Reincarnation was removed from church teachings in 5th century
seelite
...It seems reasonable to conclude that the so-called ban concerning the
doctrine of reincarnation is the result of an historical error and contains no
ecclesiastical authority whatsoever."
The German author, Peter Andreas, expresses this point of view in his book,
Jenseits von Einstein. Andreas gives attention to the concept of reincarnation
and, particularly, to the manner in which any consideration of the topic was
suppressed within the Catholic church — not by profound theological study,
but by the action of a Roman Emperor.
In a chapter devoted to reincarnation, Andreas writes: ...the Christian
churches have very little indeed to say about reincarnation. They can hardly
be blamed because the Bible is apparently sadly lacking in this respect. In
fact, we may ask, if the subject of reincarnation is so important — from the
religious point of view — why is there so little mention of it in the Bible?
...The few Bible references indicate that from the earliest times supporters and
opponents of reincarnation have waged bitter 'war'. Jesus' remark to
Nicodemus, for instance, "Thou must be born again" can be interpreted as a
reference to spiritual rebirth, according to the opponents of the idea (of
reincarnation).
...Naturally, the Nazarene must have had his own reasons for not going more
deeply into the subject. Perhaps he believed the truth to be too complicated
for the limited understanding of people then, and that it was of greater
importance to clarify the essence of his teaching and emphasise the message
of love. He did not warn against belief in reincarnation.
Nowadays, there is little doubt that early Christians gave more credence to
the concept of rebirth than was later the case. The main figure responsible for
this change was no churchman but an ambitious, worldly and powerful figure
— Emperor Justinius.
In the year 553, quite independently of the Pope, Justinius had the teachings
of the church father Origen (185-253) banned by a synod. Origen had spoken out
in unmistakable terms on the question of the repeated incarnations of the soul:
...Each soul enters the world strengthened by the victories or weakened by
the defects of its past lives. Its place in this world is determined by past
virtues and shortcomings." - De Principalis.
...Is it not more in accordance with common sense that every soul for reasons
unknown — I speak in accordance with the opinions of Pythagoras, Plato
and Empedokles — enters the body influenced by its past deeds? The soul
has a body at its disposal for a certain period of time which, due to its
changeable condition, eventually is no longer suitable for the soul,
whereupon it changes that body for another."
- Contra Celsum."
Intrigues
Andreas goes on to describe how Emperor Justinius managed to manipulate
the 5th Ecumenical Council in 553 which resulted in the ban against Origen:
...Strangely enough, there was not one Roman bishop present at this
conference; apart from six African notables there were only Eastern bishops
present. A curious feature of this Council was that although Pope Vigilius
was in Constantinople at the time of the Council he did not attend. There had
previously been conflict between Vigilius and the Emperor and the Empress
Theodora. Justinius refused to accede to the Pope's request for a stronger
delegation of bishops from both West and East at the Council and then
proceeded to convene the Council himself. The Pope did not attend, as a
gesture of protest, and as an indication that he would not be held responsible
for the Council. The ruling monarch did not have an entirely free hand,
however, since official regulations drawn up during the eight sessions of the
Council, which met over a period of four weeks, had to be officially endorsed
by the Pope. This duly took place; the documents, however, only dealt with
the so-called 'Three Chapters' controversy — the work of three scholars
considered by Justinius to be heretics. The Emperor had already issued an
edict against these men. No mention was made of Origen. Research suggests
that suspicions about Justinius were valid. Neither Pope Plagius I (556-561)
nor Pope Gregorius (590-604) mentioned Origen when writing about the 5th
Council."
Ban
...But up to now it has been accepted tacitly that the following is the official
ban of the Council: "Whosoever teaches the doctrine of a supposed pre-birth
existence of the soul, and speaks of a monstrous restoration of this, is
cursed."
...How did this come about? No-one can say with certainty, but there are
strong indications that by some ploy the Emperor Justinius was able to insist
on the convocation of a Council, which was delayed, however, by opposition
from the Pope. Eventually the first meeting of the Council took place on 5
May 553, not before the Emperor had managed to call several bishops to a
meeting at which he (Justinius) presented his 'Fifteen Anathemata' refuting
Origen's teachings, and gained the endorsement of the attending bishops. We
can safely conclude that the Pope, who wished to boycott the Council, would
certainly not have appeared at this meeting, which was precisely what
Justinius had hoped for. The meeting prior to the Council was used by the
wily Emperor to curtail the Pope's powers and to pronounce a ban on the
teachings of Origen. His scheming succeeded far better than he could have
imagined. The church accepted the ban as valid, having been imposed by the
Council, and it then passed into established doctrine where it has remained
for the past 1500 years. This makes the idea extremely difficult to correct.
The subject of reincarnation has therefore not played any role in Christian
doctrine, in contrast with other religions.
...Thus it seems right to conclude that the 'ban' on the teaching of
reincarnation is based on historical misrepresentation and has no ecclesiastical
authority. It was in fact a 'fait accompli', brought about by Justinius, which
no-one within the Christian church has dared to challenge in the course of some
1500 years. What is worse is that the subject has been totally ignored, as a
glance at any encyclopaedia will show."
(Peter Andreas: Jenseits von Einstein, Econ Verlag, Germany.)
Copied from: Share International - Jan/Feb.1985 issue
Another article that might be of interest:
Reincarnation in the Bible: <http://inetport.com/~one/rnkbib.html>
John Miskell
>Emperor responsible for ban on rebirth doctrine
>
>...It seems reasonable to conclude that the so-called ban concerning the
>doctrine of reincarnation is the result of an historical error and contains no
>ecclesiastical authority whatsoever."
Where is this so-called ban?
>
>The German author, Peter Andreas, expresses this point of view in his book,
>Jenseits von Einstein. Andreas gives attention to the concept of reincarnation
>and, particularly, to the manner in which any consideration of the topic was
>suppressed within the Catholic church — not by profound theological study,
>but by the action of a Roman Emperor.
>
>In a chapter devoted to reincarnation, Andreas writes: ...the Christian
>churches have very little indeed to say about reincarnation. They can hardly
>be blamed because the Bible is apparently sadly lacking in this respect. In
>fact, we may ask, if the subject of reincarnation is so important — from the
>religious point of view — why is there so little mention of it in the Bible?
>
>...The few Bible references indicate that from the earliest times supporters and
>opponents of reincarnation have waged bitter 'war'. Jesus' remark to
>Nicodemus, for instance, "Thou must be born again" can be interpreted as a
>reference to spiritual rebirth, according to the opponents of the idea (of
>reincarnation).
>
>...Naturally, the Nazarene must have had his own reasons for not going more
>deeply into the subject. Perhaps he believed the truth to be too complicated
>for the limited understanding of people then, and that it was of greater
>importance to clarify the essence of his teaching and emphasise the message
>of love. He did not warn against belief in reincarnation.
He didn't warn against cow-tipping either so are we to suppose
cow-tipping is a Christian doctrine?
>Nowadays, there is little doubt that early Christians gave more credence to
>the concept of rebirth than was later the case.
Says you.
>The main figure responsible for
>this change was no churchman but an ambitious, worldly and powerful figure
>
>— Emperor Justinius.
>
>In the year 553, quite independently of the Pope, Justinius had the teachings
>of the church father Origen (185-253) banned by a synod. Origen had spoken out
>in unmistakable terms on the question of the repeated incarnations of the soul:
Oh really?
>
>...Each soul enters the world strengthened by the victories or weakened by
>the defects of its past lives. Its place in this world is determined by past
>virtues and shortcomings." - De Principalis.
>
>...Is it not more in accordance with common sense that every soul for reasons
>unknown — I speak in accordance with the opinions of Pythagoras, Plato
>and Empedokles — enters the body influenced by its past deeds? The soul
>has a body at its disposal for a certain period of time which, due to its
>changeable condition, eventually is no longer suitable for the soul,
>whereupon it changes that body for another."
>- Contra Celsum."
context
>
>Intrigues
>
>Andreas goes on to describe how Emperor Justinius managed to manipulate
>the 5th Ecumenical Council in 553 which resulted in the ban against Origen:
>
>...Strangely enough, there was not one Roman bishop present at this
>conference;
There is only one Bishop of Rome. If you mean Latin Rite Bishops
though there were several in attendance.
>apart from six African notables there were only Eastern bishops
>present.
How curious that so many Easten Rite Bishops should be found in the
EAST.
>A curious feature of this Council was that although Pope Vigilius
>was in Constantinople at the time of the Council he did not attend.
Politics and intrigue. The whole affair is covered in the Catholic
Encyclopedia; http://www.knight.org/advent/cathen/04308b.htm
The rest is cut because of hyperbole, inuendo, lies, etc...
michael burt
The "great society" concept is not new. Plato formulated his "Republic";
Sir Thomas More his "Utopia"; Karl Marx his "classless society"; and many
others have made attempts to create a picture of the ideal social order.
But while the motivation may have ben genuinely humanitarian, past efforts
have failed miserably. The dreams have cracked up on the rocks of reality.
Billy Graham
It is the flawed utopias of Karl Marx's socialism and globalism that led
to the holocaust of 100 million Christians and Jews in the USSR and the
concepts of Darwin and evolution which led to the Nazi holocaust of 6
million Christians and Jews, and it is the separation of God that has led
to the murders of Littleton.
There has always been a better way.
Above all, the pure light of revelation has had an influence on mankind,
and increased the blessings of society. It is impossible to rightly govern
the world without God and the Bible.
George Washington
--
May God Bless You,
Michael
Character Counts. It is not hypocritical to set a high goal and occasionally fail. It is hypocritical to set a low goal and occasionally succeed.
leland palmer
- Thomas Jefferson
My own mind is my cathedral.
- Thomas Paine
atldude
earth -- now or ever. yet it is also the most violent. go figure.
we have the lovely christians to thank for several centuries of slaughter,
rape & pillage in the middle east (remember the crusades from your history
class?). they also brought us that wonderful inquisition, in which many
thousands of people were tortured & slain in the name of your corpse-god.
then they came to amerikkka & started killing off the native americans
(since *heathens* don't have souls!). then they brought blacks over from
africa in chains, to work like beasts in their fields (also, since
*heathens* don't have souls!). they continue to *recruit* new members to
their sick cult thru brainwashing & bribery. they continue to try to keep
women & gays oppressed as second class citizens, & continue to spread lies &
hatred throughout the world.
thanx, but no thanx. WE DO NOT NEED RELIGION!
michael burt wrote in message ...
michael burt
<xyn...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> oh, please! america is without a doubt the most *religious* nation on
> earth -- now or ever. yet it is also the most violent. go figure.
>
> we have the lovely christians to thank for several centuries of slaughter,
> rape & pillage in the middle east (remember the crusades from your history
> class?). they also brought us that wonderful inquisition, in which many
> thousands of people were tortured & slain in the name of your corpse-god.
> then they came to amerikkka & started killing off the native americans
> (since *heathens* don't have souls!). then they brought blacks over from
> africa in chains, to work like beasts in their fields (also, since
> *heathens* don't have souls!). they continue to *recruit* new members to
> their sick cult thru brainwashing & bribery. they continue to try to keep
> women & gays oppressed as second class citizens, & continue to spread lies &
> hatred throughout the world.
>
> thanx, but no thanx. WE DO NOT NEED RELIGION!
Then prepare for more Littletons. Taking away guns is the sympton, not
the cause.
michael burt
> oh, please! america is without a doubt the most *religious* nation on
> earth -- now or ever. yet it is also the most violent. go figure.
>
> we have the lovely christians to thank for several centuries of slaughter,
> rape & pillage in the middle east (remember the crusades from your history
> class?). they also brought us that wonderful inquisition, in which many
> thousands of people were tortured & slain in the name of your corpse-god.
> then they came to amerikkka & started killing off the native americans
> (since *heathens* don't have souls!). then they brought blacks over from
> africa in chains, to work like beasts in their fields (also, since
> *heathens* don't have souls!). they continue to *recruit* new members to
> their sick cult thru brainwashing & bribery. they continue to try to keep
> women & gays oppressed as second class citizens, & continue to spread lies &
> hatred throughout the world.
>
> thanx, but no thanx. WE DO NOT NEED RELIGION!
A religion is a defined as :
1. A belief in a divine or superhuman power or powers to be obeyed and
worship[ped as the creator(s) and ruler(s) of the universe.
2. Expression of this belief in conduct and ritual.
3a. Any specific system of belief, worship, conduct, etc., often
involving a code of ethics and a philosophy, as, the Christian religion,
the Buddhist religion, etc.,
3b. Loosely, any system of beliefs, practices, ethical values, etc.
resembling, suggestive of, or likened to such a system as humanism is his
religion.
4. A state of mind or a way of life expressing love for and trust in God,
and oneąs will and effort to act according to the will of God especially
within an monastic order or community.
5. Any object of conscientious regard and pursuit; as, cleanliness was a
religion to him.
6. The practice of religious observances or rites.
As is obvious, there are many religions and/or religious beliefs being
deceitfully forced and preached to our children in schools, such as but
not limited to humanism and globalism, and even from our pulpits that are
not of the Gospel of Jesus Christ or intermixed with the Gospel of Jesus
Christ. Those that separate America from God are being forced down the
throats of America under the false impressions that any system of beliefs,
practices, ethical values, etc. resembling, suggestive of, or likened to
such a system as humanism is his religion is not a religion. That is
deception. Honesty, calling God essential to the life of all, is the only
religious belief cencored from the schools. This is not separation of
church and state. This is separation of Americans from God. This is the
welding of the religion of athiesm to the state, and this is a gulf of
departure from and a destructive force on American culture. Hitler, Marx,
and Stalin welded athiesm to the state as well, it didn't work.
Above all, the pure light of revelation has had an influence on mankind,
and increased the blessings of society. It is impossible to rightly govern
the world without God and the Bible.
George Washington
George is right, Karl, Hitler, Stalin, and the Clintons are wrong.
atldude
wow -- there IS light on this planet!
leland palmer wrote in message <373ADFAB...@proaxis.com>...
michael burt
<xyn...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> <applause, applause>
>
>
> wow -- there IS light on this planet!
>
> >
> >
> >My own mind is my cathedral.
> >
> > - Thomas Paine
It is easy to be righteous in you own mind, just define sin as an
acceptable alternative lifestyle.
michael burt
mike...@ix.netcom.com (michael burt) wrote:
> In article <7heraq$r10$1...@usenet41.supernews.com>, "atldude"
> <xyn...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > oh, please! america is without a doubt the most *religious* nation on
> > earth -- now or ever. yet it is also the most violent. go figure.
The problem is not being religious, it is exactly that is has beccome
religious in beliefs that separate it from God that is the problem.
> >
> > we have the lovely christians to thank for several centuries of slaughter,
> > rape & pillage in the middle east (remember the crusades from your history
> > class?).
WRONG, we had people twisting Scripture to support political agenda.
Clinton has said that the Bible says oral sex is not adultery. A man who
twists Scripture without apology nor repentance is no Christian in my
book. Clinton may be righteous in his own mind, but not in God's. I will
not judge what is in Clinton's heart, only God will do that. But I must
judge whether or not he is telling the truth and speak out against
aposty. Tolerance to sin is no virtue. And that is the evil heart of the
religious beliefs of diversity and multiculturalism--any truth is not
equal to God's Word, and any ethic is not be equally acceptable.
Hitler twisted Scripture and said that the Bible justified his murder of
God's chosen people. If anyone thinks that Hitler was a Christian, they
need to get a reality grip.
they also brought us that wonderful inquisition, in which many
> > thousands of people were tortured & slain in the name of your corpse-god.
That was churchianity, not Christianity. Only the Biblical illiterate
would be confused. It is not sin to be Biblically illiterate, but it is a
sin to accept twisted Scripture as God's Word--just ask Eve.
> > then they came to amerikkka & started killing off the native americans
> > (since *heathens* don't have souls!).
What would you have done watching infants and human hearts being
sacrificed to pagan gods at the Aztec temples? Celebrated diversity and
multiculturalism? Your accusations are monsterous and an indictment to
the false idol of diversity and multiculturalism and its evil heart of
multiple truths and situational ethics and self serving righteousness.
The tench coat mafia took a poll in the true application of diversity and
found themselves moral in their own minds. Real compasion for the
families that they destroyed as a result in their faith in a false god.
then they brought blacks over from
> > africa in chains,
You hatefully trivilize the countless sacrifices of true Christian
abolutionalists who risked their lives and fortunes for a century to
reform this country to the Constitution (which does not legalize slavery)
and Christianity (which does not legalize slavery as you define it) This
is often used as a anti-white racist statement which suppresses the fact
that most blacks were enslaved by black Africans, not whites. That does
not let whites off the hook, even if they tried to justify slavery and
Christianity, but both races need to take credit for the atrocity, not
whites alone.
It also hatefully trivilized the blood of white Christian men and their
families who gave up their life's blood to end slavery in the nation to
fulfill the promises of the most perfect union ever to exist.
And it hatefully trivilizes the efforts of white Christian men and women
who worked tirelessly to end descrimination always reforming American and
Christians to the principles of the Constitution and God's Word.
You also trivilize that slavery was invented in the pagan world, not the
Christian world. And you are trivilizing that it was Christians who ended
the practice of slavery in Africa where it existed long before and long
after it existed in this nation. Slavery is not a white problem, it is a
pagan problem. It was Charles Darwin and evolution that justified
Hitler's concept of the evolved master race, not Christianity.
to work like beasts in their fields (also, since
> > *heathens* don't have souls!). they continue to *recruit* new members to
> > their sick cult thru brainwashing & bribery.
Like the brainwashing and bribery of the media and school systems to force
godless religious beliefs down the throats of Americans, always careful to
never mention that athiesm, absence of the mention of God's name, absense
of prayer, absense of the 10 Commandments IS A FORCED HATEFUL RELIGION and
constitute the enforcement, brainwashing, and bribery of their religious
beliefs on American culture.
they continue to try to keep
> > women & gays oppressed as second class citizens, & continue to spread lies &
> > hatred throughout the world.
WRONG on all counts. Christian men do neither victemize nor oppress their
mothers, daughters, and wives. nor is that their history. This is
offensive anti-male sexism and a re-imaging of history. And advance the
false homosexual-feminist anti-male hate mythology that there is a sexist
male supremacist system. Contrary to the feminist myth, Christian men
have a history of loving, serving, honoring, and protecting their mothers,
daughters and wives, not one of victemizing and oppressing them. A
Christian man is to be under submission to Christ and to serve his wife
and family. That is not a sexist, male supremacist system unless you are
ignorant in Biblical literacy and spreading anti-male hate speech.
The spreading of lies and hatred come from the opposite direction.
From the Kinsey Report that says homosexual and pedophilia is an
acceptable alternative lifestyle. The report was fradulent.
The APA that says that homosexuality is an acceptable alternative lifesyle
which is a political position that condems society to the further
spreading of AIDS and has no clinical basis.
One of the many homosexual manifestos which states in part:
***It is because of the patriarchal family that reforms are not enough.
Freedom for gay people will never be permanently won until everyone is
freed from sexist role-playing and the straightjacket of sexist rules
about our sexuality. And we will not be freed from these so long as each
succeeding generation is brought up in the same old sexist way in the
Patriarchal family.
That is why any reforms we might painfully exact from our rulers would
only be fragile and vulnerable; that is why we, along with the women's
movement, must fight for something more than reform. We must aim at the
abolition of the family, so that the sexist, male supremacist system can
no longer be nurtured there.***
This is a hateful intent to destroy all families, and an anti-male sexist
hate speech. Men do not victemize their mothers, daughters and wives as
this hateful mantra falsly assumes.
That homosexuality can not be chosen is a lie. The goal of the North
American Man Boy Love Association is to introduce all male children to a
homosexual experience before they are 12--that is perversion, even under
your non Biblical intrepretation. NAMBLA is a heavy lobby in Congress for
their religous views to introduce all males to homosexuality before they
are 12 and to make it leagal as another part of the agenda. The
homosexual community hatefuly supports this position by raising no
objections.
Guess again. Gareth Kirkby of Xtra West, a homosexual editor of a leading
homosexual activist publication said **Personally after a number of
relationships with women I CHOOSE TO BE GAY*** Your nuts if you think
that a straight person canąt be seduced to be gay. Gareth Kirkby chooses
to be gay, is he the only one? Not so according to these groups who bring
homosexuals out of the closet of homosexuality.
Activist Darrell Yates Rist, co founder of the Gay & Lesbian Alliance
Against Defamation says it is certainly possible for children to be lured
by Śqueerą ideas into a homosexual lifestyle. Rist has said that this
truth is understood intuitively by parents and worries them becuse they
too understand that sexually freee ideas are infectious and that, once
introduced to the suggestion of same-sex love, their kids might just try
it and adopt it all at the expense of the continuation of the family in
fulfillment of the manifestos hateful assult on Christians.
Former homosexual Michael Johnston of Kerusso Ministries says that
homosexual groups are reaching down to children as yound as kindergarten
age indoctrinating them to the idea that homosexuality is an intrinsic
part of oneąs identity, one to be explored and embraced. If that is not
recruiting to end families, what is?
Small minority? Who cares, they are, according to the gay communities own
spokesmen as well as the stated goal of the NAMBLA out to recruit children
as young as 5 years of age destroying family after family in the exact
manner sought by the homosexual manifesto. It is all well and good to sit
back and say one doesnąt support the radical NAMBLA agenda, full well
knowing that a few radical activits will get the job done anyway. And
opposing positions on homosexuality are intolerantly cencored out of the
media and public schools. This is hatred against not only men, but women
and children as well.
Following God's Word would eliminate the spread of AIDS, following the
religious beliefs of homosexual-feminism condems people to the risk of
AIDS. Nothing could be more hateful than those religious beliefs.
> >
> > thanx, but no thanx. WE DO NOT NEED RELIGION!
A religion is ***Any specific system of belief, worship, conduct, etc.,
often involving a code of ethics and a philosophy***. Everyone has one,
including you, but it time that American return to placing its trust in
God and rejecting the idols that are bringing us more Littletons. It is
time to abjectly reject godless false religion being forced down the
throats of a Godly America.
For those who want to reduce their risk of exposure to AIDS, and any
reliance on hateful idoltry, there are people who care and can help.
Exodus International € PO Box 2121 € San Rafael, California 94912 €
415-454-1017
Courage € St Michaeląs Rectory € 424 W 34th Street € New York, New York
10001 € 212-421-0426
Homosexuals Anonymous € PO Box 7881 € Reading, Pennsylvania 19603 €
215-376-1146
Regeneration € PO Box 9830 € Baltimore, Maryland 21284-9830 € 410-661-0284
Harvest USA € PO Box 11469 € Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19111 € 215-342-7114
Kerusso Ministries € PO Box 2399 € Newport News, Virginia 23609 € 757-872-8878
National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality € 16633
Ventura Blvd. Suite 1340 € Encino, California 94436 € 818-789-4440
Christian Counseling and Education Foundation € 1803 East Willow Grove Ave
€ Glenside, Pennsylvania 19038 € 215-884-7676
Pamphlet Homosexuality in America: Exposing the Myth € $2 € 601-844-5036
extension 4
Video On the Wings of Eagles € $24.95 € 601-844-5036 extension 4
Book A Freedom too Far € Charles Socarides, MD
Book Homosexuality and thePolitics of Truth € Jeffrey Satinover € 410-661-4337
This list was prepared by and is available from American Family
Association € 601-844-5036 extension 4
You may no longer get the AFA web site, Mattell software encors as a hate
group because they tell a different side of the homosexual manifesto, and
the of the way to give up homosexuality, even for those recruited at an
early age. Mattel software does not cencor the site where the hateful
homosexual manifesto is published. Itąs OK apparently by Mattell for
anti-Christian hate speech to be posted, but not to help homosexuals
trying to give up a chosen lifestyle and avoid the sprread of AIDS .
atldude
china? because they lack religion or because they lack guns???
(c'mon -- this is an easy one!)
michael burt wrote in message ...
>In article <7heraq$r10$1...@usenet41.supernews.com>, "atldude"
><xyn...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> oh, please! america is without a doubt the most *religious* nation on
>> earth -- now or ever. yet it is also the most violent. go figure.
>>
>> we have the lovely christians to thank for several centuries of
slaughter,
>> rape & pillage in the middle east (remember the crusades from your
history
>> class?). they also brought us that wonderful inquisition, in which many
>> thousands of people were tortured & slain in the name of your corpse-god.
>> then they came to amerikkka & started killing off the native americans
>> (since *heathens* don't have souls!). then they brought blacks over from
>> africa in chains, to work like beasts in their fields (also, since
>> *heathens* don't have souls!). they continue to *recruit* new members to
>> their sick cult thru brainwashing & bribery. they continue to try to
keep
>> women & gays oppressed as second class citizens, & continue to spread
lies &
>> hatred throughout the world.
>>
>> thanx, but no thanx. WE DO NOT NEED RELIGION!
>
>Then prepare for more Littletons. Taking away guns is the sympton, not
>the cause.
>
michael burt
<eas...@proaxis.com> wrote:
> I envision the day when all the country might be Unitarian.
>
> - Thomas Jefferson
I am not sure that Jefferson said this, but if he did, Unitarianism would
have been a better future for America than a socialistic humanistic
religious one. Jefferson's alledged goal doesnt' have a chance of
success, anything that mentions God is cencored out of American public
life ending both free speech and freedom of religion in the darkness of
athiesm and hatred of God.
atldude
old favorite kkkristian past-time...)
religion belongs only in the churches, temples, or synagogues, where
adherents can take it or leave it, as is their choice...
schools are for teaching facts, not myths & superstition.
michael burt wrote in message ...
>In article <7heraq$r10$1...@usenet41.supernews.com>, "atldude"
><xyn...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> oh, please! america is without a doubt the most *religious* nation on
>> earth -- now or ever. yet it is also the most violent. go figure.
>>
>> we have the lovely christians to thank for several centuries of
slaughter,
>> rape & pillage in the middle east (remember the crusades from your
history
>> class?). they also brought us that wonderful inquisition, in which many
>> thousands of people were tortured & slain in the name of your corpse-god.
>> then they came to amerikkka & started killing off the native americans
>> (since *heathens* don't have souls!). then they brought blacks over from
>> africa in chains, to work like beasts in their fields (also, since
>> *heathens* don't have souls!). they continue to *recruit* new members to
>> their sick cult thru brainwashing & bribery. they continue to try to
keep
>> women & gays oppressed as second class citizens, & continue to spread
lies &
>> hatred throughout the world.
>>
>> thanx, but no thanx. WE DO NOT NEED RELIGION!
>
michael burt
<xyn...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> george washington was wrong. george washington had slaves, too, btw... (an
> old favorite kkkristian past-time...)
George Washington was not perfect, nor did he beat his slaves and he freed
them as well. He also treated them with respect and dignity, and they
treated him with respect and dignity. American Indians practices slavery
before any white man came here. The sin of slavery in this country was
paid for in blood and your comments are anti-white racist which disgraces
the graves of both black and white who died to end that sin in theis
country. God forgives, why can't the godless?
You hatefully trivilize the countless sacrifices of true Christian
abolutionalists who risked their lives and fortunes for a century to
reform this country to the Constitution (which does not legalize slavery)
and Christianity (which does not legalize slavery as you define it) This
is often used as a anti-white racist statement which suppresses the fact
that most blacks were enslaved by black Africans, not whites. That does
not let whites off the hook, even if they tried to justify slavery and
Christianity, but both races need to take credit for the atrocity, not
whites alone.
It also hatefully trivilized the blood of white Christian men and their
families who gave up their life's blood to end slavery in the nation to
fulfill the promises of the most perfect union ever to exist.
And it hatefully trivilizes the efforts of white Christian men and women
who worked tirelessly to end descrimination always reforming American and
Christians to the principles of the Constitution and God's Word.
You also trivilize that slavery was invented in the pagan world, not the
Christian world. And you are trivilizing that it was Christians who ended
the practice of slavery in Africa where it existed long before and long
after it existed in this nation. Slavery is not a white problem, it is a
pagan problem. It was Charles Darwin and evolution that justified
Hitler's concept of the evolved master race, not Christianity.
>
> religion belongs only in the churches, temples, or synagogues, where
> adherents can take it or leave it, as is their choice...
>
> schools are for teaching facts, not myths & superstition.
But Schools are teaching homosexusl-feminist mythology, humanistic
mythology, golbalistic mythology, athiestic mythology, socialistic
mythology, evolutionary mythology. Our children are well indoctrinated in
all of these religious beliefs. The problem with our children is that
they can't read and write, cant' read Shakespear, think reading God's Word
is too hard, can't give change unless the cash register tells them how
much, can't multiply without a calculator, and can't question a sound byte
or a mantra, oft repeated, never true.
michael burt
<xyn...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> yeah, right... then why has there been no *littleton*-type massacre in
> china? because they lack religion or because they lack guns???
>
> (c'mon -- this is an easy one!)
They don't lack religion, they lack God, they practice the religious
mythology of athiestic Marxism in which the state is provider, protector,
nurturer, and saviour. The Dispensation of Human Government in Scripture
proves that institutions of men, no matter how well intentioned, are
neither providers, protectors, nurtureres nor saviours but instead are
oppressors and enslavers unless they are based upon God's Word, as was the
most perfect government ever instituted, and even that required
improvements reforming and always reforming to the Constitution. When
asked what kind of government the Constitutional committed had come up for
American, Franklin answered, a Republic, if you can keep it.
Contrary to popular mythology, American is not a democracy, it is a
Limited Constitutional Republic. Likewise, Christianity is not a
democracy, it is a Limited Scriptural Theocracy. Democracy also is a
flawed form of government, Nazi Germany started as a democracy, and Hitler
had the highest polls in history. He was so popular, he threw away their
constitution. Mocking the Constititon of the US will not lead to
happiness. Mocking the Word of God will not lead to happiness either.
Great kings, emperors, dictators, and leaders have despised the Word of
God and done anything to eliminate people who follow God's Word in
holocaust after holocaust. They are all gone, but the Isrealites which
includes the Jews are still here.
Marx wrote of utopia free of God, to be as wise as God, even equal to God
not unlike Eve in the Garden, but the application has always resulted in
death. Socialists believe that given more time and more money, the kinks
in socialism will eventually be worked out. But their prejudices either
keep them from realizing the tragic reality that their efforts will never
remove the kinks, or they conceal their real intention, elitism with the
leaders as the elite, and the rest enslaved. For example, when Stalin was
murdering 100 million Christians and Jews to the holocaust was asked, when
will the persecutions end? He answered, when all free thought and
alternatives have been eliminated. Socialism, communism, and most other
forms of human government built upon Darwinism and Marxism are intolerant
to God's Word, freedom of religious belief, freedom of speech, and the
asking of questions.
As you probably know, China practiced slavery long, long before it was
practiced in American, and it is still being practiced today. The
Christian missionary's had made good advances in eliminating slavery from
China which along with Africa, was one of slavery's last strongholds, but
the advances are now history for China is ethnically cleansing Christians
because they are Christians.
The goal of the Chinese government (and not necessarily the Chinese
people) is to re-establish the middle kingdom, the Chinese version of
godless globalist religious beliefs. They believe that the end justifies
the means, and I suspect, they plan for Americans to someday learn
Chinese.
The massacre in the Chinese square also highlights the biggest lesson to
be learned from Kosovo. An unarmed people have no chance against an armed
government turned tyranical. Our Founders knew this well, and wanted to
protect Americans with the second amendment. Children and guns have lived
together for centuries, the Littleton problem is different: children
separated from God and guns do not go together. Guns are the symptom of
the problem, not the problem. One can not fix a problem by constantly
focusing on the sympton, even if it makes one fell good for the moment.
Christ told Peter to put away the sword, not to get rid of it. America is
not fixated on guns, they are fixated on freedom. A few more Kosovars,
Lithuanians, and Latvians wish they had been better armed in a world of
sin. The bloodshed in the long run would have been much less for sin
always hs to be covered in blood eventually, that is why it is bad.
The solution is to return to the intent of the Constitution, the
encouragement of Christianity, not the encocuragement of athiesm. Also,
the encouragement of individual responsibility and not the encouragement
of victem mythology and Big Brother socalistic religious beliefs.
The expectations of the 10 Commandments, prayer, and the mention of God's
name in public places is God centered, not self centered. It will break
the forcing of the religious beliefs of the absense of expectations and
denial of God also known as athiesm from being the de facto state religion
persecuting all other religions.
Rick
Are you saying we should teach our children christian mythology in school?TEACH YOUR CHILDREN ABOUT GOD AT HOME. PARENTS ALREADY GIVE AWAY TOO MUCH RESPONABILITY TO OTHERS.
> religion belongs only in the churches, temples, or synagogues, where
> adherents can take it or leave it, as is their choice...
>
> schools are for teaching facts, not myths & superstition.
But Schools are teaching homosexusl-feminist mythology, humanistic
mythology, golbalistic mythology, athiestic mythology, socialistic
mythology, evolutionary mythology. Our children are well indoctrinated in
all of these religious beliefs. The problem with our children is that
they can't read and write, cant' read Shakespear, think reading God's Word
is too hard, can't give change unless the cash register tells them how
much, can't multiply without a calculator, and can't question a sound byte
or a mantra, oft repeated, never true.
michael burt
<tho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
>
> ------=_NextPart_000_0055_01BE9D5A.CBA10EE0
> Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
> Are you saying we should teach our children christian mythology in =
> school?
Not necessarily, I am saying that they should stop teaching humanistic
mythology, athiestic mythology, globalistic mythology, and
homosexual-feminist mythology to cour children in school. Our schools
have welded athiesm to the state, the same as socialists did in the USSR
which resulted in the holocaust of 100 million Christians and Jews.
>
> TEACH YOUR CHILDREN ABOUT GOD AT HOME. PARENTS ALREADY GIVE AWAY TOO =
> MUCH RESPONABILITY TO OTHERS.
They are forced to by humanist mythology which says that immature children
have equal rights to their parents. If you disipline your children, you
can end up in jail. Non disciplined children grow up to be non
disciplined adults, and they shoot children in Littleton.
Kevin & Amy
Excellent post, Michael. Well said. In light of the mythologies taught in our public,and many times private schools, more and more people are opting for the homeschooling approach to education.I agree with Rick's post in that we should continue to teach our children about God at home, and take back the responsibility God has given to parents instead of placing the education of our children in the hands of godless people.
Amy
Astalis
> schools are for teaching facts, not myths & superstition.
Then why teach evolution as fact when it has been proven
the theory has more holes than a sinking ship?
Astalis
--
"And yet there is a time
For everything that's under heaven.
A time to run, a time to stand and fight.
So in the face in cold despair,
No matter what seems right,
Remember darkness drives us to the light..."
**from Michael Card's "Under the Sun"**
-----------------------
astalis at epsi dot net
morning_light at juno dot com
ICQ! Num: 2453141#
-----------------------
Astalis
>
> In article <7heraq$r10$1...@usenet41.supernews.com>, "atldude"
> <xyn...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > oh, please! america is without a doubt the most *religious* nation on
> > earth -- now or ever. yet it is also the most violent. go figure.
> Then prepare for more Littletons. Taking away guns is the sympton, not
> the cause.
Religious perhaps...but what religion? Certainly not
Christianity. Everything else under the sun in opposition to
Christianity it seems.
The message of Christiaity, that our Lord and Savior
Jesus Christ sacrificed Himself on the cross to win our
salvation from sin, death, and hell, that His ressurrection was
proof of His victory, is met with a growing hositility.
There are numerous examples. Here is just one.
Littleton was mentioned. It has been stressed by the media of
how one student's life was taken due to the color of his skin.
What of Rachel Scott and Cassie Bernall, two students who were
specifically targeted and killed because of their Christian
faith?
Truth is not relative. Not all paths lead to God.
Pat Buchanan said it best: "At Littleton, America got
a glimpse of the last stop on that train to hell she boarded
decades ago when she declared that God is dead, and that
each of us is his or her own god who can make up the rules as
Astalis
> we have the lovely christians to thank for several centuries of slaughter,
> rape & pillage...people were tortured & slain...then they brought
> blacks over from africa in chains...to work like beasts in their fields...
Christians...or individuals merely claiming to be
Christians who twist the truth into a lie to suit their
own purposes? Look at history as a vast catalog of
examples. And there are cases the victims' people subjected
their own to this type of cruelty as in the issue of slavery.
(As a side note, Africans sold their own to slave traders
as well way back when. It's a practice still going on today-
-particularly within the Sudan where Christians who happen to be
black are bought and sold on the market regularly.)
Also, why merely point the finger towards them?
Why not point the finger to each race and each nationality on
Earth? At some time in history each nation has been guilty
of the same crimes against their neighbors.
It may be better to search the truth rather than
accusing and condemning others for the crimes commited by
their ancestors for whatever reasons they may have had or
may have claimed to have.
Bruce K Darling
Astalis wrote in message <373B47...@epsi.net>...
>atldude wrote:
>
>> schools are for teaching facts, not myths & superstition.
>
> Then why teach evolution as fact when it has been proven
>the theory has more holes than a sinking ship?
>
Astalis - as a geologist, I would be interested in why you think evolution "
has been proven to has (sic) more holes than a sinking ship." I am curious
what you really know - or think that you know - about the process(es) of
evolution. Sounds as though you have read too much pablum from Morris and
Gish.
Regards
Just Me
For me, it's not all that hard to believe in a gradual
evolution of beings, but it is a bit hard to believe in
creatures turning into other creatures... or that it's all
random... mutations are generally NOT all that
beneficial... and a thousand point mutation, which is
statistically impossible, in anything, still leaves you with
the same species. Mutations great enough to cause change
great enough to transform a creature into what we would call
another species, would also be great enough to simply kill
it off.
And consider the gaps in the fossil record? Where are the
creatures that had no DNA, before DNA supposedly randomly
occured? Or the ones that had the precursor to the eye?
Coagulating blood?
So while it is easy to see developmental changes, Darwinian
evolution, yes, has a lot of holes in it. Even Darwin
thought so. Unfortunately, that's the only model most folks
ever think of... and that's pretty stupid too...
The myriad miracles that form the systems of our bodies are
too balanced and too complete to be randomly generated.
Yes, it was probably a gradual set of changes, but it was
planned, on a specific time table, and wasn't random, it was
Created...
Now, have I pissed everyone off?? :-)
Lisa
--
Yes, I believe in God!
Reply to the newsgroup or to the address below, please!
*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^
la...@javanet.com
http://www.javanet.com/~lanat
*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^
Rick <tho...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bIL_2.1400$1U3....@nnrp2.ptd.net...
because it's the best scientific theory out there
and creationism is not scientific
Astalis <ast...@cdefghi.com> wrote in message
news:373B47...@epsi.net...
atldude wrote:
> schools are for teaching facts, not myths & superstition.
Then why teach evolution as fact when it has been proven
the theory has more holes than a sinking ship?
Astalis
--
Glenn Wright
leland palmer <eas...@proaxis.com> wrote in message
news:373ADFAB...@proaxis.com...
> My own mind is my cathedral.
> - Thomas Paine
This could be Sinead O'Connor's motto.
Rick
The DataRat
"then why has there been no *littleton*-type
massacre in china? because they lack religion
or because they lack guns???"
Because they have maintained family values,
and anybody who starts to get out of line gets
slapped down immediately without the ACLU
whining about it. In China, the Littleton killers
would have been sent off to work camps on the
first burglary they committed, and wouldn't
have been in normal society to commit massacres.
The DataRat
Mike Welborn
atldude <xyn...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7heraq$r10$1...@usenet41.supernews.com...
> oh, please! america is without a doubt the most *religious* nation on
> earth -- now or ever. yet it is also the most violent. go figure.
>
> class?). they also brought us that wonderful inquisition, in which many
> thousands of people were tortured & slain in the name of your corpse-god.
Painting with a pretty broad stroke there. The Roman Catholic church of the
middle ages is hardly indicative of Christians throughout history and many
question the "Christianity" of the RC church of that time as it was more of
a political institution. Perhaps you should read some history rather than
regurgitate some canned response. What was happening to Christians in the
1st century. Were they not being hunted and killed? For what reason? When
did killing of Christians by gladiator's stop? Where these Christians
engaged in a war/battle with Rome?
> then they came to amerikkka & started killing off the native americans
> (since *heathens* don't have souls!).
That just isn't true. It is not true that Christians came to America and
started killing native Americans. They came and built missions.
>then they brought blacks over from
> africa in chains, to work like beasts in their fields (also, since
> *heathens* don't have souls!).
You mean like John Newton(author of Amazing Grace), a slave trader who
became a Christian and then worked to abolish slavery? You are not well read
are you.
>they continue to *recruit* new members to
> their sick cult thru brainwashing & bribery.
Bribery? That's a new one. Usually you guys try to claim that we extort
money. Both are bogus.
>they continue to try to keep
> women & gays oppressed as second class citizens, & continue to spread lies
&
> hatred throughout the world.
>
In what way are women oppressed?
In what way are gays oppressed?
What lies are being spread?
Hatred throughout the world? - You mean it is hateful to send medical
missionaries to people who are sick? You mean it is hateful to teach people
how to feed themselves and their families? You mean it is hateful to
construct hospitals for those who are sick? It is hateful to teach people
how to read? You have a strange definition of hate.
Mike
> thanx, but no thanx. WE DO NOT NEED RELIGION!
>
>
> michael burt wrote in message ...
> >Athiest Mythology
> >
> >The "great society" concept is not new. Plato formulated his "Republic";
> >Sir Thomas More his "Utopia"; Karl Marx his "classless society"; and
many
> >others have made attempts to create a picture of the ideal social order.
> >But while the motivation may have ben genuinely humanitarian, past
efforts
> >have failed miserably. The dreams have cracked up on the rocks of
reality.
> >
> >Billy Graham
> >
> >
> >
> >It is the flawed utopias of Karl Marx's socialism and globalism that led
> >to the holocaust of 100 million Christians and Jews in the USSR and the
> >concepts of Darwin and evolution which led to the Nazi holocaust of 6
> >million Christians and Jews, and it is the separation of God that has led
> >to the murders of Littleton.
> >
> >There has always been a better way.
> >
> >Above all, the pure light of revelation has had an influence on mankind,
> >and increased the blessings of society. It is impossible to rightly
govern
> >the world without God and the Bible.
> >
> >George Washington
> >
Rabbit
wrote:
>
>My own mind is my cathedral.
>
> - Thomas Paine
I guess some people like a big, empty church.
michael burt
<mi...@linkstaffing.com> wrote:
> atldude <xyn...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:7heraq$r10$1...@usenet41.supernews.com...
> > oh, please! america is without a doubt the most *religious* nation on
> > earth -- now or ever. yet it is also the most violent. go figure.
> >
> > we have the lovely christians to thank for several centuries of slaughter,
> > rape & pillage in the middle east (remember the crusades from your history
> > class?). they also brought us that wonderful inquisition, in which many
> > thousands of people were tortured & slain in the name of your corpse-god.
>
> Painting with a pretty broad stroke there. The Roman Catholic church of the
> middle ages is hardly indicative of Christians throughout history and many
> question the "Christianity" of the RC church of that time as it was more of
> a political institution. Perhaps you should read some history rather than
> regurgitate some canned response. What was happening to Christians in the
> 1st century. Were they not being hunted and killed? For what reason? When
> did killing of Christians by gladiator's stop? Where these Christians
> engaged in a war/battle with Rome?
This is pretty tragic. 5th Grade Students in my public school system have
said that they were told that wars are caused by religion, expecially
Christianity. In the next public school district, they discuss Jewish,
Islamic, and black holidays in December, their meaning, history, and
religious significance. They are not allowed to mention Christmas because
of separation of church and state, but can recite the mantras of
homosexual-feminist mythology such as the findings of the Kinsey
Report,all of which are fradulent.
To show the destructive fruits of diversity, no holiday decorations can be
displayed anymore. Instead they use a sexless snow *person* as the
holiday symbol. Only one problem, blacks have charged racism since the
snow *person* is mostly white. And male rights groups have accused the
symbol of trivilizing the accomplishments of snowmen throughout the ages.
Dave Wood
> >My own mind is my cathedral.
> >
> > - Thomas Paine
>
> I guess some people like a big, empty church.
>
I do rather like this mindless statement Rick.
Good point.
Rick
The DataRat
"They are not allowed to mention Christmas
because of separation of church and state..."
Of course, the words "separation of church and
state" are nowhere to be found in the Constitution
of the United States.
Those words ( "a wall of separation between church
and state" ) were written in a ~private~ letter by
Thomas Jefferson ...who was assuring a Christian
clergyman THAT THE NEW FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
WOULD NOT INTERFERE WITH CHURCHES !
The DataRat
Charlie the tuna
The DataRat wrote:
>
> "They are not allowed to mention Christmas
> because of separation of church and state..."
>
> Of course, the words "separation of church and
> state" are nowhere to be found in the Constitution
> of the United States.
Neither does "Commerce Clause" nor "Right to Privacy".
They ARE to be found, never the less, in Supreme Court decisions
interpreting the Constitution.
And the Constitution means what the Supreme Court says it means.
Cheers!
Charlie the Tuna
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The fact that a believer is happier than a sceptic is no more to the point
than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The
happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.
-- Preface to Androcles and the Lion, George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950)
Gerry Palo
>
>
>"They are not allowed to mention Christmas
>because of separation of church and state..."
>
>
>
>Of course, the words "separation of church and
>state" are nowhere to be found in the Constitution
>of the United States.
>
>and state" ) were written in a ~private~ letter by
>Thomas Jefferson ...who was assuring a Christian
>clergyman THAT THE NEW FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
>WOULD NOT INTERFERE WITH CHURCHES !
Another point is that at the time the state was not in the business of
funding and running public schools. In those days local schools taught
religion as a matter of course. No one ever implied that the state
should have any say in how they were run or funded or what could or could
not be taught in them.
--
----------------------------------------------------------
Gerry Palo Denver, Colorado
pa...@netcom.com
Charlie the tuna
Gerry Palo wrote:
>
> In article <373D7C26...@home.com>, The DataRat <dat...@home.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >"They are not allowed to mention Christmas
> >because of separation of church and state..."
> >
> >
> >
> >Of course, the words "separation of church and
> >state" are nowhere to be found in the Constitution
> >of the United States.
> >
> >Those words ( "a wall of separation between church
> >and state" ) were written in a ~private~ letter by
> >Thomas Jefferson ...who was assuring a Christian
> >clergyman THAT THE NEW FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
> >WOULD NOT INTERFERE WITH CHURCHES !
>
> Another point is that at the time the state was not in the business of
> funding and running public schools. In those days local schools taught
> religion as a matter of course. No one ever implied that the state
> should have any say in how they were run or funded or what could or could
> not be taught in them.
When the Constitution was written several of the individual states still
had established churches and the 1st amendment was designed - originally -
as a bar to prevent the FEDERAL government from interfering with the
individual states abilities to establish, disestablish, or otherwise
discriminate on the basis of religion.
And the bar was absolute "Congress shall make NO LAW . . ."
Then the 14th amendment extended the applicability of the First Amendment
to the individual states, and it had to be decided just what the bar to
involvement in religious affairs meant at that level.
If you're going to play history, get it all and get it right.
michael burt
spam"@this addr.ess> wrote:
The elimination of the mention of God, prayer, and the posting of the 10
Commandments in public are the religious beliefs of athiesm. By forcing
this upon a Christian nation, both the states and Congress are guilty of
violating the 1st Amendment and making athiesm the encouraged de facto
state religion. This is a perversion of the intent of the Constitution
which was to encourage Christianity, morality and ethics based upon the
Gospel of Jesus Christ, and to place the national trust in God, not
athiesm.
Charlie the tuna
What planet do you live on?
Congress and sessions of the Supreme Court, state legislature etc. are
opened with prayers -- and by almost exclusively Christian clergy, with
maybe a Reform rabbi here and there.
The cash I carry has the motto "In God We Trust" printed on it. (Which,
please note, is even more offensive to an observant Jew than to an
atheist.)
Anybody can post the Ten Commandments - whichever one of the three
different sets of commandments they prefer - anywhere EXCEPT a government
agency.
> By forcing
> this upon a Christian nation, both the states and Congress are guilty of
> violating the 1st Amendment and making athiesm the encouraged de facto
> state religion.
Not even almost.
The government is not allowed to encourage non-belief any more than it is
allowed to encourage any particular religious belief.
Strict official neutrality is just that, neutrality.
Not supporting a particular view of religion is NOT the same as saying
that view is false NOR supporting the view that all religions are false.
Neutrality is just that, neutrality.
No position.
> This is a perversion of the intent of the Constitution
> which was to encourage Christianity, morality and ethics based upon the
> Gospel of Jesus Christ, and to place the national trust in God, not
> athiesm.
There is no such encouragement in the constitution, nor can any be found.
The Constitution was designed to rescue and redesign the failed central
government of the original Union.
No one would negotiate any treaties with the Confederation because the
central government was powerless to enforce the treaty rights or
obligations, and no state could guarantee a treaty either, so the states
found themselves at a competitive disadvantage.
Militarily, there were no national defense forces of any kind because the
central government lacked any taxing authority. It, by the articles of
confederation, relied on voluntary contributions from the individual
states. Not surprisingly the result was that the central government was
flat broke and couldn't afford the cost of recruiting an army or a navy,
let alone maintaining one.
Etc. etc. etc.
The Constitution was designed to form a central government capable of
governing and maintaining sufficient armed forces to garner respect and
recognition from other countries.
And by design it allowed the states to continue to run established
churches, or not, or discriminate however they had been without any
interference from the central government. I.e., the First Amendment was, as
stated, an absolute bar on Federal action regarding religion. CONGRESS was
not to be allowed to interfere in religious matters at all, NOR could the
central government require, as a requirement for office, any religious
tests. Thus, for example, a Methodist majority in Congress could not try
and exclude Presbyterians or Catholics, etc. from Congress by writing a
requirement into law making membership in a Methodist church a requirement
for office - which would not have set well in some state where a
Presbyterian Church was the the established state church and the only
allowed form of worship.
Eventually the individual states all abandoned established churches
anyway.
Then came the fourteenth amendment which the Supreme Court decided made
the 1st amendment applicable to the individual state and local governments.
And if the Congress could "make NO LAW respecting an establishment of
religion . . .", then the 14th amendment means that neither can any state
or local government.
See Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1, for a good discussion of
the matter.
The case can be found on line at:
http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/cases/name.htm
You can get a summary, an edited version, or the full case after you
follow the link to the case. (key cases are listed in alphabetical order at
the above link).
If you're going to try and argue history and the law -- take some time to
learn them both. And then get them right.
Cheers!
Charlie the Tuna
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
michael burt
spam"@this addr.ess> wrote:
>
> > By forcing
> > this upon a Christian nation, both the states and Congress are guilty of
> > violating the 1st Amendment and making athiesm the encouraged de facto
> > state religion.
>
> Not even almost.
>
> The government is not allowed to encourage non-belief any more
than it is
> allowed to encourage any particular religious belief.
Non being allowed to mention God's name is non belief, that is not neutral.
>
> Strict official neutrality is just that, neutrality.
Then they should remain neutral, and allow the posting of the 10
commandments when they are posted, and crosses in city seals where they
are included representing the heritage and diversity of the community.
>
> Not supporting a particular view of religion is NOT the same as saying
> that view is false NOR supporting the view that all religions are false.
>
> Neutrality is just that, neutrality.
>
> No position.
Banning the very mention of God's name in a public setting is not
neutrality, it is the establishment of very specific religious beliefs and
values, a mocking of the Constitution, and a mocking of the God our
Christian nation places its trust in.
>
> > This is a perversion of the intent of the Constitution
> > which was to encourage Christianity, morality and ethics based upon the
> > Gospel of Jesus Christ, and to place the national trust in God, not
> > athiesm.
>
> There is no such encouragement in the constitution, nor can any
be found.
The entire document describes the liberty which is endowed by the Creator
and limits the reduction of freedom by the government. The entire
document is based upon the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the intent of the
Founders.
>
> The Constitution was designed to rescue and redesign the failed
central
> government of the original Union.
Wrong, the constitution was designed to create a limited Constitutional
Republic to replace the 13 independent nations.
>
> No one would negotiate any treaties with the Confederation because the
> central government was powerless to enforce the treaty rights or
> obligations, and no state could guarantee a treaty either, so the states
> found themselves at a competitive disadvantage.
There was no central, federal government before, only a tempoary, limited
purpose continental congress.
>
> Militarily, there were no national defense forces of any kind
because the
> central government lacked any taxing authority. It, by the articles of
> confederation, relied on voluntary contributions from the individual
> states. Not surprisingly the result was that the central government was
> flat broke and couldn't afford the cost of recruiting an army or a navy,
> let alone maintaining one.
That was why the continential congress was limited for a specific purpose.
Rick
The elimination of the mention of God, prayer, and the posting of the 10
Commandments in public are the religious beliefs of athiesm. By forcing
this upon a Christian nation, both the states and Congress are guilty of
violating the 1st Amendment and making athiesm the encouraged de facto
state religion. This is a perversion of the intent of the Constitution
which was to encourage Christianity, morality and ethics based upon the
Gospel of Jesus Christ, and to place the national trust in God, not
athiesm.
Charlie the tuna
The DataRat wrote:
>
> "Our first 3 presidents were deists."
>
> Washington was NOT a deist ! He declared a
> national day of prayer -something a deist ( who
> believes in God as an idle spectator ) would have
> no reason to do.
Unless he was also a realistic politician playing to the voters . . .
The DataRat
"GW was a deist. His national day of prayer was for
ANY god that people believed in."
Like Buddha, Allah, or Vishnu ? C'mon, 99% of the
nation was Christian. 80% Calvinist. The "god"
they believed in was the God of the Bible !
"...RESPECT for others beliefs, something that your
writings show you have none of !"
Spare us the trite PoMo all-inclusiveness that you
picked-up off your leftist college professors.
The DataRat
Charlie the tuna
The DataRat wrote:
>
> "GW was a deist. His national day of prayer was for
> ANY god that people believed in."
>
> Like Buddha, Allah, or Vishnu ? C'mon, 99% of the
> nation was Christian. 80% Calvinist.
The source for your "statistics"?
> The "god"
> they believed in was the God of the Bible !
Alas, they could not agree on his attributes.
And at the time I rather think you're underestimating the influence of
deism on the eductated/managerial/governing classes.
>
> "...RESPECT for others beliefs, something that your
> writings show you have none of !"
>
> Spare us the trite PoMo all-inclusiveness that you
> picked-up off your leftist college professors.
Whatsamatta? Couldn't pass the entrance exams? Got passed over for
promotion by someone you didn't like who got their degree?
michael burt
wrote:
> This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
>
> ------=_NextPart_000_002E_01BEA10C.8E2017E0
> Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
> GW was a deist. His national day of prayer was for ANY god that people =
> believed in. Being a deist also means that you have RESPECT for others =
> beliefs, something that your writings show you have none of !
Yeah right, that is why he kissed the Bible on his inaguration and said:
Above all, the pure light of revelation has had an influence on mankind,
and increased the blessings of society. It is impossible to rightly govern
the world without God and the Bible.
A real diest would not say that. You are reading too much diest mythology.
Trying to deny truth and re-imaging history doesn't show much respect for
other people either.
michael burt
spam"@this addr.ess> wrote:
> michael burt wrote:
> >
> > In article <7hqoq8$4rt$1...@nusku.cts.com>, Charlie the tuna <"ain't gonna
> > spam"@this addr.ess> wrote:
> >
> > > The DataRat wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "Our first 3 presidents were deists."
> > > >
> > > > Washington was NOT a deist ! He declared a
> > > > national day of prayer -something a deist ( who
> > > > believes in God as an idle spectator ) would have
> > > > no reason to do.
> > >
> > > Unless he was also a realistic politician playing to the voters . . .
> >
> > No, that would be Hitler and Clinton, you can tell from the fruits of
> > their policies, their morals, and ethics, and the programs that they
> > advocate, often using deceitful *scientific* data and twisting of
> > Scripture in the manner of satan.
>
> Politics is politics, whether you approve of the politician over all or
> not.
>
> The rest of the nonsense noted and ignored, no time for logic lesson today.
Being Scripturally ignorant in electing a man who twists Scripture as
truth as Hitler did is more than politics.
>
> Cheers!
>
> Charlie the Tuna.
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
> The fact that a believer is happier than a sceptic is no more to the point
> than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The
> happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.
>
> -- Preface to Androcles and the Lion, George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950)
--
Charlie the tuna
michael burt wrote:
>
> In article <7hs5uu$fs5$2...@nusku.cts.com>, Charlie the tuna <"ain't gonna
> spam"@this addr.ess> wrote:
>
> > michael burt wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <7hqoq8$4rt$1...@nusku.cts.com>, Charlie the tuna <"ain't gonna
> > > spam"@this addr.ess> wrote:
> > >
> > > > The DataRat wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > "Our first 3 presidents were deists."
> > > > >
> > > > > Washington was NOT a deist ! He declared a
> > > > > national day of prayer -something a deist ( who
> > > > > believes in God as an idle spectator ) would have
> > > > > no reason to do.
> > > >
> > > > Unless he was also a realistic politician playing to the voters . . .
> > >
> > > No, that would be Hitler and Clinton, you can tell from the fruits of
> > > their policies, their morals, and ethics, and the programs that they
> > > advocate, often using deceitful *scientific* data and twisting of
> > > Scripture in the manner of satan.
> >
> > Politics is politics, whether you approve of the politician over all or
> > not.
> >
> > The rest of the nonsense noted and ignored, no time for logic lesson today.
>
> Being Scripturally ignorant in electing a man who twists Scripture as
> truth as Hitler did is more than politics.
Complete Non-sequitor. The perceptions of German voters in 1930's Germany
has no logical relationship with what GW did or did not believe in the
1790's in the new United States.
Cheers!
Charlie the Tuna
Mycroft
--
Remove XXX to contact
michael burt <mike...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:mikeburt-130...@pon-mi24-21.ix.netcom.com...
"and the
concepts of Darwin and evolution which led to the Nazi holocaust of 6
million Christians and Jews"
M: How, exactly?
", and it is the separation of God that has led
to the murders of Littleton."
M: What, exactly, is "the separation of God" and how did it lead to
Littleton?
The DataRat
"Our first 3 presidents were deists."
Washington was NOT a deist ! He declared a
national day of prayer -something a deist ( who
believes in God as an idle spectator ) would have
no reason to do.
The DataRat
michael burt
spam"@this addr.ess> wrote:
> Unless he was also a realistic politician playing to the voters . . .
No, that would be Hitler and Clinton, you can tell from the fruits of
their policies, their morals, and ethics, and the programs that they
advocate, often using deceitful *scientific* data and twisting of
Scripture in the manner of satan.
--
Rick
The DataRat <dat...@home.com> wrote in message news:3740C37A...@home.com...
"Our first 3 presidents were deists."
Washington was NOT a deist ! He declared a
national day of prayer -something a deist ( who
believes in God as an idle spectator ) would have
no reason to do.
The DataRat
Charlie the tuna
michael burt wrote:
>
> In article <7hqoq8$4rt$1...@nusku.cts.com>, Charlie the tuna <"ain't gonna
> spam"@this addr.ess> wrote:
>
> > The DataRat wrote:
> > >
> > > "Our first 3 presidents were deists."
> > >
> > > Washington was NOT a deist ! He declared a
> > > national day of prayer -something a deist ( who
> > > believes in God as an idle spectator ) would have
> > > no reason to do.
> >
> > Unless he was also a realistic politician playing to the voters . . .
>
> No, that would be Hitler and Clinton, you can tell from the fruits of
> their policies, their morals, and ethics, and the programs that they
> advocate, often using deceitful *scientific* data and twisting of
> Scripture in the manner of satan.
Politics is politics, whether you approve of the politician over all or
not.
The rest of the nonsense noted and ignored, no time for logic lesson today.
Cheers!
Charlie the Tuna.
michael burt
<XXXlo...@earthlink.net> wrote:
Not knowing God's Word and believing that one can set up his own morality
and be righteous in his own mind. That is what the trench coat mafia did,
they declared, under the religious belief of diversity, that their truths
and actions were moral and equally acceptable to God's Truth. They did
not know God, but they have now met God before His throne in judgement.
Rick
The DataRat <dat...@home.com> wrote in message news:3741CF90...@home.com...
"GW was a deist. His national day of prayer was for
ANY god that people believed in."
Like Buddha, Allah, or Vishnu ? C'mon, 99% of the
nation was Christian. 80% Calvinist. The "god"
they believed in was the God of the Bible !
"...RESPECT for others beliefs, something that your
writings show you have none of !"
Spare us the trite PoMo all-inclusiveness that you
picked-up off your leftist college professors.
The DataRat
The DataRat
"show me where in the US Constitution it says that
this is a Christian nation."
Show the Genevan Rodent in the U.S. Constitution
where the President can wage war without a declaration
from Congress.
The DataRat
Charlie the tuna
See The Prize Cases 67 U.S. 653 and Mora v. McNamara 389 U.S. 934.
The President has a duty to protect the country from foreign aggression or
domestic insurrection and he cannot wait for legislative action before he
can order appropriate actions.
Thought problem to illustrate: If the President had to wait for a formal
Congressional declaration before he could respond to a nuclear attack, the
all the old Soviet Union would have had to do to win a nuclear exchange
would have been to wait until Congress was out of session. By the time
NORAD could have confirmed an attack and before any attempts to call even a
telephone vote of congress could have happened, the first EMP's would have
destroyed our entire communications network.
Yet launching a nuclear counter attack which would have obliterated the
U.S.S.R. would most certainly have been an act of war.
The action in Yugoslavia, despite the commitment of American forces is not
a U.S. action, but rather one of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization,
under which treaty we are bound to certain responsibilities. And under Law,
a treaty is second in legal authority only to the constitution so we must
honor (legally) our treaty obligations. (who contrived at what behind the
scenes is of no legal significance).
On top of that, the courts have held that the question whether or not we
are "at war" is non-justiciable. I.e., congress has to decide whether or
not we are at war, and then act as it sees fit.
Just ain't no black and white world out there.
Cheers!
Charlie the Tuna
--
leland palmer
not Christians: specifically they were not the Calvinist bigots who
settled Plymouth Rock. The founding personalities were non-believers
whose beliefs were rationalistic and materialistic notions derived from
the Enlightenment. To the extent they were religious at all, they were
not Christian, but Deist. This is why Jefferson looked forward to the
day 'when all the nation might be Unitarian'.
michael burt
wrote:
> This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
>
> ------=_NextPart_000_0018_01BEA20F.07FA35C0
> Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
> show me where in the US Constitution it says that this is a Christian =
> nation. Take your elementary rightist views and reread the bible. I =
> think you missed the point.
Check out every place where virtue, morality, ethincs are mentioned in the
Constitution, the Declaration of Independence and the Federalists papers,
and tell me, what was the defination of virtue, morality, ethincs used by
the Founding Fathers? The definations they used were all from the Gospel
of Jesus Christ. Take you elementary leftist re-imaged views and re-read
the Bible and the Constitution. I think that you missed the point, they
were not using virtue, morality, ethincs as defined by the homosexual or
feminist or humanists religious belief manifestos because they don't work.
Littleton is the proof.
michael burt
<eas...@proaxis.com> wrote:
What planet are you from? You have been reading too much humanist mythology.
michael burt
spam"@this addr.ess> wrote:
> The DataRat wrote:
> >
> > "show me where in the US Constitution it says that
> > this is a Christian nation."
> >
> > Show the Genevan Rodent in the U.S. Constitution
> > where the President can wage war without a declaration
> > from Congress.
>
> See The Prize Cases 67 U.S. 653 and Mora v. McNamara 389 U.S. 934.
>
> The President has a duty to protect the country from foreign aggression or
> domestic insurrection and he cannot wait for legislative action before he
> can order appropriate actions.
Thank goodness Clinton mocked the Constitution and took action against the
aggression of Yugoslavia against the United States to protect us.
>
> Thought problem to illustrate: If the President had to wait for
a formal
> Congressional declaration before he could respond to a nuclear attack, the
> all the old Soviet Union would have had to do to win a nuclear exchange
> would have been to wait until Congress was out of session. By the time
> NORAD could have confirmed an attack and before any attempts to call even a
> telephone vote of congress could have happened, the first EMP's would have
> destroyed our entire communications network.
> Yet launching a nuclear counter attack which would have
obliterated the
> U.S.S.R. would most certainly have been an act of war.
Thank goodness Clinton saved us from nuclear war from Yugoslavia.
>
> The action in Yugoslavia, despite the commitment of American
forces is not
> a U.S. action, but rather one of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization,
> under which treaty we are bound to certain responsibilities. And under Law,
> a treaty is second in legal authority only to the constitution so we must
> honor (legally) our treaty obligations. (who contrived at what behind the
> scenes is of no legal significance).
Thank goodness Clinton used NATO stopped the war of aggression against
NATO nations engaged in by Yugoslavia.
>
> On top of that, the courts have held that the question whether
or not we
> are "at war" is non-justiciable. I.e., congress has to decide whether or
> not we are at war, and then act as it sees fit.
So, since there was no threat of nuclear war, no act of aggression against
the US, no act of aggression against any NATO nation, and therefore no
treaty to respond on the part of either the US or NATO (90% US), why
areen't we trying Clinton for war crimes in the new World Court without
providing him the protection of the Constitution?
Just because he got by with bombing a factory in the Sudan and a trailer
park in Afganistan withouout being tried for war crimes, how many dogs
does he have to wag before justice is served?
>
> Just ain't no black and white world out there.
This is black and white, and a dog wagging, Constitutional mocking,
globalist sham when a draft dodging coward turns into a feminist war
mongerer and agressor.
Charlie the tuna
michael burt wrote:
>
> In article <AzE03.897$ea.9...@nnrp1.ptd.net>, "Rick" <tho...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
> >
> > ------=_NextPart_000_0018_01BEA20F.07FA35C0
> > Content-Type: text/plain;
> > charset="iso-8859-1"
> > Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> >
> > show me where in the US Constitution it says that this is a Christian =
> > nation. Take your elementary rightist views and reread the bible. I =
> > think you missed the point.
>
> Check out every place where virtue, morality, ethincs are mentioned in the
> Constitution, the Declaration of Independence
They're not.
> and the Federalists papers,
Dunno, haven't read them all, and what I read was a long time ago - but
tell ya what, since the copyright is long expired they may be available on
the web.
Why don't you find them and do a word search if they are and get back to
us with a count.
> and tell me, what was the defination of virtue, morality, ethincs used by
> the Founding Fathers?
The first dictionaries were only just then being written, so at a guess,
if they referred to any particular definitions, it was probably of Johnson
(if I recall my history correctly. It's hardly an important enough issue to
rush off and research)
> The definations they used were all from the Gospel
> of Jesus Christ.
Okay, now I know the Bible is on line, so why don't you run off to the
Blue Letter Bible and do the word search and get back to us with some
specific verse references.
> Take you elementary leftist re-imaged views and re-read
> the Bible and the Constitution. I think that you missed the point, they
> were not using virtue, morality, ethincs as defined by the homosexual or
> feminist or humanists religious belief manifestos because they don't work.
There weren't any "humanist religious belief manifestos" back then,
homosexuality was a vice of the upper classes which was known but just not
talked about in England, who knows what the working classes thought of the
matter, if they thought much about it at all. Since it wasn't uncommon in
the least for people to share beds at that time, let alone rooms, it would
have been awfully hard to spot any homosexuals based on lifestyles anyway.
And of course women simply had, with minor differences from place to
place, practically no rights of any kind anyway. Good Christians of course
thought that quite scriptural.
In any event you beg the question of your religion being the source of
ethical norms. Men seemed to behave with a reasonable amount of ethics - at
least as good as "God's chosen people" - everywhere in antiquity, including
such far distant lands as China and Japan who had never heard of Hebrews or
Yahweh or any "commandments".
After Christ, it was over a millennium before most of the world heard
anything about him (assuming, for the sake of argument, there WAS a Jesus
somewhat as the gospels depict him) and they seemed to get along as well as
any of the so called "Christian nations".
For that matter, the legal codes of most European nations was based on the
Code of Justinian which was based on older Roman legal codes which were
based on Roman traditions a heck of a lot older than Christianity. The
English common law relied on Saxon/Angle/Celt traditions which predated
Caesar or Christ and continued to develop independently of Christianity OR
the Roman Legal code down to the present day.
So almost NONE of our legal system can be traced directly to the Bible,
most of its structure predating any current religion or nation.
> Littleton is the proof.
Littleton is proof that bullies shouldn't be bullies, at least when their
victims can get guns.
Cheers!
Charlie the Tuna
Charlie the tuna
michael burt wrote:
>
> In article <7hv7fu$qdf$1...@nusku.cts.com>, Charlie the tuna <"ain't gonna
> spam"@this addr.ess> wrote:
>
> > The DataRat wrote:
> > >
> > > "show me where in the US Constitution it says that
Hmm.
The NATO agreement requires its members to come to the aide of the other
signatories when the organization acts.
Now, do you have the full text of the NATO agreement in front of you as
modified by any later negotiations, so you can locate the part of the
treaty that prohibits any action except in direct response to a direct
attack on a treaty member?
Unless and until you can find that provision, then responding to treaty
obligations -- even if Clinton was the major persuasive force behind NATO
taking the action -- is still a legal obligation of the U.S.
>
> Just because he got by with bombing a factory in the Sudan and a trailer
> park in Afganistan withouout being tried for war crimes, how many dogs
> does he have to wag before justice is served?
The world court does not act in the way you seem to think it does. Even if
it DID try Clinton for war crimes, it has no enforcement authority.
The question of whether the NATO action itself is illegal is a different
one, but there is no agreed upon standard for who to hold liable and for
what and how.
Perhaps there should be more teeth in international law, but until
individual nations are willing to sacrifice some piece of their sovereignty
in the cause of international justice, it ain't gonna happen.
And religious conservatives, Christians in this country in particular,
will fight tooth and nail to prevent any surrender of any sovereignty.
> >
> > Just ain't no black and white world out there.
>
> This is black and white, and a dog wagging, Constitutional mocking,
> globalist sham when a draft dodging coward turns into a feminist war
> mongerer and agressor.
Talk to your congressmen and Senators. They're the only ones who can do
anything -- under the Constitution.
Charlie the tuna
michael burt wrote:
<snip>
>
>. . . feminist war mongerer . . .
Hm.
I sense a certain hostility toward "feminism" in your recent posts (unless
you just use it as a non-specific verbal intensifier or as a trigger word
in an Ad Populum).
Which right do you think women ought to give up?
The vote? The right to own property in their own name? The right to work
outside the home? The right to say "no" to their husbands regarding sexual
intimacy?
Which ones?
Tony W. Frye
> It is the flawed utopias of Karl Marx's socialism and globalism that led
> to the holocaust of 100 million Christians and Jews in the USSR and the
> concepts of Darwin and evolution which led to the Nazi holocaust of 6
> million Christians and Jews, and it is the separation of God that has led
> to the murders of Littleton.
First, the USSR didn't kill 100 million Christians and Jews. The only place I've seen this number is from the Black Book of Communism, which claims
the 100 million casualty from Communism in the 20th century, the majority of which died through starvation in China (not exactly a bastion of
Christianity and Judaism). Also, it was 6 million Jews who were killed, not 6 million Jews and Christians victimized by the Holocaust, and they were
killed in part because of the anti-Semitic tradition in Europe created by a Christian environment that damned Jews as Christ-killers. Before the
Nazis, there was the 11th century Catholic Church issuing an edict to force Jews to wear distinctive clothing, so god-fearing Christians would be able
to see and avoid them in public.
Insofar as Darwin is concerned, at least I don't have to explain how the world is only 6,000 years old because the literal interpretation of the Bible
tells me so, even though it's quite obvious we've been here for millions of years before. You'll apply scientific criticism of Darwinism, and yet I'm
supposed to take it as a matter of faith that some dead guy rose from the grave 2,000 years ago?
As for godlessness leading to Littleton, I would say the US is the most religious and violent country in the industrialized world. Europe is much more
secular, where drugs and prostitution is legal, nudity and sexual attitudes more liberal, and they have much less violence. I would say the more
superstitious, the more violent. Just try being a woman in Afghanistan or medieval Europe. That's religion, imaginary faith as reality.
> Above all, the pure light of revelation has had an influence on mankind,
> and increased the blessings of society. It is impossible to rightly govern
> the world without God and the Bible.
Sweden seems to be doing pretty good, and they don't even have the violence we have here. No abortion clinic bombings, no fundamentalist crazies from
the Army of God blowing up gay bars, no half-literate militiamen who believe the Second Coming has arrived because they can't own machine guns. It is
only possible to rightly govern the world without God and Bible, to make sure ideologues don't pollute the environment and turn society into a
damnation rally.
> Character Counts. It is not hypocritical to set a high goal and occasionally fail. It is hypocritical to set a low goal and occasionally succeed.
By that count, God is a mass murderer for flooding the earth, threatening us with eternal damnation for not liking his son, and yet telling us how much
he cares and loves his little creations.
michael burt
spam"@this addr.ess> wrote:
> michael burt wrote:
> <snip>
> >
> >. . . feminist war mongerer . . .
>
>
> Hm.
>
> I sense a certain hostility toward "feminism" in your recent posts (unless
> you just use it as a non-specific verbal intensifier or as a trigger word
> in an Ad Populum).
>
> Which right do you think women ought to give up?
I don't have any difficulties with woman's rights not does what I said
have anything to do with women's rights such as I am committed to with
Concerned Women of America (they oppose the 60% lesbian NOW's positions as
not in the interests of women), feminist *rights* have little to nothing
to do with women's issues. Gragalia in Domestic Tranquility, a Brief
against femninsm clearly shows how beneath the hatred of men, the real
hatred of feminist is victemizing women and children. There are more men
who are feminists than there are women.
>
> The vote?
A man and a woman in marriage are one flesh.
The right to own property in their own name?
So who did all of the women in American always have to give away the
property of their one flesh when their husbands died since you don't think
they could keep it. Women have always been wealthy Americans owning their
own property.
The right to work
> outside the home?
Where in the Constitution are they denied this right? Are you saying the
Betsy Ross was a criminal?
The right to say "no" to their husbands regarding sexual
> intimacy?
Where does it say in Scripture or in the Constitution that women go to
jail for having a headache?
>
> Which ones?
You haven't come up with any so far.
You have been listening to too many feminist mythologies.
--
May God Bless You,
Michael
Character Counts. It is not hypocritical to set a high goal and occasionally fail. It is hypocritical to set a low goal and occasionally succeed.
michael burt
spam"@this addr.ess> wrote:
> michael burt wrote:
> >
> > In article <7hv7fu$qdf$1...@nusku.cts.com>, Charlie the tuna <"ain't gonna
> > spam"@this addr.ess> wrote:
> >
Yes, when one soverign nation strikes against another soverign nation
within NATO. So when did Yugoslavia do this?
>
> Now, do you have the full text of the NATO agreement in front of
you as
> modified by any later negotiations, so you can locate the part of the
> treaty that prohibits any action except in direct response to a direct
> attack on a treaty member?
Maybe you have it in front of you, can you locate where it provides for
any action not in direct response to a direct attack on a treaty member?
If you read the 1st Amendment the same way you are reading the NATO
charter, you would personally place the 10 commandments in your local
school.
>
> Unless and until you can find that provision, then responding to
treaty
> obligations -- even if Clinton was the major persuasive force behind NATO
> taking the action -- is still a legal obligation of the U.S.
No, unless you can find the specific treaty obligation for NATO to become
involved in a civil war, your assertion is simply not true.
>
> >
> > Just because he got by with bombing a factory in the Sudan and a trailer
> > park in Afganistan withouout being tried for war crimes, how many dogs
> > does he have to wag before justice is served?
>
> The world court does not act in the way you seem to think it
does. Even if
> it DID try Clinton for war crimes, it has no enforcement authority.
Yeah right, then tell Madelyn Albright to stop using Kosovo to implement
the next step in the Kosovo agenda.
>
> The question of whether the NATO action itself is illegal is a
different
> one, but there is no agreed upon standard for who to hold liable and for
> what and how.
You probably read the Scripture the same way.
>
> Perhaps there should be more teeth in international law, but until
> individual nations are willing to sacrifice some piece of their sovereignty
> in the cause of international justice, it ain't gonna happen.
Yeah right, hopefully you will be right, for the godless charter of the UN
or similar global hate group sounds like hell on earth to exceed even the
holocaust of 100 million Christians and Jews in the soviet utopia.
>
> And religious conservatives, Christians in this country in particular,
> will fight tooth and nail to prevent any surrender of any sovereignty.
To give up the Constitution would be like spitting on the graves of the
Christian men who gave up their lives for you to demean their memory.
>
> > >
> > > Just ain't no black and white world out there.
> >
> > This is black and white, and a dog wagging, Constitutional mocking,
> > globalist sham when a draft dodging coward turns into a feminist war
> > mongerer and agressor.
>
> Talk to your congressmen and Senators. They're the only ones who
can do
> anything -- under the Constitution.
Some fear that the Council on Foreign Relations et al now has both the
Senate and the Executive Branch under dictatorship.
Not true, soverignity of American lies in its people, not their
government. That is why the globalists hate both Christinity and the
Constitution based upon the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
We are to give unto Ceasar's what is Ceasar's. Unfortunately, Ceasar is
taking more than his due, even at the current time. American's freedom
comes from the Creator, government can only limit freedom by passing laws
by the consent of the people. They are not doing a very good job, these
days.
michael burt
spam"@this addr.ess> wrote:
> michael burt wrote:
> >
> > In article <AzE03.897$ea.9...@nnrp1.ptd.net>, "Rick" <tho...@hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
> > >
> > > ------=_NextPart_000_0018_01BEA20F.07FA35C0
> > > Content-Type: text/plain;
> > > charset="iso-8859-1"
> > > Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> > >
> > > show me where in the US Constitution it says that this is a Christian =
> > > nation. Take your elementary rightist views and reread the bible. I =
> > > think you missed the point.
> >
> > Check out every place where virtue, morality, ethincs are mentioned in the
> > Constitution, the Declaration of Independence
>
> They're not.
>
> > and the Federalists papers,
>
> Dunno, haven't read them all, and what I read was a long time
ago - but
> tell ya what, since the copyright is long expired they may be available on
> the web.
>
> Why don't you find them and do a word search if they are and get
back to
> us with a count.
>
> > and tell me, what was the defination of virtue, morality, ethincs used by
> > the Founding Fathers?
As Christians, they assumed that all Americans would know. If you don't,
they are in Scripture and you can look them up for yourself. you may
learn something..
>
> The first dictionaries were only just then being written, so at
a guess,
> if they referred to any particular definitions, it was probably of Johnson
> (if I recall my history correctly. It's hardly an important enough issue to
> rush off and research)
>
> > The definations they used were all from the Gospel
> > of Jesus Christ.
>
> Okay, now I know the Bible is on line, so why don't you run off to the
> Blue Letter Bible and do the word search and get back to us with some
> specific verse references.
Why don't you take my earlier suggestion. I would have to post the entire
context of the Scripture. Since you are asserting the null hypothesis,
the proof falls on your shoulder.
>
> > Take you elementary leftist re-imaged views and re-read
> > the Bible and the Constitution. I think that you missed the point, they
> > were not using virtue, morality, ethincs as defined by the homosexual or
> > feminist or humanists religious belief manifestos because they don't work.
>
> There weren't any "humanist religious belief manifestos" back then,
> homosexuality was a vice of the upper classes which was known but just not
> talked about in England, who knows what the working classes thought of the
> matter, if they thought much about it at all. Since it wasn't uncommon in
> the least for people to share beds at that time, let alone rooms, it would
> have been awfully hard to spot any homosexuals based on lifestyles anyway.
> And of course women simply had, with minor differences from place to
> place, practically no rights of any kind anyway. Good Christians of course
> thought that quite scriptural.
Your misrepresentation of Scripture regarding women is hatefully anti-male
sexist and anti-Christ. Scripture does not support your assertions.
These are the anti[-male mantras of the hateful homosexuality-feminist
religious beliefs which states in one of the homosexual manifestos:
***It is because of the patriarchal family that reforms are not enough.
Freedom for gay people will never be permanently won until everyone is
freed from sexist role-playing and the straightjacket of sexist rules
about our sexuality. And we will not be freed from these so long as each
succeeding generation is brought up in the same old sexist way in the
Patriarchal family.
That is why any reforms we might painfully exact from our rulers would
only be fragile and vulnerable; that is why we, along with the women's
movement, must fight for something more than reform. We must aim at the
abolition of the family, so that the sexist, male supremacist system can
no longer be nurtured there.***
In order for the mythological evil sexist male supremacist system to
exist, Christian men would have had to victemize and oppresse their
mothers, daughters, and wives. History does not support such a
re-imagiing that the mantra is intended to re-image.
..
>
> In any event you beg the question of your religion being the source of
> ethical norms. Men seemed to behave with a reasonable amount of ethics - at
> least as good as "God's chosen people" - everywhere in antiquity, including
> such far distant lands as China and Japan who had never heard of Hebrews or
> Yahweh or any "commandments".
Yeah right, like slavery that continues in China to this day, and the
ethnic cleansing of Christians in China for being Christian. Or the denial
to anyone to become Japanese citizens who are not Japanesse. Or like
killing infant girls for being girls. And the discrimination of Japanese
Ainu and between almost all regions of China, the tyranny of Tibet, the
fear that required the Great Wall to be built. Real civility in your
examples.
> After Christ, it was over a millennium before most of the world heard
> anything about him (assuming, for the sake of argument, there WAS a Jesus
> somewhat as the gospels depict him) and they seemed to get along as well as
> any of the so called "Christian nations".
More athiestic mythology.
>
> For that matter, the legal codes of most European nations was
based on the
> Code of Justinian which was based on older Roman legal codes which were
> based on Roman traditions a heck of a lot older than Christianity. The
> English common law relied on Saxon/Angle/Celt traditions which predated
> Caesar or Christ and continued to develop independently of Christianity OR
> the Roman Legal code down to the present day.
Some believe that the English are descended from Isreal, Roman Law is
based upon the Dispensations conscience and Dispensation of Human
government given to the Hebrew by God and handed down by Abraham.
Chrisitity starts in Genesis 1:1, not Matthew 1:1.
>
> So almost NONE of our legal system can be traced directly to the
Bible,
> most of its structure predating any current religion or nation.
Actually, all of our legal system can be traced directly to God, as
confirmed by the Scripture.
>
> > Littleton is the proof.
>
> Littleton is proof that bullies shouldn't be bullies, at least
when their
> victims can get guns.
Littleton is proof that people need to grow up and replace the barriers
they have so happily torn down. Or haven't you heard, murder is wrong, no
matter how much someone hurts your feelings. Of course that is a
Christian concept no longer taught in the enslavement of the public school
system to athiestic humanist mythology as the de facto state religion.
Christian American culture needs to stop allowing the culture to become
dysfunctional so that the dysfunctional feel at home and stop murdering
innocent people. It is too bad that bullies are so coddled allowing them
to think that they are righteous in their choice to express their
dysfunctional truth that murder is OK by them. It is too bad that the
principle of Littleton did not have access to gun to limit the carnage as
did the principle in Pearl.
You seem to feel sorry for these murdering monsters of Littleton, satan's
own. No one is at fault for their choice to murder except for the ones
making the choice.
Charlie the tuna
Here's a couple of URL's for you:
http://www.fas.org/man/nato/natodocs/
from http://www.fas.org/man/nato/natodocs/99042450.htm at that page:
-- New Missions: The Concept calls for improvements in NATO's capability
to undertake new missions to respond to a broad spectrum
of possible
threats to Alliance common interests, including:
regional conflicts, such as
in Kosovo and Bosnia; the proliferation of weapons of
mass destruction
and their means of delivery; and transnational threats
like terrorism.
See that part about Kosovo, by name?
> If you read the 1st Amendment the same way you are reading the NATO
> charter, you would personally place the 10 commandments in your local
> school.
Nope.
> >
> > Unless and until you can find that provision, then responding to
> treaty
> > obligations -- even if Clinton was the major persuasive force behind NATO
> > taking the action -- is still a legal obligation of the U.S.
>
> No, unless you can find the specific treaty obligation for NATO to become
> involved in a civil war, your assertion is simply not true.
See above. As close as I'm taking the time to do your homework for you.
> >
> > >
> > > Just because he got by with bombing a factory in the Sudan and a trailer
> > > park in Afganistan withouout being tried for war crimes, how many dogs
> > > does he have to wag before justice is served?
> >
> > The world court does not act in the way you seem to think it
> does. Even if
> > it DID try Clinton for war crimes, it has no enforcement authority.
>
> Yeah right, then tell Madelyn Albright to stop using Kosovo to implement
> the next step in the Kosovo agenda.
"Stop using Kosovo to implement the next step in the Kosovo agenda".
1. Try doing at least a little proofreading before you hit the send
button.
2. Are you really as overall naive as all this is making you appear?
Of course if we can get the world court to legitimze the operation (not
likely, it's very likely illegal under international law), it would be
politically expediant.
> >
> > The question of whether the NATO action itself is illegal is a
> different
> > one, but there is no agreed upon standard for who to hold liable and for
> > what and how.
>
> You probably read the Scripture the same way.
Non-sequitor, Ad Populum.
> >
> > Perhaps there should be more teeth in international law, but until
> > individual nations are willing to sacrifice some piece of their sovereignty
> > in the cause of international justice, it ain't gonna happen.
>
> Yeah right, hopefully you will be right, for the godless charter of the UN
> or similar global hate group sounds like hell on earth to exceed even the
> holocaust of 100 million Christians and Jews in the soviet utopia.
> >
> > And religious conservatives, Christians in this country in particular,
> > will fight tooth and nail to prevent any surrender of any sovereignty.
>
> To give up the Constitution would be like spitting on the graves of the
> Christian men who gave up their lives for you to demean their memory.
QED.
Then don't bitch that the world court isn't doing what it can't do what
you obviously don't want it to be able to do in the first place.
> >
> > > >
> > > > Just ain't no black and white world out there.
> > >
> > > This is black and white, and a dog wagging, Constitutional mocking,
> > > globalist sham when a draft dodging coward turns into a feminist war
> > > mongerer and agressor.
> >
> > Talk to your congressmen and Senators. They're the only ones who
> can do
> > anything -- under the Constitution.
>
> Some fear that the Council on Foreign Relations et al now has both the
> Senate and the Executive Branch under dictatorship.
Conspiracy theories and fundamentalists . . .
>
> Not true, soverignity of American lies in its people, not their
> government. That is why the globalists hate both Christinity and the
> Constitution based upon the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Good grief.
Most, if not all, of the members of Congress are Christian of one
denomination or the other.
Of course, they're not members of YOUR particular fundy sect, so I guess
they'er not "true" Christians, but then the vast majority of Amercans are
not and have never been so in that case - which kind of interferes with
such analysis as you do attempt.
Do you have any idea who YOUR congressman and Senators are? What they
believe, how they vote?
>
> We are to give unto Ceasar's what is Ceasar's. Unfortunately, Ceasar is
> taking more than his due, even at the current time. American's freedom
> comes from the Creator, government can only limit freedom by passing laws
> by the consent of the people. They are not doing a very good job, these
> days.
Which has nothing to do with anything being discussed.
Charlie the tuna
michael burt wrote:
<snip>
>
> Your misrepresentation of Scripture regarding women is hatefully anti-male
> sexist and anti-Christ. Scripture does not support your assertions.
> These are the anti[-male mantras of the hateful homosexuality-feminist
> religious beliefs which states in one of the homosexual manifestos:
Buh bye Mike, I don't have time to waste on outright nut cases.
Cheers!
Charlie the Tuna.
Charlie the tuna
michael burt wrote:
>
> In article <7hvcff$4rc$1...@nusku.cts.com>, Charlie the tuna <"ain't gonna
> spam"@this addr.ess> wrote:
>
> > michael burt wrote:
> > <snip>
> > >
> > >. . . feminist war mongerer . . .
> >
> >
> > Hm.
> >
> > I sense a certain hostility toward "feminism" in your recent posts (unless
> > you just use it as a non-specific verbal intensifier or as a trigger word
> > in an Ad Populum).
> >
> > Which right do you think women ought to give up?
>
> I don't have any difficulties with woman's rights not does what I said
> have anything to do with women's rights such as I am committed to with
> Concerned Women of America (they oppose the 60% lesbian NOW's positions as
> not in the interests of women), feminist *rights* have little to nothing
> to do with women's issues. Gragalia in Domestic Tranquility, a Brief
> against femninsm clearly shows how beneath the hatred of men, the real
> hatred of feminist is victemizing women and children. There are more men
> who are feminists than there are women.
> >
> > The vote?
>
> A man and a woman in marriage are one flesh.
Non-responsive to the question.
>
> The right to own property in their own name?
>
> So who did all of the women in American always have to give away the
> property of their one flesh when their husbands died since you don't think
> they could keep it.
Varied. Sometimes they could keep it, but they couldn't sell it, sometimes
the law made other provisions. Almost never could they buy any,
particularly if they were married.
Their husbands could buy and sell -- bu not their wives, and if the wife
had any property before marriage, she lost control after marriage.
> Women have always been wealthy Americans owning their
> own property.
Sure.
>
> The right to work
> > outside the home?
>
> Where in the Constitution are they denied this right? Are you saying the
> Betsy Ross was a criminal?
>
> The right to say "no" to their husbands regarding sexual
> > intimacy?
>
> Where does it say in Scripture or in the Constitution that women go to
> jail for having a headache?
The requirement to "render up the marriage debt" was part of the law of
South Carolina, at least, until the late 1970,s. If not a crime, it was a
breach for which a divorce could be granted, and since the woman would have
been at fault then, she would have lost all of any property she might have
had - if she had any.
Just as importantly, such a law functioned as an absolute shield against
spousal rape -- since she had no right to refuse sex, her husband could use
whatever force necessary to enforce his marriage "rights" if he didn't want
to divorce.
> >
> > Which ones?
>
> You haven't come up with any so far.
>
> You have been listening to too many feminist mythologies.
<yawn>
No, I'm literate, you're obviously a nut case.
Buh bye, don't forge to take your medications.
Cheers!
Charlie the Tuna
OrlandoFlorida
>
>
> "show me where in the US Constitution it says that
>
>
> Show the Genevan Rodent in the U.S. Constitution
> where the President can wage war without a declaration
> from Congress.
>
>
The purpose of the Constitution is to delegate powers to
the Federal Government. Thus, when considering the
powers of the President, Congress, and Supreme Court,
unless the power is enumerated (delegated), it does not
exist. But in regard to the people, such as their religious
creed, the Constitution is silent, aside from guaranteeing
freedom, such as the free exercise of religion. That the
United States was a Christian nation - founded by
Christians and upon Christian ideals of liberty - is undeniable.
This, in fact, is the reason why Amendment One guarantees
the freedom of religion - to prohibit government from
suppressing or oppressing our freedom to worship God.
OrlandoFlorida
news:7hv7fu$qdf$1...@nusku.cts.com...
>
>
> The DataRat wrote:
> >
> > "show me where in the US Constitution it says that
> > this is a Christian nation."
> >
> > Show the Genevan Rodent in the U.S. Constitution
> > where the President can wage war without a declaration
> > from Congress.
>
In the Prize Cases, the Supreme Court basically stated that
the issue of constitutionally was immaterial, but merely noted
that a war did in fact exist.
> The President has a duty to protect the country from foreign aggression or
> domestic insurrection and he cannot wait for legislative action before he
> can order appropriate actions.
None of the undeclared wars in our history bear any resemblance to the
scenario you have stated. North Korea did not attack the United States.
The Viet Cong did not invade America (unless you consider the hippies
Viet Cong in spirit). And Yugoslavia did not bomb us, forcing the President
to defend our people.
> Thought problem to illustrate: If the President had to wait for a formal
> Congressional declaration before he could respond to a nuclear attack, the
> all the old Soviet Union would have had to do to win a nuclear exchange
> would have been to wait until Congress was out of session. By the time
> NORAD could have confirmed an attack and before any attempts to call even
a
> telephone vote of congress could have happened, the first EMP's would
have
> destroyed our entire communications network.
> Yet launching a nuclear counter attack which would have obliterated the
> U.S.S.R. would most certainly have been an act of war.
An interesting scenario, yet it explains nothing. No undeclared war
ever resulted from the situation you have described.
> The action in Yugoslavia, despite the commitment of American forces is not
> a U.S. action, but rather one of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization,
> under which treaty we are bound to certain responsibilities. And under
Law,
> a treaty is second in legal authority only to the constitution so we must
> honor (legally) our treaty obligations. (who contrived at what behind the
> scenes is of no legal significance).
Treaties are indeed a part of the Supreme Law of the Land, but only
if they are constitutional. In similar fashion, the laws of Congress are
declared by the Constitution to be the supreme law of the land, but
only if those laws are made in pursuance of the Constitution. Laws and
treaties not made in pursuance of the Constitution are unconstitutional.
Can a treaty that surrenders control of U.S. forces to a foreign power
be considered constitutional? Not in my judgment! Such a treaty would
subvert the very foundations of our constitutional system, by transferring
control over American forces to powers not responsible to the American
people.
> On top of that, the courts have held that the question whether or not we
> are "at war" is non-justiciable. I.e., congress has to decide whether or
> not we are at war, and then act as it sees fit.
>
> Just ain't no black and white world out there.
But the words of the Constitution are quite clear. And let us not forget
the crowning jewel of the Bill of Rights:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,
nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively,
or to the people."
And finally, let us remember the wisdom imparted by Thomas Jefferson:
"Our peculiar security is in the possession of a written Constitution.
Let us not make it a blank paper by construction."
"In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in
man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution."
OrlandoFlorida
>
> Which right do you think women ought to give up?
The "right" to be men!
Charlie the tuna
OrlandoFlorida wrote:
>
> Charlie the tuna <"ain't gonna spam"@this addr.ess> wrote in message
> news:7hv7fu$qdf$1...@nusku.cts.com...
> >
> >
> > The DataRat wrote:
> > >
> > > "show me where in the US Constitution it says that
> > > this is a Christian nation."
> > >
> > > Show the Genevan Rodent in the U.S. Constitution
> > > where the President can wage war without a declaration
> > > from Congress.
> >
> > See The Prize Cases 67 U.S. 653 and Mora v. McNamara 389 U.S. 934.
>
> In the Prize Cases, the Supreme Court basically stated that
> the issue of constitutionally was immaterial, but merely noted
> that a war did in fact exist.
<sigh>
I guess I'll have to do a bit of typing . . .
"By the Constitution, congress alone as the power to declare a national or
foreign war. It cannot declare war against a State or any number of States,
by virtue of any clause in the constitution. The Constitution confers on
the President the whole executive power. He is bound to take care that the
laws be faithfully executed. He is Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy
of the United States, and of the militia of the several States when called
into the actual service of the United States. He has no power to initiate
or declare war either against a foreign nation or a domestic State. But by
the acts of congress of Feb. 28th, 1795 and 3d of March, 1807, he is
authorized to call out the militia and use the military and naval forces of
the United states in case of invasion by foreign nations, and to suppress
insurrection against the government of a State or of the United States.
"If a war be made by invasion of a foreign nation, the President is not
only authorized but bound to resist force, by force. He does not initiate
the war, but is bound to accept the challenge without waiting for any
special legislative authority. . ."
--The Prize Cases 67 U.S. 653--
There is more nuance to the decision, but it is dicta, and what is clear
is the recognition that there will be cases where the President will have
to act, with force, without prior Congressional approval.
>
> > The President has a duty to protect the country from foreign aggression or
> > domestic insurrection and he cannot wait for legislative action before he
> > can order appropriate actions.
>
> None of the undeclared wars in our history bear any resemblance to the
> scenario you have stated. North Korea did not attack the United States.
> The Viet Cong did not invade America (unless you consider the hippies
> Viet Cong in spirit). And Yugoslavia did not bomb us, forcing the President
> to defend our people.
>
> > Thought problem to illustrate: If the President had to wait for a formal
> > Congressional declaration before he could respond to a nuclear attack, the
> > all the old Soviet Union would have had to do to win a nuclear exchange
> > would have been to wait until Congress was out of session. By the time
> > NORAD could have confirmed an attack and before any attempts to call even
> a
> > telephone vote of congress could have happened, the first EMP's would
> have
> > destroyed our entire communications network.
> > Yet launching a nuclear counter attack which would have obliterated the
> > U.S.S.R. would most certainly have been an act of war.
>
> An interesting scenario, yet it explains nothing. No undeclared war
> ever resulted from the situation you have described.
The thought experiment was to help clarify the problems involved by
painting the most extreme scenario I could think of.
If the President could not order the counter strike without prior
congressional approval -- and that had been accepted as the law of the
land, then WHAT could have prevented the Soviets from launching a
pre-emptive strike?
Nothing.
And as we well know there was (still is so far as I know) a military
attaché with the necessary release codes shadowing the president everywhere
he went(goes) just so he could(can) act immediately -- without prior
Congressional approval.
Korea et. al. become differences of degree.
Different people will perceive the proper line to be at different points.
And just where that line should be is a political question -- which is why
it is considered non-justiciable by the Federal courts.
The judge is reluctant to second guess the executive. If Congress doesn't
want the action to proceed, they can take such action as they see fit.
>
> > The action in Yugoslavia, despite the commitment of American forces is not
> > a U.S. action, but rather one of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization,
> > under which treaty we are bound to certain responsibilities. And under
> Law,
> > a treaty is second in legal authority only to the constitution so we must
> > honor (legally) our treaty obligations. (who contrived at what behind the
> > scenes is of no legal significance).
>
> Treaties are indeed a part of the Supreme Law of the Land, but only
> if they are constitutional.
Well, so far no one has challenged the Constitutionality of the NATO
treaty, so at best its conjectural that any part is "unconstitutional".
> In similar fashion, the laws of Congress are
> declared by the Constitution to be the supreme law of the land, but
> only if those laws are made in pursuance of the Constitution. Laws and
> treaties not made in pursuance of the Constitution are unconstitutional.
> Can a treaty that surrenders control of U.S. forces to a foreign power
> be considered constitutional? Not in my judgment!
Well, that's YOUR judgment. In fact of course, some portions of U.S.
forces have been "controlled" by "foreign" governments for, various periods
of time, since at least the first World War. Occasional challenges by
individual service members have been found without merit.
> Such a treaty would
> subvert the very foundations of our constitutional system, by transferring
> control over American forces to powers not responsible to the American
> people.
Get over it. It's happened in the past, and still happens, and will
continue to happen - particularly where we don't wish to be acting
unilaterally.
>
> > On top of that, the courts have held that the question whether or not we
> > are "at war" is non-justiciable. I.e., congress has to decide whether or
> > not we are at war, and then act as it sees fit.
> >
> > Just ain't no black and white world out there.
>
> But the words of the Constitution are quite clear.
Think so eh.
I guess that clarity explains why the Constitutional law case book is so
much larger (over 1700 pages) than any other that I have.
Sorry, but it just ain't so.
"The executive Power" is vested in the President. Just what does that
mean? He takes an oath or affirmation that he "will faithfully execute the
Office of President of the United States".
How does he do that - execute the office of President of the United
States?
If you see any detailed instructions in Article II, please clue us all in.
> And let us not forget
> the crowning jewel of the Bill of Rights:
>
> "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,
> nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively,
> or to the people."
>
> And finally, let us remember the wisdom imparted by Thomas Jefferson:
>
> "Our peculiar security is in the possession of a written Constitution.
> Let us not make it a blank paper by construction."
>
> "In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in
> man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution."
But the federal government must have all the powers necessary to fulfill
its duties.
However, just what that might encompass isn't spelled out in detail.
Let's take a look at McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819), where the
State of Maryland was challenging the authority of a branch of the Bank of
the United States, a bank incorporated by the Federal Government, to issue
bank notes without using the appropriate state approved paper and paying
the accompanying tax;
"Among the enumerated powers, we do not find that of establishing a bank
or creating a corporation. But there is no phrase in the instrument which,
like the articles of confederation, excludes incidental or implied powers,
and which requires that everything granted shall be expressly and minutely
described. Even the 10th Amendment, which was framed for the purpose of
quieting the excessive jealousies which had been excited, omits the word
"expressly," and declares only that the powers "not delegated to the United
States, nor prohibited to the states, are reserved to the states or to the
people;" thus leaving the question, whether the particular power which may
become the subject of contest has been delegated to the one government, or
prohibited to the other, to depend on a fair construction of the whole
instrument. The men who drew and adopted this amendment had experienced the
embarrassments resulting from the insertion of this word in the articles of
confederation, and probably omitted it to avoid those embarrassments. A
constitution, to contain n accurate detail of all the subdivisions of which
its great powers will admit, and of all the means by which they may be
carried into execution, would partake of a prolixity of a legal code, and
could scarcely be embraced by the human mind. It would probably never be
understood by the public. Its nature, therefore, requires, that only its
great outlines should be marked, its important objects designated, and the
minor ingredients which compose those objects be deduced from the nature of
the objects themselves. That this idea was entertained by the framers of
the American constitution, is not only to be inferred from the nature of
the instrument but from the language. Why else were some of the
limitations, found in the ninth section of the 1st article, introduced? It
is also, in some degree, warranted by their having omitted to use any
restrictive term which might prevent its receiving a fair and just
interpretation. In considering this question, then, we must never forget
that it is a constitution we are expounding."
Somewhat less pithy than your quote from Jefferson -- but it is the law of
the land still.
Charlie the tuna
Ben Hopkins wrote:
>
> Charlie the tuna wrote:
> >
> > The DataRat wrote:
> > >
> > > "show me where in the US Constitution it says that
> > > this is a Christian nation."
> > >
> > > Show the Genevan Rodent in the U.S. Constitution
> > > where the President can wage war without a declaration
> > > from Congress.
> >
> > See The Prize Cases 67 U.S. 653 and Mora v. McNamara 389 U.S. 934.
> >
> > The President has a duty to protect the country from foreign aggression or
> > domestic insurrection and he cannot wait for legislative action before he
> >
> > --------- legal mumbo-jumbo waffle snipped
> >
> > Just ain't no black and white world out there.
> >
> > Cheers!
>
> The world *is* black and white, but it is in the interests
> of those who want to get away from that and establish man's
> authority in the place of God's. That's what the serpent did
> with Eve in Eden, that's what Cain did (question God's requirments),
> that's what sinful men have been doing ever since.
</sarcasm on>
My, the incisiveness of your reasoning and the comprehensives of your
evidence leaves me just overwhelmed.
</sarcasm off>
Charlie the tuna
OrlandoFlorida wrote:
>
> Charlie the tuna <"ain't gonna spam"@this addr.ess> wrote in message
> news:7hvcff$4rc$1...@nusku.cts.com...
> >
> > Which right do you think women ought to give up?
>
> The "right" to be men!
Define "men". Is that cultural "men", biological "men", is that the legal
rights society used to reserve for those who were biological men, what?
leland palmer
historical foundations of this country. The country was founded - that
is, was given its core governmental principles - by Deists who were the
intellectual descendants of the Enlightenment. These rationalists who
eschewed traditional Christian doctrines believed in the unaided power
of human reason as the means of founding polities and policies.
Horrified by the repetition of European Christian religious persecution
on America's shores by such groups as the renegade 'Pilgrims', the
founding personalities wisely divorced state from religion. This was
not in order that religion be allowed to flourish unmolested by the
state, but in order that the nation not be fractured by new wars of
religion, and in order that the state would never again be a pawn of
organized religion. The infantile myth that America was always a
Christian nation, founded by God-fearing stalwart righteous Christian
souls, is a product of vapid and shallow conservativism, not responsible
historical research.
Gerry Palo
michael burt <mike...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>In article <37432497...@proaxis.com>, leland palmer
><eas...@proaxis.com> wrote:
>
>> The nation has never been Christian. The founding personalities were
>> not Christians: specifically they were not the Calvinist bigots who
>> settled Plymouth Rock. The founding personalities were non-believers
>> whose beliefs were rationalistic and materialistic notions derived from
>> the Enlightenment. To the extent they were religious at all, they were
>> not Christian, but Deist. This is why Jefferson looked forward to the
>> day 'when all the nation might be Unitarian'.
>
>What planet are you from? You have been reading too much humanist mythology.
His history is a bit limited, but the myth that the country was created
by the founders and that they were not Christian but Deist is very
widespread. People who get most of their information from the Internet
can be forgiven for repeating what they read. This myth is also promoted
at universities, mostly by non-historians, however, so it is understandable.
What the "deist founders" fairy tail fails to understand is that our
country did not start with the Declaration of Independence and the
Constitution. Those documents and their authors mark the independence of
the country and an important stage in the development of its political
institutions and the formal establishment of its basis for political
unity. But by that time the nation had been around for over 140 years,
and its cultural and social life was permeated in every aspect with the
widest range of religious expression, from the Puritans in New England to
the Catholics in Maryland and the Quakers in Pennsylvania and New Jersey,
and many other streams in between. There were Reformed, Lutheran,
Calvinist, and Unitarians, and the beginnings of Congregationalism and
many others, and they all wove together to create the spiritual fabric out
of which the nation arose. The Founders did the nation a service by
separating this rich spiritual-cultural life from the government, but they
did not create the nation. There were many Deists and also Freemasons
(the deist-mythologists neve mention that there were more Masons among the
founders than Deists). And of course, the whole idea of the separation
was to ensure that the religious life would prosper and thrive in a
political environment free from the heavy weight of an Established
Church. But the deist-mythologists have their agenda, and they are
selective in their definitions, so they repeat the same story over and
over. Children like to hear the same story told again and again, and
this is how they reinforce the myth.
--
----------------------------------------------------------
Gerry Palo Denver, Colorado
pa...@netcom.com
Ben Hopkins
Ben Hopkins
>
> In article <37432497...@proaxis.com>, leland palmer
> <eas...@proaxis.com> wrote:
>
> > The nation has never been Christian. The founding personalities were
> > not Christians: specifically they were not the Calvinist bigots who
> > settled Plymouth Rock. The founding personalities were non-believers
> > whose beliefs were rationalistic and materialistic notions derived from
> > the Enlightenment. To the extent they were religious at all, they were
> > not Christian, but Deist. This is why Jefferson looked forward to the
> > day 'when all the nation might be Unitarian'.
>
> What planet are you from? You have been reading too much humanist mythology.
The simple reason that any nation cannot be 'Christian' is that a
nation cannot be the object of Christ's atonement, a nation cannot
repent, a nation cannot believe, a nation cannot die and go to heaven
(or hell). Only individuals can do that (or have that done for them,
more accurately).
Eric Sneddon
The War Powers Act of 1973
--
Eric
;¬]
And Sharkey says: Hey Kemosabe! Long time no see.
He says: Hey sport. You connect the dots. You pick up the pieces.
Sharkey's Night, Laurie Anderson
michael burt
spam"@this addr.ess> wrote:
> OrlandoFlorida wrote:
> >
> > Charlie the tuna <"ain't gonna spam"@this addr.ess> wrote in message
> > news:7hvcff$4rc$1...@nusku.cts.com...
> > >
> > > Which right do you think women ought to give up?
> >
> > The "right" to be men!
>
> Define "men". Is that cultural "men", biological "men", is that the legal
> rights society used to reserve for those who were biological men, what?
>
Since we have a fatherhood crisis in the country, I think that women
should give up the right to cencor men. When you train boys to be parents
rather than fathers and to be people rather than to be men, how can anyone
be surprised when a fatherhood crisis occurs. It is the fruits of their
own efforts.
Men and women are not the same, in case no one noticed.
michael burt
<eas...@proaxis.com> wrote:
I don't believe you.
The first and almost the only book deserving of universal attention is the
Bible.
John Quincy Adams
Why would a diest say such a thing? The answer is, he wouldn't.
Rick
The DataRat <dat...@home.com> wrote in message news:37431A42...@home.com...
"show me where in the US Constitution it says that
this is a Christian nation."
Show the Genevan Rodent in the U.S. Constitution
where the President can wage war without a declaration
from Congress.
The DataRat
Rick
michael burt <mike...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:mikeburt-190...@pon-mi22-27.ix.netcom.com...
In article <AzE03.897$ea.9...@nnrp1.ptd.net>, "Rick" <tho...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
>
> ------=_NextPart_000_0018_01BEA20F.07FA35C0
> Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
> show me where in the US Constitution it says that this is a Christian =
> nation. Take your elementary rightist views and reread the bible. I =
> think you missed the point.
Check out every place where virtue, morality, ethincs are mentioned in the
Constitution, the Declaration of Independence and the Federalists papers,
and tell me, what was the defination of virtue, morality, ethincs used by
the Founding Fathers? The definations they used were all from the Gospel
of Jesus Christ. Take you elementary leftist re-imaged views and re-read
the Bible and the Constitution. I think that you missed the point, they
were not using virtue, morality, ethincs as defined by the homosexual or
feminist or humanists religious belief manifestos because they don't work.
Littleton is the proof.
Rick
Gerry Palo <pa...@netcom.com> wrote in message news:paloFC0...@netcom.com...
In article <mikeburt-190...@pon-mi22-27.ix.netcom.com>,
michael burt <mike...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>In article <37432497...@proaxis.com>, leland palmer
><eas...@proaxis.com> wrote:
>
>> The nation has never been Christian. The founding personalities were
>> not Christians: specifically they were not the Calvinist bigots who
>> settled Plymouth Rock. The founding personalities were non-believers
>> whose beliefs were rationalistic and materialistic notions derived from
>> the Enlightenment. To the extent they were religious at all, they were
>> not Christian, but Deist. This is why Jefferson looked forward to the
>> day 'when all the nation might be Unitarian'.
>
>What planet are you from? You have been reading too much humanist mythology.
leland palmer
human creation. He would also wax poetic over nonChristian religious
texts for the same reason. The Deists who founded the country were not
Christians.
michael burt
<eas...@proaxis.com> wrote:
So what? They still believed in God and would disapprove of removing
prayer and the 10 commandments from schools, even if you were right. Are
you proposing to replace athiestic humanism crammed down our children's
throats with deisism and belief if God. It would be a marked improvement,
and I would support your campaign.
michael burt
<tho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
>
> ------=_NextPart_000_0098_01BEA2E0.6DA5A9A0
> Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
> He might if he was scared of the VIOLENCE in it and wanted to warn other =
> people.
Only the Biblical Illiterate see violence in Scripture. Funny how that we
remove the very mention of God's name from schools and the kids start
shooting each other. The Bible is a lot less scarry than the alternative,
Littletons.
> The first and almost the only book deserving of universal attention is =
> the
> Bible.=20
>
> John Quincy Adams
>
> Why would a diest say such a thing? The answer is, he wouldn't.
>
>
>
> ------=_NextPart_000_0098_01BEA2E0.6DA5A9A0
> Content-Type: text/html;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
> <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
> <HTML><HEAD>
> <META content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-1" =
> http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
> <META content=3D"MSHTML 5.00.2014.210" name=3DGENERATOR>
> <STYLE></STYLE>
> </HEAD>
> <BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
> <DIV><FONT color=3D#000080>He might if he was scared of the VIOLENCE in =
> it and=20
> wanted to warn other people.</FONT></DIV>
> <BLOCKQUOTE=20
> style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #000080 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: =
> 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px">The=20
> first and almost the only book deserving of universal attention is=20
> the<BR>Bible. <BR><BR>John Quincy Adams<BR><BR>Why would a diest say =
> such a=20
> thing? The answer is, he =
> wouldn't.<BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>
>
> ------=_NextPart_000_0098_01BEA2E0.6DA5A9A0--
michael burt
<tho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
>
> ------=_NextPart_000_005E_01BEA2DF.46051EE0
> Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
> I do believe their views on virtue, morality, ethincs were from the =
> humanist point of view, bigot
Is name calling and hate speech against others part of the morality and
ethics of your religious views? Thankfully, those were not the standards
of God, Christianity, and the ones of the Founding Fathers.
michael burt
<tho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
>
> ------=_NextPart_000_0083_01BEA2E0.1AD20CA0
> Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
> Don't forget the witches. They were murder by god loving, good natured, =
> wholesome, jesus loving christians.
Don't forget the 100 million people murdered by socialism, Darwinism, and
Marxism and those who rebelled against God's Word. no Christian has ever
been perfect, and a price will be paid for that. But the holocausts of
the godless are no alternative to seek.
Dave Wood
Was the pun intended? It is a good one.
Dave
Rick
michael burt <mike...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:mikeburt-210...@pon-mi21-34.ix.netcom.com...In article <2p_03.1087$ea.1...@nnrp1.ptd.net>, "Rick"
<tho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
>
> ------=_NextPart_000_005E_01BEA2DF.46051EE0
> Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
> I do believe their views on virtue, morality, ethincs were from the =
> humanist point of view, bigot
Is name calling and hate speech against others part of the morality and
ethics of your religious views? Thankfully, those were not the standards
of God, Christianity, and the ones of the Founding Fathers.
Sam Taylor
Got to Disagree with this one, Christianity DID NOT SUPPORT THE
REVOLUTION!!!!
thought such men as Thomas Paine, Benjimin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson,
Paul Revier, and yes even George Washington were agents of Satan!!!!
We would be bowing to the Queen if it had been left to the Christians.
Being Opurtunist they made the best of the war, by wanting "the Holy
Trinity,
Sunday worship laws, and Manditory church membership to vote demands
(which thank GOD never passed )15 years later,as Constitutional Ammendments.
Today they are up to the same Garbage on abortion>
Charlie the tuna <"ain't gonna spam"@this addr.ess> > wrote in message
>
>
>The DataRat wrote:
>>
>> "GW was a deist. His national day of prayer was for
>> ANY god that people believed in."
>>
>> Like Buddha, Allah, or Vishnu ? C'mon, 99% of the
>> nation was Christian. 80% Calvinist.
>
>The source for your "statistics"?
>
>> The "god"
>> they believed in was the God of the Bible !
>
> Alas, they could not agree on his attributes.
>
> And at the time I rather think you're underestimating the influence of
>deism on the eductated/managerial/governing classes.
>
>>
>> "...RESPECT for others beliefs, something that your
>> writings show you have none of !"
>>
>> Spare us the trite PoMo all-inclusiveness that you
>> picked-up off your leftist college professors.
>
>Whatsamatta? Couldn't pass the entrance exams? Got passed over for
>promotion by someone you didn't like who got their degree?
Sam Taylor
not a very Moral Minority, do you know anything
on how he really lived and believed?
Now Samuel Adams and John Adams were a different breed of believer!
John Q was a child at the time of the Revolution!
<return>
michael burt wrote in message ...
>In article <Qw_03.1090$ea.1...@nnrp1.ptd.net>, "Rick">> ------=_NextPart_000_0098_01BEA2E0.6DA5A9A0
>> Content-Type: text/plain;
>> charset="iso-8859-1"
>> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>>
=
>> people.
>
>Only the Biblical Illiterate see violence in Scripture. Funny how that we
>remove the very mention of God's name from schools and the kids start
>Littletons.
>
>
Astalis
Rick wrote:
>
> You really must be stupid. Violence is everywhere in the bible. "eye
> for an eye..., fire and brimstone...
The Bible shows the depths of sin...and how need for a Savior.
Astalis
--
"And yet there is a time
For everything that's under heaven.
A time to run, a time to stand and fight.
So in the face in cold despair,
No matter what seems right,
Remember darkness drives us to the light..."
**from Michael Card's "Under the Sun"**
-----------------------
astalis at epsi dot net
morning_light at juno dot com
ICQ! Num: 2453141#
-----------------------
Tony W. Frye
> >> Only the Biblical Illiterate see violence in Scripture
>
> Rick wrote:
> >
> > You really must be stupid. Violence is everywhere in the bible. "eye
> > for an eye..., fire and brimstone...
>
> The Bible shows the depths of sin...and how need for a Savior.
Flooding the earth is hardly showing the need for a savior. It's mass
murder. For that matter, so is raining down fire and brimstone on Sodom and
Gomorrah. With a violent god like that, and without any critical thought to
question this type of conduct, it gives a great rationalization for groups
like the Army of God to go out and bomb women's clinics and gay bars.
Bruce K Darling
michael burt wrote in message ...
>
SNIP!
My Gawd, my sides hurt from laughing uncontrollably. Where the hell did you
get the idea that "Darwinism" is responsible for the murder of anyone? More
fundie nonsense.
Thank God I'm Anglican!
Regards
Astalis
>
> Astalis wrote:
>
> > >> Only the Biblical Illiterate see violence in Scripture
> >
> > Rick wrote:
> > >
> > > You really must be stupid. Violence is everywhere in the bible. "eye
> > > for an eye..., fire and brimstone...
> >
>
> Flooding the earth is hardly showing the need for a savior...
Guess that's why God allowed Noah to give warnings
to the people where there sin was leading for
quite some time while the Ark was built.
Not his fault they didn't pay heed...
Terry Culler
like to demean anyone they disagree with?)---Darwinism has been expressed in
several ways over time. One of the most destructive of these ways became known
as Social Darwinism--the idea that the " superior peoples" (the ubermensch if
you will) will rule by right because they are proven by the socalled scientifc
principles of natural selection to be superior. So if you want to know how many
people Darwinism killed, you might start with the victims of the Third Reich.
And then you might add in all the children killed by abortion as promoted by
Planned Parenthood, whose founder had only fond things to say of Herr Hitler,
Darwin and their favorite philosopher, Nietsche.
Under the Mercy
Terry
PGRANA0406
michael burt
The concepts of Darwin propagated through the concept of survival of the
fittest. It is the basis of Mme. Blatvosky's Master Root Theory, and
Hitlers Master Race Theory that the through the survival of the fittest, a
race achieved evolved superiority over others. There are several sources
showing the progression of thought. Karl Marx also adapted Darwin
evolutionary ideas to ideology, claiming that socialism was evolved
political superiority over other political systems. If it is, how
tragic. Marx wanted to devote his book to Darwin, so inspirational as it
was to the creation of the his communist utopia on earth, and the
holocaust of 100 million people.
Those who died in the holocausts aren't laughing as hard as you are.