Ashcroft prayer breakfasts
Tom J
I see where the Washington Post reports that Ashcroft is holding "prayer
breakfasts" at the Justice Dept. What a cretin!
The nonsense defense of this indefensible practice is that somehow
employees don't have to feel coerced about participating, and that by
extension, Muslims, Jews, Bhuddists, etc need not feel left out or that
their career advancement is affected by their failure to be of the
"right" (= rightwingnut Christian zealot) denomination.
Yeah right. If you buy that failure to be a part of these prayer
breakfasts is compatible with the full respect and approval of the boss,
and that your advancement will be unhindered by your being in a
non-Christian-zealot group, I have some excellent oceanfront property to
sell you here in New Mexico.
Ashcroft's posing and posturing to maintain his Christian zealot base
happy is inexcusable. If he wants to pray quietly on his own in his
office, fine, but to drag his employees in, whether they subscribe to
his particular brand of intolerant zeaolotry or not, is disgusting.
There is something called separation of church and state, and it applies
to fraudulent administrations as well as to legitimate government.
Ashcroft defends his practice on the basis that they have received no
EEOC complaint. Right! Like anyone in their right mind would complain,
and face the religious zealot wrath of True Believer Ashcroft. It should
NOT require a complaint to get this practice to stop, the practice is
intrinsically corrupt, harmful and prejudicial.
This fraudulent administration needs to be impeached and removed. There
is no excuse for this level of incompetence and malice.
Tom J
Science based reasoning.
louisa
<dcru...@mailandnews.com> wrote:
> And how about the Demcratic members of Congress, including Hilary
> Clinton, who hold prayer breakfasts?
>
> Why is it reprehensible for Ashcroft to do it, but not for Hilary and
> her friends?
>
> Do you really believe that we shoud have one standard for Republicans
> in the Executive Branch and a different standard for Democrats in the
> Branch?
>
> If so, why? It's Congess, not DOJ, that the First Amendment
> specifically prohibits from establishing a religion.
>
> Seems to me that Ashcroft's critics have things backwards, but that's
> to be expected of them.
Isn't there a difference between starting work EVERY day in the office
with prayer [from which one obviously absents oneself at detriment to
one's career]
and the occasional prayer breakfast?
to impose one's orthodoxy on subordinates in the AG's office is appalling
-- unless only fellow fundy Christians are welcome to work there, which is
even more appalling.
Johann von Tebbes
"Tom J" <tj6...@aol.com> wrote in message news:3B013FBF...@aol.com...
> http://wire.ap.org/?FRONTID=HOME&SITE=CALOS&enter=Go
>
> I see where the Washington Post reports that Ashcroft is holding "prayer
> breakfasts" at the Justice Dept. What a cretin!
(Anti-Christian garbage deleted in deference to decency)
Johann von Tebbes
"Diane C. Russell" <dcru...@mailandnews.com> wrote in message
news:8nf3gt8lekd3oij0o...@4ax.com...
> And how about the Demcratic members of Congress, including Hilary
> Clinton, who hold prayer breakfasts?
>
> Why is it reprehensible for Ashcroft to do it, but not for Hilary and
> her friends?
>
> Do you really believe that we shoud have one standard for Republicans
> in the Executive Branch and a different standard for Democrats in the
> Branch?
>
> If so, why? It's Congess, not DOJ, that the First Amendment
> specifically prohibits from establishing a religion.
>
> Seems to me that Ashcroft's critics have things backwards, but that's
> to be expected of them.
Amen, Diane......
Krow
"Johann von Tebbes" <jt...@tcainternet.com> wrote in message
news:tg37n8j...@corp.supernews.com...
respond to any of it)
>
>
Tom J
Julian Borger explains the difference.
"Mr Ashcroft has been under particular scrutiny because of his rightwing
religious
views and because of the sensitivity of his post, requiring him to
enforce federal laws
protecting the right to abortions, which he personally opposes."
As usual, one must go to the foreign press to find the truth.
Hope this helps Diane!
Tom J
Science based reasoning.
jimC
> It's Congess, not DOJ, that the First Amendment
> specifically prohibits from establishing a religion.
That's an interesting take. You mean, then, that the Department of
Justice could declare an official church of the United States as long
as Congress didn't provide funding for it? A private foundation could
fund it.
It could be a mainstream Christian church such as the Roman Catholic
church, which is the largest church in the nation's largest state, or
some Ozark sect whose Billy Bob members anoint themselves with Crisco.
The Department of Justice coat of arms could feature a writhing
homoerotic half-naked Jesus spread-eagled on his cross and the caption:
"Turn back to God, America!" This established religion could be any
organization the attorney general designates as the official church of
the United States.
jimC
Harold
>http://wire.ap.org/?FRONTID=HOME&SITE=CALOS&enter=Go
>
>I see where the Washington Post reports that Ashcroft is holding "prayer
>breakfasts" at the Justice Dept. What a cretin!
Let me see, prayer is proof of stupidity? You must be the darling of
your spiritual advisor.
[deleted]
Regards, Harold (Capitalist Meanie)
----
"No government of the left has done as much for the poor as
capitalism has. Even when it comes to the redistribution of income,
the left talks the talk but the free market walks the walk."
--- Thomas Sowell, 1999
RUSSELL J. HARDEN
RUSS
Andrew Halliwell
> See: http://www.guardian.co.uk/bush/story/0,7369,491165,00.html
>
>Julian Borger explains the difference.
>
>"Mr Ashcroft has been under particular scrutiny because of his rightwing
>religious
>views and because of the sensitivity of his post, requiring him to
>enforce federal laws
>protecting the right to abortions, which he personally opposes."
Would it make you happy if he participated in an abortion during breakfast
every morning. You know peddle that "Womanhood" business.
>
>As usual, one must go to the foreign press to find the truth.
Ah the foreign press and the the Guardian newspaper from the UK at that.
Like
you its known for its love of abortions but hatred of prayers.
Hope this helps.
------------------------------------------------------------
Get your FREE web-based e-mail and newsgroup access at:
http://MailAndNews.com
Create a new mailbox, or access your existing IMAP4 or
POP3 mailbox from anywhere with just a web browser.
------------------------------------------------------------
Robert W Lawrence
<>to impose one's orthodoxy on subordinates in the AG's office is appalling
<>-- unless only fellow fundy Christians are welcome to work there, which is
<>even more appalling.
Why are you so afraid of God and people who worship him?
Robert W Lawrence
lawr...@rwlcpa.com
1Peter 5:7
Tom J
Robert W Lawrence wrote:
> loui...@homeplc.com (louisa) wrote:
>
> <>to impose one's orthodoxy on subordinates in the AG's office is appalling
> <>-- unless only fellow fundy Christians are welcome to work there, which is
> <>even more appalling.
>
> Why are you so afraid of God and people who worship him?
Could it be... I'm just guessing here... because so many millions have been
killed, incarcerated, and uprooted throughout history by religious people who
display intolerance of those who do not share their belief in their particular
form of mythology? Or might it be because of the incessant fundie trait of
needing to "convert" others toward your beliefs, often associated with genocidal
attack on those who have not so converted?
Tom J
Science based reasoning.
>
>
Rudy Lopez
>
>
> Robert W Lawrence wrote:
>
> > loui...@homeplc.com (louisa) wrote:
> >
> > <>to impose one's orthodoxy on subordinates in the AG's office is appalling
> > <>-- unless only fellow fundy Christians are welcome to work there, which is
> > <>even more appalling.
> >
> > Why are you so afraid of God and people who worship him?
>
> Could it be... I'm just guessing here... because so many millions have been
> killed, incarcerated, and uprooted throughout history by religious people who
> display intolerance of those who do not share their belief in their particular
> form of mythology? Or might it be because of the incessant fundie trait of
> needing to "convert" others toward your beliefs, often associated with genocidal
> attack on those who have not so converted?
>
--
"She's a wonderful, wonderful person, and we're looking to have a happy
and wonderful night together. Uh, I mean life together."
Senator Ted Kennedy, on his then fiancee, Victoria Reggie
tagueb...@wfu.edu
<NoM...@Newsgroups.com> wrote:
> In article <3B033470...@aol.com>, tj6...@aol.com says...
> >
> >
> > Robert W Lawrence wrote:
> >
> > > loui...@homeplc.com (louisa) wrote:
> > >
> > > <>to impose one's orthodoxy on subordinates in the AG's office is
appalling
> > > <>-- unless only fellow fundy Christians are welcome to work there,
which is
> > > <>even more appalling.
> > >
> > > Why are you so afraid of God and people who worship him?
> >
> > Could it be... I'm just guessing here... because so many millions have been
> > killed, incarcerated, and uprooted throughout history by religious
people who
> > display intolerance of those who do not share their belief in their
particular
> > form of mythology? Or might it be because of the incessant fundie trait of
> > needing to "convert" others toward your beliefs, often associated with
genocidal
> > attack on those who have not so converted?
> >
> This is the U.S. in 2001, the premise is totally irrational.
"Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!! Our chief weapon is
surprise...surprise and fear....fear and surprise.... Our two weapons are
fear and surprise...and ruthless efficiency......."
--
My 2 electrons,
Brian
Remove "REMOVE" to reply
robx...@nowhere.com
>
>
>Robert W Lawrence wrote:
>
>> loui...@homeplc.com (louisa) wrote:
>>
>> <>to impose one's orthodoxy on subordinates in the AG's office is appalling
>> <>-- unless only fellow fundy Christians are welcome to work there, which is
>> <>even more appalling.
>>
>> Why are you so afraid of God and people who worship him?
>
>Could it be... I'm just guessing here... because so many millions have been
>killed, incarcerated, and uprooted throughout history by religious people who
>display intolerance of those who do not share their belief in their particular
>form of mythology? Or might it be because of the incessant fundie trait of
>needing to "convert" others toward your beliefs, often associated with genocidal
>attack on those who have not so converted?
Have you considered that the growing anti-religious sentiment and the
virtual confinement of religion to one's own home is the beginning of
just what you describe --- but in the exact reverse? Society is now
heading towards intolerance and bigotry against anyone who professes a
faith -- at least against faiths that society doesn't currently like.
Think about it...
Robert W Lawrence
<>Well ... historically ... they have this annoying tendency
<>to INSIST that EVERYBODY walk/talk/do/think like good
<>little "christians". It's this will to bend the force of
<>law to serve evangelical purposes which worries people.
Everyone who is a bigot tries to justify their bigotry. You obviously have no
real contact with committed Christians or you wouldn't spout such nonsense. I
think that what is behind your bigotry is a fear that perhaps Christians are
right. Perhaps their are moral absolutes. Perhaps you are NOT the center of the
universe.
Robert W Lawrence
<>Could it be... I'm just guessing here... because so many millions have been
<>killed, incarcerated, and uprooted throughout history by religious people who
<>display intolerance of those who do not share their belief in their particular
<>form of mythology? Or might it be because of the incessant fundie trait of
<>needing to "convert" others toward your beliefs, often associated with
genocidal
<>attack on those who have not so converted?
<>
<>Tom J
And a 100 time more have experienced the joy of "Living in the presence of the
Lord". I note your use of the word fundie-a pejorative akin to "nigger' or
faggot" A bigot is a bigot is bigot even if they are a politically correct
bigot. . What you posted above is no different than those who claim all African
Americans are shiftless and lazy. Of course you will never see this-you are so
blinded by your bigotry, so afraid that perhaps, just perhaps there is one
"greater than yourself" that you MUST denigrate those who live and believe
differently than you do.
Harrison Numbugger
please post evidence of intolerance or bigotry toward people who
profess a faith. Not wanting christianity or other religions shoved
down our throats with the support of public funds is not an indication
of intolerance or bigotry.
>Think about it...
______________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Still Only $9.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
With Seven Servers In California And Texas - The Worlds Uncensored News Source
Robert W Lawrence
<> Could it be... I'm just guessing here... because so many millions have been
<>> killed, incarcerated, and uprooted throughout history by religious people
who
<>> display intolerance of those who do not share their belief in their
particular
<>> form of mythology? Or might it be because of the incessant fundie trait of
<>> needing to "convert" others toward your beliefs, often associated with
genocidal
<>> attack on those who have not so converted?
<>>
<>This is the U.S. in 2001, the premise is totally irrational.
<>
Most bigotry is based on irrationality. In this case his overriding fears is
that Christians might be right. Most of those who are religious bigots have went
at things bassackwards. They start with "this is the way I want to live my life"
and the create a god that affirms their behavior.
Rudy Lopez
leftof...@peace.now says...
> On Thu, 17 May 2001 12:43:45 GMT, robx...@nowhere.com wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 17 May 2001 02:09:04 GMT, Tom J <tj6...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>Robert W Lawrence wrote:
> >>
> >>> loui...@homeplc.com (louisa) wrote:
> >>>
> >>> <>to impose one's orthodoxy on subordinates in the AG's office is appalling
> >>> <>-- unless only fellow fundy Christians are welcome to work there, which is
> >>> <>even more appalling.
> >>>
> >>> Why are you so afraid of God and people who worship him?
> >>
> >>Could it be... I'm just guessing here... because so many millions have been
> >>killed, incarcerated, and uprooted throughout history by religious people who
> >>display intolerance of those who do not share their belief in their particular
> >>form of mythology? Or might it be because of the incessant fundie trait of
> >>needing to "convert" others toward your beliefs, often associated with genocidal
> >>attack on those who have not so converted?
> >
> >Have you considered that the growing anti-religious sentiment and the
> >virtual confinement of religion to one's own home is the beginning of
> >just what you describe --- but in the exact reverse? Society is now
> >heading towards intolerance and bigotry against anyone who professes a
> >faith -- at least against faiths that society doesn't currently like.
> >
>
> please post evidence of intolerance or bigotry toward people who
> profess a faith. Not wanting christianity or other religions shoved
> down our throats with the support of public funds is not an indication
> of intolerance or bigotry.
>
Office? I get the religion of "screw who you want to screw without
responsibility" shoved down my throat by having government pay for
abortions. Many schools have homosexual clubs on campus but outlaw a
bible clubs.
--
Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it.
- George Bernard Shaw
jimC
> Have you considered that the growing anti-religious sentiment and the
> virtual confinement of religion to one's own home is the beginning of
> just what you describe --- but in the exact reverse? Society is now
> heading towards intolerance and bigotry against anyone who professes a
> faith -- at least against faiths that society doesn't currently like.
>
> Think about it...
Well, in 1988, a persistent fundie -- rhymes with Ted Bundy -- who would
stand outside the door at Ralph's Supermarket at Wilshire and Bundy (not
*that* Bundy) where the municipal district of Brentwood begins, itself
something of a cachet in ZIP codes, intoning "Jesus loves you" which
is mocking to a non-Jesusite, and follow customers to their cars with
religious pamphlets...
...finally got the best of me one day when he followed me to my car when
I had both arms full of groceries. The neighborhood is a typical
Los Angeles Westside neighborhood, but a bit upper-middle in income.
The streets behind Ralph's were filled with recent Iranian Jewish
immigrants who in those days were streaming into Los Angeles as
refugees from Ayatollah Khomeini's regime. Bernie Lewinksy, Monica's
physician father lived there (directly behind me), and Nicole Brown
Simpson also lived there and would be murdered there a few years later.
Many of the neighborhood residents are television personalities or
business owners or on faculty at UCLA. But Brown-Simpson
notwithstanding, it was and is a safe neighborhood, a place where
elderly Jewish couples walk arm-in-arm after dark on the way home from
opera, film, or whatever, and copulate faithfully once a week on the
Sabbath until the day one of them dies. "Ninety-two years old and he
can still get it up!" I once overheard a woman telling another woman at
Ralph's. Brentwood is eternal youth. I lived around there for 25 years
and every day was the first day of spring. I'd still be there if
the goddamned traffic on the goddamned Santa Monica and San Diego
Freeways didn't make going anywhere such a goddamned hassle.
When the Metro opens a Santa Monica line, I'll return.
Where were we? Ah. After being told repeatedly to back off, our
proselytizer tried to put one of his pamphlets into my bag, which he had
succeeding in doing in the past. So I set the groceries down and
administered what is commonly known as a knuckle sandwich, smack dab in
the middle of his face while distant onlookers applauded. The force of
my blow knocked him to the ground. I advised him that I was prepared to
do further damage if he got up before I drove off, but later on, I
realized I drove off pretty hurriedly because I didn't care to give
an explanation to LAPD whose boys and girls in dark blue would often
sit in their black & whites sipping coffee they had purchased in
Ralph's.
We never saw him again. You might say I helped him meet Jesus, if
not the stars, and he mended his ways.
jimC
tagueb...@wfu.edu
<NoM...@Newsgroups.com> wrote:
The people quoted in the original article (Washington Post) that work in
the AG's office seemed to feel that *not* going could be a problem for
them. As the federal guidelines state: "Because supervisors have the power
to fire, hire or promote, employess may reasonably perceive their
supervisors' religous expression as coercive, even if it was not intended
as such."
>I get the religion of "screw who you want to screw without
> responsibility" shoved down my throat by having government pay for
> abortions.
No one is making you have an abortion. It is a personal choice. As a
medical procedure, it should be covered as any other medical procedure is.
When you perceive your supervisor coercing you or yours to get an
abortion, get back to us.
> Many schools have homosexual clubs on campus but outlaw a
> bible clubs.
No one is making you go to a homosexual club. Now if your supervisor
starts having Gay Rights meetings at the start of every business day, get
back to us.
You've got MALE.. sex organs!
hypocritical,
overbearing, intolerant right wingers who have commandeered the term
"Christian". These are the people with the loudest voices, and they are
being hypocrites and bigots, insisting that they represent "Christian"
values.
Right wingers have no right to inflict their sick flavor of
"Christianity"
on the rest of us.
You've got MALE.. sex organs!
religious bigotry and hatred.
Harrison Numbugger
wrote:
possibly, employees may feel intimidated into joining his little bible
meetings.
> I get the religion of "screw who you want to screw without
>responsibility" shoved down my throat by having government pay for
>abortions.
you need to invest in a dictionary. Look up the word religion then
tell me how your little "screw who you want to screw without
responsibility" meets that definition.
>Many schools have homosexual clubs on campus but outlaw a
>bible clubs.
bullshit. Show me one documented case of bible clubs being banned
homosexual clubs being allowed. This is the type of ignorance
typically displayed by the right wing bible thumping crowd.
You've got MALE.. sex organs!
not allowed to be hate mongers without someone calling them on it..
Blackwater wrote:
>
> Harold <haroldb...@delete.yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 15 May 2001 08:39:59 -0600, Tom J <tj6...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> >>http://wire.ap.org/?FRONTID=HOME&SITE=CALOS&enter=Go
> >>
> >>I see where the Washington Post reports that Ashcroft is holding "prayer
> >>breakfasts" at the Justice Dept. What a cretin!
> >
> >Let me see, prayer is proof of stupidity? You must be the darling of
> >your spiritual advisor.
>
> If Reno had held morning yoga sessions whilst
> reciting zen koans ... the media wouldn't have
> paid the slightest attention. Only christian
> "spirituality" is bad, you see ......
You've got MALE.. sex organs!
intolerate,
self-righteous, hypocrite people today.
They've given "Christianity" a bad name.
robx...@nowhere.com
<leftof...@peace.now> wrote:
>On Thu, 17 May 2001 12:43:45 GMT, robx...@nowhere.com wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 17 May 2001 02:09:04 GMT, Tom J <tj6...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Robert W Lawrence wrote:
>>>
>>>> loui...@homeplc.com (louisa) wrote:
>>>>
>>>> <>to impose one's orthodoxy on subordinates in the AG's office is appalling
>>>> <>-- unless only fellow fundy Christians are welcome to work there, which is
>>>> <>even more appalling.
>>>>
>>>> Why are you so afraid of God and people who worship him?
>>>
>>>Could it be... I'm just guessing here... because so many millions have been
>>>killed, incarcerated, and uprooted throughout history by religious people who
>>>display intolerance of those who do not share their belief in their particular
>>>form of mythology? Or might it be because of the incessant fundie trait of
>>>needing to "convert" others toward your beliefs, often associated with genocidal
>>>attack on those who have not so converted?
>>
>>Have you considered that the growing anti-religious sentiment and the
>>virtual confinement of religion to one's own home is the beginning of
>>just what you describe --- but in the exact reverse? Society is now
>>heading towards intolerance and bigotry against anyone who professes a
>>faith -- at least against faiths that society doesn't currently like.
>>
>
>please post evidence of intolerance or bigotry toward people who
>profess a faith. Not wanting christianity or other religions shoved
>down our throats with the support of public funds is not an indication
>of intolerance or bigotry.
How about schools that vote to offer graduation prayer, but are denied
permission? How about prayer groups that want to meet in schools that
welcome every other agenda but can't? Your tone basically is that you
can have a religion, but you can't show it around me.
robx...@nowhere.com
>Robert W Lawrence <lawr...@rwlcpa.com> wrote:
>
>>Blackwater <b...@barrk.com> wrote:
>>
>><>Well ... historically ... they have this annoying tendency
>><>to INSIST that EVERYBODY walk/talk/do/think like good
>><>little "christians". It's this will to bend the force of
>><>law to serve evangelical purposes which worries people.
>>
>>
>>Everyone who is a bigot tries to justify their bigotry. You obviously have no
>>real contact with committed Christians or you wouldn't spout such nonsense.
>
> HA ! I have *plenty* of contact with "committed christians"
> (and a few who *should be* "committed" IMHO). 90% are OK and
> are willing to mind their own business. It's that OTHER 10%,
> the ones who get onto "purity" crusades and pressure the
> lawmakers to BAN whatever *they* think "immoral" -- THOSE
> are the problem people. From ye-olde "Blue Laws" to closing
> down the titty bars to expunging evolution to cramming
> jesus down the throats of the schoolkids to harrassing or
> killing anything related to abortions, it's the same old
> story -- use the LAW to FORCE compliance with religious
> prejudices. Good old christian anti-joy/anti-life - with
> a cops gun to back it up.
>
> I wonder what jesus would have thought about using strong-
> arm tactics to create the *appearance* of faith and piety
> rather than use gentle words, good works and personal
> example to persuade others towards *actual* faith ???
> Maybe your god is happy with phony-baloney "faith", mere
> lip-service ? That's all the "God Squad" creates through
> their legally-enforced "moral" crusades - appearances,
> hypocricy and ever-deeper levels of corruption.
The best part of this post is your complete blindness to your own
bigotry against Christians. It's priceless.
robx...@nowhere.com
Gee that seems like a fair exchange. He puts something in your bag
and you belt him. Apparently taking it and leaving or just leaving
never occured to you.
Harrison Numbugger
that's not bigotry or intolerance, that's complying with the
constitution.
> How about prayer groups that want to meet in schools that
>welcome every other agenda but can't?
show evidence of this please. I have heard this nonsense before but as
no one can show documentation to support it.
>Your tone basically is that you
>can have a religion, but you can't show it around me.
>
no, its don't use my tax dollars to endorse your religion
jimC
No, he badgered me verbally and when I told him to back off, he came
forward with his goddamned little pamphlet that I had to read. He had
badgered me before and came forward and run, and I told him he wouldn't
get away with it again. His previous retreat was like ringing
somebody's
doorbell and disappearing.
When a non-Christian puts you on notice that he's not interested, it is
*you* that can take it or leave it. Leaving it is probably your best
course in this nation of gun nuts. "He done wanted me to accept Jesus,
so Ah done shot him ratt between the ahs."
Harold
<cool...@luke.com> wrote:
>Aw, poor little right wing "Christians", sooo discriminated against,
>not allowed to be hate mongers without someone calling them on it..
I am going to comment, but to you, for the last time.
The comment is: You are the only one to bring up hate mongering.
There is a reason you came up with it.
>
>Blackwater wrote:
>>
>> Harold <haroldb...@delete.yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Tue, 15 May 2001 08:39:59 -0600, Tom J <tj6...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >>http://wire.ap.org/?FRONTID=HOME&SITE=CALOS&enter=Go
>> >>
>> >>I see where the Washington Post reports that Ashcroft is holding "prayer
>> >>breakfasts" at the Justice Dept. What a cretin!
>> >
>> >Let me see, prayer is proof of stupidity? You must be the darling of
>> >your spiritual advisor.
>>
>> If Reno had held morning yoga sessions whilst
>> reciting zen koans ... the media wouldn't have
>> paid the slightest attention. Only christian
>> "spirituality" is bad, you see ......
Regards, Harold (Capitalist Pig)
-----
"To be controlled in our economic pursuits is to be controlled
in everything."
---F. A. Hayek
robx...@nowhere.com
<leftof...@peace.now> wrote:
Where in the Constitution does it say you can't pray at graduation?
>
>> How about prayer groups that want to meet in schools that
>>welcome every other agenda but can't?
>
>show evidence of this please. I have heard this nonsense before but as
>no one can show documentation to support it.
Off the top of my head http://www.afa.net/clp/mjdpr030501.asp
Yes I understand that they were eventually allowed, but were initially
barred. Only a threat of a lawsuit changed their minds.
>
>>Your tone basically is that you
>>can have a religion, but you can't show it around me.
>>
>
>no, its don't use my tax dollars to endorse your religion
I never asked you to do that. I've only asked that people who want to
pray in public be allowed to -- regardless of where it is (ie the
Ashcroft issue).
robx...@nowhere.com
<cool...@luke.com> wrote:
>'Fraid not, Rudy. Right winger "Christians" are among the most
>intolerate,
>self-righteous, hypocrite people today.
>
>They've given "Christianity" a bad name.
No bigotry there either right?
Tom J
robx...@nowhere.com wrote:
> On Thu, 17 May 2001 08:03:00 -0700, jimC <jimc...@pacbell.net> wrote:
(long winded story snipped)
>
> >Where were we? Ah. After being told repeatedly to back off, our
> >proselytizer tried to put one of his pamphlets into my bag, which he had
> >succeeding in doing in the past. So I set the groceries down and
> >administered what is commonly known as a knuckle sandwich, smack dab in
> >the middle of his face while distant onlookers applauded.
>
> Gee that seems like a fair exchange. He puts something in your bag
> and you belt him. Apparently taking it and leaving or just leaving
> never occured to you.
This is where you are wrong. Religious prosletizing is oppressive. I don't
care what they teach you at your fundie church, you have no right sticking
stuff in our grocery bags, going door to door with "Awake" magazines, giving
us f**king flowers at airports, etc etc. It is no different to me than if a
drug pusher, topless club promoter or any other lowlife gets in my face while
I'm walking down the street minding my own business. You don't get a bye just
because you've been brainwashed into believing your nonsense is more holy
than theirs, therefore you are somehow justified. I am glad that Jim showed
this bozo his knuckle sandwich. It should happen a lot more often, if you ask
me. Too bad the cops will undoubtedly side with the fundie, because society
is so brainwashed about this nonsense.
Tom J
Science based reasoning
Tom J
tagueb...@wfu.edu wrote:
> > > >>> loui...@homeplc.com (louisa) wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>> <>to impose one's orthodoxy on subordinates in the AG's office is
> appalling
> > > >>> <>-- unless only fellow fundy Christians are welcome to work
> there, which is
> > > >>> <>even more appalling.
> > > >>>
> > > >Have you considered that the growing anti-religious sentiment and the
> > > >virtual confinement of religion to one's own home is the beginning of
> > > >just what you describe --- but in the exact reverse? Society is now
> > > >heading towards intolerance and bigotry against anyone who professes a
> > > >faith -- at least against faiths that society doesn't currently like.
> > > >
Bullshit! The only things that we are discouraging -- as mandated by the
Constitution-- are PUBLIC group prayers in taxpayer-funded places like schools, in
which pressure is put on people of faiths other than yours, as well as athiests to
tow the line. You can pray, legally, ANYWHERE. At school, at work, in the john,
anywhere, as long as you do it quietly and without requiring it or announcing it as
a group activity. This gets to a common fundie lie- that by preventing the religious
zealots from forcing their religion upon others, they are somehow being subject to
discrimination.
> > > please post evidence of intolerance or bigotry toward people who
> > > profess a faith. Not wanting christianity or other religions shoved
> > > down our throats with the support of public funds is not an indication
> > > of intolerance or bigotry.
> > >
This kind of open question allows all kinds of nonsense "examples", most of which
will boil down to banning people from pressuring others from towing their religious
line.
> > Is Ashcroft shoving religion down the throats of those in the AG's
> > Office?
>
> The people quoted in the original article (Washington Post) that work in
> the AG's office seemed to feel that *not* going could be a problem for
> them. As the federal guidelines state: "Because supervisors have the power
> to fire, hire or promote, employess may reasonably perceive their
> supervisors' religous expression as coercive, even if it was not intended
> as such."
This is such nonsense. The press will ask Ashcroft's underlings if they feel
pressured. If they say they do, they will set themselves up to DIRECTLY CONFRONT the
boss on a matter of huge importance to the boss. Who is going to be the sacrificial
lamb who will come out and admit that they are uncomfortable with the arrangement?
They will at best be blackballed and eventually forced to leave, and at worst be
fired immediately.
This is very similar to the situation the canvassing boards found themselves in in
the days immediately after November 7, 2000, in Florida. They can admit that they
were intimidated by the unruly GOP mobs of hired thugs, and face incredible
political if not physical wrath by those mobs. Or they can play along and say they
were "not intimidated". Right. Those crazed, fuming mobs were just a bunch of pussy
cats!
We simply should not be putting people in these situations in the first place.
Ashcroft should obey the law that separates church from state, as stated in the
Constitution. You know, that document that Ashcroft is supposed to enforce. Right.
> >I get the religion of "screw who you want to screw without
> > responsibility" shoved down my throat by having government pay for
> > abortions.
Abortions, last time I checked, were not religious services.
Tom J
Robert W Lawrence wrote:
Am I the "he" you refer to? If so what do you mean by "Christians might be right"?
And yes, I want to live life morally, so I prefer a God who is compatible with
living a moral life. Is there a problem with that?
Rudy Lopez
3/23/01
by Allie Martin
(AgapePress) - A California school district will ask the State Supreme
Court to allow the district to continue a ban on Bible clubs, although a
lower court recently ruled such practices unconstitutional.
The Saddleback Unified School District was ordered earlier this year by
the Fourth District Appeals Court to lift a ban on Bible clubs. But as
Brad Dacus of the Pacific Justice Institute says, the district seems
prepared to continue its fight to keep Christian students from meeting on
school grounds.
--
Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to
realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first.
- Ronald Reagan
You've got MALE.. sex organs!
Tom J
Another great example: a new tide of right wingnut authors who are coming out with all kinds of books trying to turn Election Theft 2000 into Al Gore's fault. "How Gore tried to steal the election!!", etc etc. These books all neatly dodge the issue of how the GOP used every trick in the book, legal and illegal, to try to prevent the tally of legitimate ballots.
You know what? It doesn't work. The only ones you convince with these bizarre distortions are those who were long ago converted to the cause. That applies here too Harold. But you keep on trying!
Tom J
Science based reasoning
Tom J
> On Thu, 17 May 2001 02:09:04 GMT, Tom J <tj6...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Robert W Lawrence wrote:
> >
> >> loui...@homeplc.com (louisa) wrote:
> >>
> >> <>to impose one's orthodoxy on subordinates in the AG's office is appalling
> >> <>-- unless only fellow fundy Christians are welcome to work there, which is
> >> <>even more appalling.
> >>
> >> Why are you so afraid of God and people who worship him?
> >
> >Could it be... I'm just guessing here... because so many millions have been
> >killed, incarcerated, and uprooted throughout history by religious people who
> >display intolerance of those who do not share their belief in their particular
> >form of mythology? Or might it be because of the incessant fundie trait of
> >needing to "convert" others toward your beliefs, often associated with genocidal
> >attack on those who have not so converted?
>
> Have you considered that the growing anti-religious sentiment and the
> virtual confinement of religion to one's own home is the beginning of
> just what you describe --- but in the exact reverse? Society is now
> heading towards intolerance and bigotry against anyone who professes a
> faith -- at least against faiths that society doesn't currently like.
>
> Think about it...
I'm really confused about why it is independently important to have PDF ("public
displays of faith" - just made that up!).
OK, I understand fully the PRACTICAL side, for a politician to show the world how
religious he is, absolutely essential in the US because intolerant fundamentalists
would never allow an open athiest to achieve high office. It is reasonable to suppose
that Ashcroft was acting on Bush's behalf in this endeavor, by piously holding public
faith breakfasts, but that doesn't forgive him.
But for the non-politician 99.99% of us, why is it important to display one's
religious beliefs prominently in schools, workplaces, etc? Is there something
fundamental about religions that require that it must be obvious to passers-by and
acquaintances that you are a Christian? I'm wondering b/c I was raised a Christian
but my church never taught us that.
Any time we want, we can quietly pray. My church taught that prayers need not be said
out loud, nor do you need a group or religious artifacts to pray. We can pray ad lib
in churches, home, restaurants, outdoors, and if we don't make a big display of it,
at schools and the workplace. So how is this "persecution" manifest, if no one can
take away one's right to pray?
Thanks in advance for explaining it to me.
Robert W Lawrence
<>
<>please post evidence of intolerance or bigotry toward people who
<>profess a faith. Not wanting christianity or other religions shoved
<>down our throats with the support of public funds is not an indication
<>of intolerance or bigotry.
Well that easy-just read this thread.
Robert W Lawrence
<>No one is making you go to a homosexual club. Now if your supervisor
<>starts having Gay Rights meetings at the start of every business day, get
<>back to us.
And no one is making people attend Ashcrofts prayer services. I think you have
missed the fact that the majority of those who were hired by Ashcroft, his
senior staff, do not attend these meetings.
Robert W Lawrence
<> This gets to a common fundie lie- that by preventing the religious
<>zealots from forcing their religion upon others, they are somehow being
subject to
<>discrimination.
Note the anti-religios bigotry in this post. I am sure Tom would erupt in
righteous anger if someone used the word "nigger" in a post yet look how easily
"fundie" rolls off his lips. In his black and white world there are two
camps-the enlightened(him) and the dangerous("fundie zealots").
Tom when did this fear of God and those who worship him start in your life?
Harrison Numbugger
<lawr...@rwlcpa.com> wrote:
>Harrison Numbugger <leftof...@peace.now> wrote:
>
><>
><>please post evidence of intolerance or bigotry toward people who
><>profess a faith. Not wanting christianity or other religions shoved
><>down our throats with the support of public funds is not an indication
><>of intolerance or bigotry.
>
>
>Well that easy-just read this thread.
really? I don't see it Robert. I see intolerance for having
christianity shoved down peoples throats and for the use of federal
tax dollars to endorse and promote christianity but I don't see
intolerance or bigotry toward christianity. Besides I think we were
talking about a trend of bigotry and intolerance not cases of
individuals who are bigoted or intolerant.
>
>Robert W Lawrence
>lawr...@rwlcpa.com
>
>1Peter 5:7
Harold
>Harold loves to do this. When you call someone for hateful activities, he tries
>desperately to turn it around on the guy who is blowing the whistle.
He brought up the "hate mongering" no one else did. Now you call
prayer "hateful activities".
Your rationalizations and personal attacks will only serve to prove
what I said. Thanks.
[deleted]
Regards, Harold (Certified Meanie)
-----
"To (grab the public attention) we need to get some broad-based
support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course,
entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up
scary scenarios, simplified, dramatic statements, and make little
mention of any doubts we may have."
----Dr. Stephen Schneider, 1989, Discover
robx...@nowhere.com
Simple answer, why should you care about the reasons? One of the
basic reasons the country was founded was to have the freedom to have
and express your religion. The fact that you are uncomfortable with
public displays of such is your own issue to deal with.
>
robx...@nowhere.com
<cool...@luke.com> wrote:
>Just the painful TRUTH about the hypocritical Right Wing.
As opposed to the painful TRUTH I just pointed out about hypocritical
you.
You've got MALE.. sex organs!
and "fundie" - the former being clearly racist..
Fundies have a choice about being the hypocritical and intolerant
religious zealots.
Tom J
Robert W Lawrence wrote:
> tagueb...@wfu.edu wrote:
>
> <>No one is making you go to a homosexual club. Now if your supervisor
> <>starts having Gay Rights meetings at the start of every business day, get
> <>back to us.
>
> And no one is making people attend Ashcrofts prayer services. I think you have
> missed the fact that the majority of those who were hired by Ashcroft, his
> senior staff, do not attend these meetings.
Only those ambitious ones who want to get ahead.
Tom J
Robert W Lawrence wrote:
Can't answer this question since it is a false leading question like "when did you
stop beating your wife". But... I'd say my fear of people who disrespect others who
do not share their religion may have started when I learned about Hitler. When did
you first realize that you liked Hitler's tactics of forcing Jews to pretend they
are Christians at the risk of death, or attacking people who did not share your
religious beliefs?
Tom J
robx...@nowhere.com wrote:
I never said that I was uncomfortable with people praying. If I were, why would I go to
church? Nothing I said would diminish the right of any person to exercise their religion,
only in somewhat coercive settings wherein unwilling or uninterested persons feel pressure
to pray along with the faithful.
What I'm uncomfortable with is people forcing or in any way pressuring others to pray
alongside them, even people who do not share their faith. I consider it coercive to have a
public prayer session in a setting other than an openly advertised, private religious
service. Of course if you are of the same faith and are actively participating, you will
not consider it coercive, but an empathetic person will have enough insight to recognize
that they are being coercive in such settings.
So I'm still waiting for an explanation.
Tom J
Harold wrote:
> On Fri, 18 May 2001 03:06:59 GMT, Tom J <tj6...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >Harold loves to do this. When you call someone for hateful activities, he tries
> >desperately to turn it around on the guy who is blowing the whistle.
>
> He brought up the "hate mongering" no one else did. Now you call
> prayer "hateful activities".
>
> Your rationalizations and personal attacks will only serve to prove
> what I said. Thanks.
You're doing it again Harold! I'm trying to help you here but there is a limit how
much I can do for you before you have to take the step of helping yourself.
You can start by finding what made you claim, very falsely, that I called prayer a
"hateful activity". This is very provocative and -dare I say- hateful. You must take
a step back and see what you are doing if you want to advance.
Do it now. You will thank me later.
Tom J
robx...@nowhere.com wrote:
> On Thu, 17 May 2001 10:42:48 -0400, Blackwater <b...@barrk.com> wrote:
>
> >Robert W Lawrence <lawr...@rwlcpa.com> wrote:
> >
> >>Blackwater <b...@barrk.com> wrote:
> >>
> >><>Well ... historically ... they have this annoying tendency
> >><>to INSIST that EVERYBODY walk/talk/do/think like good
> >><>little "christians". It's this will to bend the force of
> >><>law to serve evangelical purposes which worries people.
> >>
> >>
> >>Everyone who is a bigot tries to justify their bigotry. You obviously have no
> >>real contact with committed Christians or you wouldn't spout such nonsense.
> >
> > HA ! I have *plenty* of contact with "committed christians"
> > (and a few who *should be* "committed" IMHO). 90% are OK and
> > are willing to mind their own business. It's that OTHER 10%,
> > the ones who get onto "purity" crusades and pressure the
> > lawmakers to BAN whatever *they* think "immoral" -- THOSE
> > are the problem people. From ye-olde "Blue Laws" to closing
> > down the titty bars to expunging evolution to cramming
> > jesus down the throats of the schoolkids to harrassing or
> > killing anything related to abortions, it's the same old
> > story -- use the LAW to FORCE compliance with religious
> > prejudices. Good old christian anti-joy/anti-life - with
> > a cops gun to back it up.
> >
> > I wonder what jesus would have thought about using strong-
> > arm tactics to create the *appearance* of faith and piety
> > rather than use gentle words, good works and personal
> > example to persuade others towards *actual* faith ???
> > Maybe your god is happy with phony-baloney "faith", mere
> > lip-service ? That's all the "God Squad" creates through
> > their legally-enforced "moral" crusades - appearances,
> > hypocricy and ever-deeper levels of corruption.
>
> The best part of this post is your complete blindness to your own
> bigotry against Christians. It's priceless.
Whoa. I read that whole discourse and I thought it was brilliant. I didn't see ONE
iota of bigotry against Christians, I saw an excellent description of where and how
SOME Christians go wrong and harm the entire Christian movement by imposing their
will against others. Blue laws are an excellent example- why shouldn't I be able to
pick up a 6-pack on a Sunday, just because some more-holy-than-thou cretin doesn't
think I should? Your job is to show one place where BW said something bigoted. I'll
be waiting!
Mark Roddy
<cool...@luke.com> wrote:
>But there's a difference between the use of the terms "nigger"
>and "fundie" - the former being clearly racist..
>
>Fundies have a choice about being the hypocritical and intolerant
>religious zealots.
>
Ya think? Perhaps they are born that way. Although I've heard of a
study by some professor at columbia that indicates that with the
proper application of electrical currents to specific areas of the
human anatomy, fundies can be transformed in regular humans who don't
go about trying to impose their bizarre practices on others, so
perhaps it is a learned behavior.
===================================================
Vallely's Dirt in Boss King's Ditch..
making a pious spectacle of themselves? These people are the true
hypocrites.
Didn't Jesus Himself admonish true believers to go pray in a closet,
instead
of trying to be a public spectacle?
Robert W Lawrence wrote:
>
> loui...@homeplc.com (louisa) wrote:
>
> <>to impose one's orthodoxy on subordinates in the AG's office is appalling
> <>-- unless only fellow fundy Christians are welcome to work there, which is
> <>even more appalling.
>
> Why are you so afraid of God and people who worship him?
>
Alex Vange
http://stormfront.org
"Tom J" <tj6...@aol.com> wrote in message news:3B0476C3...@aol.com...
>
> This is where you are wrong. Religious prosletizing is oppressive. I don't
> care what they teach you at your fundie church, you have no right sticking
> stuff in our grocery bags, going door to door with "Awake" magazines,
giving
> us f**king flowers at airports, etc etc. It is no different to me than if
a
> drug pusher, topless club promoter or any other lowlife gets in my face
while
> I'm walking down the street minding my own business. You don't get a bye
just
> because you've been brainwashed into believing your nonsense is more holy
> than theirs, therefore you are somehow justified. I am glad that Jim
showed
> this bozo his knuckle sandwich. It should happen a lot more often, if you
ask
> me. Too bad the cops will undoubtedly side with the fundie, because
society
> is so brainwashed about this nonsense.
>
Most people don't like ideas pushed on them that they don't agree with.
But having something in your grocery bag is small time compared the the
massive pushiness of the anti-Christ Jews that control the media.
There was a book in ordinary bookstores called "An Empire of Their
Own". It was a pro-Jewish book but it showed that the Jews ran Hollywood.
Here are some quotes from a magazine for Jews called "Moment". It is
subtitled "The Jewish magazine for the 90's" These quotes are from the Aug
1996 edition after the Headline "Jews Run Hollywood - So What?":
"It makes no sense at all to try to deny the reality of Jewish power
and prominence in popular culture. Any list of the most influential
pruduction executives at each of the major movie studios will produce a
heavy majority of recognizably Jewish names."
"the famous Disney organization, which was founded by Walt Disney, a
gentile Midwesterner who allegedly harbored anti-Semetic attitudes, now
features Jewish personnel in nearly all its most powerful positions."
The head of Walt Disney studios is now the Jew Michael Eisner. On
studios that were bought out by the Japanese the magazine says:
"When Mitsushita took over MCA-Universal, they did nothing to undermine the
unquestioned authority of Universal's legendary - and all Jewish -
management triad of Lew Wasserman, Sid Scheinberg, and Tom Pollack."
Here are some quotes from the paper "Jews Control the Media and Rule
America"
"American Broadcasting Companies (ABC), Coumbia Broadcasting System
(CBS), and National Broadcasting Company (NBC). Each of these three has been
under the absolute control of a single man over a long enough period of
time--ranging from 32 to 55 years--for him to staff the corporation at every
level with officers of his choosing and then to place his imprint indelibly
upon it. In each case that man has been a Jew.
"Until 1985, when ABC merged with Capital Cities Communications,
Inc...the chairman of the board of directors and chief executive officer
(CEO) of the network was Leonard Harry Goldenson, a Jew...In an interview in
the April 1, 1985 issue of Newsweek, Goldenson boasted 'I built this company
(ABC) from scratch.'"
"CBS was under the domination of William S. Paley for more than half
a century. The son of immigrant Jews from Russia..."
"There has been no move by top G-E management to change the Jewish
"profile" of NBC or to replace key Jewish personel. To the contrary, new
Jewish executives have been added: an example is Steve Friedman..."
"The man in charge of the television entertainment division at CBS is
Jeff Sagansky. At ABC the entertainment division is run by two men....nearly
all of the men who shape young Amercians' concept of reality, of good and
evil, of permissible and impermissible behavior are Jews. In particular,
Sagansky and Bloomberg arre Jews. So is Tartikoff. Littlefield is the only
Gentile who has had a significant role in TV entertainment programming in
recent years."
"American Film magazine listed the top 10...entertainment companies
and their CEOs...Time Warner Communications (Steven J Ross, Jew) Walt Disney
Co. (Michael D. Eisner, Jew)...Of the 10 top entertainment CEOs listed
above, eight are Jews."
"The Newhouse media empire provides an example of more than a lack of
real competition among America's daily newspapers; it also illustrates the
insatiable appetite Jews have shown for all organs of opinion... The
Newhouse's own 31 daily newspapers, including several large and important
ones, such as the Cleveland Plain Dealer, the Newark Star-Ledger, and the
New Orleans Times-Picayune; the nation's largest trade book publishing
conglomerate, Random House, with all its subsideries; Newhouse
Broadcasting, consisting of 12 television broadcasting stations and 87
cable-TV systems, including some of the countries largest cable networks-
the Sunday supplement Parade, with a circulation of more than 22 million
copies per week; some two dozen major magazines, including the New Yorker,
Vogue, Madamoiselle, Glamour, Vanity Fair, HQ, Bride's, Gentlemen's
Quarterly, Self, Home&Garden...."
"Furthermore, even those newspapers still under Gentile ownership and
management are so thoroughly dependent upon Jewish advertising..."
"the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and the Washington Post.
These three...are the newspapers which set trends and guidlines for nearly
all others. They are the ones which decide what is news and what isn't, at
national and international levels. They originate the news; the others
merely copy it. And all three newspapers are in Jewish hands...The Suzberger
family also owns, through the New York Times Co. 36 other newspapers; twelve
magazines, including McCall's and Family Circle..."
"New York's other newspapers are in no better hands than the Daily
News. The New York Post is owned by billionare Jewish real-estate developer
Peter Kalikow. The Village Voice is the personal property of Leonard Stern,
the billionaire Jewish owner of..."
"There are only three newsmagazines of any note published in the United
States: Time, Newsweek, and U.S. News & World Report....The CEO of Time
Warner Communications is Steven J. Ross, and he is a Jew.
"Newsweek, as mentioned above, is published by the Washington Post
Co., under the Jewess Katherine Meyer Graham..."
"U.S. News & World Report... owned and published by Jewish real estate
developer Mortimer B. Zucherman..."
" The three largest book publishers...Random House... Simon & Schuster
, and Time Inc. Book Co....All three are owned or controlled by Jews...The
CEO of Simon & Schuster if Richard Snyder, and the president is Jeremy
Kaplan; both are Jews too."
"Western Publishing...ranks first among publishers of childrens books, with
more than 50 per cent of the market. Its chairman and CEO is Richard
Bernstein, a Jew."
"Jewish spokesmen customarily will use evasive tactics. "Ted Turner
isn't a Jew!" they will announce..."
"We are doing more than merely giving them a decisive influence on our
political system and virtual control of our government; we also are giving
them control of the minds and souls of our children..."
Robert W Lawrence
<>Didn't Jesus Himself admonish true believers to go pray in a closet,
<>instead
<>of trying to be a public spectacle?
When he said "go forth among the world baptizing in the name of the Father, the
Son and the Holy Sprit". ?
Robert W Lawrence
<>really? I don't see it Robert. I see intolerance for having
<>christianity shoved down peoples throats and for the use of federal
<>tax dollars to endorse and promote christianity but I don't see
<>intolerance or bigotry toward christianity.
Lets take a few examples from this thread:
"Fundies have a choice about being the hypocritical and intolerant
religious zealots. "
Tell me Harrison is that a bigoted statement. Don't you think that the word
"fundie" is as egregious as "nigger"
How about this one Harrison:
"ya think? Perhaps they are born that way. Although I've heard of a
study by some professor at columbia that indicates that with the
proper application of electrical currents to specific areas of the
human anatomy, fundies can be transformed in regular humans who don't
go about trying to impose their bizarre practices on others, so
perhaps it is a learned behavior."
When I expressed my opinions about the Cincinnati riots I got no posts telling
me I was trying to shove my opinions down others throats. Yet if I post about my
religious beliefs I am inundated with posts calling me a "fundie", a "bible
thumper" a "hypocrite" and am accused of trying to shove my beliefs down other
throats.
Do a little test Harison-everytime you see the word "fundie" used replace it
with "nigger". then come back and tell me that their is no religious bigotry in
this thread.
Robert W Lawrence
<> And no one is making people attend Ashcrofts prayer services. I think you
have
<>> missed the fact that the majority of those who were hired by Ashcroft, his
<>> senior staff, do not attend these meetings.
<>
<>Only those ambitious ones who want to get ahead.
I assume you can back that up????
jimC
> Most people don't like ideas pushed on them that they don't agree with.
> But having something in your grocery bag is small time compared the the
> massive pushiness of the anti-Christ Jews that control the media.
Since Christians are a minority in American culture, it is difficult to
understand the poster's animus toward one famously non-Christian group.
However, the largest class of American non-Christians are people whose
ancestors were Christian. That is, the gentiles are the non-Christians
in America. This may be a problem for the poster, but it's not my
problem.
Jews' strengths are attributable to the one quality which often
draws sneers: 2500 years of literacy, universal at first among males,
and later among females.
> There was a book in ordinary bookstores called "An Empire of Their
> Own". It was a pro-Jewish book but it showed that the Jews ran Hollywood.
Mange is such an illiterate he doesn't appreciate that _An Empire of
Their Own_ was in *all* bookstores, not just "ordinary" ones. It was a
bestseller. And he is too dumb to know that Los Angeles has the second
largest Jewish community in the world, and is the core of the world's
third or fourth largest urban area. It is also the second largest city
in the English-speaking world, and by its nature a highly cosmopolitan
place.
To say Hollywood is run by the Joos is like noticing that all the delis
are, too. (Armenians and Iranians run all the kebab places, Asians run
the Chinese take-out. It's so maddening. It's so limiting. What's an
outsider to do? A city of 5000 ethnic restaurants, and he goes to
Burger Barf.) If this bothers you, don't come here.
Or boycott the flicks, for all I care. Carrolco, which produced the
gripping Rocky series with Sylvester Stallone, was run by a Catholic
Cuban immigrant whose sons murdered him and his blonde wife, their
mother. Can you ever turn your back on the children of Latinos?
[...]
> "the famous Disney organization, which was founded by Walt Disney, a
> gentile Midwesterner who allegedly harbored anti-Semetic attitudes, now
> features Jewish personnel in nearly all its most powerful positions."
Mange says that the values of a 1920s midwestern antisemite have been
overturned. Well, isn't that just tough shit?
Next target: Los Angeles Country Club.
> "the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and the Washington Post.
> These three...are the newspapers which set trends and guidlines for nearly
> all others. They are the ones which decide what is news and what isn't, at
> national and international levels. They originate the news; the others
> merely copy it. And all three newspapers are in Jewish hands...The Suzberger
> family also owns, through the New York Times Co. 36 other newspapers; twelve
> magazines, including McCall's and Family Circle..."
>
> "New York's other newspapers are in no better hands than the Daily
> News. The New York Post is owned by billionare Jewish real-estate developer
> Peter Kalikow. The Village Voice is the personal property of Leonard Stern,
> the billionaire Jewish owner of..."
No, that's not quite the story. After the Times, the other New York
dailies: the Post, the Daily News and the New York edition of Long
Island Newsday are tabloid trash, read by the ignorant likes of Alex the
Mange. (As a prop, the NY Daily News was Archie Bunker's newspaper.)
Among the literate, the Post serves two and only two functions: (a) it
has film listings for Manhattan, and (b) it just fits into the bottoms
of bird
cages.
> "There are only three newsmagazines of any note published in the United
> States: Time, Newsweek, and U.S. News & World Report....The CEO of Time
> Warner Communications is Steven J. Ross, and he is a Jew.
To update the Mange, Steven J. Ross is currently dead and has been in
this state of suspended animation for some years now.
> "Newsweek, as mentioned above, is published by the Washington Post
> Co., under the Jewess Katherine Meyer Graham..."
...who was raised Christian by her non-Jewish mother. However, my
understanding is that Graham, like most non-Jews in this country,
doesn't belong to an organized religion. This may be a problem for the
Billy Bobs, but it's not my problem, bunkie!
So, your point would be that Jews like other minorities are prominent in
entertainment. At the turn of the last century, the Yiddish theater
was one of the major repositories in this country of Shakespearean
actors. Jews who built the first studios around New York came west and
built bigger studios which evolved into television. And
the best paper in the country, full of features to suit every
intellectual taste -- to the sneers of the illiterate -- is owned by a
Jewish family, while second-rate national papers like the Los Angeles
Times aren't and isn't.
*You're* the minority, Mange. Everywhere you go, they call you a
cretin. You dare not open your sneering mouth even in Billybob
country. Isn't that right?
jimC
Tom J
Robert W Lawrence wrote:
> Harrison Numbugger <leftof...@peace.now> wrote:
>
> <>really? I don't see it Robert. I see intolerance for having
> <>christianity shoved down peoples throats and for the use of federal
> <>tax dollars to endorse and promote christianity but I don't see
> <>intolerance or bigotry toward christianity.
>
> Lets take a few examples from this thread:
>
> "Fundies have a choice about being the hypocritical and intolerant
> religious zealots. "
That sounds basically true. We all have that choice, fundies and non-fundies alike.
Is that bigotry?
>
> Tell me Harrison is that a bigoted statement. Don't you think that the word
> "fundie" is as egregious as "nigger"
I don't. Not even in the same ballpark. Maybe if there were a mass movement to
enslave, rape and murder people who were being labeled "fundie", say for a few
hundred years it would have the same impact.
> How about this one Harrison:
>
> "ya think? Perhaps they are born that way. Although I've heard of a
> study by some professor at columbia that indicates that with the
> proper application of electrical currents to specific areas of the
> human anatomy, fundies can be transformed in regular humans who don't
> go about trying to impose their bizarre practices on others, so
> perhaps it is a learned behavior."
I think this was a parody about the bogus study that was intended to show how gays
could be transformed, or "cured" from their evil thoughts and deeds. I assume you
protested those horrible claims as well, right? If you did, then you are being
consistent and totally non-hypocritical. (One difference though is that the gay
stuff was real, not just some wag's offhand attempt at humor).
> When I expressed my opinions about the Cincinnati riots I got no posts telling
> me I was trying to shove my opinions down others throats. Yet if I post about my
> religious beliefs I am inundated with posts calling me a "fundie", a "bible
> thumper" a "hypocrite" and am accused of trying to shove my beliefs down other
> throats.
I don't remember when people called you a bible thumper or hypocrite. MAYBE someone
called you a fundie, but I kinda doubt that too.
> Do a little test Harison-everytime you see the word "fundie" used replace it
> with "nigger". then come back and tell me that their is no religious bigotry in
> this thread.
Whenever I post something that a right winger disagrees with, I am called a
"liberal". I don't like being called a liberal, but people who do that are revealing
that they are one-dimensional thinkers who don't understand that I hold opinions
that straddle conventional liberal-conservative boundaries. (I admit I post more
often from a perspective that could be confused with liberalism though). But that
doesn't stop them from calling me a liberal, which is not only offensive, but
intended to offend. I suggest that you equate the use of the word "liberal" with the
terms you mention above that one or more people think is offensive.
BTW, you really have no right using the perjorative term for black person. It is
much more offensive to a lot more people than "fundie" or "bible thumper" will ever
be. It was used, for example, by people who were in the process of lynching and
raping innocent black people, not uncommonly by people who used their firm Christian
faith as justification for their actions. But it is as pointless for you to try to
ban "fundie" as it is for me to ban inappropriate use of "liberal".
Hope this helps!
Tom
Tom J
Robert W Lawrence wrote:
> Tom J <tj6...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> <> And no one is making people attend Ashcrofts prayer services. I think you
> have
> <>> missed the fact that the majority of those who were hired by Ashcroft, his
> <>> senior staff, do not attend these meetings.
> <>
> <>Only those ambitious ones who want to get ahead.
>
> I assume you can back that up????
Sure. Ambitious people ingratiate themselves to the boss. Unambitious people are
less likely to do so. Is this controversial
You've got MALE.. sex organs!
hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in
secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall
reward thee openly.
--Matt. vi. 6.
You've got MALE.. sex organs!
Fundamentalists really DO have a choice about being intolerant
hypocrites. The truth hurts.
Stop acting like a funamentalist. If you weren't so self-righteous
about religion, people might not assume you are a "fundie"..
You've got MALE.. sex organs!
contrary.
Any adult with work experience can verify human nature, and the
benefits of sucking up to the boss and whatever he likes to do,
whether it be playing golf or having prayer meetings on company time.
Alex Vange
http://stormfront.org
"Tom J" <tj6...@aol.com> wrote in message news:3B05E312...@aol.com...
>
> > Whoa. I read that whole discourse and I thought it was brilliant. I
didn't see ONE
> iota of bigotry against Christians, I saw an excellent description of
where and how
> SOME Christians go wrong and harm the entire Christian movement by
imposing their
> will against others. Blue laws are an excellent example- why shouldn't I
be able to
> pick up a 6-pack on a Sunday, just because some more-holy-than-thou cretin
doesn't
> think I should? Your job is to show one place where BW said something
bigoted. I'll
> be waiting!
>
Early America was entirely Christian. It said in the Mayflower compact
that they came here to advance the Christian faith. In a Christian nation it
may be decided that they don't want people to buy beer on Sunday.
What we have today is an unchristian nation. Homosexual perversion and
feminism are promoted in the public schools. The leftist are imposing their
less-holy-than-thou policies on the rest of us.
At the same time the United States is giving billions of dollars to the
Jews so they can have their Jew country. The Jews are the ones who said we
can't have a Christian country. They are the main ones who opposed prayer in
the schools. But of course they think it is fine for them to have a Jew
country and for us to pay for it.
Jews are leftists. Here is proof:
from The Boston Globe
http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/197/metro/Jews_see_US_as_secular_survey_sa
ys+.shtml
July 15th 2000
By Michael Paulsen, Globe Staff, 7/15/2000
Despite what appears to be a growing inclination among many religious
groups, politicians, and judges to chip away at the wall that separates
church and state, American Jews remain staunchly opposed to any mixing of
religion and public life.
A new survey of the Jewish community finds that, although some factors that
have historically contributed to Jewish support of strict separation between
church and state have waned, Jews are far more reluctant than non-Jews to
accept references to religion in the public schools or other public arenas.
''Jews are more secure when society is more overtly secular,'' said Alan
Mittleman, director of the ''Jews and the Public Square'' project, one of
seven surveys funded by the Pew Charitable Trusts examining the contemporary
role of religious groups in the United States.
The study also found that on a variety of issues involving sexual morality
that have roiled other religious groups, Jews are much more liberal than
other Americans. ''Jews take a less critical view of homosexuality,
abortion, birth control and pornography than do Gentiles,'' the study found.
''In each case, Jewish leaders are even more tolerant than the Jewish
public.''
For example, 48 percent of non-Jews say homosexuality is wrong, compared to
23 percent of Jews and 7 percent of Jewish leaders. And while 56 percent of
non-Jews support abortion rights, 88 percent of Jews and 96 percent of
Jewish leaders do.
The findings on church-state separation could have important bearing on the
Jewish role in the debate over school vouchers. As the number of children in
Jewish day schools has skyrocketed, some Jewish policy makers have suggested
that the community supports the use of vouchers, but the survey suggests
that Jewish reluctance to support such a step runs deep.
Orthodox Jews have been more sympathetic to the use of public funds to
assist children attending religious schools and to the display of religious
symbols on public property.
Jewish support for church-state separation traces back to the 1940s, and is
driven by concerns that a greater presence of religion in the public sphere
means a greater presence of Christianity.
''Absent the protections afforded by church-state separation, many Jews
feared that Christian church leaders, in the context of a large Christian
majority in the American population, would promote an explicitly Christian
character to the American state and its institutions,'' the study declared.
''Jews, in particular, were concerned that the schools not be used to
indoctrinate their children in the culture and tenets of Christianity.''
Jewish attitudes were intensified by the community's fear of anti-Semitism
associated with some Christian groups, and by the community's liberalism and
secularity, the study said. In recent years, the study said, Jews have
become more accepted in the United States, Jews have become less liberal,
and a significant fraction of the community has become less secular, but the
attitudes have remained.
Only 38 percent of Jews support allowing the Ten Commandments to be
displayed in public schools, compared to 65 percent of non-Jews; 39 percent
of Jews would allow the teaching of creationism, compared with 63 percent of
non-Jews; and 22 percent of Jews would support vouchers that could be used
at religious schools, compared with 43 percent of non-Jews.
The data come from a survey of a 1,002 Jews around the United States.
Because of the relatively small number of Jews in the United States, the
pollsters used a somewhat unorthodox method for assembling a sample - they
queried a sample of 600,000 Americans who have agreed to be surveyed by mail
on various matters.
The Pew Charitable Trusts is also funding studies of African-American,
Catholic, evangelical, Hispanic, mainline Protestant, and Muslim religious
populations in the United States. Each study will include a poll, scholarly
papers, and conferences over a three-year period.
Eagle Eye
Alex Vange <va...@i1.net> wrote:
[snip]
> Early America was entirely Christian. It said in the Mayflower compact
>that they came here to advance the Christian faith.
You're forgetting the people who were here before Europeans, idiot.
>In a Christian nation it may be decided that they don't want
>people to buy beer on Sunday.
This is not a Christian nation, regardless of what a few settlers
did.
If you prefer to live in a nation controlled by religious authority
in which religious laws dictate policy on alcohol, I recommend
moving to Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia. Meanwhile, get your stinking
paws off my beer you damn, dirty Nazi.
=====
EE
mmf
<Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
>In article <_DMN6.6$j41....@news1.i1.net>
>Alex Vange <va...@i1.net> wrote:
>[snip]
>> Early America was entirely Christian. It said in the Mayflower compact
>>that they came here to advance the Christian faith.
>
>You're forgetting the people who were here before Europeans, idiot.
and the virgina colony
David Hartung
"mmf" <mair_...@www.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:mair_fheal-20...@c12.ppp.tsoft.com...
Why should the American Indians concern me in a discussion of blue laws?
mmf
<dhar...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
jamestown was settled by indians?
jimC
robx...@nowhere.com wrote:
> The best part of this post is your complete blindness to your own
> bigotry against Christians. It's priceless.
I can tolerate Christians up to a point.
jimC
Robert W Lawrence
<>I don't. Not even in the same ballpark. Maybe if there were a mass movement to
<>enslave, rape and murder people who were being labeled "fundie", say for a few
<>hundred years it would have the same impact.
Of course you dont-and racists don't find the word "nigger " egregious. You
are a bigot-becuase you take part in the most common form of bigotry on the
internet you thinks its ok. But a bigot is a bigot is bigot. And as always
bigotry stems from prejudice and ignorance. Both these traits are apparent in
your posts..
Robert W Lawrence
<>Sure. Ambitious people ingratiate themselves to the boss. Unambitious people
are
<>less likely to do so. Is this controversial
In short you cant back it up-can you show one case in the 25+ years Ashcroft has
done this that any one person was discriminated against or promoted because
they did or didn't attend?? Of course you cant BUT for a bigot the facts never
make a difference. For a bigot the mere fact Ashcroft is sincere in his beliefs
condemns him in you eyes. You remind me of Bull Connor. He though he was right
too.
Tom J
speech, but your attempt to deny the obvious (ambitious workers suck up to the boss)
by setting a laughably high standard of proof (I must go and interview dozens or
hundreds of past Ashcroft employees to find one who feels that they were
discriminated against- and then prove that s/he is right) is as sure a sign as there
can be that you understand the obvious truth of my statements. Just admit it- any
reasonable person would suspect that attending the boss's "prayer breakfasts" would
put them ahead in the boss's eyes. Duh!
Tom J
Science based reasoning.
Tom J
Blandishing terms like "bigot" randomly is just a losing strategy. Grow up. Come
back when you are ready for an honest debate, without constant inappropriate
accusation.
Tom J
Science based reasoning.
Mathew
If you are Alex Vange it does.
>
>
>
>
Michael Ejercito
>
>
>http://stormfront.org
>"Tom J" <tj6...@aol.com> wrote in message news:3B05E312...@aol.com...
>>
>> > Whoa. I read that whole discourse and I thought it was brilliant. I
>didn't see ONE
>> iota of bigotry against Christians, I saw an excellent description of
>where and how
>> SOME Christians go wrong and harm the entire Christian movement by
>imposing their
>> will against others. Blue laws are an excellent example- why shouldn't I
>be able to
>> pick up a 6-pack on a Sunday, just because some more-holy-than-thou cretin
>doesn't
>> think I should? Your job is to show one place where BW said something
>bigoted. I'll
>> be waiting!
>>
> Early America was entirely Christian. It said in the Mayflower compact
>that they came here to advance the Christian faith. In a Christian nation it
>may be decided that they don't want people to buy beer on Sunday.
>
> What we have today is an unchristian nation. Homosexual perversion and
>feminism are promoted in the public schools. The leftist are imposing their
>less-holy-than-thou policies on the rest of us.
And you are promoting Nazi perversion.
> At the same time the United States is giving billions of dollars to the
>Jews so they can have their Jew country. The Jews are the ones who said we
>can't have a Christian country. They are the main ones who opposed prayer in
>the schools. But of course they think it is fine for them to have a Jew
>country and for us to pay for it.
Well, whatever happened to last Nazi country that existed,
shorteyes?
Michael
Harrison Numbugger
to demonstrate intolerance of bigots is not bigotry
>Robert W Lawrence
>lawr...@rwlcpa.com
>
>1Peter 5:7
______________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Still Only $9.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
With Seven Servers In California And Texas - The Worlds Uncensored News Source
Harold
>
>
>Harold wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 18 May 2001 03:06:59 GMT, Tom J <tj6...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Harold loves to do this. When you call someone for hateful activities, he tries
>> >desperately to turn it around on the guy who is blowing the whistle.
>>
>> He brought up the "hate mongering" no one else did. Now you call
>> prayer "hateful activities".
>>
>> Your rationalizations and personal attacks will only serve to prove
>> what I said. Thanks.
>
>You're doing it again Harold! I'm trying to help you here but there is a limit how
>much I can do for you before you have to take the step of helping yourself.
Oh my God!!! A psychologist *and* a bigot.
You are the one who calls prayer "hateful acclivities". Personally, I
think that is a sign of imminent unhinging.
Regards, Harold (Capitalist Pig)
----
"I don't believe you can find any evidence of the fact that I
have changed government policy solely because of a contribution."
--President Clinton, March 10, 1997
Robert W Lawrence
<>Ho-hum. More of the same projection and "best defense is a good offense".
<>Blandishing terms like "bigot" randomly is just a losing strategy. Grow up.
Come
<>back when you are ready for an honest debate, without constant inappropriate
<>accusation.
Soi in addition to being a bigot you CANT back up your claim that anyone has
EVER been affected by their particiaption or nonparticipation in these prayer
sessions? No surprise. All bigotry is based on ignorance.
Robert W Lawrence
<>to demonstrate intolerance of bigots is not bigotry
WOW! That was profound! And the point is?
Alex Vange
http://stormfront.org
"Blackwater" <b...@barrk.com> wrote in message
news:mdwDO4Lfn3Gzux=B2f5Q9...@4ax.com...
> Robert W Lawrence <lawr...@rwlcpa.com> wrote:
> HA ! I have *plenty* of contact with "committed christians"
> (and a few who *should be* "committed" IMHO). 90% are OK and
> are willing to mind their own business. It's that OTHER 10%,
> the ones who get onto "purity" crusades and pressure the
> lawmakers to BAN whatever *they* think "immoral" -- THOSE
> are the problem people.
Things that are immoral should be banned.
There are two schools of thought in the world, the right and the left.
The right is guided by what was known as Christian principles. It is for
outlawing homosexual perversion, prostitution, abortions, heroin, and other
bad things. It puts the good of the nation first and ahead of the freedom
of individuals to corrupt the culture of the nation.
Leftists believe in the Rede of Witchcraft which states-- If it harm
none, do what will you will. This sounds nice, but like the apple that the
witch gave to Snow White it has poison within. The Rede of Witchcraft is the
Bible of liberalism. It would legalize the homosexual perversion,
prostitution, drugs, etc.
The right is for building a great nation. Leftists care only about
individual freedom and are opposed to any laws that would make the nation
better. There are beaches where normal families will not go because
homosexual perverts practice their perversion on the beach. This is fine
with leftists. This is what they want. They are like children who only care
about their individual selves and are oblivious to what should be done to
make the nation great. Their philosophy for example would not allow the law
that drivers have to stop at the red lights. Their philosophy would result
in chaos and degeneracy.
Today there are some libertarians who pretend to be rightists because
they are for the freedom of the Ebenezer Scrooges to be as greedy as they
want. That group has a lot of money and they can pretend to be right wing
on TV, but what they really do is serve mammon (money). The real right wing
was not for legalizing drugs, or for using this same liberal philosophy of
the Rede of Witchcraft to legalize greed. People should not be side-tracked
into serving money if they really want to fight liberalism. Fighting
homosexual perversion with libertarianism is exactly the same as fighting a
fire with gasoline. Most libertarians know they are liberal. Anyone who
would legalize prostitution and heroin is not just a little liberal but on
the far left.
The Communist were leftist and they said they were fighting for
freedom. In Spain they sided with the anarchists. The Communists and the
anarchists were the same people or the same type of people. The Communists
were for having government but only temporarily. They said that their
government was necessary only until the whole world was Communist. After the
world was Communist they wanted to disolve the government and have an
anarchy.
What liberals want to be liberated from is Christianity, or what used
to be Christianity. Capitalists want freedom for their greed, other liberals
want freedom for degeneracy, and Communists wanted to be free to burn down
churches. They had their differences but they all joined together to fight
against the real right wing during World War Two.
The right wing cares about the future. Leftists only care about having a
good time in the present. If their philosophy results in a nightmare future
like in Soylent Green or some other futuristic nightmare they are not
interested and insist that nothing could be more important than the freedom
of individuals to be as decadant as they want. They are like the children in
the old black and white movie "Lord of the Flies".
From ye-olde "Blue Laws" to closing
> down the titty bars to expunging evolution to cramming
> jesus down the throats of the schoolkids to harrassing or
> killing anything related to abortions, it's the same old
> story -- use the LAW to FORCE compliance with religious
> prejudices. Good old christian anti-joy/anti-life - with
> a cops gun to back it up.
These Christians you speak of would make this a great nation to live
in. The women in the "titty bars" are someones daughters. That just isn't
good. We don't have to convince all the leftists that their ways are bad. We
just have to outnumber and outvote the leftists.
>
> I wonder what jesus would have thought about using strong-
> arm tactics to create the *appearance* of faith and piety
Remember the whip in the temple?
> rather than use gentle words, good works and personal
> example to persuade others towards *actual* faith ???
> Maybe your god is happy with phony-baloney "faith", mere
> lip-service ? That's all the "God Squad" creates through
> their legally-enforced "moral" crusades - appearances,
> hypocricy and ever-deeper levels of corruption.
Corruption is another thing that Christians should be trying to
stamp out.
Tom J
Tom J
Science based reasoning
Cheney's "Energy Policy" explained! Goto:
http://www.ucomics.com/patoliphant/viewpo.cfm?uc_full_date=20010510&uc_comic=po&uc_daction=X
http://www.ucomics.com/patoliphant/viewpo.cfm?uc_full_date=20010508&uc_comic=po&uc_daction=X
Tom J
Harold wrote:
> On Sat, 19 May 2001 02:49:52 GMT, Tom J <tj6...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Harold wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 18 May 2001 03:06:59 GMT, Tom J <tj6...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Harold loves to do this. When you call someone for hateful activities, he tries
> >> >desperately to turn it around on the guy who is blowing the whistle.
> >>
> >> He brought up the "hate mongering" no one else did. Now you call
> >> prayer "hateful activities".
> >>
> >> Your rationalizations and personal attacks will only serve to prove
> >> what I said. Thanks.
> >
> >You're doing it again Harold! I'm trying to help you here but there is a limit how
> >much I can do for you before you have to take the step of helping yourself.
>
> Oh my God!!! A psychologist *and* a bigot.
>
> You are the one who calls prayer "hateful acclivities". Personally, I
> think that is a sign of imminent unhinging.
I don't know this word "acclivities". But what about when you said "all blacks and Jews
should be shot?"
See, anyone can do this. Now seek help!
Tom J
Science based reasoning
Cheney's "Energy Policy" explained! Goto:
http://www.ucomics.com/patoliphant/viewpo.cfm?uc_full_date=20010510&uc_comic=po&uc_daction=X
http://www.ucomics.com/patoliphant/viewpo.cfm?uc_full_date=20010508&uc_comic=po&uc_daction=X
>
Sam Barber
>
>
>http://stormfront.org
>"Blackwater" <b...@barrk.com> wrote in message
>news:mdwDO4Lfn3Gzux=B2f5Q9...@4ax.com...
>> Robert W Lawrence <lawr...@rwlcpa.com> wrote:
>> HA ! I have *plenty* of contact with "committed christians"
>> (and a few who *should be* "committed" IMHO). 90% are OK and
>> are willing to mind their own business. It's that OTHER 10%,
>> the ones who get onto "purity" crusades and pressure the
>> lawmakers to BAN whatever *they* think "immoral" -- THOSE
>> are the problem people.
>
> Things that are immoral should be banned.
Even though you're the most immoral person on Usenet, Alex,
we Americans believe in free speech and will won't ban you.
---
"Professional economists who have specialized in energy economics
almost to a man have argued for greater reliance on market forces
and less government interference in energy problems. Their strong
preference for market solutions is not because they are
philosophical conservatives. Rather they are acutely aware of the
poor record of government interference in the energy market. That
record is one of massive and repeated resource missallocation."
- Walter Mead, energy economist and consultant to several federal
agencies, "Science" magazine, July 22, 1977.
Garrett
> Things that are immoral should be banned.
And there is your problem. There is so much middle-ground
out there that this is an impossible stand. For instance:
1) Who is to decide what is immoral? If you said God, then who's
God? The Protestant God? The Catholic God? The Hindu God?
They all disagree. Or should i say, the churches of them all disagree.
Which brings me to...
2) Which church should have the final say? And wouldn't this cause
a religious feud, which so often leads to war? And...
3) What about the freedom of religion in the Bill of Rights?
Having any one church deciding law directly violates the rights
of other religions. And then there is...
3) Havent' you learned anything from history? Mixing church and state
is always a bad thing.
> There are two schools of thought in the world, the right and the left.
> The right is guided by what was known as Christian principles.
So people that aren't conservative can't be religious?
If that's the case then you must think Martin Luther King was a sinner.
As was Ghandi. And for that matter, Jesus Christ since he wasn't very
fond of rich people.
> It is for
> outlawing homosexual perversion, prostitution, abortions, heroin, and other
> bad things. It puts the good of the nation first and ahead of the freedom
> of individuals to corrupt the culture of the nation.
The "freedom of the individual" except when you do something I don't
want you to. Right?
> Leftists believe in the Rede of Witchcraft which states-- If it harm
> none, do what will you will. This sounds nice, but like the apple that the
> witch gave to Snow White it has poison within. The Rede of Witchcraft is the
> Bible of liberalism. It would legalize the homosexual perversion,
> prostitution, drugs, etc.
>
> The right is for building a great nation. Leftists care only about
> individual freedom
Gosh. Didn't you just say that the right was concerned with the freedom of
the individual?
> and are opposed to any laws that would make the nation
> better. There are beaches where normal families will not go because
> homosexual perverts practice their perversion on the beach. This is fine
> with leftists. This is what they want. They are like children who only care
> about their individual selves and are oblivious to what should be done to
> make the nation great. Their philosophy for example would not allow the law
> that drivers have to stop at the red lights. Their philosophy would result
> in chaos and degeneracy.
>
> Today there are some libertarians who pretend to be rightists because
> they are for the freedom of the Ebenezer Scrooges to be as greedy as they
> want. That group has a lot of money and they can pretend to be right wing
> on TV, but what they really do is serve mammon (money). The real right wing
> was not for legalizing drugs, or for using this same liberal philosophy of
> the Rede of Witchcraft to legalize greed. People should not be side-tracked
> into serving money if they really want to fight liberalism.
Ah. Now this should get interesting. What say you "fellow conservatives"?
> Fighting
> homosexual perversion with libertarianism is exactly the same as fighting a
> fire with gasoline. Most libertarians know they are liberal. Anyone who
> would legalize prostitution and heroin is not just a little liberal but on
> the far left.
[other stuff deleted]
Cgirl
> On Thu, 17 May 2001 16:12:47 GMT, robx...@nowhere.com wrote:
>
> >On 17 May 2001 14:28:59 +0100, Harrison Numbugger
> ><leftof...@peace.now> wrote:
> >
> >>On Thu, 17 May 2001 12:43:45 GMT, robx...@nowhere.com wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Thu, 17 May 2001 02:09:04 GMT, Tom J <tj6...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>Robert W Lawrence wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> loui...@homeplc.com (louisa) wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> <>to impose one's orthodoxy on subordinates in the AG's office is appalling
> >>>>> <>-- unless only fellow fundy Christians are welcome to work there, which is
> >>>>> <>even more appalling.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Why are you so afraid of God and people who worship him?
> >>>>
> >>>>Could it be... I'm just guessing here... because so many millions have been
> >>>>killed, incarcerated, and uprooted throughout history by religious people who
> >>>>display intolerance of those who do not share their belief in their particular
> >>>>form of mythology? Or might it be because of the incessant fundie trait of
> >>>>needing to "convert" others toward your beliefs, often associated with genocidal
> >>>>attack on those who have not so converted?
> >>>
> >>>Have you considered that the growing anti-religious sentiment and the
> >>>virtual confinement of religion to one's own home is the beginning of
> >>>just what you describe --- but in the exact reverse? Society is now
> >>>heading towards intolerance and bigotry against anyone who professes a
> >>>faith -- at least against faiths that society doesn't currently like.
> >>>
> >>
> >>please post evidence of intolerance or bigotry toward people who
> >>profess a faith. Not wanting christianity or other religions shoved
> >>down our throats with the support of public funds is not an indication
> >>of intolerance or bigotry.
Christians today are the most persecuted religious group in the world,
in over 40 nations around the world, making the persecution of
Christians one of the most egregious human rights violations of our
time.
Afghanistan
Since 1995 Thousands of people have been detained for reasons of
ethnicity or alleged un-Islamic behavior, and open profession of faith
has often led to death.
China
Hundreds of Chinese Christians, from evangelical house church members
and teachers to Roman Catholic priests and bishops, are currently in
“reeducation through labor” camps. Many more have been
arrested and have not been heard from since.
Egypt
Christians have been attacked by Muslim extremists without warning,
and there are reports of Christian girls abducted, raped, and forced
to convert to Islam. Late in 1997 45 Christians where killed in Upper
Egypt—throats cut and heads smashed with a spade.
Indonesia
Although a republic, In 1998, unofficial sources list over 465
churches destroyed, burned, or closed within the first six months.
Iran
Christians are arrested, threatened, imprisoned, and tortured simply
because of their religion. Some are kept under heavy surveillance with
their phones tapped and letters routinely opened. Others have lost
their jobs or been refused employment, housing, and education. Many
Iranian Christians “disappear” for days, weeks, months, or
years. Violent persecution, short of death, has become the common
means of suppressing Christian proselytizing in Iran
North Korean
Christians being held in North Korean prison camps are special targets
of persecution: deprived of rest, told to recant, beaten, and assigned
the most difficult and dangerous jobs in the camp. Many, singing hymns
as they are beaten, are taken to the electric treatment room,
tortured, and killed. Other Christians in the prison camps have been
killed by special death squads and, with molten iron, poured out in a
furnace.
Saudi Arabia
Despite signing international human rights conventions agreeing to
freedom of religion, Saudi nationals who convert to Christianity are
automatically subject to death.
Sudan
The country of Sudan is being devastated by a jihad led by the
militant Islamic regime in Khartoum. Their tactics include aerial
bombardment of Christians, scorched earth and destruction of
livestock, forced displacement of over three million people,
abduction, imprisonment, torture, execution of men, abduction and
enslavement of women and children, and forced Islamization and
conscription.
United States.
Check your local news.
> >How about schools that vote to offer graduation prayer, but are denied
> >permission?
>
> that's not bigotry or intolerance, that's complying with the
> constitution.
>
You tell me where the constitution states no prayer in school.
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution is very clear:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
Webster’s Dictionary states it this way:
establish (verb): to make (a church) a national institution
established church (noun) (1660): a church recognized by law as the
official church of the nation and supported by civil authority
> > How about prayer groups that want to meet in schools that
> >welcome every other agenda but can't?
>
> show evidence of this please. I have heard this nonsense before but as
> no one can show documentation to support it.
>
> >Your tone basically is that you
> >can have a religion, but you can't show it around me.
> >
>
> no, its don't use my tax dollars to endorse your religion
Read more about the ban of prayer in school and its effects on our
country.
http://www.coralridge.org/crtd.htm
Harrison Numbugger
>
>
>http://stormfront.org
>"Blackwater" <b...@barrk.com> wrote in message
>news:mdwDO4Lfn3Gzux=B2f5Q9...@4ax.com...
>> Robert W Lawrence <lawr...@rwlcpa.com> wrote:
>> HA ! I have *plenty* of contact with "committed christians"
>> (and a few who *should be* "committed" IMHO). 90% are OK and
>> are willing to mind their own business. It's that OTHER 10%,
>> the ones who get onto "purity" crusades and pressure the
>> lawmakers to BAN whatever *they* think "immoral" -- THOSE
>> are the problem people.
>
> Things that are immoral should be banned.
>
> There are two schools of thought in the world, the right and the left.
>The right is guided by what was known as Christian principles. It is for
>outlawing homosexual perversion,
so you're a bigot. I can already see where this going. You're probably
a bible thumper too.
>prostitution, abortions, heroin, and other
>bad things.
and who gets to decide which things are bad? You?
>It puts the good of the nation first and ahead of the freedom
>of individuals to corrupt the culture of the nation.
you believe that the good of the nation should come before freedom for
individuals? You would be much more at home in China, North Korea or
Cuba where the good of the nation comes before individual freedom
>
> Leftists believe in the Rede of Witchcraft which states-- If it harm
>none, do what will you will. This sounds nice, but like the apple that the
>witch gave to Snow White it has poison within.
hey moron, if it had 'poison within' then it does do harm.
>The Rede of Witchcraft is the
>Bible of liberalism. It would legalize the homosexual perversion,
>prostitution, drugs, etc.
>
a bigoted bible thumper....no doubt about it.
> The right is for building a great nation.
the right is for building a fascist police state, we already had a
great nation , of course shrub and his minions are doing all they can
to change that.
> Leftists care only about
>individual freedom
individual freedom , now there's a bad thing. If you don't like
freedom move to China , North Korea etc.
>and are opposed to any laws that would make the nation
>better.
please provide evidence of this? Cant? I didn't think so? Better in
whose opinion? Yours? Please, you've already proven yourself a bigot.
I would rather have 'better' defined by someone with higher moral
standards then you posess.
>There are beaches where normal families will not go because
>homosexual perverts practice their perversion on the beach.
ROFLMAO!!! You are a loon. Please tell us more. You are quite the
entertaining bigot.
>This is fine
>with leftists.
please show evidence that public displays of sexuality are 'fine with
leftists'.
> This is what they want. They are like children who only care
>about their individual selves and are oblivious to what should be done to
>make the nation great.
again, China , North Korea or Cuba may be more your cup of tea. Yes, I
admit it, leftists believe in individual freedom. Oh the horror!
>Their philosophy for example would not allow the law
>that drivers have to stop at the red lights.
that is complete idiocy. Virtually ALL safety regulations have been
proposed by the left. The right usually oppose safety regul;ations as
being to restrictive or expensive.
>Their philosophy would result
>in chaos and degeneracy.
>
please show evidence of this or even evidence that you have a clue
what the leftist philosophy is.
> Today there are some libertarians who pretend to be rightists because
>they are for the freedom of the Ebenezer Scrooges to be as greedy as they
>want.
God you're ignorant. Rightists are greedy.
>That group has a lot of money and they can pretend to be right wing
>on TV, but what they really do is serve mammon (money).
yes, now you're getting, that's what the right wing is about.
>The real right wing
>was not for legalizing drugs,
that's true. The real right wing is in favor of as many restrictions
on personal choice as possible.
>or for using this same liberal philosophy of
>the Rede of Witchcraft to legalize greed.
your ignorance is astounding!
>People should not be side-tracked
>into serving money if they really want to fight liberalism. Fighting
>homosexual perversion with libertarianism is exactly the same as fighting a
>fire with gasoline. Most libertarians know they are liberal. Anyone who
>would legalize prostitution and heroin is not just a little liberal but on
>the far left.
>
in your twisted, misguided , psychotic opinion.
> The Communist were leftist and they said they were fighting for
>freedom. In Spain they sided with the anarchists. The Communists and the
>anarchists were the same people or the same type of people. The Communists
>were for having government but only temporarily. They said that their
>government was necessary only until the whole world was Communist. After the
>world was Communist they wanted to disolve the government and have an
>anarchy.
>
> What liberals want to be liberated from is Christianity, or what used
>to be Christianity.
huh? please provide some evidence to support this idiocy. Many
liberals are Christians.
> Capitalists want freedom for their greed, other liberals
>want freedom for degeneracy, and Communists wanted to be free to burn down
>churches. They had their differences but they all joined together to fight
>against the real right wing during World War Two.
>
oh, so you're a Nazi, that explains a lot. See, I had you pegged right
from the first paragraph. You guys are SO easy to spot.
> The right wing cares about the future
then why are they moving us toward the past?
> Leftists only care about having a
>good time in the present.
please provide evidence of this.
>If their philosophy results in a nightmare future
>like in Soylent Green or some other futuristic nightmare they are not
>interested and insist that nothing could be more important than the freedom
>of individuals to be as decadant as they want.
please provide evidence of this.
>They are like the children in
>the old black and white movie "Lord of the Flies".
>
and you are like a frightened psychopath.
>
>From ye-olde "Blue Laws" to closing
>> down the titty bars to expunging evolution to cramming
>> jesus down the throats of the schoolkids to harrassing or
>> killing anything related to abortions, it's the same old
>> story -- use the LAW to FORCE compliance with religious
>> prejudices. Good old christian anti-joy/anti-life - with
>> a cops gun to back it up.
>
> These Christians you speak of would make this a great nation to live
>in.
only if you consider repression a great thing.
>The women in the "titty bars" are someones daughters.
If you're a good christian , you've never seen a 'titty'.
>That just isn't
>good.
in your opinion.
> We don't have to convince all the leftists that their ways are bad. We
>just have to outnumber and outvote the leftists.
yes, I'm sure people would much prefer a repressive Nazi society to
one in which they can exercise personal freedom.....
>
>>
>> I wonder what jesus would have thought about using strong-
>> arm tactics to create the *appearance* of faith and piety
>
> Remember the whip in the temple?
>
>> rather than use gentle words, good works and personal
>> example to persuade others towards *actual* faith ???
>> Maybe your god is happy with phony-baloney "faith", mere
>> lip-service ? That's all the "God Squad" creates through
>> their legally-enforced "moral" crusades - appearances,
>> hypocricy and ever-deeper levels of corruption.
>
> Corruption is another thing that Christians should be trying to
>stamp out.
>
you know nothing about christianity.
You've got MALE.. sex organs!
The point is that you are so stupid as to not see the point..
Bill Anderson
> Alex Vange wrote:
> > Leftists believe in the Rede of Witchcraft...
Damn! They're on to us, boys... pack up the cauldron and the newt's
gizzard and let's split!
Grand Warlock Bill
"In the bowels of Christ, I beseech you; bethink yourself
that you may be wrong." --Oliver Cromwell
Harrison Numbugger
wrote:
>>WOW! That was a profound demonstration of right wing stupidity!
>>
>>The point is that you are so stupid as to not see the point..
>>
>I think the real point is that we are awash in weak-minded people that
>are not capable of thinking for themselves and as such are very afraid
>that someone, by praying, might cause their religion to rub off onto
>them.
i think the real point is that we have weak minded christians who feel
that they have the right to pollute the minds of others with their
mythology. That's fine, but not if it gives the appearance of
government endorsement. No one wants to stop christians from praying,
but we will not permit the government to endorse their god over
others.
>
>You see, it works like this. You want to do something to help
>the less fortunate in your state. The Federal Government finds
>out about your desire. They tell you that if you will send them
>a dollar, they will take care of this problem for you. You concur,
>they get the dollar, deduct a 65% commission, send 35% back to
>your state, who takes out an 18% commission, spends 17% on what you
>wished for and you wonder why in the hell nothing is being done!!!
>
>The Powers Conferred
>by the Constitution,
>Federalist No. 43
>
>James Madison
>
>http://www.thelibertycommittee.org
>
>C Asa James (I) TX
Vallely's Dirt in Boss King's Ditch..
Harrison Numbugger
<samb...@prontomail.com> wrote:
>+++++-
>--------------------------------------------+++++++++++++++++++-----On
>22 May 2001 14:03:06 +0100, Harrison Numbugger
><leftof...@peace.now> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 21 May 2001 17:59:34 -0500, "Alex Vange" <va...@i1.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>http://stormfront.org
>>>"Blackwater" <b...@barrk.com> wrote in message
>>>news:mdwDO4Lfn3Gzux=B2f5Q9...@4ax.com...
>>>> Robert W Lawrence <lawr...@rwlcpa.com> wrote:
>>>> HA ! I have *plenty* of contact with "committed christians"
>>>> (and a few who *should be* "committed" IMHO). 90% are OK and
>>>> are willing to mind their own business. It's that OTHER 10%,
>>>> the ones who get onto "purity" crusades and pressure the
>>>> lawmakers to BAN whatever *they* think "immoral" -- THOSE
>>>> are the problem people.
>>>
>>> Things that are immoral should be banned.
>>>
>>> There are two schools of thought in the world, the right and the left.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>The right is guided by what was known as Christian principles. It is for
>>>outlawing homosexual perversion,
>>
>>so you're a bigot. I can already see where this going. You're probably
>>a bible thumper too.
>
>You're wasting your time on Vange.
>He's a confirmed Nazi who's paid
>by Stormfront to hang out in newsgroups and repost the same Nazi
>lies over and over. His only purpose is to catch the 1 in a million
>hopeless soul who is susceptible to being a neo-Nazi recruit.
>
thanks for the info. I guess I should have realized that this was the
case.
But I had fun! ;-)
>Vange has been posting the exact same crap for at least five years
>and does not engage in defending any of it.
>---
>"Professional economists who have specialized in energy economics
>almost to a man have argued for greater reliance on market forces
>and less government interference in energy problems. Their strong
>preference for market solutions is not because they are
>philosophical conservatives. Rather they are acutely aware of the
>poor record of government interference in the energy market. That
>record is one of massive and repeated resource missallocation."
>
> - Walter Mead, energy economist and consultant to several federal
>agencies, "Science" magazine, July 22, 1977.
tagueb...@wfu.edu
<mu...@multinet.net> wrote:
> >On Tue, 22 May 2001 10:03:49 -0500, C Asa James <mu...@multinet.net>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>>WOW! That was a profound demonstration of right wing stupidity!
> >>>
> >>>The point is that you are so stupid as to not see the point..
> >>>
> >>I think the real point is that we are awash in weak-minded people that
> >>are not capable of thinking for themselves and as such are very afraid
> >>that someone, by praying, might cause their religion to rub off onto
> >>them.
> >
> >i think the real point is that we have weak minded christians who feel
> >that they have the right to pollute the minds of others with their
> >mythology. That's fine, but not if it gives the appearance of
> >government endorsement. No one wants to stop christians from praying,
> >but we will not permit the government to endorse their god over
> >others.
> >
> And just where exactly do you perceive this government endorsement to
> be? In the House? In the Senate? In Federally funded colleges? In tax
> exemptions for church donations?
>
> I hate to tell you this my friend, but you are way out of touch.
I hate to tell you this, but Ashcroft's prayer breakfasts break federal
guidelines. I'd have thought you "rule-of-law" types would know better.
Federal guidelines on worship at work: "Because supervisors have the power
to hire, fire or promoter, employees may reasonably perceive their
supervisors' religious expression as coercive, even if it was not intende
as such."
Given Ashcroft's position in the government, one would hope that he would
follow the letter and spirit of the government's rules.
--
My 2 electrons,
Brian
Remove "REMOVE" to reply
Tom J
> In article <eu0lgt47r8r6iba06...@4ax.com>, C Asa James
> <mu...@multinet.net> wrote:
>
> > >On Tue, 22 May 2001 10:03:49 -0500, C Asa James <mu...@multinet.net>
> > >wrote:
> > >
>
> > I hate to tell you this my friend, but you are way out of touch.
>
> I hate to tell you this, but Ashcroft's prayer breakfasts break federal
> guidelines. I'd have thought you "rule-of-law" types would know better.
>
> Federal guidelines on worship at work: "Because supervisors have the power
> to hire, fire or promoter, employees may reasonably perceive their
> supervisors' religious expression as coercive, even if it was not intende
> as such."
Cool. You heard it here first. And to think, someone in the federal government
was able to succinctly and intelligently write a rule that made sense. God I
hate being right all the time!
Now we just need someone to enforce these guidelines in the face of their
violation by the highest official of our "Justice" Dept.
Janet, come back! We need you.
Robert W Lawrence
<>> Robert W Lawrence <lawr...@rwlcpa.com> wrote:
<>> HA ! I have *plenty* of contact with "committed christians"
<>> (and a few who *should be* "committed" IMHO). 90% are OK and
<>> are willing to mind their own business. It's that OTHER 10%,
<>> the ones who get onto "purity" crusades and pressure the
<>> lawmakers to BAN whatever *they* think "immoral" -- THOSE
<>> are the problem people.
I didnt write this.
pa...@nospam.hsh.com
: Alex Vange wrote:
:> Things that are immoral should be banned.
I hold that ideological absolutism is immoral and an abomination
upon the face of the world. Oh, and posturing idiots, too. So
mote it be.
[let there be snippage]
:> Today there are some libertarians who pretend to be
:> rightists because they are for the freedom of the Ebenezer
:> Scrooges to be as greedy as they want. That group has a lot of
:> money and they can pretend to be right wing on TV, but what they
:> really do is serve mammon (money). The real right wing was not
:> for legalizing drugs, or for using this same liberal philosophy of
:> the Rede of Witchcraft to legalize greed. People should not be
:> side-tracked into serving money if they really want to fight
:> liberalism.
: Ah. Now this should get interesting. What say you "fellow
: conservatives"?
He's not at all interesting; he's tiresome. Speaking as a
libertarian, this guy is a few brownies short of a bake sale. I
think he'd make Odell feel a little uncomfortable.
:> Most libertarians know they are liberal.
Say what? [Rends garment, gnashes teeth] Woe unto me, for I am
Liberal. Bloody hell.
--
Paul Havemann
So long, and thanks for all the fish: Douglas Adams, 1952-2001
http://www.douglasadams.com/
Bill Anderson
pa...@nospam.hsh.com wrote:
> : Alex Vange wrote:
> :> Most libertarians know they are liberal.
>
> Say what? [Rends garment, gnashes teeth] Woe unto me, for I am
> Liberal. Bloody hell.
Not only that, Paul: according to Vange, you're a WITCH!
And I should know. After all, you turned me into a newt...