A Creation Scientist from the USSR
hathaw...@my-dejanews.com
M.D. in Internal Diseases, Ph.D. in
Biochemistry, D.Sc. in Molecular
Biology.
Appointed Adjunct Professor
ofBiology in the ICR Graduate School.
Awarded the prestigious Lenin
Komosomol Prize - given to the two
most promising scientists in the USSR.
In 1986, he was awarded a prize for
outstanding work in biochemistry by
the USSR Council of Ministries.
Authored numerous articles in
Russian and Eastern European science
journals as well as about 40 articles
published in English in international
journals.
Abandoned atheism and became a
Christian.
----------------------------------
I found this and thought you should
know.
Hathaway5353
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
MoE
>
> Dr. Dmitri Kuznetsov
> M.D. in Internal Diseases, Ph.D. in
> Biochemistry, D.Sc. in Molecular
> Biology.
[blah blah blah]
> ----------------------------------
>
> I found this and thought you should
> know.
That he used nonexistent sources for his papers? We knew that
already, M***y.
--
http://members.tripod.com/~flamingMoE
"Why do you little usenet spinics use only ad hominems?"
Edie "PKB-O-Matic" Wollmann in <362AB8...@earthlink.net>
Steven Carr
>Dr. Dmitri Kuznetsov
>M.D. in Internal Diseases, Ph.D. in
>Biochemistry, D.Sc. in Molecular
>Biology.
And a liar.
>Appointed Adjunct Professor
>ofBiology in the ICR Graduate School.
And a liar.
>Awarded the prestigious Lenin
>Komosomol Prize - given to the two
>most promising scientists in the USSR.
And a liar.
>In 1986, he was awarded a prize for
>outstanding work in biochemistry by
>the USSR Council of Ministries.
And a liar.
>Authored numerous articles in
>Russian and Eastern European science
>journals as well as about 40 articles
>published in English in international
>journals.
And a liar
>Abandoned atheism and became a
>Christian.
And a liar.
Do a web search on Kuznetsov and see for yourself that he makes up
references in his journals, inventing journals, magazines, papers and
co-workers who did not exist.
Steven Carr ste...@bowness.demon.co.uk
Visit the UK's leading atheist Web page
http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/
sh...@baawa.org
MoE <cjc...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> hathaw...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> >
> > Dr. Dmitri Kuznetsov
> > M.D. in Internal Diseases, Ph.D. in
> > Biochemistry, D.Sc. in Molecular
> > Biology.
>
> > ----------------------------------
> >
> > I found this and thought you should
> > know.
>
> That he used nonexistent sources for his papers? We knew that
> already, M***y.
Heck, why not read about him in the t.o faq?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/kouznetsov.html
He was relieved of his position at the ICR, btw. Dishonourably.
--
shan #1163
EAC TNA BAAWA(ssc)
CASHP #10-97 CASHK #97-002
Capt. Spith
>
> Dr. Dmitri Kuznetsov
> M.D. in Internal Diseases, Ph.D. in
> Biochemistry, D.Sc. in Molecular
> Biology.
>
> ofBiology in the ICR Graduate School.
<<etcetera, etcetera...>>
> Authored numerous articles in
> Russian and Eastern European science
> journals as well as about 40 articles
> published in English in international
> journals.
>
> Abandoned atheism and became a
> Christian.
> ----------------------------------
>
> I found this and thought you should
> know.
And this means what? Even regardless of the various attacks on his
integrity, this means only that some guy has found the lord. It doesn't
mean any more or less than anyone else finding the lord. It doesn't
lend christianity any more legitimacy or validity than it had before.
So what's the point?
Okay, so who has an example of a theologan who studied the scriptures
for years, then turned his/her back on christianity? There's gotta be
as many examples of that as there are of atheists becoming theists....
--
-Reverend Spith
"I used to be a heathen, but then I saw the Light. Now I'm a pagan"
-Anonymous
Louann Miller
> Okay, so who has an example of a theologan who studied the scriptures
> for years, then turned his/her back on christianity? There's gotta be
> as many examples of that as there are of atheists becoming theists....
For sufficiently stringent definitions of 'turned his/her back on
Christianity,' the entire mainstream of 20th century theology
(especially the Jesus Project) would fit this description.
--
Updated 9/28/98! Media fan fiction at http://www.cyberramp.net/~millers
Steve Knight
>Dr. Dmitri Kuznetsov
>
snip
>Abandoned atheism and became a
>Christian.
>----------------------------------
>
>I found this and thought you should
>know.
>
>Hathaway5353
(chuckle)
What the fuck do you do all day?
Some guy goes wacky and you think this is important to atheists.
Take a number and get in line.
Steve Knight #855
Knight of BAAWA
maff91
>hathaw...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>>
>> Dr. Dmitri Kuznetsov
Creationist Dmitri Kouznetsov: Scientist?
Moran discusses creationist Dmitri Kouznetsov's lack of
understanding of even the most basic biological concepts, while Trott
examines Kouznetsov's use of questionable citations.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/kouznetsov.html
>> M.D. in Internal Diseases, Ph.D. in
>> Biochemistry, D.Sc. in Molecular
>> Biology.
>
>[blah blah blah]
>> ----------------------------------
>>
>> I found this and thought you should
>> know.
>
>That he used nonexistent sources for his papers? We knew that
>already, M***y.
*****************************************************
"Science is the true theology" -- Thomas Paine
(as quoted in Emerson: The Mind on Fire page 153)
"The Age of Paine" by Jon Katz
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/3.05/paine.html
*****************************************************
jack_t...@geocities.com
hathaw...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
<72tq54$b71$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>Dr. Dmitri Kuznetsov
>M.D. in Internal Diseases, Ph.D. in
>Biochemistry, D.Sc. in Molecular
>Biology.
>
Whooptie doo! We are, of course, talking about a country (The USSR) that has
taken psychics, ghosts, and alien abduction stories so seriously for the
past 50 years that they were willing to pour about 10 times the research
dollars into remote viewing and psychic spying than the CIA ever dreamed of
getting.
I remember seeing 1 1989 Russian science journal which had a huge article on
the Bermuda Triangle mystery, and what "Top Soviet Scientists" suggested as
answers to the mystery. In it, the article went on about megnetic fields,
underwater pyramids, and other bizarre crapola.
Anyone with a brain knows that the Bermuda Triangle is not a mystery, and
isn't even weird. Charles Berlitz invented the whole idea of it by
fraudulently listing boats that were reported missing in the Gulf of Mexico,
off the coast of Massachusetts, and even near California, into the Bermuda
Triangle zone. I find it odd that people who believe in the Bermuda Triangle
never see the obvious answer as to the high number of missing boats in the
area. There's another name for the Bermuda Triangle that is more commonly
used, but more frequently forgotten when people get lost in it. It's called
HURRICANE ALLEY, the area with the most Hurricane activity in our
hemisphere!
Other Russian scientists with wonderful accolades and officially appointed
positions in Soviet science circles have produced papers on Pyramid power,
channeling spirits, and there's a huge section of Soviet scientists who
regularly use DOWSING as a scientific test.
It doesn't surprise me at all that a Soviet science figure would turn to
religion.
Psycho Dave
Christopher A. Lee
the oner net.loonies that haven't got anything else to do.
If anybody answers this can they munge the name slightly
so it doesn't get killed.
In article <72tq54$b71$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com> hathaw...@my-dejanews.com writes:
>Dr. Dmitri Kuznetsov
>M.D. in Internal Diseases, Ph.D. in
>Biochemistry, D.Sc. in Molecular
>Biology.
[rest of this snipped]
Kuznetsov was welcomed with open arms by the ICR who used and quoted
him regularly - until it became obvious even to them that he was
a con-artist who was scamming *them*.
Leonard Lautzbach
>Dr. Dmitri Kuznetsov
>M.D. in Internal Diseases, Ph.D. in
>Biochemistry, D.Sc. in Molecular
>Biology.
>
>ofBiology in the ICR Graduate School.
>
>Komosomol Prize - given to the two
>most promising scientists in the USSR.
>
>outstanding work in biochemistry by
>the USSR Council of Ministries.
>
>Russian and Eastern European science
>journals as well as about 40 articles
>published in English in international
>journals.
>
>Christian.
>
>I found this and thought you should
>know.
>
Thanks, Hathaway! Did you know that even Creationists disavow any connection
with Kouznetsov?
The Creation Science Foundation, Ltd. issued a "public dissociation" from
Kuznetsov. The public dissociation was printed on page 2 of the May 1995
"Prayer News."
I found this in the talk.origins faq and thought you should know.
-Leo
Landis D. Ragon
>Who is "hathaway" really? Is he Mc(namelsess) or one of
>the oner net.loonies that haven't got anything else to do.
>
>If anybody answers this can they munge the name slightly
>so it doesn't get killed.
There is a considerable body of circumstantial evidence that
'thataway' is 'Juan McKook'
1. He is currently maintaining the 'alt.atheism fraud page' that
dialectric-man (aka <nameless>) created.
2. In a post to talk.origins, he mentioned someone from 'Chico State'
University, which I assumed was in Chico, California. McKook lives in
Chico.
3. He posts in nameless's style and quotes some of the same sources
that <nameless> uses.
4. He's an idiot. < I know this does not eliminate a lot of bleaters,
but, hey, it's a clue>
>
>In article <72tq54$b71$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com> hathaw...@my-dejanews.com writes:
>>Dr. Dmitri Kuznetsov
>>M.D. in Internal Diseases, Ph.D. in
>>Biochemistry, D.Sc. in Molecular
>>Biology.
>
>[rest of this snipped]
>
>Kuznetsov was welcomed with open arms by the ICR who used and quoted
>him regularly - until it became obvious even to them that he was
>a con-artist who was scamming *them*.
Landis D. Ragon
Chief Elf in the toy factory...
"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech
censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom
denied, chains us all, irrevocably."
David J. Devejian
lautzy...@hotmail.com says...
> >M.D. in Internal Diseases, Ph.D. in
> >Biochemistry, D.Sc. in Molecular
> >Biology.
<snip a bunch of nonsense>
Hey nameless, at least check out your sources. As pointed below, even
the ICR disavows this con-artist.
> Thanks, Hathaway! Did you know that even Creationists disavow any connection
> with Kouznetsov?
>
> The Creation Science Foundation, Ltd. issued a "public dissociation" from
> Kuznetsov. The public dissociation was printed on page 2 of the May 1995
> "Prayer News."
>
> I found this in the talk.origins faq and thought you should know.
As well as some other interesting pits on his research methods.
See:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/kouznetsov.html
Its rather interesting. The man cites journals that dont exist.
--
regards,
David J. Devejian
widsith <at> panix <dot> com
Thomas Paine
>hathaw...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>>
>> Dr. Dmitri Kuznetsov
>> M.D. in Internal Diseases, Ph.D. in
>> Biochemistry, D.Sc. in Molecular
>> Biology.
>>
>> ofBiology in the ICR Graduate School.
>
>
>> Authored numerous articles in
>> Russian and Eastern European science
>> journals as well as about 40 articles
>> published in English in international
>> journals.
>>
>> Abandoned atheism and became a
>> Christian.
>> ----------------------------------
>>
>> know.
>
> And this means what? Even regardless of the various attacks on his
>integrity, this means only that some guy has found the lord. It doesn't
>mean any more or less than anyone else finding the lord. It doesn't
>lend christianity any more legitimacy or validity than it had before.
>So what's the point?
It has nothing to do with christianity. What it has to to with is the
deceit, false science and outright lies put out by creationism fanatics.
>
> Okay, so who has an example of a theologan who studied the scriptures
>for years, then turned his/her back on christianity? There's gotta be
>as many examples of that as there are of atheists becoming theists....
Probably more; but conversion doesn not win points for validity.
So far, I've only seen creationists brag about "all the scientists who have
converted to creationism".
The names and real numbers have never been provided, just the boast.
The conversions, if they did, indeed, happen have no effect on the legitimacy
of evolution
>
Paul J. Koeck
Leonard Lautzbach wrote:
>
> In article <72tq54$b71$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, hathaw...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> >Dr. Dmitri Kuznetsov
> >M.D. in Internal Diseases, Ph.D. in
> >Biochemistry, D.Sc. in Molecular
> >Biology.
> >
> >Appointed Adjunct Professor
> >ofBiology in the ICR Graduate School.
> >
> >Awarded the prestigious Lenin
> >Komosomol Prize - given to the two
> >most promising scientists in the USSR.
> >
> >In 1986, he was awarded a prize for
> >outstanding work in biochemistry by
> >the USSR Council of Ministries.
> >
> >Authored numerous articles in
> >Russian and Eastern European science
> >journals as well as about 40 articles
> >published in English in international
> >journals.
> >
> >Abandoned atheism and became a
> >Christian.
> >----------------------------------
> >
> >I found this and thought you should
> >know.
> >
> >Hathaway5353
>
> Thanks, Hathaway! Did you know that even Creationists disavow any connection
> with Kouznetsov?
>
> The Creation Science Foundation, Ltd. issued a "public dissociation" from
> Kuznetsov. The public dissociation was printed on page 2 of the May 1995
> "Prayer News."
>
> I found this in the talk.origins faq and thought you should know.
>
> -Leo
It isn't surprising that nameless doesn't know this. He seems to be unable
to ever find any reference material more recent than about 1953, or so.
--
Paul J. Koeck, #360
EAC MindControl Beam(tm) Operator #34529085783828-4875
EAC Tech - Personal Mind Control at a great price!
Volume discounts available.
Don't let reality hit you in the ass on your way out.
Only an idiot or a dishonest PromiseKeeper cult member would
think that my opinions necessarily reflect those of my employer.
To reply, change Byte.Me to Primavera
Victor Eijkhout
> On 18 Nov 1998 02:12:35 -0500, MoE <cjc...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
> >hathaw...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> >>
> >> Dr. Dmitri Kuznetsov
> >> M.D. in Internal Diseases, Ph.D. in
> >> Biochemistry, D.Sc. in Molecular
> >> Biology.
> Creationist Dmitri Kouznetsov: Scientist?
> Moran discusses creationist Dmitri Kouznetsov's lack of
> understanding of even the most basic biological concepts, while Trott
> examines Kouznetsov's use of questionable citations.
Did he get his degree under Lysenko?
> >That he used nonexistent sources for his papers? We knew that
> >already, M***y.
I'm not holding my breath waiting for the "oops" follow-up post.
--
Victor Eijkhout
"Too many textbooks and discussions leave children free to make
up their minds about things." [Fundie Mel Gabler]
John Wilkins
|Capt. Spith wrote:
|
|> Okay, so who has an example of a theologan who studied the scriptures
|> for years, then turned his/her back on christianity? There's gotta be
|> as many examples of that as there are of atheists becoming theists....
|
|For sufficiently stringent definitions of 'turned his/her back on
|Christianity,' the entire mainstream of 20th century theology
|(especially the Jesus Project) would fit this description.
Now you're getting it. It all started with Barth and Brunner...
--
John Wilkins, Head, Graphic Production, The Walter and Eliza Hall Institute
of Medical Research, Melbourne, Australia
<mailto:wil...@WEHI.EDU.AU><http://www.wehi.edu.au/~wilkins>
Homo homini aut deus aut lupus - Erasmus of Rotterdam
hathaw...@my-dejanews.com
the idea that the original Congress had
intended a separation of religion and
state. However, a quick search of the
First Amendment proves that no such
intent was implied. In fact, the First
Amendment states that Congress
cannot make a law regarding a church.
Therefore the IRS is illegally forcing
churches not to endorse a political
candidate.
At any rate, that's the truth.
Hathaway5353
Liz
alt.atheism wrote:
>Very often you will hear some espouse
>the idea that the original Congress had
>intended a separation of religion and
>state. However, a quick search of the
>First Amendment proves that no such
>intent was implied.
Thomas Jefferson (I'm sure you heard of him) disagreed with your
interpretation. He wrote:
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between
man and his God, I contemplate with solemn reverence that act of the
whole American People which declared that their legislature should
"make no law respecting an establishment of religon or prohibiting the
free exercise thereof" thus building a wall of separation between
Church and State.
The Constitution of the United States was written without a single
reference to God.
> In fact, the First
>Amendment states that Congress
>cannot make a law regarding a church.
The word "church" is not mentioned in the First Amendment.
The exact text is as follows:
Congress shall make no law respecting the 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.
>Therefore the IRS is illegally forcing
>churches not to endorse a political
>candidate.
Church endorsement of a political candidate is not a religious rite.
A church can endorse any candidate it wishes if it surrenders its tax
exempt status and registers as a PAC or lobbying group.
>At any rate, that's the truth.
You forgot to capitalize Truth©.
Liz #658 BAAWA
Get your facts first, and then you can distort them
as much as you please. -- Mark Twain
Michael L. Siemon
wil...@wehi.edu.au (John Wilkins) wrote:
+ In article <3652CD...@mail.smu.edu>, lou...@post.cis.smu.edu wrote:
+
+ |Capt. Spith wrote:
+ |
+ |> Okay, so who has an example of a theologan who studied the scriptures
+ |> for years, then turned his/her back on christianity? There's gotta be
+ |> as many examples of that as there are of atheists becoming theists....
+ |
+ |For sufficiently stringent definitions of 'turned his/her back on
+ |Christianity,' the entire mainstream of 20th century theology
+ |(especially the Jesus Project) would fit this description.
+
+ Now you're getting it. It all started with Barth and Brunner...
Oh, no. Try that perrenial whipping boy of the evangelical right,
Bultmann. And of course practically every bit of serious thought by
Christian theologians in the last 150-200 years has been attacked
by pharisaic know-nothings as "atheistic." American Fundamentalism
is, in large measure, a reaction *against* any kind of serious thought
in Christian theology. And it reaps the fruits of its hatred of human
reason.
However, the kind of crap that usually comes through in the vein of
"examples of atheists becoming theists" is such incompetent (and
usually adolescent and totally ill-informed pseudo-atheism --
a matter of resisting the misbegotten world inflicted on children
by their parents, not of any serious thought) bilge that even half-
decent theologizing looks intellectually rigorous (though it shouldn't!)
From *that* standpoint, every lad or lass who has seen through the
nonsense shoved at them in "Bible School" or "Confirmation Class"
and gone on to atheism as a perfectly healty reaction meets the
parallelism criterion. The net is *full* of such people, and their
understanding of the Christianity they rejected is at about the
same level as the "evolution" parody that we get from the "I used
to be an evolutionist" idiots.
--
Michael L. Siemon We must know the truth, and we must
m...@panix.com love the truth we know, and we must
act according to the measure of our love.
-- Thomas Merton
cats...@my-dejanews.com
hathaw...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> Very often you will hear some espouse
> the idea that the original Congress had
> intended a separation of religion and
> state. However, a quick search of the
> First Amendment proves that no such
> Amendment states that Congress
> cannot make a law regarding a church.
> churches not to endorse a political
> candidate.
>
>
>
> -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
>
>
Congratulations! You have expanded your area of inexpertise and ignorance
from mere science into law, politics and history as well! Topped off with a
Lily Tomlin imitation to boot! You should really take a bow! -- if you can
avoid hitting your head on the keyboard.
P.S. How did you manage to attach this post to the thread about your
imaginary Russian "creation scientist"?
--
J. Pieret
"A zygote is a gamete's way of producing more gametes." - Robert Heinlein
Dick C.
>It isn't surprising that nameless doesn't know this. He seems to be unable
>to ever find any reference material more recent than about 1953, or so.
>
Actually, the older the better, he will kill himself to provide a quote from a
century old scientific document that sort of supports whatever stupid
assertion he has made.
Dick, Atheist #1349
Number 1 poster for month of Aug. Meaning too much free time I guess.
email: dic...@drizzle.com
Homepage http://www.drizzle.com/~dickcr
Dick C.
> Okay, so who has an example of a theologan who studied the scriptures
>for years, then turned his/her back on christianity? There's gotta be
>as many examples of that as there are of atheists becoming theists....
>
Well I am not sure about theolgian, but the ranks of atheism are filled with
ex christians, especially in the heavily christian countries.
So the fact that nameless has to bray out one example really shows how
few go from rationality to irrationality.
Dave Holloway
hathaw...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> Very often you will hear some espouse
> the idea that the original Congress had
> intended a separation of religion and
> state. However, a quick search of the
> First Amendment proves that no such
> intent was implied. In fact, the First
> Amendment states that Congress
> cannot make a law regarding a church.
> Therefore the IRS is illegally forcing
> churches not to endorse a political
> candidate.
>
> At any rate, that's the truth.
>
By the Elaysian Fields . . . you really -can't- read, can you?
Dave
--
From the warped mind of Dave Holloway, #1184
http://members.xoom.com/silentdave/atheist.html
Boikat
>
> Very often you will hear some espouse
> the idea that the original Congress had
> intended a separation of religion and
> state. However, a quick search of the
> First Amendment proves that no such
> intent was implied.
http://web.nmsu.edu/~comstudy/church.htm
> In fact, the First
> Amendment states that Congress
> cannot make a law regarding a church.
Boy, are you misrepresenting the intent of the 1st
Amendment! So, if there was a religious sect that
practiced human sacrifice, the state could not
step in and say that the practice is illegal, even
if the sacrifice is voluntary?
> Therefore the IRS is illegally forcing
> churches not to endorse a political
> candidate.
The church can endorse anyone they damn well
want. It's political contributions that would be
the issue here.
Besides, what right does a Priest, Reverend,
Preacher, Rabbi, or Guru have to tell *me* who to
vote for, or against?
But I guess you wouldn't mind living in a
Religious Theocracy. Just read an article in the
paper last week about "religious Police in
Afghanistan making sweeps through the capital,
beating men who had been shaving their beards, and
arresting women who weren't covered from head to
toe.
Sorry pal, the day the religious reich gains power
in the US is the day the United States dies, and a
new dark age begins. Canada or Australia, here I
come. You and the rest of your creationist pal
can rot in the hell you will create.
>
> At any rate, that's the truth.
In your warped little world.
Boikat
Thomas Paine
>Very often you will hear some espouse
>the idea that the original Congress had
>intended a separation of religion and
>state. However, a quick search of the
>First Amendment proves that no such
>intent was implied.
As mentioned in here before, which you probably conveniently forgot, was that
the concept of separation of church and state was concluded from the first
amendment by later judicial brances of the government; and, I believe, it was
Thomas Jefferson who first coined the phraade "Separation of church and
state."
I guess one of the deviant reasons you keep changing names is so that you
can keep repeating the same stupid arguments.
In fact, the First
>Amendment states that Congress
>cannot make a law regarding a church.
Why don't we talk about those laws that make churches tax exempt?
>Therefore the IRS is illegally forcing
>churches not to endorse a political
>candidate.
The IRS is responsible for taxes; not constitutional regulations.
>
>At any rate, that's the truth.
You know nothing .... and that's the truth.
>
>Hathaway5353
>
Capella
>
> Very often you will hear some espouse
> the idea that the original Congress had
> intended a separation of religion and
> state. However, a quick search of the
> First Amendment proves that no such
> Amendment states that Congress
> cannot make a law regarding a church.
> churches not to endorse a political
> candidate.
>
Apparently your "truth."
I could be wrong but I believe the constitution says congress will
not make laws respecting a particular _religion_.
Again I believe the proper interpretation of this is that congress
will not pass laws that favor any particular religion over another.
This is the reason for the separation of church and state. The
government can't favor any particular religions so it shouldn't
be involved with any of them.
Capella #5
http://web2.airmail.net/capella/aguide
maff91
<eijk...@prancer.cs.utk.edu> wrote:
>maf...@dial.pipex.com (maff91) writes:
>
>> On 18 Nov 1998 02:12:35 -0500, MoE <cjc...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>
>> >hathaw...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Dr. Dmitri Kuznetsov
>> >> M.D. in Internal Diseases, Ph.D. in
>> >> Biochemistry, D.Sc. in Molecular
>> >> Biology.
>
>> Creationist Dmitri Kouznetsov: Scientist?
>> Moran discusses creationist Dmitri Kouznetsov's lack of
>> understanding of even the most basic biological concepts, while Trott
>> examines Kouznetsov's use of questionable citations.
>
>Did he get his degree under Lysenko?
http://www.dcu.ie/~comms/hsheehan/lysenko.htm
Lysenkoism is like creationism where wishful thinking replaced
science.
>
>> >That he used nonexistent sources for his papers? We knew that
>> >already, M***y.
>
>I'm not holding my breath waiting for the "oops" follow-up post.
Why?
Dick C.
snip nameless's pointless meanderings through his misunderstanding of
American history.
>
>Congratulations! You have expanded your area of inexpertise and ignorance
>from mere science into law, politics and history as well! Topped off with a
>Lily Tomlin imitation to boot! You should really take a bow! -- if you can
>avoid hitting your head on the keyboard.
Pretty easy to do. Typically one would use those keyboards while sitting on the
floor with it between your legs and pounding on it with a plastic hammer.
>
>P.S. How did you manage to attach this post to the thread about your
>imaginary Russian "creation scientist"?
It is a very common trick of the one without a name. He got his butt kicked and
is trying to change the subject.
Paul J. Koeck
Dave Holloway wrote:
>
> In article <72vqla$4f7$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> hathaw...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> > Very often you will hear some espouse
> > the idea that the original Congress had
> > intended a separation of religion and
> > state. However, a quick search of the
> > First Amendment proves that no such
> > intent was implied. In fact, the First
> > Amendment states that Congress
> > cannot make a law regarding a church.
> > Therefore the IRS is illegally forcing
> > churches not to endorse a political
> > candidate.
> >
> > At any rate, that's the truth.
> >
>
> By the Elaysian Fields . . . you really -can't- read, can you?
>
> Dave
>
> --
> From the warped mind of Dave Holloway, #1184
>
> http://members.xoom.com/silentdave/atheist.html
>
> -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Good grief, Dave. What in the bleeding, caustic fires of the pits
of doom and rancid cheese ever gave you the impression that nameless
could read?
maff91
>hathaw...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>>
>> Very often you will hear some espouse
>> the idea that the original Congress had
>> intended a separation of religion and
>> state. However, a quick search of the
>> First Amendment proves that no such
>> intent was implied.
>
>http://web.nmsu.edu/~comstudy/church.htm
>
>> In fact, the First
>> Amendment states that Congress
>> cannot make a law regarding a church.
>
>Boy, are you misrepresenting the intent of the 1st
>Amendment! So, if there was a religious sect that
>practiced human sacrifice, the state could not
>step in and say that the practice is illegal, even
>if the sacrifice is voluntary?
>
>> Therefore the IRS is illegally forcing
>> churches not to endorse a political
>> candidate.
>
>
>The church can endorse anyone they damn well
>want. It's political contributions that would be
>the issue here.
Try
http://www.freethought.org/activist/current/wire/stories/rr_and_irs.html
>
>Besides, what right does a Priest, Reverend,
>Preacher, Rabbi, or Guru have to tell *me* who to
>vote for, or against?
>
>But I guess you wouldn't mind living in a
>Religious Theocracy. Just read an article in the
>paper last week about "religious Police in
>Afghanistan making sweeps through the capital,
>beating men who had been shaving their beards, and
>arresting women who weren't covered from head to
>toe.
>
>Sorry pal, the day the religious reich gains power
>in the US is the day the United States dies, and a
>new dark age begins. Canada or Australia, here I
>come. You and the rest of your creationist pal
>can rot in the hell you will create.
>
>>
>> At any rate, that's the truth.
>
>In your warped little world.
>
>Boikat
*****************************************************
boog
Dick C. wrote in message <730765$pc_...@news.drizzle.com>...
>In article <3652B1...@teleport.com>, cpts...@teleport.com wrote:
>
>> Okay, so who has an example of a theologan who studied the scriptures
>>for years, then turned his/her back on christianity? There's gotta be
>>as many examples of that as there are of atheists becoming theists....
>>
Charles Templeton is a former evangelist who studied with Billy Graham for
years, they were pretty close friends, who became agnostic after finding to
many questions about christ unanswerable.
Apparently when he questioned Billy Graham about about inconsistencies in
the bible, Billy replied that he himself stopped asking such questions
because he felt his faith would be at stake.
Charles Templeton is not an atheist, but he has discarded the notion of
the Christian God after years of studying.
Deb
>Well I am not sure about theolgian, but the ranks of atheism are filled
with
>ex christians, especially in the heavily christian countries.
>So the fact that nameless has to bray out one example really shows how
>few go from rationality to irrationality.
>
Steven Carr
wrote :
> Charles Templeton is a former evangelist who studied with Billy Graham for
>years, they were pretty close friends, who became agnostic after finding to
>many questions about christ unanswerable.
> Apparently when he questioned Billy Graham about about inconsistencies in
>the bible, Billy replied that he himself stopped asking such questions
>because he felt his faith would be at stake.
First rule of evangelism - don't aks questions.
> Charles Templeton is not an atheist, but he has discarded the notion of
>the Christian God after years of studying.
Is he the same guy who is behind the Templeton Foundation?
Ken Cox
> Actually, the older the better, he will kill himself to provide a quote from a
> century old scientific document that sort of supports whatever stupid
> assertion he has made.
Of course; how could he find anything more recent that supported
his claims?
--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
hathaw...@my-dejanews.com
<36547C...@research.bell
-labs.com>,
Ken Cox <k...@lucent.com>
wrote:
> hathaw...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> > Review. They tried to infiltrate. Of course it failed. But
> > you know how sneaks are. And that was really sneaky. Let's
> > see. Lying about his name and his background. Trying to spy
> > on people. Doing illegal activity. Getting arrested. It's
> > just too much. The liberal fascist way.
>
> Apparently your coherency level goes way down when you realize
> that you've publicly supported a demonstrated liar, who has even
> been disavowed by creationists. If it helps any, you haven't
> damaged your reputation at all.
>
> So stop, take a few deep breaths, and when you've calmed down
> try to put the above into a grammatical form.
Ahem. Sometimes you have to
take people at their word. If a
communist wants to do damage
to the Christian faith by
infiltrating an organization
supporting Christian causes,
then that discredits atheist
communism. Us good natured
Christians are not at fault for
having been conned. It shows
that atheism and evolutionism
are bankrupt ideas and that the
only way you atheists and
evolutionists can win is by acts
of fraud.
Hathaway5353
>
> --
> Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
hathaw...@my-dejanews.com
<7308so$g9r$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com
>,
Dave Holloway <dcho...@cord.edu>
> > Very often you will hear some espouse
> > the idea that the original Congress had
> > intended a separation of religion and
> > state. However, a quick search of the
> > First Amendment proves that no such
> > Amendment states that Congress
> > cannot make a law regarding a church.
> > churches not to endorse a political
> > candidate.
> >
> >
>
>
> Dave
Here, let me quote it for you.
Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of
Religion or prohibiting it's free
exercise thereof.
Clearly it doesn't say "shall make no
law respecting religion, but "an"
establishment of religion. There fore
Congress can make laws respecting
establishments (plural) of religion.
Plus Congress can't tax a church
because you would interfere with it's
free exercise.
Obey the law.
Hathaway5353
>
> --
> From the warped mind of Dave Holloway, #1184
>
> http://members.xoom.com/silentdave/atheist.html
>
hathaw...@my-dejanews.com
<7307jq$fav$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com
>,
cats...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> In article <72vqla$4f7$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> hathaw...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> > Very often you will hear some espouse
> > the idea that the original Congress had
> > intended a separation of religion and
> > state. However, a quick search of the
> > First Amendment proves that no such
> > intent was implied. In fact, the First
> > Amendment states that Congress
> > cannot make a law regarding a church.
> > Therefore the IRS is illegally forcing
> > churches not to endorse a political
> > candidate.
> >
> > At any rate, that's the truth.
> >
> >
> > -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
> > http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
> >
> >
>
> from mere science into law, politics and history as well! Topped off with a
> Lily Tomlin imitation to boot! You should really take a bow! -- if you can
> avoid hitting your head on the keyboard.
>
> imaginary Russian "creation scientist"?
Of there was any substance to this
response perhaps there would be
something for me to respond to. At
any rate, you can't blame ICR for
allowing an infiltrator in. Any old
atheist can pretend to be something in
order to discredit another. Reminds
me of the time some guy tried to
infiltrate my paper. He was a liar.
Hathaway.
>
> --
> J. Pieret
>
> "A zygote is a gamete's way of producing more gametes." - Robert Heinlein
>
hathaw...@my-dejanews.com
<36567d5c.10680239@news.c
oncentric.net>,
ech...@donotspam.com (Liz)
wrote:
>
> >Very often you will hear some espouse
> >the idea that the original Congress had
> >intended a separation of religion and
> >state. However, a quick search of the
> >First Amendment proves that no such
> >intent was implied.
>
> interpretation. He wrote:
>
> Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between
> man and his God, I contemplate with solemn reverence that act of the
> whole American People which declared that their legislature should
> "make no law respecting an establishment of religon or prohibiting the
> free exercise thereof" thus building a wall of separation between
> Church and State.
In other words he's telling the
Dansbury Baptists (a fact that
you suppressed) that Congress
was not going to interfere with
their worship and that there
was no possibility that a state
church would be formed that
would elimenate Dansbury
Baptists.
Please tell this aspect of the
truth next time.
>
> The Constitution of the United States was written without a single
> reference to God.
>
> > In fact, the First
> >Amendment states that Congress
> >cannot make a law regarding a church.
>
> The word "church" is not mentioned in the First Amendment.
Oh, but it is. What do you think
"an establishment of Religion"
is? Do you know the words
"an" and "establishment"?
>
> The exact text is as follows:
>
> Congress shall make no law respecting the 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.
>
> >Therefore the IRS is illegally forcing
> >churches not to endorse a political
> >candidate.
>
> Church endorsement of a political candidate is not a religious rite.
> A church can endorse any candidate it wishes if it surrenders its tax
> exempt status and registers as a PAC or lobbying group.
Actually, no. That is a modern
secular interpretation that
does not follow original intent.
Actually, this IRS law is in
violation of the First
Amendment which you just
cited (blindly I might add) as
saying that Congress shall not
"prohibit the free exercise
thereof."
The law is referring to
restraining Congress, not
religion. Congress has no
power to make any law
regarding religion.
Obey the law.
hathaw...@my-dejanews.com
<36539B...@airmail.net>,
Capella <cap...@airmail.net> wrote:
> hathaw...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> >
> > Very often you will hear some espouse
> > the idea that the original Congress had
> > intended a separation of religion and
> > state. However, a quick search of the
> > First Amendment proves that no such
> > Amendment states that Congress
> > cannot make a law regarding a church.
> > churches not to endorse a political
> > candidate.
> >
>
>
> I could be wrong but I believe the constitution says congress will
> not make laws respecting a particular _religion_.
Actually, the First Amendment reads:
"Congress shall not make a law
regarding AN ESTABLISHMENT of
religion, nor prohibit it's free
exercise thereof. "
Any one with a brain knows that an
establishment refers to a church.
Simply, Congress wanted to prevent
the establishment of a state church.
But it was OK to make laws in support
of religion in general.
Hathaway 5353
>
> Again I believe the proper interpretation of this is that congress
> will not pass laws that favor any particular religion over another.
>
> This is the reason for the separation of church and state. The
> government can't favor any particular religions so it shouldn't
> be involved with any of them.
>
> Capella #5
> http://web2.airmail.net/capella/aguide
>
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
hathaw...@my-dejanews.com
<3653BCF9...@bellsouth.net>
,
Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> hathaw...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> >
> > Very often you will hear some espouse
> > the idea that the original Congress had
> > intended a separation of religion and
> > state. However, a quick search of the
> > First Amendment proves that no such
> > intent was implied.
>
>
> > In fact, the First
> > Amendment states that Congress
> > cannot make a law regarding a church.
>
> Amendment! So, if there was a religious sect that
> practiced human sacrifice, the state could not
> step in and say that the practice is illegal, even
> if the sacrifice is voluntary?
Ahem. Congress was no in
consideration of "human sacrifices"
at the time of the First Amendment.
In order to correct that problem
Congress will have to modify the
First Amendment via amendment.
>
> > Therefore the IRS is illegally forcing
> > churches not to endorse a political
> > candidate.
>
> The church can endorse anyone they damn well
> want. It's political contributions that would be
> the issue here.
Nothing in the Constitution says that
churches cannot make political
contributions. The Constitution was
made specifically to grant or deny
powers to congress. It says nothing
about denying power to churches.
Hathaway5353.
Unless you are willing to cite that
provision. $1000 bucks says you
can't.
>
> Besides, what right does a Priest, Reverend,
> Preacher, Rabbi, or Guru have to tell *me* who to
> vote for, or against?
>
> But I guess you wouldn't mind living in a
> Religious Theocracy. Just read an article in the
> paper last week about "religious Police in
> Afghanistan making sweeps through the capital,
> beating men who had been shaving their beards, and
> arresting women who weren't covered from head to
> toe.
>
> Sorry pal, the day the religious reich gains power
> in the US is the day the United States dies, and a
> new dark age begins. Canada or Australia, here I
> come. You and the rest of your creationist pal
> can rot in the hell you will create.
>
> >
> > At any rate, that's the truth.
>
> In your warped little world.
>
> Boikat
>
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Boikat
Yup. As I thought, "It was the strawberries..."
Get help. You're becoming paranoid and
delusional. Oops! To late.
Boikat
Liz
alt.atheism wrote:
[talk.origins deleted as the subject is off topic]
>In article
><36567d5c.10680239@news.c
>oncentric.net>,
> ech...@donotspam.com (Liz)
>wrote:
>> On 18 Nov 1998 19:55:39 -0500, hathaw...@my-dejanews.com in
>> alt.atheism wrote:
>>
>> >Very often you will hear some espouse
>> >the idea that the original Congress had
>> >intended a separation of religion and
>> >state. However, a quick search of the
>> >First Amendment proves that no such
>> >intent was implied.
>>
>> Thomas Jefferson (I'm sure you heard of him) disagreed with your
>> interpretation. He wrote:
>>
>> Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between
>> man and his God, I contemplate with solemn reverence that act of the
>> whole American People which declared that their legislature should
>> "make no law respecting an establishment of religon or prohibiting the
>> free exercise thereof" thus building a wall of separation between
>> Church and State.
>
>In other words he's telling the
>Dansbury Baptists (a fact that
>you suppressed) that Congress
>was not going to interfere with
>their worship and that there
>was no possibility that a state
>church would be formed that
>would elimenate Dansbury
>Baptists.
So on which side are you arguing, that there should *not* be
separation so that the Dansbury Baptists could be eliminated?
>Please tell this aspect of the
>truth next time.
ROTFL Quoting Jefferson does not suppress the truth - not even
in the world in which you seem to be living. You are correct
separation of church and state protects the freedom of religion. I
think this is very important, don't you. It allows every individual
to worship according to the dictates of his own conscious. An
individual can not be persecuted for believing as he chooses, nor can
he be punished for failing to worship in a certain way. The
separation of church and state is essential to maintaining these human
rights. The writers of the Constitution were well aware of the
burnings and hangings which had taken place in England and Europe
because of heresy against the "established" religion whatever that
established religion happened to be at that moment.
The strange thing about heresy is that if it prospers, none dare call
it heresy. Heresy is entirely dependent upon who has the power to
define it. Most often it means "someone whose beliefs do not
correspond exactly with mine". The Catholics called the Baptists
heretics. The Lutherans and the Calvinists were certain that the
Catholic beliefs were heretical. The Anglicans persecuted the Quakers
for nonorthodoxy, and almost all other sects of Christianity think of
Mormons as False Christians©. Moslems in Pakistan have recently
executed a Christian for blasphemy and the Taliban in Afghanistan has
reinstituted stoning for those who refuse to follow the Q'uran.
Luckily, you do not have the power to relight the pyres of Smithfield
nor institute more modern punishments such a firing squads for those
who fail to believe in the "Truth According to <nameless>". The
separation between church and state prevents a theocracy where the
head of the government is the head of the established religion and
blasphemy equates to treason.
You do realize don't you that the only reason that churches are exempt
from income tax in the first place is the principal of separation of
church and state? If there was not a separation, then churches would
be taxed whether a pastor endorsed candidates or not.
>> The Constitution of the United States was written without a single
>> reference to God.
>>
>> > In fact, the First
>> >Amendment states that Congress
>> >cannot make a law regarding a church.
>>
>> The word "church" is not mentioned in the First Amendment.
>
>Oh, but it is.
Oh, but it isn't. I quoted the entire text of the First Amendment.
No matter how many times I read it, the word "church" still isn't
mentioned. Churches do not have rights. Individuals have rights.
>What do you think
>"an establishment of Religion"
>is? Do you know the words
>"an" and "establishment"?
Now you sound like Clinton. What is the context of "is"?
Are you so far gone that you can not tell the difference between a
religion and a church?
>> The exact text is as follows:
>>
>> Congress shall make no law respecting the 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.
>>
>> >Therefore the IRS is illegally forcing
>> >churches not to endorse a political
>> >candidate.
>>
>> Church endorsement of a political candidate is not a religious rite.
>> A church can endorse any candidate it wishes if it surrenders its tax
>> exempt status and registers as a PAC or lobbying group.
>
>Actually, no. That is a modern
>secular interpretation that
>does not follow original intent.
The original intent (no matter who is correct) has no effect on the
modern law as established by decisions of the Supreme Court. A
church cannot step outside of the bounds of religion and still expect
to be protected against taxation. If this were true, then your church
could start a brothel and claim the profits were tax-exempt.
>Actually, this IRS law is in
>violation of the First
>Amendment which you just
>cited (blindly I might add) as
ROTFL No. I had my eyes wide open in order to quote the exact words
just the way they are written in the Constitution
>saying that Congress shall not
>"prohibit the free exercise
>thereof."
Yes, those are a portion of the words I quoted.
The endorsement of political candidates is not a religious rite nor
part of any worship despite your specious assertion. Therefore,
prohibiting the endorsement of candidates while retaining a tax exempt
status does not infringe upon the free exercise of religion.
It is perfectly within the bounds of a church to provide voter guides
which fairly present the views of each candidate. What the IRS
contends is not this benign practice, but the advocacy of all the
members of a church voting in the "approved" manner. This falls
outside the purview of religion and into the arena of influence
peddling. Even corporations can not take lobbying expenses as a
deduction against their tax returns. If you belong to a professional
association which conducts any lobbying on its members behalf, that
portion of the dues paid to the association is not tax deductible.
>The law is referring to
>restraining Congress, not
>religion. Congress has no
>power to make any law
>regarding religion.
No one is making a law against or regarding religion. Endorsing
candidates is not religion.
>Obey the law.
Know the law.
Liz #658 BAAWA
Religion may in most of its forms be defined as the
belief that the gods are on the side of the government.
-- Bertrand Russell
Boikat
>
> In article
> <3653BCF9...@bellsouth.net>
> ,
> Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > Very often you will hear some espouse
> > > the idea that the original Congress had
> > > intended a separation of religion and
> > > state. However, a quick search of the
> > > First Amendment proves that no such
> > > intent was implied.
> >
> >
> > > In fact, the First
> > > Amendment states that Congress
> > > cannot make a law regarding a church.
> >
> > Amendment! So, if there was a religious sect that
> > practiced human sacrifice, the state could not
> > step in and say that the practice is illegal, even
> > if the sacrifice is voluntary?
>
> Ahem. Congress was no in
> consideration of "human sacrifices"
> at the time of the First Amendment.
> In order to correct that problem
> Congress will have to modify the
> First Amendment via amendment.
Ahem, are you saying that until congress modified
the first amendment that human sacrifices under
the shield of religion would have to be
tolerated? What planet do you live on again?
>
> >
> > > Therefore the IRS is illegally forcing
> > > churches not to endorse a political
> > > candidate.
> >
> > The church can endorse anyone they damn well
> > want. It's political contributions that would be
> > the issue here.
>
> Nothing in the Constitution says that
> churches cannot make political
> contributions. The Constitution was
> made specifically to grant or deny
> powers to congress. It says nothing
> about denying power to churches.
Clearly the donations of vast sums of money by a
church to a political candidate runs the risk of
interfering with the proper discharge of duties of
the official if he's elected. Remember
Robertson's rant from last year about how he was
upset because certain elected officials didn't
push Robertson's agenda, despite CC donations the
the election fund? It's called "Conflict of
interest".
>
> Hathaway5353.
>
> Unless you are willing to cite that
> provision. $1000 bucks says you
> can't.
From the article linked above:
a. It is a basic principle of American government
that church and state not mingle.
b. The Supreme Court argues that the state must
neither advance nor retard religion.
c. The state must not use funds to favor one
church over others.
d. Public institutions should not be embroiled
in sectarian controversies.
Then why was the tax exempt status revoked for one
of the major religious PAC's because of their
contributions to certain election campaigns?
There is a separation of chruch and state for a
reasion. If you cannot see that, then you truely
are a moron.
Boikat
cats...@my-dejanews.com
talk-o...@ediacara.org wrote:
> In article <7307jq$fav$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, cats...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> American history.
>
> >
> >from mere science into law, politics and history as well! Topped off with a
> >Lily Tomlin imitation to boot! You should really take a bow! -- if you can
> >avoid hitting your head on the keyboard.
>
> floor with it between your legs and pounding on it with a plastic hammer.
>
> >
> >imaginary Russian "creation scientist"?
>
> is trying to change the subject.
>
> Number 1 poster for month of Aug. Meaning too much free time I guess.
I've obviously heard of "the nameless one" before -- how can you not on t.o.?
-- but *sometime* I would like to hear the story. How he/she/it got the name,
how you ID nameless, etc. Or is there a FAQ? It's damn frustrating to come in
on the middle of a tale (I've only been on t.o., off and on, for a couple of
years) and have to try to pick it up by osmossis. Maybe we can even start a
new thread: The Life and Times of Namless -- A Cautionary Tale!
--
J. Pieret
"A zygote is a gamete's way of producing more gametes." - Robert Heinlein
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
wf...@enter.netxx
>Very often you will hear some espouse
>the idea that the original Congress had
>intended a separation of religion and
>state. However, a quick search of the
>First Amendment proves that no such
>intent was implied. In fact, the First
>Amendment states that Congress
>cannot make a law regarding a church.
actually it doesnt say that at all. it says congress may not establish
a church, or prohibit the free exercise of religion. congress may, for
example, ban the use of hallucinogenic drugs in a church, etc.
>Therefore the IRS is illegally forcing
>churches not to endorse a political
>candidate.
churches can endorse whomsoever they want
they cannot do it, however, at taxpayers expense. all lobbying
organizations, including churches if they so choose to be, pay taxes.
why should churches be subsidized by the taxpayers to influence the
political process?
Dave Holloway
hathaw...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> In article
> <36567d5c.10680239@news.c
> oncentric.net>,
> ech...@donotspam.com (Liz)
> wrote:
> > alt.atheism wrote:
> >
> > >Very often you will hear some espouse
> > >the idea that the original Congress had
> > >intended a separation of religion and
> > >state. However, a quick search of the
> > >First Amendment proves that no such
> > >intent was implied.
> >
> > interpretation. He wrote:
> >
> > Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between
> > man and his God, I contemplate with solemn reverence that act of the
> > whole American People which declared that their legislature should
> > "make no law respecting an establishment of religon or prohibiting the
> > free exercise thereof" thus building a wall of separation between
> > Church and State.
>
> In other words he's telling the
> Dansbury Baptists (a fact that
> you suppressed) that Congress
> was not going to interfere with
> their worship and that there
> was no possibility that a state
> church would be formed that
> would elimenate Dansbury
> Baptists.
>
> truth next time.
>
> >
> > reference to God.
> >
> > >Amendment states that Congress
> > >cannot make a law regarding a church.
> >
>
> "an establishment of Religion"
> is? Do you know the words
> "an" and "establishment"?
> >
> >
> > Congress shall make no law respecting the 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.
> >
> > >churches not to endorse a political
> > >candidate.
> >
> > A church can endorse any candidate it wishes if it surrenders its tax
> > exempt status and registers as a PAC or lobbying group.
>
> Actually, no. That is a modern
> secular interpretation that
> does not follow original intent.
> violation of the First
> Amendment which you just
> cited (blindly I might add) as
> "prohibit the free exercise
> thereof."
>
> restraining Congress, not
> religion. Congress has no
> power to make any law
> regarding religion.
So much for school prayer.
Dave
--
From the warped mind of Dave Holloway, #1184
http://members.xoom.com/silentdave/atheist.html
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
John Wilkins
|I've obviously heard of "the nameless one" before -- how can you not on t.o.?
|-- but *sometime* I would like to hear the story. How he/she/it got the name,
|how you ID nameless, etc. Or is there a FAQ? It's damn frustrating to come in
|on the middle of a tale (I've only been on t.o., off and on, for a couple of
|years) and have to try to pick it up by osmossis. Maybe we can even start a
|new thread: The Life and Times of Namless -- A Cautionary Tale!
Actually, I've forgotten how it happened. Can someone put this together as
an anecdote on t.o life and ecology? Something to do with denial of
responsibility, wasn't it?
--
John Wilkins, Head, Graphic Production, The Walter and Eliza Hall Institute
of Medical Research, Melbourne, Australia
<mailto:wil...@WEHI.EDU.AU><http://www.wehi.edu.au/~wilkins>
Homo homini aut deus aut lupus - Erasmus of Rotterdam
e.oupt
(snip)
>
>Ahem. Sometimes you have to
>take people at their word. If a
>communist wants to do damage
>to the Christian faith by
>infiltrating an organization
>supporting Christian causes,
>then that discredits atheist
>communism. Us good natured
>Christians are not at fault for
>having been conned. It shows
>that atheism and evolutionism
>are bankrupt ideas and that the
>only way you atheists and
>evolutionists can win is by acts
>of fraud.
>
>Hathaway5353
>
>
>>
>> Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
>>
>>
>
>-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
>http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
More likely,
He is just a con-artist, who was able to fool many creationist, for awhile.
Because they were so desperate to strengthen their rickety facade as a legitimate
scientific inquiry.
e.oupt
Dick C.
>> It is a very common trick of the one without a name. He got his butt kicked
> and
>> is trying to change the subject.
>I've obviously heard of "the nameless one" before -- how can you not on t.o.?
>-- but *sometime* I would like to hear the story. How he/she/it got the name,
>how you ID nameless, etc. Or is there a FAQ? It's damn frustrating to come in
>on the middle of a tale (I've only been on t.o., off and on, for a couple of
>years) and have to try to pick it up by osmossis. Maybe we can even start a
>new thread: The Life and Times of Namless -- A Cautionary Tale!
Well, I didn't see it myself, but I have been severely punished for just
mentioning what was once his name in an explanation.
As I understand it, people on alt.atheism got so tired of his lying and
evasion that they declared him to be without a name. I had a run in with him
a couple of years ago, when he made fun of my name. I asked for an apology
and he just kept making fun of it. I got disgusted, and a little miffed, and
everytime he posted I would respond demanding an apology. It took about 3
weeks before he finally did.
Since that time I have seen him do some pretty dumb and stupid things. Some
of which have been mentioned here. But I really don;t want to go into too much
as this is probably a big ego builder.
As time goes on, he will post more and more one liners, just to get a reaction,
and to see his name in print. I think he gets his jollies from seeing his name
on the internet, and the more often the better.
Dick, Atheist #1349
Number 1 poster for month of Aug. Meaning too much free time I guess.
Thomas Paine
>> >
>> > Very often you will hear some espouse
>> > the idea that the original Congress had
>> > intended a separation of religion and
>> > state. However, a quick search of the
>> > First Amendment proves that no such
>> > Amendment states that Congress
>> > cannot make a law regarding a church.
>> > churches not to endorse a political
>> > candidate.
>> >
>>
>>
>> I could be wrong but I believe the constitution says congress will
>> not make laws respecting a particular _religion_.
>
>Actually, the First Amendment reads:
>
>"Congress shall not make a law
>regarding AN ESTABLISHMENT of
>religion, nor prohibit it's free
>exercise thereof. "
"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."
Hmmm.... what's the take on "RESPECTING an establishment......"?
Thomas Paine
>,
> Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> hathaw...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>> >
>> > Very often you will hear some espouse
>> > the idea that the original Congress had
>> > intended a separation of religion and
>> > state. However, a quick search of the
>> > First Amendment proves that no such
>> > intent was implied.
>>
>>
>> > In fact, the First
>> > Amendment states that Congress
>> > cannot make a law regarding a church.
>>
>> Amendment! So, if there was a religious sect that
>> practiced human sacrifice, the state could not
>> step in and say that the practice is illegal, even
>> if the sacrifice is voluntary?
>
>Ahem. Congress was no in
>consideration of "human sacrifices"
>at the time of the First Amendment.
>In order to correct that problem
>Congress will have to modify the
>First Amendment via amendment.
Or use the supreme court to help decide what constitutes a religion, religious
beliefs and behaviors.
>
>
>
>
>>
>> > Therefore the IRS is illegally forcing
>> > churches not to endorse a political
>> > candidate.
>>
>> The church can endorse anyone they damn well
>> want. It's political contributions that would be
>> the issue here.
>
>Nothing in the Constitution says that
>churches cannot make political
>contributions.
That's true ... but an establishment that donates money to a candidate is not
a religious organization/enterprise.
The Constitution was
>made specifically to grant or deny
>powers to congress. It says nothing
>about denying power to churches.
But when the church steps out of religious activites, it is no longer acting
as a church.
Under your reasoning, a church could do anything it damn well pleases, and get
away with it ... just by calling itself a church.
Get real!
>
>Hathaway5353.
>
>Unless you are willing to cite that
>provision. $1000 bucks says you
>can't.
>
>>
>> Besides, what right does a Priest, Reverend,
>> Preacher, Rabbi, or Guru have to tell *me* who to
>> vote for, or against?
>>
>> But I guess you wouldn't mind living in a
>> Religious Theocracy. Just read an article in the
>> paper last week about "religious Police in
>> Afghanistan making sweeps through the capital,
>> beating men who had been shaving their beards, and
>> arresting women who weren't covered from head to
>> toe.
>>
>> Sorry pal, the day the religious reich gains power
>> in the US is the day the United States dies, and a
>> new dark age begins. Canada or Australia, here I
>> come. You and the rest of your creationist pal
>> can rot in the hell you will create.
>>
>> >
>> > At any rate, that's the truth.
>>
>> In your warped little world.
>>
>> Boikat
>>
>>
>
hathaw...@my-dejanews.com
Amendment forbids Congress from
interfering with churches (ie.
Congress shall make no law...or
prohibiting it's free exercise
churches to act out crusades,
inquisitions, and murder.
I rebut that.
1. First off, laws are usually the
result of abuses committed by an
individual or group. Since no crusades
or inquisitions have arisen in this
country, in it's 200 year history, no
wonder Congress has never enacted
an amendment to deal with said
abuses.
2. The Constitution was written to
grant powers to the Congress. It was
also written to restrict the power of
Congress. No where in the
Constitution do we read any provision
that restricts any activity done by a
church, a business, or
individual,except those under the
employ of Congress.
3. The reason for number 2, that said
Constitution restricts only the
Congress and not churches,
businesses or individuals, is because
Congress was devised to supervise
national affairs. State governments
were left to their own governance
and therefore it is up to each
individual state to regulate their own
populace.
That said, it is perfectly legal for
churches to contribute monies to
politicians. If anyone sees otherwise,
please quote the Constition. $1000
says you can't.
Hathaway5353
Thomas Paine
(snip)
>
>Here, let me quote it for you.
>
>Congress shall make no law
>respecting an establishment of
>Religion or prohibiting it's free
>exercise thereof.
>
>Clearly it doesn't say "shall make no
>law respecting religion, but "an"
>establishment of religion. There fore
>Congress can make laws respecting
>establishments (plural) of religion.
>Plus Congress can't tax a church
>because you would interfere with it's
>free exercise.
No where does it say that, via tax breaks, anyone else should pay for your
exercise of religion.
It was a standard practice of some businesses to donate their land to a church
- and then rent that land back for a factory.
The rent was less than the business would pay in taxes, the business got a
write off for the donation, and the church got the rent and the land.
The practice may have been changed since it seems like the government is more
decisive about what is and what isn't "church, religion based, business.
MAny yeasr ago, radio stations in New Orleans were raising hell because
"church based" stations were playing the same music and programs as the
standard stations. The standard stations had to compete in the open market
with stations that were tax exempt and didn't follow the same market rules.
Don't know what happened to those stations, but the government did stop CBN
from getting its tax exemption because it was a broadcast network ... NOT a
church.
>
>Obey the law.
Keep your religion out of our schools!
>
>Hathaway5353
>
>
>
>>
>> --
>> From the warped mind of Dave Holloway, #1184
>>
>> http://members.xoom.com/silentdave/atheist.html
>>
Quality
The issue here is:
Should a church be able to claim tax exempt status and still participate in
political activities?
I submit, that tax exempt status has **NOTHING** to do with religion. Tax
exempt status is only a matter of organization, and then is a **CHOICE**
that each organization makes.
By this I mean that my church **CHOOSES** to file for tax exempt status, no
one makes us use this option. We choose to fill out forms and we choose to
jump through the IRS hoops.
If I belonged to a religion that prohibited the recording of numbers
(similar to not writing the name of god) I would bet the IRS would not grant
me tax exempt status and the courts would not call that interfering with
Freedom of Religion.
hrgr...@my-dejanews.com
hathaw...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> In article
> <36567d5c.10680239@news.c
> oncentric.net>,
> ech...@donotspam.com (Liz)
> wrote:
> > On 18 Nov 1998 19:55:39 -0500, hathaw...@my-dejanews.com in
> >
> > >Very often you will hear some espouse
> > >the idea that the original Congress had
> > >intended a separation of religion and
> > >state. However, a quick search of the
> > >First Amendment proves that no such
> > >intent was implied.
> >
> > interpretation. He wrote:
> >
> > Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between
> > man and his God, I contemplate with solemn reverence that act of the
> > whole American People which declared that their legislature should
> > "make no law respecting an establishment of religon or prohibiting the
> > free exercise thereof" thus building a wall of separation between
> > Church and State.
>
> In other words he's telling the
> Dansbury Baptists (a fact that
> you suppressed) that Congress
> was not going to interfere with
> their worship and that there
> was no possibility that a state
> church would be formed that
> would elimenate Dansbury
> Baptists.
>
> Please tell this aspect of the
> truth next time.
>
> >
> > The Constitution of the United States was written without a single
> > reference to God.
> >
> > >Amendment states that Congress
> > >cannot make a law regarding a church.
> >
>
> Oh, but it is. What do you think
> "an establishment of Religion"
> is? Do you know the words
> "an" and "establishment"?
> >
> > The exact text is as follows:
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > >churches not to endorse a political
> > >candidate.
> >
> > A church can endorse any candidate it wishes if it surrenders its tax
> > exempt status and registers as a PAC or lobbying group.
>
> Actually, no. That is a modern
> secular interpretation that
> does not follow original intent.
> Actually, this IRS law is in
> violation of the First
> Amendment which you just
> cited (blindly I might add) as
> saying that Congress shall not
> "prohibit the free exercise
> thereof."
>
> The law is referring to
> restraining Congress, not
> religion. Congress has no
> power to make any law
> regarding religion.
However, it does have the power to make a law about taxes. Do you think the
1st Amendment means that a newspaper may not be taxed ?
(Hint to the constitutionally uneducated: At best a law *specifically taxing
churches* would be a law regarding religion.)
Since Congress may tax churches, it may make it a condition for tax-exempt
status that they remain churches and stay out of the political arena.
HRG.
> Obey the law.
>
> Hathaway5353
Bud
<732g5v$f0s$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> In article
> <3653BCF9...@bellsouth.net>
> > > Therefore the IRS is illegally forcing
> > > churches not to endorse a political
> > > candidate.
> >
> > want. It's political contributions that would be
> > the issue here.
>
> Nothing in the Constitution says that
> churches cannot make political
> made specifically to grant or deny
> powers to congress. It says nothing
> about denying power to churches.
>
impose income taxes. Therefore, Congress has the right to make laws
dealing with income taxes and have done so -- and are covered in Sec.
501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. You also seem to forget
that the Constitution gives the Supreme Court the power to interpret the
constitionality of the any law and they have not ruled that Sec. 501(c)(3)
of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is unconstitutional. If you don't
like, sue the government and try to get the Supreme Court to overturn the
law.
wf...@enter.netxx
>In article
>
>Nothing in the Constitution says that
>churches cannot make political
>contributions. The Constitution was
>made specifically to grant or deny
>powers to congress. It says nothing
>about denying power to churches.
nor does it say churches have special privileges or rights. all
political lobbying groups are taxed.
wf...@enter.netxx
It shows
>that atheism and evolutionism
>are bankrupt ideas and that the
>only way you atheists and
>evolutionists can win is by acts
>of fraud.
what does evolution have to do with atheism?
the soviets, like creationists, had their own version of 'creationism'
in the 30's. it was called lysenkoism. like creationism it was a cult
belief limited to 1 group of people...
wf...@enter.netxx
>Actually, no. That is a modern
>secular interpretation that
>does not follow original intent.
>Actually, this IRS law is in
>violation of the First
>Amendment which you just
>cited (blindly I might add) as
>saying that Congress shall not
>"prohibit the free exercise
>thereof."
]
incorrect. if a church runs a business, it pays taxes on that
business. thats one reason pat robertson et al have gotten in trouble
over the last few yrs. lobbying groups pay taxes. its unfair for me to
subsidize, via taxes, a lobbying group.
>
>The law is referring to
>restraining Congress, not
>religion. Congress has no
>power to make any law
>regarding religion.
incorrect. it can prevent the use of hallucinogenic drugs in church
services, for example. the use of peyote is forbidden in native
american churches by statute.
Bud
<732v9e$r1m$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> It has been argued that if the First
> Amendment forbids Congress from
> interfering with churches (ie.
> Congress shall make no law...or
just can't do it and maintain their tax exempt status. And there is
nothing in the Constition that says that they can't tax religious
establishments as long as they don't favor one religious establishment.
You need to prove that taxing all religious establishments equally
restricts the activites of the religious establishments. If you can, then
you should file a law suit against the government.
Quality
>
>"Congress shall not make a law
>regarding AN ESTABLISHMENT of
>exercise thereof. "
>
>Any one with a brain knows that an
>establishment refers to a church.
>Simply, Congress wanted to prevent
>the establishment of a state church.
>
>
Hath: Anyone with a brain knows that an establishment can also be a bar, a
factory, or any other place of business.
MORE TO THE POINT, When the Bill of Rights talks about "a law regarding an
establishment of religion" it is NOT talking about a place, but an ACTION
(see Websters Dictionary definitions #1 & #2 below). The correct
interpretation is that this means:
Congress shall not make a law regarding (related to) an establishment
(establishing) of (any) religion.
YOU MUST ALWAYS REMEMBER THAT THE CONSTITUTION IS OVER 200 YEARS OLD AND
ENGLISH THEN WAS MORE STILTED THAN NOW. YOU MUST TRANSLATE THE DOCUMENT WITH
RESPECT TO THE TIME IT WAS WRITTEN IN !!!
Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) [web1913]
establishment \Es*tab"lish*ment\, n. [Cf. OF. establissement, F.
['e]tablissement.]
1. The act of establishing; a ratifying or ordaining;
settlement; confirmation.
2. The state of being established, founded, and the like;
fixed state.
3. That which is established; as:
(a) A form of government, civil or ecclesiastical;
especially, a system of religion maintained by the
civil power; as, the Episcopal establishment of
England.
(b) A permanent civil, military, or commercial, force or
organization.
(c) The place in which one is permanently fixed for
residence or business; residence, including grounds,
furniture, equipage, etc.; with which one is fitted
out; also, any office or place of business, with its
fixtures; that which serves for the carrying on of a
business; as, to keep up a large establishment; a
manufacturing establishment.
MJR
>
> In article
> <36547C...@research.bell
> -labs.com>,
> Ken Cox <k...@lucent.com>
> wrote:
> > hathaw...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> > > Review. They tried to infiltrate. Of course it failed. But
> > > you know how sneaks are. And that was really sneaky. Let's
> > > see. Lying about his name and his background. Trying to spy
> > > on people. Doing illegal activity. Getting arrested. It's
> > > just too much. The liberal fascist way.
> >
> > Apparently your coherency level goes way down when you realize
> > that you've publicly supported a demonstrated liar, who has even
> > been disavowed by creationists. If it helps any, you haven't
> > damaged your reputation at all.
> >
> > So stop, take a few deep breaths, and when you've calmed down
> > try to put the above into a grammatical form.
>
> take people at their word. If a
> communist wants to do damage
> to the Christian faith by
> infiltrating an organization
> supporting Christian causes,
> then that discredits atheist
> communism. Us good natured
> Christians are not at fault for
> that atheism and evolutionism
> are bankrupt ideas and that the
> only way you atheists and
> evolutionists can win is by acts
> of fraud.
>
Ahem. Sometimes you have to
take people at their word. If a
to the worker's movement by
infiltrating an organization
supporting progressive causes,
then that discredits fundie
loonism. Us good natured
Socialists are not at fault for
having been conned. It shows
are bankrupt ideas and that the
creationists can win is by acts
of fraud.
J Edgar Hoover must be whirling in his grave ;)
Do you understand how bankrupt your comments are?
maff91
>On 18 Nov 1998 19:55:39 -0500, hathaw...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
>>Very often you will hear some espouse
>>the idea that the original Congress had
>>intended a separation of religion and
>>state. However, a quick search of the
>>First Amendment proves that no such
>>intent was implied. In fact, the First
>>Amendment states that Congress
>>cannot make a law regarding a church.
>
>actually it doesnt say that at all. it says congress may not establish
>a church, or prohibit the free exercise of religion. congress may, for
>example, ban the use of hallucinogenic drugs in a church, etc.
Amendment I - Religious establishment prohibited. Freedom of speech,
of the press, and right to petition. Ratified
12/15/1791.
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
>
>>Therefore the IRS is illegally forcing
>>churches not to endorse a political
>>candidate.
>
>churches can endorse whomsoever they want
>
>they cannot do it, however, at taxpayers expense. all lobbying
>organizations, including churches if they so choose to be, pay taxes.
>
>why should churches be subsidized by the taxpayers to influence the
>political process?
*****************************************************
"Science is the true theology" -- Thomas Paine
(as quoted in Emerson: The Mind on Fire page 153)
"The Age of Paine" by Jon Katz
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/3.05/paine.html
*****************************************************
Louann Miller
> > Thomas Jefferson (I'm sure you heard of him) disagreed with your
> > interpretation. He wrote:
> > Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between
> > man and his God, I contemplate with solemn reverence that act of the
> > whole American People which declared that their legislature should
> > "make no law respecting an establishment of religon or prohibiting the
> > free exercise thereof" thus building a wall of separation between
> > Church and State.
> In other words he's telling the> Dansbury Baptists (a fact that
> you suppressed) that Congress> was not going to interfere with
> their worship and that there> was no possibility that a state
> church would be formed that> would elimenate Dansbury
> Baptists.
Are you sitting down, Nameless? Brace yourself, because in large part I
agree with you.
Here's the kicker, though. The only way to protect a sincere faith in
the long run is to leave it to fend for itself. That's the whole
reasoning behind government neutrality on matters of religion. If I'm a
sincere Roman Catholic, and you're a sincere Zen Buddhist, and John Doe
over there is a sincere Missouri Synod Presbyterian, Covenant of 1863,
then government support of any one of our churches to some extent harms
the other two.
You can make a case that separation of church and state is the best
thing that ever happened to religion in the US. Look at Britain for
comparison. They have a state church, supported by taxes. Bishops above
a certain rank are automatically members of the House of Lords, and
every school day begins with an overtly Christian prayer. What happens?
The 'official' religion is so utterly dull and watered-down that most
people ignore it. Over here, where people have to go out of their way to
get religious indoctrination, the percentage of churchgoers and the
influence of religion on its members is much greater.
The bit you've never grasped, although the Supreme Court got it over 30
years ago (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/epperson-v-arkansas.html) is
that teaching 'scientific creationism' in schools would be just such an
establishment of religion. It would require students to take in one
particular interpretation of one particular sect's holy book as if it
were objective fact. The schools would be teaching religion,
contradicting the religions that individual parents want to teach their
kids. When you add up Roman Catholics, most branches of Judaism, most
Protestant denominations, Sunni Moslems and all world religions which
are not Judeo-Christian, scientific creationism would tramp on the
religious rights of just about everybody.
--
Updated 9/28/98! Media fan fiction at http://www.cyberramp.net/~millers
Louann Miller
> Ahem. Sometimes you have to take people at their word.
You don't, actually. You can use the brain God (or whoever) gave you,
and check your information before posting. Of course, if you do too much
of that you're liable to stumble on the scientific method. You might
start cross-checking what religious leaders themselves tell you, and
then the whole structure of society is in danger.
> It shows that atheism and evolutionism are bankrupt ideas and that the
> only way you atheists and evolutionists can win is by acts of fraud.
It shows that you have a bad case of wishful thinking -- if somebody
tells you what you want to hear, you don't go out looking for
contradictory evidence in case you have to give up a comfortable belief
for something less comfortable. This one wouldn't have taken a lot of
work. You didn't have to go to the evil atheist www.talkorigins.org set
of FAQs -- even if you had only consulted ICR sources, you could have
found out this guy was a fraud exposed several years ago.
There are many reasons to develop habits of critical thinking. This is
one of the simplest -- if you don't, people will lie to you and steal
your money and laugh at you.
Dick C.
>Dick C. wrote:
>> Actually, the older the better, he will kill himself to provide a quote from
> a
>> century old scientific document that sort of supports whatever stupid
>> assertion he has made.
>
>Of course; how could he find anything more recent that supported
>his claims?
>
OTOH, at times he is hard put to find anyway to support his claims,
irregardless of age
Dick C.
>> By the Elaysian Fields . . . you really -can't- read, can you?
>Here, let me quote it for you.
>
>Congress shall make no law
>respecting an establishment of
>Religion or prohibiting it's free
>exercise thereof.
>
>Clearly it doesn't say "shall make no
>law respecting religion, but "an"
>establishment of religion. There fore
>Congress can make laws respecting
>establishments (plural) of religion.
>Plus Congress can't tax a church
>because you would interfere with it's
>free exercise.
Dave, isn't it nice when a fundie goes out of his
way to help you?
nameless you idiot, why don't you learn to read?
An establishment of religion does not mean a church
building, rather it means the religious body. In other words
congress will not pass a law regulating religion. Get real.
>
>Obey the law.
Learn to read, mcmoron.
Dick C.
>> Congratulations! You have expanded your area of inexpertise and ignorance
>> from mere science into law, politics and history as well! Topped off with a
>> Lily Tomlin imitation to boot! You should really take a bow! -- if you can
>> avoid hitting your head on the keyboard.
>>
>> P.S. How did you manage to attach this post to the thread about your
>> imaginary Russian "creation scientist"?
>
>Of there was any substance to this
>response perhaps there would be
>something for me to respond to. At
Any lack of substance is due to the lack of substance in your posts.
>any rate, you can't blame ICR for
>allowing an infiltrator in. Any old
>atheist can pretend to be something in
>order to discredit another.
Not at all, what we see is that you are so stupid, gullible,
self-righteous and arrogant that you will believe anything
that anyone claims that you think makes your religion look good.
When that is shown to be wrong, you look to blame everyone else.
Not for the orginal error, but for your own errors.
Reminds
>me of the time some guy tried to
>infiltrate my paper. He was a liar.
And they said he could no longer have a name, hence the
moniker nameless.
Stephen Watson
Steven Carr <ste...@bowness.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>on 19 Nov 1998 15:50:22 -0500, "boog" <booge...@NOSPAMhotmail.com>
>wrote :
>
>> Charles Templeton is a former evangelist who studied with Billy Graham for
[....]
>> Charles Templeton is not an atheist, but he has discarded the notion of
>>the Christian God after years of studying.
After disqualifying himself from the religion business, he had a
successful career as a broadcaster in Toronto.
>Is he the same guy who is behind the Templeton Foundation?
AFAIK, yes: the one that gives out the Templeton Prize for Progress in
Religion. Also (trivia alert!) the father of Brad Templeton, of some
UseNet fame.
--
## Steve Watson # swa...@nortel.ca # Nortel Networks ## Ottawa, Ont. Canada ##
## The above is the output of a 7th-order Markovian analysis of all posts on ##
## this group for the past month. Not only is it not Nortel's opinion, it's ##
## not even *my* opinion: it's really just a mish-mash of all YOUR opinions! ##
Henry Barwood
> The law is referring to
> restraining Congress, not
> religion. Congress has no
> power to make any law
> regarding religion.
And religion should have no part in making laws (Render unto Caesar...).
Barwood
Henry Barwood
> That said, it is perfectly legal for
> churches to contribute monies to
> politicians. If anyone sees otherwise,
> please quote the Constition.
Legal, yes. Morally reprehensible, yes. Supported by the Bible, not in
my opinion, but I'm certain that any idea can be supported by at least
one obscure, open-to-interpretation passage.
Barwood
Bonz
>In article
><36567d5c.10680239@news.c
>oncentric.net>,
> ech...@donotspam.com (Liz)
>wrote:
>> On 18 Nov 1998 19:55:39 -0500, hathaw...@my-dejanews.com in
>> alt.atheism wrote:
>>
>> >Very often you will hear some espouse
>> >the idea that the original Congress had
>> >intended a separation of religion and
>> >state. However, a quick search of the
>> >First Amendment proves that no such
>> >intent was implied.
>>
>> Thomas Jefferson (I'm sure you heard of him) disagreed with your
>> interpretation. He wrote:
>>
>> Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between
>> man and his God, I contemplate with solemn reverence that act of the
>> whole American People which declared that their legislature should
>> "make no law respecting an establishment of religon or prohibiting the
>> free exercise thereof" thus building a wall of separation between
>> Church and State.
>
>In other words he's telling the
>Dansbury Baptists (a fact that
>you suppressed) that Congress
>was not going to interfere with
>their worship and that there
>was no possibility that a state
>church would be formed that
>would elimenate Dansbury
>Baptists.
>
>Please tell this aspect of the
>truth next time.
>
>
>>
>> The Constitution of the United States was written without a single
>> reference to God.
>>
>> > In fact, the First
>> >Amendment states that Congress
>> >cannot make a law regarding a church.
>>
>> The word "church" is not mentioned in the First Amendment.
>
>Oh, but it is. What do you think
>"an establishment of Religion"
>is? Do you know the words
>"an" and "establishment"?
Cow on a crutch. People, this moron apparently thinks that this use
of 'an establishment' means a PLACE. A saloon is an establishment of
liquor, a church is an establishment of religion.
>>
>> The exact text is as follows:
>>
>> Congress shall make no law respecting the 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.
So where does it say 'an establishment of religion'? :)
い Bonz
To reply by Email, please remove THE OBVIOUS
So you're using the findings of one field of science (Astronomy, say) to
"prove" the validity of findings in another field (say, Biology). In
other words, you're using science to support science and that is
circular reasoning. - Dan Abbott 11/98 Message ID <36451EAB...@dakota.net>
hathaw...@my-dejanews.com
<01be144d$cb7607e0$ab30c126@bw
agner.ionet.net>,
"Bud" <nos...@nospamxxx.net>
wrote:
> hathaw...@my-dejanews.com wrote in article
> <732v9e$r1m$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> > It has been argued that if the First
> > Amendment forbids Congress from
> > interfering with churches (ie.
> > Congress shall make no law...or
> > churches to contribute monies to
> > politicians. If anyone sees otherwise,
> > says you can't.
> >
> It's perfectly legal for churches to contribute monies to politicans. They
> just can't do it and maintain their tax exempt status. And there is
> nothing in the Constition that says that they can't tax religious
> establishments as long as they don't favor one religious establishment.
> You need to prove that taxing all religious establishments equally
> restricts the activites of the religious establishments. If you can, then
> you should file a law suit against the government.
You are incorrect on this.There is a
provision in the COnstitution that
forbids taxing religious institutions
for whatever reason. It says:
Congress shall MAKE NO LAW
respecting an establishment of
religion, NOR PROHIBIT its FREE
EXERCISE thereof.
Notice the words NO LAW and FREE
EXERCISE?
hathaw...@my-dejanews.com
<3654D8CC...@bellsouth.net>
,
Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> hathaw...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> >
> > In article
> > <36547C...@research.bell
> > > > Review. They tried to infiltrate. Of course it failed. But
> > > > you know how sneaks are. And that was really sneaky. Let's
> > > > see. Lying about his name and his background. Trying to spy
> > > > on people. Doing illegal activity. Getting arrested. It's
> > > > just too much. The liberal fascist way.
> > >
> > > Apparently your coherency level goes way down when you realize
> > > that you've publicly supported a demonstrated liar, who has even
> > > been disavowed by creationists. If it helps any, you haven't
> > > damaged your reputation at all.
> > >
> > > So stop, take a few deep breaths, and when you've calmed down
> > > try to put the above into a grammatical form.
> >
> > communist wants to do damage
> > to the Christian faith by
> > infiltrating an organization
> > supporting Christian causes,
> > then that discredits atheist
> > communism. Us good natured
> > Christians are not at fault for
> > that atheism and evolutionism
> > are bankrupt ideas and that the
> > only way you atheists and
> > evolutionists can win is by acts
> > of fraud.
> >
> >
>
> Yup. As I thought, "It was the strawberries..."
>
> Get help. You're becoming paranoid and
> delusional. Oops! To late.
Just as delusional about the prochoice
fella who admitted in court that he
made some phoney bomb threats to an
abortion clinic so as to hurt the
prolife cause.
He said he had a sister name Elizebeth
Rose who was gang raped. He never
had a sister.
The lady who was responsible forthe
Roe v. Wade decision also lied saying
that she was "gang raped."
Seems to me these two people learned
to lie and say "gang raped."
Are you going accuse me of being
paranoid for telling the truth?
Are you going to accuse me of being
paranoid for telling you that a
member of two competing
newspapers tried to infiltrate my
staff? He lied to me and said he was
somebody else.
So I guess you're wrong in saying
that people don't have malicious
intent.
Therefore it stands, when atheist
communists try to infiltrate a
creationist organization to do damage
they are damaging the atheist cause.
Hathaway5353
Are you paranoid?
>
> Boikat
hathaw...@my-dejanews.com
<3654d58...@library.airnews.
net>,> (snip)
> >
> >Ahem. Sometimes you have to
> >take people at their word. If a
> >communist wants to do damage
> >to the Christian faith by
> >infiltrating an organization
> >supporting Christian causes,
> >then that discredits atheist
> >communism. Us good natured
> >Christians are not at fault for
> >having been conned. It shows
> >that atheism and evolutionism
> >are bankrupt ideas and that the
> >only way you atheists and
> >evolutionists can win is by acts
> >of fraud.
> >
> >Hathaway5353
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
> >>
> >>
> >
> >-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
> >http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
>
> He is just a con-artist, who was able to fool many creationist, for awhile.
> Because they were so desperate to strengthen their rickety facade as a legitimate
> scientific inquiry.
More likely that since he approached
ICR and that he was from the Soviet
Union - that he was indeed what I said
he was. A soviet atheist who sat out
to do damage to ICR. It's a tactic that
is well practiced amongst the liberal
leftwing. A staff member of the rival
newspapers tried to join my staff
under pretence and under lies.
Please don't tell me what to think
about how liberals/atheists try to
win. I've seen it on alt.atheism with
some guy who called himself Garrison
Netzel and pretended to be Sheyla
Tritton. You can find this in the
dejanews archives.
Hathaway5353
>
> e.oupt
David J. Devejian
dejanews.com displays his incredible ignorance as follows:
>
> You are incorrect on this.There is a
> provision in the COnstitution that
> forbids taxing religious institutions
> for whatever reason. It says:
Hey twit!
Congress can make laws of general applicability which affect churches.
See Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990)
--
regards,
David J. Devejian
widsith <at> panix <dot> com
Rick Gillespie
Stephen Watson <swa...@nortel.ca> wrote:
>In article <36548e7d...@news.demon.co.uk>,
>Steven Carr <ste...@bowness.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>Is he the same guy who is behind the Templeton Foundation?
>
>AFAIK, yes: the one that gives out the Templeton Prize for Progress in
>Religion. Also (trivia alert!) the father of Brad Templeton, of some
>UseNet fame.
The name sounds familiar; didn't he write some joke about a Jew and
a Scot? :-) :-) :-)
[ducking]
Rick Gillespie
Bud
<7344cc$q79$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> In article
> <01be144d$cb7607e0$ab30c126@bw
> agner.ionet.net>,
> "Bud" <nos...@nospamxxx.net>
> wrote:
> > It's perfectly legal for churches to contribute monies to politicans.
They
> > just can't do it and maintain their tax exempt status. And there is
> > nothing in the Constition that says that they can't tax religious
> > establishments as long as they don't favor one religious establishment.
> > You need to prove that taxing all religious establishments equally
> > restricts the activites of the religious establishments. If you can,
then
> > you should file a law suit against the government.
>
> provision in the COnstitution that
> forbids taxing religious institutions
> for whatever reason. It says:
>
> respecting an establishment of
> religion, NOR PROHIBIT its FREE
> EXERCISE thereof.
>
> Notice the words NO LAW and FREE
> EXERCISE?
>
restricts the activities of that establishment. Second, you need to prove
that contributing money to politicans is an intrgral activity of the
religious establishment in question. Until you do that, your statement is
meaningless.
Rick Gillespie
Bud <nos...@nospamxxx.net> wrote:
>hathaw...@my-dejanews.com wrote in article
><7344cc$q79$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>> provision in the COnstitution that
>> forbids taxing religious institutions
>> for whatever reason. It says:
>>
>> Congress shall MAKE NO LAW
>> respecting an establishment of
>> religion, NOR PROHIBIT its FREE
>> EXERCISE thereof.
>>
>> Notice the words NO LAW and FREE
>> EXERCISE?
>>
>As I said, you need to first prove that taxing a religious establishment
>restricts the activities of that establishment. Second, you need to prove
>that contributing money to politicans is an intrgral activity of the
>religious establishment in question. Until you do that, your statement is
>meaningless.
You have to realize that when McNameless reads "free exercise" he
thinks it means he doesn't have to pay money for it. He's wrong,
as usual, but ... there it is.
Funny how taxing the press doesn't seem to be an equal issue for
John-boy.
Rick Gillespie
Rich Trott
>>
>> Dr. Dmitri Kuznetsov
>> M.D. in Internal Diseases, Ph.D. in
>> Biochemistry, D.Sc. in Molecular
>> Biology.
>>
[snip]
>> Authored numerous articles in
>> Russian and Eastern European science
>> journals as well as about 40 articles
>> published in English in international
>> journals.
>>
>> Abandoned atheism and became a
>> Christian.
>> ----------------------------------
>>
>> I found this and thought you should
>> know.
Kouznetsov is about as clear an example of a scientific fraud as you
are likely to find:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/kouznetsov.html
Rich
Bud
<7349d3$7...@fcnews.fc.hp.com>...
You're correct, as they say, there is none so blind as those who won't see.
I say if he wants to keep govt. out of the church's business, that all
churches must provide their own police protection, fire departments, water
and sewage treatment, roads, etc. etc.
>
> Funny how taxing the press doesn't seem to be an equal issue for
> John-boy.
>
I also bet John-boy would be one of the first to scream bloodly murder if
the govt. allowed religious establishments whose doctrines included human
sacrifice or the worship of Satenism to freely "exercise" these doctrines
in public or build their place of worship next to his church.
Six or seven years ago, a local group of Mulsims in my hometown wanted to
build a Mosque in an area zoned for churches. Before the ink had dried on
the building permits, several of the local Christian churches got together
and starting protesting. Their arguments centered around the fact that
Muslims weren't Christians (duh!) and shouldn't be allowed to contaminate
the neighborhood. The Muslims were called everything in the book and were
compared to Hitler, Stalin and just about every evil group in between.
Something similar also happened in Colorado around the same time because
the local newspaper ran stories, comparing the two situations.
Not too long ago, some Saudi diplomats wanted to build a Muslim school for
their children in Loudon, Va. Again, a group of conservative Christians
started protest, court battles etc. to stop the school. Surprisingly, one
of the arguments used by the Christians centered around the tax-exempt
status of the school.
I would be willing to bet good money that John-boy would have been on the
side of the Christians in each of these battles.
Matt Silberstein
<qua...@annex.com>:
>I'm just going to throw this out for the heck of it.
>
>The issue here is:
>
>Should a church be able to claim tax exempt status and still participate in
>political activities?
>
>I submit, that tax exempt status has **NOTHING** to do with religion. Tax
>exempt status is only a matter of organization, and then is a **CHOICE**
>that each organization makes.
>
The power to tax is the power to destroy.
>By this I mean that my church **CHOOSES** to file for tax exempt status, no
>one makes us use this option. We choose to fill out forms and we choose to
>jump through the IRS hoops.
>
>If I belonged to a religion that prohibited the recording of numbers
>(similar to not writing the name of god) I would bet the IRS would not grant
>me tax exempt status and the courts would not call that interfering with
>Freedom of Religion.
>
Because the courts have ruled that the state can put restrictions of
religious activities when the state has a non-religious interest in
that activity. I forget the exact wording of the standard. So you
can't claim a religious exemption that lets you rape or murder. By
extension it seems reasonable that you can't claim one that means you
can't fill out forms.
Matt Silberstein
-------------------------------------------------------
I am alone because I want to be alone.
And the fingerprints on the gun ... let's not forget that.
From _Mister Boff: Unclear on the Concept_ by Tony Martin
Matt Silberstein
>It has been argued that if the First
>Amendment forbids Congress from
>interfering with churches (ie.
>Congress shall make no law...or
>prohibiting it's free exercise
>thereof..) then it is perfectly legal for
>churches to act out crusades,
>inquisitions, and murder.
>I rebut that.
>
Has it ever occurred to you that talk.origins is an inappropriate
newsgroup for this. That perhaps you should try a political newsgroup?
[snip]
>
>2. The Constitution was written to
>grant powers to the Congress.
And the 14th Amendment changed that.
[snip]
hrgr...@my-dejanews.com
hathaw...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> In article
> <36547C...@research.bell
> -labs.com>,
> Ken Cox <k...@lucent.com>
> wrote:
> > hathaw...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> > > Review. They tried to infiltrate. Of course it failed. But
> > > you know how sneaks are. And that was really sneaky. Let's
> > > see. Lying about his name and his background. Trying to spy
> > > on people. Doing illegal activity. Getting arrested. It's
> > > just too much. The liberal fascist way.
> >
> > Apparently your coherency level goes way down when you realize
> > that you've publicly supported a demonstrated liar, who has even
> > been disavowed by creationists. If it helps any, you haven't
> > damaged your reputation at all.
> >
> > So stop, take a few deep breaths, and when you've calmed down
> > try to put the above into a grammatical form.
>
> take people at their word. If a
> communist wants to do damage
> to the Christian faith by
> infiltrating an organization
> supporting Christian causes,
> then that discredits atheist
> communism. Us good natured
> Christians are not at fault for
> having been conned. It shows
> that atheism and evolutionism
> are bankrupt ideas and that the
> only way you atheists and
> evolutionists can win is by acts
> of fraud.
>
> Hathaway5353
How quickly did the famous Russian convert to Creationism become a dirty
Commie rat!
BTW, communism is a secular ideology, just as fundamentalism is a non-secular
ideology. There is an essential similarity: both claim possession of absolute
truth.
HRG.
hrgr...@my-dejanews.com
hathaw...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> It has been argued that if the First
> Amendment forbids Congress from
> interfering with churches (ie.
> Congress shall make no law...or
> prohibiting it's free exercise
> thereof..) then it is perfectly legal for
> churches to act out crusades,
> inquisitions, and murder.
> I rebut that.
>
> result of abuses committed by an
> individual or group. Since no crusades
> or inquisitions have arisen in this
> country, in it's 200 year history, no
> wonder Congress has never enacted
> an amendment to deal with said
> abuses.
>
> also written to restrict the power of
> Congress. No where in the
> Constitution do we read any provision
> that restricts any activity done by a
> church, a business, or
> individual,except those under the
> employ of Congress.
Not true. Article III talks about "treason against the United States".
That's a restriction of individual activities (not of mine - I can't commit it
:-))
> 3. The reason for number 2, that said
> Constitution restricts only the
> Congress and not churches,
> businesses or individuals, is because
> Congress was devised to supervise
> national affairs. State governments
> were left to their own governance
> and therefore it is up to each
> individual state to regulate their own
> populace.
This whole approach is nonsense because it forgets the supremacy of federal
*law* (not only of the federal Constitution) over state law. Read Article VI.
> That said, it is perfectly legal for
> churches to contribute monies to
> politicians.
Legal, yes. They only have to pay taxes then - like everyone else.
HRG.
If anyone sees otherwise,
> please quote the Constition. $1000
> says you can't.
>
> Hathaway5353
Boikat
>
> In article
> <3654D8CC...@bellsouth.net>
> ,
> Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
Yes, you are paranoid. But then again, maybe
not. What's your shrinks' opinion?
>
> Hathaway5353
>
> Are you paranoid?
Nope. I checked all the closets, they were all
empty except for boxes and cloths. Therefore,
there is nobody out to get me.
Boikat
Liz
>On 19 Nov 1998 20:03:35 -0500, hathaw...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
>>Actually, no. That is a modern
>>secular interpretation that
>>does not follow original intent.
>>Actually, this IRS law is in
>>violation of the First
>>Amendment which you just
>>cited (blindly I might add) as
>>saying that Congress shall not
>>"prohibit the free exercise
>>thereof."
>
>incorrect. if a church runs a business, it pays taxes on that
>business. thats one reason pat robertson et al have gotten in trouble
>over the last few yrs. lobbying groups pay taxes. its unfair for me to
>subsidize, via taxes, a lobbying group.
An interesting site is the Americans United for the Separation of
Church and State. The URL for their press releases is:
http://www.au.org/press.htm
A quote from the above referenced website:
Houses of worship and other non-profit organizations that hold a
501 (c)(3) tax-exempt status are not permitted to intervene in
partisan campaigns for public office. They may not endorse or
oppose candidates for public office, give money to campaigns or
help candidates win election.
[-----]
Liz #658 BAAWA
Get your facts first, and then you can distort them
as much as you please. -- Mark Twain
Thomas Paine
>net>,
> ou...@illky.com (e.oupt) wrote:
>> On 19 Nov 1998 19:44:11 -0500, hathaw...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>> (snip)
>> >
>> >take people at their word. If a
>> >communist wants to do damage
>> >to the Christian faith by
>> >infiltrating an organization
>> >supporting Christian causes,
>> >then that discredits atheist
>> >communism. Us good natured
>> >Christians are not at fault for
>> >having been conned. It shows
>> >that atheism and evolutionism
>> >are bankrupt ideas and that the
>> >only way you atheists and
>> >evolutionists can win is by acts
>> >of fraud.
Ahem.
You have no proof of this, or else you would have done something new and
different - provided it.
Your speculations are just very VERY warped ideas from a mind that refuses to
accept the fact that many creationists are liars. They have to be, to make
religion sound like it's a science.
If he was, indeed, a con man,,, then you are not at fault for having been
conned.
But you are at fault if you do or have ever tried to bring up the "Piltown
Man" as proof of evolutin fraud.
You are at fault if the things coming out of your mouth are unverified
opinions that do not stand under close inspection ... yet you still repeat
them.
You are at fault if, like in the above paragraph, you take an event and twist
it through your warped mind and make it an attack on evolution (and in this
case liberals and atheists) without a shred of evidence.
You are at fault if you come in here bleating about this creationism story
without checkiing out the reliability of the source.
You are at fault if you just repeat any and all information against evolution
without checking it out first.
You have done some, if not all, the above things mentioned.
So don't whine, and lie, to us about a liberal infiltrator when you yourself
have been shown to be worse that the Russian.
>> >
>> >Hathaway5353
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
>> >http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
>>
>> More likely,
>> He is just a con-artist, who was able to fool many creationist, for awhile.
>> Because they were so desperate to strengthen their rickety facade as a
> legitimate
>> scientific inquiry.
>
>More likely that since he approached
>ICR and that he was from the Soviet
>Union - that he was indeed what I said
>he was.
You have no proof.
You'r a liar.
A soviet atheist who sat out
>to do damage to ICR. It's a tactic that
>is well practiced amongst the liberal
>leftwing. A staff member of the rival
>newspapers tried to join my staff
>under pretence and under lies.
>
>Please don't tell me what to think
Hell ... we already know you don't know HOW to think.
>about how liberals/atheists try to
>win. I've seen it on alt.atheism with
>some guy who called himself Garrison
>Netzel and pretended to be Sheyla
>Tritton. You can find this in the
>dejanews archives.
And what about all the creationist lies that come out of ICR ... and your
mouth?
>
>Hathaway5353
>
>
>>
>> e.oupt
Thomas Paine
>,
> Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> hathaw...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>> >
>> > In article
>> > <36547C...@research.bell
>> > -labs.com>,
>> > Ken Cox <k...@lucent.com>
>> > wrote:
>> > > hathaw...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>> > > > Review. They tried to infiltrate. Of course it failed. But
>> > > > you know how sneaks are. And that was really sneaky. Let's
>> > > > see. Lying about his name and his background. Trying to spy
>> > > > on people. Doing illegal activity. Getting arrested. It's
>> > > > just too much. The liberal fascist way.
>> > >
>> > > Apparently your coherency level goes way down when you realize
>> > > that you've publicly supported a demonstrated liar, who has even
>> > > been disavowed by creationists. If it helps any, you haven't
>> > > damaged your reputation at all.
>> > >
>> > > So stop, take a few deep breaths, and when you've calmed down
>> > > try to put the above into a grammatical form.
>> >
>> > take people at their word. If a
>> > communist wants to do damage
>> > to the Christian faith by
>> > infiltrating an organization
>> > supporting Christian causes,
>> > then that discredits atheist
>> > communism. Us good natured
>> > Christians are not at fault for
>> > having been conned. It shows
>> > that atheism and evolutionism
>> > are bankrupt ideas and that the
>> > only way you atheists and
>> > evolutionists can win is by acts
>> > of fraud.
>> >
Without showing proof, I'd say that is probably another lie.
However there are real cases of "pro-lifers" killing for their cause.
>
>So I guess you're wrong in saying
>that people don't have malicious
>intent.
Some people do.
But not the ones you mention for the reasons you invented.
>
>Therefore it stands, when atheist
>communists try to infiltrate a
>creationist organization to do damage
>they are damaging the atheist cause.
What stands is you have no proof.
We will not do the same idiotic mistake you did that got you into this
trouble.
You make a claim ...if you have no verification, then it is just your bull
shit over and over again.
>
>Hathaway5353
>
>Are you paranoid?
>
>
>
>>
>> Boikat
>>
>>
>
wf...@enter.netxx
>
>Just as delusional about the prochoice
>fella who admitted in court that he
>made some phoney bomb threats to an
>abortion clinic so as to hurt the
>prolife cause.
except, of course, prochoicers to date have killed no one.
to date prolifers have killed 5 and bomb clinics at the rate of
one/month. its the largest terrorist group in the US today.
>
wf...@enter.netxx
>
>Congress shall MAKE NO LAW
>respecting an establishment of
>religion, NOR PROHIBIT its FREE
>EXERCISE thereof.
>
>Notice the words NO LAW and FREE
>EXERCISE?
>
taxation is not prohibition. if it were business would not exist in
america today. church run businesses pay taxes. church run lobbying
groups do as well. they dont deserve special treatment or tax
subsidies.
Thomas Paine
(snip)
>>> The exact text is as follows:
>>>
>>> Congress shall make no law respecting the 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.
>
>So where does it say 'an establishment of religion'? :)
Odd.
I did a cut and paste from a web page on the net .... and what I got was "an
establishment". I always thought it was "the establishment".
Time for some more research.
Landis D. Ragon
>In article
><01be144d$cb7607e0$ab30c126@bw
>agner.ionet.net>,
> "Bud" <nos...@nospamxxx.net>
>wrote:
>> hathaw...@my-dejanews.com wrote in article
>> <732v9e$r1m$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>> > 3. The reason for number 2, that said
>> > Constitution restricts only the
>> > Congress and not churches,
>> > businesses or individuals, is because
>> > Congress was devised to supervise
>> > national affairs. State governments
>> > were left to their own governance
>> > and therefore it is up to each
>> > individual state to regulate their own
>> > populace.
>> >
>> > That said, it is perfectly legal for
>> > churches to contribute monies to
>> > politicians. If anyone sees otherwise,
>> > please quote the Constition. $1000
>> > says you can't.
>> >
>> It's perfectly legal for churches to contribute monies to politicans. They
>> just can't do it and maintain their tax exempt status. And there is
>> nothing in the Constition that says that they can't tax religious
>> establishments as long as they don't favor one religious establishment.
>> You need to prove that taxing all religious establishments equally
>> restricts the activites of the religious establishments. If you can, then
>> you should file a law suit against the government.
>
>You are incorrect on this.There is a
>provision in the COnstitution that
>forbids taxing religious institutions
>for whatever reason. It says:
>
>Congress shall MAKE NO LAW
>respecting an establishment of
>religion, NOR PROHIBIT its FREE
>EXERCISE thereof.
>
>Notice the words NO LAW and FREE
>EXERCISE?
>
So, you're claiming that a church is exempt from zoning regulations,
fire and electrical codes, child labor laws, health regulations, and
other laws.
No, nameless, we've been down this road before, back when you were
posting as that russian, or whatever the heck he was.
Landis D. Ragon
Chief Elf in the toy factory...
"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech
censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom
denied, chains us all, irrevocably."
David Johnston
alt.atheism wrote:
>Very often you will hear some espouse
>the idea that the original Congress had
>intended a separation of religion and
>state. However, a quick search of the
>First Amendment proves that no such
>intent was implied.
> In fact, the First
>Amendment states that Congress
>cannot make a law regarding a church.
Nope. It just can't establish one as
a state church, or pass a law prohibiting
the practise of a religion.
>Therefore the IRS is illegally forcing
>churches not to endorse a political
>candidate.
You labour under the misimpression that IRS
regulations are made by Congress. They are
not.
>At any rate, that's the truth.
Phflbt!
Capt. Spith
Nearly correct. Religion is perfectly acceptable in the lawmaking
process in one way: each voter, congressperson, senator, etc. has every
right to rely on their own religious/moral beliefs when deciding how to
vote on any given measure or bill. Where the line is drawn is where any
given religion or doctrine is applied to others through a potential law
or ordinance.
> Barwood
--
-Reverend Spith
"I used to be a heathen, but then I saw the Light. Now I'm a pagan"
-Anonymous
cats...@my-dejanews.com
hathaw...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> In article
> <7307jq$fav$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com
> >,
> cats...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> > In article <72vqla$4f7$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> > hathaw...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> > > Very often you will hear some espouse
> > > the idea that the original Congress had
> > > intended a separation of religion and
> > > state. However, a quick search of the
> > > First Amendment proves that no such
> > > intent was implied. In fact, the First
> > > Amendment states that Congress
> > > cannot make a law regarding a church.
> > > churches not to endorse a political
> > > candidate.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
> > > http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
> > >
> > >
> >
> > from mere science into law, politics and history as well! Topped off with a
> > Lily Tomlin imitation to boot! You should really take a bow! -- if you can
> > avoid hitting your head on the keyboard.
> >
> > P.S. How did you manage to attach this post to the thread about your
> > imaginary Russian "creation scientist"?
>
> Of there was any substance to this
> response perhaps there would be
> something for me to respond to. At
> any rate, you can't blame ICR for
> allowing an infiltrator in. Any old
> atheist can pretend to be something in
> order to discredit another. Reminds
> me of the time some guy tried to
> infiltrate my paper. He was a liar.
> Hathaway.
>
Congratulations!:
1) You recognised that my post was not not intended to be substansive -- it
was, to put it bluntly, an insult, based on certain silly statements made in
your previous posts . . .
2) You recognised that your prior posts *were* silly, in that the "scientist"
you touted to be a "scientific creationist" was, in fact, a charlatan (though
that point had to be shoved down your throat).
But you lose all "brownie points" because you then turn around and accuse
that poor Russian mope of being an atheist, as if only atheists lie about
their credentials when, in fact,*that* is a favorite pastime of ICR
"faculty".
--
J. Pieret
"A zygote is a gamete's way of producing more gametes." - Robert Heinlein
cats...@my-dejanews.com
talk-o...@ediacara.org wrote:
> In article <732nrs$l57$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, cats...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> >In article <731a11$284...@news.drizzle.com>,
> > talk-o...@ediacara.org wrote:
>
> >> It is a very common trick of the one without a name. He got his butt kicked
> > and
> >> is trying to change the subject.
>
> >I've obviously heard of "the nameless one" before -- how can you not on t.o.?
> >-- but *sometime* I would like to hear the story. How he/she/it got the name,
> >how you ID nameless, etc. Or is there a FAQ? It's damn frustrating to come in
> >on the middle of a tale (I've only been on t.o., off and on, for a couple of
> >years) and have to try to pick it up by osmossis. Maybe we can even start a
> >new thread: The Life and Times of Namless -- A Cautionary Tale!
>
> Well, I didn't see it myself, but I have been severely punished for just
> mentioning what was once his name in an explanation.
> As I understand it, people on alt.atheism got so tired of his lying and
> evasion that they declared him to be without a name. I had a run in with him
> a couple of years ago, when he made fun of my name. I asked for an apology
> and he just kept making fun of it. I got disgusted, and a little miffed, and
> everytime he posted I would respond demanding an apology. It took about 3
> weeks before he finally did.
> Since that time I have seen him do some pretty dumb and stupid things. Some
> of which have been mentioned here. But I really don;t want to go into too much
> as this is probably a big ego builder.
> As time goes on, he will post more and more one liners, just to get a reaction,
> and to see his name in print. I think he gets his jollies from seeing his name
> on the internet, and the more often the better.
>
> Dick, Atheist #1349
Rats, then the only way I can learn the story is by feeding his ego? Not
worth it! Nameless shall remain nameless and storyless!
hathaw...@my-dejanews.com
<3654e84b...@news3.enter.n
et>,
wf...@enter.netxx wrote:
> On 19 Nov 1998 18:30:18 -0500, hathaw...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> >In article
> ><730jsr$c36$0...@208.231.48.36>,
> > lo...@commonsense.com (Thomas
> >Paine) wrote:
> >> In article <72vqla$4f7$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, hathaw...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> >> >Very often you will hear some espouse
> >> >the idea that the original Congress had
> >> >intended a separation of religion and
> >> >state. However, a quick search of the
> >> >First Amendment proves that no such
> >> >intent was implied.
> >>
> >
> >distorted the intent of the founding
> >fathers to their own ideology, so
> >what you just said is irrelevant.
> >Besides, lately the Supreme Court
> >has demonstrated that precedents
> >need not be followed if it means going
> >back to the original intent. Therefore
> >my argument in going back to original
> >intent stands.
>
> oh heavens yes!! lets go back!!
>
> women couldnt vote......53% of the population
Yes, that is correct. But by
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT that
was changed. It wasn't done by
Judicial tampering on the
Constitution.
>
> blacks couldnt vote......6% of whom are males
Don't get me wrong. The Constitution
was not a perfect document in any
sense. It wasn't really devise to
handle personal moral issues, but to
provide a means for the public
welfare - roads, commerce,
military, etc. In the background were
slave owners in the South who were
numerous. Several of the Founding
Fathers owned slaves and
subsequently released them. America
was young at that time and the
Constitution was devised to hold the
Union together. They felt that it was
better to ignore slavery in order to
preserve that union. But they did
provide an amendment system that
could elimenate it. But we all know
the story.
>
> catholics couldnt vote....13% of whom are males
Ahem. They could vote. If they were
kept from voting it was because of
the prejudices of the people at that
time.
>
> jews...................................3%
They could vote.
>
> other assorted riffraff....5%
>
> total: 78%
>
> yeah...lets do it!!
No. Let's not do it.
>
> >
>
> .. Which means Congress
> >cannot make a law that taxes the
> >church.
>
> nor can a church be treated differently than any OTHER organization
> which wishes to lobby; NO organization which endorses candidates is
> tax free.
Don't get me wrong. Churches should
not be involved in electing officers, in
my opinion. But just because it isn't
morally right doesn't make it
unConstitutional. It is legal whether
you or I like it or not.
Hathaway5353
>
> why should churches get special treatment?
Dick C.
>> More likely,
>> He is just a con-artist, who was able to fool many creationist, for awhile.
>> Because they were so desperate to strengthen their rickety facade as a
> legitimate
>> scientific inquiry.
>
>More likely that since he approached
>ICR and that he was from the Soviet
>Union - that he was indeed what I said
>he was. A soviet atheist who sat out
>to do damage to ICR.
Why in the world do you think that the soviets give a whoop
about the group of loonies who formed the ICR?
He was a con artist apparently who sucked a bunch of people
into his scam, and apparently still does. You for instance. You
were more than willing to believe he was a "True Christian" until
it was pointed out that he wasn't. Now you are trying to blame
that on a group of people who had nothing to do with him. Why
not face the facts, you were conned. Get over it, learn from it.
When someone comes up and makes claims, demand evidence,
don't automatically believe him because he supports your side,
or reject him because he disagrees with you.
It's a tactic that
>is well practiced amongst the liberal
>leftwing. A staff member of the rival
>newspapers tried to join my staff
>under pretence and under lies.
What in the hell does rival newspapers have to do
with liberals? Or left wingers? Get real.
>
>Please don't tell me what to think
>about how liberals/atheists try to
>win. I've seen it on alt.atheism with
>some guy who called himself Garrison
>Netzel and pretended to be Sheyla
>Tritton. You can find this in the
>dejanews archives.
That was hilarious, someone posted a spoof and you fell for
it. Hell you fell head over heels in love with the pseudo woman.
Didn't you notice that most people were laughing and trying to
figure out who was doing it? We knew Sheyla was a troll almost
immediately, but not you. And you try to claim that this is some
indication of how atheists are evil. It is only an example of how
stupid and gullible you are.
Dick, Atheist #1349
Number 1 poster for month of Aug. Meaning too much free time I guess.
email: dic...@drizzle.com
Homepage http://www.drizzle.com/~dickcr
hathaw...@my-dejanews.com
<01be14a7$73a771c0$7132c126@b
wagner.ionet.net>,> <7344cc$q79$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> > In article
> > <01be144d$cb7607e0$ab30c126@bw
> > agner.ionet.net>,
> > "Bud" <nos...@nospamxxx.net>
> > wrote:
> > > It's perfectly legal for churches to contribute monies to politicans.
> They
> > > just can't do it and maintain their tax exempt status. And there is
> > > nothing in the Constition that says that they can't tax religious
> > > establishments as long as they don't favor one religious establishment.
> > > You need to prove that taxing all religious establishments equally
> > > restricts the activites of the religious establishments. If you can,
> then
> > > you should file a law suit against the government.
> >
> > You are incorrect on this.There is a
> > provision in the COnstitution that
> > forbids taxing religious institutions
> > for whatever reason. It says:
> >
> > Congress shall MAKE NO LAW
> > respecting an establishment of
> > religion, NOR PROHIBIT its FREE
> > EXERCISE thereof.
> >
> > Notice the words NO LAW and FREE
> > EXERCISE?
> >
> restricts the activities of that establishment. Second, you need to prove
> that contributing money to politicans is an intrgral activity of the
> religious establishment in question. Until you do that, your statement is
> meaningless.
>
act of taxing on behalf of Congress is
not "making a law." Remember the
firstamendment says that "Congress
can make NO LAW..."
This is the second time I posted this.
This service is cracking up - cutting
off my first paragraph...etc.
Hathaway5353