the 10 most dangerous religious right organizations

Showing 1-94 of 94 messages
the 10 most dangerous religious right organizations eridanus 10/3/12 3:24 PM

It is very interesting to read.

http://www.alternet.org/belief/10-most-dangerous-religious-right-organizations?akid=9478.273394.1scGOz&rd=1&src=newsletter720422&t=7


The 10 Most Dangerous Religious Right Organizations
The religious right is more powerful than ever, using its massive annual revenue and grassroots troops to promote a right-wing ideology and undermine church and state separation.
October 2, 2012  |  
 
The movement known as the Religious Right is the number-one threat to church-state separation in America. This collection of organizations is well funded and well organized; it uses its massive annual revenue and grassroots troops to undermine the wall of separation in communities nationwide.

Americans United staff members have carefully researched this movement, and here are the 10 Religious Right groups that pose the greatest challenges to church-state separation. Most of these organizations are tax-exempt under Section 501(c)(3) of the tax code, but the financial data includes some affiliated 501(c)(4) lobbying organizations operating alongside the main organizations. The figures come from official IRS filings or other reliable sources.

it follows more information.

Eridanus


Re: the 10 most dangerous religious right organizations prawnster 10/3/12 9:29 PM
On Oct 3, 3:24�pm, eridanus <leopoldo.perd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It is very interesting to read.
>
> http://www.alternet.org/belief/10-most-dangerous-religious-right-orga...
>
> The 10 Most Dangerous Religious Right Organizations
> The religious right is more powerful than ever, using its massive annual revenue and grassroots troops to promote a right-wing ideology and undermine church and state separation.
> October 2, 2012 �|
>
> The movement known as the Religious Right is the number-one threat to church-state separation in America. This collection of organizations is well funded and well organized; it uses its massive annual revenue and grassroots troops to undermine the wall of separation in communities nationwide.
>
> Americans United staff members have carefully researched this movement, and here are the 10 Religious Right groups that pose the greatest challenges to church-state separation. Most of these organizations are tax-exempt under Section 501(c)(3) of the tax code, but the financial data includes some affiliated 501(c)(4) lobbying organizations operating alongside the main organizations. The figures come from official IRS filings or other reliable sources.
>
> it follows more information.
>
> Eridanus

Since you're not even AmeriKKKan, based on your pisspoor command of
English, why do you care about any of this?

And that "wall of separation" is nowhere in the AmeriKKKan
constitution.  Separation of church and state is a phrase made up by
one certain imbecilic and august Supreme Kourt Justice, Oye! Oye!

The atheo-Marxist and yet Mother Earth Goddess-worshiping Left is in
full and total control of all Western governments, pinbun.  What
AmeriKKKa really needs is separation of Earth and State, not church
and state.

Re: the 10 most dangerous religious right organizations SkyEyes 10/3/12 10:54 PM
On Oct 3, 9:29�pm, prawnster <zweibro...@ymail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 3, 3:24�pm, eridanus <leopoldo.perd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > It is very interesting to read.
>
> >http://www.alternet.org/belief/10-most-dangerous-religious-right-orga...
>
> > The 10 Most Dangerous Religious Right Organizations
> > The religious right is more powerful than ever, using its massive annual revenue and grassroots troops to promote a right-wing ideology and undermine church and state separation.
> > October 2, 2012 �|
>
> > The movement known as the Religious Right is the number-one threat to church-state separation in America. This collection of organizations is well funded and well organized; it uses its massive annual revenue and grassroots troops to undermine the wall of separation in communities nationwide.
>
> > Americans United staff members have carefully researched this movement, and here are the 10 Religious Right groups that pose the greatest challenges to church-state separation. Most of these organizations are tax-exempt under Section 501(c)(3) of the tax code, but the financial data includes some affiliated 501(c)(4) lobbying organizations operating alongside the main organizations. The figures come from official IRS filings or other reliable sources.
>
> > it follows more information.
>
> > Eridanus
>
> Since you're not even AmeriKKKan, based on your pisspoor command of
> English, why do you care about any of this?
>
> And that "wall of separation" is nowhere in the AmeriKKKan
> constitution. �Separation of church and state is a phrase made up by
> one certain imbecilic and august Supreme Kourt Justice, Oye! Oye!

...named, oddly enough, "Thomas Jefferson."

From the Library of Congress website:

Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists
The Final Letter, as Sent

To messers. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a
committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of
Connecticut.

Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so
good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist
association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a
faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in
proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the
discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between
Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his
worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only,
& not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign 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 & State***. [Emphasis mine - BRN] Adhering to this
expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights
of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of
those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights,
convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the
common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your
religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.

Th Jefferson
Jan. 1. 1802.

Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
BAAWA Knight of the Golden Litterbox
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes nine at cox dot net OR
skyeyes nine at yahoo dot com

Re: the 10 most dangerous religious right organizations eridanus 10/4/12 3:29 AM
El jueves, 4 de octubre de 2012 05:29:39 UTC+1, prawnster  escribió:
> On Oct 3, 3:24 pm, eridanus <leopoldo.perd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > It is very interesting to read.
>
> >
>
> > http://www.alternet.org/belief/10-most-dangerous-religious-right-orga...
>
> >
>
> > The 10 Most Dangerous Religious Right Organizations
>
> > The religious right is more powerful than ever, using its massive annual revenue and grassroots troops to promote a right-wing ideology and undermine church and state separation.
>
> > October 2, 2012  |
>
> >
>
> > The movement known as the Religious Right is the number-one threat to church-state separation in America. This collection of organizations is well funded and well organized; it uses its massive annual revenue and grassroots troops to undermine the wall of separation in communities nationwide.
>
> >
>
> > Americans United staff members have carefully researched this movement, and here are the 10 Religious Right groups that pose the greatest challenges to church-state separation. Most of these organizations are tax-exempt under Section 501(c)(3) of the tax code, but the financial data includes some affiliated 501(c)(4) lobbying organizations operating alongside the main organizations. The figures come from official IRS filings or other reliable sources.
>
> >
>
> > it follows more information.
>
> >
>
> > Eridanus
>
>
>
> Since you're not even AmeriKKKan, based on your pisspoor command of
>
> English, why do you care about any of this?
>
>
>
> And that "wall of separation" is nowhere in the AmeriKKKan
>
> constitution.  Separation of church and state is a phrase made up by
>
> one certain imbecilic and august Supreme Kourt Justice, Oye! Oye!
>
>
>
> The atheo-Marxist and yet Mother Earth Goddess-worshiping Left is in
>
> full and total control of all Western governments, pinbun.  What
>
> AmeriKKKa really needs is separation of Earth and State, not church
>
> and state.

i am interested in the KKKamerican dream, for the reason that America
had been for me a worthy model nation since I was a young lad. Then, in
the las three decades he had been falling in decadence as right wing
politicians were gaining control of the Congress.  I resisted for a
time my disappointment, as things were getting nasty.  As US had
been falling into a KKK-America nightmare I was awakening with a
nasty hangover.  

Eridanus
 
 
 

Re: the 10 most dangerous religious right organizations eridanus 10/4/12 3:29 AM
El jueves, 4 de octubre de 2012 06:54:40 UTC+1, SkyEyes  escribió:
> On Oct 3, 9:29 pm, prawnster <zweibro...@ymail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 3, 3:24 pm, eridanus <leopoldo.perd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > It is very interesting to read.
>
> >
>
> > >http://www.alternet.org/belief/10-most-dangerous-religious-right-orga...
>
> >
>
> > > The 10 Most Dangerous Religious Right Organizations
>
> > > The religious right is more powerful than ever, using its massive annual revenue and grassroots troops to promote a right-wing ideology and undermine church and state separation.
>
> > > October 2, 2012  |
>
> >
>
> > > The movement known as the Religious Right is the number-one threat to church-state separation in America. This collection of organizations is well funded and well organized; it uses its massive annual revenue and grassroots troops to undermine the wall of separation in communities nationwide.
>
> >
>
> > > Americans United staff members have carefully researched this movement, and here are the 10 Religious Right groups that pose the greatest challenges to church-state separation. Most of these organizations are tax-exempt under Section 501(c)(3) of the tax code, but the financial data includes some affiliated 501(c)(4) lobbying organizations operating alongside the main organizations. The figures come from official IRS filings or other reliable sources.
>
> >
>
> > > it follows more information.
>
> >
>
> > > Eridanus
>
> >
>
> > Since you're not even AmeriKKKan, based on your pisspoor command of
>
> > English, why do you care about any of this?
>
> >
>
> > And that "wall of separation" is nowhere in the AmeriKKKan
>
> > constitution.  Separation of church and state is a phrase made up by
thanks, skyeyes.

Eridanus

Re: the 10 most dangerous religious right organizations Bob Casanova 10/4/12 11:49 AM
On Wed, 3 Oct 2012 22:50:50 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by SkyEyes
<skye...@yahoo.com>:

>On Oct 3, 9:29�pm, prawnster <zweibro...@ymail.com> wrote:
>> On Oct 3, 3:24�pm, eridanus <leopoldo.perd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > It is very interesting to read.
>>
>> >http://www.alternet.org/belief/10-most-dangerous-religious-right-orga...
>>
>> > The 10 Most Dangerous Religious Right Organizations
>> > The religious right is more powerful than ever, using its massive annual revenue and grassroots troops to promote a right-wing ideology and undermine church and state separation.
>> > October 2, 2012 �|
>>
>> > The movement known as the Religious Right is the number-one threat to church-state separation in America. This collection of organizations is well funded and well organized; it uses its massive annual revenue and grassroots troops to undermine the wall of separation in communities nationwide.
>>
>> > Americans United staff members have carefully researched this movement, and here are the 10 Religious Right groups that pose the greatest challenges to church-state separation. Most of these organizations are tax-exempt under Section 501(c)(3) of the tax code, but the financial data includes some affiliated 501(c)(4) lobbying organizations operating alongside the main organizations. The figures come from official IRS filings or other reliable sources.
>>
>> > it follows more information.
>>
>> > Eridanus
>>
>> Since you're not even AmeriKKKan, based on your pisspoor command of
>> English, why do you care about any of this?
>>
>> And that "wall of separation" is nowhere in the AmeriKKKan
>> constitution. �Separation of church and state is a phrase made up by
Excellent, and thanks! TJ certainly had a way with words,
and a short way with self-righteousness. ;-)

Er, you don't expect Shrimpie to actually acknowledge his
error, do you?
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."

- McNameless

Re: the 10 most dangerous religious right organizations eridanus 10/4/12 2:04 PM
El jueves, 4 de octubre de 2012 19:49:39 UTC+1, Bob Casanova  escribió:
> On Wed, 3 Oct 2012 22:50:50 -0700 (PDT), the following
>
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by SkyEyes
>
> <skye...@yahoo.com>:
>
>
>
> >On Oct 3, 9:29 pm, prawnster <zweibro...@ymail.com> wrote:
>
> >> On Oct 3, 3:24 pm, eridanus <leopoldo.perd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >> > It is very interesting to read.
>
> >>
>
> >> >http://www.alternet.org/belief/10-most-dangerous-religious-right-orga...
>
> >>
>
> >> > The 10 Most Dangerous Religious Right Organizations
>
> >> > The religious right is more powerful than ever, using its massive annual revenue and grassroots troops to promote a right-wing ideology and undermine church and state separation.
>
> >> > October 2, 2012  |
>
> >>
>
> >> > The movement known as the Religious Right is the number-one threat to church-state separation in America. This collection of organizations is well funded and well organized; it uses its massive annual revenue and grassroots troops to undermine the wall of separation in communities nationwide.
>
> >>
>
> >> > Americans United staff members have carefully researched this movement, and here are the 10 Religious Right groups that pose the greatest challenges to church-state separation. Most of these organizations are tax-exempt under Section 501(c)(3) of the tax code, but the financial data includes some affiliated 501(c)(4) lobbying organizations operating alongside the main organizations. The figures come from official IRS filings or other reliable sources.
>
> >>
>
> >> > it follows more information.
>
> >>
>
> >> > Eridanus
>
> >>
>
> >> Since you're not even AmeriKKKan, based on your pisspoor command of
>
> >> English, why do you care about any of this?
>
> >>
>
> >> And that "wall of separation" is nowhere in the AmeriKKKan
>
> >> constitution.  Separation of church and state is a phrase made up by
> Bob C.


Of course. I do not expect rationality from a prawn

Eridanus
Re: the 10 most dangerous religious right organizations prawnster 10/4/12 3:49 PM
On Oct 3, 10:54 pm, SkyEyes <skyey...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> ...named, oddly enough, "Thomas Jefferson."
> [...]
> From the Library of Congress website:
>
> Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists
> The Final Letter, as Sent
>

Okay.  So it was an august Supreme Kourt justice taking a Jefferson
phrase out of context.

Thanks for confirming that the phrase "separation of church and state"
is nowhere in the US constitution.

Re: the 10 most dangerous religious right organizations prawnster 10/4/12 3:54 PM
On Oct 4, 3:29�am, eridanus <leopoldo.perd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> [...]
> i am interested in the KKKamerican dream, for the reason that America
> had been for me a worthy model nation since I was a young lad. Then, in
> the las three decades he had been falling in decadence as right wing
> politicians were gaining control of the Congress. �I resisted for a
> time my disappointment, as things were getting nasty. �As US had
> been falling into a KKK-America nightmare I was awakening with a
> nasty hangover.
>

You're very ignorant of politics here in the US of KKK, sir.

Over the last 50 years, America has moved so far left toward Marxism
that JFK, a mainstream middle-of-the-road Democrap candidate circa
1960, would be considered an unelectable rightwing radical in 2012.


Re: the 10 most dangerous religious right organizations prawnster 10/4/12 3:59 PM
On Oct 4, 11:49�am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> [...]
> Er, you don't expect Shrimpie to actually acknowledge his
> error, do you?
> --

The important point is that the phrase cited by eridanus is nowhere in
the constitution; it's from a Supreme Kourt decision, where an august
justice, Oye! Oye!, smuggled a Jefferson phrase into his decision as
if it were part of the constitution, as if he were citing precedent.
80%+ of AmeriKKKans don't even know the phrase "separation of church
and state" isn't in the constitution, much less non-AmeriKKKans.

Re: the 10 most dangerous religious right organizations prawnster 10/4/12 3:59 PM
On Oct 4, 2:04 pm, eridanus <leopoldo.perd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Of course. I do not expect rationality from a prawn
>

And of course I wouldn't expect a coherent English sentence from
eridanus.

Re: the 10 most dangerous religious right organizations Kalkidas 10/4/12 5:04 PM
On Wed, 3 Oct 2012 15:22:05 -0700 (PDT), eridanus
<leopoldo...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>It is very interesting to read.
>
>http://www.alternet.org/belief/10-most-dangerous-religious-right-organizations?akid=9478.273394.1scGOz&rd=1&src=newsletter720422&t=7
>
>
>The 10 Most Dangerous Religious Right Organizations
>The religious right is more powerful than ever, using its massive annual revenue and grassroots troops to promote a right-wing ideology and undermine church and state separation.
>October 2, 2012  |  
>
>The movement known as the Religious Right is the number-one threat to church-state separation in America. This collection of organizations is well funded and well organized; it uses its massive annual revenue and grassroots troops to undermine the wall of separation in communities nationwide.

Really? Can you (or anyone else)  name a single organization advocating
for a government-established religion in the United States?

[snip]

Re: the 10 most dangerous religious right organizations Tim Norfolk 10/4/12 5:24 PM
Google "Christian Reconstructionists", and see how well they are funded by Ahmanson.

Re: the 10 most dangerous religious right organizations Paul Ciszek 10/4/12 5:54 PM

In article <8481101f-bcff-4bdf-9f96-b6c60700fd66@rj6g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
prawnster  <zweib...@ymail.com> wrote:
>
>The important point is that the phrase cited by eridanus is nowhere in
>the constitution; it's from a Supreme Kourt decision, where an august
>justice, Oye! Oye!, smuggled a Jefferson phrase into his decision as
>if it were part of the constitution, as if he were citing precedent.
>80%+ of AmeriKKKans don't even know the phrase "separation of church
>and state" isn't in the constitution, much less non-AmeriKKKans.

Neither does the phrase "states' rights" appear anywhere in the US
Constitution.  Nor do the words "Jesus", "God", "Christ", or "Christian".
The word "lord" appears only in giving the year, and religion is
mentioned only twice--once in forbidding any religious test for public
office, and in the first amendment.


--
Please reply to:         | "We establish no religion in this country, we
pciszek at panix dot com |  command no worship, we mandate no belief, nor
Autoreply is disabled    |  will we ever.  Church and state are, and must
                         |  remain, separate." --Ronald Reagan, 10/26/1984

Re: the 10 most dangerous religious right organizations SkyEyes 10/5/12 1:29 AM
On Oct 4, 11:49 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Oct 2012 22:50:50 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by SkyEyes
> <skyey...@yahoo.com>:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Oct 3, 9:29 pm, prawnster <zweibro...@ymail.com> wrote:
> >> On Oct 3, 3:24 pm, eridanus <leopoldo.perd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > It is very interesting to read.
>
> >> >http://www.alternet.org/belief/10-most-dangerous-religious-right-orga...
>
> >> > The 10 Most Dangerous Religious Right Organizations
> >> > The religious right is more powerful than ever, using its massive annual revenue and grassroots troops to promote a right-wing ideology and undermine church and state separation.
> >> > October 2, 2012  |
>
> >> > The movement known as the Religious Right is the number-one threat to church-state separation in America. This collection of organizations is well funded and well organized; it uses its massive annual revenue and grassroots troops to undermine the wall of separation in communities nationwide.
>
> >> > Americans United staff members have carefully researched this movement, and here are the 10 Religious Right groups that pose the greatest challenges to church-state separation. Most of these organizations are tax-exempt under Section 501(c)(3) of the tax code, but the financial data includes some affiliated 501(c)(4) lobbying organizations operating alongside the main organizations. The figures come from official IRS filings or other reliable sources.
>
> >> > it follows more information.
>
> >> > Eridanus
>
> >> Since you're not even AmeriKKKan, based on your pisspoor command of
> >> English, why do you care about any of this?
>
> >> And that "wall of separation" is nowhere in the AmeriKKKan
> >> constitution.  Separation of church and state is a phrase made up by
> >> one certain imbecilic and august Supreme Kourt Justice, Oye! Oye!
>
> >...named, oddly enough, "Thomas Jefferson."
>
> >From the Library of Congress website:
>
> >Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists
> >The Final Letter, as Sent
>
Most welcome.

> TJ certainly had a way with words,
> and a short way with self-righteousness. ;-)

He's my all-time favorite Founding Father.
>
> Er, you don't expect Shrimpie to actually acknowledge his
> error, do you?

Oh, heavens, no.  That would asking too much.

Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
Re: the 10 most dangerous religious right organizations SkyEyes 10/5/12 1:29 AM
On Oct 4, 3:59 pm, prawnster <zweibro...@ymail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 4, 11:49 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>
> > [...]
> > Er, you don't expect Shrimpie to actually acknowledge his
> > error, do you?
> > --
>
> The important point is that the phrase cited by eridanus is nowhere in
> the constitution; it's from a Supreme Kourt decision, where an august
> justice, Oye! Oye!, smuggled a Jefferson phrase into his decision as
> if it were part of the constitution, as if he were citing precedent.
> 80%+ of AmeriKKKans don't even know the phrase "separation of church
> and state" isn't in the constitution, much less non-AmeriKKKans.

It might not be in the Constitution, but it's certainly in the legal
culture of the U.S., as voiced by the Supreme Court.  If it does not
have the force of *law*, it most certainly has the force of *custom*
and the force of *legal philosophy*.
Re: the 10 most dangerous religious right organizations SkyEyes 10/5/12 1:34 AM
On Oct 4, 3:49 pm, prawnster <zweibro...@ymail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 3, 10:54 pm, SkyEyes <skyey...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > ...named, oddly enough, "Thomas Jefferson."
> > [...]
> > From the Library of Congress website:
>
> > Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists
> > The Final Letter, as Sent
>
> Okay.  So it was an august Supreme Kourt justice taking a Jefferson
> phrase out of context.
>
> Thanks for confirming that the phrase "separation of church and state"
> is nowhere in the US constitution.

See my comments upthread.
Re: the 10 most dangerous religious right organizations prawnster 10/5/12 2:04 AM
On Oct 5, 1:29�am, SkyEyes <skyey...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> [...]
> It might not be in the Constitution, but it's certainly in the legal
> culture of the U.S., as voiced by the Supreme Court. �If it does not
> have the force of *law*, it most certainly has the force of *custom*
> and the force of *legal philosophy*.
>

I think you protest too much, doll.

Re: the 10 most dangerous religious right organizations jillery 10/5/12 2:49 AM
On Fri, 5 Oct 2012 01:29:04 -0700 (PDT), SkyEyes <skye...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>On Oct 4, 3:59�pm, prawnster <zweibro...@ymail.com> wrote:
>> On Oct 4, 11:49�am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>>
>> > [...]
>> > Er, you don't expect Shrimpie to actually acknowledge his
>> > error, do you?
>> > --
>>
>> The important point is that the phrase cited by eridanus is nowhere in
>> the constitution; it's from a Supreme Kourt decision, where an august
>> justice, Oye! Oye!, smuggled a Jefferson phrase into his decision as
>> if it were part of the constitution, as if he were citing precedent.
>> 80%+ of AmeriKKKans don't even know the phrase "separation of church
>> and state" isn't in the constitution, much less non-AmeriKKKans.
>
>It might not be in the Constitution, but it's certainly in the legal
>culture of the U.S., as voiced by the Supreme Court.  If it does not
>have the force of *law*, it most certainly has the force of *custom*
>and the force of *legal philosophy*.


IIUC, that the phrase itself is not literally in the actual text of
the Constitution is quite irrelevant.  SCOTUS decisions are extensions
to the Constitution, until they are overturned by newer decisions, or
by amendments to the Constitution.

Don't let prawnster bully you.

Re: the 10 most dangerous religious right organizations eridanus 10/5/12 3:09 AM
El jueves, 4 de octubre de 2012 23:59:38 UTC+1, prawnster  escribi�:
Is there in US something that could be understood as a "church and state marriage"?

Eridanus

 


Re: the 10 most dangerous religious right organizations eridanus 10/5/12 3:14 AM
El viernes, 5 de octubre de 2012 10:49:36 UTC+1, jillery  escribi�:
then, all that matter is not glinting on the US Constitution?

Eridanus


Re: the 10 most dangerous religious right organizations jillery 10/5/12 4:59 AM
On Fri, 5 Oct 2012 03:10:31 -0700 (PDT), eridanus
<leopoldo...@gmail.com> wrote:

>El viernes, 5 de octubre de 2012 10:49:36 UTC+1, jillery  escribió:
>> On Fri, 5 Oct 2012 01:29:04 -0700 (PDT), SkyEyes <skye...@yahoo.com>
>>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Oct 4, 3:59 pm, prawnster <zweibro...@ymail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> On Oct 4, 11:49 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> > [...]
>>
>> >> > Er, you don't expect Shrimpie to actually acknowledge his
>>
>> >> > error, do you?
>>
>> >> > --
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> The important point is that the phrase cited by eridanus is nowhere in
>>
>> >> the constitution; it's from a Supreme Kourt decision, where an august
>>
>> >> justice, Oye! Oye!, smuggled a Jefferson phrase into his decision as
>>
>> >> if it were part of the constitution, as if he were citing precedent.
>>
>> >> 80%+ of AmeriKKKans don't even know the phrase "separation of church
>>
>> >> and state" isn't in the constitution, much less non-AmeriKKKans.
>>
>> >
>>
>> >It might not be in the Constitution, but it's certainly in the legal
>>
>> >culture of the U.S., as voiced by the Supreme Court.  If it does not
>>
>> >have the force of *law*, it most certainly has the force of *custom*
>>
>> >and the force of *legal philosophy*.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> IIUC, that the phrase itself is not literally in the actual text of
>>
>> the Constitution is quite irrelevant.  SCOTUS decisions are extensions
>>
>> to the Constitution, until they are overturned by newer decisions, or
>>
>> by amendments to the Constitution.
>>
>>
>>
>> Don't let prawnster bully you.
>
>then, all that matter is not glinting on the US Constitution?


Once again I have no idea what you're asking.

Re: the 10 most dangerous religious right organizations prawnster 10/5/12 9:59 AM
On Oct 5, 2:49 am, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> [...]
> IIUC, that the phrase itself is not literally in the actual text of
> the Constitution is quite irrelevant.  SCOTUS decisions are extensions
> to the Constitution, until they are overturned by newer decisions, or
> by amendments to the Constitution.
>
> Don't let prawnster bully you.

Wow.  It's profound ignorance like yours that allows one august
Supreme Kourt jurist, Oye! Oye!, to single-handedly rewrite a law,
thereby usurping the power of the legislature, of Kongress, and
violate the separation of powers without causing a violent
revolution.  Supreme Kourt decisions should never "extend" the
constitution; the Supreme Kourt should only decide whether or not a
law violates the constitution.

And prawndaddy don't bully -- prawndaddy edumocates the ignant like
yourself, jillbaby.

Re: the 10 most dangerous religious right organizations Stephen 10/5/12 10:24 AM
prawnster wrote:

> On Oct 4, 11:49 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> > [...]
> > Er, you don't expect Shrimpie to actually acknowledge his
> > error, do you?
> > --
>
> The important point is that the phrase cited by eridanus is nowhere in
> the constitution; it's from a Supreme Kourt decision, where an august
> justice, Oye! Oye!, smuggled a Jefferson phrase into his decision as
> if it were part of the constitution, as if he were citing precedent.
> 80%+ of AmeriKKKans don't even know the phrase "separation of church
> and state" isn't in the constitution, much less non-AmeriKKKans.

The phrase "wall of separation" goes back at least to 1644 and Roger
Williams, founder of one of the earliest Baptist congregations in the
American Colonies. At the time, his was a minority congregation in a
colony that had a different "established" church. There was fear that
the official government-church would encroach on the free exercise of
his congregation's beliefs without that separation.  The *concept* of
separation of church and state has been part of the American culture at
least since that time.  Jefferson picked up on it.  So did James
Madison. And many many others. It's no suprise at all that the
*concept* was included in the US Constitution in the form of the
Establishment clause (and some say also the Free Exercise clause) of
the First Amendment. The phrase "separation of church and state" does
not need to be in the Constitution in order for the *concept* to be.
This did not need to be "smuggled" anywhere by any Justice; it has been
so recognized in American jurisprudence for a long time.


S
--

Re: the 10 most dangerous religious right organizations Bob Casanova 10/5/12 11:19 AM
On Thu, 4 Oct 2012 15:56:03 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by prawnster
<zweib...@ymail.com>:

>On Oct 4, 11:49 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> [...]
>> Er, you don't expect Shrimpie to actually acknowledge his
>> error, do you?
>> --
>
>The important point is that the phrase cited by eridanus is nowhere in
>the constitution; it's from a Supreme Kourt decision, where an august
>justice, Oye! Oye!, smuggled a Jefferson phrase into his decision as
>if it were part of the constitution, as if he were citing precedent.
>80%+ of AmeriKKKans don't even know the phrase "separation of church
>and state" isn't in the constitution, much less non-AmeriKKKans.

Most people are ignorant of the actual content of the
Constitution, and of the fact that most Federal law is
derived from the conceptual content thereof, and not present
as actual statements therein. One notable example is the
absence of any statement declaring the USSC as the arbiter
of the meanings of issues related to the content of the
Constitution.
--

Bob C.
Re: the 10 most dangerous religious right organizations Bob Casanova 10/5/12 11:19 AM
On Fri, 05 Oct 2012 05:47:12 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

>On Fri, 5 Oct 2012 01:29:04 -0700 (PDT), SkyEyes <skye...@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Oct 4, 3:59�pm, prawnster <zweibro...@ymail.com> wrote:
>>> On Oct 4, 11:49�am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>>>
>>> > [...]
>>> > Er, you don't expect Shrimpie to actually acknowledge his
>>> > error, do you?
>>> > --
>>>
>>> The important point is that the phrase cited by eridanus is nowhere in
>>> the constitution; it's from a Supreme Kourt decision, where an august
>>> justice, Oye! Oye!, smuggled a Jefferson phrase into his decision as
>>> if it were part of the constitution, as if he were citing precedent.
>>> 80%+ of AmeriKKKans don't even know the phrase "separation of church
>>> and state" isn't in the constitution, much less non-AmeriKKKans.
>>
>>It might not be in the Constitution, but it's certainly in the legal
>>culture of the U.S., as voiced by the Supreme Court.  If it does not
>>have the force of *law*, it most certainly has the force of *custom*
>>and the force of *legal philosophy*.
>
>
>IIUC, that the phrase itself is not literally in the actual text of
>the Constitution is quite irrelevant.  SCOTUS decisions are extensions
>to the Constitution

....essentially by legal usurpation, since nowhere in the
Constitution is this power of the USSC specified, one of the
few potential problems missed by the framers.

Just sayin'... ;-)

>, until they are overturned by newer decisions, or
>by amendments to the Constitution.
>
>Don't let prawnster bully you.

She won't; I suspect she finds him amusing in a creepy sort
of way.
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."

- McNameless

Re: the 10 most dangerous religious right organizations Bob Casanova 10/5/12 11:29 AM
On Fri, 5 Oct 2012 09:57:48 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by prawnster
<zweib...@ymail.com>:

>On Oct 5, 2:49 am, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> [...]
>> IIUC, that the phrase itself is not literally in the actual text of
>> the Constitution is quite irrelevant.  SCOTUS decisions are extensions
>> to the Constitution, until they are overturned by newer decisions, or
>> by amendments to the Constitution.
>>
>> Don't let prawnster bully you.
>
>Wow.  It's profound ignorance like yours that allows one august
>Supreme Kourt jurist, Oye! Oye!, to single-handedly rewrite a law,
>thereby usurping the power of the legislature, of Kongress, and
>violate the separation of powers without causing a violent
>revolution.  Supreme Kourt decisions should never "extend" the
>constitution; the Supreme Kourt should only decide whether or not a
>law violates the constitution.

Really? Why should they do that, since the authority over
the content of the Constitution is not granted in the
Constitution, and it seems you think only such inclusion can
justify either law or custom?

>And prawndaddy don't bully -- prawndaddy edumocates the ignant like
>yourself, jillbaby.

you're delusional, Shrimpie (or should that be "Shrimpie's
Dad"?). You've never shown the slightest hint of knowledge
superior to that of anyone here; only a regrettable tendency
to adopt a fake regional dialect in the failed attempt to
overcome that lack.
Re: the 10 most dangerous religious right organizations jillery 10/5/12 11:54 AM
On Fri, 5 Oct 2012 09:57:48 -0700 (PDT), prawnster
<zweib...@ymail.com> wrote:

>On Oct 5, 2:49�am, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> [...]
>> IIUC, that the phrase itself is not literally in the actual text of
>> the Constitution is quite irrelevant. �SCOTUS decisions are extensions
>> to the Constitution, until they are overturned by newer decisions, or
>> by amendments to the Constitution.
>>
>> Don't let prawnster bully you.
>
>Wow.  It's profound ignorance like yours that allows one august
>Supreme Kourt jurist, Oye! Oye!, to single-handedly rewrite a law,
>thereby usurping the power of the legislature, of Kongress, and
>violate the separation of powers without causing a violent
>revolution.  Supreme Kourt decisions should never "extend" the
>constitution; the Supreme Kourt should only decide whether or not a
>law violates the constitution.
>
>And prawndaddy don't bully -- prawndaddy edumocates the ignant like
>yourself, jillbaby.


Congress legislates, SCOTUS adjudicates.  So when, for example,
Justice Taney ruled that Negroes were not citizens of the U.S. and had
no legal rights in the U.S., that was the Law of the Land until the
ratification of the 14th Amendment.  Or when "separate but equal" was
ruled constitutional in 1896 in Plessy v. Ferguson and then ruled
unconstitutional in 1954 in Brown v. Board of Education.

Don't shoot yourself in the foot until after you get it out of your
mouth.

Re: the 10 most dangerous religious right organizations eridanus 10/5/12 1:04 PM
El viernes, 5 de octubre de 2012 12:59:36 UTC+1, jillery  escribió:
> On Fri, 5 Oct 2012 03:10:31 -0700 (PDT), eridanus
>
> <leopoldo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> >El viernes, 5 de octubre de 2012 10:49:36 UTC+1, jillery  escribió:
>
> >> On Fri, 5 Oct 2012 01:29:04 -0700 (PDT), SkyEyes <skye...@yahoo.com>
>
> >>
>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >On Oct 4, 3:59 pm, prawnster <zweibro...@ymail.com> wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >> >> On Oct 4, 11:49 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> > [...]
>
> >>
>
> >> >> > Er, you don't expect Shrimpie to actually acknowledge his
>
> >>
>
> >> >> > error, do you?
>
> >>
>
> >> >> > --
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> The important point is that the phrase cited by eridanus is nowhere in
>
> >>
>
> >> >> the constitution; it's from a Supreme Kourt decision, where an august
>
> >>
>
> >> >> justice, Oye! Oye!, smuggled a Jefferson phrase into his decision as
>
> >>
>
> >> >> if it were part of the constitution, as if he were citing precedent.
>
> >>
>
> >> >> 80%+ of AmeriKKKans don't even know the phrase "separation of church
>
> >>
>
> >> >> and state" isn't in the constitution, much less non-AmeriKKKans.
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >It might not be in the Constitution, but it's certainly in the legal
>
> >>
>
> >> >culture of the U.S., as voiced by the Supreme Court.  If it does not
>
> >>
>
> >> >have the force of *law*, it most certainly has the force of *custom*
>
> >>
>
> >> >and the force of *legal philosophy*.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> IIUC, that the phrase itself is not literally in the actual text of
>
> >>
>
> >> the Constitution is quite irrelevant.  SCOTUS decisions are extensions
>
> >>
>
> >> to the Constitution, until they are overturned by newer decisions, or
>
> >>
>
> >> by amendments to the Constitution.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Don't let prawnster bully you.
>
> >
>
> >then, all that matter is not glinting on the US Constitution?
>
>
>
>
>
> Once again I have no idea what you're asking.

I was a little distracted.

I was commenting on the words of Sky eyes.

She said,
> IIUC, that the phrase itself is not literally in the actual text of
> the Constitution is quite irrelevant.  SCOTUS decisions are extensions
> to the Constitution, until they are overturned by newer decisions, or
> by amendments to the Constitution.

And I should had write,

"Then all that matters is not glittering in US Constitution?"

It was a comment for sky eyes, but I wrote it a little wrong.

Eridanus

 


Re: the 10 most dangerous religious right organizations Stephen 10/5/12 1:34 PM
Bob Casanova wrote:

> On Fri, 05 Oct 2012 05:47:12 -0400, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:
>
> > On Fri, 5 Oct 2012 01:29:04 -0700 (PDT), SkyEyes
> > <skye...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >>On Oct 4, 3:59 pm, prawnster <zweibro...@ymail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Oct 4, 11:49 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> > > >
> >>> > [...]
> >>> > Er, you don't expect Shrimpie to actually acknowledge his
> >>> > error, do you?
> >>> > --
> > > >
> >>> The important point is that the phrase cited by eridanus is
> nowhere in >>> the constitution; it's from a Supreme Kourt decision,
> where an august >>> justice, Oye! Oye!, smuggled a Jefferson phrase
> into his decision as >>> if it were part of the constitution, as if
> he were citing precedent.  >>> 80%+ of AmeriKKKans don't even know
> the phrase "separation of church >>> and state" isn't in the
> constitution, much less non-AmeriKKKans.
> > >
> > > It might not be in the Constitution, but it's certainly in the
> > > legal culture of the U.S., as voiced by the Supreme Court.  If it
> > > does not have the force of law, it most certainly has the force
> > > of custom and the force of *legal philosophy*.
> >
> >
> > IIUC, that the phrase itself is not literally in the actual text of
> > the Constitution is quite irrelevant.  SCOTUS decisions are
> > extensions to the Constitution
>
> ....essentially by legal usurpation, since nowhere in the
> Constitution is this power of the USSC specified, one of the
> few potential problems missed by the framers.

I disagree that "legal usurpation" is an apt characterization and that
the Constitution fails to specify the role of the supreme court.  See
Article III.

"Section 1. The jucidial Power of the United States shall be vested in
one Supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from
time to time ordain and establish. ...

"Section 2. The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and
Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States,
and Treaties made, ..." and a number of other things.

This does specify the role of the SC.  However, like much if not most
of the Constitution's specifications, it's broad-scope.  The same is
true of legislation: much which *seems* clear becomes fuzzy in
application or after passage of time when unanticipated circumstances
arise. Thus the role of Courts to interpret the laws or Constitution.

S.


>
> Just sayin'... ;-)
>
> > , until they are overturned by newer decisions, or
> > by amendments to the Constitution.
> >
> > Don't let prawnster bully you.
>
Re: the 10 most dangerous religious right organizations jillery 10/5/12 1:39 PM
On Fri, 05 Oct 2012 11:18:30 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>
wrote:

>On Fri, 05 Oct 2012 05:47:12 -0400, the following appeared
>in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:
>
>>On Fri, 5 Oct 2012 01:29:04 -0700 (PDT), SkyEyes <skye...@yahoo.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Oct 4, 3:59�pm, prawnster <zweibro...@ymail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Oct 4, 11:49�am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > [...]
>>>> > Er, you don't expect Shrimpie to actually acknowledge his
>>>> > error, do you?
>>>> > --
>>>>
>>>> The important point is that the phrase cited by eridanus is nowhere in
>>>> the constitution; it's from a Supreme Kourt decision, where an august
>>>> justice, Oye! Oye!, smuggled a Jefferson phrase into his decision as
>>>> if it were part of the constitution, as if he were citing precedent.
>>>> 80%+ of AmeriKKKans don't even know the phrase "separation of church
>>>> and state" isn't in the constitution, much less non-AmeriKKKans.
>>>
>>>It might not be in the Constitution, but it's certainly in the legal
>>>culture of the U.S., as voiced by the Supreme Court.  If it does not
>>>have the force of *law*, it most certainly has the force of *custom*
>>>and the force of *legal philosophy*.
>>
>>
>>IIUC, that the phrase itself is not literally in the actual text of
>>the Constitution is quite irrelevant.  SCOTUS decisions are extensions
>>to the Constitution
>
>....essentially by legal usurpation, since nowhere in the
>Constitution is this power of the USSC specified, one of the
>few potential problems missed by the framers.
>
>Just sayin'... ;-)


Yes, John Marshall corrected that oversight.  Had there been
significant objection, an amendment to the Constitution could have
been drafted overturning some or all of his decisions.
Re: the 10 most dangerous religious right organizations Kermit 10/5/12 3:14 PM
On 4 Oct, 03:29, eridanus <leopoldo.perd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> El jueves, 4 de octubre de 2012 06:54:40 UTC+1, SkyEyes  escribi :
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 3, 9:29 pm, prawnster <zweibro...@ymail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 3, 3:24 pm, eridanus <leopoldo.perd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > It is very interesting to read.
>
> > > >http://www.alternet.org/belief/10-most-dangerous-religious-right-orga...
>
> > > > The 10 Most Dangerous Religious Right Organizations
>
> > > > The religious right is more powerful than ever, using its massive annual revenue and grassroots troops to promote a right-wing ideology and undermine church and state separation.
>
> > > > October 2, 2012 |
>
> > > > The movement known as the Religious Right is the number-one threat to church-state separation in America. This collection of organizations is well funded and well organized; it uses its massive annual revenue and grassroots troops to undermine the wall of separation in communities nationwide.
>
> > > > Americans United staff members have carefully researched this movement, and here are the 10 Religious Right groups that pose the greatest challenges to church-state separation. Most of these organizations are tax-exempt under Section 501(c)(3) of the tax code, but the financial data includes some affiliated 501(c)(4) lobbying organizations operating alongside the main organizations. The figures come from official IRS filings or other reliable sources.
>
> > > > it follows more information.
>
> > > > Eridanus
>
> > > Since you're not even AmeriKKKan, based on your pisspoor command of
>
> > > English, why do you care about any of this?
>
> > > And that "wall of separation" is nowhere in the AmeriKKKan
>
> > > constitution. Separation of church and state is a phrase made up by
>
> > > one certain imbecilic and august Supreme Kourt Justice, Oye! Oye!
>
> > ...named, oddly enough, "Thomas Jefferson."
>
> > From the Library of Congress website:
>
> > Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists
>
> > The Final Letter, as Sent
>
> > To messers. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a
>
> > committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of
>
> > Connecticut.
>
> > Gentlemen
>
> > The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so
>
> > good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist
>
> > association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a
>
> > faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in
>
> > proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the
>
> > discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.
>
> > Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between
>
> > Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his
>
> > worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only,
>
> > & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign 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 & State***. [Emphasis mine - BRN] Adhering to this
>
> > expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights
>
> > of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of
>
> > those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights,
>
> > convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
>
> > I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the
>
> > common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your
>
> > religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.
>
> > Th Jefferson
>
> > Jan. 1. 1802.
>
> > Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
>
> > BAAWA Knight of the Golden Litterbox
>
> > EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
>
> > skyeyes nine at cox dot net OR
>
> > skyeyes nine at yahoo dot com
>
> thanks, skyeyes.
>
> Eridanus

I further observation. Jefferson, before he was elected our third
president, was governor of Virginia. While there, he protected these
Baptists from the religious majority, giving them equal protection
under the law. He protected them from the rule of the mob. When he ran
for president, they were among his most loyal supporters.

Ironically, their doctrinal descendants include the religious right
who are no longer a minority in this country, and have a ferocious
desire to bully others. But their predecessors in our first generation
were wiser, if only because they were on the other side.

Kermit

Re: the 10 most dangerous religious right organizations Kermit 10/5/12 3:24 PM
On 4 Oct, 15:54, prawnster <zweibro...@ymail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 4, 3:29 am, eridanus <leopoldo.perd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > [...]
> > i am interested in the KKKamerican dream, for the reason that America
> > had been for me a worthy model nation since I was a young lad. Then, in
> > the las three decades he had been falling in decadence as right wing
> > politicians were gaining control of the Congress.  I resisted for a
> > time my disappointment, as things were getting nasty.  As US had
> > been falling into a KKK-America nightmare I was awakening with a
> > nasty hangover.
>
> You're very ignorant of politics here in the US of KKK, sir.
>
> Over the last 50 years, America has moved so far left toward Marxism
> that JFK, a mainstream middle-of-the-road Democrap candidate circa
> 1960, would be considered an unelectable rightwing radical in 2012.

Don't be silly. When I was a lad half a century ago, the conservatives
around me - mostly the Greatest Generation - were quite proud of our
public parks, our public roads (soon including the interstate highway
system), our public libraries, our public schools, the local police
and fire departments, our federal military.
All socialist, although they weren't called that. TV and radio was
limited but free, although not supported by taxes. Oh - and
millionaires paid far more taxes, and nobody was claiming that this
was unfair. Over 90% at one point, under Eisenhower.

From my earliest childhood through the early seventies the average
household became wealthier. That trend has been reversed in the last
few decades.

A significant subset of the US population has been rapidly moving from
conservative to radical right to fascist. It is only from your
viewpoint that your claim can make any sense at all. Now, we *have
been getting more tolerant, less bigoted. Perhaps *that's what you
were thinking of? But more socialist? Not that I can see.

Kermit

Re: the 10 most dangerous religious right organizations Kermit 10/5/12 3:34 PM
On 4 Oct, 17:04, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Oct 2012 15:22:05 -0700 (PDT), eridanus
>
> <leopoldo.perd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >It is very interesting to read.
>
> >http://www.alternet.org/belief/10-most-dangerous-religious-right-orga...
>
> >The 10 Most Dangerous Religious Right Organizations
> >The religious right is more powerful than ever, using its massive annual revenue and grassroots troops to promote a right-wing ideology and undermine church and state separation.
> >October 2, 2012  |
>
> >The movement known as the Religious Right is the number-one threat to church-state separation in America. This collection of organizations is well funded and well organized; it uses its massive annual revenue and grassroots troops to undermine the wall of separation in communities nationwide.
>
> Really? Can you (or anyone else)  name a single organization advocating
> for a government-established religion in the United States?
>
> [snip]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominionism

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/category/topics/dominionism

http://www.theocracywatch.org/

Kermit

Re: the 10 most dangerous religious right organizations Kalkidas 10/5/12 4:44 PM
I asked for an organization. "Dominionism" is not an organization. My
question is, who specifically is trying to get congress to make a law
"respecting the establishment of religion", i.e. establishing a
*national church* (which is what the establishment clause forbids).

Re: the 10 most dangerous religious right organizations prawnster 10/5/12 5:04 PM
On Oct 5, 3:14 pm, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> [...]
> Ironically, their doctrinal descendants include the religious right
> who are no longer a minority in this country, and have a ferocious
> desire to bully others. But their predecessors in our first generation
> were wiser, if only because they were on the other side.
>

Wrong.  It is the atheist yet Earth-worshipping Left, a vocal minority
in this country, who displays a fierce desire to bully and control
others.  Their predecessors were just as dumb, but simply lacked the
full support of government, schools, and the media that they now have.

Re: the 10 most dangerous religious right organizations prawnster 10/5/12 5:14 PM
On Oct 5, 3:24�pm, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> [...]
> A significant subset of the US population has been rapidly moving from
> conservative to radical right to fascist. It is only from your
> viewpoint that your claim can make any sense at all. Now, we *have
> been getting more tolerant, less bigoted. Perhaps *that's what you
> were thinking of? But more socialist? Not that I can see.
>

Wrong.  A significant majority of the US population has been gradually
moving from conservative to radical Left to Marxist.  It is only from
your hazy and incorrect memories that your claim can make any sense at
all.  Suicidal white Americans have voted for and will vote for an
African to masturbatorily demonstrate for an invisible audience that
they're doubleplus unracist -- perhaps that's what you were thinking
of.  But more conservative?  With a greater percentage of Americans
guzzling from the gummint tit than at any time in American history,
not that I can see.

JFK would be a nonstarter in modern-day AmeriKKKa.

Re: the 10 most dangerous religious right organizations jillery 10/5/12 6:54 PM
On Fri, 5 Oct 2012 12:59:54 -0700 (PDT), eridanus
<leopoldo...@gmail.com> wrote:

>El viernes, 5 de octubre de 2012 12:59:36 UTC+1, jillery  escribió:
>> On Fri, 5 Oct 2012 03:10:31 -0700 (PDT), eridanus

[...]


>> Once again I have no idea what you're asking.
>
>I was a little distracted.
>
>I was commenting on the words of Sky eyes.
>
>She said,
>> IIUC, that the phrase itself is not literally in the actual text of
>> the Constitution is quite irrelevant.  SCOTUS decisions are extensions
>> to the Constitution, until they are overturned by newer decisions, or
>> by amendments to the Constitution.


I wrote that, in the very post to which you replied.


>And I should had write,
>
>"Then all that matters is not glittering in US Constitution?"
>
>It was a comment for sky eyes, but I wrote it a little wrong.


Then it was a comment for me, and I still have no idea what you're
asking or why.  It might help if you tried to rephrase your question.

Re: the 10 most dangerous religious right organizations jillery 10/5/12 7:19 PM
On Fri, 5 Oct 2012 20:29:49 +0000 (UTC), "Stephen"
<ssa...@austin.rr.com> wrote:

>Bob Casanova wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 05 Oct 2012 05:47:12 -0400, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:
>>
>> > On Fri, 5 Oct 2012 01:29:04 -0700 (PDT), SkyEyes
>> > <skye...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >>On Oct 4, 3:59 pm, prawnster <zweibro...@ymail.com> wrote:
>> >>> On Oct 4, 11:49 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> > > >
>> >>> > [...]
>> >>> > Er, you don't expect Shrimpie to actually acknowledge his
>> >>> > error, do you?
>> >>> > --
>> > > >
>> >>> The important point is that the phrase cited by eridanus is
>> nowhere in >>> the constitution; it's from a Supreme Kourt decision,
>> where an august >>> justice, Oye! Oye!, smuggled a Jefferson phrase
>> into his decision as >>> if it were part of the constitution, as if
>> he were citing precedent.  >>> 80%+ of AmeriKKKans don't even know
>> the phrase "separation of church >>> and state" isn't in the
>> constitution, much less non-AmeriKKKans.
>> > >
>> > > It might not be in the Constitution, but it's certainly in the
>> > > legal culture of the U.S., as voiced by the Supreme Court.  If it
>> > > does not have the force of law, it most certainly has the force
>> > > of custom and the force of *legal philosophy*.
>> >
>> >
>> > IIUC, that the phrase itself is not literally in the actual text of
>> > the Constitution is quite irrelevant.  SCOTUS decisions are
>> > extensions to the Constitution
>>
>> ....essentially by legal usurpation, since nowhere in the
>> Constitution is this power of the USSC specified, one of the
>> few potential problems missed by the framers.
>
>I disagree that "legal usurpation" is an apt characterization and that
>the Constitution fails to specify the role of the supreme court.  See
>Article III.
>
>"Section 1. The jucidial Power of the United States shall be vested in
>one Supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from
>time to time ordain and establish. ...
>
>"Section 2. The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and
>Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States,
>and Treaties made, ..." and a number of other things.
>
>This does specify the role of the SC.  However, like much if not most
>of the Constitution's specifications, it's broad-scope.  The same is
>true of legislation: much which *seems* clear becomes fuzzy in
>application or after passage of time when unanticipated circumstances
>arise. Thus the role of Courts to interpret the laws or Constitution.


Both you and Bob are almost correct.  The Constitution outlines in
broad strokes the responsibilites of SCOTUS, but it was John Marshall
who first filled in the details, including the concept of Judicial
Review, which checked the legilative and executives powers of the
other branches of government.  The scope of SCOTUS authority is
continuously tested and refined.

Re: the 10 most dangerous religious right organizations AlwaysAskingQuestions 10/6/12 4:29 AM
eridanus wrote:
> It is very interesting to read.
>
> http://www.alternet.org/belief/10-most-dangerous-religious-right-organizations?akid=9478.273394.1scGOz&rd=1&src=newsletter720422&t=7
>
>
> The 10 Most Dangerous Religious Right Organizations
> The religious right is more powerful than ever, using its massive
> annual revenue and grassroots troops to promote a right-wing ideology
> and undermine church and state separation.
> October 2, 2012  |
>
> The movement known as the Religious Right is the number-one threat to
> church-state separation in America. This collection of organizations
> is well funded and well organized; it uses its massive annual revenue
> and grassroots troops to undermine the wall of separation in
> communities nationwide.
>
> Americans United staff members have carefully researched this
> movement, and here are the 10 Religious Right groups that pose the
> greatest challenges to church-state separation. Most of these
> organizations are tax-exempt under Section 501(c)(3) of the tax code,
> but the financial data includes some affiliated 501(c)(4) lobbying
> organizations operating alongside the main organizations. The figures
> come from official IRS filings or other reliable sources.
>
> it follows more information.

Listing the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops as a "Dangerous
Religious Right Organization" does not, of course, reflect any prejudice on
the part of the author, nor does the fact that he tells deliberate lies
about them <rolls eyes>


Re: the 10 most dangerous religious right organizations Robert Camp 10/6/12 5:19 AM
On Oct 6, 4:29 am, "AlwaysAskingQuestions"
<alwaysaskingquesti...@gmail.com> wrote:
> eridanus wrote:
> > It is very interesting to read.
>
> >http://www.alternet.org/belief/10-most-dangerous-religious-right-orga...
>
> > The 10 Most Dangerous Religious Right Organizations
> > The religious right is more powerful than ever, using its massive
> > annual revenue and grassroots troops to promote a right-wing ideology
> > and undermine church and state separation.
> > October 2, 2012  |
>
> > The movement known as the Religious Right is the number-one threat to
> > church-state separation in America. This collection of organizations
> > is well funded and well organized; it uses its massive annual revenue
> > and grassroots troops to undermine the wall of separation in
> > communities nationwide.
>
> > Americans United staff members have carefully researched this
> > movement, and here are the 10 Religious Right groups that pose the
> > greatest challenges to church-state separation. Most of these
> > organizations are tax-exempt under Section 501(c)(3) of the tax code,
> > but the financial data includes some affiliated 501(c)(4) lobbying
> > organizations operating alongside the main organizations. The figures
> > come from official IRS filings or other reliable sources.
>
> > it follows more information.
>
> Listing the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops as a "Dangerous
> Religious Right Organization" does not, of course, reflect any prejudice on
> the part of the author, nor does the fact that he tells deliberate lies
> about them <rolls eyes>

I'm also skeptical that there aren't at least ten more "dangerous"
religious organizations than the USCCB, but I cannot tell where the
lies are in this,

"The USCCB for years has lobbied in Washington, D.C., to make the
hierarchy’s ultra-conservative stands on reproductive rights,
marriage, school vouchers and other public policies the law for all to
follow. This year, the USCCB escalated its efforts in the “culture
war” arena, forming the Ad Hoc Committee on Religious Liberty. Led by
Baltimore Archbishop William E. Lori, the committee seeks to reduce
Americans’ access to birth control, block efforts to expand marriage
equality and ensure federal funding of church-affiliated social
services, even if the services fail to meet government requirements.
American Catholics often disagree with the hierarchy’s stance on
social issues, but the bishops’ clout in Washington, D.C., and the
state legisla­tures is undeniable."

There are interpretations of intent with which you may disagree, but
considering the causes behind which this organization puts its weight,
the author's comments are hardly immoderate. Where are the "deliberate
lies?"

RLC

Re: the 10 most dangerous religious right organizations eridanus 10/6/12 5:24 AM
El viernes, 5 de octubre de 2012 21:34:34 UTC+1, Stephen  escribi�:
> Bob Casanova wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Fri, 05 Oct 2012 05:47:12 -0400, the following appeared
>
> > in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:
>
> >
>
> > > On Fri, 5 Oct 2012 01:29:04 -0700 (PDT), SkyEyes
>
> > > <skye...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > >
>
> > >>On Oct 4, 3:59�pm, prawnster <zweibro...@ymail.com> wrote:
Conservative people try to disqualify the Supreme Court when they do
not like some law.   In this case they say "it is illegal".

Liberals are more naive on this matters.  They simple comment that
these or those laws are unjust.  They do not say, the Supreme Court
was illegal, they simple said the Supreme Court was in favor of the conservatives accepting unjust laws.

Laws can be just or unjust.  Both concepts can be arguable. But if
you like a law it can be as legal as if you do not like it.

Then "slavery was considered unjust" by many, but "it was legal".

The same can be said, when conservatives are oppose to increase the
taxes to create jobs because of the crisis. The crisis was caused
mainly buy those who had the money and do not wanted to pay taxes.

As the US industry was getting obsolete, the rich financiers were
earning a lot of money while the nation was heading for its ruin.

Now they say they do not want to pay taxes.  But they cannot either
create any jobs. It is the perfect recipe for future troubles.

Eridanus
 
Death penalty is legal in many states,  But many people think it is an unjust    

Re: the 10 most dangerous religious right organizations Frank J 10/6/12 5:34 AM
On 3 Oct, 18:24, eridanus <leopoldo.perd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It is very interesting to read.
>
> http://www.alternet.org/belief/10-most-dangerous-religious-right-orga...
>
> The 10 Most Dangerous Religious Right Organizations
> The religious right is more powerful than ever, using its massive annual revenue and grassroots troops to promote a right-wing ideology and undermine church and state separation.
> October 2, 2012 �|
>
> The movement known as the Religious Right is the number-one threat to church-state separation in America. This collection of organizations is well funded and well organized; it uses its massive annual revenue and grassroots troops to undermine the wall of separation in communities nationwide.
>
> Americans United staff members have carefully researched this movement, and here are the 10 Religious Right groups that pose the greatest challenges to church-state separation. Most of these organizations are tax-exempt under Section 501(c)(3) of the tax code, but the financial data includes some affiliated 501(c)(4) lobbying organizations operating alongside the main organizations. The figures come from official IRS filings or other reliable sources.
>
> it follows more information.
>
> Eridanus

Fellow "Darwinists" and anti-evolution activists alike will mostly
disagree with me, but to me the most dangerous, and possibly the
*only* dangerous group is not even on the list. The Discovery
Institute, which I would call "radical paranoid authoritarian," is
dangerous specifically by being subtle. They have been spreading memes
that resonate with much of the "swing vote."

Re: the 10 most dangerous religious right organizations eridanus 10/6/12 5:34 AM
El s�bado, 6 de octubre de 2012 01:04:34 UTC+1, prawnster  escribi�:
This is a similar argument used by the owners of slaves in 18 and 19
century.  A minority of thugs wanted to robe them of their property.

Those thugs wanted to expropriate them of their wealth that is sacred,
as all good Christians know.

Those bullies were envious of their honest prosperity, and wanted to
wreck the wealth of the nation.

More or less, the speech had not changed significantly.

Eridanus
 
   

Re: the 10 most dangerous religious right organizations Stephen 10/6/12 6:09 AM
jillery wrote:

> On Fri, 5 Oct 2012 20:29:49 +0000 (UTC), "Stephen"
> <ssa...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > same is true of legislation: much which seems clear becomes fuzzy in
> > application or after passage of time when unanticipated
> > circumstances arise. Thus the role of Courts to interpret the laws
> > or Constitution.
>
>
> Both you and Bob are almost correct.  The Constitution outlines in
> broad strokes the responsibilites of SCOTUS, but it was John Marshall
> who first filled in the details, including the concept of Judicial
> Review, which checked the legilative and executives powers of the
> other branches of government.  The scope of SCOTUS authority is
> continuously tested and refined.

Yes, that's pretty much where I was trying to go with my comments and
thanks for helping to get there.  Court decisions put flesh on the
bones of constitutional framework.

The vehicle through which Marshall exerted this influence was of course
the case Marbury v Madison (5 US (1 Cranch) 137 (1803)), as author of
the court's opinion in the case.  The case, obviously, occupies a crux
position for the SC and the judiciary in general.

S.

--

Re: the 10 most dangerous religious right organizations AlwaysAskingQuestions 10/6/12 6:54 AM
Robert Camp wrote:
> On Oct 6, 4:29 am, "AlwaysAskingQuestions"
> <alwaysaskingquesti...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> eridanus wrote:
>>> It is very interesting to read.
>>
>>> http://www.alternet.org/belief/10-most-dangerous-religious-right-orga...
>>
>>> The 10 Most Dangerous Religious Right Organizations
>>> The religious right is more powerful than ever, using its massive
>>> annual revenue and grassroots troops to promote a right-wing
>>> ideology and undermine church and state separation.
>>> October 2, 2012 |
>>
>>> The movement known as the Religious Right is the number-one threat
>>> to church-state separation in America. This collection of
>>> organizations is well funded and well organized; it uses its
>>> massive annual revenue and grassroots troops to undermine the wall
>>> of separation in communities nationwide.
>>
>>> Americans United staff members have carefully researched this
>>> movement, and here are the 10 Religious Right groups that pose the
>>> greatest challenges to church-state separation. Most of these
>>> organizations are tax-exempt under Section 501(c)(3) of the tax
>>> code, but the financial data includes some affiliated 501(c)(4)
>>> lobbying organizations operating alongside the main organizations.
>>> The figures come from official IRS filings or other reliable
>>> sources.
>>
>>> it follows more information.
>>
>> Listing the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops as a
>> "Dangerous Religious Right Organization" does not, of course,
>> reflect any prejudice on the part of the author, nor does the fact
>> that he tells deliberate lies about them <rolls eyes>
>
> I'm also skeptical that there aren't at least ten more "dangerous"
> religious organizations than the USCCB, but I cannot tell where the
> lies are in this,
>
> "The USCCB for years has lobbied in Washington, D.C., to make the
> hierarchy’s ultra-conservative stands on reproductive rights,
> marriage, school vouchers and other public policies the law for all to
> follow. This year, the USCCB escalated its efforts in the “culture
> war” arena, forming the Ad Hoc Committee on Religious Liberty. Led by
> Baltimore Archbishop William E. Lori, the committee seeks to reduce
> Americans’ access to birth control, block efforts to expand marriage
> equality and ensure federal funding of church-affiliated social
> services, even if the services fail to meet government requirements.
> American Catholics often disagree with the hierarchy’s stance on
> social issues, but the bishops’ clout in Washington, D.C., and the
> state legisla­tures is undeniable."
>
> There are interpretations of intent with which you may disagree, but
> considering the causes behind which this organization puts its weight,
> the author's comments are hardly immoderate. Where are the "deliberate
> lies?"
>

Try the "for all to follow" bit. I would also doubt that the bishops have
any significant clout in Washington.


Re: the 10 most dangerous religious right organizations Robert Camp 10/6/12 8:49 AM
On Oct 6, 6:54 am, "AlwaysAskingQuestions"
Okay, I'll admit I barely noticed the "for all to follow" thing at
first. Perhaps if I was a Catholic I might have been more sensitive to
that kind of language, which in retrospect does seem a bit histrionic.
But given that, and considering the fact that the only other problem
you cite is your personal doubts about influence, it seems to me your
response was as much, if not more, of an overreaction as the statement
itself.

RLC

Re: the 10 most dangerous religious right organizations chris thompson 10/6/12 9:14 AM
On Oct 4, 6:49�pm, prawnster <zweibro...@ymail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 3, 10:54 pm, SkyEyes <skyey...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > ...named, oddly enough, "Thomas Jefferson."
> > [...]
> > From the Library of Congress website:
>
> > Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists
> > The Final Letter, as Sent
>
> Okay. �So it was an august Supreme Kourt justice taking a Jefferson
> phrase out of context.
>
> Thanks for confirming that the phrase "separation of church and state"
> is nowhere in the US constitution.

Of course it's nowhere in the Constitution.

I would also point out that nowhere in the criminal code of New York
State do the words "It's against the law for Chris to use a ball-peen
hammer to smash out the few remaining neurons in Prawnie's cranium"
appear. So it must be OK.

Care to come for a visit?

Chris

Just sayin', ya know.

Re: the 10 most dangerous religious right organizations Bob Casanova 10/6/12 9:59 AM
On Fri, 5 Oct 2012 20:29:49 +0000 (UTC), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by "Stephen"
<ssa...@austin.rr.com>:
>true of legislation: much which *seems* clear becomes fuzzy in
>application or after passage of time when unanticipated circumstances
>arise. Thus the role of Courts to interpret the laws or Constitution.

You're correct in practice (after all, what other
organization could possible be appropriate), but the
practice is not specifically defined in the Constitution.
The assigned role of the USSC to the ultimate authority to
adjudicate "all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this
Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties
made" does *not* specifically include authority over
interpretation of the Constitution, an authority which was
first deemed to exist by the Jay Court. See:

http://www.scholastic.com/teachers/article/supreme-court-and-constitutional-interpretation
Re: the 10 most dangerous religious right organizations Bob Casanova 10/6/12 10:09 AM
On Fri, 05 Oct 2012 16:37:54 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

>On Fri, 05 Oct 2012 11:18:30 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>
>wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 05 Oct 2012 05:47:12 -0400, the following appeared
>>in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:
>>
>>>On Fri, 5 Oct 2012 01:29:04 -0700 (PDT), SkyEyes <skye...@yahoo.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Oct 4, 3:59 pm, prawnster <zweibro...@ymail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Oct 4, 11:49 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> > [...]
>>>>> > Er, you don't expect Shrimpie to actually acknowledge his
>>>>> > error, do you?
>>>>> > --
>>>>>
>>>>> The important point is that the phrase cited by eridanus is nowhere in
>>>>> the constitution; it's from a Supreme Kourt decision, where an august
>>>>> justice, Oye! Oye!, smuggled a Jefferson phrase into his decision as
>>>>> if it were part of the constitution, as if he were citing precedent.
>>>>> 80%+ of AmeriKKKans don't even know the phrase "separation of church
>>>>> and state" isn't in the constitution, much less non-AmeriKKKans.
>>>>
>>>>It might not be in the Constitution, but it's certainly in the legal
>>>>culture of the U.S., as voiced by the Supreme Court.  If it does not
>>>>have the force of *law*, it most certainly has the force of *custom*
>>>>and the force of *legal philosophy*.
>>>
>>>
>>>IIUC, that the phrase itself is not literally in the actual text of
>>>the Constitution is quite irrelevant.  SCOTUS decisions are extensions
>>>to the Constitution
>>
>>....essentially by legal usurpation, since nowhere in the
>>Constitution is this power of the USSC specified, one of the
>>few potential problems missed by the framers.
>>
>>Just sayin'... ;-)
>
>
>Yes, John Marshall corrected that oversight.  Had there been
>significant objection, an amendment to the Constitution could have
>been drafted overturning some or all of his decisions.

Yep, in Marbury vs. Madison; one of the few instances in
which I tend to disagree with Jefferson, although his
warnings about a "moldable Constitution" subject to current
judicial temperament should have been given greater
attention, at least IMHO.

But it could be argued that John Jay actually preceded
Marshall in this, although not in as clear a manner.

>>>, until they are overturned by newer decisions, or
>>>by amendments to the Constitution.
>>>
>>>Don't let prawnster bully you.
>>
>>She won't; I suspect she finds him amusing in a creepy sort
>>of way.
Re: the 10 most dangerous religious right organizations AlwaysAskingQuestions 10/6/12 12:24 PM
Possibly, but we all have our flashpoints and one of mine is liberals who
see liberalism as other people agreeing with their viewpoints; I see this
particularly often in regard to religion where everybody is entitled to
voice their opinion except those with religious beliefs; in this case, the
author seems to be annoyed that the USCCB should dare express an opinion.


Re: the 10 most dangerous religious right organizations eridanus 10/6/12 12:49 PM
El sábado, 6 de octubre de 2012 20:24:31 UTC+1, AlwaysAskingQuestions  escribió:
Of course, laws and opinions are never a pleasure to all people.
Some laws of interpretation of a law can displease a part of
religious people, or other to liberals and people favorable to laicism.

Both sides try to win a control of the nation, favoring the
implementation of laws they like.  
In this point is not a question of which law is just or necessary
but if all the groups favor the existence of a particular law.
I will put an extreme example.  Some nations that were influenced
by European colonialist implemented civil laws that existed in
Europe and displaced the laws of the sharia.  You can see easily,
without any need to be the King Solomon, that some people could be
in favor of a return of the sharia, while others would prefer some
civil code based on European laws.

The same occurs in the US.  Some American religious groups, very
conservative want to turned back the clock of history and implement
laws and prohibitions that existed fifty years ago.  It is the
equivalent in Western terms to a return to laws of the sharia.

You can understand that not all people would favor a return to
the sharia.  It is a question so easy to understand.
This struggle is a fight for the control of people in the nation by
means of laws that divide people.

Eridanus
 
 

Re: the 10 most dangerous religious right organizations eridanus 10/6/12 12:59 PM
El sábado, 6 de octubre de 2012 17:59:32 UTC+1, Bob Casanova  escribió:
> On Fri, 5 Oct 2012 20:29:49 +0000 (UTC), the following
>
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by "Stephen"
>
> <ssa...@austin.rr.com>:
>
>
>
> >Bob Casanova wrote:
>
> >
>
> >> On Fri, 05 Oct 2012 05:47:12 -0400, the following appeared
>
> >> in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:
>
> >>
>
> >> > On Fri, 5 Oct 2012 01:29:04 -0700 (PDT), SkyEyes
>
> >> > <skye...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> >
>
> >> >>On Oct 4, 3:59 pm, prawnster <zweibro...@ymail.com> wrote:
Ok, what it seems clear to me is as some groups of politicians
can disagree with others about a particular law, they can present
a query to the Supreme Court to challenge this particular law.

If were not for the Supreme Court, they would have to resort to
a civil war, like occurred in 1861 apparently because of slavery.
It is not yet clear to me, if this was the main reason for the
civil war.  Perhaps existed other reasons not openly declared.

Remember that I am skeptical in most things but the banal ones.

Eridanus
Re: the 10 most dangerous religious right organizations eridanus 10/6/12 1:19 PM
El s�bado, 6 de octubre de 2012 20:24:31 UTC+1, AlwaysAskingQuestions  escribi�:
the word liberalism, as opposed to traditional ways of control
commerce and industry started in Europe. In some parts of southern
Europe the liberals won some wars and thus started a new age of
more freedom of industry and commerce. Those liberals were sort
of new rich people, that confronted some impediments to create new
industries and new ways of commerce.  They wanted specially in Spain
to import cheap cereals from US.  A similar case occurred in UK. with
cereals.
Then, the divide was among liberals and conservatives. That mean the new
rich people versus the old wealth of landowners. Being conservatives
they asked the helps of religious groups to gather more strength.

Then, in the US the word conservative was used to describe some
political groups that sought the help of religious groups.  Mostly,
and simplifying a little, the industrial states were mostly liberal,
and poorer rural states were conservatives.  Their poor people were
so full of shit, that the landowners needed the religious help to
control a desperate populace with little hope.  They needed a harsh
handle to control those desperadoes.  That is why in the most miserable
states they are very "liberal" in the use of death penalty.

Eridanus
 


Re: the 10 most dangerous religious right organizations Robert Camp 10/6/12 4:39 PM
On Oct 6, 12:24 pm, "AlwaysAskingQuestions"
I sympathize, though (not surprising given my political inclinations)
I think a case can be made that conservatives are much more egregious
in adopting this attitude than liberals. My case would begin with the
suggestion that those who see themselves as righteous in one context
(religion) are far more likely to extend that overconfidence to other
arenas (politics) than those who simply see themselves as right.

> I see this
> particularly often in regard to religion where everybody is entitled to
> voice their opinion except those with religious beliefs; in this case, the
> author seems to be annoyed that the USCCB should dare express an opinion.

I agree that that interpretation is tenable, though his real
annoyance, as I see it, is with the content of those opinions. But you
raise an issue in which I've been interested in for a while: how the
religious disposition of our society (America) will have to change,
and how willing theists will be to give way to a greater diversity of
voices. I think this is inevitable, and it would be best for all of us
if it happens with grace and magnanimity. But all too often it seems
to me that Christians and Catholics see themselves as persecuted when
in fact all that is happening is the reasonable moderation of their
traditional influence.

So I ask this in all seriousness - do you see the opportunity of
expression for the religious in our society as unfairly limited?

RLC

Re: the 10 most dangerous religious right organizations jillery 10/6/12 5:34 PM
On Fri, 05 Oct 2012 21:54:37 -0400, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Fri, 5 Oct 2012 12:59:54 -0700 (PDT), eridanus
><leopoldo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>El viernes, 5 de octubre de 2012 12:59:36 UTC+1, jillery  escribi�:
>>> On Fri, 5 Oct 2012 03:10:31 -0700 (PDT), eridanus
>
>[...]
>
>
>>> Once again I have no idea what you're asking.
>>
>>I was a little distracted.
>>
>>I was commenting on the words of Sky eyes.
>>
>>She said,
>>> IIUC, that the phrase itself is not literally in the actual text of
>>> the Constitution is quite irrelevant.  SCOTUS decisions are extensions
>>> to the Constitution, until they are overturned by newer decisions, or
>>> by amendments to the Constitution.
>
>
>I wrote that, in the very post to which you replied.
>
>
>>And I should had write,
>>
>>"Then all that matters is not glittering in US Constitution?"
>>
>>It was a comment for sky eyes, but I wrote it a little wrong.
>
>
>Then it was a comment for me, and I still have no idea what you're
>asking or why.  It might help if you tried to rephrase your question.


Should I stop waiting to answer your question?

Re: the 10 most dangerous religious right organizations Mitchell Coffey 10/6/12 5:49 PM
On Friday, October 5, 2012 12:59:35 PM UTC-4, prawnster wrote:
> On Oct 5, 2:49�am, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > [...]
>
> > IIUC, that the phrase itself is not literally in the actual text of
>
> > the Constitution is quite irrelevant. �SCOTUS decisions are extensions
>
> > to the Constitution, until they are overturned by newer decisions, or
>
> > by amendments to the Constitution.
>
> >
>
> > Don't let prawnster bully you.
>
>
>
> Wow.  It's profound ignorance like yours that allows one august
> Supreme Kourt jurist, Oye! Oye!, to single-handedly rewrite a law,
> thereby usurping the power of the legislature, of Kongress, and
> violate the separation of powers without causing a violent
> revolution.  Supreme Kourt decisions should never "extend" the
> constitution; the Supreme Kourt should only decide whether or not a
> law violates the constitution.
>
> And prawndaddy don't bully -- prawndaddy edumocates the ignant like
> yourself, jillbaby.

How can one Supreme Court Justice single-handedly rewrite a law?

Mitchell Coffey

Re: the 10 most dangerous religious right organizations SkyEyes 10/6/12 9:19 PM
On Oct 5, 5:04�pm, prawnster <zweibro...@ymail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 5, 3:14 pm, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > [...]
> > Ironically, their doctrinal descendants include the religious right
> > who are no longer a minority in this country, and have a ferocious
> > desire to bully others. But their predecessors in our first generation
> > were wiser, if only because they were on the other side.
>
> Wrong. �It is the atheist yet Earth-worshipping Left, a vocal minority
> in this country, who displays a fierce desire to bully and control
> others. �Their predecessors were just as dumb, but simply lacked the
> full support of government, schools, and the media that they now have.

Can I have some of what you're smoking?

Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
skyeyes nine at cox dot net OR
skyeyes nine at yahoo dot com

Re: the 10 most dangerous religious right organizations SkyEyes 10/6/12 9:24 PM
On Oct 5, 2:04 am, prawnster <zweibro...@ymail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 5, 1:29 am, SkyEyes <skyey...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > [...]
> > It might not be in the Constitution, but it's certainly in the legal
> > culture of the U.S., as voiced by the Supreme Court. If it does not
> > have the force of *law*, it most certainly has the force of *custom*
> > and the force of *legal philosophy*.
>
> I think you protest too much, doll.

Think what you like, precedent is what precedent is.  And don't call
me "doll."
Re: the 10 most dangerous religious right organizations SkyEyes 10/6/12 9:44 PM
On Oct 5, 2:49�am, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Oct 2012 01:29:04 -0700 (PDT), SkyEyes <skyey...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Oct 4, 3:59�pm, prawnster <zweibro...@ymail.com> wrote:
> >> On Oct 4, 11:49�am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>
> >> > [...]
> >> > Er, you don't expect Shrimpie to actually acknowledge his
> >> > error, do you?
> >> > --
>
> >> The important point is that the phrase cited by eridanus is nowhere in
> >> the constitution; it's from a Supreme Kourt decision, where an august
> >> justice, Oye! Oye!, smuggled a Jefferson phrase into his decision as
> >> if it were part of the constitution, as if he were citing precedent.
> >> 80%+ of AmeriKKKans don't even know the phrase "separation of church
> >> and state" isn't in the constitution, much less non-AmeriKKKans.
>
> >It might not be in the Constitution, but it's certainly in the legal
> >culture of the U.S., as voiced by the Supreme Court. �If it does not
> >have the force of *law*, it most certainly has the force of *custom*
> >and the force of *legal philosophy*.
>
> IIUC, that the phrase itself is not literally in the actual text of
> the Constitution is quite irrelevant. �SCOTUS decisions are extensions
> to the Constitution, until they are overturned by newer decisions, or
> by amendments to the Constitution.

That's my understanding as well.  But you phrased it better than I
did.  :)
>
> Don't let prawnster bully you.

Don't worry.  *Nobody* bullies me.  I'm an old cowgirl.  Thanks for
the support, however!

Brenda


Re: the 10 most dangerous religious right organizations SkyEyes 10/6/12 9:44 PM
On Oct 4, 3:49�pm, prawnster <zweibro...@ymail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 3, 10:54 pm, SkyEyes <skyey...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > ...named, oddly enough, "Thomas Jefferson."
> > [...]
> > From the Library of Congress website:
>
> > Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists
> > The Final Letter, as Sent
>
> Okay. �So it was an august Supreme Kourt justice taking a Jefferson
> phrase out of context.
>
> Thanks for confirming that the phrase "separation of church and state"
> is nowhere in the US constitution.

Nobody claims that it *is*.  As jillery explained upthread, the USSC
has incorporated the concept into its rulings, which are an extension
of the Constitution.

Good grief.  Tempest.  Teapot.
Re: the 10 most dangerous religious right organizations SkyEyes 10/6/12 9:49 PM
On Oct 4, 5:04�pm, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Oct 2012 15:22:05 -0700 (PDT), eridanus
>
> <leopoldo.perd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >It is very interesting to read.
>
> >http://www.alternet.org/belief/10-most-dangerous-religious-right-orga...
>
> >The 10 Most Dangerous Religious Right Organizations
> >The religious right is more powerful than ever, using its massive annual revenue and grassroots troops to promote a right-wing ideology and undermine church and state separation.
> >October 2, 2012 �|
>
> >The movement known as the Religious Right is the number-one threat to church-state separation in America. This collection of organizations is well funded and well organized; it uses its massive annual revenue and grassroots troops to undermine the wall of separation in communities nationwide.
>
> Really? Can you (or anyone else) �name a single organization advocating
> for a government-established religion in the United States?
>
> [snip]

You've *got* to be kidding.  I grew up in the 1950s and 60s listening
to the Baptist preacher in my church advocating for the takeover of
the U.S. government by born-again christians.

Google "Dominionism."
Re: the 10 most dangerous religious right organizations SkyEyes 10/6/12 9:49 PM
On Oct 4, 5:04 pm, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Oct 2012 15:22:05 -0700 (PDT), eridanus
>
> <leopoldo.perd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >It is very interesting to read.
>
> >http://www.alternet.org/belief/10-most-dangerous-religious-right-orga...
>
> >The 10 Most Dangerous Religious Right Organizations
> >The religious right is more powerful than ever, using its massive annual revenue and grassroots troops to promote a right-wing ideology and undermine church and state separation.
> >October 2, 2012  |
>
> >The movement known as the Religious Right is the number-one threat to church-state separation in America. This collection of organizations is well funded and well organized; it uses its massive annual revenue and grassroots troops to undermine the wall of separation in communities nationwide.
>
> Really? Can you (or anyone else)  name a single organization advocating
> for a government-established religion in the United States?
>
> [snip]

The Fellowship.  Google "C Street": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C_Street_Center
Re: the 10 most dangerous religious right organizations SkyEyes 10/6/12 9:54 PM
On Oct 5, 4:44�pm, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Oct 2012 15:30:38 -0700 (PDT), Kermit
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >On 4 Oct, 17:04, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 3 Oct 2012 15:22:05 -0700 (PDT), eridanus
>
> >> <leopoldo.perd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >It is very interesting to read.
>
> >> >http://www.alternet.org/belief/10-most-dangerous-religious-right-orga...
>
> >> >The 10 Most Dangerous Religious Right Organizations
> >> >The religious right is more powerful than ever, using its massive annual revenue and grassroots troops to promote a right-wing ideology and undermine church and state separation.
> >> >October 2, 2012 |
>
> >> >The movement known as the Religious Right is the number-one threat to church-state separation in America. This collection of organizations is well funded and well organized; it uses its massive annual revenue and grassroots troops to undermine the wall of separation in communities nationwide.
>
> >> Really? Can you (or anyone else) name a single organization advocating
> >> for a government-established religion in the United States?
>
> >> [snip]
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominionism
>
> >http://www.rightwingwatch.org/category/topics/dominionism
>
> >http://www.theocracywatch.org/
>
> I asked for an organization. "Dominionism" is not an organization. My
> question is, who specifically is trying to get congress to make a law
> "respecting the establishment of religion", i.e. establishing a
> *national church* (which is what the establishment clause forbids).

The Fellowship.  The C Street House.  They're *all* part of the
Dominionist cause.
Re: the 10 most dangerous religious right organizations eridanus 10/7/12 1:14 AM
El domingo, 7 de octubre de 2012 01:34:31 UTC+1, jillery  escribió:
> On Fri, 05 Oct 2012 21:54:37 -0400, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>
>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Fri, 5 Oct 2012 12:59:54 -0700 (PDT), eridanus
>
> ><leopoldo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
>
> >>El viernes, 5 de octubre de 2012 12:59:36 UTC+1, jillery  escribió:
>
> >>> On Fri, 5 Oct 2012 03:10:31 -0700 (PDT), eridanus
>
> >
>
> >[...]
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >>> Once again I have no idea what you're asking.
>
> >>
>
> >>I was a little distracted.
>
> >>
>
> >>I was commenting on the words of Sky eyes.
>
> >>
>
> >>She said,
>
> >>> IIUC, that the phrase itself is not literally in the actual text of
>
> >>> the Constitution is quite irrelevant.  SCOTUS decisions are extensions
>
> >>> to the Constitution, until they are overturned by newer decisions, or
>
> >>> by amendments to the Constitution.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >I wrote that, in the very post to which you replied.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >>And I should had write,
>
> >>
>
> >>"Then all that matters is not glittering in US Constitution?"
>
> >>
>
> >>It was a comment for sky eyes, but I wrote it a little wrong.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >Then it was a comment for me, and I still have no idea what you're
>
> >asking or why.  It might help if you tried to rephrase your question.
>
>
>
>
>
> Should I stop waiting to answer your question?

you are talking to me, jillery?  I am so sorry.  I did not think
your question was deemed so important.


There a saying in English, "all the glitters is not gold".  Then, even
if the US Constitution was a model in its own time (19 century?) some
people or other was discontent with it, and was making new laws to make
politics according to their liking.  Then, Christians wanted to have
some laws according to their vision of public life.  While other people
more laicist wanted to have laws more in accord with their own point
of view.  Then, I had the idea, perhaps wrong, that US Constitution is
incomplete and existed the feeling that there were needed some laws to
perfect it.  Then, the problem with some laws is they rarely are the
sweet pear to all people.   Then, this was apparent on the need of
another group of people, like the Supreme Court, to arbiter if a law
has to be considered right or not.

These commentaries are a light construction in my mind, for I never had
red the US Constitutions nor I have the intention to read it.  All my
comments are inspired in what US people is saying.

I suppose the US has some pieces of gold for it is considered by most
in great regard.  But there must exist in it some deficiencies, that
are supplemented with laws.  Then, those that had slaves needed to
perfect the meaning of owning slaves, and some contraries to slavery
presented some recourse to the Supreme Court. In several instances, the
SC upheld the right to own slaves, till in some moment, things changed.

But my knowledge on this topics are a reflection of what American people
is commenting here or there.  I never had been really interested in the
substance of US Constitution.  

Then, this was the reason of me, not to write this long post to say, I am
rather a crass ignorant of US politics.  

Does my replied now is good enough for you, or should I write a longer
thesis?

Eridanus

 


Re: the 10 most dangerous religious right organizations jillery 10/7/12 2:04 AM
On Sun, 7 Oct 2012 01:13:13 -0700 (PDT), eridanus
Actually it was your question.  You *really* have a problem wih
attributions.
This is plenty long enough, thanks.  I hope you get that attribution
problem fixed.

Re: the 10 most dangerous religious right organizations eridanus 10/7/12 5:14 AM
El domingo, 7 de octubre de 2012 10:04:30 UTC+1, jillery  escribió:
> On Sun, 7 Oct 2012 01:13:13 -0700 (PDT), eridanus
>
> <leopoldo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> >El domingo, 7 de octubre de 2012 01:34:31 UTC+1, jillery  escribi�:
>
> >> On Fri, 05 Oct 2012 21:54:37 -0400, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>
>
> >>
>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >On Fri, 5 Oct 2012 12:59:54 -0700 (PDT), eridanus
>
> >>
>
> >> ><leopoldo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >>El viernes, 5 de octubre de 2012 12:59:36 UTC+1, jillery  escribi�:
sorry, man. I do not understand what you mean by attribution.
I was not replying to people, but to some phrases, or some ideas.

I have problems to get fixed "who is writing what".  I have problems
to remember if a name is from one conservative religious person, or
from an scientists fan, or an evolutionist. someone called Dean and
prawns is a conservative.  But it is because i had a lot of
interactions with him.

I was taking you for a fan of science. I believe also that Ron Okimoto,
is a fan of science and many others I do not remember now.  But
sometimes I am not so sure about who is who.   It must be a problem
with my old age.  I have troubles to remember names and their
attributes.

Eridanus



 

Re: the 10 most dangerous religious right organizations AlwaysAskingQuestions 10/7/12 9:29 AM
Robert Camp wrote:

[...]

> But you
> raise an issue in which I've been interested in for a while: how the
> religious disposition of our society (America) will have to change,
> and how willing theists will be to give way to a greater diversity of
> voices.

I can't really comment about America but here in Europe, all the mainstream
religions already accept and even embrace that diversity of voices. In
Ireland, where I live, for example, there has been a massive sea change in
this over the last 20 years or so.

> I think this is inevitable, and it would be best for all of us
> if it happens with grace and magnanimity. But all too often it seems
> to me that Christians and Catholics see themselves as persecuted when
> in fact all that is happening is the reasonable moderation of their
> traditional influence.
>
> So I ask this in all seriousness - do you see the opportunity of
> expression for the religious in our society as unfairly limited?

Not in any formal way though I do see more and more of a move to actively
keep religion out of public life. For example people not being allowed to
wear religious emblems at work -. I struggle to see the difference between
somebody wearing a cross to show their religious beliefs and somebody
wearing a poppy on their uniform during November ( a British custom to
commemorate those who gave their lives in war). Also in things like trying
to take the 'Christ' out of Christmas and not allowing Christmas related
religious displays in shopping centres, etc. There is also less tolerance
for people exercising their religious views in their professional activities
like various attempts to tighten up the freedom of conscience clauses which
allow doctors and nurses to opt out of abortion related activities.

Just a year or so ago, the Catholic Church in the UK had to abandon its work
on adoption - an area where it had a widely reconised high success rate in
placing "difficult" children - because the Church would not agree to taking
part in helping same sex couples to adopt. I don't take issue with the
legislation that allows same sex couples to adopt but I think it very wrong
that the Church was not allowed to offer its services to those who share its
beliefs about marriage.

I always regarded true liberalism as the creation of an environment where
everybody can express their views and beliefs provided they do not seek to
*impose* those beliefs and views on others. As referred to in my earlier
posting, there seems to an ever increasing kneejerk reaction to church
leaders speaking out on social issues; no Church has the right to impose its
views on society but every Church has the right to seek to influence public
opinion.


Re: the 10 most dangerous religious right organizations Bob Casanova 10/7/12 10:24 AM
On Sat, 6 Oct 2012 12:58:35 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by eridanus
<leopoldo...@gmail.com>:

>El s�bado, 6 de octubre de 2012 17:59:32 UTC+1, Bob Casanova  escribi�:
>> On Fri, 5 Oct 2012 20:29:49 +0000 (UTC), the following
>>
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by "Stephen"
>>
>> <ssa...@austin.rr.com>:
>>
>>
>>
>> >Bob Casanova wrote:
>>
>> >
>>
>> >> On Fri, 05 Oct 2012 05:47:12 -0400, the following appeared
>>
>> >> in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> > On Fri, 5 Oct 2012 01:29:04 -0700 (PDT), SkyEyes
>>
>> >> > <skye...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> >
>>
>> >> >>On Oct 4, 3:59�pm, prawnster <zweibro...@ymail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> >>> On Oct 4, 11:49�am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>>
>> >> > > >
>>
>> >> >>> > [...]
>>
>> >> >>> > Er, you don't expect Shrimpie to actually acknowledge his
>>
>> >> >>> > error, do you?
>>
>> >> >>> > --
>>
>> >> > > >
>>
>> >> >>> The important point is that the phrase cited by eridanus is
>>
>> >> nowhere in >>> the constitution; it's from a Supreme Kourt decision,
>>
>> >> where an august >>> justice, Oye! Oye!, smuggled a Jefferson phrase
>>
>> >> into his decision as >>> if it were part of the constitution, as if
>>
>> >> he were citing precedent.  >>> 80%+ of AmeriKKKans don't even know
>>
>> >> the phrase "separation of church >>> and state" isn't in the
>>
>> >> constitution, much less non-AmeriKKKans.
>>
>> >> > >
>>
>> >> > > It might not be in the Constitution, but it's certainly in the
>>
>> >> > > legal culture of the U.S., as voiced by the Supreme Court.  If it
>>
>> >> > > does not have the force of law, it most certainly has the force
>>
>> >> > > of custom and the force of *legal philosophy*.
>>
>> >> >
>>
>> >> >
>>
>> >> > IIUC, that the phrase itself is not literally in the actual text of
>>
>> >> > the Constitution is quite irrelevant.  SCOTUS decisions are
>>
Yep, and if the Court decides to hear it and makes a
decision the losing side will claim bias and a need for
"balance".

>If were not for the Supreme Court, they would have to resort to
>a civil war, like occurred in 1861 apparently because of slavery.
>It is not yet clear to me, if this was the main reason for the
>civil war.  Perhaps existed other reasons not openly declared.

Read Jefferson's objection to the result of Marbury vs.
Madison; it wouldn't have required a civil war, although I
think Jefferson attributed an undue level of rationality to
the various branches of government.

And can you please do something about the formatting of your
posts? As you can see, it's a bit strange and a PITA to
follow. Thanks.
Re: the 10 most dangerous religious right organizations Bob Casanova 10/7/12 10:29 AM
On Sun, 7 Oct 2012 17:27:20 +0100, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by "AlwaysAskingQuestions"
<alwaysaski...@gmail.com>:

>Robert Camp wrote:

>> But you
>> raise an issue in which I've been interested in for a while: how the
>> religious disposition of our society (America) will have to change,
>> and how willing theists will be to give way to a greater diversity of
>> voices.

>I can't really comment about America but here in Europe, all the mainstream
>religions already accept and even embrace that diversity of voices. In
>Ireland, where I live, for example, there has been a massive sea change in
>this over the last 20 years or so.

The same pretty much applies here, but the screaming
fanatics (a distinct minority) get the press. I suspect that
it's the same in Europe, but you have fewer fanatics at the
moment.
The classic meanings of both "liberal" and "conservative"
have become distorted over the past few decades, but your
idea is quite close to the classic meaning.
Re: the 10 most dangerous religious right organizations jillery 10/7/12 3:09 PM
On Sun, 7 Oct 2012 05:14:21 -0700 (PDT), eridanus
<leopoldo...@gmail.com> wrote:

>El domingo, 7 de octubre de 2012 10:04:30 UTC+1, jillery  escribió:
>> On Sun, 7 Oct 2012 01:13:13 -0700 (PDT), eridanus

[...]
 
>> This is plenty long enough, thanks.  I hope you get that attribution
>> problem fixed.
>
>sorry, man. I do not understand what you mean by attribution.
>I was not replying to people, but to some phrases, or some ideas.
>
>I have problems to get fixed "who is writing what".  I have problems
>to remember if a name is from one conservative religious person, or
>from an scientists fan, or an evolutionist. someone called Dean and
>prawns is a conservative.  But it is because i had a lot of
>interactions with him.
>
>I was taking you for a fan of science. I believe also that Ron Okimoto,
>is a fan of science and many others I do not remember now.  But
>sometimes I am not so sure about who is who.   It must be a problem
>with my old age.  I have troubles to remember names and their
>attributes.
>
>Eridanus


There are plenty of posters whose assertions sound like jokes, even
though they are meant to be sincere, and so successfully projecting
irony and satire on Usenet is a challenge even using one's native
language.  I imagine it's doubly so for someone who relies on ESL.  

As before, this is just FYI and no personal criticism expressed or
implied.

Re: the 10 most dangerous religious right organizations prawnster 10/7/12 11:29 PM
On Oct 6, 5:49 pm, Mitchell Coffey <mitchell.cof...@gmail.com> wrote:
> [...]
> How can one Supreme Kourt Justice single-handedly rewrite a law?
>

It all starts with television, the true opiate of the masses.

One, two, skip a few, and we arrive at:

One barely closeted pederast, with the approval of three dykes and a
limp tunaboy seeking plaudits from the NY Times and LGBTNBC, crosses
out "penalty" and pencils in "tax."  Thus, with no vote at all in
Kongress, one august jurist single-handedly rewrites a law, with the
other hand deep inside the boybutt of his deepest imagining, virtually
speaking.

Re: the 10 most dangerous religious right organizations Nick Keighley 10/8/12 4:29 AM
On Oct 7, 9:14 am, eridanus <leopoldo.perd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> El domingo, 7 de octubre de 2012 01:34:31 UTC+1, jillery  escribi :
> > On Fri, 05 Oct 2012 21:54:37 -0400, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >On Fri, 5 Oct 2012 12:59:54 -0700 (PDT), eridanus
> > ><leopoldo.perd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>El viernes, 5 de octubre de 2012 12:59:36 UTC+1, jillery  escribi :
> > >>> On Fri, 5 Oct 2012 03:10:31 -0700 (PDT), eridanus

don't snip the stuff you are actually responding to

<snip>

> > >>> IIUC, that the phrase itself [separation of chrirch and state]
> > >>> is not literally in the actual text of
> > >>> the Constitution is quite irrelevant.  SCOTUS decisions are extensions
> > >>> to the Constitution, until they are overturned by newer decisions, or
> > >>> by amendments to the Constitution.

[...]

> > >>And I should had write,
>
> > >>"Then all that matters is not glittering in US Constitution?"

which is the same as you wrote before and makes just as little sense.

> > > [...] I still have no idea what you're
> > >asking or why.  It might help if you tried to rephrase your question.
>
> > Should I stop waiting to answer your question?
>
> you are talking to me, jillery?  I am so sorry.  I did not think
> your question was deemed so important.

actually it was your question

> There a saying in English, "all the glitters is not gold".  Then, even
> if the US Constitution was a model in its own time (19 century?)

18th. Declaration of Independence 1776, presumably the constitution
was written shortly afterwards.

The US constitution *was* a model in its time and remains one (I'm not
an American)

> some
> people or other was discontent with it, and was making new laws to make
> politics according to their liking.

the US constitution is a living evolving document. It has built in to
it provision for modification. The constitution consists of the
original constitution plus amendments (there are a dozen of so) plus
interpretations of the constitution by the supreme court (SCOTUS).

> Then, Christians wanted to have
> some laws according to their vision of public life.  While other people
> more laicist wanted to have laws more in accord with their own point
> of view.

I'm not sure this is an accurate description of the facts.

> Then, I had the idea, perhaps wrong, that US Constitution is
> incomplete and existed the feeling that there were needed some laws to
> perfect it.

the people who wrote didn't expect to achieve perfection or that the
United States would remain unchanged. Its over 200 years old, things
change. The constitution is changed ("perfected" if you will) by
constitutional amendments.

> Then, the problem with some laws is they rarely are the
> sweet pear to all people.   Then, this was apparent on the need of
> another group of people, like the Supreme Court, to arbiter if a law
> has to be considered right or not.

and SCOTUS were there from day one. No matter how clear the english
(and the US constitution is a model of clarity and brevity) there is
always room for interpretation. Consider "the right to bear arms"...

> These commentaries are a light construction in my mind, for I never had
> red the US Constitutions nor I have the intention to read it.

perhaps you should stop pontificating on it then? Try reading the
wikipedia entry it'll at least give you an overview.

>  All my
> comments are inspired in what US people is saying.

or what you think they are saying

> I suppose the US has some pieces of gold for it is considered by most
> in great regard.

what?

> But there must exist in it some deficiencies, that
> are supplemented with laws.  Then, those that had slaves needed to
> perfect the meaning of owning slaves, and some contraries to slavery
> presented some recourse to the Supreme Court. In several instances, the
> SC upheld the right to own slaves, till in some moment, things changed.
>
> But my knowledge on this topics are a reflection of what American people
> is commenting here or there.  I never had been really interested in the
> substance of US Constitution.

you have a lot of opinions on something you're not interested in

> Then, this was the reason of me, not to write this long post to say, I am
> rather a crass ignorant of US politics.
>
> Does my replied now is good enough for you, or should I write a longer
> thesis?

try using straightforward english rather odd canned phrases.

instead of
"Then all that matters is not glittering in US Constitution?"

try:
"so the US Constitution isn't perfect, and sometimes get modified?"

(I know I'm a native english speaker but I submit I didn't use any
hard words or difficult constructions- merely clarity)





Re: the 10 most dangerous religious right organizations Robert Camp 10/8/12 10:09 AM
On Oct 7, 9:29�am, "AlwaysAskingQuestions"
<alwaysaskingquesti...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Robert Camp wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > But you
> > raise an issue in which I've been interested in for a while: how the
> > religious disposition of our society (America) will have to change,
> > and how willing theists will be to give way to a greater diversity of
> > voices.
>
> I can't really comment about America but here in Europe, all the mainstream
> religions already accept and even embrace that diversity of voices. In
> Ireland, where I live, for example, there has been a massive sea change in
> this over the last 20 years or so.

I'm not just talking about embracing all religious voices, I'm talking
about embracing atheist and agnostic voices as well. In any case, my
comments have less applicability outside of the U.S.
I agree with this last paragraph (not that I disagree with any of the
previous, just that I cannot comment on most of it). I accept your
definition of liberalism as useful and accurate enough. And while
there may be more room for disparate voices in some parts of the world
than in America, I'm still cautious about how generous the religious
are in relinquishing traditional influence. For example, you cite an
issue that flares up here every year, the supposed "war" on Christmas.
Plenty of people react as you do, chiding apparently militant nit-
picking (opposing Christmas trees in shopping centers), without
considering the implied diminution of belief (and no-belief)
traditions which do not celebrate Christmas. The sentiment seems to
be, "C'mon, it's such a small thing." But of course the magnitude may
well seem quite different to those of other perspectives. My personal
reaction to all this is not to remove displays, just to make sure the
opportunity is there for others who desire representation.

As I said before, I think the U.S. has a long way to go on this issue,
so I'm willing to admit that my caution is, to some degree, shaped by
that context.

Thanks for your response.

RLC

Re: the 10 most dangerous religious right organizations Kermit 10/8/12 10:44 AM
On 5 Oct, 17:04, prawnster <zweibro...@ymail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 5, 3:14 pm, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > [...]
> > Ironically, their doctrinal descendants include the religious right
> > who are no longer a minority in this country, and have a ferocious
> > desire to bully others. But their predecessors in our first generation
> > were wiser, if only because they were on the other side.
>
> Wrong. �It is the atheist yet Earth-worshipping Left, a vocal minority
> in this country, who displays a fierce desire to bully and control
> others. �Their predecessors were just as dumb, but simply lacked the
> full support of government, schools, and the media that they now have.

Darn those Earth-worshipping atheist bullies!

This is why, in the USA, political candidates cannot run for office
unless they publicly reject religion of any kind.
And noisy, smoking, factories have been banned.
Everybody under 50 is forced by law to ride bicycles to work, rather
than drive cars.
And the poor, defenseless industries of coal, oil, and mass media are
bullied by those mean hippie wind power and solar power multi-national
conglomerates. They're not even allowed to talk about weather or crop
damage of floods without detailed discussions of global warming.
And don't get me started on honest Southern wealthy gentlemen having
their slaves taken away from them. It's been 150 years, and it still
hurts.
And vending machines offer nothing but carrot sticks and brussel
sprouts.

Kermit

Re: the 10 most dangerous religious right organizations Bob Casanova 10/8/12 10:59 AM
On Sun, 7 Oct 2012 23:25:55 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by prawnster
<zweib...@ymail.com>:

>On Oct 6, 5:49�pm, Mitchell Coffey <mitchell.cof...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> How can one Supreme Kourt Justice single-handedly rewrite a law?

>It all starts with television

Really? The USSC bases their decisions on TV shows?

Do you *ever* post anything but garbage?
Re: the 10 most dangerous religious right organizations Kermit 10/8/12 11:04 AM
On 7 Oct, 23:29, prawnster <zweibro...@ymail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 6, 5:49 pm, Mitchell Coffey <mitchell.cof...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > [...]
> > How can one Supreme Kourt Justice single-handedly rewrite a law?
>
> It all starts with television, the true opiate of the masses.
>
> One, two, skip a few, and we arrive at:
>
> One barely closeted pederast, with the approval of three dykes and a
> limp tunaboy seeking plaudits from the NY Times and LGBTNBC, crosses
> out "penalty" and pencils in "tax." �Thus, with no vote at all in
> Kongress, one august jurist single-handedly rewrites a law, with the
> other hand deep inside the boybutt of his deepest imagining, virtually
> speaking.

Ah. You're one of those he-man whiners who think that any woman who is
strong, smart, rich, self-assured, or worst of all uninterested in
you, must be lesbian.

This is sad in anyone over 13 or so.

Also, it is almost a a defining characteristic of ignorant fools that
they have few insults at hand other than sexual orientation or
physical characteristics.

Kermit

Re: the 10 most dangerous religious right organizations Kermit 10/8/12 11:19 AM
On 5 Oct, 17:14, prawnster <zweibro...@ymail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 5, 3:24�pm, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > [...]
> > A significant subset of the US population has been rapidly moving from
> > conservative to radical right to fascist. It is only from your
> > viewpoint that your claim can make any sense at all. Now, we *have
> > been getting more tolerant, less bigoted. Perhaps *that's what you
> > were thinking of? But more socialist? Not that I can see.
>
> Wrong. �A significant majority of the US population has been gradually
> moving from conservative to radical Left to Marxist.

Which is why we're going from public schools to voucher schools?
Subcontracting prisons?

I notice that you give no supporting evidence at all. You have
learned, however, that "Marxist" is ungood, so you throw it out there
with strings of other ungood words. A content-free (but connotation-
rich) assertion, supported by your emotional conditioning and the
words of self-appointed spokemen for the tribe, like Rush and Beck.

> �It is only from
> your hazy and incorrect memories that your claim can make any sense at
> all. �Suicidal white Americans have voted for and will vote for an
> African to masturbatorily demonstrate

This is what you think of when you listen to public speakers?

> for an invisible audience that
> they're doubleplus unracist -- perhaps that's what you were thinking
> of.

The only voting I see now that  I could characterize as suicidal would
be folks who support unnecessary wars and folks voting for those who
continue to kowtow to the fossil fuel industry.

>�But more conservative? �With a greater percentage of Americans
> guzzling from the gummint tit than at any time in American history,
> not that I can see.

LIke the oil, coal, and mining  industries, who enjoy large government
subsidies (tax breaks, bid-free public land use, not being forced to
clean up their own pollution and other messages, etc.)?

Like the Wall Street firms that caused this economic collapse by
gambling with our money, but being repayed (including bonus payments
to their top execs)?

One: you claim that we have a higher percentage than ever collecting
collective funds. Can you link to evidence for this?
Two: you also are using "liberal" interchangeably with socialist.

>
> JFK would be a nonstarter in modern-day AmeriKKKa.

Absolutely, we agree. He was far too liberal to be considered the kind
of moderate conservative (like Obama) the Democratic party thinks they
need now. Reagan would not be electable because he wouldn't meet the
Republicans' new standard for conservative, which seems to be batshit
insane. Eisenhower would be ignored.

Kermit

Re: the 10 most dangerous religious right organizations AlwaysAskingQuestions 10/8/12 11:39 AM
Robert Camp wrote:
> On Oct 7, 9:29 am, "AlwaysAskingQuestions"
> <alwaysaskingquesti...@gmail.com> wrote:


[...]

>
> For example, you cite an
> issue that flares up here every year, the supposed "war" on Christmas.
> Plenty of people react as you do, chiding apparently militant nit-
> picking (opposing Christmas trees in shopping centers), without
> considering the implied diminution of belief (and no-belief)
> traditions which do not celebrate Christmas.

That's where I'd disagree with you. Christmas at its roots in Christian
celebration* and there is no reason whatsoever for those who aren't
Christian to get upset about it. If they want to ignore the festival, they
are fully entitled to do so just as they are entitled to arrange an
alternative non-religious celebration but they don't have the right to stop
Christians from publicly celebrating their beliefs on some vague argument
about being offended.

(* I'm ignoring the absorbing of pagan festivals as I'm talking about
Christmas as it has been known for several hundred years if not millennia.)



Re: the 10 most dangerous religious right organizations Robert Camp 10/8/12 1:19 PM
On Oct 8, 11:39�am, "AlwaysAskingQuestions"
<alwaysaskingquesti...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Robert Camp wrote:
> > On Oct 7, 9:29 am, "AlwaysAskingQuestions"
> > <alwaysaskingquesti...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>
>
> > For example, you cite an
> > issue that flares up here every year, the supposed "war" on Christmas.
> > Plenty of people react as you do, chiding apparently militant nit-
> > picking (opposing Christmas trees in shopping centers), without
> > considering the implied diminution of belief (and no-belief)
> > traditions which do not celebrate Christmas.
>
> That's where I'd disagree with you. Christmas at its roots in Christian
> celebration* and there is no reason whatsoever for those who aren't
> Christian to get upset about it. If they want to ignore the festival, they
> are fully entitled to do so just as they are entitled to arrange an
> alternative non-religious celebration but they don't have the right to stop
> Christians from publicly celebrating their beliefs on some vague argument
> about being offended.

Depends on the agent and the context. Here in the U.S. the dispute is
usually about displays that are sanctioned, and often sponsored, by
government offices. Under our laws that is not kosher (so to speak),
and is rightly perceived by other religions as an unfair public
endorsement.

In the case of private businesses or organizations, I pretty much
agree with you. I'd just observe that there are contexts in which it's
entirely reasonable to consider the kind of private behavior where
religion is shoved into the public sphere offensive speech. I wouldn't
legislate against it, but having shopping malls plastered with one
religion's icons is a very different thing from homilies posted
outside a church, or individuals expressing their faith with
decorations.

It's also worth noting that many times businesses restrict the nature
of the displays out of economic self-interest, and that's something
one would think conservatives would actually defend. In this country
some hardware chains tried to sell "Holiday Trees" a few years ago in
an attempt to broaden the appeal of the season and therefore their
sales. They were raked over the coals by the same ideologues who
complain bitterly about any kind of restraints on trade.

RLC
Re: the 10 most dangerous religious right organizations Tim Norfolk 10/8/12 5:39 PM
Christmas as the US and UK celebrate it are at best Victorian, so 160 years or so.

Re: the 10 most dangerous religious right organizations AlwaysAskingQuestions 10/9/12 12:04 AM
Things like the Christmas tree, Christmas cards and so on but not the
religious celebration; the "invention" of the Christmas crib, for example is
attributed to St. Francis of Assisi in 1223.


Re: the 10 most dangerous religious right organizations Walter Bushell 10/9/12 8:09 AM
In article <p88s68pvhvtpj7lf5aec8ph6ptmgu4lriv@4ax.com>,
 Kalkidas <eat@joes.pub> wrote:

> On Wed, 3 Oct 2012 15:22:05 -0700 (PDT), eridanus
> <leopoldo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >It is very interesting to read.
> >
> >http://www.alternet.org/belief/10-most-dangerous-religious-right-organization
> >s?akid=9478.273394.1scGOz&rd=1&src=newsletter720422&t=7
> >
> >
> >The 10 Most Dangerous Religious Right Organizations
> >The religious right is more powerful than ever, using its massive annual
> >revenue and grassroots troops to promote a right-wing ideology and undermine
> >church and state separation.
> >October 2, 2012  |  
> >
> >The movement known as the Religious Right is the number-one threat to
> >church-state separation in America. This collection of organizations is well
> >funded and well organized; it uses its massive annual revenue and grassroots
> >troops to undermine the wall of separation in communities nationwide.
>
> Really? Can you (or anyone else)  name a single organization advocating
> for a government-established religion in the United States?
>
> [snip]

I think the Roman Church would go for it if they think they had a
chance. Probably most of the others too.

--
This space unintentionally left blank.

Re: the 10 most dangerous religious right organizations Bob Casanova 10/9/12 10:09 AM
On Mon, 8 Oct 2012 10:41:59 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Kermit
<unrestra...@hotmail.com>:

>On 5 Oct, 17:04, prawnster <zweibro...@ymail.com> wrote:
>> On Oct 5, 3:14 pm, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > [...]
>> > Ironically, their doctrinal descendants include the religious right
>> > who are no longer a minority in this country, and have a ferocious
>> > desire to bully others. But their predecessors in our first generation
>> > were wiser, if only because they were on the other side.
>>
>> Wrong.  It is the atheist yet Earth-worshipping Left, a vocal minority
>> in this country, who displays a fierce desire to bully and control
>> others.  Their predecessors were just as dumb, but simply lacked the
>> full support of government, schools, and the media that they now have.

>Darn those Earth-worshipping atheist bullies!
>
>This is why, in the USA, political candidates cannot run for office
>unless they publicly reject religion of any kind.
>And noisy, smoking, factories have been banned.
>Everybody under 50 is forced by law to ride bicycles to work, rather
>than drive cars.
>And the poor, defenseless industries of coal, oil, and mass media are
>bullied by those mean hippie wind power and solar power multi-national
>conglomerates. They're not even allowed to talk about weather or crop
>damage of floods without detailed discussions of global warming.
>And don't get me started on honest Southern wealthy gentlemen having
>their slaves taken away from them. It's been 150 years, and it still
>hurts.
>And vending machines offer nothing but carrot sticks and brussel
>sprouts.

Sarcasm is wasted on fanatics

Just sayin'....
Re: the 10 most dangerous religious right organizations Eric Root 10/10/12 3:39 AM
On Oct 9, 12:09�pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Oct 2012 10:41:59 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Kermit
> <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com>:
It is especially wasted mean, whiny fanatics.

Re: the 10 most dangerous religious right organizations Eric Root 10/10/12 3:59 AM
On Oct 4, 5:59 pm, prawnster <zweibro...@ymail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 4, 11:49 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>
> > [...]
> > Er, you don't expect Shrimpie to actually acknowledge his
> > error, do you?
> > --
>
> The important point is that the phrase cited by eridanus is nowhere in
> the constitution;

Actually, that's not important at all; Jefferson uses the analogy of a
wall to explain or clarify the Constitution.
Saying that the phrase "Wall of Separation of Church and State is not
in the Constitution" is a misunderstanding at best, but more usually
an attempt at tricking people into supporting an attack on religious
freedom.

> it's from a Supreme Kourt decision, where an august
> justice, Oye! Oye!, smuggled a Jefferson phrase into his decision as
> if it were part of the constitution, as if he were citing precedent.

Not as if it were in the Constitution, but as a means of explaining.

> 80%+ of AmeriKKKans don't even know the phrase "separation of church
> and state" isn't in the constitution, much less non-AmeriKKKans.

The words aren't in the Constitution, but the meaning _are_ in the
Constituion: you can't have religious freedom if the government is
pimping for any particular religion.


Re: the 10 most dangerous religious right organizations Desertphile 10/11/12 8:39 AM
On Mon, 8 Oct 2012 10:41:59 -0700 (PDT), Kermit
<unrestra...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On 5 Oct, 17:04, prawnster <zweibro...@ymail.com> wrote:
> > On Oct 5, 3:14 pm, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > [...]
> > > Ironically, their doctrinal descendants include the religious right
> > > who are no longer a minority in this country, and have a ferocious
> > > desire to bully others. But their predecessors in our first generation
> > > were wiser, if only because they were on the other side.

> > Wrong.  It is the atheist yet Earth-worshipping Left, a vocal minority
> > in this country, who displays a fierce desire to bully and control
> > others.

.. or in other words, imaginary people.

> > Their predecessors were just as dumb, but simply lacked the
> > full support of government, schools, and the media that they now have.

> Darn those Earth-worshipping atheist bullies!

Joan Baez be dammed!

> This is why, in the USA, political candidates cannot run for office
> unless they publicly reject religion of any kind.

Even with magic underwear.

> And noisy, smoking, factories have been banned.

I see in the news that a few members of the America Treason Party want
to legalize child labor, like in the good old days.

> Everybody under 50 is forced by law to ride bicycles to work, rather
> than drive cars.
> And the poor, defenseless industries of coal, oil, and mass media are
> bullied by those mean hippie wind power and solar power multi-national
> conglomerates. They're not even allowed to talk about weather or crop
> damage of floods without detailed discussions of global warming.
> And don't get me started on honest Southern wealthy gentlemen having
> their slaves taken away from them. It's been 150 years, and it still
> hurts.
> And vending machines offer nothing but carrot sticks and brussel
> sprouts.
>
> Kermit


--
Change in Dow Jones Industrial Average during Presidential election terms:
GH Bush: +50%; Clinton 1: +100%; Clinton 2: +60%; G W Bush 1: -3%;
GW Bush 2: -22%; Obama (thru Oct 3, 2012): +65%

Re: the 10 most dangerous religious right organizations Desertphile 10/11/12 8:39 AM
On Tue, 09 Oct 2012 10:06:23 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>
wrote:

> On Mon, 8 Oct 2012 10:41:59 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Kermit
> <unrestra...@hotmail.com>:
>
> >On 5 Oct, 17:04, prawnster <zweibro...@ymail.com> wrote:
> >> On Oct 5, 3:14 pm, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > [...]
> >> > Ironically, their doctrinal descendants include the religious right
> >> > who are no longer a minority in this country, and have a ferocious
> >> > desire to bully others. But their predecessors in our first generation
> >> > were wiser, if only because they were on the other side.
> >>
> >> Wrong.  It is the atheist yet Earth-worshipping Left, a vocal minority
> >> in this country, who displays a fierce desire to bully and control
> >> others.  Their predecessors were just as dumb, but simply lacked the
> >> full support of government, schools, and the media that they now have.
>
> >Darn those Earth-worshipping atheist bullies!
> >
> >This is why, in the USA, political candidates cannot run for office
> >unless they publicly reject religion of any kind.
> >And noisy, smoking, factories have been banned.
> >Everybody under 50 is forced by law to ride bicycles to work, rather
> >than drive cars.
> >And the poor, defenseless industries of coal, oil, and mass media are
> >bullied by those mean hippie wind power and solar power multi-national
> >conglomerates. They're not even allowed to talk about weather or crop
> >damage of floods without detailed discussions of global warming.
> >And don't get me started on honest Southern wealthy gentlemen having
> >their slaves taken away from them. It's been 150 years, and it still
> >hurts.
> >And vending machines offer nothing but carrot sticks and brussel
> >sprouts.

> Sarcasm is wasted on fanatics

So is evidence.

> Just sayin'....
Re: the 10 most dangerous religious right organizations Desertphile 10/11/12 8:49 AM
On Mon, 08 Oct 2012 10:57:07 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>
wrote:

> On Sun, 7 Oct 2012 23:25:55 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by prawnster
> <zweib...@ymail.com>:
>
> >On Oct 6, 5:49 pm, Mitchell Coffey <mitchell.cof...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> How can one Supreme Kourt Justice single-handedly rewrite a law?

And now we have a KKKourt that insists corporations are human beings.

> >It all starts with television

Yes, and chiefly FOX "News."

> Really? The USSC bases their decisions on TV shows?

Perhaps the USSC bases their decisions on viewers of television (i.e.,
morons).

> Do you *ever* post anything but garbage?

Does the sun *ever* appear to rise in the west?
Re: the 10 most dangerous religious right organizations Desertphile 10/11/12 8:49 AM
On Sun, 7 Oct 2012 23:25:55 -0700 (PDT), prawnster
<zweib...@ymail.com> wrote:

> On Oct 6, 5:49 pm, Mitchell Coffey <mitchell.cof...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > [...]
> > How can one Supreme Kourt Justice single-handedly rewrite a law?
> >
>
> It all starts with television, the true opiate of the masses.
>
> One, two, skip a few, and we arrive at:
>
> One barely closeted pederast, with the approval of three dykes and a
> limp tunaboy seeking plaudits from the NY Times and LGBTNBC, crosses
> out "penalty" and pencils in "tax."  Thus, with no vote at all in
> Kongress, one august jurist single-handedly rewrites a law, with the
> other hand deep inside the boybutt of his deepest imagining, virtually
> speaking.

Translation: "Waaaaaaaah! Booo hoooooooo! I'm such a victim! Everyone
is mean to meeeeeeeee!"
Re: the 10 most dangerous religious right organizations James Beck 10/11/12 9:44 AM
On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 09:37:29 -0600, Desertphile
<Deser...@spammegmail.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 8 Oct 2012 10:41:59 -0700 (PDT), Kermit
><unrestra...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 5 Oct, 17:04, prawnster <zweibro...@ymail.com> wrote:
>> > On Oct 5, 3:14 pm, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > > [...]
>> > > Ironically, their doctrinal descendants include the religious right
>> > > who are no longer a minority in this country, and have a ferocious
>> > > desire to bully others. But their predecessors in our first generation
>> > > were wiser, if only because they were on the other side.
>
>> > Wrong. �It is the atheist yet Earth-worshipping Left, a vocal minority
>> > in this country, who displays a fierce desire to bully and control
>> > others.
>
>.. or in other words, imaginary people.
>
>> >�Their predecessors were just as dumb, but simply lacked the
>> > full support of government, schools, and the media that they now have.
>
>> Darn those Earth-worshipping atheist bullies!
>
>Joan Baez be dammed!
>
>> This is why, in the USA, political candidates cannot run for office
>> unless they publicly reject religion of any kind.
>
>Even with magic underwear.
>
>> And noisy, smoking, factories have been banned.
>
>I see in the news that a few members of the America Treason Party want
>to legalize child labor, like in the good old days.

Yes. Some of them also want to eliminate the minimum wage, collective
bargaining, and pensions for the elderly, i.e., all of labor reform.
It's easy to be frightened of these people. On the other hand,
paraphrasing President Eisenhower: they represent a splinter minority;
they don't understand that the party that actually does that will
cease to exist; and, they are stupid.

My problem with them isn't that they will get their way, but that they
paralyze debate on the very things that we should be encouraging
globally to control population growth.

Re: the 10 most dangerous religious right organizations Bob Casanova 10/11/12 10:19 AM
On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 09:37:44 -0600, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Desertphile
<Deser...@spammegmail.com>:

>On Tue, 09 Oct 2012 10:06:23 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>
>wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 8 Oct 2012 10:41:59 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Kermit
>> <unrestra...@hotmail.com>:
>>
>> >On 5 Oct, 17:04, prawnster <zweibro...@ymail.com> wrote:
>> >> On Oct 5, 3:14 pm, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > [...]
>> >> > Ironically, their doctrinal descendants include the religious right
>> >> > who are no longer a minority in this country, and have a ferocious
>> >> > desire to bully others. But their predecessors in our first generation
>> >> > were wiser, if only because they were on the other side.
>> >>
>> >> Wrong. �It is the atheist yet Earth-worshipping Left, a vocal minority
>> >> in this country, who displays a fierce desire to bully and control
>> >> others. �Their predecessors were just as dumb, but simply lacked the
>> >> full support of government, schools, and the media that they now have.
>>
>> >Darn those Earth-worshipping atheist bullies!
>> >
>> >This is why, in the USA, political candidates cannot run for office
>> >unless they publicly reject religion of any kind.
>> >And noisy, smoking, factories have been banned.
>> >Everybody under 50 is forced by law to ride bicycles to work, rather
>> >than drive cars.
>> >And the poor, defenseless industries of coal, oil, and mass media are
>> >bullied by those mean hippie wind power and solar power multi-national
>> >conglomerates. They're not even allowed to talk about weather or crop
>> >damage of floods without detailed discussions of global warming.
>> >And don't get me started on honest Southern wealthy gentlemen having
>> >their slaves taken away from them. It's been 150 years, and it still
>> >hurts.
>> >And vending machines offer nothing but carrot sticks and brussel
>> >sprouts.
>
>> Sarcasm is wasted on fanatics
>
>So is evidence.

Well, yeah, but that's more obvious.
Re: the 10 most dangerous religious right organizations John S. Wilkins 10/11/12 4:19 PM
I suspect that the subjunctive here is unwarranted. The RCC has been
attempting to take over political discourse as long as it has existed,
and the US has been especially under attack in this fashion since the
1970s and Fulton Sheen. Let us also not forget Charles Coughlin in the
1930s.

Every religion wants to control politics and the state. The trouble is
that unless they are certain they can, they are better off with the
separation of church and state in case one of them evil religions gets
control. It might be the Muslims, or worse, the Protestants!
--
John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydney
http://evolvingthoughts.net
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre

Re: the 10 most dangerous religious right organizations James Beck 10/11/12 11:54 PM
It's a bit worse at the moment. As Cardinal, the rat-man said:

"Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and
euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the
Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the
decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered
unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the
Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace not war, and to
exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishement on criminals, it
may still be permissible to take up arms to repel and aggressor or to
have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate
diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and
applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion
and euthansia (WRHC 3)."

If you recall the earlier thread on the mechanics of excommunication,
the voter guide distributed this year to US Catholics is not a veiled
threat, but a de facto statement of excommunication for any Catholic
who opposes the Pope's position on abortion. It's such a blatant
attempt at voter intimidation, that I doubt that it could pass muster
under the US tax code.
More topics »