's Christian 'heritage' is one of
tyranny, religious dictatorships, violence, destruction and intolerance.
It was this religious heritage that stood in the way of liberty and
democracy for 15 centuries. To celebrate it as something that is to be
equated with the classical, enlightenment founded ideas of the US
Constitution is to miss all the lessons of history.
There are thousands of old laws that remain on the books that are
unconstitutional. There are thousands of that hearken back to the old
order prior to the mandates of the US Constitution. There are still
thousands of 'Judeo-Christian' laws linked to our 'heritage' but are
illegal when put to a constitutional test that are yet to be struck
down. Each day, because of people's misconceptions or fanaticism, new
religion based laws are passed.
Certainly, the theocracy of Massachusetts was founded on 'Christian
principles'. It was founded on the Biblical principle of exclusivity
which forbids the practice of any religion or the holding of any belief
other than one that worships the Hebrew tribe's God.
In Section 94 of the Massachusetts Body of Liberties in 1641 made
unbelief and blasphemy capital offenses. These are barbaric laws that
are thoroughly antithetical to the spirit of the US Constitution. These
laws of the Puritans, which are based on the commandments and decrees of
the Biblical deity do in no way represent anything found in the Federal
Constitution. In fact, the Constitution was a major break from any laws
based upon the first commandment and the many demands of the Bible to
exclusively worship it's deity. It said that one had the right to
worship and believe the way one chooses. The commandments say just the
opposite when addressing religious belief. Biblical demands are backed
up with capital punishments and eternal damnation, which were
incorporated into many a "Christian nation's" legal code.
The Bill of Rights rejectS the Bible's demands for one God and one
faith, legally establishing a nation of religious diversity. By giving
each person the right, under the law, to choose one's own conscience and
ideology, the American Bill of Rights has completely rejected the
religious intolerance, the uniform society, and the demand for
individual conformity found on the pages of the Bible and in "old order"
laws. This is especially true of the first commandment which forbids any
religious worship of any deity but the Bible's diety.
The commandment requires conformity and uniformity; the Constitution
protects diversity and nonconformity. It rejects the first commandment
as any kind of foundation for our laws.
The first commandment's "Thou shalt have no other gods before me" is
directly opposed to any religious diversity. It is contrary to the US
Constitution's guarantee of religious liberty. The first amendment of
the US Constitution, which states, "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;
or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the
Government for a redress of grievances." is unequivicably opposed to the
demands of the first commandment.
Section 94, clauses 1-3 of the Massachusetts Body of Liberties in 1641
show what a nation founded on scripture looks like. It makes unbelief
and blasphemy capital offenses. It kills for bad behavior.
1. (Deut. 13. 6, 10. Deut. 17. 2, 6. Ex. 22.20) If any man after legall
conviction shall have or worship any other god, but the lord god, he
shall be put to death.
2. (Ex. 22. 18. Lev. 20. 27. Dut. 18. 10.) If any man or woeman be a
witch, (that is hath or consulteth with a familiar spirit,) They shall
be put to death.
3.(Lev. 24. 15,16.) If any person shall Blaspheme the name of god, the
father, Sonne or Holie Ghost, with direct, expresse, presumptuous or
high handed blasphemie, or shall curse god in the like manner, he shall
be put to death.
The Bible not only sanctions the murder of unbelievers and infidels, it
strongly supports arson and destruction of the temples and altars of the
'other gods'. Over and over, the Bible's deity supports and commands the
extirpation of religious diversity, a cherished liberty in modern
democracies.
When it comes to the liberties of conscience protected by our laws, the
Bible is on the wrong side of history, morality and law. Some of the
worst tyrannies in human history were based upon literal interpretations
of the Bible. A case in point is the way Christianity rose in Europe as
a religion that violently persecuted all other religions when it
achieved political power. See my online book
http://community-2.webtv.net/tales_of_the_western_world/RL which
documents the decrees and religious policies of the church state
alliances of the 4th thru 6th centuries; Constantine to Justinian.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peacenik" |
|
| Title: Re: Why The Left Hates The Ten Commandments |
28 Jun 2005 07:40:39 PM |
|
|
"CB" <CB@prayforme.com> wrote in message
news:9Nfwe.692$Tt.436@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
This is the only argument needed...
If that's your best argument, you gave lost.
Atheism teaches that there is no God,
Atheism is not a teaching; it's simply a lack of belief in gods. It's not a
doctrine, it's a description.
hence no God-given rights.
Moore is assuming here that rights are god-given. I'm confident that I speak
for most atheists when I say that we DO believe in rights - they just don't
come from deities, but instead from logical reasoning.
Moore, by attaching the concept of rights to the divine, is dishonestly
trying to say here that atheism "teaches" that there are no rights.
That
ideology coupled with a system that believed in the superiority of the
stateat the expense of the individual was murderously synergistic.
Now he's attempting to equate atheism with the belief of the "superiority of
the state at the expense of the individual". This is a non-sequitur fallacy.
--Charles W Moore
Charles Willard Moore, the architect?
Deny God as Thee Highest Ruling Moral Authority then Liberals courts are
free to deny all inalienable rights bestowed to man.
Sorry, but the US is a secular nation and the highest ruling authority is
the Constitution. The US cannot require or even recommend religion. If you
want to teach your kids religion, fine.
It's interesting that the proportion of religious people to non-religious
people in US prisons is higher than in the general US population. Doesn't
exactly support the idea that religion leads to morality, does it?
Of course you'll not understand what I mean due to your own denial of what
the original meaning of 'Separation' means.
Why don't we ask the man who first used the term?
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man
& his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship,
that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not
opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole
American people which declared that their legislature should make no law
respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state." -
Thomas Jefferson
For more info, check out this link:
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Why The Left Hates The Ten Commandments |
28 Jun 2005 07:53:24 PM |
|
|
In article <d9sqm0$3eg$1@news.seed.net.tw> "Peacenik" <cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com> writes:
"CB" <CB@prayforme.com> wrote in message news:9Nfwe.692$Tt.436@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
{...}
Of course you'll not understand what I mean due to your own denial of what
the original meaning of 'Separation' means.
Why don't we ask the man who first used the term?
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man
& his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship,
that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not
opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole
American people which declared that their legislature should make no law
respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state." -
Thomas Jefferson
Of course that would be only one of many of Thomas Jefferson's views
on religion that CB would have no use for, if only he were aware of them.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Why The Left Hates The Ten Commandments |
28 Jun 2005 12:35:38 PM |
|
|
In article <9Nfwe.692$Tt.436@bignews3.bellsouth.net> "CB" <CB@prayforme.com> writes:
This is the only argument needed...
Atheism teaches that there is no God, hence no God-given rights. That
ideology coupled with a system that believed in the superiority of the
stateat the expense of the individual was murderously synergistic.
--Charles W Moore
Deny God as Thee Highest Ruling Moral Authority then Liberals courts are
free to deny all inalienable rights bestowed to man.
Don't be silly. I mean, after all, they're "inalienable", right?
Which means that God gurantees that no man can take them away.
So what's the problem?
-- cary
.
|
|
|
| User: "MikeSoja" |
|
| Title: Re: Why The Left Hates The Ten Commandments |
28 Jun 2005 01:14:34 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 17:35:38 +0000 (UTC),
(Cary Kittrell) posted:
In article <9Nfwe.692$Tt.436@bignews3.bellsouth.net> "CB" <CB@prayforme.com> writes:
This is the only argument needed...
Atheism teaches that there is no God, hence no God-given rights. That
ideology coupled with a system that believed in the superiority of the
stateat the expense of the individual was murderously synergistic.
--Charles W Moore
Deny God as Thee Highest Ruling Moral Authority then Liberals courts are
free to deny all inalienable rights bestowed to man.
Don't be silly. I mean, after all, they're "inalienable", right?
Which means that God gurantees that no man can take them away.
So what's the problem?
"[T]he problem" is the stupidity of people like you, Cary.
The fact that rights can be abridged has no bearing on the essential
innate possession of those rights.
That people steal from you in no way means that you have lost the
right to your possessions. You have lost your possessions, but not
your right to them.
Only a moron like you would get confused on such matters.
Mike Soja
Fat, stupid, commie slob Bryan Jamieson demonstrating
the brains that led him to Marxism:
"Something struck the Pentagon. That much is obvious. But is
was something much smaller than a 767. A missile, perhaps."
"Demonstrate that Flight 77 struck the Pentagon. Explain how a
757 could sustain level flight just ten feet from the ground for
several hundred yards, and explain how the plane could utterly
vanish, leaving only an unburned but crumpled engine cowling, in
a twenty foot hold."
"I don't have a theory as to what happened to Flight 77. But
I'm convinced it did not strike the Pentagon."
"It has again occurred to me that at the Pentagon, no such
aircraft remnants whatsoever were ever reported being
photographed, ever reported being seen by any eyewitnesses, or
ever reported being recovered from the site. Not to mention seat
fragments, luggage, body parts, etc. Zip."
"I'm disputing that it was even a plane that hit the Pentagon."
"[T]he one I find most troubling; that the plane struck a
utility pole on the way in and a wing sheared off. That should
have left a large amount of indisputable debris well outside the
building. It's also impossible to envision the plane not going
into a wild spin at that moment and immediately losing all
control, especially if the remaining engine was still powered
up."
"Nor do I have any solid conjectures on what DID hit the
Pentagon. It was too big for a shoulder mounted rocket, too
small to be any sort of manned vehicle, which leaves SAMs or
AGMs."
"There are no brick walls in the Pentagon building."
"The claim that flight 77 hit the Pentagon is a lie."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Why The Left Hates The Ten Commandments |
28 Jun 2005 02:06:05 PM |
|
|
In article <cc43c1t3m8gv1ep6qp618p7ctkuhacgtba@4ax.com> MikeSoja <msoja9@newsguy.com> writes:
On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 17:35:38 +0000 (UTC),
(Cary Kittrell) posted:
In article <9Nfwe.692$Tt.436@bignews3.bellsouth.net> "CB" <CB@prayforme.com> writes:
This is the only argument needed...
Atheism teaches that there is no God, hence no God-given rights. That
ideology coupled with a system that believed in the superiority of the
stateat the expense of the individual was murderously synergistic.
--Charles W Moore
Deny God as Thee Highest Ruling Moral Authority then Liberals courts are
free to deny all inalienable rights bestowed to man.
Don't be silly. I mean, after all, they're "inalienable", right?
Which means that God gurantees that no man can take them away.
So what's the problem?
"[T]he problem" is the stupidity of people like you, Cary.
The fact that rights can be abridged has no bearing on the essential
innate possession of those rights.
That people steal from you in no way means that you have lost the
right to your possessions. You have lost your possessions, but not
your right to them.
Only a moron like you would get confused on such matters.
Why then it seems to me that this is a difference which makes
no difference. Alienable, inalienable... if someone can take
them away from you, then someone can take them away from
you.
And if that someone is about to kill me, I suspect the
fact that I still, in some abstract ethical space,
have the "inalienable" right to keep on living
may begin to seem rather too fine a point.
On the other hand if the God who is said to have granted
such rights as cannot be take away ... if this God were
to back up his guarantee with at least a minimal
degree of customer service, then I can see where
this would be an important point indeed.
But it does't seem to work that way.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
| User: "MikeSoja" |
|
| Title: Re: Why The Left Hates The Ten Commandments |
28 Jun 2005 03:28:03 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 19:06:05 +0000 (UTC),
(Cary Kittrell) posted:
In article <cc43c1t3m8gv1ep6qp618p7ctkuhacgtba@4ax.com> MikeSoja <msoja9@newsguy.com> writes:
"[T]he problem" is the stupidity of people like you, Cary.
The fact that rights can be abridged has no bearing on the essential
innate possession of those rights.
That people steal from you in no way means that you have lost the
right to your possessions. You have lost your possessions, but not
your right to them.
Only a moron like you would get confused on such matters.
Why then it seems to me that this is a difference which makes
no difference.
That's because you're too stupid to wrap your head around the
concepts.
Alienable, inalienable... if someone can take
them away from you, then someone can take them away from
you.
No one can take your rights from you. They can take away your
freedom to exercise your rights, but they cannot eliminate the
rights themselves. The word "freedom" encapsulates a different
concept than does the word "right". You are trying to use them
interchangeably for some stupid reason.
And if that someone is about to kill me, I suspect the
fact that I still, in some abstract ethical space,
have the "inalienable" right to keep on living
may begin to seem rather too fine a point.
You have the right to defend your life. Perhaps that is "rather too
fine a point" for you to comprehend.
On the other hand if the God who is said to have granted
such rights as cannot be take away ... if this God were
to back up his guarantee with at least a minimal
degree of customer service, then I can see where
this would be an important point indeed.
If you bother to read the U.S. Constitution, you'll notice that it
speaks of rights that may not be "abridged" or "denied" or
"infringed" or "violated". Nowhere does it speak of rights that can
or cannot be "taken away", because inalienable rights cannot be
taken away. Your access to your rights can be eliminated, but your
rights are still there.
But it does't seem to work that way.
So, if someone steals your belongings you don't have a right to
them?
Mike Soja
Fat, stupid, commie slob Bryan Jamieson demonstrating
the brains that led him to Marxism:
"Something struck the Pentagon. That much is obvious. But is
was something much smaller than a 767. A missile, perhaps."
"Demonstrate that Flight 77 struck the Pentagon. Explain how a
757 could sustain level flight just ten feet from the ground for
several hundred yards, and explain how the plane could utterly
vanish, leaving only an unburned but crumpled engine cowling, in
a twenty foot hold."
"I don't have a theory as to what happened to Flight 77. But
I'm convinced it did not strike the Pentagon."
"It has again occurred to me that at the Pentagon, no such
aircraft remnants whatsoever were ever reported being
photographed, ever reported being seen by any eyewitnesses, or
ever reported being recovered from the site. Not to mention seat
fragments, luggage, body parts, etc. Zip."
"I'm disputing that it was even a plane that hit the Pentagon."
"[T]he one I find most troubling; that the plane struck a
utility pole on the way in and a wing sheared off. That should
have left a large amount of indisputable debris well outside the
building. It's also impossible to envision the plane not going
into a wild spin at that moment and immediately losing all
control, especially if the remaining engine was still powered
up."
"Nor do I have any solid conjectures on what DID hit the
Pentagon. It was too big for a shoulder mounted rocket, too
small to be any sort of manned vehicle, which leaves SAMs or
AGMs."
"There are no brick walls in the Pentagon building."
"The claim that flight 77 hit the Pentagon is a lie."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Why The Left Hates The Ten Commandments |
28 Jun 2005 04:20:34 PM |
|
|
In article <h4b3c1lgcbrgq37kpinqpa91pgssfidin2@4ax.com> MikeSoja <msoja9@newsguy.com> writes:
On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 19:06:05 +0000 (UTC),
(Cary Kittrell) posted:
In article <cc43c1t3m8gv1ep6qp618p7ctkuhacgtba@4ax.com> MikeSoja <msoja9@newsguy.com> writes:
"[T]he problem" is the stupidity of people like you, Cary.
The fact that rights can be abridged has no bearing on the essential
innate possession of those rights.
That people steal from you in no way means that you have lost the
right to your possessions. You have lost your possessions, but not
your right to them.
Only a moron like you would get confused on such matters.
Why then it seems to me that this is a difference which makes
no difference.
That's because you're too stupid to wrap your head around the
concepts.
Glad to meet you too.
Alienable, inalienable... if someone can take
them away from you, then someone can take them away from
you.
No one can take your rights from you. They can take away your
freedom to exercise your rights, but they cannot eliminate the
rights themselves. The word "freedom" encapsulates a different
concept than does the word "right". You are trying to use them
interchangeably for some stupid reason.
Oh, it's just my stupid pragmatism. Or perhaps my scientific
training. A difference which makes no difference in any
conceivable situation is no difference; it's another
bit of lint on the vast fluffy vistas of philosophy.
And if that someone is about to kill me, I suspect the
fact that I still, in some abstract ethical space,
have the "inalienable" right to keep on living
may begin to seem rather too fine a point.
You have the right to defend your life. Perhaps that is "rather too
fine a point" for you to comprehend.
| | | | | | |
