Visit My Webpage:
http://www.geocities.com/freedomwarrior5000
Freedom Warrior wrote:
> <snip>
So what else is new? Our "President" is a Bible thumping mass murdering
moron.
--
"This post is an insincerity on the part of this man of sin"
--fervent 3/27/02
The Most Reverend Pious Paul ();)
"Man of Sin"
Ordained Minister-Universal Life Church
Minister of the Sacred Sack
AFJC Photo Archivist
Denizen of Darkness #144,000 (the LAST one in)
"AFJC...We Care"
And he's trying to kill ME.
Or, at least, he's trying to outlaw human cloning research that may someday
lead to a cure for something that will kill me.
If I die from some disease that could have been cured if human cloning
research had been allowed, I going to be really pissed at that murdering
bastard.
Denis Loubet
dlo...@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
Denis Loubet wrote:
Cloning is a sin. Killing thousands of Afghani's, however, is not.
God Bless America!
And we in the EU say thank you very much Mr President. If the
President wants to give us research money and undermine the
competitiveness of the American companies, we don't mind. Really we
don't!
--
Matt aa#1956
Cool. We'll just rip off the patents after you guys do the R & D.
:-)
--
Fred Stone
aa # 1369; linux user # 254178; machine # 138214
If the U.S. bans cloning for stem cell research and the E.U. allows
it, will the U.S. then accept and use any advances made by E.U.
researchers?
Of course. Science is science.
And we'd pay dearly for the privilege, once the international courts
settled all the patent disputes.
:Maeljin:
(Damned by Dore, #Primo in Italia)
ICQ UIN 24875529
"[You]perverted disgusting evil doer against God"
-Dore pinpoints my nature with her usual expressive
flair.
Mental Disorders: Collect The Whole Set!
> Just no cloning Englishmen, please. We have enough of them already.
"...but we don't want the Irish!"
--
Presbyter Coxcomb
Denizen of Darkness Member #69
You better believe it. And those who will holler about the 'god given
right' to utilize the technology are the yowling morons banning it.
--
Stoney
"Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
and
SCAMPERMEISTER!"
When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough!
You want to defend the Constitution then defend it from your own government.
The contempt that the Executive shows for people is astonishing. Perhaps
the jingoism of 9/11 has mesmerized the population? I know that US really
doesn't give a damn about world opinion but my guess is that the rest of the
world would find US attitudes and foreign policy or lack thereof pretty
funny if the US wasn't the 800 lb gorilla. Evidence to date suggests that
US is not interested in helping its neighbours; more like raping and
pillaging.
US is concerned only about US. Cheap imports, very cheap energy and
anything else it thinks it needs. The bush is only concerned with lining up
the voters for the next election. If slavery were in vogue he's support it.
In fact he does in a particular way. He vehemently supports anti-birth
control policies which further his support from the religious right.
You can rail all you want about the taxpayer supporting religious
denominations but think about it what's the difference between kissing a
Baptist and cozying up to exon?
buy a gun
jmw
"Charles" <tm...@rollanet.org> wrote in message
news:3CDFC96C...@rollanet.org...
Oh, look, the christers are re-writing the U.S. Constitution to suit
their desires, now. What a bunch of un-American assholes.
You should talk, you fucking crackpot. Christers are some of the most
rabid, frightening people on the planet. Go look at some of their
websites (like www.armyofgod.com) and then tell me I'm wrong. The only
reason they don't engage in spectacular acts of terrorism is that they're
too stupid to know how to pull it off.
>You atheists would be a lot more credible if you were a little less rabid.
So who's rabid?
And you would be a little more credible if you didn't top post.
>Foaming at the mouth so to speak just gets people scared not interested.
So who's foaming at the mouth?
>I'm not American fortunately but I probably know more about American
>politics than I do my own country's. Unfortunately we are subject to a
>steady barrage of CNN and Auri Fleischer, the shrub's dummy.
>
>You want to defend the Constitution then defend it from your own government.
>The contempt that the Executive shows for people is astonishing. Perhaps
>the jingoism of 9/11 has mesmerized the population? I know that US really
>doesn't give a damn about world opinion but my guess is that the rest of the
>world would find US attitudes and foreign policy or lack thereof pretty
>funny if the US wasn't the 800 lb gorilla. Evidence to date suggests that
>US is not interested in helping its neighbours; more like raping and
>pillaging.
>US is concerned only about US. Cheap imports, very cheap energy and
>anything else it thinks it needs. The bush is only concerned with lining up
>the voters for the next election. If slavery were in vogue he's support it.
>In fact he does in a particular way. He vehemently supports anti-birth
>control policies which further his support from the religious right.
>
>You can rail all you want about the taxpayer supporting religious
>denominations but think about it what's the difference between kissing a
>Baptist and cozying up to exon?
>
>buy a gun
>jmw
Hmmm ... looks like *you* are the mouth foamer.
And now, onto Charles:
>"Charles" <tm...@rollanet.org> wrote in message
>news:3CDFC96C...@rollanet.org...
>> Your post lost all credibility with the first sentence. The constitution
>> does not call for separation of church and state, but rather it calls for
>> protection of the church from the state.
>>
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
-The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
That governmental body charged with upholding and interpreting the
constitution, the Supreme Court, long ago and many times, has
determined that the only way to FAIRLY uphold the First Amendment was
to effectively separate church and state. Thomas Jefferson, one of
the main architects of the constitution, was extremely interested in
the complete separation of church and state as is evidenced by his
writings.
Interestingly, most intelligent religious people (there are a few)
also believe in that separation and no sooner want their church
meddling in the government than the govenment meddling in their
church.
Case in point, my mother and I are at opposite ends of the religious
spectrum but we both agree on the separation issue.
Pope Rudraigh
Denizen of Darkness (DoD #1)
http://www.rudraigh.com/afjc/home.html
"Holy Trinity my triple cheeked ass!" - Pope Rudraigh
" I too have learned the "grief" of cross posting, and in particular,
in replying to those denizens of darkness who live in afjc and
alt.christnet."- " Fervent" 11/11/2001
<snip>
>Your post lost all credibility with the first sentence. The constitution
>does not call for separation of church and state, but rather it calls for
>protection of the church from the state.
Since it forbids the establishment of any religion, how do we know
what organization is a church and thereby eligible for this protection
you talk about?
Thomas P.
"You know", he added very gravely, "it's one of the most serious things that can possibly happen to one in a battle-to get one's head cut off."
Abject horseshit. It's not the state that thinks I shouldn't buy beer
(a taxable commodity) on Sunday (the fucking xian sabbath).
Learn to read. The First AMENDMENT states, and I quote,
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
No law extablishing or prohibiting sounds like seperation to me.
And to the federal courts as well. Hence the term "wall of
separation" that everyone seems to know about except you -
"Shortly after Jefferson was elected president, some Baptists from
Connecticut asked that he declare a national day of fasting in order
to help the country recover from a bitterly fought presidential
campaign. He felt that the Federal government should not recognize a
day set aside for religious reasons. In his reply of 1802-JAN-1, he
stated:
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely
between
man and his God, that he owes to none other for his faith or
his worship,
that the legislative powers of government reach actions only,
and not
opinions, I contemplate with solemn reverence that act of the
whole
American people which declared that their legislature should
'make no law
respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the
free exercise
thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and
State."
This concept of a "wall of separation" has been used in federal
court decisions in the US, so it is the accepted, legal interpretation
of the first amendment. So get over yourself.
jwk
It sure isn't the federal government, either.
Dean
Have you ever tried to put a baby baptist in your tank? You have to
poke them in with a poker. They make a lot of noise when you're doing
it.
>"Dr. Rev. Chuck, M.D., P.A." wrote:
>>
>> Charles wrote:
>> >
>> > Your post lost all credibility with the first sentence. The constitution
>> > does not call for separation of church and state, but rather it calls for
>> > protection of the church from the state.
>>
>> Abject horseshit. It's not the state that thinks I shouldn't buy beer
>> (a taxable commodity) on Sunday (the fucking xian sabbath).
>
>It sure isn't the federal government, either.
>
It certainly has been. I have no idea what the rules are now, but
military bases have had blue laws in force, as have territories under
Federal administration.
>Dean
snip
> You atheists would be a lot more credible if you were a little less rabid....
ROTFLMFAO! That is the best example of the pot calling the
kettle black that I have ever seen.
--
David J. Vorous
Yosemite Llama Ranch
da...@TheLlamaRanch.com
http://www.TheLlamaRanch.com
UDP for WebTV
Americans are cattle, what else is new? This is coming from an
American.
> You want to defend the Constitution then defend it from your own government.
> The contempt that the Executive shows for people is astonishing. Perhaps
> the jingoism of 9/11 has mesmerized the population? I know that US really
> doesn't give a damn about world opinion but my guess is that the rest of the
> world would find US attitudes and foreign policy or lack thereof pretty
> funny if the US wasn't the 800 lb gorilla. Evidence to date suggests that
> US is not interested in helping its neighbours; more like raping and
> pillaging.
> US is concerned only about US. Cheap imports, very cheap energy and
> anything else it thinks it needs. The bush is only concerned with lining up
> the voters for the next election. If slavery were in vogue he's support it.
> In fact he does in a particular way. He vehemently supports anti-birth
> control policies which further his support from the religious right.
In case you didn't notice we're not great fans of good ol' Dubya
here... Except maybe Charles.
> You can rail all you want about the taxpayer supporting religious
> denominations but think about it what's the difference between kissing a
> Baptist and cozying up to exon?
Really, I don't see what all this has to do with Atheism... If you're
really in tune with American politics you'd recognize that ignorance
and the "sheep mentality" (Americans have a real problem with both of
these) are far more influential forces than any one man. Bush wouldn't
be a problem if people spent five seconds thinking about who they vote
for. To this day I still cannot understand why elderly voters in
Florida would support a man who plans to bankrupt Social Security or
why women would support a candidate with an anti-choice platform.
Matt
"The Christian god is a three headed monster; cruel, evil and
capricious. If one wishes to know more of this raging, three headed,
beast-like god, one only needs to look at the caliber of the people
who say they serve him. The are always of two classes: fools and
hypocrites."
-- Thomas Jefferson
I'm not in the military.
Thomas Jefferson explained that this was indeed intended as a "wall of
separation between church and state". It was largely religious
conservatives such as the Anabaptists who voted him into the office of
president. He had protected them from the religious majority of his
home state Virginia when he had been governor. Altho he was a Deist
(practically an atheist (or worse, a Unitarian)) they knew that he
would protect them from the tyranny of the majority. And he did. If
Mr. Bush were sponsoring Wiccan or New Age charities with government
money, would you be OK with that?
If some of my fellow athesits are a little harsh at times, maybe it's
because they're tired of hearing that they 1. are not good citizens,
2. are really believers, but they just won't admit it, 3. are
necessarily unethical, 4. "have faith" that there is no god... etc.
Your brief comment above suggests a major historical revisionism. Half
the founding fathers were atheists or Deists, and the more
conventional believers (such as Madison and Washington) were very
skittish about State-supported religion.
> You atheists would be a lot more credible if you were a little less rabid.
That's funny, I don't remember anyone being tortured by an atheist
inquisition,
or atheists forcing schools to give equal time to evolution and creationism.
Nor do I recall atheists telling people with whom they don't agree that they
-must- believe or face an infinity in a VeryBadPlace.
> I'm not American fortunately but I probably know more about American
> politics than I do my own country's.
Watching American news programmes does not make you a political insider.
> Unfortunately we are subject to a steady barrage of CNN and Auri
Fleischer,
> the shrub's dummy.
> You want to defend the Constitution then defend it from your own
government.
That's one reason why there -is- a constitution; to protect the people and
judiciary
from the executive.
socode
you fuck kids day in/day out and want me to forcibly believe a desert demon created women out of a
man's ribs, and dare talk me about rabid?
Go assrape your long haired holeridden Jew madman, and stop bothering your betters, cumsponge.
--
:Maeljin:
(Damned by Dore, #Primo in Italia)
ICQ UIN 24875529
And we who were so scorned
shall always wish to make their end.
Our words to still their voice.
Our hands to break their worthless necks.
(VNV Nation - Procession)
Neither is Julia Roberts, as far as I know. I guess you two have
something in common.
"Ron" <ron...@afjc.bunker3> wrote in message
news:MPG.1749b3ed3...@news.alt.net...
What it has to do with atheism is that unfortunately religion is getting
more and more embroiled in the political activities of the world in general
This is really scary and could get us all deaded. Since the Muslims poked
US in the eye with a very sharp stick last September, god and his/her
minions have become extremely prominent on the face of US politics. People
are praying to this and that and calling on their version of god to smite
the people that believe differently. Sounds like a fresh startup of the
crusades.
jmw
"Matthew Tyler" <ma...@dfstudios.com> wrote in message
news:44eaef82.02051...@posting.google.com...
The Constitution doesn't protect the people from the executive. The
executive does what it wants. It stuffs the supreme court and tries to
control the senate and congress. We have a similar setup where I live.
There is an group known as the PMO's office (Prime Minister's Office) which
consists of the head dude and his faithful sycophants. They work on the
basis of "lets do....; piss on the voters we have N years to get back in
shape".The only thing that protects the people from the government is
money=power. Yah I know the state provided public defenders, most of whom
couldn't win a parking ticket charge. I always believed holding people
without charge was unconstitutional. I would suggest that for some 300
people in guantanimo that's not the case apparently they have no rights of
any kind. But they're terrorists you argue. That hasn't been proven nor is
it likely to be in all cases.
Yu all come back now yah hear
jmw
"socode" <sc...@socode.com> wrote in message
news:abqdkt$rbv$1...@suaar1aa.prod.compuserve.com...
: Socode,
: I suggest you look up the word rabid in the context
: that I used it.
There is no dictionary that deals with how you, specifically
use words. As you presumably did not mean that atheists suffer
from, rabies, it would mean violent or fanatical or both.
: Creationism vs evolution is just something that people
: concentrate on when they haven't got the will or know-how
: to solve problems like hunger and poverty.
No, it's something that people can think about, discuss and
have strong views on, like many other issues. Personally
I don't even have the power to solve problems like hunger
and poverty.
: It looks like they're doing something and I suspect in the main
: most people really don't care about the outcome anyways.
Many do care, one way or the other. It affects and is affected by
the separation of church and state, the quality of scientific
education and the value of being able to question, the favoring of
one brand of cult over another and so on.
: On the obverse side I've never heard of Atheists offering anything to
: people other than contradiction of their belief systems.
Atheism is not itself a belief system or philosophy; it is the state of
not believing in a god or gods. Atheists may of course choose to "offer"
something else but they a it would make sense to define them by what
they're offering and not their atheism.
: Everyone is afraid of the unknown.
Not all things that are unknown cause fear, and not all people
will be afraid of everything unknown. I don't know next week's
lottery results, for example, and neither I nor most people are
afraid regardless of what they turn out to be.
: The state of dead is unknown.
It's known that you'd be dead, and no-one has been known to
come back, or tell of anything that happened thereafter. It's
rational to assume that no more need be known.
: Religion offers apparently some knowledge of being dead.
It offers supposition on faith alone.
: The Constitution doesn't protect the people from the
: executive.
No system is perfect. However, they have more protection than
if a constitution did not exist at all.
: The executive does what it wants.
It tries to, but even the executive can be moribund in internal
differences.
socode
>Ron, baby can I call you that?
>Where in the world did you get the idea I was Christian or of any religious
>belief? This is the same type of stupidity that shows the world the
>intellectual vacum that's present in the atheist mind set .
>F...ing Crackpot": how common Surely you could have used something more
>modern and creative. Keep it coming but please please work at a bit or have
>your mommy help you.
>jmw
*sniff* *sniff*
I smell troll.
--
"Religion is all bunk."
- Thomas Edison
>Matt,
>I still stand by my statement but on a certain amount of reflection I must
>agree dealing with the born-again and the sons of Mohamed may require a
>certain amount of rabidness. Didn't someone once say "there's nothing more
>zealous than a convert" or words to that effect. I like your quote from
>Thomas Jefferson. From what I have read about him he was a man who knew his
>own mind. He was not without flaws but in the main showed remarkable
>astuteness in the political arena, unlike certain shrubs (not quite a bush
>in stature).
>
Oh, I see the point of your posts now. You're just simply
anti-American. I was starting to wonder why your posts had no actual
points other than whining, as I just gave you the benefit of the doubt
of having something constructive to say.
You call it whining. I call it observations. Techically it is impossible to
whine with this medium since I don't have any way of conveying a whine to
you even if I wanted to.
this has been fun and helped fill in my day. Keep it coming.
jmw
"nawhead" <nawN...@ISGOODSPAMpobox.com> wrote in message
news:k0d2eu4c9ob1o6b58...@4ax.com...
Damn, darling - At least do a little spell checking before you try to act all
superior ;)
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo and EAC Spellcaster
Delighted Member of SMASH
#1557
Religion in all forms is a paradox. On one hand many faiths promise eternal
life yet are responsible for untold millions of deaths. I find it very
difficult to reconcile the two facts.
I wish I knew this week's lottery number its worth about $20 mill US tax
free.
I see we have different views on the world which is good. I'm sure if we
got together we could make it perfect.
take care
jmw
"socode" <soc...@socode.com> wrote in message
news:abrat1$qhu$1...@suaar1ab.prod.compuserve.com...
jmw
"freehand" <ker...@alexmo.com> wrote in message
news:12c1ca13.02051...@posting.google.com...
Except in this case it would be the pot calling
something-not-really-dark-at-all black.
jwk
> Ron, baby can I call you that?
> Where in the world did you get the idea I was Christian or of any religious
> belief? This is the same type of stupidity that shows the world the
> intellectual vacum that's present in the atheist mind set .
> F...ing Crackpot": how common Surely you could have used something more
> modern and creative. Keep it coming but please please work at a bit or have
> your mommy help you.
> jmw
>
<Top posting corrected>
I can answer that, with your own words -
"You atheists would be a lot more credible if you were a little less
rabid.
Foaming at the mouth so to speak just gets people scared not
interested."
"You atheists" means that you do not consider yourself an atheist. So
you are a theist. QED Ron assumed you were a christer because that is
the typical, self-righteous bastard that spouts off here. Xers are
also commonly the ones calling atheists names then chiding us for
calling them names back. In other words - loons. So if the shoe
fits...
jwk
BAAWA
Nope. For me bashing assholes like you is what it is all about. So I
really must thank you for making yourself such a juicy target. Keep
it up.
>"nawhead" <nawN...@ISGOODSPAMpobox.com> wrote in message
>news:k0d2eu4c9ob1o6b58...@4ax.com...
>> Oh, I see the point of your posts now. You're just simply
>> anti-American. I was starting to wonder why your posts had no actual
>> points other than whining, as I just gave you the benefit of the doubt
>> of having something constructive to say.
>>
>wrong again I'm not anti any more than you're anti. Why do people retreat
>to "you're just...." or "you're simply...." when they feel questioned about
>their perceived moral superiority? I'm not just anything. I'm a sentient
>being and I seriously question the xenophobia and jingoism that seems to
>have bloomed in US recently. I wonder about the "we have ours screw the
>rest of you" that seems to be developing. I ponder about the intelligence
>of the head of the most powerful nation on earth. The country I live in is
>no better than US. The only difference is that my government can't get me
>turned into sub-atomic particles by doing something stupid. Governments and
>individuals at all levels have objectives that do not consider nor care
>about the consequences of their outcome. US is a great nation in many
>aspects and could be even greater but nowhere is it written that the North
>American life style and political system is superior to any other for a
>particular place and time. I think it was Winston Churchill who said
>something to the effect that democracy is not the best system but its the
>best we've got right now or words to that effect.
Uh uh... spit it out man! You're ranting and raving like a man who
can't form a coherent logical conclusion to save his life. Is that
your point? To just look like a blowhard with a stick up yer ass?
"Atheists are this... atheists are that... America sucks.. but America
isn't that bad... it could be better... democracy isn't the best, but
it's the best we got..."
And...?! (:o
You're just telling us what we already know about America. I could
have told you that. What do you want an ass-kissing or something?
But what does this have anything to do with atheists? So calm down
already. If you have anything other to do than just "ponder" very,
very over-excitedly and tell us emphatically what's obvious to us,
then do so. But I've yet to figure out the connection between your
America sucks "observation" and atheists. Maybe the fact that you
insulted people in this group for no understandable reason is why
you're getting such derisive replies? You think?
Well, the "you atheists" phrase is just a slight give-away.
Got any more dumbass questions for us?
Is that what that stench is? I thought Oldguyteck had shit in his
Depends, again.
> ... Where did I say I was christian...
If it whines like a christian, makes no sense, babbles on
about nothing; it must be a christian. If you don't want to
get called one, don't act like one.
> Rabid in the context I used it meant going to extreme lengths in expressing
> a feeling, interest or opinion.....
Kind of like what you're doing.
I have seen this kind of claim being posted by several atheists, and
it really seems to undermine your credibility. If you take the 100 or
so individuals who signed the Declaration or the U.S. Constitution,
you will NEVER come close to identifying anywhere near 50 who were
Deists, and I would challenge you to identify 2 who were atheists.
Dr. Miles Bradford of the University of Dallas did a study of the
framers of the Constitution for example, identifying the
denominational commitments each of these men had pledged:
New Hampshire
John Langdon, CONGREGATIONALIST
Nicholas Gilman, CONGREGATIONALIST
Massachusetts
Elbridge Gerry, EPISCOPALIAN
Rufus King, EPISCOPALIAN
Caleb Strong, CONGREGATIONALIST
Nathaniel Gorham, CONGREGATIONALIST
Connecticutt
Roger Sherman, CONGREGATIONALIST
William Johnson, EPISCOPALIAN
Oliver Ellsworth, CONGREGATIONALIST
New York
Alexander Hamilton, EPISCOPALIAN
John Lansing, DUTCH REFORMED
Robert Yates, DUTCH REFORMED
New Jersey
William Patterson, PRESBYTERIAN
William Livingston, PRESBYTERIAN
Jonathan Dayton, EPISCOPALIAN
David Brearly, EPISCOPALIAN
William Churchill Houston, PRESBYTERIAN
Pennsylvania
Benjamin Franklin, DEIST
Robert Morris, EPISCOPALIAN
James Wilson, DEIST (?)
Gouverneur Morris, EPISCOPALIAN
Thomas Mifflin, QUAKER
George Clymer, QUAKER
Thomas FitzSimmons, ROMAN CATHOLIC
Jared Ingersoll, PRESBYTERIAN
Delaware
John Dickinson, QUAKER
George Read, EPISCOPALIAN
Richard Bassett, METHODIST
Gunning Beford, PRESBYTERIAN
Jacod Broom, LUTHERAN
Maryland
Luther Martin, EPISCOPALIAN
Daniel Carroll, ROMAN CATHOLIC
John Mercer, EPISCOPALIAN
James McHenry, PRESBYTERIAN
Daniel Jennifer, EPISCOPALIAN
Virginia
George Washington, EPISCOPALIAN
James Madison, EPISCOPALIAN
George Mason, EPISCOPALIAN
Edmund Randolph, EPISCOPALIAN
James Blair, Jr., EPISCOPALIAN
James McClung, PRESBYTERIAN
George Wythe, EPISCOPALIAN
North Carolina
William Davie, PRESBYTERIAN
Hugh Williamson, DEIST (?)/PRESBYTERIAN
William Blount, PRESBYTERIAN
Alexander Martin, PRESBYTERIAN
Richard Spaight, EPISCOPALIAN
South Carolina
John Rutledge, EPISCOPALIAN
Charles Pinckney, EPISCOPALIAN
Pierce Butler, EPISCOPALIAN
Charles Pinckney, III, EPISCOPALIAN
Georgia
Abraham Baldwin, CONGREGATIONALIST
William Leigh Pierce, EPISCOPALIAN
William Houstoun, EPISCOPALIAN
William Few, METHODIST
The predictable response is to allege that these 55 were all liars,
hypocrites, and hood-winkers; that they really were insincere in their
confirmations and religious vows. To take that line requires a lot of
stretching, guessing, and speculating--very irresponsible approaches
to historical inquiry. I obviously cannot stop you from engaging in
that sort of rhetoric, but it really does harm your credibility.
Ambrose
>I have seen this kind of claim being posted by several atheists, and
>it really seems to undermine your credibility.
...
[list deleted]
...
>The predictable response is to allege that these 55 were all liars,
>hypocrites, and hood-winkers; that they really were insincere in their
>confirmations and religious vows.
Well, now I'll just have to call *you* a liar unless you can
show such a response.
>To take that line requires a lot of
>stretching, guessing, and speculating--very irresponsible approaches
>to historical inquiry. I obviously cannot stop you from engaging in
>that sort of rhetoric, but it really does harm your credibility.
Rhetoric that's the product of your dishonest imagination
harms *his* credibility?
---
Merlyn LeRoy
Ha! You think he thinks? I've read his other posts. I won't even
respond to the knuckle-headed wombat felcher.
Pope Rudraigh
Denizen of Darkness (DoD #1)
http://www.rudraigh.com/afjc/home.html
"Holy Trinity my triple cheeked ass!" - Pope Rudraigh
" I too have learned the "grief" of cross posting, and in particular,
in replying to those denizens of darkness who live in afjc and
alt.christnet."- " Fervent" 11/11/2001
You're a liar? And a self-righteous one, at that?
That's every war that's ever been fought since Sam Motherfucking Clemens'
"War Prayer." And a few prior. Tell us something new.
So, you want to string Osama up by his nuts, or not?
In case you aren't aware, US laws only grant rights to US citizens.
Technically, anyone on US soil who isn't a citizen isn't guaranteed a single
right, except for persons with visas, though I'm not sure if that's required
by law, or a courtesy to the country they're from (or both). Some courts
have granted rights, such as education for all children, but this sort of
thing isn't as common as you might think.
> Yu all come back now yah hear
> jmw
>
<snip>
~Dave
a.a. #2049
It is more likely that he is a supercilious troll in love with his own
cleverness (delusional in other words).
Thomas P.
"You know", he added very gravely, "it's one of the most serious things that can possibly happen to one in a battle-to get one's head cut off."
He wants to do something with Osama's nuts, but it doesn't involve
string.
I'd have to disagree. I think he thinks. He thinks he is much more
cleaver than he really is. He thinks his little word play impresses
this group. He's dead wrong, but "he thinks" it anyway.
jwk
BAAWA
>
>"jmw" <jmw...@sprint.ca> wrote in message
>news:uP9E8.9617$4b.4...@newscontent-01.sprint.ca...
><snip>.
> Yah I know the state provided public defenders, most of whom
>> couldn't win a parking ticket charge. I always believed holding people
>> without charge was unconstitutional. I would suggest that for some 300
>> people in guantanimo that's not the case apparently they have no rights of
>> any kind. But they're terrorists you argue. That hasn't been proven nor
>is
>> it likely to be in all cases.
>>
>
>In case you aren't aware, US laws only grant rights to US citizens.
You are very mistaken.
>Technically, anyone on US soil who isn't a citizen isn't guaranteed a single
>right, except for persons with visas, though I'm not sure if that's required
>by law, or a courtesy to the country they're from (or both). Some courts
>have granted rights, such as education for all children, but this sort of
>thing isn't as common as you might think.
>
>> Yu all come back now yah hear
>> jmw
>>
><snip>
>
>~Dave
>a.a. #2049
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Thomas P.
Do keep up the vox et praeterea nihil
jmw
enjoy
jmw
keep it coming, insult is just a word, but stupidity is yours forever.
jmw
I think that's enough material for all of you to work with. Give it your
best shot.
JMW
"nawhead" <nawN...@ISGOODSPAMpobox.com> wrote in message
news:2o23eu48r9rb76kt6...@4ax.com...
> ....
> In case you aren't aware, US laws only grant rights to US citizens.....
I see his problem now, he's christian AND Republican.
I never said Brian Westly responded that way, Westly had a huge enough
credibility problem when he said that half of the founders were deists
or atheists; I alleged that this is a N.B. "predictable" response, it
is the typical response that those who post in these groups try to
pull out when confronted with the fact that 90% or so of the founders
were communicant members of protestant denominations, denominations
which required these men to profess and avow a Christian creed in
order to be members.
Oftentimes people will respond by saying that these men were simply
not being sincere or honest.
For example, a couple of days ago, a poster responded in a similar
thread by arguing that predictable response in order to explain away
the religious statements of the founders:
"the common trend that people in the public light have of saying and
doing one thing in public while frequently believing and saying
totally different things in private."
See
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&selm=o7n1eug0rcng1n5p7jd2kjhstb6o4dan6e%404ax.com
> >To take that line requires a lot of
> >stretching, guessing, and speculating--very irresponsible approaches
> >to historical inquiry. I obviously cannot stop you from engaging in
> >that sort of rhetoric, but it really does harm your credibility.
>
> Rhetoric that's the product of your dishonest imagination
> harms *his* credibility?
No, what has harmed his credibility is saying that half of the
founders were atheists or deists when the historical evidence clearly
proves that he is full of baloney.
Framers of the Constitution and their religious professions:
Just to get the name calling correct I'm not atheist, agnostic or of any
religious faith christian or otherwise. Given the calibre of the drivel
thats appearing in this newsgroup I certainly would never become an
atheist( unless of course it paid very, very well). Come on back with
something about the foregoing sentence I want to see what level of absurdity
people can descend into.
Kiss a lama for me
jmw
"David J. Vorous" <da...@thellamaranch.com> wrote in message
news:3CE1A94E...@thellamaranch.com...
> perhaps you are right....
Perhaps? Rude top posters are always wrong.
I'd really like to get into a discussion with you about atheism.
Unfortunately people seem to get very defensive when their value system is
questioned. I'm not asking you to change your views, only explain them.
How do atheists recruit new converts? Do they not proselytize? It certainly
looks like isn't through their great rhetoric or sense of humour winning
converts.
You know all the things I've touched on well congratulations. Did I say
America sucks? I try not to use such imprecise words as "sucks".
I can whine, babble ,rant ,criticize, poke fun at , insult, take exception
to etc. etc. That's one of the virtues of the system as it stands. You can
do the same.
I don't want you to apologize just work to make things better.
jmw
>:|ker...@alexmo.com (freehand) wrote in message news:<12c1ca13.02051...@posting.google.com>...
>:|> Charles <tm...@rollanet.org> wrote in message news:<3CDFC96C...@rollanet.org>...
>:|> > Your post lost all credibility with the first sentence. The constitution
>:|> > does not call for separation of church and state, but rather it calls for
>:|> > protection of the church from the state.
>:|>
>:|> Half the founding fathers were atheists or Deists,
>:|
>:|I have seen this kind of claim being posted by several atheists, and
>:|it really seems to undermine your credibility. If you take the 100 or
>:|so individuals who signed the Declaration or the U.S. Constitution,
>:|you will NEVER come close to identifying anywhere near 50 who were
>:|Deists, and I would challenge you to identify 2 who were atheists.
>:|
>:|Dr. Miles Bradford of the University of Dallas did a study of the
>:|framers of the Constitution for example, identifying the
>:|denominational commitments each of these men had pledged:
>:|
The list is rather meaningless.
(1) First and foremost, regardless of what religion a man may or may not
profess, the men who framed the constitution separated church (religion)
and state (govt.)
(2) The men who framed the amendments further reinforced that separation.
(3) Most of these men were born and grew up during a time when most of the
colonies had either a single established religion or multiple
establishments. Most of these men lived under a system, at some point or
other, whereby they were required by law to support religion in general or
a declared denomination. They were also required by law to declare a
denomination. Most if not all of the men on the list were politicians of
some sort, holding office, etc and most colonies/states, at least early on
still, had religious tests.
(4) What a man might "pledge" with regards to religion and what he actually
believed can be worlds apart. The men of your list would not be the first
group of men who said and did one thing for public and said and did another
thing in private.
If you want, I provide you with a great deal of evidence supporting the
following:
(5) It can be safely said that of the "founders"
Some were orthodox Christians that were very into religion..
Some were orthodox Christians who were rather indifferent to religion
Some were Deist (Non-orthodox)
Some were Quakers (Non-orthodox)
Some were Catholic (Considered non-orthodox by most Protestant types who
were orthodox)
Some were Unitarian (Non-orthodox)
Some probably were closet atheists or "infidels"
I might add that often times "ORTHODOX CHRISTIANS" meant a member of the
majority or established religion of a particular area or region. All
others were dissenters and, more often than not, not viewed as "orthodox
Christians."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
None of the first six Presidents would qualify as "orthodox" Christians, as
that term was understood then.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
**********************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
"Dedicated to combatting 'history by sound bite'."
Now including a re-publication of Tom Peters
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE HOME PAGE
and
Audio links to Supreme Court oral arguments and
Speech by civil rights/constitutional lawyer and others.
Page is a member of the following web rings:
The First Amendment Ring--&--The Church-State Ring
Freethought Ring--&--The History Ring
American History WebRing--&--Legal Research Ring
**********************************************
>I never said Brian Westly responded that way,
I never claimed you said I responded this way.
>Westly had a huge enough
>credibility problem when he said that half of the founders were deists
>or atheists;
I never said this, liar.
>I alleged that this is a N.B. "predictable" response, it
>is the typical response that those who post in these groups try to
>pull out
When? Give me a google groups URL when someone has said this.
...
>> >To take that line requires a lot of
>> >stretching, guessing, and speculating--very irresponsible approaches
>> >to historical inquiry. I obviously cannot stop you from engaging in
>> >that sort of rhetoric, but it really does harm your credibility.
>>
>> Rhetoric that's the product of your dishonest imagination
>> harms *his* credibility?
>No, what has harmed his credibility is saying that half of the
>founders were atheists or deists when the historical evidence clearly
>proves that he is full of baloney.
When has he said this? Give me a google groups URL.
---
Merlyn LeRoy
That's odd. I never mentioned anything about top posting, at least not
in your case. Feeling guilty about something, troll-boy?
>
> wrong again I'm not anti any more than you're anti.
>
Liar.
--
St. Jackanapes
http://www.jackanapes.ws
==========================================================
*NOTE TO CHRISTIANS PRAYING FOR ME:
**********************************************************
Matthew 6:7: And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans,
for they think they will be heard because of their many words.
-------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.jackanapes.ws/gifs/jesuskills.gif
He's talking about you, colon loaf.
> Oftentimes people will respond by saying that these men were simply
> not being sincere or honest.
Liar.
> ker...@alexmo.com (freehand) wrote in message news:<12c1ca13.02051...@posting.google.com>...
> > Charles <tm...@rollanet.org> wrote in message news:<3CDFC96C...@rollanet.org>...
> > > Your post lost all credibility with the first sentence. The constitution
> > > does not call for separation of church and state, but rather it calls for
> > > protection of the church from the state.
> >
> > Half the founding fathers were atheists or Deists,
>
> I have seen this kind of claim being posted by several atheists, and
> it really seems to undermine your credibility. If you take the 100 or
> so individuals who signed the Declaration or the U.S. Constitution,
> you will NEVER come close to identifying anywhere near 50 who were
> Deists, and I would challenge you to identify 2 who were atheists.
>
> Dr. Miles Bradford of the University of Dallas did a study of the
> framers of the Constitution for example, identifying the
> denominational commitments each of these men had pledged:
>
> The predictable response is to allege that these 55 were all liars,
> hypocrites, and hood-winkers; that they really were insincere in their
> confirmations and religious vows. To take that line requires a lot of
> stretching, guessing, and speculating--very irresponsible approaches
> to historical inquiry. I obviously cannot stop you from engaging in
> that sort of rhetoric, but it really does harm your credibility.
>
> Ambrose
>
How many fucking times are you going to post this, fuck face??
--
Cerberus
******
Hardcore spiritual malefactor &
Denizen of Darkness
Maybe, but not by much.
Episcopalian?
Don't you mean C of E?
Okay, you're just babbling now.
Or, as you'd spell it: "your" just babbling.
Unless he's quoting research on Altar-boy Abuse 101.
Excuse me. I read your name on top of kermits name. I should have said
Kermit had a huge enough problem when he said that half of the
founders were deists or atheists.
> >I alleged that this is a N.B. "predictable" response, it
> >is the typical response that those who post in these groups try to
> >pull out
>
> When? Give me a google groups URL when someone has said this.
Look in this very thread at the first couple of posts, one by Jalison
and one by Lord Calvert. They both argue on the grounds that the
founders likely were disingenuous in their "public" professions of
faith.
Here's the URL for it--
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&selm=8b85euka48qpumla2ae5v63r06787j1vpr%404ax.com
> >> >To take that line requires a lot of
> >> >stretching, guessing, and speculating--very irresponsible approaches
> >> >to historical inquiry. I obviously cannot stop you from engaging in
> >> >that sort of rhetoric, but it really does harm your credibility.
> >>
> >> Rhetoric that's the product of your dishonest imagination
> >> harms *his* credibility?
>
> >No, what has harmed his credibility is saying that half of the
> >founders were atheists or deists when the historical evidence clearly
> >proves that he is full of baloney.
>
> When has he said this? Give me a google groups URL.
It is the first line at the top of this page, posted by Kermit.
Ambrose
Absolutely true, but not on the subject being argued in this post. The
assertion being argued is whether these men who separated church and
state were atheists and deists (see the first line in this post
above). You don't seem to have the attention span to stay on topic;
thus, what is rather meaningless here is the subject of separation of
church and state.
> (2) The men who framed the amendments further reinforced that separation.
True, but irrelevant to the atheists & deist assertion which is the
focus of this post.
> (3) Most of these men were born and grew up during a time when most of the
> colonies had either a single established religion or multiple
> establishments. Most of these men lived under a system, at some point or
> other, whereby they were required by law to support religion in general or
> a declared denomination. They were also required by law to declare a
> denomination. Most if not all of the men on the list were politicians of
> some sort, holding office, etc and most colonies/states, at least early on
> still, had religious tests.
Okay.
> (4) What a man might "pledge" with regards to religion and what he actually
> believed can be worlds apart. The men of your list would not be the first
> group of men who said and did one thing for public and said and did another
> thing in private.
Here is where you and I have a fundamental disagreement. I feel that
the evidence supports the moral integrity of the bulk of the founders,
you think they were hood-winkers, playing politics for the sake of
reputation.
I suppose here is where we reach an impasse. I do think, however, that
most serious scholarly biographers would concur with the assessment
that these men were of the finest integrity. See, for example, David
McCullough's recent best selling biography of Adams. McCullough would
certainly disagree with your jaundiced view of the founding brothers
as men who made promises with their fingers crossed behind their
backs.
> If you want, I provide you with a great deal of evidence supporting the
> following:
>
> (5) It can be safely said that of the "founders"
>
> Some were orthodox Christians that were very into religion..
> Some were orthodox Christians who were rather indifferent to religion
> Some were Deist (Non-orthodox)
> Some were Quakers (Non-orthodox)
> Some were Catholic (Considered non-orthodox by most Protestant types who
> were orthodox)
> Some were Unitarian (Non-orthodox)
> Some probably were closet atheists or "infidels"
I have little contention with what you have said here, with the
possible exception of your last point. The question at hand, however,
is the question of percentages. The initial poster in this thread
claimed that 50% belonged to the category of deists and atheists. No
one has posted any evidence to support that contention. Your list of
"somes" is rather easy to assert. Some can mean just one. It is rather
safe to say "some" about anything.
> I might add that often times "ORTHODOX CHRISTIANS" meant a member of the
> majority or established religion of a particular area or region. All
> others were dissenters and, more often than not, not viewed as "orthodox
> Christians."
Thus, you prove the point that "orthodox" was a highly relative term
and therefore cannot be used with precision when you start to say who
was and who wasn't orthodox.
Ambrose
Normally, accusing me of *either* of those would merit an instant
kill-file. However, since I was so horribly mistaken, I'll make an
exception. however, I'll thank you in advance *never* to make that
accusation of me again. It'd be very similar to me accusing you of being a
rich, bigoted scum-sucker, whose head and ass are interchangable. Wait...
that's pretty much what you *did* call me... hmm... that's pretty
insulting...
[slaps David with large fish]
Okay, that's for calling me a christian. My grevious error made up for the
republican accusation.
Incidentally, what's the 'UDP' in your sig stand for?
>
>
> --
> David J. Vorous
> Yosemite Llama Ranch
> da...@TheLlamaRanch.com
> http://www.TheLlamaRanch.com
>
> UDP for WebTV
>
~Dave
a.a. #2049
> ...
> Incidentally, what's the 'UDP' in your sig stand for?
Usenet Death Penalty. A rare action taken by the netgods in
alt.config. Usually for an ISP that harbors, or aids via poor
management, usenet abusers. I'd like to see a UDP for WebTV
because I have NEVER seen an intelligent post from anyone
using that system.
> This is fun, I've never come across so many people who can see unseen,
> unspoken words in newsgroup messages.
>
> Just to get the name calling correct I'm not atheist, agnostic or of
> any religious faith christian or otherwise. Given the calibre of the
> drivel thats appearing in this newsgroup I certainly would never
> become an atheist( unless of course it paid very, very well). Come on
> back with something about the foregoing sentence I want to see what
> level of absurdity people can descend into.
What do you expect, a dissertation on quantum physics? It's just a
newsgroup, not MIT.
--
Rev Phylter
ULC Ordained minister
Denizen of Darkness #44
AFJC Antipodean Attaché
http://www.rudraigh.com/afjc/regulars.html
In 1787, during the constitutional convention, the American Anglicans
under leadership of William Smith (& Samuel Seabury), formerly felt
best that their name should be "The Protestant Episcopal" church.
There was so much animosity toward the Church of England, residue from
war times, that this was a political necessity.
Additionally, "Episcopalian" had been a synonym for the C of E church
going back many many years. So, in short, "Episcopalian" is the
correct label for these men in 1787.
Ambrose
"~Dave" <dhl111...@email.psu.edu> wrote in message
news:absv01$24...@r02n01.cac.psu.edu...
>
> "jmw" <jmw...@sprint.ca> wrote in message
> news:uP9E8.9617$4b.4...@newscontent-01.sprint.ca...
> <snip>.
> Yah I know the state provided public defenders, most of whom
> > couldn't win a parking ticket charge. I always believed holding people
> > without charge was unconstitutional. I would suggest that for some 300
> > people in guantanimo that's not the case apparently they have no rights
of
> > any kind. But they're terrorists you argue. That hasn't been proven
nor
> is
> > it likely to be in all cases.
> >
>
> In case you aren't aware, US laws only grant rights to US citizens.
> Technically, anyone on US soil who isn't a citizen isn't guaranteed a
single
> right, except for persons with visas, though I'm not sure if that's
required
> by law, or a courtesy to the country they're from (or both). Some courts
> have granted rights, such as education for all children, but this sort of
> thing isn't as common as you might think.
>
> > Yu all come back now yah hear
> > jmw
> >
> <snip>
>
> ~Dave
> a.a. #2049
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
You have put your foot in your mouth. There's proof of my assertion
right in this thread. In response to the list I posted showing the
church professions the framers of the Constitution made... jalison
posted
Date: 2002-05-15 12:59:40 PST
Subject: Re: U.S. Founders and Atheism
"What a man might "pledge" with regards to religion and what he
actually believed can be worlds apart. The men of your list would not
be the first group of men who said and did one thing for public and
said and did another thing in private."
You will see this at this URL--
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&selm=8b85euka48qpumla2ae5v63r06787j1vpr%404ax.com
You have wrongly called me a liar and the courteous response would be
to apologize.
Ambrose
jmw
"Dr. Rev. Chuck, M.D., P.A." <cdub@_REMOVETHIS_erols.com> wrote in message
news:3CE21075.1652@_REMOVETHIS_erols.com...
> jmw wrote:
> >
> > Ron, baby can I call you that?
> > Where in the world did you get the idea I was Christian or of any
religious
> > belief?
>
> You're a liar? And a self-righteous one, at that?
You've just lost any credibility among serious scholars, friend; your
assertion that secular scholarship must be inferior or questionable if
it comes out of "Cat'lick" schools (Georgetown, Notre Dame, Villanova,
Fordham, Marquette, University of Portland, DePaul, etc.) isn't going
to play in the academic guild.
Ambrose
As to your question about Benny laden. There is no evidence that I'm aware
of anywhere in the world that would link Benny laden beyond a reasonable
doubt to the events of Sept 11,2001. In fact there is some reason to
believe that US has finally figured out that Benny is better for their
purposes as an unknown quantity. Put another way the administration
realizes that dead martyrs are more dangerous than un-captured, alleged
fugitives.
You all come back now yah hear?
jmw
"Dr. Rev. Chuck, M.D., P.A." <cdub@_REMOVETHIS_erols.com> wrote in message
news:3CE211F8.C74@_REMOVETHIS_erols.com...
> jmw wrote:
> >
> > What it has to do with atheism is that unfortunately religion is getting
> > more and more embroiled in the political activities of the world in
general
> > This is really scary and could get us all deaded. Since the Muslims
poked
> > US in the eye with a very sharp stick last September, god and his/her
> > minions have become extremely prominent on the face of US politics.
People
> > are praying to this and that and calling on their version of god to
smite
> > the people that believe differently. Sounds like a fresh startup of the
> > crusades.
>
> That's every war that's ever been fought since Sam Motherfucking Clemens'
> "War Prayer." And a few prior. Tell us something new.
>
> So, you want to string Osama up by his nuts, or not?
jmw
"Ronny" <bun...@afjc.eac> wrote in message
news:MPG.174cbdd0c...@news.alt.net...
Is Miss Cleo the"spiritual" advisor that politicians and others of limited
intellect use when they want to have some "thinking" done for them? No,
I've never even heard of her till now. Does she do any tricks or improv?
Cerberus, are you really with 3 heads, a serpent tail and eat raw meat?
What hell do you keep the gate at? Any tours?
Thank you for bringing my attention to the mistake of using the wrong your.
You're correct it should have been you're, mea culpa.
jmw
jmw
Oh heavens me. You really didn't think that THAT was my best shot,
did you? You aren't worth a real flame just yet. I was simply giving
you an honest response. You have to come up quite a bit before you
deserve that much of my attention. Work harder.
jwk