Removing God from public life
Crawdaddy
Removing God from public life
by Carla R. Thompson
---------------------------------------------------
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesky_excomm/20000714_xex_removing_god.shtml
By Carla R. Thompson
Š 2000 WorldNetDaily.com
The recent rulings handed down by the Supreme Court prohibiting student-led
prayer at sporting events, such as the kind that took place in Texas, might
seem like yet another attempt by liberals to bring about the total
secularization of America. Perhaps, it is. But it may well be that the basis
of this and other recent disputes over the separation of church and state
rests not in the taking of God out of public life (an act for which I am
strongly opposed) but the placing of Jesus in it.
As a Roman Catholic living in what is often called the Bible Belt, I can
understand the sense of isolation and the seeming paranoia that might result
from being surrounded by people who openly and constantly question your
religious beliefs.
On numerous occasions, with the utmost patience and trying to call to mind
my years of Catholic schooling, I would politely explain that we don't pray
to Mary as if she is God himself and that we don't treat Pope as God. In New
York City, Los Angeles and Chicago, cities where I have lived in the past, I
can never recall anyone, with an air of condemnation, seeking to challenge
my religious beliefs.
Out of respect and bit of curiosity, I have attended many church services in
the area including United Methodist and both black and white Southern
Baptist. I went to service after service -- each time with an open heart
only to be saddened when it came to the seemingly inevitable place in the
sermon or other invocation when the minister or deacon began to deride other
religions. Recently, I have adopted my own "don't ask don't tell policy"
about my beliefs. If they don't ask, I don't tell.
In the Texas case, the school district proposed as a remedy, that the
student-led prayer would allow references to Buddha, Mohammed and/or Jesus
as long as its general thrust was non-proselytizing and non-sectarian. The
resulting prayer still invoked Jesus Christ by stating in its conclusion,
"In Jesus' name, we pray." The reference to Jesus Christ does not constitute
a non-sectarian prayer. A more appropriate conclusion would have substituted
"God" for "Jesus."
Most Americans profess a belief in God. The world's major religions are
monotheistic. Their differences lie not in their core beliefs -- which
denounce adultery, murder, stealing and lying -- but the respective
messenger chosen to spread the word.
In difficult times, man has relied upon God. It was with God's help and
guidance that the Founding Fathers built this nation. The healing power of
prayer has been acknowledged by some medical professionals. Most people
realize that there is something out there greater than we are and something
beyond the life that we currently live.
This battle over prayer in public places it is not a war of left versus
right. Good versus evil. What is feared is a promotion of national
religion -- my way or no way. And what seems like an irrational fear to some
is a legitimate concern for others.
I have no objection to such acts as Alabama's Judge Roy Moore's posting of
the Ten Commandments in his courtroom or the Colorado's Board of Education
passing a non-binding resolution to encourage public schools to post the
motto, "In God We Trust." In light of what has taken place in that state,
one can understand the need to reinstate some morality and civility in
public schools. Claire Orr, board chairman and architect of the resolution
stated, "The words we pass on to our young shape our destiny." And both the
Ten Commandments and "In God We Trust" express a universality of belief that
transcends religion.
As we well know, the courts don't always offer the best resolution to
conflicts. Perhaps, an interfaith dialogue would supply the best remedy to
soothe tensions. Or the teaching of the history of world religions in public
school would help dispel some of the myths people hold.
But until we find a workable solution, it is important not to let our fear
of having our religious beliefs dictated to us prompt us to remove God from
our public life.
--------------------------------------------------
Carla R. Thompson, formerly visiting assistant professor of communications
of Huntingdon College, Montgomery, Ala., is a freelance writer covering
education, domestic violence, prison-related issues.
la...@rightwingers.net
>The recent rulings handed down by the Supreme Court prohibiting student-led
>prayer at sporting events,
Not withstanding that the "media" service is right wing bullshit, using
publically funded institutions to legitimize, prosletyze, and promote specific
religious beliefs is NEVER going to stand
=====================================================
United with government, religion never rises above the
merest superstition; united with religion, government
never rises about the merest despotism; and all history
shows us the the more widely and completely they are
separated, the better it is for both....."
Jeffrey Laventure
la...@rightwingers.net wrote:
> "Crawdaddy" <jcraw...@nc.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >The recent rulings handed down by the Supreme Court prohibiting student-led
> >prayer at sporting events,
>
> Not withstanding that the "media" service is right wing bullshit, using
> publically funded institutions to legitimize, prosletyze, and promote specific
> religious beliefs is NEVER going to stand
Since when has the media become spokesman for conservatives? The media is
overwhelmingly pro liberal.
Also, publicly funded institutions like PBS is extremely left wing. You don't
know what you are talking about.
la...@rightwingers.net
>
>
>la...@rightwingers.net wrote:
>
>> "Crawdaddy" <jcraw...@nc.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>> >The recent rulings handed down by the Supreme Court prohibiting student-led
>> >prayer at sporting events,
>>
>> Not withstanding that the "media" service is right wing bullshit, using
>> publically funded institutions to legitimize, prosletyze, and promote specific
>> religious beliefs is NEVER going to stand
>
>Since when has the media become spokesman for conservatives? The media is
>overwhelmingly pro liberal.
Not so, jeffy
The "big 3" are corporate entities and NO ONE, especially you whipped and
beaten idiots have EVER made the case that they are. You've merely "said so",
based on most to the "news" being against you.
The specious crap YOU seem to think important, is, for the most part, unproven
allegation, insinuation, innuendo, rumors, stories and lies circulated by Fucx
news, Limballs, Free pubic, and a few on-line right wing sources. Fucx news
DOES serve a purpose. It's demographics serve right wingers. And no wonder,
considering that right winger Murdoch and religious reicher Pat Robertson
control the content. (like a news station owned by the AFL-CIO being passed
off as "unbiased and fair")
>Also, publicly funded institutions like PBS is extremely left wing. You don't
>know what you are talking about.
DO.
PBS doesn't have to grind an axe either way. AMOF, since funding for PBS
comes from congress (republican controlled) the possibility of them being more
conducive to right wing influence is greater
You're attempting to equate distaste, unpopularity of right wing conservatism
with negative news about them and call it "biased"
That means YOU don't know diddly
======================================================
HELP STOP RIGHT WING IGNORANCE
NEUTER A CONSERVATIVE TODAY
Gwen Nelson
: >The recent rulings handed down by the Supreme Court prohibiting student-led
: >prayer at sporting events,
: Not withstanding that the "media" service is right wing bullshit, using
: publically funded institutions to legitimize, prosletyze, and promote specific
: religious beliefs is NEVER going to stand
Sadly, thus far it's standing and spreading like some foul fungal disease
in the form of "Charitable Choice". The fact that the vast majority of
people are unaware of this shows just how left-wing the media is.
On a different topic I was astonished by the coverage of main stream media
in that recent lynching case. Every bit of main stream news I read or
heard that reported on it said "no defensive wounds. Both autopsies
produced opinions that this was a suicide." What the autopsies failed to
address and the media failed to report was that the young man had a broken
leg, a broken wrist and had been shot before he was hung with his own
belt.
What I would like to see is just responsible, intelligent reporting.
: =====================================================
Zepp, Son of Weasel
<jef...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>
>la...@rightwingers.net wrote:
>
>> "Crawdaddy" <jcraw...@nc.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>> >The recent rulings handed down by the Supreme Court prohibiting student-led
>> >prayer at sporting events,
>>
>> Not withstanding that the "media" service is right wing bullshit, using
>> publically funded institutions to legitimize, prosletyze, and promote specific
>> religious beliefs is NEVER going to stand
>
>Since when has the media become spokesman for conservatives? The media is
>overwhelmingly pro liberal.
You mean like Fox News? MSNBC? Rush Limbaugh?
Tell us MORE, dittohead!
>Also, publicly funded institutions like PBS is extremely left wing. You don't
>know what you are talking about.
Lehrer is left wing? Wall Street in Review is left wing? Washington
Week in Review is left wing?
Give me a fucking break!
>
>>
>>
>> =====================================================
>>
>> United with government, religion never rises above the
>> merest superstition; united with religion, government
>> never rises about the merest despotism; and all history
>> shows us the the more widely and completely they are
>> separated, the better it is for both....."
**********************************************************
Bush said Heaven is Only Open to Those Who Accept Jesus Christ. "One
decision of which Bush is certain is that heaven is open only to those
who accept Jesus Christ."
[Texas Observer, 5/14/99, quoting Jewish Herald Voice, 11/2/94]
George W. Bush: Putting the "W" in "AWOL"
**********************************************************
Not dead, in jail or a slave?
Thank a liberal!
For more of Zepp's Commentary, go to http://www.snowcrest.net/zepp/zeppol.htm
Warning: Contains ideas
For all things liberal/leftist http://www.snowcrest.net/zepp/lynx.htm
************************************************************
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
john q public
"Crawdaddy" <jcraw...@nc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:zoHe5.11053$89.28...@typhoon-news1.southeast.rr.com...
>
> Removing God from public life
> by Carla R. Thompson
> ---------------------------------------------------
>
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesky_excomm/20000714_xex_removing_god.shtml
> By Carla R. Thompson
> Š 2000 WorldNetDaily.com
> But until we find a workable solution, it is important not to let our fear
> of having our religious beliefs dictated to us prompt us to remove God
from
> our public life.
>
>
You can keep Your God in Your Private Life.
Keep your weak minded crutches to yourself!
William Barwell
Jeffrey Laventure <jef...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>
>la...@rightwingers.net wrote:
>
>> "Crawdaddy" <jcraw...@nc.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>> >The recent rulings handed down by the Supreme Court prohibiting student-led
>> >prayer at sporting events,
>>
>> Not withstanding that the "media" service is right wing bullshit, using
>> publically funded institutions to legitimize, prosletyze, and promote specific
>> religious beliefs is NEVER going to stand
>
>Since when has the media become spokesman for conservatives? The media is
>overwhelmingly pro liberal.
Listening to the foofahrah over this, I have heard
the news reported and even handed quoting from
partisans on both sides of this issue.
To call the press "liberal" is stupid.
The Supreme Court has spoken. Keep your religion
to yourselves.
And read the steekin' Bible. Jesus told you to keep your
prayers private, Matthew 6:5. Now mind jesus, be a good Christian.
"But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and
when thou hast shut thy door, pray to the father in secret..."
The laws of our land are in perford accord, perfect harmony
with the teachings of Jesus. The actions of millions
of Christian louts are not, but our laws are.
Pope Charles
SubGenius Pope of Houston
Slack!
CB
wingers?. YOU are so whacked out on hate that you fail to realize the Fox
News is constantly teetering between the number one and number two spot and
in the Nelson Ratings. It's to bad that the Nelson Ratings aren't conducted
world wide, you'd be in deep dung.
So for you to call Fox News viewers right wingers, you must admit that the
MAJORITY of viewers ARE Christian, hence a MAJORITY of American's are
informed news viewers and are Christian.
CB
<la...@rightwingers.net> wrote in message
news:397b7779...@169.132.11.12...
> Jeffrey Laventure <jef...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >la...@rightwingers.net wrote:
> >
> >> "Crawdaddy" <jcraw...@nc.rr.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >The recent rulings handed down by the Supreme Court prohibiting
student-led
> >> >prayer at sporting events,
> >>
> >> Not withstanding that the "media" service is right wing bullshit, using
> >> publically funded institutions to legitimize, prosletyze, and promote
specific
> >> religious beliefs is NEVER going to stand
> >
> >Since when has the media become spokesman for conservatives? The media
is
> >overwhelmingly pro liberal.
>
> Not so, jeffy
>
> The "big 3" are corporate entities and NO ONE, especially you whipped and
> beaten idiots have EVER made the case that they are. You've merely "said
so",
> based on most to the "news" being against you.
>
> The specious crap YOU seem to think important, is, for the most part,
unproven
> allegation, insinuation, innuendo, rumors, stories and lies circulated by
Fucx
> news, Limballs, Free pubic, and a few on-line right wing sources. Fucx
news
> DOES serve a purpose. It's demographics serve right wingers. And no
wonder,
> considering that right winger Murdoch and religious reicher Pat Robertson
> control the content. (like a news station owned by the AFL-CIO being
passed
> off as "unbiased and fair")
>
>
> >Also, publicly funded institutions like PBS is extremely left wing. You
don't
> >know what you are talking about.
>
Pop Kulcher
"CB" <c...@prayforme.com> wrote:
> You attempt to insult the viewers of Fox News by calling them right
> wingers?. YOU are so whacked out on hate that you fail to realize the
Fox
> News is constantly teetering between the number one and number two
spot and
> in the Nelson Ratings. It's to bad that the Nelson Ratings aren't
conducted
> world wide, you'd be in deep dung.
>
Nelson, the twin sons of late singer/actor Ricky Nelson, whose long
flowing blonde hair captivated teenage audiences for about a week in
the mid-80's.
As for the Nielsen Ratings... not sure where you get your numbers. For
the quarter ended June 2000, Fox was 4th of the cable news stations
(behind CNBC, CNN, and MSNBC), averaging 132,000 homes per day.
> So for you to call Fox News viewers right wingers, you must admit
that the
> MAJORITY of viewers ARE Christian, hence a MAJORITY of American's are
> informed news viewers and are Christian.
>
Fox is unquestionably biased towards the right. I disagree that that
means its viewers are Christian... seems like a stretch. Of course,
you make some of the biggest leaps in logic I've ever seen. First, to
equate "Christian" with "right wingers" is silly... most Christians are
good people who aren't hateful, bigoted right wingers, and being
Christian says nothing about one's politics.
Second, and most amazingly, you manage to convert Fox's 132,000 viewers
into a majority of Americans. Sounds like another victim of home
schooling.
--
Pop Kulcher
http://www.fagel.com
Home of The 50 Greatest Rock & Roll Albums of All Time (+ CD-R Trading)
Yahoo Pick of the Week 8/9/99 (http://www.yahoo.com/picks/19990809.html)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
john q public
It's a good way to keep track of the enemy!
"CB" <c...@prayforme.com> wrote in message
news:8lhq2k$4sk$1...@sshuraaa-i-1.production.compuserve.com...
> You attempt to insult the viewers of Fox News by calling them right
> wingers?. YOU are so whacked out on hate that you fail to realize the Fox
> News is constantly teetering between the number one and number two spot
and
> in the Nelson Ratings. It's to bad that the Nelson Ratings aren't
conducted
> world wide, you'd be in deep dung.
>
> So for you to call Fox News viewers right wingers, you must admit that the
> MAJORITY of viewers ARE Christian, hence a MAJORITY of American's are
> informed news viewers and are Christian.
>
CB
john q public <kysd...@putermail.net> wrote in message
news:8lhvt3$spu$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
> I'm not a Christian or a Right Wing Loon and I watch Fox.
> It's a good way to keep track of the enemy!
I think your a closet Christian but unwilling to repent. You can be saved
before His second coming
CB
john q public
>
> john q public <kysd...@putermail.net> wrote in message
> news:8lhvt3$spu$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
> > I'm not a Christian or a Right Wing Loon and I watch Fox.
> > It's a good way to keep track of the enemy!
>
> I think your a closet Christian but unwilling to repent. You can be saved
> before His second coming
Tell the bastard to be careful and not stain the blue dress!
Dan Kimmel
"CB" <c...@prayforme.com> wrote in message
news:8lhq2k$4sk$1...@sshuraaa-i-1.production.compuserve.com...
> You attempt to insult the viewers of Fox News by calling them right
> wingers?. YOU are so whacked out on hate that you fail to realize the Fox
> News is constantly teetering between the number one and number two spot
and
> in the Nelson Ratings. It's to bad that the Nelson Ratings aren't
conducted
> world wide, you'd be in deep dung.
>
> So for you to call Fox News viewers right wingers, you must admit that the
> MAJORITY of viewers ARE Christian, hence a MAJORITY of American's are
> informed news viewers and are Christian.
This is wrong on so many counts it's hard to start. First, it's the Nielsen
ratings, not "Nelson Ratings."
Second FOX may be the number two *cable news channel* but that's only in
comparison to CNN and MSNBC. It is not any indication of what the majority
of *television viewers* are watching. In fact, the ratings for all three
news channels is down over the past year or so. Third, while it might be a
mistake to broadly generalize about FOX news *viewers*, there is no question
that the cable news channel does have a markedly conservative bent.
Pop Kulcher
"CB" <c...@prayforme.com> wrote:
>
> > I'm not a Christian or a Right Wing Loon and I watch Fox.
> > It's a good way to keep track of the enemy!
>
> I think your a closet Christian but unwilling to repent. You can be
saved
> before His second coming
>
D.G. Porter
>
> In article <8li1r2$a27$1...@sshuraaa-i-1.production.compuserve.com>,
> "CB" <c...@prayforme.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I'm not a Christian or a Right Wing Loon and I watch Fox.
> > > It's a good way to keep track of the enemy!
> >
> > I think your a closet Christian but unwilling to repent. You can be
> saved
> > before His second coming
> >
> You lucky SOB. We Jews are stuck roasting in eternal Hellfire.
But Mr. Hankey loves you, even if it's vicariously!
CB
Pop Kulcher <chang...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8li3lu$3rk$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <8lhq2k$4sk$1...@sshuraaa-i-1.production.compuserve.com>,
> "CB" <c...@prayforme.com> wrote:
> > wingers?. YOU are so whacked out on hate that you fail to realize the
> Fox
> > News is constantly teetering between the number one and number two
> spot and
> > in the Nelson Ratings. It's to bad that the Nelson Ratings aren't
> conducted
> > world wide, you'd be in deep dung.
> >
> Nelson, the twin sons of late singer/actor Ricky Nelson, whose long
> flowing blonde hair captivated teenage audiences for about a week in
> the mid-80's.
>
> As for the Nielsen Ratings... not sure where you get your numbers. For
> the quarter ended June 2000, Fox was 4th of the cable news stations
> (behind CNBC, CNN, and MSNBC), averaging 132,000 homes per day.
If true I stan corrected. The general statement I made was based on what I
heard on the O'Reilly Factor a few weeks ago.
>
> > So for you to call Fox News viewers right wingers, you must admit
> that the
> > MAJORITY of viewers ARE Christian, hence a MAJORITY of American's are
> > informed news viewers and are Christian.
> >
> Fox is unquestionably biased towards the right. I disagree that that
> means its viewers are Christian... seems like a stretch. Of course,
> you make some of the biggest leaps in logic I've ever seen. First, to
> equate "Christian" with "right wingers" is silly... most Christians are
> good people who aren't hateful, bigoted right wingers, and being
> Christian says nothing about one's politics.
You have a great sense of proportion. There are many Christians that do not
stand up for what they believe is right or to defend the right to worship
God in schools or pointing out innappropiate behavior of the morally
challenged.
There are other Christians that use little tact when attempting to share the
Word. People are repelled by their in your face militant, damnation speech.
I may fit that in that category at times. The reason I do get in people's
face is in reaction to hypocrisy I see posted on the news groups, on the
street and from the clintonian master, "slick the willy" clinton.
Then there are Christians like Mr. Falwel and Jack Van Impe who have never
raised their voice in anger, have never been in peoples face and have
offered nothing but the Way for people to accept or cast aside. They are
Gods emissaries on Earth and the left hate them for it because it threatens
the their power and the states power over the people. To recognize a higher
authority means to govern knowing of a higher power than your own. Get rid
of the One God and His son, Jesus in the name of political separation of
church and state and you set up Uncle Sam to be the all powerful, they can
can then control peoples actions without fearing accountability and can hide
behind like minded commi's.
CB
>
> Second, and most amazingly, you manage to convert Fox's 132,000 viewers
> into a majority of Americans. Sounds like another victim of home
> schooling.
>
Don Barzini
Now THERE's an unbiased source ;-)
You sir, are a walking argument FOR separate of church and state. I
pity you for your narrow tiny mind.
john q public
>
>
> You have a great sense of proportion. There are many Christians that do
not
> stand up for what they believe is right or to defend the right to worship
> God in schools or pointing out innappropiate behavior of the morally
> challenged.
>
Exactly where is this right to Worship God in Schools?
Not in any Constitution that I have ever seen!
CB
form/dwelling/gathering is the day the commi's have won
CB
john q public <kysd...@putermail.net> wrote in message
news:8lklm5$10e$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
Pop Kulcher
"CB" <c...@prayforme.com> wrote:
> The day people need permission or to be given a right to worship in
any
> form/dwelling/gathering is the day the commi's have won
>
> CB
>
Of course, once again, you're missing the point. Nobody needs
permission to worship any place, any time (subject, of course, to basic
rules of order unrelated to the content of the worship -- you want to
slaughter squirrels for your deity at home, fine, but doing it in the
middle of math class is not necessarily kosher). The issue is state-
sanctioned worship, which the First Amendment expressly prohibits. Get
it?
> john q public <kysd...@putermail.net> wrote in message
> news:8lklm5$10e$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
> >
> > "CB" <c...@prayforme.com> wrote in message
> > news:8lk7ub$8ta$1...@sshuraab-i-1.production.compuserve.com...
> > >
> >
> > >
> > > You have a great sense of proportion. There are many Christians
that do
> > not
> > > stand up for what they believe is right or to defend the right to
> worship
> > > God in schools or pointing out innappropiate behavior of the
morally
> > > challenged.
> > >
> > Exactly where is this right to Worship God in Schools?
> > Not in any Constitution that I have ever seen!
> >
> >
> >
>
>
--
Pop Kulcher
http://www.fagel.com
Home of The 50 Greatest Rock & Roll Albums of All Time (+ CD-R Trading)
Yahoo Pick of the Week 8/9/99 (http://www.yahoo.com/picks/19990809.html)
Arne Langsetmo
>
> Removing God from public life
> by Carla R. Thompson
> ---------------------------------------------------
> http://www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesky_excomm/20000714_xex_removing_god.shtml
> By Carla R. Thompson
[snip]
> I have no objection to such acts as Alabama's Judge Roy Moore's posting of
> the Ten Commandments in his courtroom or the Colorado's Board of Education
> passing a non-binding resolution to encourage public schools to post the
> motto, "In God We Trust." In light of what has taken place in that state,
> one can understand the need to reinstate some morality and civility in
> public schools. . . .
But what you religious nimrods _don't_ understand is that it is not
necessary to have religion in order to have morals and civility,
You think you have some kind of patent on such. You don't.
> . . . Claire Orr, board chairman and architect of the resolution
> stated, "The words we pass on to our young shape our destiny." And both the
> Ten Commandments and "In God We Trust" express a universality of belief that
> transcends religion.
You mean the Three and One Half Commandments, the Two and One Half
Good Ideas, and the Four Manifestations of a Surly and Jealous
Sky Pixie Which Most People Don't Believe In And Don't Care A Lot
About. And "In _God_ We Trust" in no way transcends _religion_.
Without religion, such a statement is foolish.
> As we well know, the courts don't always offer the best resolution to
> conflicts. Perhaps, an interfaith dialogue would supply the best remedy to
> soothe tensions. Or the teaching of the history of world religions in public
> school would help dispel some of the myths people hold.
As long as they include the sanguine history of such ... _all_ the
gory details. And all the silliness and inanity. Evenhandedly, of
course. ;-)
> But until we find a workable solution, it is important not to let our fear
> of having our religious beliefs dictated to us prompt us to remove God from
> our public life.
I don't seek to see God removed from public life. I just want Her
out of _government_. And that includes publuc schools and courtrooms.
Cheers,
-- Arne Langsetmo
Arne Langsetmo
>
> You attempt to insult the viewers of Fox News by calling them right
> wingers?. YOU are so whacked out on hate that you fail to realize the Fox
> News is constantly teetering between the number one and number two spot and
> in the Nelson Ratings. It's to bad that the Nelson Ratings aren't conducted
> world wide, you'd be in deep dung.
It's Nielson Ratings.
And I haven't seen Fox News anywhere outside the U.S. I see CNN
all over (including in China) and the BBC World News. Fox?
Nary a sign.
> So for you to call Fox News viewers right wingers, you must admit that the
> MAJORITY of viewers ARE Christian, hence a MAJORITY of American's are
> informed news viewers and are Christian.
A mojority of the American _people_ are Christian. And a fair
number of those are dumb RW louts inclined to watch the RW
Fox garbage when not watching Robertson's CBN swill.
[snip]
Cheers,
-- Arne
Arne Langsetmo
> > I'm not a Christian or a Right Wing Loon and I watch Fox.
> > It's a good way to keep track of the enemy!
>
> I think your a closet Christian but unwilling to repent. You can be saved
> before His second coming
When He starts saying "Uhhh, uhhh, oh god, OH GAWD!", I'll start to
worry. Till then, toodles. . . .
Cheers,
-- Arne Langsetmo
a.a. #101
Arne Langsetmo
>
> Pop Kulcher <chang...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:8li3lu$3rk$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > In article <8lhq2k$4sk$1...@sshuraaa-i-1.production.compuserve.com>,
> > > You attempt to insult the viewers of Fox News by calling them right
> > > wingers?. YOU are so whacked out on hate that you fail to realize the
> > > Fox News is constantly teetering between the number one and number two
> > > spot and in the Nelson Ratings. It's to bad that the Nelson Ratings
> > > aren't conducted world wide, you'd be in deep dung.
> > >
> > Nelson, the twin sons of late singer/actor Ricky Nelson, whose long
> > flowing blonde hair captivated teenage audiences for about a week in
> > the mid-80's.
> >
> > As for the Nielsen Ratings... not sure where you get your numbers. For
> > the quarter ended June 2000, Fox was 4th of the cable news stations
> > (behind CNBC, CNN, and MSNBC), averaging 132,000 homes per day.
>
> If true I stan corrected. The general statement I made was based on what I
> heard on the O'Reilly Factor a few weeks ago.
You're probably thinking about the Fox _entertainment_ network
ratings, where they're a;ways showing sex, violence and profanity.
[snip]
Cheers,
-- Arne Langsetmo
Arne Langsetmo
[snip]
> There are other Christians that use little tact when attempting to share the
> Word. People are repelled by their in your face militant, damnation speech.
> I may fit that in that category at times. The reason I do get in people's
> face is in reaction to hypocrisy I see posted on the news groups, on the
> street and from the clintonian master, "slick the willy" clinton.
Oh, sure. They _deserve_ such treatment then. How very "Christian"
of you in your proselytisation, then. Betcha that approach is
a real winner.
> Then there are Christians like Mr. Falwel and Jack Van Impe who have never
> raised their voice in anger, have never been in peoples face and have
> offered nothing but the Way for people to accept or cast aside. . . .
And hawked tapes claiming that Clinton is a murderer on the side.
> . . . They are
> Gods emissaries on Earth and the left hate them for it because it threatens
> the their power and the states power over the people.
OIC. God condones lying and slander for partisan political
effect. I guess we're down to Nine Commandments. Well, then there's
Swaggart and Bakker. Better make that eight or seven.
Say, what was that you were saying about hypocrisy?
Lighting Strike
"john q public" <kysd...@putermail.net> wrote in message
news:8lhvt3$spu$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
> I'm not a Christian or a Right Wing Loon and I watch Fox.
> It's a good way to keep track of the enemy!
Calling millions of people loons because of the religion they practice?
What an enlightened, open minded liberal you are.
Pop Kulcher
conjunction introducing an alternative. Hence, by writing "I'm not a
Christian OR a Right Wing Loon," he was positing two alternatives:
Christians, and Right Wing Loons. He was not equating the two.
Now, it may happen that there is some overlap between Christians and
Right Wing Loons. There is also some overlap between Jews, Muslims,
atheists, etc. and Right Wing Loons. But the speaker above was not
calling millions of people loons because of their religion... he was
calling them loons because they are, in fact, loons.
D.G. Porter
>
> "john q public" <kysd...@putermail.net> wrote in message
> news:8lhvt3$spu$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
> > I'm not a Christian or a Right Wing Loon and I watch Fox.
> > It's a good way to keep track of the enemy!
>
> Calling millions of people loons because of the religion they practice?
> What an enlightened, open minded liberal you are.
Hey, it's not even a close call to tell the rest of the world that those
guys are LOONS, DELUSIONALS and IDIOTS.
Has nothing to do with "open-mindedness" (something you warts don't
practice either), has everything to do with telling it like it is!
CB
Arne Langsetmo <zu...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:397F6638...@ix.netcom.com...
CB
CB
> CB wrote:
> >
> > You attempt to insult the viewers of Fox News by calling them right
> > wingers?. YOU are so whacked out on hate that you fail to realize the
Fox
> > News is constantly teetering between the number one and number two spot
and
> > in the Nelson Ratings. It's to bad that the Nelson Ratings aren't
conducted
> > world wide, you'd be in deep dung.
>
Thanks
>
> And I haven't seen Fox News anywhere outside the U.S. I see CNN
> all over (including in China) and the BBC World News. Fox?
> Nary a sign.
Adjust the tinfoil hat a bit to the right
>
> > So for you to call Fox News viewers right wingers, you must admit that
the
> > MAJORITY of viewers ARE Christian, hence a MAJORITY of American's are
> > informed news viewers and are Christian.
>
> A mojority of the American _people_ are Christian. And a fair
> number of those are dumb RW louts inclined to watch the RW
> Fox garbage when not watching Robertson's CBN swill.
Don't ya just hate us?
>
> [snip]
>
> Cheers,
>
> -- Arne
CB
> Crawdaddy stle someone else's words:
> >
> > Removing God from public life
> > by Carla R. Thompson
> > ---------------------------------------------------
> >
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesky_excomm/20000714_xex_removing_god.shtml
> > By Carla R. Thompson
>
> [snip]
>
> > I have no objection to such acts as Alabama's Judge Roy Moore's posting
of
> > the Ten Commandments in his courtroom or the Colorado's Board of
Education
> > passing a non-binding resolution to encourage public schools to post the
> > motto, "In God We Trust." In light of what has taken place in that
state,
> > one can understand the need to reinstate some morality and civility in
> > public schools. . . .
>
> But what you religious nimrods _don't_ understand is that it is not
> necessary to have religion in order to have morals and civility,
> You think you have some kind of patent on such. You don't.
It's like knowing how to swim but having no water
>
> > . . . Claire Orr, board chairman and architect of the resolution
> > stated, "The words we pass on to our young shape our destiny." And both
the
> > Ten Commandments and "In God We Trust" express a universality of belief
that
> > transcends religion.
The proof is in our entertainment, in how the youth disrespect them selfves,
do drugs galor, display of no natural affection, killing the unborn and
rejecting the 10 Commandments.
>
> You mean the Three and One Half Commandments, the Two and One Half
> Good Ideas, and the Four Manifestations of a Surly and Jealous
> Sky Pixie Which Most People Don't Believe In And Don't Care A Lot
> About. And "In _God_ We Trust" in no way transcends _religion_.
> Without religion, such a statement is foolish.
>
> > As we well know, the courts don't always offer the best resolution to
> > conflicts. Perhaps, an interfaith dialogue would supply the best remedy
to
> > soothe tensions. Or the teaching of the history of world religions in
public
> > school would help dispel some of the myths people hold.
>
> As long as they include the sanguine history of such ... _all_ the
> gory details. And all the silliness and inanity. Evenhandedly, of
> course. ;-)
Must be an attempt at humor
>
> > But until we find a workable solution, it is important not to let our
fear
> > of having our religious beliefs dictated to us prompt us to remove God
from
> > our public life.
>
> I don't seek to see God removed from public life. I just want Her
> out of _government_. And that includes publuc schools and courtrooms.
The fact that there is little natural affection for your fellow man is proof
that removing Thee higher authority takes the ultimate conscience for
actions away, thus allowing for the spirit to accept the temptations of sin
and calling it inappropriate behavior.Until the 1960's there where few
problems with the youth of America. One doesn't have to be a rocket
scientist to see the result of a Godless youth, maturing into the unloved
and the unloving. How old are you, punk?
>
> Cheers,
>
> -- Arne Langsetmo
sal...@my-deja.com
I believe this is the first time in my life I've seen anything
reflecting intelligent life at worldnewsnet or whatever it's called.
However, the reason for removing "god" from public life is that it
makes logical discourse impossible. I think the state flower should be
the rose, you think god's told you the state flower should be the
milkweed plant.
There's no possibility for discussion, no possibility for a resolution.
In fact, this is a problem with all monotheistic religions.
Polytheistic religions you can say, well, Zeus likes roses, but Juno
likes milkweed, so neither can be "wrong" per se.
Of course, to a nontheist, like a Buddhist, the whole issue is nonsense
and entirely semantic. Actually, to a Buddhist, all monotheistic and
polytheistic religions are pretty pathetic. Childish, actually.
sal...@my-deja.com
Billy Chambless
> Arne Langsetmo <zu...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:397F6072...@ix.netcom.com...
> > But what you religious nimrods _don't_ understand is that it is not
> > necessary to have religion in order to have morals and civility,
> > You think you have some kind of patent on such. You don't.
> It's like knowing how to swim but having no water
More like knowing how to swim but having no ballet shoes.
Jeffrey Laventure
> "CB" <c...@prayforme.com> wrote in message
> news:8lsb1j$lm5$1...@sshuraab-i-1.production.compuserve.com...
>
> > Arne Langsetmo <zu...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> > news:397F6072...@ix.netcom.com...
>
> > > But what you religious nimrods _don't_ understand is that it is not
> > > necessary to have religion in order to have morals and civility,
> > > You think you have some kind of patent on such. You don't.
Alright, please name a society that didn't have a religion as a basis for
morals and civility.
Zepp, a weasel in the corn
<jef...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>Billy Chambless wrote:
>
>> "CB" <c...@prayforme.com> wrote in message
>> news:8lsb1j$lm5$1...@sshuraab-i-1.production.compuserve.com...
>>
>> > Arne Langsetmo <zu...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
>> > news:397F6072...@ix.netcom.com...
>>
>> > > But what you religious nimrods _don't_ understand is that it is not
>> > > necessary to have religion in order to have morals and civility,
>> > > You think you have some kind of patent on such. You don't.
>
>Alright, please name a society that didn't have a religion as a basis for
>morals and civility.
Japan.
>
>>
>>
>> > It's like knowing how to swim but having no water
>>
>> More like knowing how to swim but having no ballet shoes.
**********************************************************
"There seems to be growing awareness that the death penalty
is just another government program that doesn't work very well."
- Stephen Bright of the Southern Center for Human Rights.
For political commentary by Zepp, visit
http://www.snowcrest.net/zepp/zeppol.htm
For links to all things Liberal/Leftist, go to
http:/www.snowcrest.net/zepp/lynx.htm
Warning: Contains ideas
************************************************************
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
Jeffrey Laventure
> On Fri, 28 Jul 2000 17:23:03 -0700, Jeffrey Laventure
> <jef...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> >Billy Chambless wrote:
> >
> >> "CB" <c...@prayforme.com> wrote in message
> >> news:8lsb1j$lm5$1...@sshuraab-i-1.production.compuserve.com...
> >>
> >> > Arne Langsetmo <zu...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> >> > news:397F6072...@ix.netcom.com...
> >>
> >> > > But what you religious nimrods _don't_ understand is that it is not
> >> > > necessary to have religion in order to have morals and civility,
> >> > > You think you have some kind of patent on such. You don't.
> >
> >Alright, please name a society that didn't have a religion as a basis for
> >morals and civility.
>
> Japan.
Sorry, wrong. Of all places to choose, an Oriental country. Try another
society or country. For God's sake (can I say God in the context of this
discussion) don't name a country from the Middle East,
Scott Leigh
single piece says,"IN GOD WE TRUST"...what do you think of
General George Patton? Or the many founding fathers of this
nation that have said or written that government without
religion IS a farce and doomed to failure?
-----------------------------------------------------------
Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com
Bill
> then you should get rid of that horrible US currency, as every
> single piece says,"IN GOD WE TRUST"...
You mean go back to doing it the way the founders intended?
D.G. Porter
>
> then you should get rid of that horrible US currency, as every
> single piece says,"IN GOD WE TRUST"
I got you on this one, Loon. Can you name the Republican president who
wanted to remove that motto from our currency, even had some Double
Eagles minted w/o the motto?
>...what do you think of
> General George Patton?
I think he was an asshole.
> Or the many founding fathers of this
> nation that have said or written that government without
> religion IS a farce and doomed to failure?
You mean all thsoe Deists?
Scott Leigh
the planet has seen...devoutly religious(even tho he swore like
an infantryman)...regardless of the repub that wished to remove
those words, it IS still seen on all our currency...you must
HATE that, dont you?...and your dig at the founding fathers IS
deplorable...no sense of respect or favor...oh, well, typical
liberal...get your kleenex ready for nov 8...
Scott Leigh
to be godless...read just a little bit of DOCUMENTED history, mr
liberal...
zu...@ix.netcom.com
Jeffrey Laventure <jef...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> Billy Chambless wrote:
>
> > "CB" <c...@prayforme.com> wrote in message
> > news:8lsb1j$lm5$1...@sshuraab-i-1.production.compuserve.com...
> >
> > > Arne Langsetmo <zu...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> > > news:397F6072...@ix.netcom.com...
> >
> > > > But what you religious nimrods _don't_ understand is that
> > > > it is not necessary to have religion in order to have morals
> > > > such. You don't.
>
> Alright, please name a society that didn't have a religion as
> a basis for morals and civility.
Not a fair question. Name me a society that didn't have some
predominant religion. But FWIW, the Unites States _supposedly_
has a government where religion is not the basis for the laws
(although the religious ayatollahs keep trying to sneak their
stuff in under the guise of having some supposed "rational
basis" in civil law). As far as "morals and civility" goes,
I'd say the RW foamers have clearly shown that such cannot
be part of _their_ dogma, through their acts, and thus
it is certainly not their religion that provides this basis.
[snip]
Cheers,
-- Arne Langsetmo
D.G. Porter
>
> the founding fathers did NOT intend for the country or the govt
> to be godless...read just a little bit of DOCUMENTED history, mr
> liberal...
Read what Thomas Jefferson said, mr. loon...
D.G. Porter
>
> to you maybe...
????? You still there, muttering in your dank little cell, mumbling and
sputtering again? Hey, ever hear of the Caps key?? Ever hear about
forming compelte sentences??
> patton was probably the greatest military mind
> the planet has seen...devoutly religious(even tho he swore like
> an infantryman)...regardless of the repub that wished to remove
> those words, it IS still seen on all our currency...you must
> HATE that, dont you?...and your dig at the founding fathers IS
> deplorable...no sense of respect or favor...
Aww, I'm soooooo bad.
And I really really care. See how much I care.
There, see how much I cared?
zu...@ix.netcom.com
> > <jef...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >
> > >Billy Chambless wrote:
> > >
> > >> "CB" <c...@prayforme.com> wrote in message
> > >> news:8lsb1j$lm5$1...@sshuraab-i-1.production.compuserve.com...
> > >>
> > >> > Arne Langsetmo <zu...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> > >> > news:397F6072...@ix.netcom.com...
> > >>
> > >> > > But what you religious nimrods _don't_ understand is
> > >> > > that it is not necessary to have religion in order to
> > >> > > have morals and civility.
> > >> > > You think you have some kind of patent on such. You
> > >> > > don't.
> > >
> > >Alright, please name a society that didn't have a religion
> > >as a basis for morals and civility.
> >
>
> Sorry, wrong. Of all places to choose, an Oriental country.
Actually, that's a pretty _good_ choice. Shintoism,
Buddhism, and even more Confucianism do a great bit to
dispense with the Eternal Pronoucements from a Sky
Pixie on high. Why do you think that Asian countries
are a particularly _bad_ example?
The _culture_ of the Asians stresses honour, politeness,
morality, and civility highly. And this is very much
a common characteristic of the cultures there (having
been there, I can assure that I had the pleasure of
verifying this).
The part these "religions" (to the extent that they are
religions in the same sense we tend to think of such)
plays a part in this is somewhat indirect.
> . . . Try another
> society or country.
Why? Because you have no ready answer to this example?
Sorry, no dice.
> For God's sake (can I say God in the context of this
> discussion) don't name a country from the Middle East,
Wouldn't dream of it (although the _secular_ Jews might
be an object lesson in at least some sense WRT "civility").
;-)
Jeffrey Laventure
> In article <398223E7...@pacbell.net>,
> Jeffrey Laventure <jef...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > Billy Chambless wrote:
> >
> > > "CB" <c...@prayforme.com> wrote in message
> > > news:8lsb1j$lm5$1...@sshuraab-i-1.production.compuserve.com...
> > >
> > > > Arne Langsetmo <zu...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:397F6072...@ix.netcom.com...
> > >
> > > > > But what you religious nimrods _don't_ understand is that
> > > > > it is not necessary to have religion in order to have morals
> > > > > and civility. You think you have some kind of patent on
> > > > > such. You don't.
> >
> > Alright, please name a society that didn't have a religion as
> > a basis for morals and civility.
>
> Not a fair question. Name me a society that didn't have some
> predominant religion. But FWIW, the Unites States _supposedly_
> has a government where religion is not the basis for the laws
> (although the religious ayatollahs keep trying to sneak their
> stuff in under the guise of having some supposed "rational
> basis" in civil law). As far as "morals and civility" goes,
> I'd say the RW foamers have clearly shown that such cannot
> be part of _their_ dogma, through their acts, and thus
> it is certainly not their religion that provides this basis.
>
In the context of the statement I addressed the question to, I'd have to
say it was a very fair question. Our government was created by a group
of people with deep religious beliefs. The Declaration of Independence
states: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are
created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain
unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit
of Happiness. I believe the reference to Creator refers to God. While
it doesn't define whose God or of what religion, it clearly shows that
God is meant to be in the American equation. I submit the intent was
not to create a government devoid of God. Clearly both the RWs and LWs
attempt to steer the government to their philosophical extremes; but,
that is what the rest of us are here for.
>
> [snip]
Jeffrey Laventure
> In article <39823F2C...@pacbell.net>,
> Jeffrey Laventure <jef...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > "Zepp, a weasel in the corn" wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, 28 Jul 2000 17:23:03 -0700, Jeffrey Laventure
> > > <jef...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > >Billy Chambless wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> "CB" <c...@prayforme.com> wrote in message
> > > >> news:8lsb1j$lm5$1...@sshuraab-i-1.production.compuserve.com...
> > > >>
> > > >> > Arne Langsetmo <zu...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> > > >> > news:397F6072...@ix.netcom.com...
> > > >>
> > > >> > > But what you religious nimrods _don't_ understand is
> > > >> > > that it is not necessary to have religion in order to
> > > >> > > have morals and civility.
> > > >> > > You think you have some kind of patent on such. You
> > > >> > > don't.
> > > >
> > > >Alright, please name a society that didn't have a religion
> > > >as a basis for morals and civility.
> > >
> > > Japan.
> >
> > Sorry, wrong. Of all places to choose, an Oriental country.
>
> Actually, that's a pretty _good_ choice. Shintoism,
> Buddhism, and even more Confucianism do a great bit to
> dispense with the Eternal Pronoucements from a Sky
> Pixie on high. Why do you think that Asian countries
> are a particularly _bad_ example?
> The question was: name a society that didn't have a religion as a
> basis for morals and civility. I believe you are agreeing with me in
> that most societies use religion as a basis for morals and civility.
> I said most, because communist societies, since they do not believe in
> God, use the government as their basis for morals and civility.
> The _culture_ of the Asians stresses honour, politeness,
> morality, and civility highly. And this is very much
> a common characteristic of the cultures there (having
> been there, I can assure that I had the pleasure of
> verifying this).
>
> The part these "religions" (to the extent that they are
> religions in the same sense we tend to think of such)
> plays a part in this is somewhat indirect.
>
> > . . . Try another
> > society or country.
>
> Why? Because you have no ready answer to this example?
> Sorry, no dice.
>
> > For God's sake (can I say God in the context of this
> > discussion) don't name a country from the Middle East,
>
> Wouldn't dream of it (although the _secular_ Jews might
> be an object lesson in at least some sense WRT "civility").
> ;-)
>
Zepp, Son of Weasel
<jef...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>"Zepp, a weasel in the corn" wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 28 Jul 2000 17:23:03 -0700, Jeffrey Laventure
>> <jef...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>
>> >Billy Chambless wrote:
>> >
>> >> "CB" <c...@prayforme.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:8lsb1j$lm5$1...@sshuraab-i-1.production.compuserve.com...
>> >>
>> >> > Arne Langsetmo <zu...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
>> >> > news:397F6072...@ix.netcom.com...
>> >>
>> >> > > But what you religious nimrods _don't_ understand is that it is not
>> >> > > necessary to have religion in order to have morals and civility,
>> >> > > You think you have some kind of patent on such. You don't.
>> >
>> >Alright, please name a society that didn't have a religion as a basis for
>> >morals and civility.
>>
>> Japan.
>
>Sorry, wrong. Of all places to choose, an Oriental country. Try another
>society or country. For God's sake (can I say God in the context of this
>discussion) don't name a country from the Middle East,
>
Do you have some sort of problem with "Oriental countries"? If so,
spit it out. Let's see what manner of person you are.
>
>>
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> > It's like knowing how to swim but having no water
>> >>
>> >> More like knowing how to swim but having no ballet shoes.
>>
>> **********************************************************
>>
>> "There seems to be growing awareness that the death penalty
>> is just another government program that doesn't work very well."
>>
>> - Stephen Bright of the Southern Center for Human Rights.
>>
>> For political commentary by Zepp, visit
>> http://www.snowcrest.net/zepp/zeppol.htm
>> For links to all things Liberal/Leftist, go to
>> http:/www.snowcrest.net/zepp/lynx.htm
>> Warning: Contains ideas
>> ************************************************************
>> Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
**********************************************************
Bush said Heaven is Only Open to Those Who Accept Jesus Christ. "One
decision of which Bush is certain is that heaven is open only to those
who accept Jesus Christ."
[Texas Observer, 5/14/99, quoting Jewish Herald Voice, 11/2/94]
George W. Bush: Putting the "W" in "AWOL"
**********************************************************
Not dead, in jail or a slave?
Thank a liberal!
For more of Zepp's Commentary, go to http://www.snowcrest.net/zepp/zeppol.htm
Warning: Contains ideas
For all things liberal/leftist http://www.snowcrest.net/zepp/lynx.htm
Scott Leigh
or the style of communication, NOT the message...it IS readily
apparent that you are still searching for yourself...a hayseed
in a haystack?...
zu...@ix.netcom.com
Jeffrey Laventure <jef...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> zu...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> > In article <398223E7...@pacbell.net>,
> > > Billy Chambless wrote:
> > > > "CB" <c...@prayforme.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:8lsb1j$lm5$1...@sshuraab-i-1.production.compuserve.com...
> > > > > Arne Langsetmo <zu...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> > > > > news:397F6072...@ix.netcom.com...
> > > >
> > > > > > But what you religious nimrods _don't_ understand is that
> > > > > > it is not necessary to have religion in order to have morals
> > > > > > such. You don't.
> > >
> > > Alright, please name a society that didn't have a religion as
> > > a basis for morals and civility.
> >
> > predominant religion. But FWIW, the Unites States _supposedly_
> > has a government where religion is not the basis for the laws
> > (although the religious ayatollahs keep trying to sneak their
> > stuff in under the guise of having some supposed "rational
> > basis" in civil law). As far as "morals and civility" goes,
> > I'd say the RW foamers have clearly shown that such cannot
> > be part of _their_ dogma, through their acts, and thus
> > it is certainly not their religion that provides this basis.
> >
>
> In the context of the statement I addressed the question to,
> I'd have to say it was a very fair question. Our government
> was created by a group of people with deep religious
Really? What was Thomas Jefferson's religious beliefs, say,
e.g., about Jesus (this is reasonably well documented)? What
was Madison's? What was Franklin's? What was Paine's?
> . . . The Declaration of Independence
> states: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all
> men are created equal, that they are endowed by their
> Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these
> are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. I believe
> the reference to Creator refers to God. . . .
Which would explain why they refer to "Nature and Nature's
God" a few lines down the page? ;-)
> . . . While it doesn't
> define whose God or of what religion, it clearly shows that
> God is meant to be in the American equation.
Oh, really? Which "God"? ROFL. When you figure the absurdity
of what you said, get back to me.
But I'll try to set you straight here about this little
document before you get too far off track. Our government
wasn't formed by that little polemic; it was a _political_
polemic written for other purposes. The govenrment it took
a part in forming was the Confederation. This government
was found, a _decade later_, to be wholly inadequate
to the task, and they went and redrew the whole thing. And
the people who redrew it were not the same as those who
signed the DoI (and certainly not the author of the DoI,
although he did provide inspiration and input to Madison
from his appointment in France).
> . . . I submit the intent was
> not to create a government devoid of God. . . .
You would be mistaken then. The Establishemtn clause was written
by the same man who had argued for the Virginia Act For Religious
Freedom, and prevailed over the establishmentarian Patrick
Henry in the debates on this act. They meany what they said.
They thought the idea of religious establishment _particularly_
tyrannical, and thus singled it out for special treatment.
> . . . Clearly both the RWs and LWs
> attempt to steer the government to their philosophical extremes;
> but, that is what the rest of us are here for.
What part of "_no_ law respecting an establishmemnt" are you having
difficulty with?
zu...@ix.netcom.com
> > > > <jef...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > > > >Billy Chambless wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> "CB" <c...@prayforme.com> wrote in message
> > > > >> news:8lsb1j$lm5$1...@sshuraab-i-1.production.compuserve.com...
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > Arne Langsetmo <zu...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> > > > >> > news:397F6072...@ix.netcom.com...
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > > But what you religious nimrods _don't_ understand is
> > > > >> > > that it is not necessary to have religion in order to
> > > > >> > > have morals and civility.
> > > > >> > > You think you have some kind of patent on such. You
> > > > >> > > don't.
> > > > >
> > > > >Alright, please name a society that didn't have a religion
> > > > >as a basis for morals and civility.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Sorry, wrong. Of all places to choose, an Oriental country.
> >
> > Buddhism, and even more Confucianism do a great bit to
> > dispense with the Eternal Pronoucements from a Sky
> > Pixie on high. Why do you think that Asian countries
> > are a particularly _bad_ example?
>
> as a basis for morals and civility. I believe you are agreeing
> with me in that most societies use religion as a basis for morals
> and civility.
Maybe. I'd be inclined to go for "many" rather than most.
But that certainly isn't "all", which seems to have to be
true for your statement above to make any sense. If it
were _not_ true, then your seeming support of the claim
of exclusivity or necessity (you weren't too clear what
you were claiming) would be contradicted by even an
admission that only "most" are such.
> I said most, because communist societies, since they do
> not believe in God, . . .
Neither does the United States (officially).
> . . . use the government as their basis for morals and
> civility.
So do we. Officially. Surprise. For instance, even
the First Amendment Free Speech clause would seem to
_preserve_, through gvernment edict, the right of people
to be a**holes and bigots. We clearly esteem different
things, and hold them in higher regard, than do churches
for the most part. Our government was constructed to
be an anti-"moralising" one, because the Founders feared
what happens when such powers are placed in the hands
of those with the power and tools of the government.
We strive to protect "domestic tranquility", but only
insofar as it affects others, not people in their own
bedrooms. See, e.g., Ohio v. Mapp where the little old
lady prevailed in her right to be let alone from others.
[snip rest unresponded to]
Bill
>
> Bill wrote:
> > then you should get rid of that horrible US currency, as every
>
> You mean go back to doing it the way the founders intended?
> the founding fathers did NOT intend for the country or the govt
> to be godless...read just a little bit of DOCUMENTED history, mr
> liberal...
Would you care to respond to the point, which you snipped and I
restored? That being that the founders chose NOT to put a religious
slogan on our currency. I stand with them on this issue. How about
you?
Scott Leigh
currency, but I stand by the statement made that either
washington or jefferson or franklin said that a government
without religion and morals IS doomed to failure, or words there-
of...I had the quote at hand but cant find it...when I do, YOU
will be the first I post it to!!!...
Jeffrey Laventure
***snipped for brevity***
> > The question was: name a society that didn't have a religion
> > as a basis for morals and civility. I believe you are agreeing
> > with me in that most societies use religion as a basis for morals
> > and civility.
>
> Maybe. I'd be inclined to go for "many" rather than most.
> But that certainly isn't "all", which seems to have to be
> true for your statement above to make any sense. If it
> were _not_ true, then your seeming support of the claim
> of exclusivity or necessity (you weren't too clear what
> you were claiming) would be contradicted by even an
> admission that only "most" are such.
Wow, and all in one breath. (no disrespect intended).
I think I'll just let this one die.
> > I said most, because communist societies, since they do
> > not believe in God, . . .
>
> Neither does the United States (officially).
>
> > . . . use the government as their basis for morals and
> > civility.
>
> So do we. Officially. Surprise. For instance, even
> the First Amendment Free Speech clause would seem to
> _preserve_, through gvernment edict, the right of people
> to be a**holes and bigots. We clearly esteem different
> things, and hold them in higher regard, than do churches
> for the most part. Our government was constructed to
> be an anti-"moralising" one, because the Founders feared
> what happens when such powers are placed in the hands
> of those with the power and tools of the government.
> We strive to protect "domestic tranquility", but only
> insofar as it affects others, not people in their own
> bedrooms. See, e.g., Ohio v. Mapp where the little old
> lady prevailed in her right to be let alone from others.
True; but, for the many (I wanted to say most; but,I think you expressed
preference for many) part our laws are created from a Judeo-Christian
moral point of view. Granted sometimes there are those who go overboard,
or attempt to circumnavigate the dictates of the Constitution. Even the
laws against murder are originated from a sense of morals.
Jeffrey Laventure
> In article <3983676C...@pacbell.net>,
> Jeffrey Laventure <jef...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > zu...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> > > In article <398223E7...@pacbell.net>,
> > > Jeffrey Laventure <jef...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > > > Billy Chambless wrote:
> > > > > "CB" <c...@prayforme.com> wrote in message
> > > > > news:8lsb1j$lm5$1...@sshuraab-i-1.production.compuserve.com...
> > > > > > Arne Langsetmo <zu...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:397F6072...@ix.netcom.com...
> > > > >
> > > > > > > But what you religious nimrods _don't_ understand is that
> > > > > > > it is not necessary to have religion in order to have morals
> > > > > > > and civility. You think you have some kind of patent on
> > > > > > > such. You don't.
> > > >
> > > > Alright, please name a society that didn't have a religion as
> > > > a basis for morals and civility.
> > >
> > > Not a fair question. Name me a society that didn't have some
> > > predominant religion. But FWIW, the Unites States _supposedly_
> > > has a government where religion is not the basis for the laws
> > > (although the religious ayatollahs keep trying to sneak their
> > > stuff in under the guise of having some supposed "rational
> > > basis" in civil law). As far as "morals and civility" goes,
> > > I'd say the RW foamers have clearly shown that such cannot
> > > be part of _their_ dogma, through their acts, and thus
> > > it is certainly not their religion that provides this basis.
> > >
> >
> > In the context of the statement I addressed the question to,
> > I'd have to say it was a very fair question. Our government
> > was created by a group of people with deep religious
> > beliefs. . . .
>
> Really? What was Thomas Jefferson's religious beliefs, say,
> e.g., about Jesus (this is reasonably well documented)? What
> was Madison's? What was Franklin's? What was Paine's?
I said religious beliefs, not a Judea-Christian belief. A belief in a
creator.
> > . . . The Declaration of Independence
> > states: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all
> > men are created equal, that they are endowed by their
> > Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these
> > are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. I believe
> > the reference to Creator refers to God. . . .
>
> Which would explain why they refer to "Nature and Nature's
> God" a few lines down the page? ;-)
Are you attempting to construe my comments as references to a Baptist God?
I believe what you wrote is what I'm saying.
> > . . . While it doesn't
> > define whose God or of what religion, it clearly shows that
> > God is meant to be in the American equation.
>
> Oh, really? Which "God"? ROFL. When you figure the absurdity
> of what you said, get back to me.
OK. The God referred to in the phrase: ...endowed by their Creator....
> But I'll try to set you straight here about this little
> document before you get too far off track. Our government
> wasn't formed by that little polemic; it was a _political_
> polemic written for other purposes. The govenrment it took
> a part in forming was the Confederation. This government
> was found, a _decade later_, to be wholly inadequate
> to the task, and they went and redrew the whole thing. And
> the people who redrew it were not the same as those who
> signed the DoI (and certainly not the author of the DoI,
> although he did provide inspiration and input to Madison
> from his appointment in France).
I believe the DOI was the document justifying our separation from England
and that it took another decade to piece together an exceptable
Constitution.
>
>
> > . . . I submit the intent was
> > not to create a government devoid of God. . . .
>
> You would be mistaken then. The Establishemtn clause was written
> by the same man who had argued for the Virginia Act For Religious
> Freedom, and prevailed over the establishmentarian Patrick
> Henry in the debates on this act. They meany what they said.
> They thought the idea of religious establishment _particularly_
> tyrannical, and thus singled it out for special treatment.
Correct; but, the key phrase is establishment of a religion. I'm saying they
did not believe God should be left out of government, not that they were for
a state sanctioned religion. Most, in not all, the signers of the DOI and
creators of the Constitution believed man answers to a higher power than
man.
> > . . . Clearly both the RWs and LWs
> > attempt to steer the government to their philosophical extremes;
> > but, that is what the rest of us are here for.
>
> What part of "_no_ law respecting an establishmemnt" are you having
> difficulty with?
You have attempted to pigeon-hole me into a position that is not mine. A
belief, respect and adherence to the laws of God is not the same as "no law
respecting an establishment".
zu...@ix.netcom.com
>
> > > The question was: name a society that didn't have a
> > > religion as a basis for morals and civility. I believe
> > > you are agreeing with me in that most societies use
> >
> > But that certainly isn't "all", which seems to have to be
> > true for your statement above to make any sense. If it
> > were _not_ true, then your seeming support of the claim
> > of exclusivity or necessity (you weren't too clear what
> > you were claiming) would be contradicted by even an
> > admission that only "most" are such.
>
> Wow, and all in one breath. (no disrespect intended).
> I think I'll just let this one die.
Fine. Glad that's settled. Particularly the claim
of exclusivity, which is the original subject here
(I had claimed that Christianity has no patent on
morals).
> > > I said most, because communist societies, since
> > > they do not believe in God, . . .
> >
> > Neither does the United States (officially).
> >
> > > . . . use the government as their basis for
> > > morals and civility.
> >
> > So do we. Officially. Surprise. For instance, even
> > the First Amendment Free Speech clause would seem to
> > _preserve_, through government edict, the right of people
> > to be a**holes and bigots. We clearly esteem different
> > things, and hold them in higher regard, than do churches
> > for the most part. Our government was constructed to
> > be an anti-"moralising" one, because the Founders feared
> > what happens when such powers are placed in the hands
> > of those with the power and tools of the government.
> > We strive to protect "domestic tranquility", but only
> > insofar as it affects others, not people in their own
> > bedrooms. See, e.g., Ohio v. Mapp where the little old
> > lady prevailed in her right to be let alone from others.
>
> True; but, for the many (I wanted to say most; but,I
> think you expressed preference for many) part our laws
> are created from a Judeo-Christian moral point of view.
No. That is the precise point I was making a while back.
The Judeo-Christian religions have no patent on morality,
and you will find that the Ten Commandments have been
reduced, in government practise WRT actual _laws_, to
the Three and One Half Commandments, The Two and One
Half Good Ideas, and the Four That Make No Difference
To Government. And, surprise surprise, those Three
and One Half are pretty much the same world-wide, even
in cultures with traditions older than even Judaism.
As I said, the Commandments that do have applicability
as general moral principles or laws are ... _general_
in fact amongst cultures. And the ones most other
religions don't give a tinker's damn about are limited
to countries with a Judeo-Christion church. Now what
do you make of that?
> . . . Granted sometimes there are those who go
> overboard, or attempt to circumnavigate the dictates
> of the Constitution. . . .
So if you have respect for our form of government, I
suggest you shun such people. But first you have to
recognise them. Take a look at Roy Mooore, for instance.
> . . . Even the
> laws against murder are originated from a sense of morals.
Agreed. But where we part company is that I maintain
(with some good evidence presented here) that such
is no result of religion. If you asked me to guess,
I'd say that "God's Laws" are "God's Laws" because they
are good, rather than the converse "God's Laws" are good
_because_ they are "God's Laws". N'est ce pas?
Now what was that you were saying?
CB
<zu...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:8m348n$81c$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Eric Chomko
: to you maybe...patton was probably the greatest military mind
: the planet has seen...devoutly religious(even tho he swore like
: an infantryman)...regardless of the repub that wished to remove
: those words, it IS still seen on all our currency...you must
: HATE that, dont you?...and your dig at the founding fathers IS
: liberal...get your kleenex ready for nov 8...
Money in this country and the way it is produced is purely communistic. It
used to not be back in 1928 and before.
And Jefferson used to dislike social functions due to the "fanatical
Christians".
Eric
Eric Chomko
: to be godless...read just a little bit of DOCUMENTED history, mr
: liberal...
But they DID want a separtion of church and state as stated in the
Constitution.
Eric
zu...@ix.netcom.com
"CB" <C...@prayforme.com> wrote:
> BS
Now I see why you need to ask people to pray for you.
Didn't work, though, IC.
Cheers,
-- Arne Langsetmo
john q public
that's not clear enough for you, do a search on Supreme Court Decisions!
"Mark Balcom" <ma...@coho.net> wrote in message
news:398A0E...@coho.net...
> john q public wrote:
> >
> > "CB" <c...@prayforme.com> wrote in message
> > news:8lk7ub$8ta$1...@sshuraab-i-1.production.compuserve.com..
> > >
> >
> > >
> > > You have a great sense of proportion. There are many Christians that
do
> > not
> > > stand up for what they believe is right or to defend the right to
worship
> > > God in schools or pointing out innappropiate behavior of the morally
> > > challenged.
> > >
> > Exactly where is this right to Worship God in Schools?
> > Not in any Constitution that I have ever seen!
>
>
> "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, OR
> PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF....". (Emphasis added). It does NOT
> say "except in public schools".
>
> Mark
Lone Haranguer
Mathew wrote:
>
> On Fri, 4 Aug 2000, Mark Balcom wrote:
>
> > john q public wrote:
> > >
> > > "CB" <c...@prayforme.com> wrote in message
> > > news:8lk7ub$8ta$1...@sshuraab-i-1.production.compuserve.com..
> > > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > You have a great sense of proportion. There are many Christians that do
> > > not
> > > > stand up for what they believe is right or to defend the right to worship
> > > > God in schools or pointing out innappropiate behavior of the morally
> > > > challenged.
> > > >
> > > Exactly where is this right to Worship God in Schools?
> > > Not in any Constitution that I have ever seen!
> >
> >
> > "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, OR
> > PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF....". (Emphasis added). It does NOT
> > say "except in public schools".
>
> But it does say seperation of Church and State.
Care to point out WHERE it says that?
LZ
> The celebreation of Christmas then should be void in pulic schools...
> unless all other religions of every student are allowed to be celebrated.
>
> >
> > Mark
> >
> >
Mark Balcom
>
> "CB" <c...@prayforme.com> wrote in message
> news:8lk7ub$8ta$1...@sshuraab-i-1.production.compuserve.com..
> >
>
> >
> > You have a great sense of proportion. There are many Christians that do
> not
> > stand up for what they believe is right or to defend the right to worship
> > God in schools or pointing out innappropiate behavior of the morally
> > challenged.
> >
> Exactly where is this right to Worship God in Schools?
> Not in any Constitution that I have ever seen!
"Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, OR
PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF....". (Emphasis added). It does NOT
say "except in public schools".
Mark
zu...@ix.netcom.com
Yes. Now answer the question(s).
> > > . . . The Declaration of Independence
> > > states: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all
> > > men are created equal, that they are endowed by their
> > > Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these
> > > are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. I believe
> > > the reference to Creator refers to God. . . .
> >
> > Which would explain why they refer to "Nature and Nature's
> > God" a few lines down the page? ;-)
>
> Are you attempting to construe my comments as references to a
> Baptist God? I believe what you wrote is what I'm saying.
Hell, if you're willing to claim they were all animists, that
solves the problem here.
> > > . . . While it doesn't
> > > define whose God or of what religion, it clearly shows that
> > > God is meant to be in the American equation.
> >
> > Oh, really? Which "God"? ROFL. When you figure the absurdity
> > of what you said, get back to me.
>
> OK. The God referred to in the phrase: ...endowed by their
> Creator....
I didn't see any "God" referred to in that phrase. But once
again (assuming for purposes of argument that "Creator" is
the same as "God"), _which_ "God"? Odin? Zeus? Shiva?
Mother Earth? Or do you think there's a b;and, generic,
one-size-fits-all type "God" out there that everyone is
really worshipping? A Baha'i type deity? That would be
blasphemy to many, FWIW, which may account for the persecution
of the Baha'i by pretty much everyone else. . . .
Which God? TWIMC?
> > But I'll try to set you straight here about this little
> > document before you get too far off track. Our government
> > wasn't formed by that little polemic; it was a _political_
> > polemic written for other purposes. The govenrment it took
> > a part in forming was the Confederation. This government
> > was found, a _decade later_, to be wholly inadequate
> > to the task, and they went and redrew the whole thing. And
> > the people who redrew it were not the same as those who
> > signed the DoI (and certainly not the author of the DoI,
> > although he did provide inspiration and input to Madison
> > from his appointment in France).
>
> I believe the DOI was the document justifying our separation
> from England . . .
True. It was a polemic. So why cite it as authority for
the structure of our present government? It was a gripe list
about what was _wrong_ with the old regime, not a document to
set up the new regime.
> . . . and that it took another decade to piece together
> an exceptable Constitution.
The govenrment that was formed following the DoI was set out
in the Articles of Confederation. Which was quite different
from the eventual Constitution (and done by different people).
> > > . . . I submit the intent was
> > > not to create a government devoid of God. . . .
> >
> > You would be mistaken then. The Establishemtn clause was written
> > by the same man who had argued for the Virginia Act For Religious
> > Freedom, and prevailed over the establishmentarian Patrick
> > Henry in the debates on this act. They meany what they said.
> > They thought the idea of religious establishment _particularly_
> > tyrannical, and thus singled it out for special treatment.
>
> Correct; but, the key phrase is establishment of a religion.
> I'm saying they did not believe God should be left out of
> government, . . .
Let's see: They said that God shouldn't be _in_ government,
but they also said that God shouldn't be left _out_ of governemnt.
On what do you base this curious claim as to the intellectual
scizophrenia of the Founders?
> . . . not that they were for a state sanctioned
> religion. . . .
Any time you let "God" _in_ government, you have begun an
establishment. The only excuse would be that the incursion
is so small to be de minimus, and that "de minimus non curat
lex". Put this is a pragmatic argument, and not one on
principle, as you would suggest. You suggest they thought
that a certain degree of establishment would serve a useful
civic function, and that we simply needed to balance the
two concerns. I don't _think_ so. As I stated, Jefferson
and Madison firmly believed that religion was of such
importance to _individuals_ that the government be completely
barred:
". . . to compel a man to furnish contributions of money
for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is
sinful and tyrannical. . . . to suffer the civil magistrate
to intrude his powers into the field of opinion and to
restrain the profession or propagation of principles, on
the supposition of their ill tendency, is a dangerous
fallacy, which at once destroys all religious liberty,
because he being of course judge of that tendency, will
make his opinions the rule of judgment, and approve or
condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square
with or differ from his own; that it is time enough for
the rightful purposes of civil government, for its officers
to interfere when principles break out into overt acts
against peace and good order; and finally, that truth is
great and will prevail if left to herself, that she is
the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has
nothing to fear from the conflict, unless by human
interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free
argument and debate, errors ceasing to be dangerous
when it is permitted freely to contradict them."
Thomas Jefferson, "The Virginia Act For Religious Freedom"
"Who does not see that the same authority which can establish
Christianity in exclusion of all other religions may establish,
with the same ease, any particular sect of Christians in
exclusion of all other sects? That the same authority which can
force a citizen to contribute threepence only of his property
for the support of any one establishment may force him to
conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever?""
(James Madison, "A Memorial and Remonstrance," addressed to
the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia, 1785;
from George Seldes, ed., The Great Quotations, Secaucus,
New Jersey: The Citadel Press, pp. 459-460. According to
Edwin S. Gaustad, Faith of Our Fathers: Religion and the
New Nation, San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987, pp. 39 ff.,
Madison's "Remonstrance" was instrumental in blocking the
multiple establishment of all denominations of Christianity
in Virginia.)
Madison knew the principle. It's either alll or none. You
can't set any effective limit on what is "tolerable". To
pretend that this is possible is simply to put the very
power of government in charge of deciding what _is_ tolerable,
i.e. to put the fox right into the chicken coop. Surely you
see the folly in that?
> . . . Most, in not all, the signers of the DOI and
> creators of the Constitution believed man answers to a higher
> power than man.
Irrelevant.
> > > . . . Clearly both the RWs and LWs
> > > attempt to steer the government to their philosophical extremes;
> > > but, that is what the rest of us are here for.
> >
> > What part of "_no_ law respecting an establishmemnt" are you having
> > difficulty with?
>
> You have attempted to pigeon-hole me into a position that is not
> mine. . . .
I've tried to bring you to some sort of logical analysis of
the implications of your purported position.
> . . . A belief, respect and adherence to the laws of God is not
> the same as "no law respecting an establishment".
True. But you'd better read what you wrote again. I don't think
that's what you meant to say.
Mathew
On Fri, 4 Aug 2000, Mark Balcom wrote:
> john q public wrote:
> >
> > "CB" <c...@prayforme.com> wrote in message
> > news:8lk7ub$8ta$1...@sshuraab-i-1.production.compuserve.com..
> > >
> >
> > >
> > > You have a great sense of proportion. There are many Christians that do
> > not
> > > stand up for what they believe is right or to defend the right to worship
> > > God in schools or pointing out innappropiate behavior of the morally
> > > challenged.
> > >
> > Exactly where is this right to Worship God in Schools?
> > Not in any Constitution that I have ever seen!
>
>
> "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, OR
> PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF....". (Emphasis added). It does NOT
> say "except in public schools".
But it does say seperation of Church and State.
zu...@ix.netcom.com
"CB" <c...@prayforme.com> wrote:
> Specifically, The O'Reilly Factor.
OIC. Then O"Reilly is in the business of lying on TV, eh?
And you _watch_ that crap?
Cheers,
-- Arne Langsetmo
> Arne Langsetmo <zu...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:397F6638...@ix.netcom.com...
> > CB wrote:
> > >
> > > Pop Kulcher <chang...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> > > news:8li3lu$3rk$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > > > In article
<8lhq2k$4sk$1...@sshuraaa-i-1.production.compuserve.com>,
> > > > "CB" <c...@prayforme.com> wrote:
> > > > > You attempt to insult the viewers of Fox News by calling them
right
> > > > > wingers?. YOU are so whacked out on hate that you fail to
realize
> the
> > > > > Fox News is constantly teetering between the number one and
number
> two
> > > > > spot and in the Nelson Ratings. It's to bad that the Nelson
Ratings
> > > > > aren't conducted world wide, you'd be in deep dung.
> > > > >
> > > > The Nelson Ratings being the viewing habits of Gunnar and
Matthew
> > > > Nelson, the twin sons of late singer/actor Ricky Nelson, whose
long
> > > > flowing blonde hair captivated teenage audiences for about a
week in
> > > > the mid-80's.
> > > >
> > > > As for the Nielsen Ratings... not sure where you get your
numbers.
> For
> > > > the quarter ended June 2000, Fox was 4th of the cable news
stations
> > > > (behind CNBC, CNN, and MSNBC), averaging 132,000 homes per day.
> > >
> > > If true I stan corrected. The general statement I made was based
on what
> I
> > > heard on the O'Reilly Factor a few weeks ago.
> >
> > You're probably thinking about the Fox _entertainment_ network
> > ratings, where they're a;ways showing sex, violence and profanity.
> >
> > [snip]
zu...@ix.netcom.com
> > Crawdaddy stle someone else's words:
> > >
> > > Removing God from public life
> > > by Carla R. Thompson
> > > ---------------------------------------------------
> > >
>
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesky_excomm/20000714_xex_removing_god.shtml
> > > By Carla R. Thompson
> > > Š 2000 WorldNetDaily.com
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > > I have no objection to such acts as Alabama's Judge Roy
> > > Moore's posting of the Ten Commandments in his courtroom
> > > or the Colorado's Board of Education passing a non-binding
> > > resolution to encourage public schools to post the motto,
> > > "In God We Trust." In light of what has taken place in that
> > > state, one can understand the need to reinstate some
> > > morality and civility in public schools. . . .
> >
> > But what you religious nimrods _don't_ understand is that
> > it is not necessary to have religion in order to have
> > morals and civility. You think you have some kind of
> > patent on such. You don't.
>
What is? Religious "moralising" when divorced from the
reality of human society and existence? I guess I'd
agree. . . .
Simply telling people that something is bad because "God
said so" is unlikely to be particularly motivating and
inspiratinal. Take for example the Biblican injunctions
against playing football, and requring the shunning and
banishment of women who are menstruating. Do you toss
your wife out of the house once a month, and decry the
perversion of the Dallas Cowboys?
> > > . . . Claire Orr, board chairman and architect of the
> > > resolution stated, "The words we pass on to our young
> > > shape our destiny." And both the Ten Commandments and
> > > "In God We Trust" express a universality of belief that
> > > transcends religion.
>
> The proof is in our entertainment, . . .
You mean that most people think you religious whacks are --
well, I guess one should say -- _really_ whacked?
> . . .in how the youth disrespect them selfves,
> do drugs galor, display of no natural affection, . . .
Ummm, I though you folks had a problem with showing too
_much_ "natural affection". . . .
> . . . killing the unborn . . .
"Every sperm is sacred. . ."
> . . . and
> rejecting the 10 Commandments.
Tell me how many "graven images" you see in the standard
Catholic church. At least the Greek Orthodox take this one
seriously, and restrict themselves to abstract art.
> > You mean the Three and One Half Commandments, the Two and
> > One Half Good Ideas, and the Four Manifestations of a
> > Surly and Jealous Sky Pixie Which Most People Don't
> > Believe In And Don't Care A Lot About. And "In _God_
> > We Trust" in no way transcends _religion_. Without
> > religion, such a statement is foolish.
Lack of response duly noted.
> > > As we well know, the courts don't always offer the best
> > > resolution to conflicts. Perhaps, an interfaith dialogue
> > > would supply the best remedy to soothe tensions. Or the
> > > teaching of the history of world religions in public
> > > school would help dispel some of the myths people hold.
> >
> > As long as they include the sanguine history of such ...
> > _all_ the gory details. And all the silliness and inanity.
> > Evenhandedly, of course. ;-)
>
> Must be an attempt at humor
Irony. Indeed. It seems to have gone right over your head,
though. Fancy that.
But it _was_ a serious point. Do you think that by dismissing
something as humour, you can simply avoiid any need to respond
to the underlying point?
> > > But until we find a workable solution, it is important
> > > not to let our fear of having our religious beliefs
> > > dictated to us prompt us to remove God from our public
> > > life.
> >
> > I don't seek to see God removed from public life. I just
> > want Her out of _government_. And that includes public
> > schools and courtrooms.
>
> The fact that there is little natural affection for your
> fellow man . . .
What ever makes you say such a thing?
> . . . is proof that removing Thee higher authority
> takes the ultimate conscience for actions away, thus allowing
> for the spirit to accept the temptations of sin and calling it
> inappropriate behavior. . . .
ROFL. Was that supposed to actually _mean_ something intelligible?
> . . . Until the 1960's there where few
> problems with the youth of America. One doesn't have to be
> a rocket scientist to see the result of a Godless youth,
> maturing into the unloved and the unloving.
To tell the truth, the "good ol' days" weren't quite as good
as you seem to think. Kind of like the Reagan claim tha
"when I was young, we didn't have a race problem" (quote
approximate from memory).
> How old are you, punk?
"Punk"? Trying to ingratiate yourself with me does nothing
to remedy the errors of your thinking here. I _still_ think
you're a seriously whacked berk.
Karen Horn
:
: Tell me how many "graven images" you see in the standard
: Catholic church.
Precisely ZERO, you ignorant protty. Hey, do you have a picture of
your mother, or ever see a bust of George Wasthington? Better destroy
them, protty, before you get accused of worshiping a "graven image."
Karen
Karen Horn
I missed the phrase in the constitution. You've been lied to
or hallucinated.
Karen
Mathew
On 4 Aug 2000, Karen Horn wrote:
> In alt.impeach.clinton zu...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> :
> : Tell me how many "graven images" you see in the standard
> : Catholic church.
>
> Precisely ZERO, you ignorant protty. Hey, do you have a picture of
> your mother, or ever see a bust of George Wasthington? Better destroy
> them, protty, before you get accused of worshiping a "graven image."
The cross with Jesus on it is not a graven image?
>
> Karen
>
>
Clell A. Harmon
>In alt.impeach.clinton zu...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>:
>: Tell me how many "graven images" you see in the standard
>: Catholic church.
>
>Precisely ZERO, you ignorant protty. Hey, do you have a picture of
>your mother, or ever see a bust of George Wasthington? Better destroy
>them, protty, before you get accused of worshiping a "graven image."
None Karen? No Crucifix? No statues of Mary? No Rosaries?
None? There's been some changes in Catholicism then... Does the Pope
know?
Clell A. Harmon
wrote:
>> : Tell me how many "graven images" you see in the standard
>> : Catholic church.
>>
>> Precisely ZERO, you ignorant protty. Hey, do you have a picture of
>> your mother, or ever see a bust of George Wasthington? Better destroy
>> them, protty, before you get accused of worshiping a "graven image."
>
>The cross with Jesus on it is not a graven image?
I'm guessing she doesn't know what 'graven' means. Probably
home schooled.
zu...@ix.netcom.com
> : Catholic church.
>
> Precisely ZERO, you ignorant protty. . . .
Not according to the Greek Orthodox folks. ;-)
And even if you make the dodge that it is only graven images
of the deity (not counting Jesus, surprisingly) that are forbidden,
you might check out the Sistine Chapel some time.
> . . . Hey, do you have a picture of
> your mother, or ever see a bust of George Wasthington? Better
> destroy them, protty, before you get accused of worshiping a
> "graven image."
Got news for you, bozo: I don't follow the Ten Comandments.
Accuse all you want.
Cheers,
-- Arne Langsetmo
a,a. #101
Michael Ejercito
Mathew wrote:
>
> On 4 Aug 2000, Karen Horn wrote:
>
> > In alt.impeach.clinton zu...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> > :
> > : Tell me how many "graven images" you see in the standard
> > : Catholic church.
> >
> > Precisely ZERO, you ignorant protty. Hey, do you have a picture of
> > your mother, or ever see a bust of George Wasthington? Better destroy
> > them, protty, before you get accused of worshiping a "graven image."
>
> The cross with Jesus on it is not a graven image?
No, because it is the image of the Lord Jesus Christ, who sacrificed
His life to save humanity from sin.
Michael
zu...@ix.netcom.com
Michael Ejercito <meje...@csulb.edu> wrote:
> Mathew wrote:
> >
> > On 4 Aug 2000, Karen Horn wrote:
> >
> > > In alt.impeach.clinton zu...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> > > :
> > > : Catholic church.
> > >
> > > Precisely ZERO, you ignorant protty. Hey, do you have a
> > > picture of your mother, or ever see a bust of George
> > > Wasthington? Better destroy them, protty, before you get
> > > accused of worshiping a "graven image."
> >
> > The cross with Jesus on it is not a graven image?
>
> No, because it is the image of the Lord Jesus Christ, who
> sacrificed His life to save humanity from sin.
Mike:
You've never made more sense in your entire life. ;-)
Larry Cunningham
>
> Mathew wrote:
> >
> > On 4 Aug 2000, Karen Horn wrote:
> >
> > > In alt.impeach.clinton zu...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> > > :
> > > : Catholic church.
> > >
> > > Precisely ZERO, you ignorant protty. Hey, do you have a picture of
> > > your mother, or ever see a bust of George Wasthington? Better destroy
> > > them, protty, before you get accused of worshiping a "graven image."
> >
> > The cross with Jesus on it is not a graven image?
> No, because it is the image of the Lord Jesus Christ, who sacrificed
> His life to save humanity from sin.
>
I love it when you turn the piety up, Michael.
Makes me realize again just what kind of hypocrite you
must be, and why you are such a Republican and Dittohead.
Mathew
On Sat, 5 Aug 2000, Michael Ejercito wrote:
>
>
> Mathew wrote:
> >
> > On 4 Aug 2000, Karen Horn wrote:
> >
> > > In alt.impeach.clinton zu...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> > > :
> > > : Tell me how many "graven images" you see in the standard
> > > : Catholic church.
> > >
> > > Precisely ZERO, you ignorant protty. Hey, do you have a picture of
> > > your mother, or ever see a bust of George Wasthington? Better destroy
> > > them, protty, before you get accused of worshiping a "graven image."
> >
> > The cross with Jesus on it is not a graven image?
> No, because it is the image of the Lord Jesus Christ, who sacrificed
> His life to save humanity from sin.
Really? There a billions of people who don't share your belief;are they
going to hell?
>
>
> Michael
>
>
Mark Hammer
>> . . . Until the 1960's there where few
>> problems with the youth of America. One doesn't have to be
>> a rocket scientist to see the result of a Godless youth,
>> maturing into the unloved and the unloving.
Norway has no separation between church and state, and students at
elementary schools were required to take classes in religion
(christianity). Just recently these requirements have been somewhat
relaxed, but christianity is still a requirement in classes in public
schools.
And Norwegian youth has never been more Godless! Viloent crimes, drug
abuse, rape, gang violence, ..... you name it. Its more rampant than
ever before. And you think bringing God into the school will change
the attitude of the youth of America? Hello?
--
Mark
Paula
> >> problems with the youth of America. One doesn't have to be
> >> a rocket scientist to see the result of a Godless youth,
> >> maturing into the unloved and the unloving.
>
> elementary schools were required to take classes in religion
> (christianity). Just recently these requirements have been somewhat
> relaxed, but christianity is still a requirement in classes in public
> schools.
>
> And Norwegian youth has never been more Godless! Viloent crimes, drug
> abuse, rape, gang violence, ..... you name it. Its more rampant than
> ever before. And you think bringing God into the school will change
> the attitude of the youth of America? Hello?
> --
> Mark
Mark,
Then explain what has happened to the youth, worldwide? Exactly what
has happened?
Paula
Michael Ejercito
zu...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
> In article <398C6585...@csulb.edu>,
> Michael Ejercito <meje...@csulb.edu> wrote:
> > Mathew wrote:
> > >
> > > On 4 Aug 2000, Karen Horn wrote:
> > >
> > > > In alt.impeach.clinton zu...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> > > > :
> > > > : Tell me how many "graven images" you see in the standard
> > > > : Catholic church.
> > > >
> > > > Precisely ZERO, you ignorant protty. Hey, do you have a
> > > > picture of your mother, or ever see a bust of George
> > > > Wasthington? Better destroy them, protty, before you get
> > > > accused of worshiping a "graven image."
> > >
> > > The cross with Jesus on it is not a graven image?
> >
> > No, because it is the image of the Lord Jesus Christ, who
> > sacrificed His life to save humanity from sin.
>
> Mike:
>
> You've never made more sense in your entire life. ;-)
>
> Cheers,
>
> -- Arne Langsetmo
Thank you. The simplest truths make the most sense.
Michael
Michael Ejercito
Larry Cunningham wrote:
>
> Michael Ejercito wrote:
> >
> > Mathew wrote:
> > >
> > > On 4 Aug 2000, Karen Horn wrote:
> > >
> > > > In alt.impeach.clinton zu...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> > > > :
> > > > : Tell me how many "graven images" you see in the standard
> > > > : Catholic church.
> > > >
> > > > Precisely ZERO, you ignorant protty. Hey, do you have a picture of
> > > > your mother, or ever see a bust of George Wasthington? Better destroy
> > > > them, protty, before you get accused of worshiping a "graven image."
> > >
> > > The cross with Jesus on it is not a graven image?
> > No, because it is the image of the Lord Jesus Christ, who sacrificed
> > His life to save humanity from sin.
> >
> > Michael
>
> I love it when you turn the piety up, Michael.
Thank you.
> Makes me realize again just what kind of hypocrite you
> must be, and why you are such a Republican and Dittohead.
How am I a hypocrite?Is it my attacks on Jim Kennemur? Well, it is my
holy duty is expose his beliefs for all to see, and to oppose it. I do
not claim that God hates kennemur. In fact, the last time I was at
church, I prayed for a moment that Jim Kennemur will see the light, find
God, and reject his racist beleifs and the neo-nazi National Alliance.
Michael
Michael Ejercito
Milk Man Dan wrote:
>
> On Sat, 05 Aug 2000 12:05:41 -0700, Michael Ejercito
> <meje...@csulb.edu> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Mathew wrote:
> >>
> >> On 4 Aug 2000, Karen Horn wrote:
> >>
> >> > In alt.impeach.clinton zu...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> >> > :
> >> > : Tell me how many "graven images" you see in the standard
> >> > : Catholic church.
> >> >
> >> > Precisely ZERO, you ignorant protty. Hey, do you have a picture of
> >> > your mother, or ever see a bust of George Wasthington? Better destroy
> >> > them, protty, before you get accused of worshiping a "graven image."
> >>
> >> The cross with Jesus on it is not a graven image?
> > No, because it is the image of the Lord Jesus Christ, who sacrificed
> >His life to save humanity from sin.
> >
> >
> > Michael
>
> Good thing Jesus wasn't executed on a guillotine.
Why?
Michael
Michael Ejercito
Mathew wrote:
>
> On Sat, 5 Aug 2000, Michael Ejercito wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Mathew wrote:
> > >
> > > On 4 Aug 2000, Karen Horn wrote:
> > >
> > > > In alt.impeach.clinton zu...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> > > > :
> > > > : Tell me how many "graven images" you see in the standard
> > > > : Catholic church.
> > > >
> > > > Precisely ZERO, you ignorant protty. Hey, do you have a picture of
> > > > your mother, or ever see a bust of George Wasthington? Better destroy
> > > > them, protty, before you get accused of worshiping a "graven image."
> > >
> > > The cross with Jesus on it is not a graven image?
> > No, because it is the image of the Lord Jesus Christ, who sacrificed
> > His life to save humanity from sin.
>
> Really? There a billions of people who don't share your belief;are they
> going to hell?
Ask Satan. He is the Lord and Master of Hell, he would know.
Michael
Michael Ejercito
Mark Hammer wrote:
>
> On Fri, 04 Aug 2000 16:27:15 GMT, zu...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
> >> . . . Until the 1960's there where few
> >> problems with the youth of America. One doesn't have to be
> >> a rocket scientist to see the result of a Godless youth,
> >> maturing into the unloved and the unloving.
>
> Norway has no separation between church and state, and students at
> elementary schools were required to take classes in religion
> (christianity). Just recently these requirements have been somewhat
> relaxed, but christianity is still a requirement in classes in public
> schools.
>
> And Norwegian youth has never been more Godless! Viloent crimes, drug
> abuse, rape, gang violence, ..... you name it. Its more rampant than
> ever before. And you think bringing God into the school will change
> the attitude of the youth of America? Hello?
> --
> Mark
Also note that there was an unabridged copy of the Bible in that
church that was firebombed in the sixties.
Why would putting the Ten Commandments in school prevent school
violence?
Michael
zu...@ix.netcom.com
Michael Ejercito <meje...@csulb.edu> wrote:
>
> zu...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> >
> > In article <398C6585...@csulb.edu>,
> > > Mathew wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On 4 Aug 2000, Karen Horn wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > In alt.impeach.clinton zu...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> > > > > :
> > > > > : Catholic church.
> > > > >
> > > > > Precisely ZERO, you ignorant protty. Hey, do you have a
> > > > > picture of your mother, or ever see a bust of George
> > > > > Wasthington? Better destroy them, protty, before you get
> > > > > accused of worshiping a "graven image."
> > > >
> > > > The cross with Jesus on it is not a graven image?
> > >
> > > No, because it is the image of the Lord Jesus Christ, who
> > > sacrificed His life to save humanity from sin.
> >
> >
> > You've never made more sense in your entire life. ;-)
>
It wasn't a compliment. Not that you'd figure that out.
I was commenting in a backhanded way about your claim that
something isn't a graven image "because" (your word; your
explanation here) it is an _image_. Good thinking, Mike.
You're on the ball there. LOL.
zu...@ix.netcom.com
Michael Ejercito <meje...@csulb.edu> wrote:
> Larry Cunningham wrote:
[snip]
> > Makes me realize again just what kind of hypocrite you
> > must be, and why you are such a Republican and Dittohead.
>
> How am I a hypocrite?Is it my attacks on Jim Kennemur? Well,
> it is my holy duty is expose his beliefs for all to see, and
> to oppose it. I do not claim that God hates kennemur. In
> fact, the last time I was at church, I prayed for a moment
> that Jim Kennemur will see the light, find God, and reject
> his racist beleifs and the neo-nazi National Alliance.
Lying in the name of Jaaaayyyyyyzzzzuuuss is OK, then, despite
the injunction against bearing false witness in the Ten
Commendments then, eh, Mike?
Kennemur is no racist, nor a NatAl supporter. In fact,
this is so _far_ from the truth, we have to begin to look
at _your_ motives and integrity here.
zu...@ix.netcom.com
> > <meje...@csulb.edu> wrote:
> > >Mathew wrote:
> > >> On 4 Aug 2000, Karen Horn wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > In alt.impeach.clinton zu...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> > >> > :
> > >> > : Catholic church.
> > >> >
> > >> > Precisely ZERO, you ignorant protty. Hey, do you have a
> > >> > picture of your mother, or ever see a bust of George
> > >> > Wasthington? Better destroy them, protty, before you
> > >> > get accused of worshiping a "graven image."
> > >>
> > >> The cross with Jesus on it is not a graven image?
> > > No, because it is the image of the Lord Jesus Christ,
> > >who sacrificed His life to save humanity from sin.
> >
>
> Why?
"The Passion" would have been only one measure long. ;-)
zu...@ix.netcom.com
Michael Ejercito <meje...@csulb.edu> wrote:
> Mathew wrote:
> > On Sat, 5 Aug 2000, Michael Ejercito wrote:
[snip]
> > > No, because it is the image of the Lord Jesus Christ,
> > > who sacrificed His life to save humanity from sin.
> >
> > Really? There a billions of people who don't share your
> > belief; are they going to hell?
>
> Ask Satan. He is the Lord and Master of Hell, he would know.
Nah. He's your hallucination. We don't talk to other
people's hallucinations. Why don't _you _tell us what
he says; that might work out more effectively?
Mark Hammer
wrote:
>> Norway has no separation between church and state, and students at
>> elementary schools were required to take classes in religion
>> (christianity). Just recently these requirements have been somewhat
>> relaxed, but christianity is still a requirement in classes in public
>> schools.
>>
>> And Norwegian youth has never been more Godless! Viloent crimes, drug
>> abuse, rape, gang violence, ..... you name it. Its more rampant than
>> ever before. And you think bringing God into the school will change
>> the attitude of the youth of America? Hello?
>
>Mark,
>
>Then explain what has happened to the youth, worldwide? Exactly what
>has happened?
I'm not sure if I understand your question. Are you asking me why the
youth of the world are using drugs and getting involved in all kinds
of violence? I can't give you a good answer. Maybe consumerism has
made us all indifferent, and the youth in particular. Maybe they need
more "excitement" in their life, and are attracted to things we warn
them about. I'm sure my parents didn't heed any warnings about "the
devil's music" (aka rock'n'roll :-). My point was that religion
doesn't make _any_ difference whatsoever in terms of changing the
attitude of the youth of America (or any other country).
--
Mark
zu...@ix.netcom.com
Michael Ejercito <meje...@csulb.edu> wrote:
> Mark Hammer wrote:
> > On Fri, 04 Aug 2000 16:27:15 GMT, zu...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
[note: I did _not_ write this]
> > >> . . . Until the 1960's there where few
> > >> problems with the youth of America. One doesn't have to be
> > >> a rocket scientist to see the result of a Godless youth,
> > >> maturing into the unloved and the unloving.
> >
> > Norway has no separation between church and state, and students at
> > elementary schools were required to take classes in religion
> > (christianity). Just recently these requirements have been somewhat
> > relaxed, but christianity is still a requirement in classes in
> > public schools.
> >
> > And Norwegian youth has never been more Godless! Viloent crimes,
> > drug abuse, rape, gang violence, ..... you name it. Its more
> > rampant than ever before.
Yet far behind the United States, FWIW. But for quite different
reasons. Religion on the schools really doesn't make much
difference, AFAIKT.
I believe that during the debates on state religious establishment,
Patrick Henry (an establishmentarian) gave a list of government
after government through history that had fallen after the people
had turned away from religion. James Madison, author of the
First Amendment, countered this effectively by pointing out
that in each of these cases, they people had turned from religion
after the government had established one.
Norway (and a number of other European nations) are nominally
religious, with a state religion, but you will find that the
strength of the population's religious beliefs and fervour is
way off. Here in the U.S., where we have freedom of religion,
and many flourishing faiths that may compete and which are
supported by the _strength_ and conviction of their adherents
rather than government edict or dole, we find one of the
highest rates of religiousity amongst these countries.
People go to church because they _want_ to, and go to the
one of their choosing because that's the one _they chose_.
Which of course then begs the question of why _our_ crime
rates are so high. . . .
> > And you think bringing God into the school will change
> > the attitude of the youth of America? Hello?
And now Mike shows how truly clueless he is:
> Also note that there was an unabridged copy of the Bible
> in that church that was firebombed in the sixties.
A bible in a church? Imagine my surprise. And "_that_
church" that was firebombed? But, aside from that
ignorant prattle, did you have a _point_ here, Mike?
> Why would putting the Ten Commandments in school prevent
> school violence?
Indeed. My question exactly. But it is you Christion
nimrods that have proposed that such is in fact the "solution"
to school violence, not us. Glad to see you come back
from the Dark Side here, Mike.
Cheers,
-- Arne Langsemto
john q public
"Mark Balcom" <ma...@coho.net> wrote in message
news:3990A4...@coho.net...
> no-spam-...@world.std.com wrote:
> >
> > >>>>> Mark Balcom writes:
> >
> > Mark> john q public wrote:
> > >>
> > >> "CB" <c...@prayforme.com> wrote in message
> > news> 8lk7ub$8ta$1...@sshuraab-i-1.production.compuserve.com..
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >> >
> > >> > You have a great sense of proportion. There are many Christians
that do
> > >> not
> > >> > stand up for what they believe is right or to defend the right
to worship
> > >> > God in schools or pointing out innappropiate behavior of the
morally
> > >> > challenged.
> > >> >
> > >> Exactly where is this right to Worship God in Schools?
> > >> Not in any Constitution that I have ever seen!
> >
> > Mark> "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of
religion, OR
> > Mark> PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF....". (Emphasis added).
It does NOT
> > Mark> say "except in public schools".
> >
> > Correct, there is no problem with individuals worshiping in
> > school. There is also no problem with students organizing
> > Bible clubs that use school facilities (there are, according
> > to Pat Robertson's ACLJ, 12,000 such clubs in our public schools).
> >
> > However if school officials push any one religion, that is a
> > problem, because it violates the principle of freedom of
> > religion.
> >
> > Obviously.
> >
>
> EXCEPT, that courts have reacted to ACLU lawsuits by forbidding even "all
> inclusive" activities. I can remember when school programs included
> Christian, Jewish and Muslim prayers in simple convocations and even that
> has been forbidden.
>
> Mark
As well it should be!
necron99
God commanded Moses (the very man to whom he gave the
Commandment you're concerned about) to make the Ark of the
Covenant. On the "mercy seat" or lid of the Ark were two
Cherubim, with wings outstretched. Likewise, when Solomon
built the Temple in Jerusalem, the holy place where the Ark
was placed had two Cherubim overshadowing the Ark. Would
these also fall into the category of "graven images?"
They would not, because they were not objects to be worshipped
or proclaimed to be gods when in fact they were not. The only
thing worshipped in a Catholic, Lutheran, Episcopal or Orthodox
church is the God who made the Commandment. All the other
images are those of men and women, recognised and proclaimed to
be men and women rather than gods. They are not objects of
adoration. The reason these other images are there are as reminders
of their stories and of the exemplary lives that most of them
led.
>
>It wasn't a compliment. Not that you'd figure that out.
>
>I was commenting in a backhanded way about your claim that
>something isn't a graven image "because" (your word; your
>explanation here) it is an _image_. Good thinking, Mike.
>You're on the ball there. LOL.
>
Mark Balcom
>
> On Fri, 4 Aug 2000, Mark Balcom wrote:
>
> > john q public wrote:
> > >
> > > "CB" <c...@prayforme.com> wrote in message
> > > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > You have a great sense of proportion. There are many Christians that do
> > > not
> > > > stand up for what they believe is right or to defend the right to worship
> > > > God in schools or pointing out innappropiate behavior of the morally
> > > > challenged.
> > > >
> > > Exactly where is this right to Worship God in Schools?
> > > Not in any Constitution that I have ever seen!
> >
> >
>
Where?
TTo make it easier for you I shall provide the complete text:
"Congress shall make no lawrespecting the establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or thr right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Perhaps you should read the document yourself, rather than believing all
of the leftist propaganda.
> The celebreation of Christmas then should be void in pulic schools...
I would submit that the interpretation which forbids the official
acknowledgement of anything religious in public schools or by the
government makes those government and school officials and employees who
participate in ANY religious holidays hypocrites. In other words, I
partly agree with you.
> unless all other religions of every student are allowed to be celebrated.
>
There is the rub. Earlier you suggested any and all religious activity
should be banned. Many school districts have tried the "all inclusive"
aproach, only to be slapped down by such as the ACLU and liberals in
general. NO, those peop[le would ban all religious observations, except
as erxcuses to avoid work.
Mark
> >
> > Mark
> >
> >
Mark Balcom
> >> >
> >>
> >> >
> >> > You have a great sense of proportion. There are many Christians that do
> >> not
> >> > stand up for what they believe is right or to defend the right to worship
> >> > God in schools or pointing out innappropiate behavior of the morally
> >> > challenged.
> >> >
> >> Exactly where is this right to Worship God in Schools?
> >> Not in any Constitution that I have ever seen!
>
> Mark> PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF....". (Emphasis added). It does NOT
Mathew
On Wed, 9 Aug 2000, Mark Balcom wrote:
> Mathew wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 4 Aug 2000, Mark Balcom wrote:
> >
> > > john q public wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "CB" <c...@prayforme.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:8lk7ub$8ta$1...@sshuraab-i-1.production.compuserve.com.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > You have a great sense of proportion. There are many Christians that do
> > > > not
> > > > > stand up for what they believe is right or to defend the right to worship
> > > > > God in schools or pointing out innappropiate behavior of the morally
> > > > > challenged.
> > > > >
> > > > Exactly where is this right to Worship God in Schools?
> > > > Not in any Constitution that I have ever seen!
> > >
> > >
> > > "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, OR
> > > PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF....". (Emphasis added). It does NOT
> > > say "except in public schools".
> >
> > But it does say seperation of Church and State.
>
> Where?
>
> TTo make it easier for you I shall provide the complete text:
>
> "Congress shall make no lawrespecting the establishment of religion, or
> prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
> speech, or of the press; or thr right of the people peaceably to
> assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
>
> Perhaps you should read the document yourself, rather than believing all
> of the leftist propaganda.
>
>
> > The celebreation of Christmas then should be void in pulic schools...
>
> I would submit that the interpretation which forbids the official
> acknowledgement of anything religious in public schools or by the
> government makes those government and school officials and employees who
> participate in ANY religious holidays hypocrites. In other words, I
> partly agree with you.
You partly agree with me!
I am overcome with joy! :)
I think I must be hallucinating ;)
>
>
> > unless all other religions of every student are allowed to be celebrated.
> >
>
> There is the rub. Earlier you suggested any and all religious activity
> should be banned. Many school districts have tried the "all inclusive"
> aproach, only to be slapped down by such as the ACLU and liberals in
> general. NO, those peop[le would ban all religious observations, except
> as erxcuses to avoid work.
Are you sure the ACLU tryed to stop this "all inclusive" approach?
It seems as they are suppose to be for people's civil liberties being
prserved,which would mean the right for one group of people to practice their
religious holidays,etc, ,if any other group are able to practice theirs.
Some people did try to get the ACLU out on Guam,thinking they would be of
help,but they declined.It could be right that they are only in to money
cases(lawyers)
>
> Mark
> > >
> > > Mark
> > >
> > >
>
>
Arne Langsetmo
>
> Perhaps you're not aware, having never read the Bible, . . .
What ever makes you think that?
> . . . but
> God commanded Moses (the very man to whom he gave the
> Commandment you're concerned about) to make the Ark of the
> Covenant. On the "mercy seat" or lid of the Ark were two
> Cherubim, with wings outstretched. Likewise, when Solomon
> built the Temple in Jerusalem, the holy place where the Ark
> was placed had two Cherubim overshadowing the Ark. Would
> these also fall into the category of "graven images?"
No. To be perfectly honest, I'm glad that this Commandment
is so routinely violated, because not only the Cherubim,
but the other trappings and figures in (particularly)
Christian religions have provided many wonderful
paintings and statues over the years. But I note the
absence of such in Muslim art (although they make up for
it with beautifully intricate abstract designs) and
in Jewish temples as well as Greek Orthodox churches.
Why would that be?
> They would not, because they were not objects to be worshipped
> or proclaimed to be gods when in fact they were not. The only
> thing worshipped in a Catholic, Lutheran, Episcopal or Orthodox
> church is the God who made the Commandment. . . .
"Hail Mary, full of grace. . ."
And the other denominations have their coterie of saints,
although the Catholics have turned into high art the
process of praying to them for intercession for all
kinds of things. And don't tell me that they don't
have that little statue there on the dashboard, mantel,
or wherever. . . .
> . . . All the other
> images are those of men and women, recognised and proclaimed
> to be men and women rather than gods. . . .
So men and women can perform miracles, eh? "Miracles!
They're not just for deities any more. . ."
> . . . They are not objects of
> adoration.
And "The Adoration" is what, then?
> . . . The reason these other images are there are as reminders
> of their stories and of the exemplary lives that most of them
> led.
Rrrrrrriiiiiggghhht. But then, you seem to be religious,
so this sophistry probably makes sense to you. ;-)
Michael Ejercito
zu...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
> In article <398F7B9A...@csulb.edu>,
> Michael Ejercito <meje...@csulb.edu> wrote:
> >
> > zu...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <398C6585...@csulb.edu>,
> > > Michael Ejercito <meje...@csulb.edu> wrote:
> > > > No, because it is the image of the Lord Jesus Christ, who
> > > > sacrificed His life to save humanity from sin.
> > >
> > > Mike:
> > >
> > > You've never made more sense in your entire life. ;-)
> >
> > Thank you. The simplest truths make the most sense.
>
> It wasn't a compliment. Not that you'd figure that out.
>
> I was commenting in a backhanded way about your claim that
> something isn't a graven image "because" (your word; your
> explanation here) it is an _image_. Good thinking, Mike.
> You're on the ball there. LOL.
Yes, it is an image, but it is not GRAVEN. You see, a GRAVEN image is
an image that is to be worshipped as a god.
Michael