Ashcroft and creationism
Steve Emmett
racism, views on abortion, etc. has anyone heard anything about his
views/stance on evolution vs. creationism?
--
Steve
=========================================
Steve Emmett
=========================================
"A mind that is stretched to a new idea
never returns to its original dimension"
=========================================
sarah clark
>
> Aside from all the news coverage about John Ashcrofts' conservativism,
> racism, views on abortion, etc. has anyone heard anything about his
> views/stance on evolution vs. creationism?
>
well, duh. i'll try to see if i can substantiate that.
--
sarah clark
A lot of people won't get no supper tonight,
A lot of people won't get no justice tonight.
-- (W. Williams/ J. Mittoo)
Performed by The Clash, with Mikey Dread
This is a must-have album ...
Conrad Knauer
Steve Emmett wrote:
> Aside from all the news coverage about John Ashcrofts' conservativism,
> racism, views on abortion, etc. has anyone heard anything about his
> views/stance on evolution vs. creationism?
While I can't seem to find any comments he has specifically made in that
regard, one can infer that he is a creationist:
1. He is an 'active member' in the Assemblies of God church
(http://mosl.sos.state.mo.us/ofman/sena.html)
2. The AoG maintains a fundamentalist christian stance in general
(http://ag.org/top/about/truths.cfm) and, specifically, is creationist
(http://ag.org/top/position_papers/4177_creation.cfm) among other
things.
3. In all public appearances he has maintained positions concordant with
the AoG.
CK
Christopher Jones
"Conrad Knauer" <saskatoo...@SPAMhome.com> wrote in message
news:3A6E69...@SPAMhome.com...
Hmm. These are some troublesome associations for my comfort. I'll have to
look into further background with him upon this matter. When one says "an
active member," just how active? Does he have a history of lobbying for
creationist causes within the academia? Is there a record of any comments
he's made about his interests in addressing the supreme court's recent
decisions?
Should someone gather any specifics here, have us know, respectfully.
sarah clark
>
> Should someone gather any specifics here, have us know, respectfully.
since his main issues are giving federal funding to churches (charitable
choice), crime, and desegregation, it's unlikely he;s had the
opportunity
to actually say anything on point. as ag, i would think we'll find
out sometime in the next four years.
as to active member, he is a lay leader.
Brian O'Neill
Steve Emmett wrote:
>
> Aside from all the news coverage about John Ashcrofts' conservativism,
> racism, views on abortion, etc. has anyone heard anything about his
> views/stance on evolution vs. creationism?
>
Besides his AoG membership, and a key pillar of Nixon's "Southern
Strategy", he must now answer 350 questions in writing, demanded by the
Senate, which has delayed his nomination by one more week. Maybe some of
the questions and answers might be relevant to this?
Anyway, filibuster the guy - he has no place as in government.
Christopher Jones
"Conrad Knauer" <saskatoo...@SPAMhome.com> wrote in message
news:3A6E69...@SPAMhome.com...
Hmm. These are some troublesome associations for my comfort. I'll have to
look into further background with him upon this matter. When one says "an
active member," just how active? Does he have a history of lobbying for
creationist causes within the academia? Is there a record of any comments
he's made about his interests in addressing the supreme court's recent
decisions upholding evolution being principle education?
Conrad Knauer
Christopher Jones wrote:
> > > Aside from all the news coverage about John Ashcrofts' conservativism,
> > > racism, views on abortion, etc. has anyone heard anything about his
> > > views/stance on evolution vs. creationism?
> >
> > While I can't seem to find any comments he has specifically made in that
> > regard, one can infer that he is a creationist:
> >
> > 1. He is an 'active member' in the Assemblies of God church
> > (http://mosl.sos.state.mo.us/ofman/sena.html)
>
> When one says "an active member," just how active?
Well let's see, to start with, his dad (himself the son of evangelists)
was an AoG minister:
http://www.berean.edu/chapel/ashcroft.html
http://ag.org/top/news/news_article.cfm?ArticleID=4570
And considering that he wrote a book called "Lessons from a Father to
His Son"
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0785275401/
[quotes from some of the reviews: "Senator Ashcroft has written an
engaging book that invites the reader into a world where values, family,
citizenship, and faith define life at its highest and best.", "It was a
great tribute to his father.", "Sen. John Ashcroft reveals to us the
basic, moral role of a father in a child's life. While the separation of
church and state has been taken to an extreme, there exists no moral
roadmap for many of todays children. Schools can no longer even
reference a moral authority or guide. This must happen in the home and
this is made clear in the book."]
I think he took the theology quite to heart...
Furthermore, if there is any doubt, allow me to quote from
http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/bush4.htm
---
Ashcroft is a close associate of televangelist Pat Robertson and
self-appointed family values guru James Dobson, who heads the
influential "Focus on the Family" group based in Colorado. The Missouri
Senator has appeared at "Road to Victory" rallies staged by Robertson's
Christian Coalition. [...] Ashcroft, 58, is a gospel-singer and son of
an Assemblies of God minister who does not drink, smoke or dance. Even
National Review, a political conservative publication founded by William
F. Buckley, described the dour Missouri Senator: "Some politicians
dominate a room; he fades into the wallpaper." [...] During his tenure
in the Senate, Ashcroft gained high marks from the Christian Coalition
and other groups for his voting record on issues such as gay rights,
abortion and school prayer. He was also head of the failed GOP effort in
1987 to have jurist Robert Bork appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
---
[snip]
CK
Christopher Jones
"Conrad Knauer" <saskatoo...@SPAMhome.com> wrote in message
> > When one says "an active member," just how active?
>
> Well let's see, to start with, his dad (himself the son of evangelists)
> was an AoG minister:
Ouch!
> [quotes from some of the reviews:
> "Senator Ashcroft has written an engaging book that invites the reader...
> While the separation of church and state has been taken to an extreme,
> there exists no moral roadmap for many of todays children. Schools can no
> longer even reference a moral authority or guide. This must happen in the
> home and this is made clear in the book."]
> I think he took the theology quite to heart...
Wow. Evidently so. This is far more troubling than I could have imagined. I
knew he was way on the conservative (and fundamentalist) right, but not at
all to this extent. That "separation of church and state has been taken to
an extreme" language is really unsettling indeed. With all his racists views
thrown into the mix, this guy is really bad news. He is as much of a dark
ages throw-back as any in his power, perhaps far worse.
> Furthermore, if there is any doubt, allow me to quote from
> http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/bush4.htm
> Ashcroft is a close associate of televangelist Pat Robertson and
> self-appointed family values guru James Dobson, who heads the
> influential "Focus on the Family" group based in Colorado. The Missouri
> Senator has appeared at "Road to Victory" rallies staged by Robertson's
> Christian Coalition. [...] Ashcroft, 58, is a gospel-singer and son of
> an Assemblies of God minister who does not drink, smoke or dance. Even
> National Review, a political conservative publication founded by William
> F. Buckley, described the dour Missouri Senator: "Some politicians
> dominate a room; he fades into the wallpaper." [...]
This stuff might do more to tarnish his image more than anything else.
Robertson and Dobson are generally viewed as wayward extremist themselves.
Perhaps this will catch the interest of those opposed to these outfits
toward keeping Ashcroft in their close view. Let's hope so.
> During his tenure
> in the Senate, Ashcroft gained high marks from the Christian Coalition
> and other groups for his voting record on issues such as gay rights,
> abortion and school prayer. He was also head of the failed GOP effort in
> 1987 to have jurist Robert Bork appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
More painful digestion here. Besides his outspoken views against
environmental preservation, all his almost militant pro-Christian direction
is enough to regress the gains made over the last several years upon these
matters. He really presents as scary for me. I'm glad he ran into all the
deserved scrutiny upon preceding his cabinet.
Surely, this will keep the floodlights on him for his duration there. This
may not be nearly enough, but as was the lesson learned with the close
election debacle, the conservatives cannot afford to pretend that they have
majority approval. I think they'll be treading very lightly as they go, at
least for a while. In the meantime, he should rightly have his opposition
right up his rectum upon every move he makes, especially anything in the
course of the above mentioned.
Thanks for the bountiful information. I'm quite a freethought activist
myself and have strong involvement with many of these momentums throughout,
currently. This info, especially the links, will be very handy and is well
appreciated.
Thanks again.
Genuinely,
Christopher Jones
Roger Schlafly
> > "Senator Ashcroft has written an engaging book that invites the reader...
> > While the separation of church and state has been taken to an extreme,
> > there exists no moral roadmap for many of todays children. Schools can no
> > longer even reference a moral authority or guide. This must happen in the
> > home and this is made clear in the book."]
> > I think he took the theology quite to heart...
> Wow. Evidently so. This is far more troubling than I could have imagined. I
> knew he was way on the conservative (and fundamentalist) right, but not at
> all to this extent. That "separation of church and state has been taken to
> an extreme" language is really unsettling indeed. With all his racists views
> thrown into the mix, this guy is really bad news. He is as much of a dark
> ages throw-back as any in his power, perhaps far worse.
I guess you think that only a dark ages throwback would suggest
referencing moral authority in the home.
STD DIALUP
: Hmm. These are some troublesome associations for my comfort. I'll have to
: look into further background with him upon this matter. When one says "an
: active member," just how active? Does he have a history of lobbying for
: creationist causes within the academia? Is there a record of any comments
: he's made about his interests in addressing the supreme court's recent
: decisions?
Religion has no place within the political arena.
Christopher Jones
"Roger Schlafly" <roger...@my-dejanews.com> wrote in message
news:3A714674...@my-dejanews.com...
If his brand of morality is structured via theology, especially
fundamentalist Christianity, then yes, "only a dark ages throwback would
suggest" as much, that's right! If biblical morality is the guideline, then
this type of morality we could all do without. This character doesn't want
separation of church and state it would appear, right? When the two are not
separated in government, this is called a theocracy. Such theocracies are
scourged with the fitting association known as the dark ages of history, yes
sir.
One can conduct morality concepts in the home successfully without
primitive, wayward mythic traditions having a role in such. We atheists do
without such with our children every day. I'd rank their morals against
those of any, including, if not especially, fundamentalist Christians.
Here, take a peek at how atheistic morals stack up against others:
Henry Barwood
Roger Schlafly wrote:
> I guess you think that only a dark ages throwback would suggest
> referencing moral authority in the home.
Many of the things that you consider "Moral", I consider an abomination.
Barwood
Aleister Crowley's Cat
A true conservative would not try and impose his or her personal morals
or beliefs upon other people, Roger. But then, you or Ashcroft are not
true conservatives, only fundy wannabees...
Regards,
Dave
--
E-mail: dave AT valinor DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk
WWW: http://www.valinor.freeserve.co.uk OR http://www.kharne.net
"Let Mary inviolate be torn upon wheels: for her sake let all chaste
women be utterly despised among you!" - Aleister Crowley, The Book of
the Law
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
Beowulf
> I guess you think that only a dark ages throwback would suggest
> referencing moral authority in the home.
No, just that churches should be funded by the state or believing
that certain mythologies are an accurate depiction of facts.
sarah clark
a convenient example might be roger's assertion that the slave
trading was good for the slaves
insofar as the slaves were converted to christianity.
wf...@ptd.net
>Henry Barwood wrote:
>>
>> Roger Schlafly wrote:
>>
>> > I guess you think that only a dark ages throwback would suggest
>> > referencing moral authority in the home.
>>
>> Many of the things that you consider "Moral", I consider an abomination.
>
>a convenient example might be roger's assertion that the slave
>trading was good for the slaves
>insofar as the slaves were converted to christianity.
>--
the only thing wrong with slavery, in roger's thinking, is that not
all slaves turned out, ideologically, like alan keyes.
KCdgw
>> Many of the things that you consider "Moral", I consider an abomination.
>
>a convenient example might be roger's assertion that the slave
>trading was good for the slaves
>insofar as the slaves were converted to christianity.
>--
>sarah clark
>
I found this discussion of the Biblical view of slavery on a Christoan
Reconstructionist site:
Slavery
The bible permits slavery. This statement will come as a shock to most
people. The laws in the Bible concerning slavery have very seldom been
studied, much less preached upon. But the biblical laws concerning slavery
are among the most beneficent in all the Bible....
1. Obtaining slaves. Kidnapping is forbidden as a method of acquiring
slaves, and deserves capital punishment (Exodus 21:16). Basically, there are
only four legal ways to get slaves. They may be purchased (Leviticus
25:44-46), captured in war (Numbers 31:32-35; Deuteronomy 21:10-14),
enslaved as punishment for theft (Exodus 22:1-3), or enslaved to pay off
debts (Leviticus 25:39; Exodus 21:7). We should especially note God's
merciful justice here. Heathen slaves who were purchased or captured in war
were actually favored by this law, since It placed them in contact with
believers. They received the relatively lenient treatment of the biblical
slavery regulations, and they were also able to hear the liberating message
of the gospel....
2. The care of slaves Slaves have no economic incentive to work, since they
cannot improve their situation regardless of how hard they labor. Therefore
the master is allowed to provide that incentive by beating them (Exodus
21:20-27). Obviously, the slave is not regarded as having equal rights as a
free man. But this very fact would keep a man from entering slavery too
hastily. Slavery has certain benefits (job security, etc.), but it has
serious drawbacks as well. Slavery was not allowed to become irresponsible
welfare or paternalism. The law limited the master, however. If he murdered
his slave, he was executed (Exodus 21:20). On the other hand, if the slave
survived a beating and died a day or two later, there was no punishment
(Exodus 21:21); there was no evidence that the master had actually intended
to murder him. Again, this risk was a serious incentive against enslaving
oneself. God did not want men to heedlessly abandon their freedom, and this
law would tend to keep men working hard and living responsibly in order to
avoid the threat of losing their liberty and civil rights. Relatively minor
but permanent injuries (such as the loss of an eye or a tooth) resulted in
the slave's freedom (Exodus 21:26-27). This was also an economic incentive
to keep the master from hitting the slave in the face, since a heavy blow
could mean the loss of his "investment." Naturally, this law protected
slaves from severe mutilation.
David Chilton, Productive Christians in an Age of Guilt Manipulators (Tyler,
TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1981), pp. 61-62.
Cheers,
KC
Those who know the truth are not equal to those who love it - Confucius.
WickedDyno
<mango...@my-deja.com> wrote:
I'll get me bagpipes.
--
| Andrew Glasgow <amg39(at)cornell.edu> |
| SCSI is *NOT* magic. There are *fundamental technical |
| reasons* why it is necessary to sacrifice a young goat |
| to your SCSI chain now and then. -- John Woods |
Conrad Knauer
> > I guess you think that only a dark ages throwback would suggest
> > referencing moral authority in the home.
>
> If his brand of morality is structured via theology, especially
> fundamentalist Christianity, then yes, "only a dark ages throwback would
> suggest" as much, that's right! If biblical morality is the guideline, then
> this type of morality we could all do without. This character doesn't want
> separation of church and state it would appear, right? When the two are not
> separated in government, this is called a theocracy. Such theocracies are
> scourged with the fitting association known as the dark ages of history, yes
> sir.
Actually, from what I can tell, Ashcroft sort of sees the US as already
BEING a theocracy with a king who is just temporarily away... (hence the
upset at efforts to maintain church-state separation)
"Unique among the nations, America recognized the source of our
character as being godly and eternal, not being civic and temporal. And
because we have understood that our source is eternal, America has been
different. We have no king but Jesus."
If you haven't already seen it, go to
http://www.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/stories/01/12/ashcroft.bobjones/ and
watch the video of Ashcroft at Bob Jones University from which the above
quote is derived.
CK
(who has noticed, and is somewhat disturbed by, Ashcroft's revisionism
regarding the 'founding fathers'; hasn't he ever heard of deism?)
Ken Cox
> "Unique among the nations, America recognized the source of our
> character as being godly and eternal, not being civic and temporal. And
> because we have understood that our source is eternal, America has been
> different. We have no king but Jesus."
"Unique"? I am amazed at the ignorance of history, or for
that matter of current events, that would allow anyone to
make such a statement. There have been any number of states
based on godly principles, and for quite a variety of gods.
Calvin's Geneva comes to mind; as do the Mesopotamian cities,
the Massachusetts Bay colony, Afghanistan under the Taliban,
Britain under the Lord Protector, and post-revolutionary Iran.
Of those, Afghanistan is probably closest to the situation
described by the above -- particularly the part about the
nation's character being godly, not civic.
--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
Conrad Knauer
> > http://www.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/stories/01/12/ashcroft.bobjones/
> > "Unique among the nations, America recognized the source of our
> > character as being godly and eternal, not being civic and temporal. And
> > because we have understood that our source is eternal, America has been
> > different. We have no king but Jesus." -John Ashcroft at Bob Jones Univ.
>
> "Unique"? I am amazed at the ignorance of history, or for
> that matter of current events, that would allow anyone to
> make such a statement.
Oh, it get's better... Here's the full transcript from
http://www.atheists.org/action/ashcroftfile.html (small errors
corrected)
Commencement address given on May 8, 1999 at Bob Jones University by
Attorney General-designate John Ashcroft
---
Thank you very much, Br. Bob. I want to thank each of you for investing
yourselves in the mission of Christ — of redemption and forgiveness, and
for preparing yourselves in the way that you have.
A slogan of the American revolution which was so distressing to the
emissaries of the king that it was found in correspondence sent back to
England, was the line, "We have no king but Jesus." Tax collectors came,
asking for that which belonged to the king, and colonists frequently
said, "We have no king but Jesus." It found its way into the fundamental
documents of this great country. You could quote the Declaration with
me, "We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created
equal, and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights."
Unique among the nations, America recognized the source of our character
as being godly and eternal, not being civic and temporal. And because we
have understood that our source is eternal, America has been different.
we have no king but Jesus.
My mind thinking about that once raced back a couple thousand years when
Pilate stepped bef... stepped before the people in Jerusalem and said,
"Who would ye that I release unto you? Barabas? Or Jesus, which is
called the Christ?" and when they said "Barabas," he said. "But what
about Jesus the king of the Jews?" And the outcry was, "We have no king
but Caesar."
There’s a difference between a culture that has no king but Caesar, no
standard but the civil authority, and a culture that has no king but
Jesus, no standard but the eternal authority. When you have no king but
Caesar, you release Barabas — criminality, destruction, thievery, the
lowest and least. When you have no king but Jesus, you release the
eternal, you release the highest and best, you release virtue, you
release potential.
It is not accidental that America has been the home of the brave and the
land of the free, the place where mankind has had the greatest of all
opportunities, to approach the potential that God has placed within us.
It has been because we knew that we were endowed not by the king, but by
the Creator, with certain inalienable rights. If America is to be great
in the future, it will be if we understand that our... our source is not
civic and temporal, but our source is godly and eternal. Endowed by the
Creator with rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I
thank God for this institution and for you, who recognize and commit
yourselves to the proposition that we were so created, and that to live
with respect to the Creator promise us the greatest potential as a
nation and as individuals. And for such we must reacquaint ourselves
daily with His call upon our lives.
Thank you. God bless you, and thank you for honoring me by allowing me
to stand with Asa [Hutchinson], Lindsey [Graham] and a great Governor.
---
CK
Roger Schlafly
mainstream Christianity. Maybe someone tracked this down hoping to
find some dirt or a statement on interracial dating or something
silly like that, but there is nothing offensive or unusual here.
sarah clark
>
> So what is anyone excited about? This is mainstream Americanism and
> mainstream Christianity.
hey, roger, do you really mean to say this? that americanism is
equivalent to christianity? how do you reconcile that wit your
unitarianism, btw?
<snip>
Roger Schlafly
> > So what is anyone excited about? This is mainstream Americanism and
> > mainstream Christianity.
> hey, roger, do you really mean to say this? that americanism is
> equivalent to christianity?
See the word "and"? The quotes from the Declaration of Independence
are mainstream Americanism. The Bible quotes are mainstream
Christianity. Ashcroft had both in his brief comments.
and...@my-deja.com
saskatoo...@SPAMhome.com wrote:
> Oh, it get's better... Here's the full transcript from
> http://www.atheists.org/action/ashcroftfile.html (small errors
> corrected)
This "transcript" is a joke. Aside from being unoffensive, it could
not possibly be an accurate reproduction of Ashcroft's speech.
> Commencement address given on May 8, 1999 at Bob Jones University by
> Attorney General-designate John Ashcroft
>
> ---
> Thank you very much, Br. Bob.
This is obviously an incorrect transcription. No one speaks in
abbreviations.
> My mind thinking about that once raced back a couple thousand years
when
> Pilate stepped bef... stepped before the people in Jerusalem and said,
> "Who would ye that I release unto you? Barabas? Or Jesus, which is
> called the Christ?" and when they said "Barabas," he said. "But what
> about Jesus the king of the Jews?" And the outcry was, "We have no
king
> but Caesar."
Ashcroft would never say this. "Or Jesus, which is called the
Christ?" Ashcroft would not refer to Jesus as "which" rather
than "who", nor would he quote Pilate doing so. Also, "Barabas" is
repeatedly misspelled.
The bit in the Ashcroft speech about the inalienable rights may be
correct. But you can read the Declaration of Independence for that.
Andy
Conrad Knauer
> > Oh, it get's better... Here's the full transcript from
> > http://www.atheists.org/action/ashcroftfile.html (small errors
> > corrected)
>
> This "transcript" is a joke. Aside from being unoffensive, it could
> not possibly be an accurate reproduction of Ashcroft's speech.
???
Are you for real? :)
First of all, go to CNN's website; they have streaming video of him
saying it on
http://www.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/stories/01/12/ashcroft.bobjones/
[scroll down to where it says "Listen to Ashcroft's address at Bob Jones
University's commencement, May 1999"]
> > Commencement address given on May 8, 1999 at Bob Jones University by
> > Attorney General-designate John Ashcroft
> >
> > ---
> > Thank you very much, Br. Bob.
>
> This is obviously an incorrect transcription. No one speaks in
> abbreviations.
No, but people write in them. That first sentence doesn't appear in the
CNN video, so I was relying on the AA website; I assume it means
"Brother Bob" (in the religious sense... as in 'Brother Bob Jones the
3rd').
> > My mind thinking about that once raced back a couple thousand years when
> > Pilate stepped bef... stepped before the people in Jerusalem and said,
> > "Who would ye that I release unto you? Barabas? Or Jesus, which is
> > called the Christ?" and when they said "Barabas," he said. "But what
> > about Jesus the king of the Jews?" And the outcry was, "We have no king
> > but Caesar."
>
> Ashcroft would never say this.
And yet he did... And it was broadcast internationally on CNN.. And
anyone with a web connection can listen to him say it...
(its not my fault he didn't write a better speech ;)
> "Or Jesus, which is called the
> Christ?" Ashcroft would not refer to Jesus as "which" rather
> than "who", nor would he quote Pilate doing so.
But he DID! (I'm playing it right now; he said it that way!)
> Also, "Barabas" is repeatedly misspelled.
[...] You're right about that (I'll tell AA ;), its "Barabbas"
CK
Mark VandeWettering
>In article <3A7377...@SPAMhome.com>,
> saskatoo...@SPAMhome.com wrote:
>
>> Oh, it get's better... Here's the full transcript from
>> http://www.atheists.org/action/ashcroftfile.html (small errors
>> corrected)
>
>This "transcript" is a joke. Aside from being unoffensive, it could
>not possibly be an accurate reproduction of Ashcroft's speech.
You are welcome to visit the cnn website and listen to it in its entirety.
By all means please report back on what you find out.
By the way, "unoffensive" is a relative term. I can certainly see why
people might take offense with it.
Mark
--
/* __ __ __ ____ __*/float m,a,r,k,v;main(i){for(;r<4;r+=.1){for(a=0;
/*| \/ |\ \ / /\ \ / /*/a<4;a+=.06){k=v=0;for(i=99;--i&&k*k+v*v<4;)m=k*k
/*| |\/| | \ V / \ \/\/ / */-v*v+a-2,v=2*k*v+r-2,k=m;putchar("X =."[i&3]);}
/*|_| |_ark\_/ande\_/\_/ettering <ma...@telescopemaking.org> */puts("");}}
Conrad Knauer
[...] Because lying is mainsteam? :)
Perhaps you disagree with me; I'll make comments on his speech and you
tell me where I'm wrong...
] A slogan of the American revolution which was so distressing to the
] emissaries of the king that it was found in correspondence sent back
to
] England, was the line, "We have no king but Jesus." Tax collectors
came,
] asking for that which belonged to the king, and colonists frequently
] said, "We have no king but Jesus."
The textbooks obviously neglected this; how frequently is frequently?
Found in how many correspondence? A couple? Three? ;)
] It found its way into the fundamental
] documents of this great country. You could quote the Declaration with
] me,
"We hold these truths to be self-evident
that all men are created equal,
and endowed by the one true God
(whose only begotten son, Jesus, died for your sins),
with certain inalienable rights"?
Wait, that doesn't sound quite right...
] "We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created
] equal, and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights."
Ah, 'their creator'... the deist god.
(see for example http://www.theology.edu/ushistor.htm)
Note in addition that the declaration of independece previously refers
to "the laws of nature and of nature's God"; does that sound like the
god of miracles and intervention, as described in the bible, to you?
] Unique among the nations, America recognized the source of our
character
] as being godly and eternal, not being civic and temporal.
That's sort of like someone claiming that because such-and-such
scientist (before Darwin) was a creationist and so obviously creationism
has great scientific merit.
The deist god, if I understand the concept right, was like a watchmaker,
who, after having made the universe, a great watch if you will, wound it
up and let it tick along on its own, without needing to intervene to
make the hands move along.
The whole point of the declaration of independence was to proclaim that
there are certain human rights which governments are supposed to uphold;
if they don't, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish the
government and form a new one.
This is in *direct* opposition to the christian notion of the divine
right of soverigns.
] And because we have understood that our source is eternal,
] America has been different. we have no king but Jesus.
As was mentioned in another post, except for the christian spin, a
statement like that better describes a country like Afghanistan than
America...
] There’s a difference between a culture that has no king but Caesar, no
] standard but the civil authority, and a culture that has no king but
] Jesus, no standard but the eternal authority. When you have no king
but
] Caesar, you release Barabas — criminality, destruction, thievery, the
] lowest and least. When you have no king but Jesus, you release the
] eternal, you release the highest and best, you release virtue, you
] release potential.
Which explains why most prison inmates are (and have always been)
atheists... ^_-
] It is not accidental that America has been the home of the brave and
the
] land of the free, the place where mankind has had the greatest of all
] opportunities, to approach the potential that God has placed within
us.
] It has been because we knew that we were endowed not by the king, but
by
] the Creator, with certain inalienable rights. If America is to be
great
] in the future, it will be if we understand that our... our source is
not
] civic and temporal, but our source is godly and eternal. Endowed by
the
] Creator with rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I
] thank God for this institution and for you, who recognize and commit
] yourselves to the proposition that we were so created, and that to
live
] with respect to the Creator promise us the greatest potential as a
] nation and as individuals. And for such we must reacquaint ourselves
] daily with His call upon our lives.
....to get back to the middle ages, where we could burn heretics, own
slaves and put women in their place, all in accordance with the divine
guidance of the Bible. Amen.
CK
Christopher Jones
<and...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:950ak2$2k6$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <3A7377...@SPAMhome.com>,
> saskatoo...@SPAMhome.com wrote:
> This "transcript" is a joke. Aside from being unoffensive, it could
> not possibly be an accurate reproduction of Ashcroft's speech.
Now, why would you imply that this was a "reproduction," and to what means?
Did you in fact go to the link and listen for yourself, or did you just
utter this out on a presumption? It's no phony; CNN will back this up with
an authentic transcript if this is what you will require to bridge the
seeming lack of integrity factor you have. Phone, email or write them;
they'll oblige you.
wf...@ptd.net
>Roger Schlafly wrote:
>>
>> So what is anyone excited about? This is mainstream Americanism and
>> mainstream Christianity.
>
>
>hey, roger, do you really mean to say this? that americanism is
>equivalent to christianity? how do you reconcile that wit your
>unitarianism, btw?
>
><snip>
roger's a unitarian?? gee...do you guys have excommunication?
sarah clark
well, afaict. i'm not the only one who noticed.
http://x52.deja.com/threadmsg_ct.xp?AN=719095918.1
as to excommunication, we do at times condemn members
to actual *attendance* of the services. this is used only
in cases requiring extreme punishment, and we do have
a group that is working to abolish this practice.
Larry Handlin
>In article <3A7377...@SPAMhome.com>,
> saskatoo...@SPAMhome.com wrote:
>
>> Oh, it get's better... Here's the full transcript from
>> http://www.atheists.org/action/ashcroftfile.html (small errors
>> corrected)
>
>This "transcript" is a joke. Aside from being unoffensive, it could
>not possibly be an accurate reproduction of Ashcroft's speech.
>
>> Commencement address given on May 8, 1999 at Bob Jones University by
>> Attorney General-designate John Ashcroft
>>
>> ---
>> Thank you very much, Br. Bob.
>
This is incorrect, it was Dr. Bob or Doctor if you are going to
nitpick, but it doesn't appear that the Bush Transition team was so
nitpicky.
>This is obviously an incorrect transcription. No one speaks in
>abbreviations.
>
>> My mind thinking about that once raced back a couple thousand years
>when
>> Pilate stepped bef... stepped before the people in Jerusalem and said,
>> "Who would ye that I release unto you? Barabas? Or Jesus, which is
>> called the Christ?" and when they said "Barabas," he said. "But what
>> about Jesus the king of the Jews?" And the outcry was, "We have no
>king
>> but Caesar."
>
>Ashcroft would never say this. "Or Jesus, which is called the
>Christ?" Ashcroft would not refer to Jesus as "which" rather
>than "who", nor would he quote Pilate doing so. Also, "Barabas" is
>repeatedly misspelled.
>
He is quoting Pilate genius.
Take it up with the Bush administration or the Bob Jones official who
did the initial transcription. They released it:
http://politics.yahoo.com/politics/features/us_newswire/20011/0112-144.html
Or watch it at:
http://www.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/stories/01/12/ashcroft.bobjones/index.html
And feel really silly.
>The bit in the Ashcroft speech about the inalienable rights may be
>correct. But you can read the Declaration of Independence for that.
>
>Andy
>
>
>
>
>Sent via Deja.com
>http://www.deja.com/
"Morris is saying that it is not possible to be a ("consistent") Christian if you don't accept
his conclusion that Genesis 1-2 (and everything else) is true in a literal, non-poetic, unimaginative
sense. I say that it is not worth being a Christian if you don't believe that God has a better
imagination than Henry Morris."
--Paul Neubauer
"If clear thinking created sparks, we could safely store dynamite in James Watt's office.
--Wayne Shannon, KRON-TV
d ocean
AMEN!!!
my fav favs...
http://home.talkcity.com/ReflectionsRd/oceanvu/
...and knowledge shall be increased. Dan.12:4
WickedDyno
OCE...@webtv.net (d ocean) wrote:
> "NO KING BUT KING JESUS"末John Ashcroft
No King at all. I choose my rulers from among my peers.
Al Klein
alt.atheism:
>> Pilate stepped bef... stepped before the people in Jerusalem and said,
>> "Who would ye that I release unto you? Barabas? Or Jesus, which is
>> called the Christ?" and when they said "Barabas," he said. "But what
>> about Jesus the king of the Jews?" And the outcry was, "We have no king
>> but Caesar."
>Ashcroft would never say this. "Or Jesus, which is called the
>Christ?"
He was quoting someone else.
> Ashcroft would not refer to Jesus as "which" rather
>than "who", nor would he quote Pilate doing so.
Why not? You use the words of the person you're quoting in a direct
quote.
>Also, "Barabas" is repeatedly misspelled.
What are you saying? That Ashcroft spelled it right in his speech?
--
Al - Unnumbered Atheist #infinity
aklein at villagenet dot com
Al Klein
<roger...@my-dejanews.com> posted in alt.atheism:
>Christopher Jones wrote:
>> > "Senator Ashcroft has written an engaging book that invites the reader...
>> > While the separation of church and state has been taken to an extreme,
>> > there exists no moral roadmap for many of todays children. Schools can no
>> > longer even reference a moral authority or guide. This must happen in the
>> > home and this is made clear in the book."]
>> > I think he took the theology quite to heart...
>> Wow. Evidently so. This is far more troubling than I could have imagined. I
>> knew he was way on the conservative (and fundamentalist) right, but not at
>> all to this extent. That "separation of church and state has been taken to
>> an extreme" language is really unsettling indeed. With all his racists views
>> thrown into the mix, this guy is really bad news. He is as much of a dark
>> ages throw-back as any in his power, perhaps far worse.
>I guess you think that only a dark ages throwback would suggest
>referencing moral authority in the home.
No, only a "dark ages throwback" would suggest that separation of
church and state means that "there exists no moral roadmap for many of
todays children". Separation of church and state doesn't mean that
children can't be taught religion, morals, ethics, etc. That *is* a
very right-wing stance.
Al Klein
<roger...@my-dejanews.com> posted in alt.atheism:
>See the word "and"? The quotes from the Declaration of Independence
>are mainstream Americanism. The Bible quotes are mainstream
>Christianity. Ashcroft had both in his brief comments.
Mainstream Americanism is FAR to the left of Ashcroft.
Al Klein
<roger...@my-dejanews.com> posted in alt.atheism:
>So what is anyone excited about? This is mainstream Americanism and
>mainstream Christianity.
Mainstream Christianity, maybe, although I doubt that.
But not mainstream "Americanism". The majority of the population
isn't trying to pass Goldwater on their way to his right. The
majority, in fact, voted for Gore, remember?
Al Klein
posted in alt.atheism:
>Roger Schlafly wrote:
>> I guess you think that only a dark ages throwback would suggest
>> referencing moral authority in the home.
>Many of the things that you consider "Moral", I consider an abomination.
You don't like forcing women to carry unwanted pregnancies to term?
You don't like forcing children to learn a religion you don't believe
in?
You don't like keeping children from learning correct science?
You don't like returning this nation to its Christian roots?
What kind of unAmerican are you?
</sarcasm>
Landis D. Ragon
>On 27 Jan 2001 23:54:54 -0500, Roger Schlafly
><roger...@my-dejanews.com> posted in alt.atheism:
>
>>So what is anyone excited about? This is mainstream Americanism and
>>mainstream Christianity.
>
>Mainstream Christianity, maybe, although I doubt that.
>
>But not mainstream "Americanism". The majority of the population
>isn't trying to pass Goldwater on their way to his right. The
>majority, in fact, voted for Gore, remember?
<pedant>
Plurality voted for Gore, not majority.
--
Landis Ragon (dS = dq/T)
Chief Elf in the Toy Factory.
"I've got a little list--I've got a little list
Of society offenders who might well be underground,
And who never would be missed--who never would be missed!"
-- Gilbert and Sullivan : "The Mikado"
and...@my-deja.com
"Landis D. Ragon" <Landis...@attglobal.net> wrote:
> Al Klein <ruk...@pern.org> wrote:
>
> >On 27 Jan 2001 23:54:54 -0500, Roger Schlafly
> ><roger...@my-dejanews.com> posted in alt.atheism:
> >
> >>So what is anyone excited about? This is mainstream Americanism and
> >>mainstream Christianity.
> >
> >Mainstream Christianity, maybe, although I doubt that.
> >
> >But not mainstream "Americanism". The majority of the population
> >isn't trying to pass Goldwater on their way to his right. The
> >majority, in fact, voted for Gore, remember?
>
> <pedant>
>
> Plurality voted for Gore, not majority.
Right. The last guys to get a majority were Bush in 1988 and Reagan
(twice: 1980 and 1984). Reagan approached a 60% majority in his
reelection in 1984.
and...@my-deja.com
saskatoo...@SPAMhome.com wrote:
> and...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > > Commencement address given on May 8, 1999 at Bob Jones University
by
> > > Attorney General-designate John Ashcroft
> > >
> > > ---
> > > Thank you very much, Br. Bob.
> >
> > This is obviously an incorrect transcription. No one speaks in
> > abbreviations.
>
> No, but people write in them. That first sentence doesn't appear in
the
> CNN video, so I was relying on the AA website; I assume it means
> "Brother Bob" (in the religious sense... as in 'Brother Bob Jones the
> 3rd').
So you fell for the atheists' biased stereotyping. Ashcroft never said
wf...@ptd.net
so bush got neither the majority nor the plurality...and washington
post recounts indicate gore won florida...
and bush is president...
Al Klein
<Landis...@attglobal.net> posted in alt.atheism:
>Al Klein <ruk...@pern.org> wrote:
>>On 27 Jan 2001 23:54:54 -0500, Roger Schlafly
>><roger...@my-dejanews.com> posted in alt.atheism:
>>>So what is anyone excited about? This is mainstream Americanism and
>>>mainstream Christianity.
>>Mainstream Christianity, maybe, although I doubt that.
>>But not mainstream "Americanism". The majority of the population
>>isn't trying to pass Goldwater on their way to his right. The
>>majority, in fact, voted for Gore, remember?
><pedant>
>Plurality voted for Gore, not majority.
Majority of those voting for either Gore or Bush voted for Gore?
Larry Handlin
I think you meant the atheists' bad typing, but whatever.
>Andy
>
>
>Sent via Deja.com
>http://www.deja.com/
"Morris is saying that it is not possible to be
a ("consistent") Christian if you don't accept
his conclusion that Genesis 1-2 (and everything
else) is true in a literal, non-poetic, unimaginative
sense. I say that it is not worth being a Christian
if you don't believe that God has a better imagination than Henry Morris."
--Paul Neubauer
"Unbelievable, that the neutron bomb is found in
the Bible."
--Rexalla Van Impe
"My responsibility is to follow the Scriptures which call upon us to occupy the
land until Jesus Returns."
--James Watt to the Wall Street Journal as quoted in "James Watt & the Puritan Ethic."
By Colman McCarthy. Washington Post, May 24, 1981. PAGE L5
"I do not know how many future generations we can count on before the Lord returns."
--James Watt to the House Interior Committee as quoted in "James Watt & the Puritan Ethic."
by Colman McCarthy. Washington Post. May 24, 1981. PAGE L5
"I have a black. I have a woman, two Jews and a cripple."
--James Watt as cited in "Ex-interior secretary sentenced: Watt fined, must perform community service for role in HUD
housing scandal" AP & Reuters. The Detroit News. March 13, 1996 (I HAVE NO PAGE #)
JAMES WATT: My credibility was used to get a result.
SPOKESMAN: Right, therefore you were engaged in influence peddling.
JAMES WATT: If I were a Democrat, I would say that Jim Watt engaged in influence peddling.
REP. TED WEISS: And if you were an objective Republican, would you also believe that that
was-
JAMES WATT: No, I would say there's a skilled, talented man who used his credibility to
accomplish an objective.
REP. TED WEISS: Morally? Morally and ethically?
JAMES WATT: That, by definition, is also there.
--As quoted in "Case Closed." Newshour with Jim Lehrer
July 1, 1999
"Guilty" --James Watt Or something like that. 1996
Roger Schlafly
> >Plurality voted for Gore, not majority.
> Majority of those voting for either Gore or Bush voted for Gore?
Yes, in 20 of the 50 states.
Pat Kiewicz
Landis...@attglobal.net says...
>
>Al Klein <ruk...@pern.org> wrote:
>
>>On 27 Jan 2001 23:54:54 -0500, Roger Schlafly
>><roger...@my-dejanews.com> posted in alt.atheism:
>>
>>>So what is anyone excited about? This is mainstream Americanism and
>>>mainstream Christianity.
>>
>>Mainstream Christianity, maybe, although I doubt that.
>>
>>But not mainstream "Americanism". The majority of the population
>>isn't trying to pass Goldwater on their way to his right. The
>>majority, in fact, voted for Gore, remember?
>
><pedant>
>
>Plurality voted for Gore, not majority.
Add Gore's vote to the Greens and the minor parties on the left,
and you find a definite majority of those who voted who aren't "trying
to pass Goldwater on their way to the right."
--
Pat Kiewicz aa#1154
Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having
to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?
[Douglas Adams]
iran_c...@my-deja.com
had the same problem with science that medieval christianity did.
Visit Iran: http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Base/1406
In article <3A733031...@research.bell-labs.com>,
Ken Cox <k...@lucent.com> wrote:
> Conrad Knauer quotes:
> > "Unique among the nations, America recognized the source of our
> > character as being godly and eternal, not being civic and temporal.
And
> > because we have understood that our source is eternal, America has
been
> > different. We have no king but Jesus."
>
> "Unique"? I am amazed at the ignorance of history, or for
> that matter of current events, that would allow anyone to
> make such a statement. There have been any number of states
> based on godly principles, and for quite a variety of gods.
> Calvin's Geneva comes to mind; as do the Mesopotamian cities,
> the Massachusetts Bay colony, Afghanistan under the Taliban,
> Britain under the Lord Protector, and post-revolutionary Iran.
>
> Of those, Afghanistan is probably closest to the situation
> described by the above -- particularly the part about the
> nation's character being godly, not civic.
>
> --
> Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
Ken Cox
> Conrad Knauer wrote:
> > Commencement address given on May 8, 1999 at Bob Jones University by
> > Attorney General-designate John Ashcroft
> This is obviously an incorrect transcription. No one speaks in
> abbreviations.
> Ashcroft would never say this. "Or Jesus, which is called the
> Christ?" Ashcroft would not refer to Jesus as "which" rather
> than "who", nor would he quote Pilate doing so.
Don't feel bad, Conrad. Andy would have found *some* reason
to dismiss these quotes.
Actually, you might take this as a good sign -- it seems that
for some reason, Andy wants to call the quotes inaccurate. In
this respect, he differs from Roger, who feels that there's
absolutely nothing wrong with them.
I wonder if their opinions will eventually align on this
matter, or if Roger will keep saying that's there's nothing
unusual here while Andy insists that it couldn't possibly
be what Ashcroft said.
--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
Ken Cox
> saskatoo...@SPAMhome.com wrote:
> > No, but people write in them. That first sentence doesn't appear in the
> > CNN video, so I was relying on the AA website; I assume it means
> > "Brother Bob" (in the religious sense... as in 'Brother Bob Jones the
> > 3rd').
> So you fell for the atheists' biased stereotyping. Ashcroft never said
> that.
Andy is actually correct. The press release by Bob Jones
University has "Dr.", not "Br.", which is apparently a typo
introduced in some later copy. However, the original does
have the spelling "Barabas" throughout.
--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
Ken Cox
> Ashcroft would never say this. "Or Jesus, which is called the
> Christ?" Ashcroft would not refer to Jesus as "which" rather
> than "who", nor would he quote Pilate doing so.
Matthew 27:17.
It looks like he is using the KJV; it has the "which", as well
as the "ye". The other on-line Bibles I've checked don't have
the "ye", and are mixed on the "which/who". But all of them
agree that it was Pilate who stepped before the crowd and said
this.
I think you owe Bob Jones University an apology, Andy, for
implying that their press department made up Ashcroft's speech.
--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
Ken Cox
> Evolution is taught in Iranian schools, not creationism. Islam never
> had the same problem with science that medieval christianity did.
I was not referring specifically to the creationism issue,
but to the stated foundations of the government. I also
recognize that Iran nowadays is quite different from what
it was twenty years ago.
--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
Roger Schlafly
> >Plurality voted for Gore, not majority.
> Add Gore's vote to the Greens and the minor parties on the left,
> and you find a definite majority of those who voted who aren't "trying
> to pass Goldwater on their way to the right."
If you are counting all candidates to the left of Goldwater,
don't forget to add Bush also.
David C. Fritzinger
if you are just counting popular vote. You know the popular vote,
don't you? That's what Gore won by about 600,000 votes.
Dave Fritzinger
Alan Morgan
No King but Elvis.
>AMEN!!!
Uhhuhhuh. Thankyouverymuch.
Alan
Conrad Knauer
I think Andy is still missing the point; Ashcroft actually did give a
speech at BJU and a couple of typos aside, the transcript was very
accurate.
CK
Conrad Knauer
> Don't feel bad, Conrad. Andy would have found *some* reason
> to dismiss these quotes.
>
> Actually, you might take this as a good sign -- it seems that
> for some reason, Andy wants to call the quotes inaccurate. In
> this respect, he differs from Roger, who feels that there's
> absolutely nothing wrong with them.
>
> I wonder if their opinions will eventually align on this
> matter, or if Roger will keep saying that's there's nothing
> unusual here while Andy insists that it couldn't possibly
> be what Ashcroft said.
:)
An on-topic thought for t.o: it reminds me of how some creationists say
that evolution is a tautology and thus not a theory while others say
that its a theory, but wrong ;)
CK
(no pleasing everyone I guess :-)
Ken Cox
> Ken Cox wrote:
> > I wonder if their opinions will eventually align on this
> > matter, or if Roger will keep saying that's there's nothing
> > unusual here while Andy insists that it couldn't possibly
> > be what Ashcroft said.
> An on-topic thought for t.o: it reminds me of how some creationists say
> that evolution is a tautology and thus not a theory while others say
> that its a theory, but wrong ;)
You don't need "others". We actually do have cases where a
single person has presented examples that he thinks falsify
evolution, and also claimed that evolution is not falsifiable.
--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
WickedDyno
wrote:
> Evolution is taught in Iranian schools, not creationism. Islam never
> had the same problem with science that medieval christianity did.
> Visit Iran: http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Base/1406
That's a good thing. What about Afghanistan?
Al Klein
<roger...@my-dejanews.com> posted in alt.atheism:
>Al Klein wrote:
>> >Plurality voted for Gore, not majority.
>> Majority of those voting for either Gore or Bush voted for Gore?
>Yes, in 20 of the 50 states.
I was talking about in the United States. The majority of those
voting for a major party candidate in the US voted for Gore.
Al Klein
<saskatoo...@SPAMhome.com> posted in alt.atheism:
>(who has noticed, and is somewhat disturbed by, Ashcroft's revisionism
>regarding the 'founding fathers'; hasn't he ever heard of deism?)
Most fundies, and AoG is a very fundy sect, are convinced that the
founding fathers were all Mainstream Christian, and that they founded
this nation as a Mainstream Christian nation. Give them Adams' quote
(was it Adams? - the one about Christianity being an abomination) and
they won't believe it - or they'll claim that he was an aberration.
Al Klein
>so bush got neither the majority nor the plurality...and washington
>post recounts indicate gore won florida...
>and bush is president...
President Select. But history will probably forget that, the same way
it forgot Reagan's 16+% mortgage rates, "ketchup is a vegetable" and
"if you're alive, you're not disabled".
iran_c...@my-deja.com
think that their visions of religion (whether positive or not) must be
the same elsewhere. That's ethnocentric. Iran is 95% moslem - they have
a democratic right to expect their religious values to be reflected in
the state's policies.
In article <3A759CFE...@research.bell-labs.com>,
Noelie S. Alito
Al Klein <ruk...@pern.org> wrote in message
news:uacb7t8sroe5unt1k...@4ax.com...
> On 29 Jan 2001 04:26:08 -0500, Roger Schlafly
> <roger...@my-dejanews.com> posted in alt.atheism:
>
> >Al Klein wrote:
> >> >Plurality voted for Gore, not majority.
> >> Majority of those voting for either Gore or Bush voted for Gore?
>
> >Yes, in 20 of the 50 states.
>
> I was talking about in the United States. The majority of those
> voting for a major party candidate in the US voted for Gore.
Still off-topic for talk.origins, but I can't resist:
The majority voted for Bush, 5-4
Noelie
Landis D. Ragon
Touche'
>
>Noelie
rich hammett
> Andy
He was listening to the stream, he said.
rich
> Sent via Deja.com
> http://www.deja.com/
--
-remove no from mail name and spam from domain to reply
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
\ Rich Hammett http://home.hiwaay.net/~rhammett
/ hnoa...@eng.spamauburn.edu
\ ..basketball [is] the paramount
/ synthesis in sport of intelligence, precision, courage,
\ audacity, anticipation, artifice, teamwork, elegance,
/ and grace. --Carl Sagan
rich hammett
I think you're wrong, here. The WashPost counts I heard had Bush
picking up votes.
rich
> and bush is president...
rich hammett
> On 28 Jan 2001 21:03:36 -0500, wf...@ptd.net posted in alt.atheism:
>>so bush got neither the majority nor the plurality...and washington
>>post recounts indicate gore won florida...
>>and bush is president...
> President Select. But history will probably forget that, the same way
> it forgot Reagan's 16+% mortgage rates,
The two below are valid, but the mortgage rates were a carry-over from
previous administrations. I would blame them on Carter, but his
administration did a lot of the setup for the recovery in the 80's.
rich
> "ketchup is a vegetable" and
> "if you're alive, you're not disabled".
--
Al Klein
<roger...@my-dejanews.com> posted in alt.atheism:
>Pat Kiewicz wrote:
>> >Plurality voted for Gore, not majority.
>> Add Gore's vote to the Greens and the minor parties on the left,
>> and you find a definite majority of those who voted who aren't "trying
>> to pass Goldwater on their way to the right."
>If you are counting all candidates to the left of Goldwater,
>don't forget to add Bush also.
Bush? Goldwater was a flaming liberal compared to Bush.
Al Klein
<Landis...@attglobal.net> posted in alt.atheism:
>"Noelie S. Alito" <noe...@jump.net> wrote:
>>Al Klein <ruk...@pern.org> wrote in message
>>news:uacb7t8sroe5unt1k...@4ax.com...
>>> On 29 Jan 2001 04:26:08 -0500, Roger Schlafly
>>> <roger...@my-dejanews.com> posted in alt.atheism:
>>> >Al Klein wrote:
>>> >> >Plurality voted for Gore, not majority.
>>> >> Majority of those voting for either Gore or Bush voted for Gore?
>>> >Yes, in 20 of the 50 states.
>>> I was talking about in the United States. The majority of those
>>> voting for a major party candidate in the US voted for Gore.
>>Still off-topic for talk.origins, but I can't resist:
>>The majority voted for Bush, 5-4
>Touche'
You both missed "of those voting for a major party candidate". The
SCOTUS didn't vote for either candidate (as a court). They voted on a
case.
Al Klein
<hnoa...@eng.spamauburn.edu> posted in alt.atheism:
>In talk.origins Al Klein <ruk...@pern.org> allegedly wrote:
>> On 28 Jan 2001 21:03:36 -0500, wf...@ptd.net posted in alt.atheism:
>> President Select. But history will probably forget that, the same way
>> it forgot Reagan's 16+% mortgage rates,
>The two below are valid, but the mortgage rates were a carry-over from
>previous administrations. I would blame them on Carter, but his
>administration did a lot of the setup for the recovery in the 80's.
Interest rates may always be a carry-over but, since economics isn't
an exact science, there's no way of really knowing in most cases. We
do know that the bush recession wasn't Bush's fault - he just didn't
do much to come out of it.
and...@my-deja.com
It seems to me that the Quran contains statements about creation and
a "young earth" that are analogous to that of the Bible.
Don't some Muslims take the Quran literally, just as some Christians
take the Bible literally? I'd be interested in learning exactly how
evolution is taught in Iran -- as a theory or as fact? And how much
time is spent on it? (In some states in the U.S., evolution
discussions permeate much of science.)
> people in the US tend to
> think that their visions of religion (whether positive or not) must be
> the same elsewhere. That's ethnocentric. Iran is 95% moslem - they
have
> a democratic right to expect their religious values to be reflected in
> the state's policies.
I agree -- but t.o oldtimers would insist on a separation a church and
state even if 99% of the country were devout members of one religion.
Andy
iran_c...@my-deja.com
interpretted as allegory.
In article <9583d4$fh6$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
Christopher Peters
>state even if 99% of the country were devout members of one religion.
>
As would any sane individual. What about the 1%, Andy?
>Andy
>
>
>
>Sent via Deja.com
>http://www.deja.com/
>
--
Chris Peters (cpe...@world.std.com)
"Real programmers don't use mice."
Christopher Jones
"rich hammett" <hnoa...@eng.spamauburn.edu> wrote in message
news:t7ejoc3...@corp.supernews.com...
> > so bush got neither the majority nor the plurality...and washington
> > post recounts indicate gore won florida...
> I think you're wrong, here. The WashPost counts I heard had Bush
> picking up votes.
It appears there were several premature reporting incidents (what's new?)
regarding the final count.
The Fort Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel (1/27/01) states that it has demonstrable
evidence that indeed, Al Gore had more of the Floridian voting total. They
provided a three page chart which would appear concrete.
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/daily/detail/0,1136,36000000000168034,00.ht
ml
Laurence A. Moran
Christopher Peters <world!cpe...@uunet.uu.net> wrote:
>In article <9583d4$fh6$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, <and...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>
>>I agree -- but t.o oldtimers would insist on a separation a church and
>>state even if 99% of the country were devout members of one religion.
>
>As would any sane individual. What about the 1%, Andy?
In most enlightened countries there's no particular reason to
insist on separation of church and state. Nobody really gets
upset in these countries as long as the citizens are tolerant and
the government doesn't make policy based on the state religion.
The citizens of one particular country are fixated on the idea
that church and state must be completely separate. Ironically,
it's the country where religion plays a very important role in
government and policy decisions. It's also one of the few western
industrialized nations where the religious convictions of
politicians are still an issue. When a Jew runs for high office
in that country in the year 2000 it still makes headlines whereas
Jews have been elected leaders of some countries with (Christian)
state religions.
The country that insists on separation of church and state would
ever elect a leader who was an atheist. Enlightened countries with
state religions often have atheists in prominant positions
because the citizens don't care. Go figure.
Larry Moran
mcoo...@my-deja.com
Over time you have expressed if not outright dislike for the U.S., you
are at least amused by our seemingly hypocritical antics down here.
However, I think, Dr. Moran, that you miss an important point. We are
obsessed (I'll grant you that) with separation of church and state
issues precisely BECAUSE our culture places far to much (IMO) emphasis
on the ecclesiastic.
Despite your claims, the U.S. IS an enlightened country. So much so
that we recognize the dangers inherent in our society and act in a way
that attempts to address the rights and freedoms of all, including
those who are not religious in a religious society. It is an
enlightened society that recognizes the dangerous structure of American
society; the very real risks associated with politically ascendant
religions, while accepting that the religious beliefs of the citizenry
are not to be ignored. While many of us recognize the importance of
religion in our culture, we also understand that we have to, at the
same time, rein in our baser religious instincts. THAT is enlightened;
allowing unfettered religious belief, even aiding and abetting it, but
at the same time taking pains to ensure that those beliefs do not
become state sanctioned.
You, seemingly, prefer a society in which religious interests are
beside the point, at least in the political realm. I also think that
would be a good system, if it in fact exists anywhere at all. But the
point is that in the U.S., our society does NOT accept that the
religious views of its citizens are unaccountable. So in order to avoid
the very dangerous and UNenlightened political system where a country
guides it's political system with religion, we erect, and are ever
vigilant to defend, a wall between the church and state.
You may now commence with accusations of jingoism; the typical response
of those with anti-American sentiment to those with the temerity to
defend a 500 lb Gorilla of country.
> Larry Moran
Richard Uhrich
prominent postions?
(presume you mennt 'Never' below)
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
>Just out of curiosity, do you know some examples of atheists in
>prominent postions?
John Major, Tony Blair's predecessor os Prime Minister of the United
Kingdom..
Brian E. Clark
> In most enlightened countries there's no particular reason to
> insist on separation of church and state. Nobody really gets
> upset in these countries as long as the citizens are tolerant and
> the government doesn't make policy based on the state religion.
If the government doesn't base policy on religion, then the
country has de facto separation.
--
--------------
Brian E. Clark
brian -at- telerama -dot- com
Cats do stumble, yes, but no cat has yet
acknowledged it.
Walter Bushell
B JOB U? They gots to go college to learn that? ;)
Seriously now folks, it would be a more respectable institution if that
was what it is.
Richard Harter
<c2j...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
Huh? There is no pie chart on that page and there is no final tally
of who lost the most votes. Do you have a different URL?
Richard Harter, c...@tiac.net,
http://www.tiac.net/users/cri
Economists are people who work with numbers
but don't have the personality to be accountants.
PZ Myers
> Laurence A. Moran (lam...@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca) wrote:
>
> > In most enlightened countries there's no particular reason to
> > insist on separation of church and state. Nobody really gets
> > upset in these countries as long as the citizens are tolerant and
> > the government doesn't make policy based on the state religion.
>
> If the government doesn't base policy on religion, then the
> country has de facto separation.
Well, yes...I think that was the point. It's a bit paradoxical
that other countries may have this de facto separation, but the
country that agonizes the loudest over it has the most
involvement of government in religion (although it may not really
be paradoxical; one reason people yell about separation more here
may be because we lack it).
--
PZ Myers
rich hammett
> "rich hammett" <hnoa...@eng.spamauburn.edu> wrote in message
> news:t7ejoc3...@corp.supernews.com...
>> > so bush got neither the majority nor the plurality...and washington
>> > post recounts indicate gore won florida...
>> I think you're wrong, here. The WashPost counts I heard had Bush
>> picking up votes.
> It appears there were several premature reporting incidents (what's new?)
> regarding the final count.
thanks,
rich
> The Fort Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel (1/27/01) states that it has demonstrable
> evidence that indeed, Al Gore had more of the Floridian voting total. They
> provided a three page chart which would appear concrete.
> http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/daily/detail/0,1136,36000000000168034,00.ht
> ml
--
Neil W Rickert
>In most enlightened countries there's no particular reason to
>insist on separation of church and state. Nobody really gets
>upset in these countries as long as the citizens are tolerant and
>the government doesn't make policy based on the state religion.
>The citizens of one particular country are fixated on the idea
>that church and state must be completely separate. Ironically,
>it's the country where religion plays a very important role in
>government and policy decisions. It's also one of the few western
>industrialized nations where the religious convictions of
>politicians are still an issue. When a Jew runs for high office
>in that country in the year 2000 it still makes headlines whereas
>Jews have been elected leaders of some countries with (Christian)
>state religions.
The implied conclusion is wrong. The important distinction is not that
the USA has separation in its constitution, while Canada, Australia,
Britain do not. The significant distinction is that the USA follows
a congressional system, while the others follow parliamentary systems.
I don't want to get in to arguments as to which is the better system,
because that only raise the question "Better for what?". But I do
suggest that the differences Larry mentions arise primarily from the
differences between congressional and parliamentary systems.
Laurence A. Moran
Brian E. Clark <lo...@sig.for.address> wrote:
>Laurence A. Moran (lam...@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca) wrote:
>
>> In most enlightened countries there's no particular reason to
>> insist on separation of church and state. Nobody really gets
>> upset in these countries as long as the citizens are tolerant and
>> the government doesn't make policy based on the state religion.
>
>If the government doesn't base policy on religion, then the
>country has de facto separation.
And if the government bases policy on religious beliefs, insists on
things like swearing on the bible, has leaders who declare that
atheists aren't citizens, has references to God on it's currency,
and opens congressional meetings with prayers then there's no
separation of church and state no matter what's written in the
sacred constitution.
Larry Moran
Laurence A. Moran
Wow, you really lost me on that one! Wanna run that by me again?
There doesn't seem to be any logical connection between what I
said and what you said. I musta missed it.
Are you saying that the reason for religiopn playing such a major
role in American politics is because of the congressional system?
Does this mean that it's easier to achieve true separation of
church and state under a paliamentary system? Why?
Larry Moran
Chris Ho-Stuart
> Just out of curiosity, do you know some examples of atheists in
> prominent postions?
Bill Hayden is a publically declared atheist. He was Governor-General
of Australia 1989-96; a few wowsers fussed about his atheism but
frankly it was never an issue.
Generally "atheist" or "atheism" seems to convey to most readers
more than merely lack of belief in God. Whether that is approriate
or not is not the kind of issue a politician is much concerned with;
so I think there are a number of other prominent politicians who
are unbelievers, but would not use such a confrontational term.
Bob Hawke, was prime minister of Australia from 1983-1991. Prior
to that, he was highly prominent as the secretary of the ACTU
(Council of Trade Unions). In the former position, he was unabased
atheist. As prime minister, he used the term agnostic. Either way --
he did not believe in God.
Cheers -- Chris
Noelie S. Alito
Richard Uhrich <uhr...@san.rr.com> wrote in message
news:3A785944...@san.rr.com...
> Just out of curiosity, do you know some examples of atheists in
> prominent postions?
That would include Buddhists, no? (Not that I know of any
elected Buddhists in the USofA.)
Jon Fleming
>I agree -- but t.o oldtimers would insist on a separation a church and
>state even if 99% of the country were devout members of one religion.
So would those who support the U.S. Constitution.
--
Change "nospam" to "group" to email
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
>On 30 Jan 2001 23:13:33 -0500, and...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
>>I agree -- but t.o oldtimers would insist on a separation a church and
>>state even if 99% of the country were devout members of one religion.
>
>So would those who support the U.S. Constitution.
Not to mention believers in minority religions - although we've seen
what happens when a national minority becomes a local majority, eg in
Utah.
Mark VandeWettering
>In article <955lmo$bep$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> iran_c...@my-deja.com wrote:
>> Well, even 20 years ago evolution was taught.
>
>It seems to me that the Quran contains statements about creation and
>a "young earth" that are analogous to that of the Bible.
>
>Don't some Muslims take the Quran literally, just as some Christians
>take the Bible literally? I'd be interested in learning exactly how
>evolution is taught in Iran -- as a theory or as fact? And how much
>time is spent on it? (In some states in the U.S., evolution
>discussions permeate much of science.)
Fancy that, science permeating the discussion of science.
>> people in the US tend to
>> think that their visions of religion (whether positive or not) must be
>> the same elsewhere. That's ethnocentric. Iran is 95% moslem - they
>have
>> a democratic right to expect their religious values to be reflected in
>> the state's policies.
>
>I agree -- but t.o oldtimers would insist on a separation a church and
>state even if 99% of the country were devout members of one religion.
Fancy that, people believing in the Constitution's promise for freedom
of religion and the separation of church and state.
Mark
>Andy
--
/* __ __ __ ____ __*/float m,a,r,k,v;main(i){for(;r<4;r+=.1){for(a=0;
/*| \/ |\ \ / /\ \ / /*/a<4;a+=.06){k=v=0;for(i=99;--i&&k*k+v*v<4;)m=k*k
/*| |\/| | \ V / \ \/\/ / */-v*v+a-2,v=2*k*v+r-2,k=m;putchar("X =."[i&3]);}
/*|_| |_ark\_/ande\_/\_/ettering <ma...@telescopemaking.org> */puts("");}}
wilkins
Yes, I'd like to hear this as well. I'm not being sarcastic - I'm sure
there are some fundamental differences between the parliamentary and
congressional systems - I'm just unsure what they are in ways that could
affect the church v state distinction. We in Australia, along with most
commonwealth countries, have a parliamentary system that is based on an
established (ie, Church of England) religion, and yet the odd angry
atheist is elected from time to time (even communists! Gosh!) and is not
shot on sight by the ineffectual Parliament security services.
>
> Are you saying that the reason for religiopn playing such a major
> role in American politics is because of the congressional system?
> Does this mean that it's easier to achieve true separation of
> church and state under a paliamentary system? Why?
And why has antidisestablishmentarianism won in those countries? (I
*always* wanted to *use* that word in context!)
--
John Wilkins, Head, Graphic Production, The Walter and Eliza Hall
Institute of Medical Research, Melbourne, Australia
Homo homini aut deus aut lupus - Erasmus of Rotterdam
<http://www.users.bigpond.com/thewilkins/darwiniana.html>
Mark VandeWettering
>I agree -- but t.o oldtimers would insist on a separation a church and
>state even if 99% of the country were devout members of one religion.
This is my second post in response to Andy's. I decided that my smart
assed comment was indeed not enough ridicule for his incredibly stupid
statement, so I thought I'd comment further.
Andy would like to pretend he is a conservative, but like most faux
conservatives, you scratch his thin veneer and you discover that he doesn't
understand even the most elementary features of the Constitution. I'll
spell it out for him.
The Constitution guarantees the rights of individuals to worship
in the way they see fit. Toward that end it has established the
doctrine of separation of church and state, and has upheld in most
stridently in the Supreme Court. This separation is established
because ANY promotion of religion by the state is discriminatory
and impedes the free practice of religion by individuals.
This Constitutional principle is never more necessary than in the
case Andy describes: where the (overwhelming, in his example)
majority practice a particular religion. The Constitutional
guarantee of freedom of religion asserts the rights of the individual
over the rights of the majority, and is the safeguard that prevents
the tyranny of the majority from becoming the law of the land.
I'm not quite sure that this is the stupidest thing that Andy has ever
said (he gives us so many to choose from), but it's a top five for sure.
Fred Stone
Indeed, this thread becomes interesting again.
One thing that we Yanks must remember is that the US was originally
colonized by religious zealots who couldn't get along in their native
societies, i.e. Quakers, Calvinists, Puritans, etc.
This heritage is still very strong amongst us. (I should know, I grew up
in a fundie church family. Two of my uncles were ministers.)
The founders foresaw that without some very strong prohibition in the
Constitution (first amendment) there would be conflict amongst the zealots
to have their own particular zealotry declared to be *the one* by which
the US was governed.
As to other nations, I suppose (not having direct experience) that since
they were founded on the basis of a state religion, they've become more
tolerant of dissent, since any zealotry would be dissent in the first place.
(State religions being rather conservative I would imagine.) Not so?
Thus, I'm not sure that congressional vs parliamentary is the right dichotomy
but rather the modality by which they were founded...
>
>
> --
> John Wilkins, Head, Graphic Production, The Walter and Eliza Hall
> Institute of Medical Research, Melbourne, Australia
> Homo homini aut deus aut lupus - Erasmus of Rotterdam
> <http://www.users.bigpond.com/thewilkins/darwiniana.html>
--
Fred Stone
Life's a beach - then you dive.
WickedDyno
I'd have to agree with you on that. If any pollster ever asks me what
my position on separation of church and state in the U.S. is, I'm going
to take a line from Ghandi and reply "I think it would be a good idea."
--
| Andrew Glasgow <amg39(at)cornell.edu> |
| SCSI is *NOT* magic. There are *fundamental technical |
| reasons* why it is necessary to sacrifice a young goat |
| to your SCSI chain now and then. -- John Woods |
WickedDyno
akl...@villagenet.com wrote:
> On 30 Jan 2001 17:41:13 -0500, "Landis D. Ragon"
> <Landis...@attglobal.net> posted in alt.atheism:
>
> >"Noelie S. Alito" <noe...@jump.net> wrote:
> >>Al Klein <ruk...@pern.org> wrote in message
> >>news:uacb7t8sroe5unt1k...@4ax.com...
> >>> On 29 Jan 2001 04:26:08 -0500, Roger Schlafly
> >>> <roger...@my-dejanews.com> posted in alt.atheism:
> >>> >Al Klein wrote:
>
> >>> >> >Plurality voted for Gore, not majority.
> >>> >> Majority of those voting for either Gore or Bush voted for Gore?
>
> >>> >Yes, in 20 of the 50 states.
>
> >>> I was talking about in the United States. The majority of those
> >>> voting for a major party candidate in the US voted for Gore.
>
> >>Still off-topic for talk.origins, but I can't resist:
>
> >>The majority voted for Bush, 5-4
>
> >Touche'
>
> You both missed "of those voting for a major party candidate". The
> SCOTUS didn't vote for either candidate (as a court). They voted on a
> case.
Yeah, and I've got a bridge in New York to sell you. Nice view of
Brooklyn.
sarah clark
> One thing that we Yanks must remember is that the US was originally
> colonized by religious zealots who couldn't get along in their native
> societies, i.e. Quakers,
<snip>
what an astounding characterization. what you would say about
joseph preistly, and the reason why _he_ had to leave england?
--
sarah clark
Speak truth to power.
Michael L. Siemon
<lam...@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca> wrote:
+ In most enlightened countries there's no particular reason to
+ insist on separation of church and state. Nobody really gets
+ upset in these countries as long as the citizens are tolerant and
+ the government doesn't make policy based on the state religion.
...
:-)
Well, the US constitutional provision is, arguably, there to prevent
the worst-case scenarios (theocracy, or perhaps something -- unlikely
here -- such as a Stalinist anti-theocracy). Trouble is, we seem to
be the prime candidate for _needing_ such provisions, outside Iran or
a few other such well-developed nation states.