Religion and the Early American Republic
Gardiner
I want to thank you for the material you posted here regarding the place
of religion in society, particularly this word from Professor Bellah:
> Considering the separation of church and state, how is a president
> justified in using the word "God" at all? The answer is that the
> separation of church and state has not denied the political realm a
> religious dimension. Although matters of personal religious belief,
> worship, and association are considered to be strictly Private affairs,
> there are, at the same time, certain common elements of religious
> orientation that the great majority of Americans share. These have
> played a crucial role in the development of American institutions and
> still Provide a religious dimension for the whole fabric of American
> life, including the political sphere. This public religious dimension is
> expressed in a set of beliefs, symbols, and rituals that I am calling
> the American civil religion. The inauguration of a president is an
> important ceremonial event in this religion. It reaffirms, among other
> things, the religious legitimation of the highest political
> authority.
I really quite agree with these sentiments.
Michael J Nash
Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote in message
news:386038B9...@pitnet.net...
Well, I don't. And I think the Constitution is quite clear that the
government should not be used as a tool to bolster the blind faith of those
who choose to believe in gods. Presidents and their constituents are
entitled to believe and worship as they see fit, but their right to do so
ends where it crosses over into institutions that I, as an atheist citizen,
pay for with my tax dollars. The "vast majority" of people who worship gods
do not need the government to legitimize their beliefs, and we as Americans
certainly don't need somebody's fairy tale sky-pixie to legitimize the
authority of any elected official. That's what the ballot box is for.
--
Michael J. Nash aa # 1651 (remove "spamsux" from email address to reply)
EAC Director-General, Operation FUCKFEST (Freethinkers Undermining Christian
Knuckleheadedness, Fomenting Evil, and Stealing Things)
(formerly Operation SADISTIC)
President, Cunnilingus Lovers In Texas
**********************************************
"Is man one of God's blunders, or is God one of man's blunders?" --
Friedrich Nietzsche
"Faith is believing in things when common sense tells you not to." -- George
Seaton
Jeff Sinclair
Actually, Gardiner and I agree on very little. It is quite telling in
what he cut from the Bellah article, in order to try and support his
advocacy of destroying the wall between church and state:
" These questions are worth pursuing because they raise the issue of how
civil religion relates to the political society on the one hand and to
Private religious organization on the other. President Kennedy was a
Christian, more specifically a Catholic Christian. Thus his general
references to God do not mean that he lacked a specific religious
commitment. But why, then, did he not include some remark to the effect
that Christ is the Lord of the world or some indication of respect for
the Catholic church! He did not because these are matters of his own
private religious belief and of his relation to his own particular
church; they are not matters relevant in any direct way to the conduct
of his public office. Others with different religious views and
commitments to different churches or denominations are equally
qualified participants in the Political process. The principle of
separation of church and state guarantees the freedom of religious
belief and association, but at the same time clearly segregates the
religious sphere, which is considered to be essentially
private, from the political one."
It clearly notes the need for seperation of church and state even while
recognizing the right of people to express their faith or non-faith;
just not in a way which seeks to impose itself on other people, whether
they be Christian, Moslem, Buddhist, Atheist, Animist, etc.
Unsurprisingly, Gardnier presents a partial quote, taken out of its
context, to argue that the political and the religious shpere should be
one. Again, as Jim Allison has posted quite cogently, that was _never_
the intention of the founding fathers, whatever their private religious
convictions.
--
"I have always been here" - Kosh
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Kenneth Childress
Nor can it be used as a tool to suppress the rights of religious people
to engage in their First Amendment freedoms. I take it that you are
against "hate crime" laws then, as they are clearly a violation of the
First Amendment, and the Equal Protection clauses of the Constitution.
Or, do you approve of them because they are being used to silence
religious folks?
>Presidents and their constituents are
>entitled to believe and worship as they see fit, but their right to do so
>ends where it crosses over into institutions that I, as an atheist citizen,
>pay for with my tax dollars.
Please be more specific here. What do you mean?
>The "vast majority" of people who worship gods
>do not need the government to legitimize their beliefs, and we as Americans
>certainly don't need somebody's fairy tale sky-pixie to legitimize the
>authority of any elected official. That's what the ballot box is for.
How is the government being used to "legitimize" people's beliefs?
>--
>Michael J. Nash aa # 1651 (remove "spamsux" from email address to reply)
>EAC Director-General, Operation FUCKFEST (Freethinkers Undermining Christian
>Knuckleheadedness, Fomenting Evil, and Stealing Things)
>(formerly Operation SADISTIC)
>President, Cunnilingus Lovers In Texas
By then, IMO, one would would display this kind of signature has to be suspect
in his capacity for intellectual or rational thought.
--
c...@teleport.com
> > Considering the separation of church and state, how is a president
> > justified in using the word "God" at all?
Because that is his right. It is also his right to totally ignore "God".
And that is exactly what the First Admendment really means.
> > The answer is that the
> > separation of church and state has not denied the political realm a
> > religious dimension.
Nope, and it does not require one either. The United States would
continue to run as well with or without any religious influences. The
disruptive thing would be a state enforced religious orthodoxy.
> > Although matters of personal religious belief,
> > worship, and association are considered to be strictly Private affairs,
> > there are, at the same time, certain common elements of religious
> > orientation that the great majority of Americans share.
And many who do not share them.
> > This public religious dimension is
> > expressed in a set of beliefs, symbols, and rituals that I am calling
> > the American civil religion.
A new nadir, the Constitution as a "biblical" document! Your leap of
logic is strabismic.
> > The inauguration of a president is an
> > important ceremonial event in this religion.
No, it is a civil event. But, you can redefine it erroneously if you wish.
----------------------------------
Fas Est Et Ab Hoste Doceri
----------------------------------
Rick Gardiner
separation of church and state is wonderful.
Go get 'em, Jimmy!
Michael J Nash
Kenneth Childress <ic...@best.com> wrote in message
news:38610463$0$2...@nntp1.ba.best.com...
> In article <83q1ep$49ra$1...@newssvr04-int.news.prodigy.com>,
> Michael J Nash <NASHMs...@prodigy.spamsux.net> wrote:
(snip)
> >Well, I don't. And I think the Constitution is quite clear that the
> >government should not be used as a tool to bolster the blind faith of
those
> >who choose to believe in gods.
>
> Nor can it be used as a tool to suppress the rights of religious people
> to engage in their First Amendment freedoms. I take it that you are
> against "hate crime" laws then, as they are clearly a violation of the
> First Amendment, and the Equal Protection clauses of the Constitution.
> Or, do you approve of them because they are being used to silence
> religious folks?
Actually, I'm undecided on hate-crime legislation. On one hand, I can
understand the sentiment behind it, but on the other hand, I wonder how much
good such legislation would do, as opposed to the harm to people's 1st
Amendment rights. Anyway, this is off topic...
>
> >Presidents and their constituents are
> >entitled to believe and worship as they see fit, but their right to do so
> >ends where it crosses over into institutions that I, as an atheist
citizen,
> >pay for with my tax dollars.
>
> Please be more specific here. What do you mean?
Specifically, I'm referring to the fact that we deem it necessary to pay for
chaplains to administer to the spiritual needs of theistic members of
Congress, which is a blatant violation of the First Amendment. I'm
referring to the fact that some deem it necessary to open sessions of
Congress and other public events with organized prayer, a violation of the
First Amendment and an insult to those who lack theistic beliefs. I'm
referring to the presence of the words, "In god We Trust" on the currency
that I, as an Ameican consumer, am required to use in order to engage in
commerce in this country. I'm referring to the use of the words "one nation
under god" in the Pledge of Allegiance and the implication thereof; namely,
that one has to believe in a god in order to be a loyal American. I'm
referring to the attempts by some to introduce voucher programs that would
fund religious indoctrination and the teaching of creationist pseudoscience
to our nation's schoolchildren, while at the same time reducing funding to
our already underfunded public schools. I'm referring to the attempts by
many in this country to interject religious indoctrination into our public
institutions; namely, the attempts by some to force the posting of the
Judeo-Christian 10 commandments in schools and courtrooms, and to force the
teaching of young-earth creationism in our schools as legitimate theory in
our classrooms, despite the utter lack of evidence for this pseudoscientifc
set of hypotheses. I'm also referring to the official sanctioning of
heterosexual marriage, while homosexual marriage is disallowed due to the
religious sensibilities of the theist majority, and for no other logical
reason. I could go on forever with this...
>
> >The "vast majority" of people who worship gods
> >do not need the government to legitimize their beliefs, and we as
Americans
> >certainly don't need somebody's fairy tale sky-pixie to legitimize the
> >authority of any elected official. That's what the ballot box is for.
>
> How is the government being used to "legitimize" people's beliefs?
See above.
--
Michael J. Nash aa # 1651 (remove "spamsux" from email address to reply)
EAC Director-General, Operation FUCKFEST (Freethinkers Undermining Christian
Knuckleheadedness, Fomenting Evil, and Stealing Things)
(formerly Operation SADISTIC)
President, Cunnilingus Lovers In Texas
**********************************************
Gardiner
>
> > >their right to do so
> > >ends where it crosses over into institutions that I, as an atheist citizen,
> > >pay for with my tax dollars.
> >
> > Please be more specific here. What do you mean?
>
> Specifically, I'm
> that I, as an Ameican consumer, am required to use in order to engage in
> commerce in this country.
Well, geez, Mr. Nash, perhaps you should start a campaign to prevent use
of the calendar by the government. After all, today is Thursday... the
day of Thor, god of thunder; how dare the federal government force
anyone to use this religious terminology in our public schools. I know
that there are teachers everywhere today telling children that this is
Thursday. And my tax dollars go to support those teachers. Some of these
same teachers are known to say "God Bless You" when their students
sneeze. Arrest 'em I say!!
I even knew a public school teacher who said "Adios" to her students at
the end of the day. This criminal teacher was trying to pull a fast one
on us, for those of us who know Spanish know that she was telling the
kids to "Go With God." It would have been just as bad if she had said
"Adeiu" for it means something quite similar.
Then there are the other teachers and government officials who say
"goodbye" to us routinely. They thought they were going to get away with
it, but I pulled out the OED on them and I discovered that GOODBYE is
simply a contraction of God-be-with-ye.
I'm with you, Mr. Nash, I say we end this religious oppression
immediately. The next time a public school teacher says goodbye to my
child, I'm going to get the ACLU and Jim Alison to sue! I hope you'll be
in court with me too.
Next month will be January, the month of Janus, the god who both looks
forward and backward. I don't believe in that God, and yet when the
Federal Government sends me my 1040's, they are going to force upon me
the idea that it is Janus' month. And my tax dollars pay for those
documents.
I think this provides us with a great chance to initiate a legal suit
against the IRS. Thanks for bringing up the fact that my tax dollars go
to support all sorts of religious expression by the government. I trust
you will be helping me end it right away.
By the way, I really love the responsible way you present your cause as
stated by your signature below. It is rare to find such a professional
and respectable representation of proper demeanor in these newsgroups.
Many people are clearly wackos, but you sir, are the epitome of a level
headed, mature, highly respectable participant in a newsgroup. Your
signature tells all--
> --
> Michael J. Nash aa # 1651 (remove "spamsux" from email address to reply)
> EAC Director-General, Operation FUCKFEST (Freethinkers Undermining Christian
> Knuckleheadedness, Fomenting Evil, and Stealing Things)
> (formerly Operation SADISTIC)
> President, Cunnilingus Lovers In Texas
RG
Jeff Sinclair
soc.history.war.us-revolution,
alt.history.colonial,
sci.skeptic,
alt.deism,
alt.atheism,
alt.religion.deism,
alt.religion.christian.presbyterian>>
In article <38625FC5...@pitnet.net>,
Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
> Michael J Nash wrote:
> >
> > > >their right to do so
> > > >ends where it crosses over into institutions that I, as an
atheist citizen,
> > > >pay for with my tax dollars.
> > >
> > > Please be more specific here. What do you mean?
> >
> > Specifically, I'm
> > referring to the presence of the words, "In god We Trust" on the
currency
> > that I, as an Ameican consumer, am required to use in order to
engage in
> > commerce in this country.
<<Straw man, Asinine comments, and ad hominems snipped>>
Michael J. Nash comments restored:
"Specifically, I'm referring to the fact that we deem it necessary to
pay for chaplains to administer to the spiritual needs of theistic
members of Congress, which is a blatant violation of the First
Amendment. I'm referring to the fact that some deem it necessary to
open sessions of Congress and other public events with organized
prayer, a violation of the First Amendment and an insult to those who
lack theistic beliefs. I'm referring to the presence of the words, "In
god We Trust" on the currency that I, as an Ameican consumer, am
required to use in order to engage in commerce in this country. I'm
referring to the use of the words "one nation under god" in the Pledge
of Allegiance and the implication thereof; namely, that one has to
believe in a god in order to be a loyal American. I'm referring to the
attempts by some to introduce voucher programs that would fund
religious indoctrination and the teaching of creationist pseudoscience
to our nation's schoolchildren, while at the same time reducing funding
to our already underfunded public schools. I'm referring to the
attempts by many in this country to interject religious indoctrination
into our public institutions; namely, the attempts by some to force the
posting of the Judeo-Christian 10 commandments in schools and
courtrooms, and to force the teaching of young-earth creationism in our
schools as legitimate theory in our classrooms, despite the utter lack
of evidence for this pseudoscientifc set of hypotheses. I'm also
referring to the official sanctioning of heterosexual marriage, while
homosexual marriage is disallowed due to the religious sensibilities of
the theist majority, and for no other logical reason. I could go on
forever with this..."
Let the reader note that instead of dealing forthrightly with these
legitimate concerns of someone who disagrees with blatant attempts,
largely by the religious right, to hijack governmental institutions to
promote a particular religious point of view, "Pastor"(TM) Ricky
instead isolates one phrase of the whole and builds a straw man out of
it, and cries crocodile tears over his .sig file.
Concerning only the phrase "In God we trust" on money, there are other
religious groups in this country who do not hold to the idea of a
personal God. Buddhists, Hindus, and so on immediately come to mind.
The phrase "In God we trust", while many people agree with it, is the
_overt_ promotion of a religious idea which many others disagree with,
unlike Gardiner's "Thursday, Adios, Goodbye" straw man. It could very
well be argued that this _does_ constitute a breach of the
establishment clause of the first amendment to the constitution. It
also makes for very bad religion.
It is to be noted that the other violations of the establishment clause
noted by Mr. Nash are avoided. To do so would almost certainly draw
other people into the discussion, which would seem to be what Gardiner
wants to avoid. His pattern has been to ridicule, berate, offer up half-
truths or partial quotations torn out of context in order to support
what has increasingly appeared to be a dishonest advocacy of religious
establishment by claiming that the founding fathers were "orthodox
Christians" and that they had intended such a particular religious
sensibility to be the de facto officially sanctioned governmental
ideology. Jim Allison and Mike Curtis have disabused him of that since
early this year, even though he continues to offer up
dishonest "scholarship".
So, do you think that "Pastor"(TM) Ricky, who has been shown to be a
liar and slanderer and dishonest about his use of sources, some of
which are of dubious origin (i.e.- his use of the Madison quote by
Burton, which even Madison scholars at the University of Virginia
cannot seem to find), will now suddenly reform and offer either Michael
Nash, me, or anybody else an honest argument? Or do you think that he
will respond to this with yet another post filled with slander and
personal attacks? Let's see what he has to say about his own
tendencies, shall we?:
"For the record, Jeffy, I'm a nasty, brash, abrasive, condescending,
mean-spirited soul. I'm certainly not a representative of holiness, but
I've never said otherwise."
Would that be a "no"?
Kenneth Childress
Michael J Nash <NASHMs...@prodigy.spamsux.net> wrote:
>
>
>Kenneth Childress <ic...@best.com> wrote in message
>news:38610463$0$2...@nntp1.ba.best.com...
>> In article <83q1ep$49ra$1...@newssvr04-int.news.prodigy.com>,
>> Michael J Nash <NASHMs...@prodigy.spamsux.net> wrote:
[...]
>> Nor can it be used as a tool to suppress the rights of religious people
>> to engage in their First Amendment freedoms. I take it that you are
>> against "hate crime" laws then, as they are clearly a violation of the
>> First Amendment, and the Equal Protection clauses of the Constitution.
>> Or, do you approve of them because they are being used to silence
>> religious folks?
>
>Actually, I'm undecided on hate-crime legislation. On one hand, I can
>understand the sentiment behind it, but on the other hand, I wonder how much
>good such legislation would do, as opposed to the harm to people's 1st
>Amendment rights. Anyway, this is off topic...
Well, you'd better think long and hard about it as the current approach
to the laws are going to decimate First Amendment freedoms. The topic
is definitely related, so it is not entirely off topic. It is certainly a
tangentential topic though.
>> >Presidents and their constituents are
>> >entitled to believe and worship as they see fit, but their right to do so
>> >ends where it crosses over into institutions that I, as an atheist
>citizen,
>> >pay for with my tax dollars.
>>
>> Please be more specific here. What do you mean?
>
>Specifically, I'm referring to the fact that we deem it necessary to pay for
>chaplains to administer to the spiritual needs of theistic members of
>Congress, which is a blatant violation of the First Amendment.
Of course, this practice was put into place by the very people who
drafted the Constitution and Bill of Rights. One would think they would
know whether or not the practice was unconstitutional. That you
consider this unconstitution puts your credibiity on the subject in
serious doubt.
>I'm
>referring to the fact that some deem it necessary to open sessions of
>Congress and other public events with organized prayer, a violation of the
>First Amendment and an insult to those who lack theistic beliefs.
Nonsense. Because you here religious speech IN NO WAY violates your
rights. The insult is your advocating stopping them. You have no right
to not be offended. Of course, I challenge you to try to explain how
your rights are violated when you hear a prayer.
>I'm
>referring to the presence of the words, "In god We Trust" on the currency
>that I, as an Ameican consumer, am required to use in order to engage in
>commerce in this country.
Oh please, you are getting more and more absurd as you go along.
>I'm referring to the use of the words "one nation
>under god" in the Pledge of Allegiance and the implication thereof; namely,
>that one has to believe in a god in order to be a loyal American.
The Declaration of Independence really ticks you off doesn't it?
>I'm
>referring to the attempts by some to introduce voucher programs that would
>fund religious indoctrination and the teaching of creationist pseudoscience
>to our nation's schoolchildren, while at the same time reducing funding to
>our already underfunded public schools.
Public schools are not underfunded. You have really fallen for all the
propoganda.
>I'm referring to the attempts by
>many in this country to interject religious indoctrination into our public
>institutions; namely, the attempts by some to force the posting of the
>Judeo-Christian 10 commandments in schools and courtrooms, and to force the
You know, these things used to take place without any problem. What's
your problem with it?
>teaching of young-earth creationism in our schools as legitimate theory in
>our classrooms, despite the utter lack of evidence for this pseudoscientifc
>set of hypotheses.
We won't even start in on the problems with evolutionism.
>I'm also referring to the official sanctioning of
>heterosexual marriage, while homosexual marriage is disallowed due to the
>religious sensibilities of the theist majority, and for no other logical
>reason.
There is not a single reason for sanctioning a sexually perverse union.
You don't even want to get me started on this topic. I've read up on
the homosexual advocates, their techniques and practices. They are
probably the most dishonest, and dispicable group in this country. If
same-sex marriages are so virtuous then why are the advocates tauting
the virtuals? Why all the lies, victim playing, tactics to silence the
opposition? Do tell me the virtues?
>I could go on forever with this...
Believe me, I've heard all the lies, propoganda, and mistruths that you
might bring forth. Based on your list, which is nothing more than tired
old atheist arguments, I can tell you need some education on the topics.
>> >The "vast majority" of people who worship gods
>> >do not need the government to legitimize their beliefs, and we as
>Americans
>> >certainly don't need somebody's fairy tale sky-pixie to legitimize the
>> >authority of any elected official. That's what the ballot box is for.
>>
>> How is the government being used to "legitimize" people's beliefs?
>
>See above.
I didn't see a single item of substance above.
--
Jeff Sinclair
ic...@best.com (Kenneth Childress) wrote:
> In article <83up5k$g69$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Jeff Sinclair <jeffrey...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> ><<To restore groups add:
> >soc.history.war.us-revolution,
> >alt.history.colonial,
> >sci.skeptic,
> >alt.deism,
> >alt.atheism,
> >alt.religion.deism,
> >alt.religion.christian.presbyterian>>
> >
> >In article <38625FC5...@pitnet.net>,
> > Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
> >> Michael J Nash wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > >ends where it crosses over into institutions that I, as an
> >atheist citizen,
> >> > > >pay for with my tax dollars.
> >> > >
> >> > > Please be more specific here. What do you mean?
> >> >
> >> > Specifically, I'm
> >currency
> >> > that I, as an Ameican consumer, am required to use in order to
> >engage in
> >> > commerce in this country.
> >
Michael J. Nash comments restored:
"Specifically, I'm referring to the fact that we deem it necessary to
pay for chaplains to administer to the spiritual needs of theistic
members of Congress, which is a blatant violation of the First
Amendment. I'm referring to the fact that some deem it necessary to
open sessions of Congress and other public events with organized
prayer, a violation of the First Amendment and an insult to those who
lack theistic beliefs. I'm referring to the presence of the words, "In
god We Trust" on the currency that I, as an Ameican consumer, am
required to use in order to engage in commerce in this country. I'm
referring to the use of the words "one nation under god" in the Pledge
of Allegiance and the implication thereof; namely, that one has to
believe in a god in order to be a loyal American. I'm referring to the
attempts by some to introduce voucher programs that would fund
religious indoctrination and the teaching of creationist pseudoscience
to our nation's schoolchildren, while at the same time reducing funding
to our already underfunded public schools. I'm referring to the
attempts by many in this country to interject religious indoctrination
into our public institutions; namely, the attempts by some to force the
posting of the Judeo-Christian 10 commandments in schools and
courtrooms, and to force the teaching of young-earth creationism in our
schools as legitimate theory in our classrooms, despite the utter lack
of evidence for this pseudoscientifc set of hypotheses. I'm also
referring to the official sanctioning of heterosexual marriage, while
homosexual marriage is disallowed due to the religious sensibilities of
the theist majority, and for no other logical reason. I could go on
forever with this..."
> You know, the asinine comments were in Mr. Nash's and your reply.
There
> is even an organization that is actively pusuing most of the items you
> and he "claim" are unconstitution. Not even PFAW, AUSC&S, the ACLU
(who
> just loves those kinds of battles) are fighting them. Why? Because
> they won't win and they not it.
Oh? And what is the name of this mysterious organization "that is
actively pusuing most of the items you and he "claim" are constitution
<<sic>>"
<<....>>
Thought not. As for the other three organizations that you claim are
not fighting them, let me give you a sample of the way that they
are "not fighting" them, okay?
http://www.pfaw.org/news/press//show.cgi?article=945724447
"Federal Court Overturns Ohio Vouchers
Court Strikes Down Public Funds for Religious Schools
A federal court in Cleveland today overturned Ohio's private and
religious school voucher program, holding that the program violates the
First Amendment to the Constitution. People For the American Way
Foundation along with other public education and constitutional rights
organizations brought the lawsuit against the voucher program, which
provides state financial support to religious schools."
http://www.pfaw.org/news/press//show.cgi?article=945380996
"People For the American Way Condemns Politics of Hate, Division in
Miami-Dade Anti-Gay Initiative
It's now official that conservative groups will launch a signature
petition drive seeking to repeal Miami-Dade County's human rights
ordinance and People For the American Way has pledged to continue the
fight against the anti-gay initiative with the SAVE Dade coalition.
Year-long speculation that the religious right would attempt to
overturn anti-discrimination protections for lesbians and gay men ended
when the Miami-Dade County Attorney recently informed the Florida
Family Association of Tampa that their draft language for an initiative
petition was in proper legal form."
These are just samples, Ken. It took me exactly two minutes to find
them. They are fighting against the kinds of intolerance that Michael
Nash mentioned and that the Constitution and The Bill of Rights sought
to keep the government from expressing toward groups in society which
are small and unpopular _including_ such people as religious
fundamentalists and Nazis who would seek to introduce such oppressive
intolerance into our political system, which was never the intent of
the founding fathers.
> [Mr. Nash's tired old cliches mercifully axed]
>
> >Let the reader note that instead of dealing forthrightly with these
> >legitimate concerns of someone who disagrees with blatant attempts,
> >largely by the religious right, to hijack governmental institutions
to
> >promote a particular religious point of view, "Pastor"(TM) Ricky
> >instead isolates one phrase of the whole and builds a straw man out
of
> >it, and cries crocodile tears over his .sig file.
>
> Let the reader not that nothing in Mr. Nash's response was significant
> enough to warrant any serious reply. I only bothered to point out the
> idiocy of the points.
You responded. You did not deal with any of the points or say why they
constituted "idiocy".
> The .sig file certainly is an indicator of the depths of Mr. Nash's
> thought processes. Readers can decide if that is a positive or a
> negative.
Mind reading again? I'm not particularly fond of the .sig file either,
but attacking that as an ad hominem attack rather than responding to
the valid concerns that he posted indicates that you have nothing
substantive to say.
Back up and try again.
Jeff Sinclair
Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
> Jeff Sinclair wrote:
> >
> > <<To restore groups add:
> > soc.history.war.us-revolution,
> > alt.history.colonial,
> > sci.skeptic,
> > alt.deism,
> > alt.atheism,
> > alt.religion.deism,
> > alt.religion.christian.presbyterian>>
> >
> > In article <38625FC5...@pitnet.net>,
> > Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
> > > Michael J Nash wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > >their right to do so
> > > > > >ends where it crosses over into institutions that I, as an
> > atheist citizen,
> > > > > >pay for with my tax dollars.
> > > > >
> > > > > Please be more specific here. What do you mean?
> > > >
> > > > Specifically, I'm
> > > > referring to the presence of the words, "In god We Trust" on
the currency
> > > > that I, as an Ameican consumer, am required to use in order to
> > engage in
> > > > commerce in this country.
> >
> > <<Straw man, Asinine comments, and ad hominems snipped>>
> >
the
> > _overt_ promotion of a religious idea which many others disagree
with,
> > unlike Gardiner's "Thursday, Adios, Goodbye" straw man.
>
really
> means it, then there sure are a lot of Christians in this world who
you don't
> know.
You apparently missed the boat again, Gardiner. Such terms
as "adios", "goodbye", and so on are most commonly used as greetings,
etc. devoid of religious content, even though their backgrounds are of
religious origin.
As for when Christians or other religious say it and mean it, so what?
I use terms like these all the time and occasionally there is religious
content behind this too. Even friends and family members who are
atheist don't find anything offensive about this. It's a person's
private right to do so. The point of course is when public officials or
institutions _in their official capacity_ advocate a particular
religious point of view whether that be Christian, Buddhist, Taoist,
Confucian, etc. etc. So why not put on our bills "In G*d we trust"
after the manner of how some Jewish people do it? Or "In Allah we
Trust"; after all there is a significant Moslem population in this
country? Like "In God we Trust", it is quite probable that such
expressions cross the line into de facto establishment. It is an
obvious dishonest argument to assert that "adios", Thursday", "good-
bye", and a host of other similar phrases which do not normally have
religious content thereby constitute religious argument as well and it
represents a flaming straw man.
> If you think that no teachers who say "God-bless-you" to a child's
sneeze really
> mean it, then you don't know many of the millions of Christian
teachers who are
> currently employed in public schools.
Another absurd straw man. Several people do mean it, several don't. In
all cases it is not an unambiguous promotion of a religious point of
view onto someone who may hold onto a different belief system. It is
also clear that the expressions so proferred are not offered in an
official capacity but rather in an individual capacity.
I'm willing to bet, however, that you would run waving your hands and
screaming if a teacher were to offer up a "may the goddess of reason
bless you" in response to someone sneezing in a public school setting.
Or if a scientist were to propose teaching the theory of evolution,
which some ultra-conservative "Christians" like to claim is a religious
system, but which is in reality a scientific theory so well supported
by evidence that it has for all intents and purposes the status of
fact. Your "advocacy" of accomodation has smacked throughout your posts
of the advocacy of one or a few related religious traditions having de
facto government sanction to the exclusion of many others that you
don't like.
> Your position is becoming even more absurd. You seem to be saying
that the
> public school teacher is permitted to use religious language, such
as "God Bless
> You" or "Adios" *as long as he or she is being insincere* but if he
or she ever
> says this and sincerely means what he or she is saying, then the law
suits start
> to fly
>
> ROTFLMAO!!!
Mind reading again, Rick-nochio? Putting words in my mouth or the
mouths of people you disagree with? No surprise here at your usual
asinine dishonesty.
One. More. Time. Moron. The question is not religious motivation or non-
religious motivation but whether religious acts are proferred in an
official capacity. Duh!
>
> Then, of course we have the improbable, but not impossible, situation
of having
> a pagan public school teacher who truly believes in the Norse
pantheon; that
> teacher, because she really does believe, cannot use the weekly
calendar,
> because in doing so he or she is putting forth symbols of his or her
heartfelt
> faith.
>
> Yours is really quite an interesting position: public school teachers
can invoke
> religious blessings and salutations... as long as they are lying.
Straw man. Don't be asinine. Oh, I forgot - that's like asking you not
to breathe.
All your asinine arguments show is that you do not understand the
intent of the First Amendment. What is in question is the use of such
statements in an official capacity to promote a religious point of
view. Statements like Bush's "born again" statement reflect his own
private piety and while there were many people who disagreed, the
_context_ of the remarks were clearly understood to be a private
expression of his beliefs in a non-official capacity, even though he
himself is a public official. Things such as the display of a creche on
public property by civil government are done in an _official_ capacity
by their very nature, as public funds are used to set this up, and so
on. That is a breach of the wall of separation, and you know it.
> And I guess you and Alison will be the ones who get to determine
which teachers
> are sincere and which ones aren't: "when Ms. Jones said god-bless-you
to the
> student, she was insincere, so we're going to over look it. But now
when Mr.
> Madison says god-bless-you to his student, he is in trouble, because
we know
> that Mr. Madison went to seminary, goes to church, and probably means
what he is
> saying."
>
> This is hilarious.
This is projection, Rick-nochio. As has been argued above, the issue is
official sanction of religious groups or POVs, not whether officials
are religious or not.
But let's take a look at that judging issue that you are projecting
from yourself onto others, shall we? You and your shills in arguing for
accomodation of a pseudo-Christian religion by arguing against all
evidence that such people like James Madison and Thomas Jefferson,
framers of the Constitution, were "orthodox Christians". Jim Allison
has presented a literal mountain of evidence showing that that is not
the case. Jefferson, Franklin, Washington, Madison, etc. were typically
deists who were at time antagonistic toward organized religion. This is
also well documented. You have noted the use of the word "God"
and/or "Deity" to try and argue ineffectively that they were, using
such statements out of the total context of the individuals making such
statements. Jim Allison and Mike Curtis have had to educate you on what
the contexts of these statements were, just as you have been lecured on
presenting evidence devoid of context concerning the Israelite invasion
of Canaan, Luther's anti-semitism, etc. etc.
The import of your "arguments" throughout has been to suggest that the
intention was that this should be a "Christian" nation, with the
understanding that "Christian" principles, as interpreted by you,
should be the predominant guide to government to the virtual exclusion
of the principles of other religions and trains of thought such as
Judaism, Buddhism, Agnostic Skepticism, and even other forms of
Christianity, etc. _That_ breaches the establishment clause in fact and
in intent. "Christians", specifically those of the religious right who
lust after breaking down the wall of separation, would be set up as de
facto judges over everyone else in that scheme, including other
Christians, which, given their hatred and intolerance of anyone
different than they are, is something to be greatly avoided on a
democratic system of government.
> Please give me more entertainment.
Entertainment provided. Here's your mangled straw man back, Rick-
nocchio.
> Unanswered argument here restored:
Straw man argument destroyed above. Left in below for amusement:
> =====
> > Specifically, I'm
> > referring to the presence of the words, "In god We Trust" on the
currency
> > that I, as an Ameican consumer, am required to use in order to
engage in
> > commerce in this country.
>
>
> And in closing, a reminder for the record, Jeffy. I'm still a nasty,
brash,
> abrasive, condescending, mean-spirited soul. I'm certainly not a
representative
> of holiness, but I've never said otherwise.
No one disagrees with that, Rick-nocchio. You prove that with every
post you make. One of the few things I agree with you on.
> Maybe I'll be as holy as you one day. God forbid.
Someone like Madelyn Murray O'Hare was more holy than you are. The
difference is that she did not go around claiming "holiness" by saying
such things as "I was a pastor" and "I love Jesus". To assert these
things and then to whine "I never claimed I was holy" is just more of
your usual dishonesty. If I were you, I'd work on catching up to
someone like Bill Clinton first. Smoke any good cigars lately?
Oh, BTW, I had a great laugh at your citation from Luke ending with:
"For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles
himself will be exalted." (Luke 18:9-14)
Thanks for the entertainment, Mr. "My Credentials are Better Than
Yours" Gardiner. You are such a humble guy. LOL.
Richard
> Well, I don't. And I think the Constitution is quite clear that the
> government should not be used as a tool to bolster the blind faith of
those
> who choose to believe in gods. Presidents and their constituents are
> entitled to believe and worship as they see fit, but their right to do so
> ends where it crosses over into institutions that I, as an atheist
citizen,
> pay for with my tax dollars. The "vast majority" of people who worship
gods
> do not need the government to legitimize their beliefs, and we as
Americans
> certainly don't need somebody's fairy tale sky-pixie to legitimize the
> authority of any elected official. That's what the ballot box is for.
>
Would it then be safe to say that the military should not have chaplains in
your eyes? After all, they are public servants paid with public moneys
(including your tax dollars). Or is this a reasonable sacrifice to gaurantee
your freedom to offend others?
> --
> Michael J. Nash aa # 1651 (remove "spamsux" from email address to
reply)
> EAC Director-General, Operation FUCKFEST (Freethinkers Undermining
Christian
> Knuckleheadedness, Fomenting Evil, and Stealing Things)
> (formerly Operation SADISTIC)
> President, Cunnilingus Lovers In Texas
>
> **********************************************
> "Is man one of God's blunders, or is God one of man's blunders?" --
> Friedrich Nietzsche
>
> "Faith is believing in things when common sense tells you not to." --
George
> Seaton
Very nice - adds a great deal of legitimacy to your argument. Certainly
makes me look forward to your arguments.
R/
Richard
"Those thinkers who cannot believe in any gods often assert that the love of
humanity would be in itself sufficient for them; and so, perhaps, it would,
if they had it."-- G. K. Chesterton
buc...@exis.net
>:|Mr. Nash,
>:|
>:|> Well, I don't. And I think the Constitution is quite clear that the
>:|> government should not be used as a tool to bolster the blind faith of
>:|those
>:|> who choose to believe in gods. Presidents and their constituents are
>:|> entitled to believe and worship as they see fit, but their right to do so
>:|> ends where it crosses over into institutions that I, as an atheist
>:|citizen,
>:|> pay for with my tax dollars. The "vast majority" of people who worship
>:|gods
>:|> do not need the government to legitimize their beliefs, and we as
>:|Americans
>:|> certainly don't need somebody's fairy tale sky-pixie to legitimize the
>:|> authority of any elected official. That's what the ballot box is for.
>:|>
>:|
>:|Would it then be safe to say that the military should not have chaplains in
>:|your eyes? After all, they are public servants paid with public moneys
>:|(including your tax dollars). Or is this a reasonable sacrifice to gaurantee
>:|your freedom to offend others?
>:|
Well, this is from someone who you would have a hard time claiming wanted
to offend others:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1817 -- 1832
Excerpts from Madison's Detached Memoranda.
This document was discovered in 1946 among the papers of William Cabell
Rives, a biographer of Madison. Scholars date these observations in
Madison's hand sometime between 1817 and 1832.
--------- ------- --------- -------- --------
Is the appointment of Chaplains to the two Houses of Congress consistent
with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom? In
strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The
Constitution of the U. S. forbids everything like an establishment of a
national religion. The law appointing Chaplains establishes a religious
worship for the national representatives, to be performed by Ministers of
religion, elected by a majority of them; and these are to be paid out of
the national taxes. Does not this involve the principle of a national
establishment, applicable to a provision for a religious worship for the
Constituent as well as of the representative Body, approved by the
majority, and conducted by Ministers of religion paid by the entire nation?
The establishment of the chaplainship to Congs is a palpable violation of
equal rights, as well as of Constitutional principles: The tenets of the
chaplains elected [by the majority shut the door of worship agst the
members whose creeds & consciences forbid a participation in that of the
majority. To say nothing of other sects, this is the case with that of
Roman Catholics & Quakers who have always had members in one or both of the
Legislative branches. Could a Catholic clergyman ever hope to be appointed
a Chaplain! To say that his religious principles are obnoxious or that his
sect is small, is to lift the evil at once and exhibit in its naked
deformity the doctrine that religious truth is to be tested by numbers or
that the major sects have a tight to govern the minor.
If Religion consist in voluntary acts of individuals, singly, or
voluntarily associated, and it be proper that Public functionaries, as well
as their Constituents shd discharge their religious duties, let them like
their Constituents, do so at their own expense. How small a contribution
from each member of Cong wd suffice for the purpose! How just wd it be in
its principle! How noble in its exemplary sacrifice to the genius of the
Constitution; and the divine right of conscience! Why should the expence of
a religious worship be allowed for the Legislature, be paid by the public,
more than that for the Ex. or Judiciary branch of the Gov
Were the establishment to be tried by its fruits, are not the daily
devotions conducted by these legal Ecclesiastics, already degenerating into
a scanty attendance, and a tiresome formality!
Rather than let this step beyond the landmarks of power have the effect of
a legitimate precedent, it will be better to apply to it the legal aphorism
de minimis non curat lex: or to class it cum "maculis quas aut incuria
fudit, aut humana parum cavit natura."
Better also to disarm in the same way, the precedent of Chaplainships for
the army and navy, than erect them into a political authority in matters of
religion. The object of this establishment is seducing; the motive to it is
laudable. But is it not safer to adhere to a right principle, and trust to
its consequences, than confide in the reasoning however specious in favor
of a wrong one. Look thro' the armies & navies of the world, and say
whether in the appointment of their ministers of religion, the spiritual
interest of the flocks or the temporal interest of the Shepherds, be most
in view: whether here, as elsewhere the political care of religion is not a
nominal more than a real aid. If the spirit of armies be devout, the spirit
out of the armies will never be Less so; and a failure of religious
instruction &, exhortation from a voluntary source within or without, will
rarely happen: if such be not the spirit of armies, the official services
of their Teachers are not likely to produce it. It is more likely to flow
from the labours of a spontaneous zeal. The armies of the Puritans had
their appointed Chaplains; but without these there would have been no lack
of public devotion in that devout age.
The case of navies with insulated crews may be less within the scope of
these reflections. But it is not entirely so. The chance of a devout
officer, might be of as much worth to religion, as the service of an
ordinary chaplain. [were it admitted that religion has a real interest in
the latter.] But we are always to keep in mind that it is safer to trust
the consequences of a right principle, than reasonings in support of a bad
one.
==============================================================
JULY 10, 1822
I observe with particular pleasure the view you have taken of the
immunity of Religion from civil jurisdiction, in every case where it does
not trespass on private rights or the public peace. This has always been a
favorite principle with me; and it was not with my approbation, that the
deviation from it took place in Congs. when they appointed Chaplains, to be
paid from the Natl Treasury. It would have been a much better proof to
their Constituents of their pious feeling if the members had contributed
for the purpose, a pittance from their own pockets. As the precedent is not
likely to be rescinded, the best that can now be done, may be to apply to
the Constn. the maxim of the law, de minimis non curat.
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: TO EDWARD LIVINGSTON FROM MADISON, July 10, 1822.
Letters and Other writings of James Madison, in Four Volumes, Published by
Order of Congress. VOL. III, J. B. Lippincott & Co. Philadelphia, (1865),
pp 273-276. James Madison on Religious Liberty, Robert S.Alley, Prometheus
Books, Buffalo, N.Y. (1985) pp 82-83)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
**********************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
"Dedicated to combatting 'history by sound bite'."
Now including a re-publication of Tom Peters
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE HOME PAGE
and
Audio links to Supreme Court oral arguments and
Speech by civil rights/constitutional lawyer and others.
Page is a member of the following web rings:
The First Amendment Ring--&--The Church-State Ring
Freethought Ring--&--The History Ring
Legal Research Ring
**********************************************
c...@teleport.com
<rjtre...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> Would it then be safe to say that the military should not have chaplains in
> your eyes? After all, they are public servants paid with public moneys
> (including your tax dollars). Or is this a reasonable sacrifice to gaurantee
> your freedom to offend others?
This is an utter straw man.
The military would cross the line only if they provided chaplins of only
one persuasion, or required religious observance attendance.
The military also provided cheap auto service stations, commissaries and
clothing stores on base. These venerable institutions have the same
status as the chaplins. use them if you desire or ignore them if you
Richard
put to rest the tossing of the phrase "straw man" around in a manner that
detracts from the point(s) being made or the questions being asked. I
believe this news group is for public discussions. I am quite confident to
suggest most of the ladies and gentlemen that contribute could stand to
review the rules of debate, nevertheless, if we could discuss issues of
substance and eliminate the finger pointing and generally bad behavior most
people would enjoy the conversations. Furthermore, we might learn
something - you included.
I thought my question was a reasonable one - you however, have glossed over
an important issue - should we pay for the chaplain corps with public
monies? However, in retrospect, I think this question is out of the context
of colonial or revolutionary war discussions.
R/
Richard
Rick Gardiner
>
> Excuse me sir, I am interested in the various view points - perhaps we can
> put to rest the tossing of the phrase "straw man" around in a manner that
> detracts from the point(s) being made or the questions being asked. I
> believe this news group is for public discussions. I am quite confident to
> suggest most of the ladies and gentlemen that contribute could stand to
> review the rules of debate,
Amen.
RG
Rick Gardiner
>
> The military also provided cheap auto service stations, commissaries and
> clothing stores on base. These venerable institutions have the same
> status as the chaplins. use them if you desire or ignore them if you
> wish.
That is exactly the argument James Madison used to justify the wording of his
religious day proclamations:
"resting these expressly on the voluntary compliance of individuals, and even
by limiting the recommendation to such as wished simultaneous as well as
voluntary performance of a religious act on the occasion"
"But I was always careful to make the Proclamations absolutely indiscriminate,
and merely recommendatory; or rather mere DESIGNATIONS of a day on which all
who thought proper might UNITE in consecrating it to religious purposes,
according to their own faith and forms"
Here is what Madison, as President, proclaimed:
> >[From Annals of Congress, Twelfth Congress, part 2, 2224.]
> >BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
> >A PROCLAMATION.
> >Messages and Papers of the Presidents, James Madison, vol. 1, p.498
> >
> >Whereas the Congress of the United States, by a joint resolution of the two
> >Houses, have signified a request that a day may be recommended to be observed
> >by the people of the United States with religious solemnity as a day of public
> >humiliation and prayer; and
> >
> >Whereas such a recommendation will enable the several religious denominations
> >and societies so disposed to offer at one and the same time their common vows
> >and adorations to Almighty God on the solemn occasion produced by the war in
> >which He has been pleased to permit the injustice of a foreign power to
> >involve these United States:
> >
> >I do therefore recommend the third Thursday in August next as a convenient day
> >to be set apart for the devout purposes of rendering the Sovereign of the
> >Universe and the Benefactor of Mankind the public homage due to His holy
> >attributes; of acknowledging the transgressions which might justly provoke the
> >manifestations of His divine displeasure; of seeking His merciful forgiveness
> >and His assistance in the great duties of repentance and amendment, and
> >especially of offering fervent supplications that in the present season of
> >calamity and war He would take the American people under His peculiar care and
> >protection; that He would guide their public councils, animate their
> >patriotism, and bestow His blessing on their arms; that He would inspire all
> >nations with a love of justice and of concord and with a reverence for the
> >unerring precept of our holy religion to do to others as they would require
> >that others should do to them; and, finally, that, turning the hearts of our
> >enemies from the violence and injustice which sway their councils against us,
> >He would hasten a restoration of the blessings of peace. Given at Washington,
> >the 9th day of July, A. D. 1812.
> >[SEAL.]
> >JAMES MADISON.r
Richard
R/
Richard
<buc...@exis.net> wrote in message news:3889edc3...@news.exis.net...
Rick Gardiner
>
> In article <gO994.3265$GF1.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
> "Richard" <rjtre...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> However, in retrospect, I think this question is out of the context
> > of colonial or revolutionary war discussions.
>
> innudate historic discussion groups. Stick with the alt!
If you think that religion had little or nothing to do with the American
Colonies or the Revolutionary War, the fact is that you are not at all
familiar with the evidence of history.
There are a number of good books to read in this regard, however, I think the
original primary source material is clear enough. A good chunk of it is
available at http://www.universitylake.org/primarysources.html
Rick
c...@teleport.com
> Amen.
>
> RG
You need to stick with the alt groups and quit cross posting also. Your
personal religious infatuations are noncontributory to historical venues.
c...@teleport.com
"Richard" <rjtre...@earthlink.net> wrote:
However, in retrospect, I think this question is out of the context
> of colonial or revolutionary war discussions.
You got that right! I am perturbed that these off topic religion threads
innudate historic discussion groups. Stick with the alt!
----------------------------------
c...@teleport.com
>
> That is exactly the argument James Madison used to justify the wording of his
> religious day proclamations:
Fine, go to the commisssary or go to church, but do it alone and not at
the top of your voice.
buc...@exis.net
>:|Thanks for this information - I look forward to studying it!
>:|
>:|R/
Kewl
buc...@exis.net
>:|c...@teleport.com wrote:
Go get 'em, Jimmy!
==================================================================
Rick Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>:|Alison's critique of Jeffy Sinclair, Ph.D.'s post of Dr. Bellah's views on
>:|separation of church and state is wonderful.
>:|
>:|Go get 'em, Jimmy!
>:|
[me]
Hey silly, what are you smoking?
How did I get brought into this? Huh?
You must be smoking some sort of funny weeds.
LOL
You are a trip.
================================================================
buc...@exis.net wrote:
>
> Rick Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>
> >:|Alison's critique of Jeffy Sinclair, Ph.D.'s post of Dr. Bellah's views on
> >:|separation of church and state is wonderful.
> >:|
> >:|Go get 'em, Jimmy!
> >:|
>
> Hey silly, what are you smoking?
>
> How did I get brought into this? Huh?
You brought yourself into it. Jeff Sinclair responded to Mr. Schulman's
post of a Robert Novak piece with a piece from Bellah.
Then you attacked Bellah.
RG
=================================================================
Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>:|
>:|
>:|buc...@exis.net wrote:
>:|>
>:|> Rick Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>:|>
>:|> >:|Alison's critique of Jeffy Sinclair, Ph.D.'s post of Dr. Bellah's views on
>:|> >:|separation of church and state is wonderful.
>:|> >:|
>:|> >:|Go get 'em, Jimmy!
>:|> >:|
>:|>
>:|> Hey silly, what are you smoking?
>:|>
>:|> How did I get brought into this? Huh?
>:|
>:|You brought yourself into it. Jeff Sinclair responded to Mr. Schulman's
>:|post of a Robert Novak piece with a piece from Bellah.
>:|
>:|Then you attacked Bellah.
>:|
As I said, you must be smoking some sort of funny weed.
Would you mind producing that post?
To set the record straight, I don't respond to Schulman, I don't even read
his posts/replies. I delete them.
Where is the post that you claim I posted that attacked Bellah?
What thread was it in? When was it posted? What did it say?
I wonder why you didn't quote any of it when you posted your crap above?
I just looked back over all my post from the 20th to today. I have no idea
what you are responding to, but it sure wasn't anything i can find of mine
that would come even close to what are claiming.. I think maybe you need a
vacation.
================================================================
buc...@exis.net wrote:
>
> To set the record straight, I don't respond to Schulman, I don't even read
> his posts/replies. I delete them.
Now there's a strategy! Excellent! I think this is the most telling
thing you have ever said about who your are and why you're here.
> Where is the post that you claim I posted that attacked Bellah?
>
> What thread was it in? When was it posted? What did it say?
>
> I wonder why you didn't quote any of it when you posted your crap above?
>
> I just looked back over all my post from the 20th to today. I have no idea
> what you are responding to, but it sure wasn't anything i can find of mine
> that would come even close to what are claiming.. I think maybe you need a
> vacation.
Schulman pointed out a piece in the NY Times, I cited the piece, and
Jeff Sinclair responded with a rebuttal from Robert Bellah.
The whole thing is here:
http://x32.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=563180559&search=thread&CONTEXT=946013353.1434583055&HIT_CONTEXT=946013353.1434583055&HIT_NUM=&hitnum=2
A rebuttal to Bellah was posted at
http://x45.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=563873425&CONTEXT=946013730.992280582&hitnum=1
The person who offered the rebuttal appears to be unnamed except by a
code, and insofar as you seem have been in the process of changing your
identity in the last week or two, I gathered the post was yours. The
sentiments there posted do seem to be your sentiments, do they not?
=================================================================
Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>:|buc...@exis.net wrote:
>:|>
>:|> To set the record straight, I don't respond to Schulman, I don't even read
>:|> his posts/replies. I delete them.
>:|
>:|Now there's a strategy! Excellent! I think this is the most telling
>:|thing you have ever said about who your are and why you're here.
Oh? Why is that? LOL
You need to calm down. :o)
>:|
>:|> Where is the post that you claim I posted that attacked Bellah?
>:|>
>:|> What thread was it in? When was it posted? What did it say?
>:|>
>:|> I wonder why you didn't quote any of it when you posted your crap above?
>:|>
>:|> I just looked back over all my post from the 20th to today. I have no idea
>:|> what you are responding to, but it sure wasn't anything i can find of mine
>:|> that would come even close to what are claiming.. I think maybe you need a
>:|> vacation.
>:|
>:|Schulman pointed out a piece in the NY Times, I cited the piece, and
>:|Jeff Sinclair responded with a rebuttal from Robert Bellah.
Yes silly, I am aware of your comments and Jeff Sinclair's remarks.
But you still haven't produced anything by me.
>:|
>:|The whole thing is here:
>:|http://x32.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=563180559&search=thread&CONTEXT=946013353.1434583055&HIT_CONTEXT=946013353.1434583055&HIT_NUM=&hitnum=2
>:|
>:|A rebuttal to Bellah was posted at
>:|http://x45.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=563873425&CONTEXT=946013730.992280582&hitnum=1
>:|
>:|The person who offered the rebuttal appears to be unnamed except by a
>:|code, and insofar as you seem have been in the process of changing your
>:|identity in the last week or two, I gathered the post was yours. The
>:|sentiments there posted do seem to be your sentiments, do they not?
Unnamed?
Oh!!!!!! You gathered?
LOL freaky.
Guess what, your gathering isn't very good.
My sentiments will be posted under my nick, name, etc. , thank you.
I realize you are rather used to attributing things to various people,
things you speculate on, imagine, invent, create. So it would be quite like
you to gather and speculate, and accuse with no rreal evidence, as in this
case. After all, it is the foundation of all you have done on here since
March, last.
Do voices speak to you as well?
As I said, you need a vacation. Or you need to lay of the wacky weed, its
getting to you.
Gardiner strikes out again.
Do remove your foot from your mouth before you try to walk.
BTW
This is the post from the url addy above
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: c...@teleport.com
Subject: Re: Religion and the Early American Republic
Date: 22 Dec 1999 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <clw-221299...@i48-35-17.pdx.du.teleport.com>
References: <eBJdOIgrlhIRLn...@4ax.com>
<385DBA78...@pitnet.net> <83n6pq$6i4$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
<386038B9...@pitnet.net>
X-Complaints-To: ne...@teleport.com
X-Trace: news1.teleport.com 945884808 216.26.61.81 (Wed, 22 Dec 1999
09:46:48 PST)
Organization: Your Name Here
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 09:46:48 PST
Newsgroups:
soc.history.war.us-revolution,alt.history.colonial,sci.skeptic,alt.deism,alt.atheism,alt.religion.deism,alt.religion.christian.presbyterian
> > Considering the separation of church and state, how is a president
> > justified in using the word "God" at all?
Because that is his right. It is also his right to totally ignore "God".
And that is exactly what the First Admendment really means.
> > The answer is that the
> > separation of church and state has not denied the political realm a
> > religious dimension.
Nope, and it does not require one either. The United States would
continue to run as well with or without any religious influences. The
disruptive thing would be a state enforced religious orthodoxy.
> > Although matters of personal religious belief,
> > worship, and association are considered to be strictly Private affairs,
> > there are, at the same time, certain common elements of religious
> > orientation that the great majority of Americans share.
And many who do not share them.
> > This public religious dimension is
> > expressed in a set of beliefs, symbols, and rituals that I am calling
> > the American civil religion.
A new nadir, the Constitution as a "biblical" document! Your leap of
logic is strabismic.
> > The inauguration of a president is an
> > important ceremonial event in this religion.
No, it is a civil event. But, you can redefine it erroneously if you wish.
----------------------------------
Fas Est Et Ab Hoste Doceri
----------------------------------
The author is identified, From: c...@teleport.com
and from the looks of it, it appears to be a valid email addy, even.
================================================================
buc...@exis.net wrote:
>
> Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>
> >:|buc...@exis.net wrote:
> >:|>
> >:|> To set the record straight, I don't respond to Schulman, I don't even read
> >:|> his posts/replies. I delete them.
> >:|
> >:|Now there's a strategy! Excellent! I think this is the most telling
> >:|thing you have ever said about who your are and why you're here.
>
> Oh? Why is that? LOL
Because you have a long history of accusing people of ignoring you. You
assert
that when a person ignores another it is evidence that the person has
conceded defeat.
So your strategy of ignoring Schulman speaks volumes... on your own terms!
LOL.
RG
==================================================================
Rick Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>:|buc...@exis.net wrote:
>:|>
>:|> Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>:|>
>:|> >:|buc...@exis.net wrote:
>:|> >:|>
>:|> >:|> To set the record straight, I don't respond to Schulman, I don't even read
>:|> >:|> his posts/replies. I delete them.
>:|> >:|
>:|> >:|Now there's a strategy! Excellent! I think this is the most telling
>:|> >:|thing you have ever said about who your are and why you're here.
>:|>
>:|> Oh? Why is that? LOL
>:|
>:|Because you have a long history of accusing p