Let's get a few things straight
ha...@mvm-hands.com
a few things in their proper place.
1) America is NOT, never has been, and (if I have anything to do with it)
never will be a "Christian nation." Doubt me? Look at the Constitution
and the Declaration of Independence. Take your time and read through
every line, every word. You will NOT find Christ, Christian, God, Bible,
Jesus or any other word that even implies Christianity as this nation's
religion. And for those who would point out the word "creator" in the
Declaration, be advised that Thomas Jefferson was NOT a Christian (nor
were most of the Founding Fathers), so he could not have been referring
to the Christian religion's idea of a creator.
2) The Constitution is a "living" document. The drafters left it
intentionally vague so it could grow & change as this country did. If we
were to literally interpret every word of the Constitution as written,
then none of us would be exercising a right to free "speech" as we write
these newsgroup postings. After all, when you literally interpret the
word "speech," all you get is the spoken word.
3) It is correct that the phrase "separation of church and state" does
NOT appear in the Constitution. That phrase is simply an easier,
shorthand and more straightforward way of saying, "...make no law
respecting an establishment of religion..." Likewise, the phrase
"freedom of religion" does NOT appear anywhere in the Constitution.
Ironicly, those who criticize "separation of church and state" because
its not in the Constitution are usually busily talking about their
Constitutional right to "freedom of religion." Again, that's just a
simpler phrase than saying, "I have a right to 'free exercise thereof.'"
4) It is true, as originally passed, the 1st Amendment only prohibited
the Federal Congress from infringing the rights listed. However, after
the passage of the 14th Amendment, the USSC "incorporated" most of the
rights in the Bill of Rights and applied the prohibitions to the states
and local government entities. This was done using the following
language - "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge
the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall
any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due
process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws."
When you think about it, this can only make sense. After all, what
good is the right to free speech, for example, from infringement by
federal legislation if the state and/or local government can freely
infringe upon that right? No person would be any less silenced just
because its the state government doing it.
Time constraints are keeping me from going further, but these 4 tidbits
should be enough to chew on for now. I can't promise a quick response to
any reply because of those aforementioned time constraints, but I will do
what I can when I can.
hands
Morality is doing what is right regardless of what you are told. Religion
is doing what you are told regardless of what is right.
Kadaitcha Man
>On Sat, 14 Oct 2000 05:31:09 GMT, ha...@mvm-hands.com wrote:
>
>>After reading through a few posts today/tonight, I feel its time to put
>>a few things in their proper place.
>
>
>This ought to be good!
>
>>
>>1) America is NOT, never has been, and (if I have anything to do with it)
>>never will be a "Christian nation." Doubt me? Look at the Constitution
>>and the Declaration of Independence. Take your time and read through
>>every line, every word. You will NOT find Christ, Christian, God, Bible,
>>Jesus or any other word that even implies Christianity as this nation's
>>religion. And for those who would point out the word "creator" in the
>>Declaration, be advised that Thomas Jefferson was NOT a Christian (nor
>>were most of the Founding Fathers), so he could not have been referring
>>to the Christian religion's idea of a creator.
>
>Agreed!
>
>
>>
>>2) The Constitution is a "living" document. The drafters left it
>>intentionally vague so it could grow & change as this country did. If we
>>were to literally interpret every word of the Constitution as written,
>>then none of us would be exercising a right to free "speech" as we write
>>these newsgroup postings. After all, when you literally interpret the
>>word "speech," all you get is the spoken word.
>
>
>Agreed!
>
>
>>
>>3) It is correct that the phrase "separation of church and state" does
>>NOT appear in the Constitution. That phrase is simply an easier,
>>shorthand and more straightforward way of saying, "...make no law
>>respecting an establishment of religion..." Likewise, the phrase
>>"freedom of religion" does NOT appear anywhere in the Constitution.
>>Ironicly, those who criticize "separation of church and state" because
>>its not in the Constitution are usually busily talking about their
>>Constitutional right to "freedom of religion." Again, that's just a
>>simpler phrase than saying, "I have a right to 'free exercise thereof.'"
>
>Correct
>
>
>>
>>4) It is true, as originally passed, the 1st Amendment only prohibited
>>the Federal Congress from infringing the rights listed. However, after
>>the passage of the 14th Amendment, the USSC "incorporated" most of the
>>rights in the Bill of Rights and applied the prohibitions to the states
>>and local government entities. This was done using the following
>>language - "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge
>>the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall
>>any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due
>>process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
>>protection of the laws."
>> When you think about it, this can only make sense. After all, what
>>good is the right to free speech, for example, from infringement by
>>federal legislation if the state and/or local government can freely
>>infringe upon that right? No person would be any less silenced just
>>because its the state government doing it.
>>
>> Time constraints are keeping me from going further, but these 4 tidbits
>>should be enough to chew on for now. I can't promise a quick response to
>>any reply because of those aforementioned time constraints, but I will do
>>what I can when I can.
>>
>>hands
>>
>>Morality is doing what is right regardless of what you are told. Religion
>>is doing what you are told regardless of what is right.
>
>
>Well, I'm agreed so far. I never did understand where the
>term originated that we were a 'Christian' nation? Says
>who? The Church of England? Hardly an authority! Since
>'Christians' persist at forcing their beliefs on everyone,
>either by threats or pressure, I guess they just assumed
>that the nation revolved around their wishes. Talk about
>religious arrogance! ha!
Hey, weed-brain. Yes, you. Start here and keep going:
COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT
An Act to constitute the Commonwealth of Australia
[9th July 1900]
Whereas the people of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia,
Queensland, and Tasmania, humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty
God, have agreed to unite in one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth
under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland,
and under the Constitution hereby established:
--
Kadaitcha Man. Moderator, alt.bible
Are you a sucker? Find out here: www.kadaitcha.cjb.net
MrGoodSalt
> After reading through a few posts today/tonight, I feel its time to put
a few things in their proper place.
> 1) America is NOT, never has been, and (if I have anything to do with it)
never will be a "Christian nation." Doubt me? [snip]
Yes, I doubt your hypothesis. Read this book:
America's God and Country: Encyclopedia of Quotations. (1996) William J.
Federer. FAME Publishing, Inc.: Coppell, TX. ISBN:1-880563-05-3
"And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." JOHN 8:32
Good Christian books listed and described at:
http://www.hometown.aol.com/mrgoodsalt/index.htm
SUDSM
were most of the Founding Fathers), so he could not have been referring
to the Christian religion's idea of a creator>
You have their denial? I thought not, because they were all Christians but
wanted others to come here and to Christ.
ha...@mvm-hands.com
>
> >Declaration, be advised that Thomas Jefferson was NOT a Christian (nor
> were most of the Founding Fathers), so he could not have been referring
>
> You have their denial? I thought not, because they were all Christians
>but wanted others to come here and to Christ.
Do I have their denial? No. Do you have their affirmation. NO! What I
do have, however, is history and facts. Take for instance the following
"The founders of our nation were nearly all
Infidels, and that of the presidents who had
thus far been elected [Washington; Adams;
Jefferson; Madison; Monroe; Adams; Jackson]
not a one had professed a belief in
Christianity...."
-- The Reverend Doctor Bird Wilson, an Episcopal
minister in Albany, New York, in a sermon preached in October,
1831, quoted in John E. Remsberg, "Six Historic
Americans"
Any suggestion to the contrary is revisionist history and wishful
thinking by Christians who so very badly want to claim this nation as
their own, to the exclusion of people with differing religious beliefs.
hands
ha...@mvm-hands.com
>
> ha...@mvm-hands.com wrote:
> > After reading through a few posts today/tonight, I feel its time to
>put a few things in their proper place.
>
> > 1) America is NOT, never has been, and (if I have anything to do with
>
> Yes, I doubt your hypothesis. Read this book:
What? You doubt that the Constitution and the Declaration do NOT contain
any words relating to Christianity? That is not only my hypotheses, it
is rock-solid fact.
> America's God and Country: Encyclopedia of Quotations. (1996) William
> J. Federer. FAME Publishing, Inc.: Coppell, TX. ISBN:1-880563-05-3
If there's any quotes of interest in that book, please share them with me
and the rest of the newsgroup readers. I warn you though, any
pro-"Christian nation" quote you supply will easily be matched, if not
outdone by, a whole slew of anti-"Christian nation" quotes.
> "And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." JOHN
> 8:32
Maybe, but first you need to know the truth. Saying that the U.S. is a
"christian nation" sure as hell ain't the truth!
hands
"Theology is never any help; it is searching in a dark cellar at midnight
for a black cat that isn't there. Theologians can persuade themselves of
anything." --Robert A. Heinlein
Kadaitcha Man
>Any suggestion to the contrary is revisionist history and wishful
>thinking by Christians who so very badly want to claim this nation as
>their own, to the exclusion of people with differing religious beliefs.
The moon is made of green cheese.
Any suggestion to the contrary is revisionist history and wishful
thinking by green-cheese-haters who so very badly want to claim the
moon as their own, to the exclusion of people with differing
scientific beliefs.
Kadaitcha Man
>Maybe, but first you need to know the truth. Saying that the U.S. is a
>"christian nation" sure as hell ain't the truth!
There is empirical evidence to support MrGoodSalt's claim. You do know
what empirical evidence is, don't you? You will find some empirical
evidence here:
http://www.mcjonline.com/news/news3022.htm
The next reference is very long, but this is what you should look for:
"At the same time, however, those attending church regularly continued
to increase. In 1910, the proportion of the population affiliated with
all churches was calculated at 43 percent. It was the same figure in
1920. By 1940 it had risen to 49 percent, and this was followed by an
impressive postwar "revival" lifting the percentage to 55 in 1950 and
a remarkable 69 percent in 1960."
http://www.ocf.org/TheChristianActivist/GodAndTheAmericans.html
You should also read this:
http://www.catholiceducation.org/politics/pg0001.htm
"Was the Founding of America rooted in the Christian heritage and
natural law? Or, is it a product of the Enlightenment, infused with
the idea of the perfectibility of man, and therefore inimical to the
Christian conception of reality and to world view that natural law
implies? Was the Founding fatally flawed in its origins? If so, are
present day evils simply a logical working-out of this fatal flaw? Or
do current maladies result from a fundamentally sound proposition gone
awry? The answers to these questions ..."
>"Theology is never any help; it is searching in a dark cellar at midnight
>for a black cat that isn't there. Theologians can persuade themselves of
>anything." --Robert A. Heinlein
Funny that. So can atheists. The fact of the matter is, fully 85% of
Americans associate themselves with Christianity:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/us_rel.htm
ha...@mvm-hands.com
>
> ha...@mvm-hands.com blubbered, canted and carped:
>
> >Maybe, but first you need to know the truth. Saying that the U.S. is a
> >"christian nation" sure as hell ain't the truth!
>
> There is empirical evidence to support MrGoodSalt's claim. You do know
> what empirical evidence is, don't you? You will find some empirical
> evidence here:
>
> http://www.mcjonline.com/news/news3022.htm
Gee, duh, ummmmm. Empirical evidence? You use big words. Me too dumb to
know their meaning.
Now that my sarcasm is out of the way, you should search the site
yourself and point to some of that evidence you claim is there. I'm not
going to try to wade through all that Christian claptrap to find
something you MIGHT be referring to.
> The next reference is very long, but this is what you should look for:
>
> "At the same time, however, those attending church regularly continued
> to increase. In 1910, the proportion of the population affiliated with
> all churches was calculated at 43 percent. It was the same figure in
> 1920. By 1940 it had risen to 49 percent, and this was followed by an
> impressive postwar "revival" lifting the percentage to 55 in 1950 and
> a remarkable 69 percent in 1960."
>
> http://www.ocf.org/TheChristianActivist/GodAndTheAmericans.html
Well at least you're specific with this. Still does you no good. It
wouldn't matter if 99.9% of this country's population attended or was
affiliated with churches. First, they wouldn't all be attending and
worshipping the same religion. Second, it wouldn't make this a Christian
nation even if those 99.9% were all attending the same religious
services, say Baptist. Population percentages for any given demographic
don't determine the nature of this country. If it did, this would also
be a "caucasian" nation and a "female" nation since both of those groups
have the largest race and gender populations rspectively.
> You should also read this:
>
> http://www.catholiceducation.org/politics/pg0001.htm
Try linking to something that's actually there.
> "Was the Founding of America rooted in the Christian heritage and
> natural law? Or, is it a product of the Enlightenment, infused with
> the idea of the perfectibility of man, and therefore inimical to the
> Christian conception of reality and to world view that natural law
> implies? Was the Founding fatally flawed in its origins? If so, are
> present day evils simply a logical working-out of this fatal flaw? Or
> do current maladies result from a fundamentally sound proposition gone
> awry? The answers to these questions ..."
>
> >"Theology is never any help; it is searching in a dark cellar at midnight
> >for a black cat that isn't there. Theologians can persuade themselves of
> >anything." --Robert A. Heinlein
>
> Funny that. So can atheists. The fact of the matter is, fully 85% of
> Americans associate themselves with Christianity:
Again, big whoop! You can supply all the population statistics you
want. That doesn't make the U.S. a "Cristian nation." What you can't
supply is any "empirical evidence" to suggest that this country was
founded on Christian principles. You cannot produce any document by any
Founding Father or any subsequent legislation that sets up this country
as "Christian."
> http://www.religioustolerance.org/us_rel.htm
>
> Kadaitcha Man. Moderator, alt.bible
>
> Are you a sucker? Find out here: www.kadaitcha.cjb.net
Find out now. Ask yourself if you believe in the invisible man in the
sky. If so, YOU'RE A SUCKER!!
hands
"Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without
knowledge, of
things without parallel." --Ambrose Bierce
Kadaitcha Man
>Kadaitcha Man wrote:
>>
>> ha...@mvm-hands.com blubbered, canted and carped:
>>
>> >Maybe, but first you need to know the truth. Saying that the U.S. is a
>> >"christian nation" sure as hell ain't the truth!
>>
>> There is empirical evidence to support MrGoodSalt's claim. You do know
>> what empirical evidence is, don't you? You will find some empirical
>> evidence here:
>>
>> http://www.mcjonline.com/news/news3022.htm
>
> Gee, duh, ummmmm. Empirical evidence? You use big words. Me too dumb to
>know their meaning.
I knew that. Tell me something I don't know.
>you should search the site
>yourself and point to some of that evidence you claim is there. I'm not
>going to try to wade through all that Christian claptrap to find
>something you MIGHT be referring to.
If you are too lazy to educate yourself then that's your problem.
> Well at least you're specific with this. Still does you no good. It
>wouldn't matter if 99.9% of this country's population attended or was
>affiliated with churches. First, they wouldn't all be attending and
>worshipping the same religion.
Christians do not worship religion. Besides, it wouldn't matter what I
put forward, you wouldn't want to discuss it rationally.
>Second, it wouldn't make this a Christian
>nation even if those 99.9% were all attending the same religious
>services, say Baptist.
If that second point is true, why did you make the first? Do you like
wasting your own time?
>Population percentages for any given demographic
>don't determine the nature of this country. If it did, this would also
>be a "caucasian" nation and a "female" nation since both of those groups
>have the largest race and gender populations rspectively.
Ok, amerikkka is a nation of girls. No problem.
>> You should also read this:
>>
>> http://www.catholiceducation.org/politics/pg0001.htm
>
> Try linking to something that's actually there.
>
>> "Was the Founding of America rooted in the Christian heritage and
>> natural law? Or, is it a product of the Enlightenment, infused with
>> the idea of the perfectibility of man, and therefore inimical to the
>> Christian conception of reality and to world view that natural law
>> implies? Was the Founding fatally flawed in its origins? If so, are
>> present day evils simply a logical working-out of this fatal flaw? Or
>> do current maladies result from a fundamentally sound proposition gone
>> awry? The answers to these questions ..."
>>
>> >"Theology is never any help; it is searching in a dark cellar at midnight
>> >for a black cat that isn't there. Theologians can persuade themselves of
>> >anything." --Robert A. Heinlein
>>
>> Funny that. So can atheists. The fact of the matter is, fully 85% of
>> Americans associate themselves with Christianity:
>
> Again, big whoop! You can supply all the population statistics you
>want. That doesn't make the U.S. a "Cristian nation."
I never said it was. I said there was empirical evidence, which by
your own admission, you do not understand:
> Gee, duh, ummmmm. Empirical evidence? You use big words. Me too dumb to
>know their meaning.
>What you can't
>supply is any "empirical evidence" to suggest that this country was
>founded on Christian principles.
That's why it's empirical evidence, you twit.
>You cannot produce any document by any
That would make it evidence, as opposed to empirical evidence.
>Founding Father or any subsequent legislation that sets up this country
>as "Christian."
Well, amerikkka is rather backward. Heck, it doesn't even have an
official language.
> Find out now. Ask yourself if you believe in the invisible man in the
>sky. If so, YOU'RE A FUCKER!!
I take it that means you're not interested in rational discussion.
ha...@mvm-hands.com
>
> ha...@mvm-hands.com blubbered, canted and carped:
>
> >Kadaitcha Man wrote:
> >>
> >> ha...@mvm-hands.com blubbered, canted and carped:
> >>
> >> >Maybe, but first you need to know the truth. Saying that the U.S. is a
> >> >"christian nation" sure as hell ain't the truth!
> >>
> >> There is empirical evidence to support MrGoodSalt's claim. You do know
> >> what empirical evidence is, don't you? You will find some empirical
> >> evidence here:
> >>
> >> http://www.mcjonline.com/news/news3022.htm
> >
> > Gee, duh, ummmmm. Empirical evidence? You use big words. Me too dumb to
> >know their meaning.
>
> I knew that. Tell me something I don't know.
You are truly the scum of the Earth. You can't put forth a rational debate so you edit
my response to suggest that the above quote is all I said. I guess when YOU can't win
on the facts YOU just change the facts.
> >you should search the site
> >yourself and point to some of that evidence you claim is there. I'm not
> >going to try to wade through all that Christian claptrap to find
> >something you MIGHT be referring to.
>
> If you are too lazy to educate yourself then that's your problem.
I'm not about to make your arguement just because you can't. My real problem is that
I'm dealing with the king of all assholes. (See below)
> > Well at least you're specific with this. Still does you no good. It
> >wouldn't matter if 99.9% of this country's population attended or was
> >affiliated with churches. First, they wouldn't all be attending and
> >worshipping the same religion.
>
> Christians do not worship religion. Besides, it wouldn't matter what I
> put forward, you wouldn't want to discuss it rationally.
That's the pot calling the kettle black. You've yet to make one rational arguement.
> >Second, it wouldn't make this a Christian
> >nation even if those 99.9% were all attending the same religious
> >services, say Baptist.
>
> If that second point is true, why did you make the first? Do you like
> wasting your own time?
I made two separate points discussing two separate scenarios. Can't you comprehend
English? One is not dependent on the other being true.
> >Population percentages for any given demographic
> >don't determine the nature of this country. If it did, this would also
> >be a "caucasian" nation and a "female" nation since both of those groups
> >have the largest race and gender populations rspectively.
>
> Ok, amerikkka is a nation of girls. No problem.
Yeah, that's just as comical as saying the U.S. is a "Christian nation."
> >> You should also read this:
> >>
> >> http://www.catholiceducation.org/politics/pg0001.htm
> >
> > Try linking to something that's actually there.
> >
> >> "Was the Founding of America rooted in the Christian heritage and
> >> natural law? Or, is it a product of the Enlightenment, infused with
> >> the idea of the perfectibility of man, and therefore inimical to the
> >> Christian conception of reality and to world view that natural law
> >> implies? Was the Founding fatally flawed in its origins? If so, are
> >> present day evils simply a logical working-out of this fatal flaw? Or
> >> do current maladies result from a fundamentally sound proposition gone
> >> awry? The answers to these questions ..."
> >>
> >> >"Theology is never any help; it is searching in a dark cellar at midnight
> >> >for a black cat that isn't there. Theologians can persuade themselves of
> >> >anything." --Robert A. Heinlein
> >>
> >> Funny that. So can atheists. The fact of the matter is, fully 85% of
> >> Americans associate themselves with Christianity:
> >
> > Again, big whoop! You can supply all the population statistics you
> >want. That doesn't make the U.S. a "Cristian nation."
>
> I never said it was. I said there was empirical evidence, which by
> your own admission, you do not understand:
Though I hate to quote George W., it fits - "you're a major-league asshole!" for leaving
out the rest of my paragraph where I say I was being sarcastic.
> > Gee, duh, ummmmm. Empirical evidence? You use big words. Me too dumb to
> >know their meaning.
>
> >What you can't
> >supply is any "empirical evidence" to suggest that this country was
> >founded on Christian principles.
>
> That's why it's empirical evidence, you twit.
No kidding, shit-for-brains. Empirical defined as - based on experiment or observation.
Your evidence (based on experiment or observation) does NOT even *suggest* a "Christian
nation."
> >You cannot produce any document by any
>
> That would make it evidence, as opposed to empirical evidence.
Who said I was still referring to empirical evidence? My point is you can't produce
anything except rhetorical bullshit.
> >Founding Father or any subsequent legislation that sets up this country
> >as "Christian."
>
> Well, amerikkka is rather backward. Heck, it doesn't even have an
> official language.
>
> > Find out now. Ask yourself if you believe in the invisible man in the
> >sky. If so, YOU'RE A FUCKER!!
>
> I take it that means you're not interested in rational discussion.
I take it that means you don't know how to conduct an honest exchange of ideas. Only a
lousy, motherfucker like yourself would change the quote to read FUCKER instead of
SUCKER as I wrote it.
I have enjoyed many debates in newsgroups even with people who held polar opposite views
to mine. YOU are the absolute worst example of how to conduct an open and honest
exchange of ideas. It is people like YOU who lie and cheat their way through life. If
there does indeed turn out to be a placed called HELL in the afterlife, I'm sure there's
a special place set aside just for you. I will no longer reply to any post you put in
any newsgroup since you insist on misquoting me.
> Kadaitcha Man. Moderator, alt.bible
>
> Are you a sucker? Find out here: www.kadaitcha.cjb.net
Is Kadaitcha Man a FUCKER? Absolutely!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Kadaitcha Man
>Kadaitcha Man wrote:
>>
>> ha...@mvm-hands.com blubbered, canted and carped:
>>
>> >Kadaitcha Man wrote:
>> >>
>> >> ha...@mvm-hands.com blubbered, canted and carped:
>> >>
>> >> >Maybe, but first you need to know the truth. Saying that the U.S. is a
>> >> >"christian nation" sure as hell ain't the truth!
>> >>
>> >> There is empirical evidence to support MrGoodSalt's claim. You do know
>> >> what empirical evidence is, don't you? You will find some empirical
>> >> evidence here:
>> >>
>> >> http://www.mcjonline.com/news/news3022.htm
>> >
>> > Gee, duh, ummmmm. Empirical evidence? You use big words. Me too dumb to
>> >know their meaning.
>>
>> I knew that. Tell me something I don't know.
>
>You are truly the scum of the Earth. You can't put forth a rational debate so you edit
>my response to suggest that the above quote is all I said. I guess when YOU can't win
>on the facts YOU just change the facts.
Two points:
1. I asked you to tell me something I didn't know. I'm still waiting.
2. You have the right to remain stupid. Anything you write will be
taken out of context, misquoted and used in evidence against you.
>> >you should search the site
>> >yourself and point to some of that evidence you claim is there. I'm not
>> >going to try to wade through all that Christian claptrap to find
>> >something you MIGHT be referring to.
>>
>> If you are too lazy to educate yourself then that's your problem.
>
>I'm not about to make your arguement just because you can't.
Sure I can. I just don't want to. Besides, the information I provided
wasn't to support "my" argument. It was to help someone else. Why do
you feel that if I extend a helping hand to someone that it
automatically becomes "my" argument?
>My real problem is that
>I'm dealing with the king of all assholes. (See below)
Compliment taken.
>> > Well at least you're specific with this. Still does you no good. It
>> >wouldn't matter if 99.9% of this country's population attended or was
>> >affiliated with churches. First, they wouldn't all be attending and
>> >worshipping the same religion.
>>
>> Christians do not worship religion. Besides, it wouldn't matter what I
>> put forward, you wouldn't want to discuss it rationally.
>
>That's the pot calling the kettle black. You've yet to make one rational arguement.
(See above.)
>> >Second, it wouldn't make this a Christian
>> >nation even if those 99.9% were all attending the same religious
>> >services, say Baptist.
>>
>> If that second point is true, why did you make the first? Do you like
>> wasting your own time?
>
>I made two separate points discussing two separate scenarios. Can't you comprehend
>English?
Yes. I have a degree in it and I write books.
> One is not dependent on the other being true.
One what?
>> >Population percentages for any given demographic
>> >don't determine the nature of this country. If it did, this would also
>> >be a "caucasian" nation and a "female" nation since both of those groups
>> >have the largest race and gender populations rspectively.
>>
>> Ok, amerikkka is a nation of girls. No problem.
>
>Yeah, that's just as comical as saying the U.S. is a "Christian nation."
85% of amerikkkans associate themselves with Christianity. I gave you
the reference. Go and read it.
>> >> You should also read this:
>> >>
>> >> http://www.catholiceducation.org/politics/pg0001.htm
>> >
>> > Try linking to something that's actually there.
>> >
>> >> "Was the Founding of America rooted in the Christian heritage and
>> >> natural law? Or, is it a product of the Enlightenment, infused with
>> >> the idea of the perfectibility of man, and therefore inimical to the
>> >> Christian conception of reality and to world view that natural law
>> >> implies? Was the Founding fatally flawed in its origins? If so, are
>> >> present day evils simply a logical working-out of this fatal flaw? Or
>> >> do current maladies result from a fundamentally sound proposition gone
>> >> awry? The answers to these questions ..."
>> >>
>> >> >"Theology is never any help; it is searching in a dark cellar at midnight
>> >> >for a black cat that isn't there. Theologians can persuade themselves of
>> >> >anything." --Robert A. Heinlein
>> >>
>> >> Funny that. So can atheists. The fact of the matter is, fully 85% of
>> >> Americans associate themselves with Christianity:
>> >
>> > Again, big whoop! You can supply all the population statistics you
>> >want. That doesn't make the U.S. a "Cristian nation."
>>
>> I never said it was. I said there was empirical evidence, which by
>> your own admission, you do not understand:
>
>Though I hate to quote George W., it fits - "you're a major-league asshole!" for leaving
>out the rest of my paragraph where I say I was being sarcastic.
Oh, that. I was being kind to you. Indicating your sarcasm in the way
you did (others use </sarcasm on> and </sarcasm off>) really is a
tell-tale sign that you are unsure of your ability to use the language
effectively. I wanted you to avoid the embarrassment.
>> > Gee, duh, ummmmm. Empirical evidence? You use big words. Me too dumb to
>> >know their meaning.
>>
>> >What you can't
>> >supply is any "empirical evidence" to suggest that this country was
>> >founded on Christian principles.
>>
>> That's why it's empirical evidence, you twit.
>
>No kidding, shit-for-brains. Empirical defined as - based on experiment or observation.
>Your evidence (based on experiment or observation) does NOT even *suggest* a "Christian
>nation."
Why not?
>> >You cannot produce any document by any
>>
>> That would make it evidence, as opposed to empirical evidence.
>
>Who said I was still referring to empirical evidence? My point is you can't produce
>anything except rhetorical bullshit.
Then why do you persist in replying?
>> >Founding Father or any subsequent legislation that sets up this country
>> >as "Christian."
>>
>> Well, amerikkka is rather backward. Heck, it doesn't even have an
>> official language.
>>
>> > Find out now. Ask yourself if you believe in the invisible man in the
>> >sky. If so, YOU'RE A FUCKER!!
>>
>> I take it that means you're not interested in rational discussion.
>
>I take it that means you don't know how to conduct an honest exchange of ideas. Only a
>lousy, motherfucker like yourself would change the quote to read FUCKER instead of
>SUCKER as I wrote it.
(See above.)
>I have enjoyed many debates in newsgroups even with people who held polar opposite views
>to mine. YOU are the absolute worst example of how to conduct an open and honest
>exchange of ideas. It is people like YOU who lie and cheat their way through life. If
>there does indeed turn out to be a placed called HELL in the afterlife, I'm sure there's
>a special place set aside just for you. I will no longer reply to any post you put in
>any newsgroup since you insist on misquoting me.
I was merely concerned that should someone take a little trouble, you
would descend into a whine/pout/flounce sequence and not recover from
it. I was right.
jcrd...@earthlink.net
<kadaitchaNO.SPAM.PL...@here.at> wrote:
>>
>>I made two separate points discussing two separate scenarios. Can't you comprehend
>>English?
>
>Yes. I have a degree in it and I write books.
Sure you do!
Evil Bob
's previous utterance was:
>
>Hey, weed-brain. Yes, you. Start here and keep going:
>
>COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT
>An Act to constitute the Commonwealth of Australia
>[9th July 1900]
>
>Whereas the people of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia,
>Queensland, and Tasmania, humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty
>God, have agreed to unite in one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth
>under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland,
>and under the Constitution hereby established:
Would you be so kind as to point to any legaly binding peice of
international treaty between these two nations which mean that US'o'A
is bound to be a christian nation because of the Australian
Constitution?
I am an australian citizen and an atheist. I recognize my constitution
but it does not mean I uphold the notion that we are a nation under
god. We are a nation under the constitution. Simply because a group of
individuals thought it worth of whacking in "blessing of almighty god"
does not make Australia a christian nation.
---
Evil Bob
aa #1856
EAC - Minister for Agriculture
Planting the seeds of doubt
BAAWA - Finding error in a sea of stupidity
"one unnerring mark of the love of truth is not
entertaining any position with greater assurance
than the proofs it is built upon will warrant."
-John Locke
Evil Bob
's previous utterance was:
<schnip>
>
>Funny that. So can atheists. The fact of the matter is, fully 85% of
>Americans associate themselves with Christianity:
>
Were you also aware that in 1994 just over three million americans
beleived they had been abducted by Aliens? Of course because so many
have been abducted the existance of aliens is therefore irrefutable.
Evil Bob
's previous utterance was:
>ha...@mvm-hands.com blubbered, canted and carped:
>
>>Any suggestion to the contrary is revisionist history and wishful
>>thinking by Christians who so very badly want to claim this nation as
>>their own, to the exclusion of people with differing religious beliefs.
>
>The moon is made of green cheese.
A fanciful notion in the least, however I have yet to see objective
observable evidence that indicates the moon is indeed made of green
cheese. I have however seen "moon rocks" which by observable appraisal
appear to be anything BUT green cheese. Therefore it can be safely
asserted that the moon is NOT made of green cheese. At least
exhaustively.
>
>Any suggestion to the contrary is revisionist history and wishful
>thinking by green-cheese-haters who so very badly want to claim the
>moon as their own, to the exclusion of people with differing
>scientific beliefs.
On the contrary claimants supporting the notion that the moon is made
of green cheese is revisionist history and wishful thinking by
green-cheeese-lovers who so very badly want to claim the moon as their
own, to the exclusion of people with differing scientific beleif.
Based on preliminary evidence in the documentry A Big Day Out
commentated and hoster by Wallace & Grommit (scientists
extraordinaire) the moon is made of Yellow Cheese, which while
contradiciting my assertion that the moon is made of rock, also
contradicts your notion that it is made of Green Cheese.
Although all the evidence points to the moon being made of rock and
other inanimate materials. Just as the evidence points to USA NOT
being founded as a christian nation.
Cheers,
Bob
Kadaitcha Man
>among Kadaitcha Man <kadaitchaNO.SPAM.PL...@here.at>
>'s previous utterance was:
>
>>ha...@mvm-hands.com blubbered, canted and carped:
>>
>>>Any suggestion to the contrary is revisionist history and wishful
>>>thinking by Christians who so very badly want to claim this nation as
>>>their own, to the exclusion of people with differing religious beliefs.
>>
>>The moon is made of green cheese.
>A fanciful notion in the least, however I have yet to see objective
>observable evidence that indicates the moon is indeed made of green
>cheese.
I see you have a problem understanding parody.
--
Evil Bob
's previous utterance was:
>Evil Bob blubbered, canted and carped:
>
>>among Kadaitcha Man <kadaitchaNO.SPAM.PL...@here.at>
>>'s previous utterance was:
>>
>>>ha...@mvm-hands.com blubbered, canted and carped:
>>>
>>>>Any suggestion to the contrary is revisionist history and wishful
>>>>thinking by Christians who so very badly want to claim this nation as
>>>>their own, to the exclusion of people with differing religious beliefs.
>>>
>>>The moon is made of green cheese.
>
>>A fanciful notion in the least, however I have yet to see objective
>>observable evidence that indicates the moon is indeed made of green
>>cheese.
>
>I see you have a problem understanding parody.
The only reason you call it parody is because someone pointed out what
a load of shit your post was. Why don't you practice addressing the
points of the post and stop being pedantic and infantile. That I
beleive, will make the debate between theists and atheists somewhat
more civl.
Kadaitcha Man
>among Kadaitcha Man <kadaitchaNO.SPAM.PL...@here.at>
>'s previous utterance was:
>
>>Evil Bob blubbered, canted and carped:
>>
>>>among Kadaitcha Man <kadaitchaNO.SPAM.PL...@here.at>
>>>'s previous utterance was:
>>>
>>>>ha...@mvm-hands.com blubbered, canted and carped:
>>>>
>>>>>Any suggestion to the contrary is revisionist history and wishful
>>>>>thinking by Christians who so very badly want to claim this nation as
>>>>>their own, to the exclusion of people with differing religious beliefs.
>>>>
>>>>The moon is made of green cheese.
>>
>>>A fanciful notion in the least, however I have yet to see objective
>>>observable evidence that indicates the moon is indeed made of green
>>>cheese.
>>
>>I see you have a problem understanding parody.
>
>The only reason you call it parody is because someone pointed out what
>a load of shit your post was.
The only reason you do not recognise it as parody is because you are
too dense and dull. Probably from watching too much Seinfeld.
--
Evil Bob
's previous utterance was:
>Evil Bob blubbered, canted and carped:
>
>>among Kadaitcha Man <kadaitchaNO.SPAM.PL...@here.at>
>>'s previous utterance was:
>>
>>>Evil Bob blubbered, canted and carped:
>>>
>>>>among Kadaitcha Man <kadaitchaNO.SPAM.PL...@here.at>
>>>>'s previous utterance was:
>>>>
>>>>>ha...@mvm-hands.com blubbered, canted and carped:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Any suggestion to the contrary is revisionist history and wishful
>>>>>>thinking by Christians who so very badly want to claim this nation as
>>>>>>their own, to the exclusion of people with differing religious beliefs.
>>>>>
>>>>>The moon is made of green cheese.
>>>
>>>>A fanciful notion in the least, however I have yet to see objective
>>>>observable evidence that indicates the moon is indeed made of green
>>>>cheese.
>>>
>>>I see you have a problem understanding parody.
>>
>>The only reason you call it parody is because someone pointed out what
>>a load of shit your post was.
>
>The only reason you do not recognise it as parody is because you are
>too dense and dull. Probably from watching too much Seinfeld.
First of all I don't watch seinfeld. I saw the final episode because
there was so much hype, but that was it.
Second of all, I don't count myself as dense and dull, as i do not
call you dense and dull... where is the rational arguments you so
furiously support?
And what about attacking the argument not the person. You reliance on
this parody does nothing for you own cause, all it shows is that you
have no argument to back up ANY of what you say in relation to this
thread.