Atheists BITCHSLAPPED by 9th Circuit Court - Court: 'Under God' in Pledge is constitutional
Gerbil Rescue Services
L
(03-11) 11:36 PST SAN FRANCISCO -- The words "under God" in the Pledge
of Allegiance are an appeal to patriotism, not religion, and do not
violate the separation of church and state, a federal appeals court
ruled today - the same court that declared the pledge unconstitutional
in 2002.
In a separate ruling, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel in
San Francisco upheld the placement of the national motto, "In God We
Trust," on coins and currency. The language is patriotic and ceremonial,
not religious, the court said.
Both suits were filed by Michael Newdow, a Sacramento atheist who has
filed numerous challenges to government-sponsored religious invocations.
His previous suit against the Pledge of Allegiance reached the U.S.
Supreme Court in 2004. Without deciding the constitutional issue, the
court said Newdow lacked legal standing to challenge the pledge on
behalf of his daughter, because the child's mother, Newdow's former
partner, had legal custody.
Newdow then refiled the suit on behalf of parents who had custody of
their children and objected to the daily schoolroom recitals of "under
God," which was added to the pledge by a 1954 federal law.
Newdow argued that the reference to divinity in a daily vow of
allegiance violated the rights of atheists and agnostics and amounted to
an unconstitutional government endorsement of religion. The appeals
court disagreed in a 2-1 ruling.
"The Pledge of Allegiance serves to unite our vast nation through the
proud recitation of some of the ideals upon which our republic was
founded," Judge Carlos Bea said in the majority opinion.
He said "one nation under God" referred to "our founding fathers' belief
that the people of this nation are endowed by their creator with certain
unalienable rights."
"Congress' ostensible and predominant purpose was to inspire
patriotism," said Bea, who was joined by Judge Dorothy Nelson. "The
phrase 'one nation under God' does not turn this patriotic exercise into
a religious activity."
Judge Stephen Reinhardt, a member of the three-judge panel that ruled
the same language unconstitutional in 2002, dissented from today's
ruling.
The 1954 law adding "under God" to the pledge was "designed to promote
religion and to indoctrinate schoolchildren with a religious belief,"
Reinhardt said.
"The teaching of religious views is the function of the family and the
church, not the state and the public school system," he wrote.
The same panel upheld "In God We Trust" in a 3-0 ruling. Reinhardt said
he disagreed but was compelled to follow the precedent the court had
just established in the Pledge case.
Bea said the Ninth Circuit upheld the use of the motto on coins in 1970.
Although the Supreme Court has never ruled on the issue, he said, the
court cited "In God We Trust" in a 1989 case as a "reference to our
religious heritage."
Comrade Kaufman
the Pledge anyway.
Bob T.
> The damned liberals including the dummmy in the White House don't say
> the Pledge anyway.
That's because we're so bad at standing at attention and goose-
stepping that we just feel too uncomfortable.
- Bob T
Ben Kaufman
>The damned liberals including the dummmy in the White House don't say
>the Pledge anyway.
Dummy in the White House? Bush has a new address.
Mike
wrote:
> http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/03/11/BAS71CEC9...
What do the die-hard atheists do now in their quest to completely
sterilize the public square from any passing mention of divinity? Are
they going to try the Supreme Court again or have they exhausted their
legal efforts to impose state-sanctioned atheism on every one else?
Wexford
Not saying prayers isn't atheism. I don't understand theists. If you
really believe in God and you really want your religion to spread,
then why don't you simply do as Jesus commanded and love your neighbor
as yourself? Make your life an example of patience and charity and
kindness. If your neighbor feels that public prayer impinges on his
rights, don't insist on disturbing him or her. Simply go about your
business, be a paragon of goodness and understanding, turn the other
cheek and try to see it from your neighbor's view point. I've never
met a committed theist who wasn't perpetually pissed-off about a
myriad of things and constantly interpreting every idea they don't
like as seditious and everyone who disagrees with them as a
persecutor. If you really think you're filled with the grace of God,
then radiate that grace, act happy and helpful, convert by example,
stop carping and condemning, and raise your children to be tolerant
and kind. If you do, your life will be good. Your neighbors will love
and respect you, and your children will honor you.
Chaos out of Order
wrote:
> http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/03/11/BAS71CEC9...
I won't say "under god" when I do the pledge and no one can make me.
Chaos out of Order
No, we'll replace "under god" with "under Zeus" or "under Odin" or
"underwear"
No one can force us to say under god. It's unconstitutional to do so.
Mike
Having "In God We Trust" on currency is not establishing religion
either.
>I don't understand theists. If you
> really believe in God and you really want your religion to spread,
> then why don't you simply do as Jesus commanded and love your neighbor
> as yourself?
I'm not a theist or particularly religious, per se, so please save
your preaching.
> Make your life an example of patience and charity and
> kindness. If your neighbor feels that public prayer impinges on his
> rights, don't insist on disturbing him or her.
I'm not doing any loud public praying. I'm just wondering why "In God
We Trust" printed on currency is such a problem for some.
> Simply go about your
> business, be a paragon of goodness and understanding, turn the other
> cheek and try to see it from your neighbor's view point. I've never
> met a committed theist who wasn't perpetually pissed-off about a
> myriad of things and constantly interpreting every idea they don't
> like as seditious and everyone who disagrees with them as a
> persecutor. If you really think you're filled with the grace of God,
> then radiate that grace, act happy and helpful, convert by example,
> stop carping and condemning, and raise your children to be tolerant
> and kind. If you do, your life will be good. Your neighbors will love
> and respect you, and your children will honor you.
Yes, Pastor. Where did you say you tend your flock?
Mike
According to the latest ruling on this, you can't force others NOT to
say God, either, just because you don't want them to.
Mike
Good, then don't say it. Just pause at that point. That's all anyone
has to do. I don't know why that Newdow idiot doesn't get that.
BTW, as far as Jehovah's Witnesses are concerned, the whole act of
facing the flag and simultaneously reciting the pledge with hand on
heart constitutes an act of worship which violates their religious
conscience. They say it is similar to what the Romans demanded of the
Christians that they persecuted, throwing them to the lions because
they would not burn a pinch of incense before an image of the emperor
while saying some prescribed words of praise. They say that the
pledge of allegiance is just a modern day version of the Roman
custom. The flag is substituted for the emperor's image in an act of
worshiping the state.
While I disagree with them on this and many other things, they seemed
to handle the conflict with their personal views much more sensibly
than Michael Newdow with his lawsuits. They just don't participate in
the Pledge of Allegiance, rather than trying to forcibly shut it down
for everyone else.
_ G O D _
news:98a01fc7-7d9b-46d1...@d2g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
How long do you intend to ignore the hypocrisy of
completely corrupt and criminal Judicial System?
--
_____________________________________________________
I intend to last long enough to put out of business all COck-suckers
and other beneficiaries of the institutionalized slavery and genocide.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The army that will defeat terrorism doesn't wear uniforms, or drive
Humvees, or calls in air-strikes. It doesn't have a high command, or
high security, or a high budget. The army that can defeat terrorism
does battle quietly, clearing minefields and vaccinating children. It
undermines military dictatorships and military lobbyists. It subverts
sweatshops and special interests.Where people feel powerless, it
helps them organize for change, and where people are powerful, it
reminds them of their responsibility." ~~~~ Author Unknown ~~~~
___________________________________________________
--
lorad
You can even say 'Under Demons'.
Looking at 2000 - 2008 anyone could.
Ben Kaufman
<SNIP>
>Not saying prayers isn't atheism. I don't understand theists. If you
>really believe in God and you really want your religion to spread,
>then why don't you simply do as Jesus commanded and love your neighbor
>as yourself? Make your life an example of patience and charity and
>kindness. If your neighbor feels that public prayer impinges on his
>rights, don't insist on disturbing him or her. Simply go about your
>business, be a paragon of goodness and understanding, turn the other
>cheek and try to see it from your neighbor's view point. I've never
>met a committed theist who wasn't perpetually pissed-off about a
>myriad of things and constantly interpreting every idea they don't
>like as seditious and everyone who disagrees with them as a
>persecutor. If you really think you're filled with the grace of God,
>then radiate that grace, act happy and helpful, convert by example,
>stop carping and condemning, and raise your children to be tolerant
>and kind. If you do, your life will be good. Your neighbors will love
>and respect you, and your children will honor you.
Because there is a lot of profit. Look at the wealth of religious leaders in
virtually any cult that preaches denying others their civil rights. The Pope,
Robertson , Falwell. etc.
Ben
Ben Kaufman
<SNIP>
>Good, then don't say it. Just pause at that point. That's all anyone
>has to do. I don't know why that Newdow idiot doesn't get that.
<SNIP>
You are the one who doesn't get it. "Under God" was strong armed in during the
1950s by a Christian group, "The Knights of Columbus."
Ben
Bob T.
The problem is that they are leading millions of children in the
pledge/chant/prayer every day. How would you feel if your children
were told to pledge "under Allah" or "under Krishna" in school?
- Bob T
>
> - Show quoted text -
Mike
God is an inclusive, generic term for divinity. It could be Jehovah,
Krishna, or Allah. No one cares about this except Michael Newdow and
a couple of others.
Bob T.
Nonsense - those are specific names of specific deities worshipped by
specific religions. Do you really think that Christians in this
country wouldn't mind if we started pledging "under Allah"?
> No one cares about this except Michael Newdow and a couple of others.
Lots of us care about it, and have done since the 1950's when a bunch
of Christians shoehorned "under God" into the pledge. It's just that
very few of us care enough to file a lawsuit.
Wexford
doll...@pobox.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 21:27:47 -0800 (PST),Wexford<wrya...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> <SNIP>
>
>
>
>
>
> >Not saying prayers isn't atheism. I don't understand theists. If you
> >really believe in God and you really want your religion to spread,
> >then why don't you simply do as Jesus commanded and love your neighbor
> >as yourself? Make your life an example of patience and charity and
> >kindness. If your neighbor feels that public prayer impinges on his
> >rights, don't insist on disturbing him or her. Simply go about your
> >business, be a paragon of goodness and understanding, turn the other
> >cheek and try to see it from your neighbor's view point. I've never
> >met a committed theist who wasn't perpetually pissed-off about a
> >myriad of things and constantly interpreting every idea they don't
> >like as seditious and everyone who disagrees with them as a
> >persecutor. If you really think you're filled with the grace of God,
> >then radiate that grace, act happy and helpful, convert by example,
> >stop carping and condemning, and raise your children to be tolerant
> >and kind. If you do, your life will be good. Your neighbors will love
> >and respect you, and your children will honor you.
**********************
> Because there is a lot of profit. Look at the wealth of religious leaders in
> virtually any cult that preaches denying others their civil rights. The Pope,
> Robertson , Falwell. etc.
It's a combination of things. I live in the "Bible Belt" (although you
find this anywhere), and I always find the true believers to be a
troubling group.
Certainly there's money in religion, a great deal of money, and, if
you're lucky enough to acquire fame and popularity, a lot more fun
than work. Joel Osteen, for example, runs a mega church and collects
millions for his weekly services. Billy Graham was also able to amass
an enormous amount of wealth. The clever mega-preachers disguise their
wealth by keeping it in 'church" accounts, but, of course, maintain
control, can draw on those accounts, pay themselves handsomely, use
church funds for all sorts of private expenses, provide their houses,
set up their friends and relatives in businesses, etc. Billy Graham
passed on his holy empire to his son, Franklin, over the objections of
his deacons and managers. He could do it because he controlled the
church's assets. The money makers are just carnival hucksters with a
religion line, some more educated than others, but all of the same
ilk.
The followers are a different story. Most of the really die-hard
religionists I've met are small people, frustrated, angry, and really
rather mean. You do find folks among them who are not hard over on
condemnation and who actually will do good things, but there's a core
of really angry people who have no outlet except by taking the moral
ground they think they occupy and pointing at others. Persecution
tales and myths play right into their fears and frustration and fire
them up. In the South, it's all aggravated by white racism and the
underlying competition between poor whites and poor blacks for jobs
and resources, but there's a lot of that all over the country. They
see something like removing "under God" from the pledge of allegiance
(which is a silly thing in itself), as a direct assault, more evidence
of persecution and disrespect, obnoxious to all their sensibilities.
Their reaction is visceral.
I'd find it all rather sad, but there a mob mentality that flows
through these folks. Not too long ago, their grandparents were going
to church on Sundays but lynching people on Saturdays. Given the
opportunity, I'm certain they'd be burning witches, flogging heretics,
hounding Jews, and tarring anyone who spoke out against it.
Mike
doll...@pobox.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 11:11:07 -0800 (PST), Mike <mgcul...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> <SNIP>>Good, then don't say it. Just pause at that point. That's all anyone
> >has to do. I don't know why that Newdow idiot doesn't get that.
>
> <SNIP>
>
> You are the one who doesn't get it. "Under God" was strong armed in during the
> 1950s by a Christian group, "The Knights of Columbus."
>
> Ben
From what I understand, Congress inserted it as a response and counter
position to the atheistic Communist government of Russia, our mortal
cold war enemy. I don't doubt that the Knights of Columbus was behind
it, as well as other groups.
The question is, what is the problem with it? As already discussed,
you can either opt out of saying "under God" or opt out of the Pledge
completely.
Wexford
What was your complaint, again? If you're not a theist, then why all
the antagonism? The issue, "under God," in the pledge is, I'll give
you, not the type of issue that would bring me to the ramparts.
Personally, I don't care. The Republic will stand whether or not we
say it. I find the reactions of people, especially the Theists, to be
much more problematical than the words themselves. My usual response
to them is to try to shame them into reasonableness by using their own
language and beliefs to curb their worst intentions, hence the sermon.
Look, these people aren't nice. They're frustrated people who want
some sort of power and use religion as a lever to get it. HIgh School
kids, for example, win a court case that allows the children to
conduct prayers in a public school through the PA system (this
happened in Texas). As soon as this happens, they've a establish a
"we" and "them" situation, where the children who bow out of the
prayer service are marked and discriminated against, not by the school
but by the other students. At its worst form, especially when
aggravated by an economic reason, this type of thing turns into witch
hunting and active persecution.
Wexford
As a matter of fact, wasn't it Bush or someone in his administration
who made a conciliatory comment about all of us praying to the same
God that brought a storm of criticism from our fundie friends? --
Allah is not God! Or so they claimed.
Free Lunch
wrote in alt.atheism:
Then it would say "under some god or other". No, the KofC wanted
Christianity to count. They just couldn't find a way to add Jesus.
Wexford
doll...@pobox.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 11:11:07 -0800 (PST), Mike <mgcul...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> <SNIP>>Good, then don't say it. Just pause at that point. That's all anyone
> >has to do. I don't know why that Newdow idiot doesn't get that.
>
> <SNIP>
>
> You are the one who doesn't get it. "Under God" was strong armed in during the
> 1950s by a Christian group, "The Knights of Columbus."
I learned the pledge in the Philadelphia Public Schools before "under
God" made it into the words. I remember hearing "under God" for the
first time when I was about 11 or 12 and refusing to say them not
because of any religious belief but because I thought the pledge was
being said incorrectly. One of my classmates remarked on it as well.
By the way, the pledge is a quasi-religious exercise, immensely
stupid. It was conceived by a Baptist preacher as a way of inculcating
the youth of formerly rebellious states into identifying with the
country as a whole and bringing the nation together under a single
national consciousness, breaking down regionalism and replacing it
with overall nationality. "My country" becomes not the place I'm from
-- Virginia, Vermont, East Tennessee -- but the nation as a whole. One
flag, one country, one people. Conceived with the best of intentions,
it's too often become a test of patriotism, true Americanism. I even
worked in an office a few years ago, where each employee meeting began
with a recitation of the pledge. The stupidity of it and the hypocrisy
of people who had never done anything for their country and would
never do anything for it, solemnly reciting words they barley
understood, not the least interested in "liberty or justice," coupled
with the pompous display of phony patriotism made me want to
puke.
Ben Kaufman
>On Mar 14, 10:35 am, Ben Kaufman <spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000-
>doll...@pobox.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 11:11:07 -0800 (PST), Mike <mgcul...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> <SNIP>>Good, then don't say it. Just pause at that point. That's all anyone
>> >has to do. I don't know why that Newdow idiot doesn't get that.
>>
>> <SNIP>
>>
>> You are the one who doesn't get it. "Under God" was strong armed in during the
>> 1950s by a Christian group, "The Knights of Columbus."
>>
>> Ben
>
>From what I understand, Congress inserted it as a response and counter
>position to the atheistic Communist government of Russia, our mortal
>cold war enemy. I don't doubt that the Knights of Columbus was behind
>it, as well as other groups.
Of course it had to go through Congress but it was being pushed by the K of C.
"...In 1953, the Roman Catholic men's group, the Knights of Columbus mounted a
campaign to add the words "under God" to the Pledge. The nation was suffering
through the height of the cold war, and the McCarthy communist witch hunt.
Partly in reaction to these factors, a reported 15 resolutions were initiated in
Congress to change the pledge. They got nowhere until Rev. George Docherty (1911
- 2008) preached a sermon that was attended by President Eisenhower and the
national press corps on 1954-FEB-7....."
http://www.religioustolerance.org/nat_pled1.htm
>
>The question is, what is the problem with it? As already discussed,
>you can either opt out of saying "under God" or opt out of the Pledge
>completely.
The problem is that religious fanatics hijacked our system to get their
religious view as being the official pledge. They exploited people's fears of
Communists just like today the some Churches with influence played on people's
fears to prevent gay marriage.
Ben
juanjo
doll...@pobox.com> wrote:
True but that is not going to persuade the USSCt to strike the words
unfortunately. The prevailing religious myth in this country still
involves an all powerful sky pixie who has a son by raping a virgin.
Things in that arena have not changed a lot since the Roman Republic
or the Greek City States.
Ben Kaufman
I'm not stating legal grounds, just what bothers me about it.
Ben
Siobhan Medeiros
Wow...that's really good advice. Are you sure you're an atheist?
Jimbo
You just contradicted the court. They said it wasn't a mention of
divinity. Right?
Jimbo
Bullshit.
Mike
doll...@pobox.com> wrote:
As the court ruled, the snippets of reference to divinity in the
public square (In God We Trust on currency, "under God" in the Pledge)
are ceremonial, like "God save the king" in Britain. There needs to
be some give and take here. Prayer has been banned from school, it is
not acceptable to display the 10 commandments on the walls of a school
or a court, put up a nativity scene in a public square, etc. and
perhaps that is as it should be.
In addition, school textbooks go to great pains to avoid even the
mention of religion or belief in any context whatsoever, even though
it is part of history. I remember reading an article in Newsweek or
Time in the 90s in which a high school textbook skimmed over the
Crusades and barely mentioned them as a mercantile venture. That is
information. Teaching the motives behind the Crusades is not
establishing religion, but the schools have become so gun shy of
activists that they won't touch anything to do with religious history,
becoming anti-educational in that regard.
My point is, the country, the culture, belongs to all of us, and no
one single faction should get to have everything go all their way all
the time. Should Michale Newdow and his group one day prevail, I
don't doubt that they would immediately begin looking for some other
infinitesimal slight against their views and try to stamp it out.
Jimbo
Thankfully, they've removed the pledge from our local school systems
for that very reason.
Ben Kaufman
Needing to put God's name on everything is Christian proselytizing , not
culture.
It's ironic when you say, "no single faction should get to have everything go
all their way." because, historically, Christians have enjoyed the most out
of any group in this country when it comes to getting "cooperation" from the
government. And what you seem to be complaining about in your second paragraph
about history books is actually giving other cultures recognitions for their
long denied contributions and injustices they suffered, such as Native
Americans, slaves and non-white immigrants.
Ben
Ray
5 ”And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to
pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen
by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full.
6 But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to
your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in
secret, will reward you. 7 And when you pray, do not keep on babbling
like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many
words. 8 Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need
before you ask him. – Matthew 6.5-8
The Chief Instigator
> On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 10:47:50 -0700 (PDT), Mike <mgcu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>doll...@pobox.com> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 11:11:07 -0800 (PST), Mike <mgcul...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >has to do. ?I don't know why that Newdow idiot doesn't get that.
>>>
>>> <SNIP>
>>>
>>> You are the one who doesn't get it. ? "Under God" was strong armed in during the
>>> 1950s by a Christian group, "The Knights of Columbus." ? ?
>>>
>>> Ben
>>
>>From what I understand, Congress inserted it as a response and counter
>>position to the atheistic Communist government of Russia, our mortal
>>cold war enemy. I don't doubt that the Knights of Columbus was behind
>>it, as well as other groups.
>
> Of course it had to go through Congress but it was being pushed by the K of C.
>
> "...In 1953, the Roman Catholic men's group, the Knights of Columbus mounted a
> campaign to add the words "under God" to the Pledge. The nation was suffering
> through the height of the cold war, and the McCarthy communist witch hunt.
> Partly in reaction to these factors, a reported 15 resolutions were initiated in
> Congress to change the pledge. They got nowhere until Rev. George Docherty (1911
> - 2008) preached a sermon that was attended by President Eisenhower and the
> national press corps on 1954-FEB-7....."
>
> http://www.religioustolerance.org/nat_pled1.htm
>
>>
>>The question is, what is the problem with it? As already discussed,
>>you can either opt out of saying "under God" or opt out of the Pledge
>>completely.
>
> The problem is that religious fanatics hijacked our system to get their
> religious view as being the official pledge. They exploited people's fears of
> Communists just like today the some Churches with influence played on people's
> fears to prevent gay marriage.
>
> Ben
No kidding...I wasn't born until four years after Drunken Joe McCarthy's
rampage, and now maybe the descendants of the '50s K of C should be
enlightened as to what that First Amendment meant.
--
Patrick L. "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (pat...@io.com) Houston, Texas
www.io.com/~patrick/aeros.php (TCI's 2009-10 Houston Aeros) AA#2273
LAST GAME: Rockford 3, Houston 2 (SO, March 14)
NEXT GAME: Saturday, March 20 vs. Milwaukee, 7:35
Mike
I'm sorry to hear that.you have such an aversion to the Pledge. Are
you also filled with revulsion every time you reach into your wallet
and pull out a note that has "In God We Trust" emblazoned on it?
Jimbo
I don't use paper money much any more, but when I do, I use a black
magic marker to line that off the bill. The government is violating
my right not to worship any god.
Patriot Games
wrote:
Why are fags criminals?
TITLE 18
PART I
CHAPTER 17
§ 333
§ 333. Mutilation of national bank obligations
Whoever mutilates, cuts, defaces, disfigures, or perforates, or unites
or cements together, or does any other thing to any bank bill, draft,
note, or other evidence of debt issued by any national banking
association, or Federal Reserve bank, or the Federal Reserve System,
with intent to render such bank bill, draft, note, or other evidence
of debt unfit to be reissued, shall be fined under this title or
imprisoned not more than six months, or both.
http://assembler.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000333----000-.html
Mike
doll...@pobox.com> wrote:
I'm not to sure if I know exactly what you mean by "cooperation" of
the government. What branches are you talking about? If it's
Congress, I don't doubt that a large part of the constituency has been
monolithic Judeo-Christian and has been represented as such. But that
is in decline, and it seems the only faction that gets government
cooperation now is Big Money,
> And what you seem to be complaining about in your second paragraph
> about history books is actually giving other cultures recognitions for their
> long denied contributions and injustices they suffered, such as Native
> Americans, slaves and non-white immigrants.
I was specifically talking about how the history of the Middle Ages
was being taught. As for the other, I do remember quite well learning
about the institution of slavery and the slave trade, the wresting of
a huge chunk of the continent from Mexico, The Trail of Tears, and
other injustices that made me mad. It was in the 60s.
>
> Ben
Mike
What about that eye above the pyramid? That's supposed to be the All-
Seeing Eye of God.
Ben Kaufman
Cooperation includes two Christian national/federal holidays, tax exemption for
Church property and income, faith based funding, a blind eye to Evangelical
proselytizing in the military .. Yesteryear included blue laws, laws banning
atheists from office, oaths requiring a Bible, antisemitism, Prohibition,
oppression of women, oppression of gays, racism, genocide of native Americans.
>
>> And what you seem to be complaining about in your second paragraph
>> about history books is actually giving other cultures recognitions for their
>> long denied contributions and injustices they suffered, such as Native
>> Americans, slaves and non-white immigrants.
>
>I was specifically talking about how the history of the Middle Ages
>was being taught. As for the other, I do remember quite well learning
>about the institution of slavery and the slave trade, the wresting of
>a huge chunk of the continent from Mexico, The Trail of Tears, and
>other injustices that made me mad. It was in the 60s.
>
You may have started off being specific about the Crusades but then you
generalized and said, "they won't touch anything to do with religious
history..."
And speaking of the Crusades, ... it's the Crusades. This period was not
exactly religion's finest hour.
>>
>> Ben
Jimbo
> On Tue, 16 Mar 2010 05:40:16 -0700 (PDT), Jimbo <ckdbig...@gmail.com>
Why are you a fag?
> criminals?
>
I am not obliged to follow law that violates my constitutional
rights. Unconstitutional law is unenforceable.
Jimbo
>
> - Show quoted text -
Actually, it is the all seeing Eye of Horus, which was a Masonic
symbol. The symbol was used by the "Master Builder" guilds of ancient
Egypt, and the Free Masons adopted it. The symbol does not tell me
that I (we) trust it, (pray to it).
Regie_Satanis
> On Mar 12, 10:18 pm, Mike <mgcul...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 11, 5:58 pm, Gerbil Rescue Services <nofu...@packers.orgz>
> > sterilize the public square from any passing mention of divinity? Are
> > they going to try the Supreme Court again or have they exhausted their
> > legal efforts to impose state-sanctioned atheism on every one else?
>
> really believe in God and you really want your religion to spread,
> then why don't you simply do as Jesus commanded and love your neighbor
> as yourself? Make your life an example of patience and charity and
> kindness. If your neighbor feels that public prayer impinges on his
> rights, don't insist on disturbing him or her. Simply go about your
> business, be a paragon of goodness and understanding, turn the other
> cheek and try to see it from your neighbor's view point. I've never
> met a committed theist who wasn't perpetually pissed-off about a
> myriad of things and constantly interpreting every idea they don't
> like as seditious and everyone who disagrees with them as a
> persecutor. If you really think you're filled with the grace of God,
> then radiate that grace, act happy and helpful, convert by example,
> stop carping and condemning, and raise your children to be tolerant
> and kind. If you do, your life will be good. Your neighbors will love
>
> - Show quoted text -
You're too funny! Teach by example. Ha!!
Jimbo
> with intent to render such bank bill, draft, note, or other evidence
> of debt unfit to be reissued, shall be fined under this title or
> imprisoned not more than six months, or both.
That is the loophole, of course. Such is not my intent, my intent is
to render the currency far more fit to be reissued without the prayer
attached to it. So, basically, I haven't broken any laws.
juanjo
Logic is lost on the Patent Gay Boy.
Patriot Games
wrote:
Sorry, I'm not...
And, in all seriousness, you really should update you portfolio of
tricks because THAT one hasn't worked in DECADES.
>> criminals?
>I am not obliged to follow law that violates my constitutional
>rights.
Yes, you are.
>Unconstitutional law is unenforceable.
No, it isn't.
IF that law violated your Constitutional rights it would NOT exist...
Patriot Games
wrote:
Since when do YOU get to determine "intent?"
Since NEVER.
>my intent is
>to render the currency far more fit to be reissued without the prayer
>attached to it. So, basically, I haven't broken any laws.
As I previously stated: Fags LIKE YOU are 'damaged' in ways FAR MORE
than just the genetic mutation responsible for homosexuality....
juanjo
>
> As I previously stated: Fags LIKE Me are 'damaged' in ways FAR MORE
> than just the genetic mutation responsible for homosexuality....
I corrected it for you sweetie. Now I order you to respond to my
comment like the good little slave you are!
Jimbo
> On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 03:32:25 -0700 (PDT), Jimbo <ckdbig...@gmail.com>
Then why do you say you are?
>
> >> criminals?
> >I am not obliged to follow law that violates my constitutional
> >rights.
>
> Yes, you are.
>
No, I'm not.
Jimbo
> On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 06:02:08 -0700 (PDT), Jimbo <ckdbig...@gmail.com>
Since it is my intent, idiot.
Mike
doll...@pobox.com> wrote:
According to www.opm.gov, these are the federal holidays for 2010:
Friday, January 1 New Year’s Day
Monday, January 18 Birthday of Martin Luther King, Jr.
Monday, February 15* Washington’s Birthday
Monday, May 31 Memorial Day
Monday, July 5** Independence Day
Monday, September 6 Labor Day
Monday, October 11 Columbus Day
Thursday, November 11 Veterans Day
Thursday, November 25 Thanksgiving Day
Friday, December 24*** Christmas Day
Besides Christmas, what is the other religious holiday? Is it
Thanksgiving, because of religious overtones? Anyway, Christmas is
observed because of a broad, longstanding consensus, a Western
tradition going back to the Roman Saturnalia. It is a winter solstice
celebration combining Christian and pagan themes, passed down through
the generations. Therefore, don't blame a Christian conspiracy for
the feds making a Christmas holiday. Blame Western culture.
tax exemption for
> Church property and income,
I take it that you would make all churches pay full taxes, if it were
up to you?
faith based funding, a blind eye to Evangelical
> proselytizing in the military .. Yesteryear included blue laws, laws banning
> atheists from office, oaths requiring a Bible,
Uh-oh, the President putting his hand on the Bible to be sworn in by
the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, another affront.
Symbol and ritual is never going to go away, deal with it. Life is
compromise and give and take.
antisemitism, Prohibition,
> oppression of women, oppression of gays, racism, genocide of native Americans.
These are tremendously broad generalizations that cannot be ascribed
to government cooperation with Christians but to human foibles in
general. Considering the mass butcheries carried out by Stalin, Pol
Pot, and others, it is clear that atheists, agnostics, or the
religiously indifferent can do some pretty horrible things, too.
> >> And what you seem to be complaining about in your second paragraph
> >> about history books is actually giving other cultures recognitions for their
> >> long denied contributions and injustices they suffered, such as Native
> >> Americans, slaves and non-white immigrants.
>
> >I was specifically talking about how the history of the Middle Ages
> >was being taught. As for the other, I do remember quite well learning
> >about the institution of slavery and the slave trade, the wresting of
> >a huge chunk of the continent from Mexico, The Trail of Tears, and
> >other injustices that made me mad. It was in the 60s.
> >
>
> You may have started off being specific about the Crusades but then you
> generalized and said, "they won't touch anything to do with religious
> history..."
This is what I said, in context:
I remember reading an article in Newsweek or
Time in the 90s in which a high school textbook skimmed over the
Crusades and barely mentioned them as a mercantile venture. That is
information. Teaching the motives behind the Crusades is not
establishing religion, but the schools have become so gun shy of
activists that they won't touch anything to do with religious history,
becoming anti-educational in that regard.
> And speaking of the Crusades, ... it's the Crusades. This period was not
> exactly religion's finest hour.
>
My point was that schools have been made to shy away from mentioning
religion in an objective sense, even when they are teaching the Middle
Ages and the Crusades, in which religious belief played a major role,
and that not providing that information but giving another explanation
instead, is anti-educational.
>
>
>
> >> Ben
Jimbo
I was reading about the Crusades, specifically the 1st and 2nd
Crusade, and was surprised at the number of Christians of the Eastern
Orthodoxy that the Crusaders also killed, as well as Jews. As far
as i can tell, the Crusaders were little more than a large band of
thugs who believed that they had their God on their side.
Patriot Games
juanjo COMMITS Malicious Posting:
Malicious Posters should be KILLFILED!
juanjo IS a Malicious Poster:
My ORIGINAL Message:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.california/msg/b7675eec8dc62fdc?hl=en
-------------------------------
>On Mar 16, 2010 5:14 pm, Patriot Games <Patr...@america.com> wrote:
As I previously stated: Fags LIKE YOU are 'damaged' in ways FAR MORE
than just the genetic mutation responsible for homosexuality....
-------------------------------
The MALICIOUSLY EDITED Message:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.california/msg/97d2e7a96eec3b88?hl=en
-------------------------------
>juanjo <caca...@mypacks.net> wrote:
> As I previously stated: Fags LIKE Me are 'damaged' in ways FAR MORE
> than just the genetic mutation responsible for homosexuality....
I corrected it for you sweetie. Now I order you to respond to my
comment like the good little slave you are!
-------------------------------
juanjo is a MALICIOUS POSTER.
Do yourself a favor, KILLFILE him NOW!
Patriot Games
wrote:
Wrong, fag.
You don't EVER get to determine intent.
The court determines intent.
Thanks for PROVING that Fags LIKE YOU are 'damaged' in ways FAR MORE
RamRod Sword of Baal
"Patriot Games" <Pat...@america.com> wrote in message
news:a1s4q51aoe6k2lj8d...@4ax.com...
You are saying that because he is much smarter than you and shoots you down
in flames all the time.
Ben Kaufman
If it's also celebrating the Winter Solstice then let's move it up to the 21st,
OK?
> tax exemption for
>> Church property and income,
>
>I take it that you would make all churches pay full taxes, if it were
>up to you?
I take it that you are in agreement with this one?
To answer your question, if it were up to me I would greatly restrict what could
be tax exempt and prevent them from accumulating wealth.
.
>
> faith based funding, a blind eye to Evangelical
>> proselytizing in the military .. Yesteryear included blue laws, laws banning
>> atheists from office, oaths requiring a Bible,
>
>Uh-oh, the President putting his hand on the Bible to be sworn in by
>the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, another affront.
>
No, today one is free to take an oath in various ways.
But what about , Evangelical Christian proselytizing in the military, which is
still a problem today?
>Symbol and ritual is never going to go away, deal with it. Life is
>compromise and give and take.
>
Sure just like the traditions of racism and oppression of women. They are
centuries if not millennia old but would you argue their traditional qualities
as a reason to keep them? And of course there are people who do want to keep
them. They honestly believe that women are inferior to men and blacks are
inferior to whites. Whether you realize it or not, you are perpetrating the
same mentality with respect to your religion. You think your Christian
viewpoint is superior otherwise you would not argue that it remain in place when
it is evident that it upsets other people not to mention a violation of the
constitution..
>antisemitism, Prohibition,
>> oppression of women, oppression of gays, racism, genocide of native Americans.
>
>These are tremendously broad generalizations that cannot be ascribed
>to government cooperation with Christians but to human foibles in
>general. Considering the mass butcheries carried out by Stalin, Pol
>Pot, and others, it is clear that atheists, agnostics, or the
>religiously indifferent can do some pretty horrible things, too.
The world is full of injustices but this discussion is specifically about how
Christian agenda has had substantial impact on this country's government. The
fact that Stalin murdered millions does not comfort me with respect to what our
country did to Native Americans specifically because they were not Christians.
>
>> >> And what you seem to be complaining about in your second paragraph
>> >> about history books is actually giving other cultures recognitions for their
>> >> long denied contributions and injustices they suffered, such as Native
>> >> Americans, slaves and non-white immigrants.
>>
>> >I was specifically talking about how the history of the Middle Ages
>> >was being taught. As for the other, I do remember quite well learning
>> >about the institution of slavery and the slave trade, the wresting of
>> >a huge chunk of the continent from Mexico, The Trail of Tears, and
>> >other injustices that made me mad. It was in the 60s.
>> >
>>
>> You may have started off being specific about the Crusades but then you
>> generalized and said, "they won't touch anything to do with religious
>> history..."
>
>This is what I said, in context:
>
> I remember reading an article in Newsweek or
>Time in the 90s in which a high school textbook skimmed over the
>Crusades and barely mentioned them as a mercantile venture. That is
>information. Teaching the motives behind the Crusades is not
>establishing religion, but the schools have become so gun shy of
>activists that they won't touch anything to do with religious history,
>becoming anti-educational in that regard.
>
And as of recent, a Texas school board, if it gets its way, is making it so
Thomas Jefferson is barely mentioned in American history, and anything to do
with the concept of separation of church and state.
Jimbo
doll...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> >Friday, January 1 New Year’s Day
> >Monday, January 18 Birthday of Martin Luther King, Jr.
> >Monday, February 15* Washington’s Birthday
> >Monday, May 31 Memorial Day
> >Monday, July 5** Independence Day
> >Monday, September 6 Labor Day
> >Monday, October 11 Columbus Day
> >Thursday, November 11 Veterans Day
> >Thursday, November 25 Thanksgiving Day
> >Friday, December 24*** Christmas Day
>
> >Besides Christmas, what is the other religious holiday? Is it
> >Thanksgiving, because of religious overtones? Anyway, Christmas is
> >observed because of a broad, longstanding consensus, a Western
> >tradition going back to the Roman Saturnalia. It is a winter solstice
> >celebration combining Christian and pagan themes, passed down through
> >the generations. Therefore, don't blame a Christian conspiracy for
> >the feds making a Christmas holiday. Blame Western culture.
>
> If it's also celebrating the Winter Solstice then let's move it up to the 21st,
> OK?
>
Why? Winter Solstice was celebrated over a three to twelve day
period, depending on the culture involved. Yule was celebrated over a
twelve day period (Hence the "Twelve Days of Christmas" adapted
(Hijacked) from a much older song, "Twelve Days of Father Yule".
Although the Western Church have adopted (Hijacked) the twelve days
from Christmas until the beginning of Epiphany as their own, it is
from a far older tradition. Even the words were changed to reflect
Western Church values.
2 Turtle Doves = The Old and New Testaments
3 French Hens = Faith, Hope and Charity, the Theological Virtues
4 Calling Birds = the Four Gospels and/or the Four Evangelists
5 Golden Rings = The first Five Books of the Old Testament, the
"Pentateuch", which gives the history of man's fall from grace.
6 Geese A-laying = the six days of creation
7 Swans A-swimming = the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit, the seven
sacraments
8 Maids A-milking = the eight beatitudes
9 Ladies Dancing = the nine Fruits of the Holy Spirit
10 Lords A-leaping = the ten commandments
11 Pipers Piping = the eleven faithful apostles
12 Drummers Drumming = the twelve points of doctrine in the Apostle's
Creed
Jimbo
> On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 19:16:22 -0700 (PDT), Jimbo <ckdbig...@gmail.com>
Are you a fag?
> You don't EVER get to determine intent.
I certainly do.
juanjo
> On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 16:09:02 -0700 (PDT), juanjo
>
> >On Mar 17, 3:36 pm, Patent Gay Boy@america's sweetheart.com> wrote:
> >> As I previously stated: Fags LIKE Me are 'damaged' in ways FAR MORE
> >> than just the genetic mutation responsible for homosexuality....
> >I corrected it for you sweetie. Now I order you to respond to my
> >comment like the good little slave you are!
>
> juanjo COMMITS Malicious Posting:
>
Oh look, the Patent Gay Boy gets upset when I turned the tables on him
for doing exactly the same thing to my posts for months. Can you say
hypocrite? Of course you can!
juanjo
wrote:
> "Patriot Games" <Patr...@america.com> wrote in message
>
> news:a1s4q51aoe6k2lj8d...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
> > On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 16:09:02 -0700 (PDT), juanjo
> > <cacas9...@mypacks.net> wrote:
> >>On Mar 17, 3:36 pm, Patent Gay Boy@america's sweetheart.com> wrote:
> >>> As I previously stated: Fags LIKE Me are 'damaged' in ways FAR MORE
> >>> than just the genetic mutation responsible for homosexuality....
> >>I corrected it for you sweetie. Now I order you to respond to my
> >>comment like the good little slave you are!
>
> > juanjo COMMITS Malicious Posting:
>
> > Malicious Posters should be KILLFILED!
>
> > juanjo IS a Malicious Poster:
>
> > My ORIGINAL Message:
> >http://groups.google.com/group/alt.california/msg/b7675eec8dc62fdc?hl=en
> > -------------------------------
> >>On Mar 16, 2010 5:14 pm, Patriot Games <Patr...@america.com> wrote:
>
> > As I previously stated: Fags LIKE YOU are 'damaged' in ways FAR MORE
> > than just the genetic mutation responsible for homosexuality....
> > -------------------------------
>
> > The MALICIOUSLY EDITED Message:
> >http://groups.google.com/group/alt.california/msg/97d2e7a96eec3b88?hl=en
> > -------------------------------
> >> As I previously stated: Fags LIKE Me are 'damaged' in ways FAR MORE
> >> than just the genetic mutation responsible for homosexuality....
>
> > I corrected it for you sweetie. Now I order you to respond to my
> > comment like the good little slave you are!
> > -------------------------------
>
> > juanjo is a MALICIOUS POSTER.
>
> > Do yourself a favor, KILLFILE him NOW!
>
> You are saying that because he is much smarter than you and shoots you down
> in flames all the time.
I particularly like how he expresses outrage when he does the same
thing all the time to my and other people's posts and has for quite
some time. Which is of course, why I did it to him.
Patriot Games
Sorry, I have NEVER EDITTED WORDS in someone else's post.
Feel free to PROVE I HAVE...
>Which is of course, why I did it to him.
No, you did it because you were BANKRUPT, LOST, BEATEN, DESTROYED and
had NO OTHER RECOURSE.
When I can DESTROY someone SO BADLY that they resort to LYING (as YOU
did) and/or Malicious Posting (as YOU did) I then have PROOF POSITIVE
by way of ADMISSION that they are IN FACT UTTERLY DESTROYED.
Enjoy the results of PROVING that I DESTROYED YOU.
You will be seeing the reposting of those results FOREVER...
Patriot Games
wrote:
Nope.
(It's not working...)
>> You don't EVER get to determine intent.
>I certainly do.
Wrong. You get to make a statement, the COURT gets to make a
determination.
"Criminal law has attempted to clarify the intent requirement by
creating the concepts of "specific intent" and "general intent."
Specific Intent refers to a particular state of mind that seeks to
accomplish the precise act that the law prohibits... The prosecution
must show that the defendant purposely or knowingly committed the
crime at issue.
"General intent refers to the intent to do that which the law
prohibits. It is not necessary for the prosecution to prove that the
defendant intended the precise harm or the precise result that
occurred."
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Intent
RamRod Sword of Baal
"Patriot Games" <Pat...@america.com> wrote in message
news:pf85q59vclcc6thcr...@4ax.com...
In part
> When I can DESTROY someone SO BADLY that they resort to LYING (as YOU
> did) and/or Malicious Posting (as YOU did) I then have PROOF POSITIVE
> by way of ADMISSION that they are IN FACT UTTERLY DESTROYED.
Delusions of grandeur.
juanjo
> I told you sucking too many dicks makes you stupid.
And you are definitely stupid
"The zealot rails most fervently against that which he fears most
within himself ." Dr . Karl Menninger
juanjo
Jimbo
> On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 13:49:16 -0700 (PDT), Jimbo <ckdbig...@gmail.com>
No, I'm right. In the absence of any physical or witness evidence,
intent can only be determined by testimony of the defendant. Since
there is no direct nor indirect evidence of malicious intent to render
the bills unissuable, my stated intent will have to do. Otherwise, I
still walk. (Innocent until proven guilty, as it were)
Patriot Games
The FACTS are what they are....
Patriot Games
On Tue, 7 Oct 2008 00:28:12 -0700 (PDT), juanjo
<jonp...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>On Oct 4, 9:55 am, Patriot Games <Patr...@America.Com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 2 Oct 2008 11:20:49 -0700 (PDT), juanjo
>> <jonpe...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> >On Sep 30, 12:43 pm, Patriot Games <Patr...@America.Com> wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 27 Sep 2008 04:06:10 -0700 (PDT), juanjo
>> >> <jonpe...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> >> >Senator Craig for example is not a homosexual, just
>> >> >ask him! But he is man who has sex with other men
>> >> Cite?
>> >PG you are not that stupid. Even a fool like you has seen Craig's
>> >televised interviews.
>> You were instructed to CITE that Craig had "sex with other men."
>> You FAILED to CITE that Craig had "sex with other men."
>> You are a LIAR.
>Game Boy: Even living under that rock in the back woods swamp behind
>the trailer park in Alabama that you call home, you are aware of the
>fact that Senator Craig was arrested and ultimately plead guilty to a
>solicitation charge.
Wrong. See? I told you sucking too many dicks makes you stupid.
Craig pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of disorderly conduct.
>There are also men who have come forward and stated that they have
>engaged in same gender sexual acts with him in the past both in
>Washington DC and in his home state of Idaho.
Yet there is ZERO actual PROOF.
Unless you are willing to accept that OBAMA IS A FAG because someone
stated they "engaged in same gender sexual acts with him in the past."
Which is it?
>Calling me a liar
>because I do not bother to do a simple Google search you are too lazy
>to do and which you know will turn up the references I have mentioned
>does not make me a liar.
Given that you CLAIM you have done these many Google searches I amd
FORCED TO ASSUME you also did the research necessary to KNOW FOR A
FACT that Craig pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of disorderly
conduct.
So, when you said "Craig was arrested and ultimately plead guilty to a
solicitation charge" YOU KNEW YOU WERE LYING.
==================================
On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 11:33:32 -0700 (PDT), juanjo
<jonp...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>On Oct 11, 11:14 pm, Joe Bruno <jbr...@indystart.com> wrote:
>> On Sep 29, 4:02 pm, a...@seas7.e4word.com wrote:
>> The other armed forces might accept openly homosexuals on shore
>> stations, but I doubt the Navy will ever allow them aboard ship. This
>> policy has been in effect for over 100 years.
>> If they keep their sexual orientation to themselves and don't practice
>> homsexuality in public, the Navy will not take action. There is no
>> privacy for enlisted men aboard a Navy ship-they all sleep in the same
>> quarters in bunks. I support this policy 100%.
>Honey we have served on board Navy ships since the times of the
>Phoenicians.
"We?" Thanks for admitting YOU ARE A FAGGOT!
>Churchill once commented that the Navy ran on rum and
>sodomy and he wasn't joking.
Churchill NEVER SAID it:
'In Search of Churchill' the celebrated historian, Sir Martin Gilbert,
debunks some of the best-known myths about Churchill. On the alleged
signal to all ships 'Winston is back' when he returned to the
Admiralty in 1939, Gilbert says at page 232;
"Despite repeated trawling in the archives, I have never managed to
find this signal. If apocryphal, it must rank with Churchill's alleged
reply to an Admiral who had protested that the provision of better
conditions for ordinary seamen was 'against the traditions' of the
Royal Navy: ' Traditions! What traditions? Rum, sodomy and the lash!'
"
Gilbert could find no authority for attributing these words to
Churchill.
http://uk.geocities.com/nelsonsnavy/pg4.htm
He was rumored to have said, "What are the traditions of the Navy?
Rum, sodomy, and the lash?" (In later years he explained that he had
never said this but wished he had.)
http://www.ralphmag.org/DI/churchill.html
Quotes Falsely Attributed:
These quotes make for good story-telling but popular myth has falsely
attributed them to Churchill.
"The only traditions of the Royal Navy are rum, sodomy and the lash. -
-- Churchill's assistant, Anthony Montague-Browne said that although
Churchill had not uttered these words, he wished he had."
http://www.winstonchurchill.org/learn/speeches/quotations/quotes-falsely-attributed
>As for American Naval vessels, we have served there...
"We?" Thanks for admitting YOU ARE A FAGGOT!
>And despite your worst fears we...
"We?" Thanks for admitting YOU ARE A FAGGOT!
>rape every virginal straight ass we saw.
"We?" Thanks for admitting YOU ARE A FAGGOT!
=====================================
On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 11:02:32 -0700 (PDT), juanjo
<jonp...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>On Oct 13, 6:34 am, Patriot Games an anonymous coward wrote:
>> On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 11:33:32 -0700 (PDT), juanjo
>> <jonpe...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> >On Oct 11, 11:14 pm, Joe Bruno <jbr...@indystart.com> wrote:
>> >> On Sep 29, 4:02 pm, a...@seas7.e4word.com wrote:
>> >> The other armed forces might accept openly homosexuals on shore
>> >> stations, but I doubt the Navy will ever allow them aboard ship. This
>> >> policy has been in effect for over 100 years.
>> >> If they keep their sexual orientation to themselves and don't practice
>> >> homsexuality in public, the Navy will not take action. There is no
>> >> privacy for enlisted men aboard a Navy ship-they all sleep in the same
>> >> quarters in bunks. I support this policy 100%.
>> >Honey we have served on board Navy ships since the times of the
>> >Phoenicians.
>> "We?" Thanks for admitting YOU ARE A FAGGOT!
>> >Churchill once commented that the Navy ran on rum and
>> >sodomy and he wasn't joking.
>> Churchill NEVER SAID it:
>> 'In Search of Churchill' the celebrated historian, Sir Martin Gilbert,
>> debunks some of the best-known myths about Churchill. On the alleged
>> signal to all ships 'Winston is back' when he returned to the
>> Admiralty in 1939, Gilbert says at page 232;
>> "Despite repeated trawling in the archives, I have never managed to
>> find this signal. If apocryphal, it must rank with Churchill's
>> alleged reply to an Admiral who had protested that the provision of
>> better conditions for ordinary seamen was 'against the traditions' of
>> the Royal Navy: ' Traditions! What traditions? Rum, sodomy and the
>> lash!' "
>> Gilbert could find no authority for attributing these words to
>> Churchill.
>> http://uk.geocities.com/nelsonsnavy/pg4.htm
>> He was rumored to have said, "What are the traditions of the Navy?
>> Rum, sodomy, and the lash?" (In later years he explained that he had
>> never said this but wished he had.)
>> http://www.ralphmag.org/DI/churchill.html
>> Quotes Falsely Attributed:
>> These quotes make for good story-telling but popular myth has falsely
>> attributed them to Churchill.
>> "The only traditions of the Royal Navy are rum, sodomy and the lash. -
>> -- Churchill's assistant, Anthony Montague-Browne said that although
>> Churchill had not uttered these words, he wished he had."
>> http://www.winstonchurchill.org/learn/speeches/quotations/quotes-falsely-attributed
>> >As for American Naval vessels, we have served there...
>> "We?" Thanks for admitting YOU ARE A FAGGOT!
>> >And despite your worst fears we...
>> "We?" Thanks for admitting YOU ARE A FAGGOT!
>> >rape every virginal straight ass we saw.
>> "We?" Thanks for admitting YOU ARE A FAGGOT!
>Look at that! Game boy finally got one correct!
Which STANDS as YOUR CONFESSION that YOU LIED.
YOU SAID: "Churchill once commented that the Navy ran on rum and
sodomy and he wasn't joking."
Churchill NEVER SAID it.
YOU LIED.
YOU SAID: I "finally got one correct!"
YOU CONFESSED that YOU LIED.
Case closed.
Game over.
You're dismissed, Fag.
=====================================
On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 10:23:22 -0700 (PDT), juanjo
<jonp...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>On Oct 13, 6:16 am, Patriot Games an anonymous coward wrote:
>> So, when you said "Craig was arrested and ultimately plead guilty to a
>> solicitation charge" YOU KNEW YOU WERE LYING.
>Note how the game boy is using lies, denial, misdirection and insults
>to evade responsibility for his own errors. He absolutely hates it
>when people call him on his bulll shit.
Are you claiming you DID NOT say ""Craig was arrested and ultimately
plead guilty to a solicitation charge."???
That would be STRANGE because HERE IS THE ORIGINAL:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.homosexuality/msg/e28aa59cef996feb?hl=en
Hahahahahahaha!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
=====================================
On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 09:37:14 -0700 (PDT), Usenet Legends bobandcarole
€€€ <usenet...@ymail.com> wrote:
>On Oct 17, 11:53 am, John Jacob Petry <jonpe...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> Oh look, another sock pupet has joined the bigot parade.
>Try using a dictionary and find out what a sock puppet is, ya FUCKIN
>MORON.
>In tha meantime explain why you leave yer personal info where it can
>be found so fuckin easy .. :-)
>
>Faggot John Jacob Petry--age 54,
>Lives at: 11 Ervine St , San FAGcisco, CA 94122-2766
>Call him: (415) 468-2808
---------------------------------------------------
Or: http://tinyurl.com/ygsogfk
== UPDATE ========================
juanjo COMMITS Malicious Posting:
Malicious Posters should be KILLFILED!
juanjo IS a Malicious Poster:
My ORIGINAL Message:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.california/msg/b7675eec8dc62fdc?hl=en
-------------------------------
>On Mar 16, 2010 5:14 pm, Patriot Games <Patr...@america.com> wrote:
As I previously stated: Fags LIKE YOU are 'damaged' in ways FAR MORE
than just the genetic mutation responsible for homosexuality....
-------------------------------
The MALICIOUSLY EDITED Message:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.california/msg/97d2e7a96eec3b88?hl=en
-------------------------------
Patriot Games
On Tue, 7 Oct 2008 00:28:12 -0700 (PDT), juanjo
Which is it?
==================================
Churchill NEVER SAID it:
=====================================
Churchill NEVER SAID it.
YOU LIED.
Case closed.
Game over.
You're dismissed, Fag.
=====================================
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.homosexuality/msg/e28aa59cef996feb?hl=en
Hahahahahahaha!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
=====================================
---------------------------------------------------
Or: http://tinyurl.com/ygsogfk
== UPDATE ========================
juanjo COMMITS Malicious Posting:
>On Mar 16, 2010 5:14 pm, Patriot Games <Patr...@america.com> wrote:
As I previously stated: Fags LIKE YOU are 'damaged' in ways FAR MORE
than just the genetic mutation responsible for homosexuality....
-------------------------------
The MALICIOUSLY EDITED Message:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.california/msg/97d2e7a96eec3b88?hl=en
-------------------------------
>juanjo <caca...@mypacks.net> wrote:
> As I previously stated: Fags LIKE Me are 'damaged' in ways FAR MORE
> than just the genetic mutation responsible for homosexuality....
I corrected it for you sweetie. Now I order you to respond to my
Patriot Games
wrote:
What a stupid squirming fag...
"In the absence of any physical or witness evidence" you would NEVER
be charged....
What a stupid squirming fag...
Free Lunch
wrote in alt.atheism:
But you have a history of not knowing what the facts are.
You and Fox News and Rush Limbaugh have a history of making things up
and calling them facts.
Syd M.
> On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 00:16:50 GMT, "RamRod Sword of Baal"
>
> <ram...@truthonly.com> wrote:
> >news:pf85q59vclcc6thcr...@4ax.com...
> >In part
> >> When I can DESTROY someone SO BADLY that they resort to LYING (as YOU
> >> did) and/or Malicious Posting (as YOU did) I then have PROOF POSITIVE
> >> by way of ADMISSION that they are IN FACT UTTERLY DESTROYED.
> >Delusions of grandeur.
>
> The FACTS are what they are....
Since when have you cared about facts, Pathetic Gamey?
PDW
Jimbo
> On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 00:16:50 GMT, "RamRod Sword of Baal"
>
> <ram...@truthonly.com> wrote:
> >news:pf85q59vclcc6thcr...@4ax.com...
> >In part
> >> When I can DESTROY someone SO BADLY that they resort to LYING (as YOU
> >> did) and/or Malicious Posting (as YOU did) I then have PROOF POSITIVE
> >> by way of ADMISSION that they are IN FACT UTTERLY DESTROYED.
> >Delusions of grandeur.
>
> The FACTS are what they are....
But your fractured fairy tales are not facts.
Jimbo
> On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 02:33:15 -0700 (PDT), Jimbo <ckdbig...@gmail.com>
Why are you a stupid squirming fag?
>
> "In the absence of any physical or witness evidence" you would NEVER
> be charged....
True, so what are you bitching about?
Ben Kaufman
<SNIP>
>> If it's also celebrating the Winter Solstice then let's move it up to the 21st,
>> OK?
>>
>
>Why? Winter Solstice was celebrated over a three to twelve day
>period, depending on the culture involved. Yule was celebrated over a
>twelve day period (Hence the "Twelve Days of Christmas" adapted
>(Hijacked) from a much older song, "Twelve Days of Father Yule".
>Although the Western Church have adopted (Hijacked) the twelve days
>from Christmas until the beginning of Epiphany as their own, it is
>from a far older tradition. Even the words were changed to reflect
>Western Church values.
If its celebrating the Winter Solstice, which is a directly observable event,
then the holiday should coincide with the event.
Ben.
RamRod Sword of Baal
"Patriot Games" <Pat...@america.com> wrote in message
news:tpe7q55lh61nrbssr...@4ax.com...
>>Delusions of grandeur.
Yep you have a mental disease and suffer from Delusions of grandeur.
.......and you do not understand basic mathematics, as has been shown.
Jimbo
doll...@pobox.com> wrote:
The holiday has never coincided with the event, not even in ancient
times. I see no reason to conform to strict rules on the matter at
this point.
juanjo
juanjo
Mike
doll...@pobox.com> wrote:
-------------------------------------------------SNIP
> >Besides Christmas, what is the other religious holiday? Is it
> >Thanksgiving, because of religious overtones? Anyway, Christmas is
> >observed because of a broad, longstanding consensus, a Western
> >tradition going back to the Roman Saturnalia. It is a winter solstice
> >celebration combining Christian and pagan themes, passed down through
> >the generations. Therefore, don't blame a Christian conspiracy for
> >the feds making a Christmas holiday. Blame Western culture.
>
> If it's also celebrating the Winter Solstice then let's move it up to the 21st,
> OK?
Sure, as soon as everyone agrees, let's move it from Dec. 25 to Dec.
21.
>
> > tax exemption for
> >> Church property and income,
>
> >I take it that you would make all churches pay full taxes, if it were
> >up to you?
>
> I take it that you are in agreement with this one?
No, I just wanted to make sure that's what you really said.
>
> To answer your question, if it were up to me I would greatly restrict what could
> be tax exempt and prevent them from accumulating wealth.
Would the same go for all tax-exempt organizations, or would you just
single out churches for this treatment? What would you determine as
"wealth?" What would you do if a church happened to have more assets
than you deemed proper? Confiscate its excess property?
But it's really not up to you, though, is it? Rather than wanting to
control and suppress behavior and belief that you disagree with, do
what same-sex marriage advocates say to those opposed to same-sex
marriage: "Don't marry someone of the same sex if you don't like it."
What's good for the goose is good for the gander. If you don't like
churches, then don't go to them. You can go through the rest of your
life ignoring them.
>
> > faith based funding, a blind eye to Evangelical
> >> proselytizing in the military .. Yesteryear included blue laws, laws banning
> >> atheists from office, oaths requiring a Bible,
>
> >Uh-oh, the President putting his hand on the Bible to be sworn in by
> >the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, another affront.
>
> No, today one is free to take an oath in various ways.
>
> But what about , Evangelical Christian proselytizing in the military, which is
> still a problem today?
How much of a problem? As big a problem as sexual harassment?
> >Symbol and ritual is never going to go away, deal with it. Life is
> >compromise and give and take.
>
> Sure just like the traditions of racism and oppression of women. They are
> centuries if not millennia old but would you argue their traditional qualities
> as a reason to keep them?
By symbol and ritual, I was talking about taking an oath on the Bible,
but you are all over the map.
> And of course there are people who do want to keep
> them. They honestly believe that women are inferior to men and blacks are
> inferior to whites. Whether you realize it or not, you are perpetrating the
> same mentality with respect to your religion. You think your Christian
> viewpoint is superior otherwise you would not argue that it remain in place when
> it is evident that it upsets other people not to mention a violation of the
> constitution..
What? My Christian viewpoint should not remain in place because it
upsets other people? Having a Christian viewpoint is in violation of
the Constitution?
I'm only nominally Christian, BTW. I go to church with my wife (an
orthodox branch) but hold my own views.
>
> >antisemitism, Prohibition,
> >> oppression of women, oppression of gays, racism, genocide of native Americans.
>
> >These are tremendously broad generalizations that cannot be ascribed
> >to government cooperation with Christians but to human foibles in
> >general. Considering the mass butcheries carried out by Stalin, Pol
> >Pot, and others, it is clear that atheists, agnostics, or the
> >religiously indifferent can do some pretty horrible things, too.
>
> The world is full of injustices but this discussion is specifically about how
> Christian agenda has had substantial impact on this country's government. The
> fact that Stalin murdered millions does not comfort me with respect to what our
> country did to Native Americans specifically because they were not Christians.
What would you like to see, reparations from the churches to Native
Americans?
> > I remember reading an article in Newsweek or
> >Time in the 90s in which a high school textbook skimmed over the
> >Crusades and barely mentioned them as a mercantile venture. That is
> >information. Teaching the motives behind the Crusades is not
> >establishing religion, but the schools have become so gun shy of
> >activists that they won't touch anything to do with religious history,
> >becoming anti-educational in that regard.
>
> And as of recent, a Texas school board, if it gets its way, is making it so
> Thomas Jefferson is barely mentioned in American history, and anything to do
> with the concept of separation of church and state.
>
> http://thinkprogress.org/2010/03/12/texas-education-board-cuts-thomas...
> ...
>
> read more »
Ben Kaufman
Never? Are you aware of the celebration that goes on at Stonehenge?
Ben
Ben Kaufman
>On Mar 18, 3:27 pm, Ben Kaufman <spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000-
>doll...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>-------------------------------------------------SNIP
>
>> >Besides Christmas, what is the other religious holiday? Is it
>> >Thanksgiving, because of religious overtones? Anyway, Christmas is
>> >observed because of a broad, longstanding consensus, a Western
>> >tradition going back to the Roman Saturnalia. It is a winter solstice
>> >celebration combining Christian and pagan themes, passed down through
>> >the generations. Therefore, don't blame a Christian conspiracy for
>> >the feds making a Christmas holiday. Blame Western culture.
>>
>> If it's also celebrating the Winter Solstice then let's move it up to the 21st,
>> OK?
>
>Sure, as soon as everyone agrees, let's move it from Dec. 25 to Dec.
>21.
>
Ah, "everyone." Does that include all Christians who have a religious
motivation for keeping it the 25th?
Surely, "everyone" was not for giving women the vote or freeing the slaves
either.
>>
>> > tax exemption for
>> >> Church property and income,
>>
>> >I take it that you would make all churches pay full taxes, if it were
>> >up to you?
>>
>> I take it that you are in agreement with this one?
>
>No, I just wanted to make sure that's what you really said.
>>
>> To answer your question, if it were up to me I would greatly restrict what could
>> be tax exempt and prevent them from accumulating wealth.
>
>Would the same go for all tax-exempt organizations, or would you just
>single out churches for this treatment? What would you determine as
>"wealth?" What would you do if a church happened to have more assets
>than you deemed proper? Confiscate its excess property?
>
This is a whole other discussion. Suffice it to say, regarding religious tax
exemptions, other than the property immediately surrounding the house of
worship additional exemptions would be based upon benefit to the secular
community. For example a property that was used as a soup kitchen or shelter
for homeless people would certainly qualify. A religious school would qualify
but not housing for students and teachers. The "country club" aspect of a
religious retreat would not qualify either.
No, I would not "confiscate" I would simply request they pay taxes on it or sell
it. To be fair, there would be a five year delay in removing the
exemptions to give these organizations time to sell off what they don't wish to
pay taxes on. Or they could donate it and get a tax deduction.
>But it's really not up to you, though, is it?
I never said it was, I was indulging YOUR question.
> Rather than wanting to
>control and suppress behavior and belief that you disagree with, do
>what same-sex marriage advocates say to those opposed to same-sex
>marriage: "Don't marry someone of the same sex if you don't like it."
>
Asking someone to pay their fair share of taxes is not suppression, it's
equality. If they are going to enjoy non-religious benefits then they should
pay taxes on it like everyone else.
>What's good for the goose is good for the gander. If you don't like
>churches, then don't go to them. You can go through the rest of your
>life ignoring them.
>
It's hard to ignore a church that spends millions of dollars fighting gay
marriage, for example.
>>
>> > faith based funding, a blind eye to Evangelical
>> >> proselytizing in the military .. Yesteryear included blue laws, laws banning
>> >> atheists from office, oaths requiring a Bible,
>>
>> >Uh-oh, the President putting his hand on the Bible to be sworn in by
>> >the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, another affront.
>>
>> No, today one is free to take an oath in various ways.
>
>>
>> But what about , Evangelical Christian proselytizing in the military, which is
>> still a problem today?
>
>How much of a problem? As big a problem as sexual harassment?
>
>> >Symbol and ritual is never going to go away, deal with it. Life is
>> >compromise and give and take.
>>
>> Sure just like the traditions of racism and oppression of women. They are
>> centuries if not millennia old but would you argue their traditional qualities
>> as a reason to keep them?
>
>By symbol and ritual, I was talking about taking an oath on the Bible,
>but you are all over the map.
>
Some people do not want to take an oath on the Bible.
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/undergod/2009/12/atheist_swears_affirms_oath_in_nc.html
>> And of course there are people who do want to keep
>> them. They honestly believe that women are inferior to men and blacks are
>> inferior to whites. Whether you realize it or not, you are perpetrating the
>> same mentality with respect to your religion. You think your Christian
>> viewpoint is superior otherwise you would not argue that it remain in place when
>> it is evident that it upsets other people not to mention a violation of the
>> constitution..
>
>What? My Christian viewpoint should not remain in place because it
>upsets other people? Having a Christian viewpoint is in violation of
>the Constitution?
>
What about Newdow's non-Christian viewpoint? You had no problem dismissing
it.
>I'm only nominally Christian, BTW. I go to church with my wife (an
>orthodox branch) but hold my own views.
>
>>
>> >antisemitism, Prohibition,
>> >> oppression of women, oppression of gays, racism, genocide of native Americans.
>>
>> >These are tremendously broad generalizations that cannot be ascribed
>> >to government cooperation with Christians but to human foibles in
>> >general. Considering the mass butcheries carried out by Stalin, Pol
>> >Pot, and others, it is clear that atheists, agnostics, or the
>> >religiously indifferent can do some pretty horrible things, too.
>>
>> The world is full of injustices but this discussion is specifically about how
>> Christian agenda has had substantial impact on this country's government. The
>> fact that Stalin murdered millions does not comfort me with respect to what our
>> country did to Native Americans specifically because they were not Christians.
>
>What would you like to see, reparations from the churches to Native
>Americans?
>
I can't speak for the Native Americans on this issue.
Jimbo
doll...@pobox.com> wrote:
Yes, it's a 3 day event.
Patriot Games
wrote:
>But you have a history of not knowing what the facts are.
Because YOU say so?
Prove it....
>You and Fox News and Rush Limbaugh have a history of making things up
>and calling them facts.
Because YOU say so?
Prove it....
How about some nostalgia?
"Free Lunch" <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:qf1lp3h7isdt51716...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 13:58:51 -0500, in alt.atheism
> "Patriot Games" <Pat...@America.com> wrote in
> <479a3169$0$7166$4c36...@roadrunner.com>:
>>"Free Lunch" <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
>>news:7upfp31q033014ihv...@4ax.com...
>>> On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 09:25:25 -0500, in alt.atheism
>>> "Patriot Games" <Pat...@America.com> wrote in
>>> <47974e54$0$22595$4c36...@roadrunner.com>:
>>>>"Free Lunch" <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
>>>>news:hpe9p3h0i7djq255s...@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 10:18:35 -0500, in alt.atheism
>>>>> "Patriot Games" <Pat...@America.com> wrote in
>>>>> <4794b7ca$0$7156$4c36...@roadrunner.com>:
>>>>>>"Free Lunch" <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:ti68p31admm33k00v...@4ax.com...
>>>>>>> On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 15:06:19 -0500, in alt.atheism
>>>>>>> "Patriot Games" <Pat...@America.com> wrote in
>>>>>>> <4793a9bb$0$30712$4c36...@roadrunner.com>:
>>>>>>>>"Free Lunch" <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>news:5qm4p3luersmm520h...@4ax.com...
>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 15:15:34 -0500, in alt.atheism
>>>>>>>>> "Patriot Games" <Pat...@America.com> wrote in
>>>>>>>>> <47925a68$0$4939$4c36...@roadrunner.com>:
>>>>>>>>>>"DanielSan" <peter...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>news:Rqadnc705tzvMA3a...@comcast.com...
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...or fix it.
>>>>>>>>>>>> With what?
>>>>>>>>>>> With enforcing the US Constitution.
>>>>>>>>>>And since you ADMIT to NOT being "Under God" enforcing OUR
>>>>>>>>>>Constitution
>>>>>>>>>>means expelling YOU.
>>>>>>>>> Show me where our Constitution mentions God.
>>>>>>>>Our Constitution is founded on our Declaration of Independence
>>>>>>> Nonsense.
>>>>>>Its just a fact.
>>>>> You have no evidence at all to support your silly claim. It's not a
>>>>> fact.
>>>>Feel free to explain how a Constitution and Bill of Rights can exist
>>>>BEFORE
>>>>THE NATION for which it represents exists....
>>> In 1776 the united colonies were clearly not a _nation_. The
>>> Constitution was the first step in uniting the recently freed colonies.
>>Recently freed? By WHOM? Initiated by WHAT DEED?
> A war.
>>Initated by the Declaration of Independence...
> The declaration was a political manifesto.
The National Archives say it is "the nation's most cherished symbol of
liberty" and that it "set forth a list of grievances against the King
in order to justify before the world the breaking of ties between the
colonies and the mother country."
http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/declaration.html
Thanks for SHITTING on OUR Declaration of Independence and PROVING WHY
IT DOES NOT INCLUDE YOU!
>>>>> So you say. Why don't you believe in all of the other gods?
>>>>Because I'm a busy man and its more efficient to go to the ONE True
>>>>Source.
>>> You have no evidence that anything you have said about any gods are
>>> true, therefore you do not have a true source to refer to.
>>86% of America says YOU'RE WRONG.
>>Time for you to leave.
> Time for you to learn how to be an American.
For SHITTING on OUR Declaration of Independence YOU'VE EARNED a proper
street beating.
Go FUCK yourself.
Patriot Games
Is that the best you got?
Patriot Games
<ram...@truthonly.com> wrote:
>"Patriot Games" <Pat...@america.com> wrote in message
>news:tpe7q55lh61nrbssr...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 00:16:50 GMT, "RamRod Sword of Baal"
>> <ram...@truthonly.com> wrote:
>>>"Patriot Games" <Pat...@america.com> wrote in message
>>>news:pf85q59vclcc6thcr...@4ax.com...
>>>In part
>>>> When I can DESTROY someone SO BADLY that they resort to LYING (as YOU
>>>> did) and/or Malicious Posting (as YOU did) I then have PROOF POSITIVE
>>>> by way of ADMISSION that they are IN FACT UTTERLY DESTROYED.
>>>Delusions of grandeur.
>> The FACTS are what they are....
>Yep you have a mental disease and suffer from Delusions of grandeur.
>.......and you do not understand basic mathematics, as has been shown.
It was fun while it lasted BUT THEN YOU LIED:
On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 00:02:38 GMT, "RamRod Sword of Baal"
<ram...@truthonly.com> wrote:
>"Patriot Games" <Pat...@america.com> wrote in message
>news:0r05q511qaijas580...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 09:33:09 GMT, "RamRod Sword of Baal"
>> <ram...@truthonly.com> wrote:
>>>"RichA" <rande...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:e184dc4a-544c-4696...@g4g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
>>>> Homosexuals, their refusal in the 1980's to accept that their
>>>> behaviour was destructive are responsible for the worst pandemic the
>>>> world has seen since the black plague in the 1300's.
>>>As most of the world cases of HIV infection are heterosexual maybe you
>>>should direct your message to them.
>> No cite....
>>>Of course you know that around 1/2 a million cases in the US are
>>>heterosexual don't you?
>> Yet that's less than one-third of the total. Over HALF is fags.
>> http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/us.htm
>There goes poor dumb Patriot Games again posting information and not being
>able to add up.
>Transmission categories of adults and adolescents
>with HIV/AIDS diagnosed during 2007.
>Hetreosesual contact 32 %
>Drug use 17%
>Total heterosexuals 49%
>That is using the data from the URL you provided.
Oops! Caught LYING!
The chart "Transmission categories of adults and adolescents
with HIV/AIDS diagnosed during 2007. All Adults and Adolescents"
CLEARLY SHOWS:
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/images/us_all_adults.gif
53% Faggot Sex!!!!!
>49% is NOT less than a third stupid.
Oops! Caught LYING!
49% is NOT on that Chart.
Oops! Caught LYING!
49% is NOT on that PAGE!
>BTW that 17% is heterosexual
Oops! Caught LYING!
17% (in the Chart CITED above) is for
"Injection Drug Use."
>--------------------------------------------
>You said no cite for the people with HIV infection around the world being
>mainly heterosexual.
>Well here you are.
>http://www.thebody.com/content/art33072.html
>In Sub-Saharan Africa
>Sub-Saharan Africa is still the "global epicenter" for AIDS and HIV, with
>close to 70% of the world's HIV-positive people living in this region that
>is home to just 10% of the world's population. At the start of the 21st
>century, over 24 million people in sub-Saharan Africa are estimated to be
>living with HIV or AIDS. Almost 13.7 million here have already died of AIDS.
>About 90% of reported AIDS cases in this area are attributed to heterosexual
>transmission
>============
>Another
>http://www.aidstruth.org/denialism/misuse/padian
>HIV is unquestionably transmitted through heterosexual intercourse. Indeed,
>heterosexual intercourse is now responsible for 70-80% of all HIV
>transmissions worldwide
>==========
>You do not like those numbers, or they are too complex for you to
>understand, try this it is simpler
>http://encyclopedia.farlex.com/Acute+HIV+Infection+and+Early+Diseases+Research+Program
>Worldwide, heterosexual activity accounts for three-quarters of all HIV
>infections
>---------------
>Now even YOU should be able to understand that.
What I understand is that FAGS CAUSE AIDS, and it doesn't matter to a
Fag if the butthole they're fucking is male or female:
"Individuals enrolled on HIV prevention trials in Africa should be
asked if they have had anal sex, suggest investigators in a article
published in the online edition of Sexually Transmitted Infections.
Their study found that 18% of women enrolled in their study had
recently had receptive anal sex and that undiagnosed anal sexually
transmitted infections were present in many of these individuals.
...studies are now suggesting that anal intercourse is common in
Africa in both heterosexual and homosexual contexts and is an
important mode of HIV transmission."
http://www.aidsmap.com/en/news/0521D26C-A471-429E-8E18-072895A18213.asp
"They also note that sexual practices in the U.S. may be different
from those in Africa. In particular, they note that in Africa anal sex
is commonly practiced in lieu of vaginal sex, as a form of birth
control."
http://www.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePage/features/artikel.php?ID=37809
A study by researchers at the University of Tuebingen in Germany has
found that anal sex, both homosexual and heterosexual, is the second
largest cause of HIV transmission in Africa. Transmission in medical
settings, such as through dirty needles, is listed as the primary
cause, says the study published in the current edition of The Journal
of Sexually Transmitted Diseases and Aids.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2003/jun/03061702.html
Patriot Games
On Tue, 7 Oct 2008 00:28:12 -0700 (PDT), juanjo
Patriot Games
On Tue, 7 Oct 2008 00:28:12 -0700 (PDT), juanjo
Free Lunch
wrote in alt.atheism:
>On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 13:07:33 -0500, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us>
>wrote:
>>On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 13:58:58 -0400, Patriot Games <Pat...@america.com>
>>wrote in alt.atheism:
>>>The FACTS are what they are....
>>But you have a history of not knowing what the facts are.
>
>Because YOU say so?
Because reality says so.
Bye
Jimbo
> On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 13:07:33 -0500, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us>
> wrote:
>
> >wrote in alt.atheism:
> >>The FACTS are what they are....
> >But you have a history of not knowing what the facts are.
>
> Because YOU say so?
>
> Prove it....
>
> >You and Fox News and Rush Limbaugh have a history of making things up
> >and calling them facts.
>
> Because YOU say so?
>
No, because you say so.
Mike
doll...@pobox.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 19:40:45 -0700 (PDT), Mike <mgcul...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Mar 18, 3:27 pm, Ben Kaufman <spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000-
> >doll...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
-------------------------------------------------SNIP
> >> OK?
>
> >Sure, as soon as everyone agrees, let's move it from Dec. 25 to Dec.
> >21.
>
> Ah, "everyone." Does that include all Christians who have a religious
> motivation for keeping it the 25th?
I was being sarcastic.
> Surely, "everyone" was not for giving women the vote or freeing the slaves
> either.
That's a perfect non sequitur.
So you did.
> > Rather than wanting to
> >control and suppress behavior and belief that you disagree with, do
> >what same-sex marriage advocates say to those opposed to same-sex
> >marriage: "Don't marry someone of the same sex if you don't like it."
>
> Asking someone to pay their fair share of taxes is not suppression, it's
> equality. If they are going to enjoy non-religious benefits then they should
> pay taxes on it like everyone else.
>
> >What's good for the goose is good for the gander. If you don't like
> >churches, then don't go to them. You can go through the rest of your
> >life ignoring them.
>
> It's hard to ignore a church that spends millions of dollars fighting gay
> marriage, for example.
What about the churches that support gay marriage, like the Episcopal
Church of California? I believe that the Unitarians and Quakers, and
some others were actively working against Prop 8.
It's been said in here about a million times that the Mormon Church
should have its tax-exempt status pulled because it got involved in
politics, i.e. the Prop 8 campaign. Well, what about these churches
that worked to defeat Prop 8? They were just as politically involved
as the Mormon and Roman Catholic church. Shouldn't they also lose
their tax-exempt status for being involved in politics?
---------------------------snip
> >> And of course there are people who do want to keep
> >> them. They honestly believe that women are inferior to men and blacks are
> >> inferior to whites. Whether you realize it or not, you are perpetrating the
> >> same mentality with respect to your religion. You think your Christian
> >> viewpoint is superior otherwise you would not argue that it remain in place when
> >> it is evident that it upsets other people not to mention a violation of the
> >> constitution..
>
> >What? My Christian viewpoint should not remain in place because it
> >upsets other people? Having a Christian viewpoint is in violation of
> >the Constitution?
>
> What about Newdow's non-Christian viewpoint? You had no problem dismissing
> it.
>
The courts had no problem dismissing it, either.
Jimbo
Can your prove that they used tax exempt money to campaign against
prop 8? No church or religious organization, or any organization for
that matter, that receives a tax exemption should be using tax exampt
money for purposes other than the purpose they were issued a tax
exemption for. Whether I agree with their views or not.
Mike
According to this website, the Unitarian Universalist Legislative
Ministry Action Network, a California PAC, donated $29,638 to the No
on 8 campaign.
http://achievementgap.wordpress.com/2008/10/27/honor-roll-no-on-prop-8-donors-contributors/
This is another honor roll, listing churches and faith-based
organizations that took a stand against Prop 8
Whether they let their facilities be used for organizing anti-prop 8
activity I don't know, but they definitely took some kind of official
public stand against Prop 8. People in here who have said that
churches should not even be allowed to publicly take a stand on a
political issues (meaning the Mormon and Roman Catholic churches, of
course) should understand that sword cuts both ways.
The tax-exempt issue is a mute point anyway:
Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for the Separation
of Church and State, said that the LDS Church "almost certainly have
not violated their tax exemption. While the tax code has a zero
tolerance for endorsements of candidates, the tax code gives wide
latitude for churches to engage in discussions of policy matters and
moral questions, including when posed as initiatives."
Organizations that are 501(c)(3), such as the LDS Church, are
prohibited from spending more than 20 percent of their budgets on
political activities. For large international organizations like the
LDS church, the 20% threshold means the church would have had to spend
hundreds of millions of dollars - if not billions - to violate its tax-
exempt status, according to Lynn, who opposes Proposition 8.[13]
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Boycotts_related_to_California_Proposition_8
Patriot Games
wrote:
>On Sat, 20 Mar 2010 13:11:57 -0400, Patriot Games <Pat...@america.com>
>wrote in alt.atheism:
>>On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 13:07:33 -0500, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us>
>>wrote:
>>>On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 13:58:58 -0400, Patriot Games <Pat...@america.com>
>>>wrote in alt.atheism:
>>>>The FACTS are what they are....
>>>But you have a history of not knowing what the facts are.
>>Because YOU say so?
Oops! You FAILED to prove it....
So YOU must have been LYING.
>Bye
RUN AWAY! RUN AWAY! RUN AWAY!
Hahahahahahhahaha!
Dakota
they may require that the Pledge of Allegiance include "... one nation,
under the Roman Catholic God, with liberty ...."
Ben Kaufman
And it coincides with the event.
Jimbo
doll...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
One of the days do, two of the days do not. As I said previously,
every culture has held multiple day events for the Solstice, from 3 to
12 days, depending on the culture in question. Additionally, Winter
Solstice doesn't always occur on the 21st.
The Winter Solstice occurs exactly when the Earth's axial tilt is
farthest away from the sun at its maximum of 23° 26', so the time of
the actual solstice is but an instant. Maybe you'd like us to
celibrate within that particular moment as well?
juanjo
juanjo
nothing of any importance