Jeep thing or sheep thing?

This site contains affiliate links for which LandyZone may be compensated if you make a purchase.
"Matthew S. Whiting" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Marc wrote:
>> "Matthew S. Whiting" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>Marc wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Matthew S. Whiting" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>JD wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Matthew S. Whiting wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Marc wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"David Allen" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>I tend to see it as religious rights not being in the domain of the
>>>>>>>>>federal government. It can't abrogate the right to the free
>>>>>>>>>practice of religion (an individual right) nor can it pass law
>>>>>>>>>establishing a national religion (a state right?).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Then leave it as that.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>The religions file with the IRS and their establishment is
>>>>>>>>recognized by the federal government. After recognized by the
>>>>>>>>federal government, they receive subsidies from federal, and often
>>>>>>>>state and local governments as well. Wouldn't you say that may tend
>>>>>>>>to be "an establishment of religion?"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Really? What sort of subsidies? How do I get them for my church?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The tax breaks are a huge subsidy plus with all this "faith based"
>>>>>>privatization going on in some social services a lot of churches are, in
>>>>>>effect, subsidized for doing their Christian duty anyway.
>>>>>
>>>>>Sorry, but not having to give money to the government when it has no
>>>>>right to that money does not constitute a subidy. I guess if you are a
>>>>>communist or socialist, maybe that is more true.
>>>>
>>>>Then they are subsidizing them by not stealing the same amount from them.
>>>>Regardless of your political beliefs and hate towards others, the treatment
>>>>given to religious organizations is advantageous to them.
>>>
>>>Hate towards others? That's quite a stretch.
>>
>>
>> Are you using communist and socialist in a derogatory manner? It seems so.
>> You are berating anyone that might possibly disagree with you before they
>> get a chance, even if they do not fit the labels you've already put on
>> them.
>
>Criticizing or even berating is far different than hating. I'm sorry
>you don't understand that. I criticize my kids now and then as well,
>but hardly hate them.

And if you walked in the door and criticized your kids and berated them
before you'd even found a reason, then that would smack of hate.

Waiting until my post, then calling me a communist would have been one
thing. Calling all people that may disagree with you communists (and using
communists in a derogatory manner) indicates a great intolerance for those
with a differing view. I've never met an intolerant person that wasn't
also full of hate.

Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
 
"David Allen" <[email protected]> wrote
> Not having read the treaty, I will only guess that such a phrase means.
The
> US isn't a Christian nation in the same way that a Muslim nation is
Muslim.
> While the founding fathers were Christian and the values the nation was
> based upon were values eminating from their Christian heritige, the
> government is not intrinsically Christian. Precisely because of the
> establishment clause. It might be an important point to make when dealing
> with nations who regard Christians as infidels.

The problem is that, except for the West, most civilizations link state
and church intrinsically, and are *UNABLE* to see that the secular
West is not Christian. This is as an intrinsic result of their outlook and
education, and no change in this outlook is likely IMO.

Try reading Samuel P. Huntington's "Clash of Civilization and Remaking
of the World Order" for a clearer understanding of this issue. Also
interesting reading is almost anything by Bernard Lewis.

Please, let's go any deeper in any of this on this forum, however.

FloydR


 
On Thu 24 Jul 2003 11:41:29a, "fbloogyudsr" <[email protected]> wrote
in news:[email protected]:

> "David Allen" <[email protected]> wrote

>> Not having read the treaty, I will only guess that such a phrase means.
>> The US isn't a Christian nation in the same way that a Muslim nation is
>> Muslim.
>> While the founding fathers were Christian and the values the nation was
>> based upon were values eminating from their Christian heritige, the
>> government is not intrinsically Christian. Precisely because of the
>> establishment clause. It might be an important point to make when
>> dealing with nations who regard Christians as infidels.
>
> The problem is that, except for the West, most civilizations link state
> and church intrinsically, and are *UNABLE* to see that the secular
> West is not Christian. This is as an intrinsic result of their outlook
> and education, and no change in this outlook is likely IMO.

China has done a good job of creating a secualar state. It is officially
atheist.

Maybe that's just a trait of communist nations.
 

"Marc" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Matthew S. Whiting" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >Marc wrote:
> >> "Matthew S. Whiting" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >>>Marc wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>"Matthew S. Whiting" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>JD wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>Matthew S. Whiting wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Marc wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>"David Allen" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>I tend to see it as religious rights not being in the domain of
the
> >>>>>>>>>federal government. It can't abrogate the right to the free
> >>>>>>>>>practice of religion (an individual right) nor can it pass law
> >>>>>>>>>establishing a national religion (a state right?).
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>Then leave it as that.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>The religions file with the IRS and their establishment is
> >>>>>>>>recognized by the federal government. After recognized by the
> >>>>>>>>federal government, they receive subsidies from federal, and often
> >>>>>>>>state and local governments as well. Wouldn't you say that may
tend
> >>>>>>>>to be "an establishment of religion?"
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Really? What sort of subsidies? How do I get them for my church?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>The tax breaks are a huge subsidy plus with all this "faith based"
> >>>>>>privatization going on in some social services a lot of churches
are, in
> >>>>>>effect, subsidized for doing their Christian duty anyway.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Sorry, but not having to give money to the government when it has no
> >>>>>right to that money does not constitute a subidy. I guess if you are
a
> >>>>>communist or socialist, maybe that is more true.
> >>>>
> >>>>Then they are subsidizing them by not stealing the same amount from
them.
> >>>>Regardless of your political beliefs and hate towards others, the
treatment
> >>>>given to religious organizations is advantageous to them.
> >>>
> >>>Hate towards others? That's quite a stretch.
> >>
> >>
> >> Are you using communist and socialist in a derogatory manner? It seems
so.
> >> You are berating anyone that might possibly disagree with you before
they
> >> get a chance, even if they do not fit the labels you've already put on
> >> them.
> >
> >Criticizing or even berating is far different than hating. I'm sorry
> >you don't understand that. I criticize my kids now and then as well,
> >but hardly hate them.
>
> And if you walked in the door and criticized your kids and berated them
> before you'd even found a reason, then that would smack of hate.
>
> Waiting until my post, then calling me a communist would have been one
> thing. Calling all people that may disagree with you communists (and
using
> communists in a derogatory manner) indicates a great intolerance for those
> with a differing view. I've never met an intolerant person that wasn't
> also full of hate.
>

I have to agree here about the name calling. These little
religious/political forays we go on are really quite interesting, except for
the name calling. Not just "communist" and "socialist", but "Nazi",
"Fascist", "Bigot", "hate filled", "liar", "lying scumbag" (thank you Lloyd)
and so on. I think they are evidence of a lack of willingness to engage in
a real discussion or debate for whatever reason.

I don't agree on the "full of hate" comment. People are intolerant for all
sorts of reasons. My wife is intolerant of some of my behaviors and she
certainly isn't full of hate. My dear grandparents (God rest their souls),
were both born in a time and place where there was extraordinary intolerance
of blacks. For many years, I remember they wouldn't answer the door if the
person was black. And they would use the "N" word without hesitation. But
were they full of hatred??? No way. They were fearful of what integration
meant to their way of life. And given the state of affairs of most of the
freed slaves who were the blacks of their era, it was not hard to think that
way. In their later years, their intolerance mellowed. Nonetheless, for
many others, fear gave way to hatred in the form of the foul deeds of the
KKK and other's who delighted in killing and harrasing blacks. THAT was
hatred.

Ironically, one of the legacies slavery and the subsequent civil rights
movements, was (and still is) the cultivation of hatred by young blacks of
"White America". I've watched too many young blacks sign on the the notion
that the source of their troubles in life is "White America". So self
destructive.


 

"Omphalos" <!> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu 24 Jul 2003 11:41:29a, "fbloogyudsr" <[email protected]> wrote
> in news:[email protected]:
>
> > "David Allen" <[email protected]> wrote
>
> >> Not having read the treaty, I will only guess that such a phrase means.
> >> The US isn't a Christian nation in the same way that a Muslim nation is
> >> Muslim.
> >> While the founding fathers were Christian and the values the nation was
> >> based upon were values eminating from their Christian heritige, the
> >> government is not intrinsically Christian. Precisely because of the
> >> establishment clause. It might be an important point to make when
> >> dealing with nations who regard Christians as infidels.
> >
> > The problem is that, except for the West, most civilizations link state
> > and church intrinsically, and are *UNABLE* to see that the secular
> > West is not Christian. This is as an intrinsic result of their outlook
> > and education, and no change in this outlook is likely IMO.
>
> China has done a good job of creating a secualar state. It is officially
> atheist.
>
> Maybe that's just a trait of communist nations.

To Communists, religion is the "opiate of the people". It's one thing for a
government to be secular, quite another for it to embrace atheism.

Oh, a correction for fbloogyudsr. The west isn't all secular. Try Sweden
with it's state religion.


 
In article <[email protected]>,
DTJ <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 01:44:49 -0800, Marc <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Yup. The only difference between a right-wing conservative and a left-wing
>>liberal is that the conservatives want to subsidize the rich and the
>>liberals want to subsidize the poor.
>
>How is taxing the rich at more than 50%, while not taxing anyone who
>makes less than $25,000 subsidizing the rich?
>
>Take your time responding.
How is giving the rich back money when we have a deficit not subsidizing
them, at the expense of the next generation?
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"Kuzie" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> In article <[email protected]>, Bill Putney <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> >>
>> >> In article <[email protected]>,
>> >> DTJ <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> >On 21 Jul 2003 16:48:05 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >>OK, cite that evidence of yours. Because mine is what the American
>> >> >>Psychological Association and American Medical Association say, based
>on
>> >> >>scientific research.
>> >> >
>> >> >Cite yours. Then look at the actual data, not a gay/lesbian groups
>> >> >interpretation. You, if you really are a scientist, will quickly see
>> >> >the error of your ways.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> http://www.apa.org/pubinfo/answers.html
>> >>
>> >> http://www.significantdifference.org/hooker.html
>> >>
>> >> http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/policy/statements.html
>> >>
>> >> Now, these documents have extensive references. Arguing with the APA
>about
>> >> this issue is like arguing with the AMA that, say, being left-handed is
>> caused
>> >> by the devil.
>> >>
>> >> I challenged you before -- if you're got research showing otherwise,
>post
>> it.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Once again, here's an excerpt from amazon.com from the description of a
>> >book called "Understanding Loved Boys and Boylovers":
>> >
>> >"Many researchers is the fields of Psychology and Human Sexuality have
>> >been taking a fresh look at the "conventional" wisdom which has been the
>> >basis for evaluation of intergenerational male/male sexual activities.
>> >The long assumed 'harm' of such activities has failed to be supported by
>> >research, and the sociocultural 'wrongness' based on this 'harm' is
>> >therefore left without any rational basis. An extremely thorough and
>> >exhaustive paper, 'A Meta-Analytic Examination of Assumed Properties of
>> >Child Sexual Abuse Using College Samples' was published in the July,
>> >1998 Psychological Bulletin, the journal of the *AMERICAN*
>> >*PSYCHOLOGICAL* *ASSOCIATION* [my emphasis]. It brought forth howls of
>> >protest from right wing radicals all the way up to and including the
>> >United States House of Representatives, but after the furor subsided,
>> >the paper, having been subjected to intensive examination at every
>> >level, has been judged to be true, accurate and objective science.
>> >
>> >"Previous to this, a collection of papers by such authors as Bullough,
>> >Bernard, Schild, Warren, Bauserman, et al., was published as 'Dares to
>> >Speak', edited by Joseph Geraci. Before that there was 'Male
>> >Intergenerational Intimacy' by Brongersma. Both of these volumes are
>> >currently in print, and are available.
>> >
>> >"The above mentioned paper and books are intended primarily for
>> >researchers, educators, and other people knowledgeable in these areas.
>> >Therefore, I have authored a "layman's" introductory volume,
>> >'Understanding Loved Boys and Boylovers', which essentially covers the
>> >same premises, data, and conclusions as the above, but which is written
>> >in mostly non technical language..."
>> >
>> >So much for the APA and so-called "science". Some things are just plain
>> >wrong no matter how much you try to hide behind false science. I do not
>> >bow to the "wisdom" and "science" of the APA like you do Lloyd.
>> >
>> >Bill Putney
>> >(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
>> >address with "x")
>> >
>> >
>> >-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
>> >http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
>> >-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
>> And does Tim McVeigh's actions mean all Christians are baby-killers, or
>that
>> this is official Christian doctrine?
>
>Guys, I would not argue with poor Lloyd. It really isn't fair to have a
>battle of witts with an unarmed man.
>
>

Why is it bigots think everybody wants to hear their bigotry?
 
In article <[email protected]>, Bill Putney <[email protected]> wrote:
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>> In article <[email protected]>, Bill Putney <[email protected]>
wrote:
>> >Marc wrote:
>> >>
>> >> It isn't ethical to molest children, either, but we know that is done by
>> >> those in the church. Oh, and it is perfectly legal to let anyone live
>> >> there...
>> >
>> >No, Marc - the American Pschological Association has proven
>> >"scientifically" that it's OK for men to have sex with boys -
>>
>> OK, lying scumbag alert.
>
>
>Well, Lloyd - the publisher of that book sure seems to think that the
>APA has proven scientifically that it does no harm. Here - I'll run it
>by you again - I'll type real slow so you can read it:
>
>"Many researchers is [sic] the fields of Psychology and Human Sexuality
>have been taking a fresh look at the 'conventional' wisdom which has
>been the basis for evaluation of intergenerational male/male sexual
>activities. The long assumed 'harm' of such activities has failed to be
>supported by research, and the sociocultural 'wrongness' based on this
>'harm' is therefore left without any rational basis. An extremely
>thorough and exhaustive paper, 'A Meta-Analytic Examination of Assumed
>Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Using College Samples' was published in
>the July, 1998 Psychological Bulletin, the journal of the *AMERICAN*
>*PSYCHOLOGICAL* *ASSOCIATION* [my emphasis]. It brought forth howls of
>protest from right wing radicals all the way up to and including the
>United States House of Representatives, but after the furor subsided,
>the paper, having been subjected to intensive examination at every
>level, has been judged to be true, accurate and objective science."
>
>Got that? "...The long assumed 'harm' of such activities has failed to
>be supported by research,

And so you claim the absence of proof is the proof of absence?

If I do a study which, due to its design, fails to prove Republicans are
stupid, that does not mean it proves Republicans are not stupid.


>and the sociocultural 'wrongness' based on
>this 'harm' is therefore left without any rational basis. An extremely
>thorough and exhaustive paper,

Whose words are those?


>'A Meta-Analytic Examination of Assumed
>Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Using College Samples' was published in
>the July, 1998 Psychological Bulletin, the journal of the *AMERICAN*
>*PSYCHOLOGICAL* *ASSOCIATION* [my emphasis]. It brought forth howls of
>protest from right wing radicals all the way up to and including the
>United States House of Representatives, but after the furor subsided,
>the paper, having been subjected to intensive examination at every
>level, has been judged to be true, accurate and objective science.
>
>APA "objective science" ("...subjected to intensive examination at every
>level [what the hell does that mean?], has been judged to be true,
>accurate...") has proven that the wrongness of such perverted behavior
>("intergenerational male/male sexual activities") is "without any
>rational basis".

Show me where the APA ever says this. The APA published it in a journal it
runs. Just because a physics journal may have published the article on cold
fusion didn't mean a physics society was saying cold fusion was valid.

>
>But I'm the lying scumbag. Yeah - right.
>
>Bill Putney
>(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
>address with "x")
>
>
>-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
>http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
>-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
 
In article <[email protected]>, Bill Putney <[email protected]> wrote:
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> Marc <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >Bill Putney <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >>Marc wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> It isn't ethical to molest children, either...
>
>> >>No, Marc - the American Pschological Association has proven
>> >>"scientifically" that it's OK for men to have sex with boys - that
>> >>there's no harm done, and we all know how wonderful and above question
>> >>the APA is. Get in step with the times, man. According to the APA,
>> >>what the priests did to all those altar boys is just fine. 8^)
>> >
>> >
>> >Perhaps you'd like the APA to endorse faked studies that only find what
you
>> >want them to find?
>
>And of course you think such a study was honest? Hardly. Much less,
>scientific. Anyone who thinks little boys who've beem sexually molested
>by grown men are not scarred for life is pathetic - no matter how much
>"scientific proof" he has coming out his sphincter to prove otherwise.

You don't seem to feel similar sympathy for little girls. Is it because
they'd ghave been molested by heterosexuals?

>
>> He and others here would only be satisfied with herding gays into gas
>> chambers.
>
>Based on...? Couldn't be further from the truth. Funny - you're the
>one who earlier today called *me* the lying scumbag. I gave you the
>smoking gun on the APA for what I said. You just think you can slander
>with no basis whatsoever. I guess my proving my point, and then you
>retaliating (for my having proved my point) by calling me a lying
>scumbag and then creating your own baseless lie is supposed to even
>things up in Lloydworld. Your reputation precedes you.
>
>Bill Putney
>(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
>address with "x")
>
>
>-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
>http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
>-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
 
In article <[email protected]>,
DTJ <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 23 Jul 2003 16:04:14 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
>
>>He and others here would only be satisfied with herding gays into gas
>>chambers.
>
>Typical liberal hysteria.
>
>When you know your argument is weak, attack the enemy with
>fabrications.
Hey, it's you homophobes who've been attacking. Sauce, goose, gander.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"David Allen" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> "Matthew S. Whiting" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >'nuther Bob wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 02:07:58 GMT, "Matthew S. Whiting"
>> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>>>The religions file with the IRS and their establishment is recognized
>by
>> >>>>the federal government. After recognized by the federal government,
>they
>> >>>>receive subsidies from federal, and often state and local governments
>as
>> >>>>well. Wouldn't you say that may tend to be "an establishment of
>> religion?"
>> >>>
>> >>>Really? What sort of subsidies? How do I get them for my church?
>> >>>
>> >>>Matt
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> You probably already get them: no need to pay federal income taxes as
>> >> a non-profit, no need to pay state income taxes, no need to pay state
>> >> or local real property or tangible property taxes in most locales.
>> >>
>> >> You still use the same services as most other business and
>> >> individuals, you just pay no taxes. Quite a deal when you think
>> >> about it.
>> >>
>> >> Bob
>> >>
>> >
>> >Which services? The only service I can think of that our church would
>> >get is fire coverage and this is from a volunteer fire company that is
>> >support almost entirely by local contributions.
>> >
>> >Matt
>> >
>>
>> Don't its customers and employees use roads, libraries, police, schools
>for
>> their children, etc., just like customers and employees of, say, Burger
>King
>> or K-Mart?
>
>Churches don't have customers. But those who attend (I suppose that's you
>perjoritively called "customers") pay taxes. Their employees pay taxes.
>
>
Ditto for customers and employees of K-Mart. But the store also pays property
taxes.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"David Allen" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> Omphalos <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >On Fri 18 Jul 2003 11:04:49a, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker) wrote in
>> >news:[email protected]:
>> >
>> >> In article <[email protected]>,
>> >>
>> >> "Matthew S. Whiting" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Nathan Nagel wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> "Matthew S. Whiting" wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> DTJ wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 21:57:52 -0400, Bill Putney <[email protected]>
>> >>>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> Laura's Rancid Bush wrote:
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> I never knew this NG was so bigoted and ignorant. If this said
>> >>>>>>>> ignorance is very widespread, readers would be wise to consider
>> >>>>>>>> the value of automotive opinions rendered here. This NG does seem
>> >>>>>>>> to be a good recruiting place for the christian reich
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> And of course, everyone knows that if you hate Christians, that's
>> >>>>>>> not bigoted. I'll have to remember that one.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> The pastor of my church recently went out of his way to explain to
>> >>>>>> the congregation what we should do if a gay attended our church.
>He
>> >>>>>> spoke for almost an hour, but his message was simple.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> We should welcome them with open arms.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> That is a wise pastor. A church should welcome all sinners,
>> >>>>> regardless of the sin.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Matt
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> This attitude is why many gays are decidedly not christians.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> nate
>> >>>
>> >>> That is why most sinners aren't Christians. Christianity forces you
>to
>> >>> accept that you are a sinner and must be saved by grace. That is true
>> >>> whether the sin is gambling or homosexuality.
>> >>
>> >> How about bigotry?
>> >
>> >Bigotry, as well as the non-existent condition known as 'homophobia', is
>> >an overused term that has begun to lose its true meaning. Lately, it has
>> >been used to label anyone who doesn't agree with the homosexual
>lifestyle.
>>
>> No. I don't agree with the lifestyle of riding motorcycles, for example,
>but
>> I'm not calling them immoral and abnormal and advocating their
>discrimination.
>>
>> >
>> >Soon, the term bigot will be applied to anyone who does not support
>> >bestiality, incest, or bigamy.
>>
>> What an idiot.
>
>Lloyd, you are the king of cheap $0.25 insults, with ONLY the assumption
>that yours is the opinion that everyone but idiots agree with to back up the
>insult.
>
>
The poster was an idiot. Only an idiot would have posted "Soon, the term
bigot will be applied to anyone who does not support
>> >bestiality, incest, or bigamy."
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"David Allen" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> Omphalos <Omphalos> wrote:
>> >On Fri 18 Jul 2003 03:03:35p, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker) wrote in
>> >news:[email protected]:
>> >
>> >> In article <[email protected]>,
>> >> 'nuther Bob <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >>>On 18 Jul 2003 15:03:20 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Jefferson said it (and he helped write the constitution). And "no
>law
>> >>>> establishing religion" pretty much is the same thing.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> No, no, no! You miss the point Lloyd. They don't want to establish
>> >>> a law establishing a religion, they just want to put prayer in the
>> >>> schools, prayer with the dominant religion in that area, you know,
>> >>> like, say, a Christian prayer. And, maybe a cross on the wall. But
>> >>> that's it, no "religion".
>> >>>
>> >>> Now why would anyone be opposed to Christian prayers in the
>> >>> schools ? I mean, after all, aren't we a Christian country ?
>> >>>
>> >>> Bob
>> >>
>> >> Perhaps they've never heard of the Treaty of Tripoli, in the early
>> >> 1800s, signed by Pres. Adams, which said we are not a Christian
>country.
>> >
>> >Unfortunately for your position, the United States was not in any sense
>> >founded on the Treaty of Tripoli. The wording of the Treaty of Tripoli
>was
>> >John Barlow's, not any elected representative's certainly not any elected
>> >Founding Father.
>>
>> What does the constitution say about a treaty?
>>
>>
>> >No one knows who invented Article 11, or when, except
>> >that it was created after the Treaty was signed in Tripoli and Algiers;
>it
>> >does not appear in the original version of the Treaty. Humanists and
>other
>> >God-haters have latched onto the spurious phrase as if it represented the
>> >belief or opinion of the Founding Fathers of the United States.
>>
>> Who signed it?
>>
>>
>> >Even if
>> >those who ratified the Treaty in the United States saw the wording (and
>> >there is no certain evidence they did there is absolute silence from that
>> >period on the matter), it still would not mean that any of them agreed
>> >with every phrase including that one that appeared in the Treaty.
>>
>> Again, what does the constitution say about a treaty?
>>
>>
>> >Rather
>> >than send the Treaty back to Tripoli (a 2- or 3-month trip at that time,
>> >plus the diplomatic difficulty of getting the Moslems to re-sign a treaty
>> >they didn't like and soon broke) for a single insignificant phrase, it
>> >would have been signed. Finally, the meaning of the Treaty of Tripoli
>that
>> >the Humanists have attached to it is simply factually incorrect; no
>matter
>> >what the authenticity of the Article 11 might have been, it would have
>> >been factually incorrect for it to have denied the Christian foundations
>> >of the United States.
>>
>> Most of the founders were deists, not "Christians."
>>
>>
>> >Indeed, this Treaty with Tripoli and other
>> >correspondence from that period and location contained several references
>> >to the US being a Christian nation; one of the legal witnesses of the
>> >Treaty even signed it,
>> >
>> >"We Don Gerardo Joseph de Souza Knight of the order of Christ, Consul
>> >General and Charge des Affaires of his Catholic Majesty in this City and
>> >Kingdom of Tripoli of Barbary. Certify That the foregoing signatures and
>> >seals are those of the persons who sign all treaties of peace which are
>> >concluded with Christian Nations."
>> >
>> >http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/bar1796n.htm
>> >
>> >So, the idea that the Treaty of Tripoli demonstrates that the US was not
>a
>> >Christian nation is absurd. The straightforward, simple logic of these
>> >statements has, for some reason (probably spite) eluded the grasp of the
>> >Humanists.
>>
>> Again, what is the wording and what does the constitution say about
>treaties?
>>
>> >
>> >That piece of paper probably wasn't even in North America when Washington
>> >left office. It was signed in Algiers on January 3, 1797. It was then
>> >hand-copied (at least 3 copies were made) and translated into English,
>> >before eventually being sent half-way around the world to the United
>> >States and it could not have been copied and translated along the way to
>> >the United States, because at least one copy (the Cathcart Copy) remained
>> >in the Mediterranean area. The trip itself must have taken months it took
>> >2 or 3 months just to sail that distance, besides any delays along the
>> >way. It would have been quite difficult for the Treaty of Tripoli of 1797
>> >to have arrived in the United States before Washington retired to Mount
>> >Vernon.
>>
>> Funny; you right-wingers always argue for strict constructionism when
>reading
>> the constitution, but with this treaty, you're arguing to ignore the
>words.
>
>Not having read the treaty, I will only guess that such a phrase means. The
>US isn't a Christian nation in the same way that a Muslim nation is Muslim.
>While the founding fathers were Christian and the values the nation was
>based upon were values eminating from their Christian heritige,

How so? What religions don't have the concepts of not murdering, not
stealing, etc? In fact, what sets of moral values do not?


>the
>government is not intrinsically Christian. Precisely because of the
>establishment clause. It might be an important point to make when dealing
>with nations who regard Christians as infidels.
>
>Is that how you see it Lloyd? Or perhaps, the physical presentation of the
>words "not a Christian nation" was enough for you to run with. By the way,
>some states had "state" religions during the first few decades. None of the
>founding fathers found that un-constitutional.
>
>
And it wasn't until the bill of rights was incorporated, as I posted earlier.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"David Allen" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Omphalos" <!> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Thu 24 Jul 2003 11:41:29a, "fbloogyudsr" <[email protected]> wrote
>> in news:[email protected]:
>>
>> > "David Allen" <[email protected]> wrote
>>
>> >> Not having read the treaty, I will only guess that such a phrase means.
>> >> The US isn't a Christian nation in the same way that a Muslim nation is
>> >> Muslim.
>> >> While the founding fathers were Christian and the values the nation was
>> >> based upon were values eminating from their Christian heritige, the
>> >> government is not intrinsically Christian. Precisely because of the
>> >> establishment clause. It might be an important point to make when
>> >> dealing with nations who regard Christians as infidels.
>> >
>> > The problem is that, except for the West, most civilizations link state
>> > and church intrinsically, and are *UNABLE* to see that the secular
>> > West is not Christian. This is as an intrinsic result of their outlook
>> > and education, and no change in this outlook is likely IMO.
>>
>> China has done a good job of creating a secualar state. It is officially
>> atheist.
>>
>> Maybe that's just a trait of communist nations.
>
>To Communists, religion is the "opiate of the people". It's one thing for a
>government to be secular, quite another for it to embrace atheism.
>
>Oh, a correction for fbloogyudsr. The west isn't all secular. Try Sweden
>with it's state religion.
>
>
Church of England too. Germany is Lutheran.

But the US was founded on the principle of not having the government involved
with religion.
 

"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> DTJ <[email protected]> wrote:
> >On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 01:44:49 -0800, Marc <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >>Yup. The only difference between a right-wing conservative and a
left-wing
> >>liberal is that the conservatives want to subsidize the rich and the
> >>liberals want to subsidize the poor.
> >
> >How is taxing the rich at more than 50%, while not taxing anyone who
> >makes less than $25,000 subsidizing the rich?
> >
> >Take your time responding.
> How is giving the rich back money when we have a deficit not subsidizing
> them, at the expense of the next generation?

Well, here we are. We have our traditional liberal/conservative way of
looking at life. Liberals think we tax too little. Conservatives think we
spend too much.


 

"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "David Allen" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> In article <[email protected]>,
> >> "Matthew S. Whiting" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >'nuther Bob wrote:
> >> >> On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 02:07:58 GMT, "Matthew S. Whiting"
> >> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>>>The religions file with the IRS and their establishment is
recognized
> >by
> >> >>>>the federal government. After recognized by the federal
government,
> >they
> >> >>>>receive subsidies from federal, and often state and local
governments
> >as
> >> >>>>well. Wouldn't you say that may tend to be "an establishment of
> >> religion?"
> >> >>>
> >> >>>Really? What sort of subsidies? How do I get them for my church?
> >> >>>
> >> >>>Matt
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> You probably already get them: no need to pay federal income taxes
as
> >> >> a non-profit, no need to pay state income taxes, no need to pay
state
> >> >> or local real property or tangible property taxes in most locales.
> >> >>
> >> >> You still use the same services as most other business and
> >> >> individuals, you just pay no taxes. Quite a deal when you think
> >> >> about it.
> >> >>
> >> >> Bob
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >Which services? The only service I can think of that our church would
> >> >get is fire coverage and this is from a volunteer fire company that is
> >> >support almost entirely by local contributions.
> >> >
> >> >Matt
> >> >
> >>
> >> Don't its customers and employees use roads, libraries, police, schools
> >for
> >> their children, etc., just like customers and employees of, say, Burger
> >King
> >> or K-Mart?
> >
> >Churches don't have customers. But those who attend (I suppose that's
you
> >perjoritively called "customers") pay taxes. Their employees pay taxes.
> >
> >
> Ditto for customers and employees of K-Mart. But the store also pays
property
> taxes.

K-Mart isn't a state insitution, nor a charitable organization, nor a social
welfare organization.


 

"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Kuzie" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> In article <[email protected]>, Bill Putney <[email protected]>
> >wrote:
> >> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> In article <[email protected]>,
> >> >> DTJ <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >> >On 21 Jul 2003 16:48:05 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>OK, cite that evidence of yours. Because mine is what the
American
> >> >> >>Psychological Association and American Medical Association say,
based
> >on
> >> >> >>scientific research.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Cite yours. Then look at the actual data, not a gay/lesbian groups
> >> >> >interpretation. You, if you really are a scientist, will quickly
see
> >> >> >the error of your ways.
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> http://www.apa.org/pubinfo/answers.html
> >> >>
> >> >> http://www.significantdifference.org/hooker.html
> >> >>
> >> >> http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/policy/statements.html
> >> >>
> >> >> Now, these documents have extensive references. Arguing with the
APA
> >about
> >> >> this issue is like arguing with the AMA that, say, being left-handed
is
> >> caused
> >> >> by the devil.
> >> >>
> >> >> I challenged you before -- if you're got research showing otherwise,
> >post
> >> it.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >Once again, here's an excerpt from amazon.com from the description of
a
> >> >book called "Understanding Loved Boys and Boylovers":
> >> >
> >> >"Many researchers is the fields of Psychology and Human Sexuality have
> >> >been taking a fresh look at the "conventional" wisdom which has been
the
> >> >basis for evaluation of intergenerational male/male sexual activities.
> >> >The long assumed 'harm' of such activities has failed to be supported
by
> >> >research, and the sociocultural 'wrongness' based on this 'harm' is
> >> >therefore left without any rational basis. An extremely thorough and
> >> >exhaustive paper, 'A Meta-Analytic Examination of Assumed Properties
of
> >> >Child Sexual Abuse Using College Samples' was published in the July,
> >> >1998 Psychological Bulletin, the journal of the *AMERICAN*
> >> >*PSYCHOLOGICAL* *ASSOCIATION* [my emphasis]. It brought forth howls of
> >> >protest from right wing radicals all the way up to and including the
> >> >United States House of Representatives, but after the furor subsided,
> >> >the paper, having been subjected to intensive examination at every
> >> >level, has been judged to be true, accurate and objective science.
> >> >
> >> >"Previous to this, a collection of papers by such authors as Bullough,
> >> >Bernard, Schild, Warren, Bauserman, et al., was published as 'Dares to
> >> >Speak', edited by Joseph Geraci. Before that there was 'Male
> >> >Intergenerational Intimacy' by Brongersma. Both of these volumes are
> >> >currently in print, and are available.
> >> >
> >> >"The above mentioned paper and books are intended primarily for
> >> >researchers, educators, and other people knowledgeable in these areas.
> >> >Therefore, I have authored a "layman's" introductory volume,
> >> >'Understanding Loved Boys and Boylovers', which essentially covers the
> >> >same premises, data, and conclusions as the above, but which is
written
> >> >in mostly non technical language..."
> >> >
> >> >So much for the APA and so-called "science". Some things are just
plain
> >> >wrong no matter how much you try to hide behind false science. I do
not
> >> >bow to the "wisdom" and "science" of the APA like you do Lloyd.
> >> >
> >> >Bill Putney
> >> >(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
> >> >address with "x")
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> >> >http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> >> >-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
> >> And does Tim McVeigh's actions mean all Christians are baby-killers, or
> >that
> >> this is official Christian doctrine?
> >
> >Guys, I would not argue with poor Lloyd. It really isn't fair to have a
> >battle of witts with an unarmed man.
> >
> >
>
> Why is it bigots think everybody wants to hear their bigotry?

Why is it liberal morons think everyone wants to hear their extreme left
wing ramblings?


 

"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "David Allen" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> In article <[email protected]>,
> >> Omphalos <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >On Fri 18 Jul 2003 11:04:49a, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker) wrote
in
> >> >news:[email protected]:
> >> >
> >> >> In article <[email protected]>,
> >> >>
> >> >> "Matthew S. Whiting" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>> Nathan Nagel wrote:
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> "Matthew S. Whiting" wrote:
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>> DTJ wrote:
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>> On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 21:57:52 -0400, Bill Putney <[email protected]>
> >> >>>>>> wrote:
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>> Laura's Rancid Bush wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>> I never knew this NG was so bigoted and ignorant. If this said
> >> >>>>>>>> ignorance is very widespread, readers would be wise to
consider
> >> >>>>>>>> the value of automotive opinions rendered here. This NG does
seem
> >> >>>>>>>> to be a good recruiting place for the christian reich
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>> And of course, everyone knows that if you hate Christians,
that's
> >> >>>>>>> not bigoted. I'll have to remember that one.
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> The pastor of my church recently went out of his way to explain
to
> >> >>>>>> the congregation what we should do if a gay attended our church.
> >He
> >> >>>>>> spoke for almost an hour, but his message was simple.
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> We should welcome them with open arms.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> That is a wise pastor. A church should welcome all sinners,
> >> >>>>> regardless of the sin.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> Matt
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> This attitude is why many gays are decidedly not christians.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> nate
> >> >>>
> >> >>> That is why most sinners aren't Christians. Christianity forces
you
> >to
> >> >>> accept that you are a sinner and must be saved by grace. That is
true
> >> >>> whether the sin is gambling or homosexuality.
> >> >>
> >> >> How about bigotry?
> >> >
> >> >Bigotry, as well as the non-existent condition known as 'homophobia',
is
> >> >an overused term that has begun to lose its true meaning. Lately, it
has
> >> >been used to label anyone who doesn't agree with the homosexual
> >lifestyle.
> >>
> >> No. I don't agree with the lifestyle of riding motorcycles, for
example,
> >but
> >> I'm not calling them immoral and abnormal and advocating their
> >discrimination.
> >>
> >> >
> >> >Soon, the term bigot will be applied to anyone who does not support
> >> >bestiality, incest, or bigamy.
> >>
> >> What an idiot.
> >
> >Lloyd, you are the king of cheap $0.25 insults, with ONLY the assumption
> >that yours is the opinion that everyone but idiots agree with to back up
the
> >insult.
> >
> >
> The poster was an idiot. Only an idiot would have posted "Soon, the term
> bigot will be applied to anyone who does not support
> >> >bestiality, incest, or bigamy."

That comment isn't any different than the ones you offer all the time,
except it's from the other side of the opinion sprectrum. Oh, and the
bestiality, incest and bigamy arguments are real argurments against gay
marriage. So, that comment doesn't come from idiocy. The point being that
gay marriage doesn't have an intellectual backstop that doesn't have within
it's boundary those vices (sorry for the double neg). So to be a "bigot"
wrt gay marriage is be a "bigot" wrt polygamy, etc.


 

> >Not having read the treaty, I will only guess that such a phrase means.
The
> >US isn't a Christian nation in the same way that a Muslim nation is
Muslim.
> >While the founding fathers were Christian and the values the nation was
> >based upon were values eminating from their Christian heritige,
>
> How so? What religions don't have the concepts of not murdering, not
> stealing, etc? In fact, what sets of moral values do not?
>
>
> >the
> >government is not intrinsically Christian. Precisely because of the
> >establishment clause. It might be an important point to make when
dealing
> >with nations who regard Christians as infidels.
> >
> >Is that how you see it Lloyd? Or perhaps, the physical presentation of
the
> >words "not a Christian nation" was enough for you to run with. By the
way,
> >some states had "state" religions during the first few decades. None of
the
> >founding fathers found that un-constitutional.
> >
> >
> And it wasn't until the bill of rights was incorporated, as I posted
earlier.

I recall reading that some states had state religions into the 1830's, e.g.,
Puritanism in Massachussetts. And it was their right to do so as the
establishment clause only applies to congress. It was only later that the
supreme court used the 14th amendment to rule that no government entity,
federal, state, local or whatever can establish a religion. And as might be
expected, there's even disagreement on that, as the establishment clause is
not a "right of the people" as much as a prohibition on congress. The right
is the right of free exercise, which the 14th amendment plainly applies to.


 

"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "David Allen" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >"Omphalos" <!> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> On Thu 24 Jul 2003 11:41:29a, "fbloogyudsr" <[email protected]>
wrote
> >> in news:[email protected]:
> >>
> >> > "David Allen" <[email protected]> wrote
> >>
> >> >> Not having read the treaty, I will only guess that such a phrase
means.
> >> >> The US isn't a Christian nation in the same way that a Muslim nation
is
> >> >> Muslim.
> >> >> While the founding fathers were Christian and the values the nation
was
> >> >> based upon were values eminating from their Christian heritige, the
> >> >> government is not intrinsically Christian. Precisely because of the
> >> >> establishment clause. It might be an important point to make when
> >> >> dealing with nations who regard Christians as infidels.
> >> >
> >> > The problem is that, except for the West, most civilizations link
state
> >> > and church intrinsically, and are *UNABLE* to see that the secular
> >> > West is not Christian. This is as an intrinsic result of their
outlook
> >> > and education, and no change in this outlook is likely IMO.
> >>
> >> China has done a good job of creating a secualar state. It is
officially
> >> atheist.
> >>
> >> Maybe that's just a trait of communist nations.
> >
> >To Communists, religion is the "opiate of the people". It's one thing
for a
> >government to be secular, quite another for it to embrace atheism.
> >
> >Oh, a correction for fbloogyudsr. The west isn't all secular. Try
Sweden
> >with it's state religion.
> >
> >
> Church of England too. Germany is Lutheran.
>
> But the US was founded on the principle of not having the government
involved
> with religion.

Words are important. "Involved" covers a lot more ground that "establish".

Listen, no one wants government religions or any of that. Wall of
separation? Fine. But you advocate a *gulf* of separation that isn't
warranted by law, only by your opinion that reveals a disdain for religion.
Listening to you, I get the empression that religious freedom should be
relegated to people's private homes or churches, which would be compelled to
pay taxes on their property and received donations.


 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Discodevon
Jeep Cherokee 2.7 crd 2002
Replies
9
Views
1K
Firebobby1
Firebobby1
F
Help 😪 this thing is driving me mad 😆
Replies
9
Views
1K
freelandertd4bmw
F
Zorro587
Noise gone but prop shaft queries abound
Replies
14
Views
1K
Chris_68
C
feyniriel
Gearbox fault P38?
Replies
3
Views
839
Grrrrrr
Grrrrrr
xDParis64
Freelander 1 Skid Plate Bolt Sizes + Engine Compression
Replies
19
Views
761
J_D
J_D
Back
Top