Our President is Pushing Fatih Based Initiative Stuff Again
Charles
does not call for separation of church and state, but rather it calls for
protection of the church from the state.
Freedom Warrior wrote:
> NEW BUSH PUSH FOR FAITH-BASED INITIATIVE USES "CHARITY"
> AS EXCUSE FOR RELIGION SUBSIDY TAX
> Atheists Urge President To Obey First Amendment Separation of Church &
> State
> President Bush today called upon the Senate to approve his controversial
> faith-based initiative, declaring "the federal government should not
> discriminate against faith" when handing out tax dollars.
> "Sorry, but Mr. Bush needs to read the history of the Constitution, and
> the writings of founding fathers like Jefferson and Madison," declared
> Ellen Johnson, President of American Atheists.
> "The American people, especially that 14% that call themselves Atheists,
> Freethinkers, Humanists and others who do not accept religion, should
> not be taxed in order to subsidize faith-based, bigotry-laden social
> programs," added Ms. Johnson.
> Speaking at the White House on Thursday, Mr. Bush urged lawmakers to
> rush passage of the "Charity Aid, Recovery and Empowerment Act of 2000."
> The measure calls for a system of tax deductions and other financial
> incentives to encourage donations to private and faith-based social
> service providers. Receiving little attention, though, is a section
> within the CARE legislation that would smuggle funds to churches,
> mosques, temples and other religious groups through block grants, and
> provide "technical assistance" and other resources.
> "Bush is exploiting our nation's desire to help our neighbors as a way
> of creating an expensive and unsupervised entitlement program for
> religion-based providers," warned Johnson.
> Ron Barrier, National Spokesman for American Atheists, said that CARE
> and other faith-based funding proposals on Capitol Hill and in several
> state legislatures "play fast and loose with taxpayer money, they have
> no accountability and are free to practice bigotry and prejudice in
> hiring and firing employees."
> "There is no evidence that faith-based programs are a 'magic bullet' to
> solving complex problems, especially when government is cutting deep
> into the social service budget. Religious groups are overly lustful for
> a 'partnership with government,' and there is very good reason for that.
> Religious groups cannot go into partnership with each other because they
> hate each other."
> American Atheists is a nationwide movement defending civil rights for
> nonbelievers and the separation of state and church. It also addresses
> issues pertinent to First Amendment public policy.
>
> Visit My Webpage:
> http://www.geocities.com/freedomwarrior5000
jmw
Foaming at the mouth so to speak just gets people scared not interested.
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
"Charles" <tm...@rollanet.org> wrote in message
news:3CDFC96C...@rollanet.org...
Lord Calvert
>does not call for separation of church and state, but rather it calls for
>protection of the church from the state.
The statements of the author of the 1st Amendment (James Madison) do not concur
with your opinion. It is clear by both his words and actions that the complete
separation of church and state, in both directions, was the explicit intent of
the Constition.
"[T]he number, the industry, and the morality of the Priesthood, & the devotion
of the people have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the
Church from the State." – Letter to Robert Walsh, March 2, 1819
"[I]t is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties....Who
does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in
exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any
particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects? that the same
authority which can force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his
property for the support of any one establishment, may force him to conform to
any other establishment in all cases whatsoever?" – From the "Memorial and
Remonstrance," 1785
"The experience of the United States is a happy disproof of the error so long
rooted in the unenlightened minds of well-meaning Christians, as well as in the
corrupt hearts of persecuting usurpers, that without legal incorporation of
religious and civil polity, neither could be supported. A mutual independence
is found most friendly to practical Religion, to social harmony, and to
political prosperity." – Letter to F.L. Schaeffer, Dec. 3, 1821
"Ye States of America, which retain in your Constitution or Codes, any
aberration from the sacred principle of religious liberty, by giving to Caesar
what belongs to God, or joining together what God has put asunder, hasten to
revise & purify your systems, and make the example of your Country as pure &
compleat, in what relates to the freedom of the mind and its allegiance to its
maker, as in what belongs to the legitimate objects of political & civil
institutions. Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion & Govt. in
the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by
Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in
their short history." – "Detached Memoranda," date of authorship unknown,
estimated between 1817 and 1832
"We are teaching the world the great truth that Govts. do better without Kings
& Nobles than with them. The merit will be doubled by the other lesson that
Religion flourishes in greater purity, without than with the aid of Govt." –
Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822
"In the Papal System, Government and Religion are in a manner consolidated, &
that is found to be the worst of Govts. In most of the Govts. of the old world,
the legal establishment of a particular religion and without or with very
little toleration of others makes a part of the Political and Civil
organization and there are few of the most enlightened judges who will maintain
that the system has been favorable either to Religion or to Govt." – Letter
to Jasper Adams, 1832-1833 (date uncertain)
"Having ever regarded the freedom of religious opinion & worship as equally
belonging to every sect, & the secure enjoyment of it as the best human
provision for bringing all either into the same way of thinking, or into that
mutual charity which is the only substitute, I observe with pleasure the view
you give of the spirit in which your Sect partake of the blessings offered by
our Govt. and Laws." – Letter to Mordecai Noah, May 15, 1818
"There is not a shadow of right in the general government to intermeddle with
religion. Its least interference with it, would be a most flagrant usurpation.
I can appeal to my uniform conduct on this subject, that I have warmly
supported religious freedom." – Journal excerpt, June 12, 1788
The Constitution of the U.S. forbids everything like an establishment of a
national religion." – "Detached Memoranda"
"Torrents of blood have been spilt in the old world, by vain attempts of the
secular arm, to extinguish Religious discord, by proscribing all difference in
Religious opinion. Time has at length revealed the true remedy. Every
relaxation of narrow and rigorous policy, wherever it has been tried, has been
found to assuage the disease." – "Memorial and Remonstrance"
"Among the features peculiar to the Political system of the United States, is
the perfect equality of rights which it secures to every religious Sect. And it
is particularly pleasing to observe in the good citizenship of such as have
been most distrusted and oppressed elsewhere, a happy illustration of the
safety and success of this experiment of a just and benignant policy. Equal law
protecting equal rights, are found as they ought to be presumed, the best
guarantee of loyalty and love of country; as well as best calculated to cherish
that mutual respect and good will among Citizens of every religious
denomination which are necessary to social harmony and most favorable to the
advancement of truth." - Letter to Jacob de la Motta, August 1820
"The settled opinion here is that religion is essentially distinct from Civil
Govt. and exempt from its cognizance; that a connexion between them is
injurious to both; that there are causes in the human breast, which ensure the
perpetuity of religion without the aid of the law; that rival sects, with equal
rights, exercise mutual censorships in favor of good morals; that if new sects
arise with absurd opinions or overheated maginations, the proper remedies lie
in time, forbearance and example; that a legal establishment of religion
without a toleration could not be thought of, and with toleration, is no
security for public quiet & harmony, but rather a source of discord &
animosity; and finally that these opinions are supported by experience, which
has shewn that every relaxation of the alliance between Law & religion, from
the partial example of Holland, to its consummation in Pennsylvania Delaware
N.J. [etc.] has been found as safe in practice as it is sounds in theory. Prior
to the Revolution, the Episcopal Church was established by law in this State.
On the Declaration of independence it was left with all other sects, to a
self-support. And no doubt exists that there is much more of religion among now
than there ever was before the change; and particularly in the Sect which
enjoyed the legal patronage. This proves rather more than, that the law is not
necessary to the support of religion." - Letter to Edward Everett, March 19,
1823
"Is the appointment of Chaplains to the two Houses of Congress consistent with
the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom? In
strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution
of the U.S. forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion.
The law appointing Chaplains establishes a religious worship for the national
representatives, to be performed by Ministers of religion, elected by a
majority of them; and these are to be paid out of the national taxes. Does not
this involve the principle of a national establishment, applicable to a
provision for a religious worship for the Constituent as well as of the
representative Body, approved by the majority, and conducted by Ministers of
religion paid by the entire nation." - "Detached Memoranda"
Rich Goranson, Amherst, NY, USA (aa#MCMXCIX)
"If there is a god, must it be sane?" - Lucien LaCroix [Nigel Bennett] from
"Forever Knight"
Ron
> Your post lost all credibility with the first sentence. The constitution
> does not call for separation of church and state
Oh, look, the christers are re-writing the U.S. Constitution to suit
their desires, now. What a bunch of un-American assholes.
Ron
jmw...@sprint.ca says...
> You atheists would be a lot more credible if you were a little less rabid.
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.
Lord Calvert
>> does not call for separation of church and state
>
>Oh, look, the christers are re-writing the U.S. Constitution to suit
>their desires, now. What a bunch of un-American assholes.
Actually they already did that. It was called the Constitution of the
Confederate States of America.
"We, the people of the Confederate States, each State acting in its sovereign
and independent character, in order to form a permanent federal government,
establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, and secure the blessings of
liberty to ourselves and our posterity invoking the favor and guidance of
Almighty God do ordain and establish this Constitution for the Confederate
States of America." - preamble of the CSA Constitution
Rich Goranson, Amherst, NY, USA (aa#MCMXCIX)
"That in this free government all white men are and of right ought to be
entitled to equal civil and political rights; that the servitude of the African
race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and
free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind,
and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian
nations." - Texas Ordinance of Secession, 4 February 1861
Lord Calvert
>
>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.
>
I think Timothy McVeigh did a pretty good job of committing a "spectacular act
of terrorism."
Rich Goranson, Amherst, NY, USA (aa#MCMXCIX)
"If there is a god, must it be sane?" - Lucien LaCroix [Nigel Bennett] from
"Forever Knight"
Pope Rudraigh
>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>
Thomas P.
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.
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."
Rudy172
>Date: 5/13/02 11:03 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <xyQD8.8980$4b.3...@newscontent-01.sprint.ca>
>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?
You need a vacation in Iran.
Lord Calvert
>government involved in
>the latter. It will be interesting to see what happens once the Black
>Muslims, neo-pagans
>and satanist ask for their cut of taxpayer money to "help out."
Bush has already stated that Farrakhan's group will not be eligible because
"Islam preaches hate." If preaching hate is the qualifying factor for denying
admission to the program then I doubt there are many religions which would
qualify...including any Christian sect that regards the NT as its moral
foundation.
Rich Goranson, Amherst, NY, USA (aa#MCMXCIX)
"If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and
children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be
my disciple." - Jesus, Luke 14:26
Dr. Rev. Chuck, M.D., P.A.
>
> 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).
jwk
> does not call for separation of church and state, but rather it calls for
> protection of the church from the state.
>
> Freedom Warrior wrote:
>
> > NEW BUSH PUSH FOR FAITH-BASED INITIATIVE USES "CHARITY"
> > AS EXCUSE FOR RELIGION SUBSIDY TAX
> > Atheists Urge President To Obey First Amendment Separation of Church &
> > State
> > President Bush today called upon the Senate to approve his controversial
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
Dean Kelly
>
> 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.
Dean
J.R.
> 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.
> 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?
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.
Thomas P.
wrote:
>"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
David J. Vorous
> 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
Lord Calvert
>military bases have had blue laws in force, as have territories under
>Federal administration.
I don't know if there was a Blue law case ever brought before the US Supreme
Court but blue laws were effectively shot down by the Ohio Supreme Court a
century and a half ago in Bloom vs Cornelius (1853).
Taken from http://members.tripod.com/~candst/caseadd.htm
The case involved a contract that was signed on a Sunday. The court ruled the
it being signed on a Sunday did not make it invalid. (Some states had laws on
their books that did make such contracts invalid.)
However what is important for us is not just the decision but the following
quotes which can be found in the opinion and which are in direct conflict with
some of the quotes that both U. S. Supreme Court Justice David Brewer and
Religious Right activist and Author David Barton use to prove their arguments.
"Christianity is a part of the common law of England, but, under the provisions
of our constitution, neither Christianity nor any other system of religion is a
part of the law of this state."
(By the way, this is a part of the holding of this case and not part of dicta.
If an Ohio Supreme Court could have made that ruling in the 1850's a Mass and
or Pa court could have made a similar ruling had it wanted to at earlier times
in the 1800's)
From the same holding:
"We have no union of Church and State, nor has our government ever been vested
with authority to enforce any religious observance simply because it is
religious."
From the same holding
"The statute, prohibiting common labor on the Sabbath, could not stand for a
moment as the law of this state, if its sole foundation was the Christian duty
of keeping the day holy, and its sole motive to enforce the observance of that
duty. It is to be regarded as a mere municipal or police regulation, whose
validity is neither strengthened nor weakened by the fact that the day of rest
it enjoins is the Sabbath day."
(Signing a contract on Sunday would have been viewed as common labor)
Rich Goranson, Amherst, NY, USA (aa#MCMXCIX)
"Any idiot can root for the Yankees. It takes a real fan of the game of
baseball to root for the Expos." - me, 12 May 2002 on
alt.sports.baseball.montreal-expos
Contract Bud Selig!
Matthew Tyler
> Foaming at the mouth so to speak just gets people scared not interested.
> 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.
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
Dr. Rev. Chuck, M.D., P.A.
>
> On Mon, 13 May 2002 19:39:22 -0400, Dean Kelly <dean...@erols.com>
> wrote:
>
> >"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.
I'm not in the military.
freehand
> does not call for separation of church and state, but rather it calls for
> protection of the church from the state.
>
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.
socode
news:xyQD8.8980$4b.3...@newscontent-01.sprint.ca...
> 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
Maeljin
> You atheists would be a lot more credible if you were a little less rabid.
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)
Mental Disorders: Collect The Whole Set!
Thomas P.
Neither is Julia Roberts, as far as I know. I guess you two have
something in common.
jmw
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
"Ron" <ron...@afjc.bunker3> wrote in message
news:MPG.1749b3ed3...@news.alt.net...
jmw
looks like I've found it.
Keep it up, but please get out of the pit of triviality about such none
events as top posting. After all isn't freedom what its all about?
jmw
"Pope Rudraigh" <laug...@yourass.com> wrote in message
news:82tvdukojcqo7vjbn...@4ax.com...
jmw
sides of the 49th parallle have tried poking various things into what might
be legally described as babies.
Do the babtist start better than say mormons?
jmw
"J.R." <HEY...@swbell.net> wrote in message
news:78dba427.02051...@posting.google.com...
jmw
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).
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...
jmw
I suggest you look up the word rabid in the context that I used it. I agree
with you about atheists not burning people at the stake or threatening
people with everlasting damnation if they don't send money. Creationism v.s.
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. It looks
like they're doing something and I suspect in the main most people really
don't care about the outcome anyways. On the obverse side I've never heard
of Atheists offering anything to people other than contradiction of their
belief systems. Everyone is afraid of the unknown. The state of dead is
unknown. Religion offers apparently some knowledge of being dead.
Organized religion also offers a damn nice living for the organizers if they
do it right. I haven't heard of Billy Graham riding on a moped except
perhaps for fun. Mr. Farrakhan isn't wearing $99 suits from wal-mart.
The Constitution doesn't protect the people from the executive. The
executive does what it wants. It stuffs the supreme court and tries to
control the senate and congress. We have a similar setup where I live.
There is an group known as the PMO's office (Prime Minister's Office) which
consists of the head dude and his faithful sycophants. They work on the
basis of "lets do....; piss on the voters we have N years to get back in
shape".The only thing that protects the people from the government is
money=power. Yah I know the state provided public defenders, most of whom
couldn't win a parking ticket charge. I always believed holding people
without charge was unconstitutional. I would suggest that for some 300
people in guantanimo that's not the case apparently they have no rights of
any kind. But they're terrorists you argue. That hasn't been proven nor is
it likely to be in all cases.
Yu all come back now yah hear
jmw
"socode" <sc...@socode.com> wrote in message
news:abqdkt$rbv$1...@suaar1aa.prod.compuserve.com...
socode
: 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
Lord Calvert
>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.
A week after the 9/11 attack President Bush said that that is precisely what
this is...a crusade.
Judging by the prayer written by Senate chaplain Lloyd Ogilvie for the
"National Day of Prayer" two weeks ago he echoed those sentiments, making
pretty much the same points that Pope Urban II made in 1095 when he kicked off
the 1st Crusade.
nawhead
>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
nawhead
>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.
nawhead
wrote:
>>This bill definitely does the former, and it may ultimately get the
>>government involved in
>>the latter. It will be interesting to see what happens once the Black
>>Muslims, neo-pagans
>>and satanist ask for their cut of taxpayer money to "help out."
>
>Bush has already stated that Farrakhan's group will not be eligible because
>"Islam preaches hate." If preaching hate is the qualifying factor for denying
>admission to the program then I doubt there are many religions which would
>qualify...including any Christian sect that regards the NT as its moral
>foundation.
"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth; I came not to send
peace, but a sword."
- Jesus, Matthew 10:34
Yup... I think you're right.
jmw
CT scan assuming of cours your HMO will cover it. You should be careful to
use the medical term you could end up gorked.
jmw
"nawhead" <nawN...@ISGOODSPAMpobox.com> wrote in message
news:psc2eu8clp149fvrf...@4ax.com...
jmw
maybe? Where did I say I was christian or atheist for that matter? You
miss the point. I really don't care what your religious pacifier is, I'm
just interested in the marketing aspects of it.
jmw
"David J. Vorous" <da...@thellamaranch.com> wrote in message
news:3CE06B0...@thellamaranch.com...
jmw
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.
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...
Robibnikoff
>
>Smelling strange smells is a sign of a brain anurism. Suggest an immediate
>CT scan assuming of cours your HMO will cover it. You should be careful to
>use the medical term you could end up gorked.
>jmw
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
jmw
a feeling, interest or opinion. You're right about how you specifically use
words but the English language is highly contextual. English words tend to
have multiple meanings, related but different depending on the rest of the
phrase in which they are used.
I disagree with you about being able to do anything. You do have the power.
You can do things in your little (or big) corner of the world if you want to
improve at least a little bit the lot of those who you perceive of as
needing help.
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
I believe people have every right to worship and live as they please at
their own cost. Unfortunately there seems to be many who do not subscribe
to this philosophy. I also believe that there is no valid reason why I
should pay to support any group who wishes to foist their belief system on
others. This does not preclude my paying for certain things that are for
the common good. Again these do not include religion or any belief system.
jmw
"freehand" <ker...@alexmo.com> wrote in message
news:12c1ca13.02051...@posting.google.com...
jwk
>
> > 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.
Except in this case it would be the pot calling
something-not-really-dark-at-all black.
jwk
jmw
was misspelled. Also course. Perhaps you can share your wiccean or is it
wiccan knowledge, what's an EAC some sort of disease? SMASH is that similar
to SMIRCH, the noun or the verb?
keep the pot boiling
jmw
"Robibnikoff" <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote in message
news:_DbE8.17134$15....@www.newsranger.com...> >Smelling strange smells is a sign of a brain aneurism
jwk
> "Ron" <ron...@afjc.bunker3> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1749b3ed3...@news.alt.net...
> > In article <xyQD8.8980$4b.3...@newscontent-01.sprint.ca>,
> > jmw...@sprint.ca says...
> > > You atheists would be a lot more credible if you were a little less
> rabid.
> >
> > 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.
> 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
jwk
> This is just great. I have always wondered what would get this group keying
> looks like I've found it.
> Keep it up, but please get out of the pit of triviality about such none
> events as top posting. After all isn't freedom what its all about?
> jmw
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
>"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?
Ronny
jmw...@sprint.ca says...
> Where in the world did you get the idea I was Christian or of any religious
> belief?
Well, the "you atheists" phrase is just a slight give-away.
Got any more dumbass questions for us?
Ronny
nawN...@ISGOODSPAMpobox.com says...
> On Tue, 14 May 2002 09:36:16 -0400, "jmw" <jmw...@sprint.ca> 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? 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.
Is that what that stench is? I thought Oldguyteck had shit in his
Depends, again.
David J. Vorous
> ... 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.
David J. Vorous
> 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.
ambrose searle
> 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.
>
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
ambrose searle
ambrose searle
Brian Westley
>ker...@alexmo.com (freehand) wrote in message news:<12c1ca13.02051...@posting.google.com>...
>> 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.
...
[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
Pope Rudraigh
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
Dr. Rev. Chuck, M.D., P.A.
>
> 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?
Dr. Rev. Chuck, M.D., P.A.
>
> 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
> 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?
~Dave
<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
Lord Calvert
>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.
This concept was shot down by the US Supreme Court in 1866. ALL persons in the
US are guaranteed rights according to the Constitution, whether they be
citizens or no.
"The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally
in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes
of men, at all times, and under all circumstances. No doctrine, involving more
pernicious consequences, was ever invented by the wit of man than that any of
its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of
government." - US Supreme Court, Ex Parte Milligan 71 US 2 (1866)
The full constitutional due process protections apply on US territory to
citizens and legal residents or visitors, provided they did not gain legal
entry by fraud. That does not mean such foreigners don't have full rights of
life, liberty, and property, but due process may be truncated, provided
authority for doing so is conferred by Congress, by either a declaration of war
or letters of marque and reprisal. That authority is needed for such actions as
trial of prisoners by a military tribunal, or putting bounties on the heads of
suspects. In the absence of such authority, only defensive actions may be
taken, without violating the law, represented by 18 USC 2441, which applies to
everyone involved, including the president.
Rich Goranson, Amherst, NY, USA (aa#MCMXCIX)
"Any idiot can root for the Yankees. It takes a real fan of the game of
baseball to root for the Expos." - me, 12 May 2002 on
alt.sports.baseball.montreal-expos
Contract Bud Selig!
Thomas P.
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."
Ronny
cdub@_REMOVETHIS_erols.com says...
He wants to do something with Osama's nuts, but it doesn't involve
string.
jwk
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
Thomas P.
<dhl111...@email.psu.edu> wrote:
>
>"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.
jmw
Your really a fascinating writer. SO concerned about whose is and who isn't
and whatever faith or lack thereof they have. What really amuses me is in
among all your gainsaying and potty talk you have time to be concerned about
top posting. The potty talk is something too, I'm not sure what. Perhaps
you could assemble a book and publish. You could title it 'Latrine
Goodspeak: Words for Cretins". Careful with multi-syllabic words though you
audience is unlikely to be able to handle words like "Depends". It could be
a redneck hit but don't give up your day job, yet. You do have a Macjob
don't you?
Do keep up the vox et praeterea nihil
jmw
jmw
frightening. Its sort of ; if A then B then Z. The logical conclusion
apparently drawn is astonishing. I'm not of any particular persuasion or
political bent. I really like getting up zealots noses and it looks like
I've done it big time.
enjoy
jmw
jmw
Your really not very good at bashing are you. More of "tapping with a wet
noodle" I would say. Maybe where you are you are potty words are big time?
keep it coming, insult is just a word, but stupidity is yours forever.
jmw
jmw
get so excited about something that doesn't really matter. From the
responses so far it appears I am smarter than the average bear if you guys
are average. No, no you don't have to bow or genuflect, I'm trying to be a
person of the people. Be insulted, be incensed it doesn't really matter.
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...
David J. Vorous
> ....
> In case you aren't aware, US laws only grant rights to US citizens.....
I see his problem now, he's christian AND Republican.
ambrose searle
> ambros...@yahoo.com (ambrose searle) writes:
> >ker...@alexmo.com (freehand) wrote in message news:<12c1ca13.02051...@posting.google.com>...
> ...
> >> 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.
> ...
> [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.
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:
jmw
Mine appears to be different than yours.
jmw
"David J. Vorous" <da...@thellamaranch.com> wrote in message
news:3CE1A987...@thellamaranch.com...
jmw
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.
Kiss a lama for me
jmw
"David J. Vorous" <da...@thellamaranch.com> wrote in message
news:3CE1A94E...@thellamaranch.com...
David J. Vorous
> perhaps you are right....
Perhaps? Rude top posters are always wrong.
jmw
a bone. Are you G less? Coherent logical conclusion; there are none that I
know of. Why not try refuting my statements instead of just gainsaying
them? Sounds like your quoting or paraphrasing from the shrub (that's a
little Bush just in case you've never heard the expression). Are you saying
if I'm not with you I must be against you? You flatter yourself.
So commenting on the atheist's perceived approach to the world is insulting?
Get over it nawhead. If a few words you don't like are all you have to
worry about things in your patch are pretty good in my opinion. Sore? Try
Vaseline©.
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
jal...@cox.net
>:|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
**********************************************
Brian Westley
>Brian Westley <wes...@visi.com> wrote in message news:<JukE8.79198$vm6.14...@ruti.visi.com>...
>> ambros...@yahoo.com (ambrose searle) writes:
>> >ker...@alexmo.com (freehand) wrote in message news:<12c1ca13.02051...@posting.google.com>...
>> ...
>> >> 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.
>> ...
>> [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.
>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
Lord Calvert
>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.
As Nixon's conflict between his Quaker faith and his rather un-Quakerlike
actions rather clearly showed.
Ronny
jmw...@sprint.ca says...
> Ron baby,
> Your really a fascinating writer. SO concerned about whose is and who isn't
> and whatever faith or lack thereof they have. What really amuses me is in
> among all your gainsaying and potty talk you have time to be concerned about
> top posting.
That's odd. I never mentioned anything about top posting, at least not
in your case. Feeling guilty about something, troll-boy?
St. Jackanapes
In alt.flame.jesus.christ, jmw said...
>
> 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
St. Jackanapes
In alt.flame.jesus.christ, jwk said...
He's talking about you, colon loaf.
St. Jackanapes
In alt.flame.jesus.christ, ambrose searle said...
> Oftentimes people will respond by saying that these men were simply
> not being sincere or honest.
Liar.
St. Jackanapes
In alt.flame.jesus.christ, ambrose searle said...
> 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??
Devil Dawg
arose from the dead and spewed forth...
> This is fun, I've never come across so many people who can see unseen,
> unspoken words in newsgroup messages.
>
--
Cerberus
******
Hardcore spiritual malefactor &
Denizen of Darkness
Devil Dawg
> get so excited about something that doesn't really matter. From the
> responses so far it appears I am smarter than the average bear
Maybe, but not by much.
Devil Dawg
ambros...@yahoo.com arose from the dead and spewed forth...
>
> Massachusetts
> Elbridge Gerry, EPISCOPALIAN
> Rufus King, EPISCOPALIAN
> Caleb Strong, CONGREGATIONALIST
> Nathaniel Gorham, CONGREGATIONALIST
>
Episcopalian?
Don't you mean C of E?
Devil Dawg
> Your really not very good at bashing are you. More of "tapping with a wet
> noodle" I would say. Maybe where you are you are potty words are big time?
>
Okay, you're just babbling now.
Or, as you'd spell it: "your" just babbling.
Devil Dawg
hf8ru5r8...@o9800ileirhfo.ail.com arose from the dead and spewed forth...
>
> In alt.flame.jesus.christ, ambrose searle said...
>
> >
> > framers of the Constitution for example, identifying the
> > denominational commitments each of these men had pledged:
> >
> >
>
> How many fucking times are you going to post this, fuck face??
>
>
school, so anything relating to actual secular scholarship is very questionable.
Unless he's quoting research on Altar-boy Abuse 101.
ambrose searle
> ambros...@yahoo.com (ambrose searle) writes:
> >Brian Westley <wes...@visi.com> wrote in message news:<JukE8.79198$vm6.14...@ruti.visi.com>...
> >> ambros...@yahoo.com (ambrose searle) writes:
> >> >ker...@alexmo.com (freehand) wrote in message news:<12c1ca13.02051...@posting.google.com>...
> ...
> >> >> 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.
> >> ...
> >> [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.
>
> >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.
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
ambrose searle
> ambros...@yahoo.com (ambrose searle) wrote:
>
> >:|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.)
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
~Dave
"Lord Calvert" <forl...@aol.complicated> wrote in message
news:20020515024808...@mb-mo.aol.com...
> >In case you aren't aware, US laws only grant rights to US citizens.
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.
>
> This concept was shot down by the US Supreme Court in 1866. ALL persons in
the
> US are guaranteed rights according to the Constitution, whether they be
> citizens or no.
>
Really? Wasn't aware of this. My bad.
*blushes*
*tucks tail and leaves thread quietly now*
> "The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people,
equally
> in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all
classes
> of men, at all times, and under all circumstances. No doctrine, involving
more
> pernicious consequences, was ever invented by the wit of man than that any
of
> its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of
> government." - US Supreme Court, Ex Parte Milligan 71 US 2 (1866)
>
> The full constitutional due process protections apply on US territory to
> citizens and legal residents or visitors, provided they did not gain legal
> entry by fraud. That does not mean such foreigners don't have full rights
of
> life, liberty, and property, but due process may be truncated, provided
> authority for doing so is conferred by Congress, by either a declaration
of war
> or letters of marque and reprisal. That authority is needed for such
actions as
> trial of prisoners by a military tribunal, or putting bounties on the
heads of
> suspects. In the absence of such authority, only defensive actions may be
> taken, without violating the law, represented by 18 USC 2441, which
applies to
> everyone involved, including the president.
>
>
>
>
> Rich Goranson, Amherst, NY, USA (aa#MCMXCIX)
>
> "Any idiot can root for the Yankees. It takes a real fan of the game of
> baseball to root for the Expos." - me, 12 May 2002 on
> alt.sports.baseball.montreal-expos
>
> Contract Bud Selig!
~Dave
a.a. #2049
~Dave
> ~Dave wrote:
>
> > ....
> > In case you aren't aware, US laws only grant rights to US citizens.....
>
>
> I see his problem now, he's christian AND Republican.
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
David J. Vorous
> ...
> 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.
Rev Phylter
news:HavE8.9990$4b.4...@newscontent-01.sprint.ca:
> 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
ambrose searle
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
jmw
you just keep believing about US citizens rights. Its wonderful to be so
convinced of something you know very little about. I thi k its called faith
isn't it?
jmw
"~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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
ambrose searle
> In alt.flame.jesus.christ, ambrose searle said...
>
> > Oftentimes people will respond by saying that these men were simply
> > not being sincere or honest.
>
> Liar.
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
surely you could do better than that? Are you calling me a liar and self
righteous? That is pretty small potatoes. You could say something really
hurtful such as "you're just like me"; now thats insulting! Again you can't
read. The sentence was "Where in the world did you get the idea I was
CHristian or of any religious belief"? Nowhere but nowhere in that sentence
does it say anything about what I am or am not, the sentence questions how
you arrived at the conclusions you apparently came to.
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?
ambrose searle
> In article <MPG.174cc5267...@news.alt.net>,
> hf8ru5r8...@o9800ileirhfo.ail.com arose from the dead and spewed forth...
> >
> > In alt.flame.jesus.christ, ambrose searle said...
> >
> > >
> > > 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:
> > >
> > > Ambrose
> > >
> >
> > How many fucking times are you going to post this, fuck face??
> >
> >
> Apparently until someone figures out that the University of Dallas is a Cat'lick
> school, so anything relating to actual secular scholarship is very questionable.
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
jmw
revolutions per hour or do you revolve around you own anus or some such?
M.D. could mean mentally deficient but is that your case or am I
incorrectly associating you with a particular group? P.A. tell me about it
. In all my years in the academic world I've never heard that designation
as an academic honour but then I haven't had the benefit of attending or was
it corresponding with Midnight Degree uniniversity.
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?
ambrose searle
> >(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.
>
> As Nixon's conflict between his Quaker faith and his rather un-Quakerlike
> actions rather clearly showed.
Lord Calvert,
This train of thought is convenient in order to undermine the explicit
religious professions of the founders. You simply allege, as did
jalison, that what they said and what they actually believed is
"worlds apart."
But speculative history, reading minds, getting a feeling in one's
gut, going beyond the documentary evidence, is always a very slippery
and highly suspect way to approach historical inquiry.
For example, if one were to allege that although George Washington
must have believed in "biblical infallibility, in spite of the fact
that he never wrote that he believed in "biblical infallibility," a
serious scholar wouldn't have time for such speculation. I have a
hunch that if I were to allege that Washington believed in biblical
infallibility, jalison would probably quickly ask, "where did G.W. say
that?"
But when the shoe is on the other foot, when I am asking "Where did
the founders say they were not Christians," and showing the
professions that they actually did make, jalison comes along and says
"what they SAID isn't what we should go on."
It is, very clearly, a double standard which shows that jalison is
probably not playing by a consistent set of rules for scholarship. He
will change the rules to suit his purposes.
Ambrose
jmw
sufficiently flawed without me adding to your burden by erroneously
identifying you as concerned. Its so difficult to keep it straight as to
who is who. Can't you do better than troll-boy? Which troll do you refer
to? Is it to celebrate in song or is it a dwarf or giant or to pull through
the water in angling? It sounds as if it's a code word for the in-group to
refer to those that aren't molded in their image.
jmw
"Ronny" <bun...@afjc.eac> wrote in message
news:MPG.174cbdd0c...@news.alt.net...
jmw
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