Today's Articles


Question:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Does God love us? Our pets follow their natural instincts and we treat them good. When we humans do the same, the Christian god castigates us and threatens to kill and torture us. All we’re doing is following our natural instincts, nothing more. It is said that there is nothing that God cannot do. The truth is that the Christian god cannot stop hating human nature, and he cannot stop lying to us about the fact that he loves us, when in fact he hates us from the very first moment we take our first breath. The reason he hates us from our very first breath is because two characters from a book picked one lousy fruit off a tree. No body even knows when this alleged crime was supposed to have taken place or if it’s even true. It’s sad that after all these millennia, the eternally graceful, merciful and compassionate Christian god can’t even bring himself to forget one little mistake by a couple of fallible humans. — Andrew W. You have a very strange god… My God loves me so much that He died for me in my place. Sorry about your god.

Wow… let the War of the Trolls begin!!

Response:

Does God love us? Ben Franklin said that Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy. If that was true then beer would be free. There would be such a thing as beer fruit juice.

===Where do you get free fruit juice? — L.

Response:

Does God love us? Ben Franklin said that Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy. Nils K. Hammer

    <sip! aaahhh…     Yeah, Old Ben was a smart old dude….

Response:

Does God love us? Ben Franklin said that Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy. Nils K. Hammer

===And old Ben was correct, except that the "God" he was talking about was really a GODDESS! PROOF: On a seal from Sumer there is recipe fro brewing beer, and a "Hymn to Ninkasi", the goddess of brewing.  Also, in the EPIC OF GILGAMESH, from which the biblical story of Noah was adapted, describes how the near-beastly primitive man Enkidu became a civilized human by drinking several cups of beer. SEE: "Which came first, the bread or the beer? The Ancient History of Beer" at http://www.beerchurch.com/history1.htm     Libertarius

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Does God love us? Our pets follow their natural instincts and we treat them good. When we humans do the same, the Christian god castigates us and threatens to kill and torture us. All we’re doing is following our natural instincts, nothing more. It is said that there is nothing that God cannot do. The truth is that the Christian god cannot stop hating human nature, and he cannot stop lying to us about the fact that he loves us, when in fact he hates us from the very first moment we take our first breath. The reason he hates us from our very first breath is because two characters from a book picked one lousy fruit off a tree. No body even knows when this alleged crime was supposed to have taken place or if it’s even true. It’s sad that after all these millennia, the eternally graceful, merciful and compassionate Christian god can’t even bring himself to forget one little mistake by a couple of fallible humans. — Andrew W. You have a very strange god… My God loves me so much that He died for me in my place. Sorry about your god.

===So you don’t believe he is alive? And you believe you will NOT die, like everyone else? — L.

Response:

You have a very strange god…

I’m referring to your god actually. My God loves me so much that He died for me in my place.

That’s one of the Christian consortium’s main marketing hooks. They use that to get an emotional response, thereby gaining the maximum number of followers and bible sales. The fact is they need your business and they’ll make up the most tear jerking stories to get it. Sorry about your god.

– Andrew W. "If you bring forth what is within you, what you bring forth will save you…" ~ Jesus. The Gospel of Thomas. Religion Exposed! http://members.optusnet.com.au/~ajwerner

Response:

Does God love us?

Ben Franklin said that Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy. Nils K. Hammer

Response:

Does God love us? Ben Franklin said that Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.

If that was true then beer would be free. There would be such a thing as beer fruit juice. — Andrew W. "If you bring forth what is within you, what you bring forth will save you…" ~ Jesus. The Gospel of Thomas. Religion Exposed! http://members.optusnet.com.au/~ajwerner

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Does God love us? Our pets follow their natural instincts and we treat them good. When we humans do the same, the Christian god castigates us and threatens to kill and torture us. All we’re doing is following our natural instincts, nothing more. It is said that there is nothing that God cannot do. The truth is that the Christian god cannot stop hating human nature, and he cannot stop lying to us about the fact that he loves us, when in fact he hates us from the very first moment we take our first breath. The reason he hates us from our very first breath is because two characters from a book picked one lousy fruit off a tree. No body even knows when this alleged crime was supposed to have taken place or if it’s even true. It’s sad that after all these millennia, the eternally graceful, merciful and compassionate Christian god can’t even bring himself to forget one little mistake by a couple of fallible humans.

===It is sad that people continue to believe and preach the existence of such a being. — L.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Does God love us? Our pets follow their natural instincts and we treat them good. When we humans do the same, the Christian god castigates us and threatens to kill and torture us. All we’re doing is following our natural instincts, nothing more. It is said that there is nothing that God cannot do. The truth is that the Christian god cannot stop hating human nature, and he cannot stop lying to us about the fact that he loves us, when in fact he hates us from the very first moment we take our first breath. The reason he hates us from our very first breath is because two characters from a book picked one lousy fruit off a tree. No body even knows when this alleged crime was supposed to have taken place or if it’s even true. It’s sad that after all these millennia, the eternally graceful, merciful and compassionate Christian god can’t even bring himself to forget one little mistake by a couple of fallible humans. — Andrew W.

You have a very strange god… My God loves me so much that He died for me in my place. Sorry about your god.

Response:

Does God love us? Our pets follow their natural instincts and we treat them good. When we humans do the same, the Christian god castigates us and threatens to kill and torture us. All we’re doing is following our natural instincts, nothing more. It is said that there is nothing that God cannot do. The truth is that the Christian god cannot stop hating human nature, and he cannot stop lying to us about the fact that he loves us, when in fact he hates us from the very first moment we take our first breath. The reason he hates us from our very first breath is because two characters from a book picked one lousy fruit off a tree. No body even knows when this alleged crime was supposed to have taken place or if it’s even true. It’s sad that after all these millennia, the eternally graceful, merciful and compassionate Christian god can’t even bring himself to forget one little mistake by a couple of fallible humans. — Andrew W. "If you bring forth what is within you, what you bring forth will save you…" ~ Jesus. The Gospel of Thomas. Religion Exposed! http://members.optusnet.com.au/~ajwerner

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Does God love us? Our pets follow their natural instincts and we treat them good. When we humans do the same, the Christian god castigates us and threatens to kill and torture us. All we’re doing is following our natural instincts, nothing more. It is said that there is nothing that God cannot do. The truth is that the Christian god cannot stop hating human nature, and he cannot stop lying to us about the fact that he loves us, when in fact he hates us from the very first moment we take our first breath. The reason he hates us from our very first breath is because two characters from a book picked one lousy fruit off a tree. No body even knows when this alleged crime was supposed to have taken place or if it’s even true. It’s sad that after all these millennia, the eternally graceful, merciful and compassionate Christian god can’t even bring himself to forget one little mistake by a couple of fallible humans. — Andrew W. "If you bring forth what is within you, what you bring forth will save you…" ~ Jesus. The Gospel of Thomas. Religion Exposed! http://members.optusnet.com.au/~ajwerner

sensible2me: The knowledge of good will save you…… Oh, that old tree. If only it was me who had the choice, I would have never tried to learn the knowledge of both good and evil.  I would let someone else do it and then I would blame them.  Lucky for me I didn’t have to learn, heh?  I guess as long as I’m learning evil there is only light at the end of the tunnel and in the meanwhile God under the curse of evil will surely be hateful, rigid and mad. That’s one side of the coin……the flip side, is another story. Hmmm. Love, sensi – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –

Response:

Question:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – http://www.freedomcenter.org/index.cfm ….. today every man, woman and child is sold into a form of institutionalized coporate-government slavery through legal tender laws which has everyone working for nothing – ie. paper script which is no  longer backed by anything tangible of substance which can be weighed, tracked  or measured…. Ya man! Forget about slavery in Saudi, Sudan, Mauritania. Everybody who works in a country without a gold standard is a slave! :-) Gold standard! You have to be kidding! US has been off gold standrad for 100 years or more! So what. There’s no inflation. Better think of some better excuses to hate Western society. Thats just it, he hates western society because its better than his society. Call the average American worker a slave? That is laughable. If it makes me a slave because my hard earned dollar is not backed by anything, then I am proud to be an American slave, because I can buy all kinds of wonderful things with this so called dollar that you think is worthless. By the way, I bet the "slaves" in the countries listed above can’t afford things like cars and nice homes and etc. Oh thats right, maybe its because they don’t get paid, maybe they just get beaten.

There are many in US that are treated little bit better than slaves were. Go to Imperial Valley and see for yourself!

Response:

So I am a slave to the Dollar, which works quite well for me, and most of us. That’s as bad as, or worse than, what goes on in Sudan? Baloney.  

Response:

IT IS JUST A MATTER OF TIME BEFORE EL SADR KICKS BUSH’S ARSE FROM NAJAF TO CRAWFORD! Just like Saddam promised, huh lovey? I pray to my Christian God for your soul.

waste of time – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –     Good day. Or as John Kerry would say, bonjour. Ken (NY) If you can read this, thank a teacher… and since it’s in English, thank a soldier." email: http://www.geocities.com/bluesguy68/email.htm

—-== Posted via Newsfeed.Com – Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==—- http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups —= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers – Total Privacy via Encryption =—

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – http://www.freedomcenter.org/index.cfm ….. today every man, woman and child is sold into a form of institutionalized coporate-government slavery through legal tender laws which has everyone working for nothing – ie. paper script which is no  longer backed by anything tangible of substance which can be weighed, tracked  or measured…. Ya man! Forget about slavery in Saudi, Sudan, Mauritania. Everybody who works in a country without a gold standard is a slave! :-) Gold standard! You have to be kidding! US has been off gold standrad for 100 years or more! So what. There’s no inflation. Better think of some better excuses to hate Western society.

Thats just it, he hates western society because its better than his society. Call the average American worker a slave? That is laughable. If it makes me a slave because my hard earned dollar is not backed by anything, then I am proud to be an American slave, because I can buy all kinds of wonderful things with this so called dollar that you think is worthless. By the way, I bet the "slaves" in the countries listed above can’t afford things like cars and nice homes and etc. Oh thats right, maybe its because they don’t get paid, maybe they just get beaten.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –  IT IS JUST A MATTER OF TIME BEFORE EL SADR KICKS BUSH’S ARSE FROM NAJAF TO CRAWFORD!

Response:

Maybe they need somebody to teach asslifting to the future generations in Iraq.

Response:

There’s A Place For US What diabolical insanity has men in secret laboratories, or industrial war machine factories, creating and building genocidal weapons? What depravity has billions upon billions being spent on bombs that have to be rolled off planes, which suck the oxygen from the air, and rupture the organs of all the brown people in its path? What lunacy invents weapons that shred the limbs from children, poisons lands and people with depleted uranium, stun guns that send electric shocks into people, sound machines that break eardrums, and computer guided missiles that kill from a distance?

How does fascist human males obsessed with world domination sound?

Response:

Slavery in the 20th and 21st century is more perniciously ugly and dark than at any time in history for it is currently hiding out behind a wall of misunderstanding by the vast majority of individuals in our world.

No it’s very real in islamofascist countries. The definition of a "dollar" is a unit of measure which is – as "Dollars or Units" – "each to be of the value of a Spanish milled dollar as the same is now current, and to contain three hundred and seventy-one grains and four sixteenths parts of a grain of pure, or four hundred and sixteen grains of standard silver."

That’s must be the most ridiculous piece of anti-american trash I’ve ever seen… no wonder islamofascist are all failed third-world society.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – http://www.freedomcenter.org/index.cfm ….. today every man, woman and child is sold into a form of institutionalized coporate-government slavery through legal tender laws which has everyone working for nothing – ie. paper script which is no  longer backed by anything tangible of substance which can be weighed, tracked  or measured…. Ya man! Forget about slavery in Saudi, Sudan, Mauritania. Everybody who works in a country without a gold standard is a slave! :-) Gold standard! You have to be kidding! US has been off gold standrad for 100 years or more!

So what. There’s no inflation. Better think of some better excuses to hate Western society.

Response:

http://www.freedomcenter.org/index.cfm ….. today every man, woman and child is sold into a form of institutionalized coporate-government slavery through legal tender laws which has everyone working for nothing – ie. paper script which is no longer backed by anything tangible of substance which can be weighed, tracked or measured…. Ya man! Forget about slavery in Saudi, Sudan, Mauritania. Everybody who works in a country without a gold standard is a slave! :-)

Gold standard! You have to be kidding! US has been off gold standrad for 100 years or more!

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I think if we just flatten every hornet’s nest we come across, then pretty soon we run out of hornet’s nests.     Gaaaawwwddd, I like your style. And your philosophy, too. Keep up the good work.  :^) Bill Brennan YOU DO! START BY ERADICATING THE ZIONIST GARBAGE!

    No, no, no, asshole . . . I thought I had explained it to you, but I see that you are still too stupid to understand. Me and "I love Edsels" want to abolish the garbage of the world, not the folks who are trying to improve upon it. That means that we long to stomp the asses of idiots like you, not the Jews. Bill Brennan

Response:

 IT IS JUST A MATTER OF TIME BEFORE EL SADR KICKS BUSH’S ARSE FROM NAJAF TO CRAWFORD!

Response:

I think if we just flatten every hornet’s nest we come across, then pretty soon we run out of hornet’s nests.     Gaaaawwwddd, I like your style. And your philosophy, too. Keep up the good work.  :^) Bill Brennan

YOU DO! START BY ERADICATING THE ZIONIST GARBAGE!

Response:

 There’s A Place For US What diabolical insanity has men in secret laboratories, or industrial war machine factories, creating and building genocidal weapons? What depravity has billions upon billions being spent on bombs that have to be rolled off planes, which suck the oxygen from the air, and rupture the organs of all the brown people in its path? What lunacy invents weapons that shred the limbs from children, poisons lands and people with depleted uranium, stun guns that send electric shocks into people, sound machines that break eardrums, and computer guided missiles that kill from a distance?

Response:

http://www.freedomcenter.org/index.cfm ….. today every man, woman and child is sold into a form of institutionalized coporate-government slavery through legal tender laws which has everyone working for nothing – ie. paper script which is no longer backed by anything tangible of substance which can be weighed, tracked or measured….

Ya man! Forget about slavery in Saudi, Sudan, Mauritania. Everybody who works in a country without a gold standard is a slave! :-)

Response:

http://www.freedomcenter.org/index.cfm To The Directors of The National Underground Railroad Freedom Center: Slavery in the 20th and 21st century is more perniciously ugly and dark than at any time in history for it is currently hiding out behind a wall of misunderstanding by the vast majority of individuals in our world. For today every man, woman and child is sold into a form of institutionalized coporate-government slavery through legal tender laws which has everyone working for nothing – ie. paper script which is no longer backed by anything tangible of substance which can be weighed, tracked or measured. The purest and simplest definition of a slave is someone who exchanges his/her labor – ie. capitol -for nothing. Mankind is being enslaved by a system which in which the medium of exchange is pure fraud. We are working for nothing and we wonder why the world is the way it is. The institution of slavery is more powerful today than at anytime in world history. We need to look no further than the loss of understanding over the definition of "a dollar." We the people of the world’s understanding of a dollar has devolved into the insane reference to slightly different looking pieces of paper and ink. The definition of a "dollar" is a unit of measure which is – as "Dollars or Units" – "each to be of the value of a Spanish milled dollar as the same is now current, and to contain three hundred and seventy-one grains and four sixteenths parts of a grain of pure, or four hundred and sixteen grains of standard silver." See the coinage Act of 1792 – http://www.combase.com/~cadman/coin_act1792.html Slavery will continue as long as this fraud remains in force. In effect, people will continue working for nothing in ways that will continue to build up the power of the corporate-government slave complexes whose power continues to define, restrict, regulate and control us. As it is with any master, since the state is claiming ownership and control of We The People, the system is set up for it to receive the first fruits in the form of taxes of our labor. Let’s cut to the chase and examine in simple terms what has happened: Before we do, let’s remember "you cannot serve both God and money." — Jesus Christ Lord We live in a world where a bureaucratic elite runs corporate-goverment controlled communism. The evidence is all around us. Marx’s 10 planks of the communist manifesto are alive and well in the USA as follows: 1) Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes. *real estate* 2) A heavy progressive or graduated income tax. *IRS* 3) Abolition of all rights of inheritance. *inheritance tax* 4) Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels. *non US citizen, "practicing without" license, registration or permit, terrorism* 5) Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly. *the federal reserve* 6) Centralization of the means of communication and transport in he hands of the state. *commerce clause of the "constitution, state police, etc."* 7) Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan. *corporations, the EPA, land management* 8) Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture. *social security, migrant workers and minimum wage* 9) Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country. *suburbia, commuting to work, etc.* 10) Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc. *public and private schools, "higher" education, evolution* — Communist Manifesto It would be wonderful if the National Underground Freedom Center could sponsor a 2004-2005 version of the Lincoln-Douglas debates to discuss these issues. Peace and God Bless,

Response:

Why is Muqtada al-Sadr still alive? Why are his fighters still alive? They should have been completely removed by a daisy-cutter.

I think if we just flatten every hornet’s nest we come across, then pretty soon we run out of hornet’s nests.

   Gaaawwwdddd, I like your style. And your philosohy, too. Keep it up. :^) Bill Brennan

Response:

I think if we just flatten every hornet’s nest we come across, then pretty soon we run out of hornet’s nests.

   Gaaawwwdddd, I like your style. And your philosohy, too. Keep it up. :^) Bill Brennan

Response:

I think if we just flatten every hornet’s nest we come across, then pretty soon we run out of hornet’s nests.

    Gaaaawwwddd, I like your style. And your philosophy, too. Keep up the good work.  :^) Bill Brennan

Response:

bring it on, swine. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – get ready i am sharpening my sword to behead you Why is Muqtada al-Sadr still alive? Why are his fighters still alive? They should have been completely removed by a daisy-cutter. Tom Seattle

Response:

Muqtada al-Sadr is a great asslifting champion.  He may be useful to train future asslifting competitors.  Why is Muqtada al-Sadr still alive? Why are his fighters still alive? They should have been completely removed by a daisy-cutter. Tom Seattle

Response:

get ready i am sharpening my sword to behead you – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Why is Muqtada al-Sadr still alive? Why are his fighters still alive? They should have been completely removed by a daisy-cutter. Tom Seattle

Response:

They should have been completely removed by a daisy-cutter. Not really – that’s too similar to Waco or Ruby Ridge. We’re supposed to be pacifying the population – not killing them. Every time you kill a Muslim you find he has ten cousins.  What was planned – And should have been done – was for them to be disarmed and then released to join the Iraqi government conference.

I think if we just flatten every hornet’s nest we come across, then pretty soon we run out of hornet’s nests. A lot of people say doing that would only invite more trouble, but I think that way of looking at it is like appeasement. Tom Seattle

Response:

Why is Muqtada al-Sadr still alive? Why are his fighters still alive? They should have been completely removed by a daisy-cutter. Tom Seattle

Response:

Why is Muqtada al-Sadr still alive?

He’s worth more dead to the anti-American faction than alive. Polls show that while he’s respected, no Iraqi wants him as a leader. That means his only value is as a martyr. We are denying them that use of him. Why are his fighters still alive?

We opted for a different tactic than which was used at Falluhjah last April and which caused so many casualties. We tried creating fewer casualties this time and, as a result, his fighters are still alive. They should have been completely removed by a daisy-cutter.

Not really – that’s too similar to Waco or Ruby Ridge. We’re supposed to be pacifying the population – not killing them. Every time you kill a Muslim you find he has ten cousins.  What was planned – And should have been done – was for them to be disarmed and then released to join the Iraqi government conference. We’ll probably isolate him to Najaf just like the Israelis do to Arafat in Rammallah. ::Clark:: – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Tom Seattle

Response:

Question:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Utterly ridiculous and unsubstantiated. I see the Dems are still looking for an excuse as to why they lost the 2000 election…   Well -of course-, silly. -No one- can accept that we -intentionally- put a fascist in office….   :P No no no…The fascist Al Gore lost.

   Suuuuuure.. It was Al Gore that over-rode the constitutional separation of church and state, with an edict…   And it was Al Gore that disregarded the Constitutional protection of American Citizens from unreasonable search and seizure..   And, it was Al Gore that decided that Habeas Corpus should be abolished.   And it was Al Gore that tried to create an amendment to the US Constitution to -take away- rights of the Citizens….    Uh-huh.   Suuuuure. And I guess this quote is from Al Gore, as well: "I told all four that there are going to be some times where we don’t agree with each other, but that’s OK. If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I’m the dictator," Bush joked. — CNN.com, December 18, 2000 – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – As in 2000, Gov. Jeb Bush’s private secret police are busy as hell these days, trying to frighten and bully black voters in Florida from voting in November’s presidential election. Have Americans really become so weak, so cowardly, so resigned to being slaves in their own country that they’ll stand for this? It’s ironic as hell, isn’t it?  Ask any true-blue American about the country’s famous obsession with firearms and you’ll get a lecture about how the Founding Fathers feared government tyranny above all else and were convinced that an armed populace was the best defence against the government falling into the hands of a dictatorial, undemocratic cabal that wants to suppress Americans’ constitutional rights. Here we are, a little over 200 years later.  The American government has indeed fallen into the hands of an unelected, undemocratic cabal of Texas goons who are working overtime to suppress Americans’ constitutional rights (as well as destroy the economy, wage illegal war for bogus reasons, lie to their constituents, govern for private gain rather than the public good and turn the nation into an international pariah). There’s no sign of the guns, however.  Those so-called guarantors of Americans’ freedoms remain locked in their cabinets and safes, well-oiled and presumably ready to deal death to their owners’ real perceived enemies — those four-footed, furry terrorists that lurk in the country’s forests and on its plains, plotting their next attack on those brave, courageous, fearless lovers of liberty. The Founding Fathers were wrong.  Americans — now grown morbidly obese on McDonald’s burgers and connected to the world only through their television sets — are a zillion miles from being able to take back their country, and too fucking dumb to even know that they should. How pathetic is this? Some people just don’t deserve freedom.  Some do but have it stolen from them.  And then you have Americans, who pissed theirs away for a Big Mac and an episode of Survivor. === Suppress the Vote? By BOB HERBERT New York Times Published: August 16, 2004 The big story out of Florida over the weekend was the tragic devastation caused by Hurricane Charley. But there’s another story from Florida that deserves our attention. State police officers have gone into the homes of elderly black voters in Orlando and interrogated them as part of an odd "investigation" that has frightened many voters, intimidated elderly volunteers and thrown a chill over efforts to get out the black vote in November. The officers, from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, which reports to Gov. Jeb Bush, say they are investigating allegations of voter fraud that came up during the Orlando mayoral election in March. Officials refused to discuss details of the investigation, other than to say that absentee ballots are involved. They said they had no idea when the investigation might end, and acknowledged that it may continue right through the presidential election. "We did a preliminary inquiry into those allegations and then we concluded that there was enough evidence to follow through with a full criminal investigation," said Geo Morales, a spokesman for the Department of Law Enforcement. The state police officers, armed and in plain clothes, have questioned dozens of voters in their homes. Some of those questioned have been volunteers in get-out-the-vote campaigns. I asked Mr. Morales in a telephone conversation to tell me what criminal activity had taken place. "I can’t talk about that," he said. I asked if all the people interrogated were black. "Well, mainly it was a black neighborhood we were looking at – yes,” he said. He also said, "Most of them were elderly." When I asked why, he said, "That’s just the people we selected out of a random sample to interview." Back in the bad old days, some decades ago, when Southern whites used every imaginable form of chicanery to prevent blacks from voting, blacks often fought back by creating voters leagues, which were organizations that helped to register, educate and encourage black voters. It became a tradition that continues in many places, including Florida, today. Not surprisingly, many of the elderly black voters who found themselves face to face with state police officers in Orlando are members of the Orlando League of Voters, which has been very successful in mobilizing the city’s black vote. The president of the Orlando League of Voters is Ezzie Thomas, who is 73 years old. With his demonstrated ability to deliver the black vote in Orlando, Mr. Thomas is a tempting target for supporters of George W. Bush in a state in which the black vote may well spell the difference between victory and defeat. The vile smell of voter suppression is all over this so-called investigation by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. Joseph Egan, an Orlando lawyer who represents Mr. Thomas, said: "The Voters League has workers who go into the community to do voter registration, drive people to the polls and help with absentee ballots. They are elderly women mostly. They get paid like $100 for four or five months’ work, just to offset things like the cost of their gas. They see this political activity as an important contribution to their community. Some of the people in the community had never cast a ballot until the league came to their door and encouraged them to vote." Now, said Mr. Egan, the fear generated by state police officers going into people’s homes as part of an ongoing criminal investigation related to voting is threatening to undo much of the good work of the league. He said, "One woman asked me, ‘Am I going to go to jail now because I voted by absentee ballot?’ " According to Mr. Egan, "People who have voted by absentee ballot for years are refusing to allow campaign workers to come to their homes. And volunteers who have participated for years in assisting people, particularly the elderly or handicapped, are scared and don’t want to risk a criminal investigation." Florida is a state that’s very much in play in the presidential election, with some polls showing John Kerry in the lead. A heavy-handed state police investigation that throws a blanket of fear over thousands of black voters can only help President Bush. The long and ugly tradition of suppressing the black vote is alive and thriving in the Sunshine State. ===

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Utterly ridiculous and unsubstantiated. I see the Dems are still looking for an excuse as to why they lost the 2000 election…   Well -of course-, silly. -No one- can accept that we -intentionally- put a fascist in office…. Posts such as yours confirm that the left has lost it big time… You just proved you don’t know the meaning of the word. Say ‘moo’ now……

    Wouldn’t that be "Baaaaaa Baaaaaa" ?      :) – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Utterly ridiculous and unsubstantiated. I see the Dems are still looking for an excuse as to why they lost the 2000 election…    Well -of course-, silly. -No one- can accept that we -intentionally- put a fascist in office…. Posts such as yours confirm that the left has lost it big time…

You just proved you don’t know the meaning of the word. Say ‘moo’ now……

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Utterly ridiculous and unsubstantiated. I see the Dems are still looking for an excuse as to why they lost the 2000 election…  Well -of course-, silly. -No one- can accept that we -intentionally- put a fascist in office…. Posts such as yours confirm that the left has lost it big time… What can you expect from those who base their political opinions on hate of the current president and nothing else.  And NOTHING ELSE ?????   Have you had your head in a hole for the past 4 years, or something ? No, that’s why i hold that opinion.  All you on the left have is hate.

   LOL!  You must be part mushroom.    You -like- being kept in the dark, and fed horseshit.    The President took an Oath to the very -God- he claims to believe in, to uphold and protect the Constitution, something he has -repeatedly- failed to do, and in many cases even illegally attempted to ignore or supersede. Nonsense.

  The only nonsense is Bushs. http://www.sunnetworks.net/~ggarman/unconst-faith-based.html PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH’S UNCONSTITUTIONAL FAITH-BASED INITIATIVE LAW AND THE RELATED DISTORTION OF WHAT DISCRIMINATION MEANS. Federal Judge: Bush Abortion Ban Unconstitutional  [New Window] Published on Tuesday, June 1, 2004 by the Associated Press. Federal Judge: Bush Abortion Ban Unconstitutional. by David Kravets. SAN … http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0601-09.htm   He, simply put, broke that Oath. Nonsense.  That’s just rhetoric aka hate.

  That is a FACT. Faith-Based Charities Unconstitutional, says the father of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. . http://members.tripod.com/~candst/faith.htm CNN.com – Federal judge rules part of Patriot Act unconstitutional …  [New Window] … Law. Federal judge rules part of Patriot Act unconstitutional. Story Tools. … http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/01/26/patriot.act.ap/   -That- provides the Foundation of my, and -many- others dislike of this President.   A: He is a liar, and broke an Oath to God. Nonsense and hate

   Bull, Time and time -again-, he breaks this oath. ABCNEWS.com : Lawyer Still Trying to Meet Detainee … Lawyer Still Trying to Meet Detainee. Attorney Still Trying to Meet With Client Jailed As … Last month, the US Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional to hold … http://abcnews.go.com/wire/US/ap20040727_1260.html [   B: If he can't be honest to God, what makes you think he is going      to be honest to us ? Nonsense and hate.

    You have been reduced to simple denial. Secrecy News 05/31/02 ... SECRET DEPORTATION HEARINGS RULED UNCONSTITUTIONAL. ... Bush Administration, a federal judge ruled this week ... other groups that September 11 detainee identities must ... http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/secrecy/2002/05/053102.html   C: The very Foundation of this Country, and Freedom and Liberty is      predicated upon one of the Greatest Documents of all times,      the -Constitution-. So much so, not only does the President      take an Oath to support it,        but so does every Man and Woman in the Military. The one that the left has shredded for decades?  Surely you jest.

   How deluded, you think it the -left-, the -rights- activists, that have shredded Constitutional rights ?????    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!      To break -that- Oath, is akin to Treason, and  at minimum A dire    threat to every Americas Security. When can we try Kerry and the Democrats for Treason for the "Crime Bill"?     And don't think for a second, such dislike is limited to just his   anti-Constitutional agenda... It's all hate.

    All -well earned-, by a philosophical traitor. Complete with facts to back the point.     I don't like his constant attempts to deceive and mislead the   Americans, like they were Sheep... Then why are you voting for Kerry?  It's all he does.  Bush has not done so.

   BWAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHA!    This is the most deceptive administration in my -lifetime-, or do you still think we are going to find "WMD deployable in 45 minutes" ?????     I don't like the way he raided the Tax coffers, in a fashion that   screwed the common man... but benefited the Wealthy. Rhetoric.  Look at thelast 50 years and what the left and Democrats have done.

  Yeah, civil rights for blacks...     Women's equal rights...      Equal work, equal pay..        The End of Segregation....          Years of Peace.....     Real -horrible-, huh ?     I don't like his ignorant superstitious Bad Science, that always    seems to benefit Big Business, while screwing natural resources,    or the cause of common man... how convenient. Rhetoric.  We have some of the worlds toughest EPA standards.

   No thanks to -Bush-, that is for sure! Bush Greenwatch  [New Window] … New Bush EPA Rules Change Adds Still More Health Risks. Despite the threat to public health, the Bush administration’s Environmental … http://www.bushgreenwatch.org/mt_archives/000130.php     Or, do you mean the Kyoto treaty ?  :P      I don’t like the way he thinks he is a "ruler", instead of a public     servant.. He is in charge.  That is his job.  Your comment just shows hate.

    "By the People, For the People"     So sorry, we did -not- change the US to a Monarch based Theocracy.     And I don’t like the way he uses every dirty trick in the book to  further  his reich wing agenda… Ya… "reich" wouldn’t be hate driven…now would it.  LOL

   Oh, you mean how he -hates- gays having the right to marry and be monogamous ? His ignorant superstitions have caused one of the largest outbreaks of Aids in recent history.  for example, the Patriot II portions being hidden   in other unrelated bills… or trying to appoint Supreme Court Judges who   were neither qualified, nor even believed in the Constitution as the Supreme   law of the land… I don;t like the patriot act either.  But this is a war.

   Yeah, upon our Civil Rights!    That is exact same thing the Nazi’s said to the Germans, BTW.    Rove learned -well- from the Communist Fascists.    He has no sense of remorse, no sense of right or wrong. We’re talking about Bush… not Kerry and the Democrats.

    Exactly. See, even now, you show NO remorse, and look   for a deceptive spin.     And I -really- don’t like that he is a mirror of the very people we are at   war with, just the other side of the coin. Utterly rediculous.  In fact laughable except it reflects so pitiously on you to say such a wacked thing.

   The man told us that -God- told him to attack Iraq!    And this differs from the Muslims saying God told them to   attack the US, how, exactly ?   I could hear the following words coming out of the mouth of an Imam, yet it didn’t… "I don’t know that Atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. " President George H. W. Bush (the First), during an August 27, 1987 interview by Rob Sherman Apparently, this must run in the family.   A Fundamentalist Religious Zealot, hellbent on on forcing his views on others. Ya, heavens forbid Bush have core beliefs and a sense of right and wrong instead of a poll driven set of beliefs like the left has.  And frankly Darkness, the very notion that he is not allowed to be religious speaks to why I am so opposed to the left in this country.  That the 1st Amendment protects our rights to freedom of religion seems to escape you people. Vilifying a man for his faith is bigotry.  PERIOD!

   He can be religious ALL HE WANTS, as long as he doesn’t try to base our -laws-, or the nations -actions- upon his own religion, or force -his- version of it down our throats… unfortunately, that is what he is trying to do… Advances In Stem Cell Research, The World Health Network – Anti … … The Genostem Project. No Surprise: Bush Still Anti-Research. Arab … GOP Member letter to President Bush. Cell Research is Essential. Senators … http://www.worldhealth.net/p/416,5711.html [ Bush says God told him to attack Iraq ... According to Abbas, immediately thereafter Bush said: "God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam ..." http://www.amenusa.org/iraq89.htm   If I wanted an ignorant superstitious leader, running a country based upon  some psychotic religious laws, instead of our -own- laws, I would move to Islam. More bigotry.  News flash Darkness.... all of western civilizations laws arebasedon Judeo Christian Ethics.  In fact our entire civilization is built on them.

    Our culture is an outgrowth of the ancient superstitions of our forefathers, yes... but, no need to return to the ignorance of men squatting in caves for "enlightenment".    What's next, you want to enshrine statues of Merlin from King Arthur ? After all, our civilization owes much to the Celtic Arthurian Era, as well.    George Washington liked to meet in special rooms where they could gather in Circles, modeled in Fashion after the Knights of the Round Table, under King Arthur.... this eventually gave rise to the Whitehouse Oval Office.    We need Merlin turn him Bush into a Fish, and make him swim in his own pollution... perhaps then he would learn what is wrong with his policies.    Bushs Honesty rides

... read more »

Response:

- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text - Utterly ridiculous and unsubstantiated. I see the Dems are still looking for an excuse as to why they lost the 2000 election... Well -of course-, silly. -No one- can accept that we -intentionally- put a fascist in office.... :P No no no...The fascist Al Gore lost.  Suuuuuure.. It was Al Gore that over-rode the constitutional separation of church and state, with an edict... There is no constitutional separation of Church and state.  If their were, Jesus, refered to as our Lord, would not have been put in the Constitution itself.    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!    That "cite" was the -DATING SYSTEM- used at the time.    As in "Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord    one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven"    What thin straws you guys are grasping at... So then what Lord were they speaking of when giving the date and why did they not use that same phrase when speaking to other dtaes in the document? Hmmmmm?

   BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!     That is the "official" closing dating, a long standing -legal- tradition, often used in official documents, dating back to England's Parliamentary Procedure!    And, to use the -Christian Era- dating system as proof they founded the Government upon Christianity, is almost beyond credulous!    So, using that logic, since Jewish Rabbi's use CE notation on letters, this means they are Christian ?    BWHAHAHAHAHAAHAHA! And legal principles like 'dies non;' would not exist.  Dies Non is about how Sunday, the Christian Sabbath cannot be used for the service of legal process, the return of writs, or other judicial purposes.  In  fact, in our country.... executive departments and the public establishments, are  all closed on Sundays; ...neither House of Congress sits.    Yeah, there were lots of leftover superstitions, commonly known as colloquialisms that were cultural artifacts of the time. We call those Blue Laws, and most are have been abolished in modern times. Left over...meaning our founders didn't intend on the SOCAS that you are claiming.  Thanks for admitting it.

   BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!   You claim the early habits of the settlers respecting the Sabbath day, as a day of rest is evidence we were founded as a Christian Nation ?    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAAH!    You -really- mean then, they admit they are JEWISH  ? As that is a JEWISH tradition, as -Jesus- taught that people could -work- on the Sabbath..... Luke 4:16 And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read. Luke 4:31 And came down to Capernaum, a city of Galilee, and taught them on the sabbath days. Luke 6:1 And it came to pass on the second sabbath after the first, that he went through the corn fields; and his disciples plucked the ears of corn, and did eat, rubbing [them] in [their] hands. Luke 6:2 And certain of the Pharisees said unto them, Why do ye that which is not lawful to do on the sabbath days? Luke 6:5 And he said unto them, That the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.   It was simply cultural common practice, since working 7 days a week made a man ill… so they all coordinated their day off. It was a cultural common practice, and yes, it had it origination in the -Jewish- practices.. but, then again, so does circumcision.    But, not all people circumcised, are Jewish, either.   It is a practice that is based upon sound principals, at least it was in -that- day and age. A cultural common practice.  Did you know in Maryland, for example, it is illegal to have sex with your wife on Sunday ? It’s illegal in GA and AL to own sex toys.  Or, have -oral- sex, -any- day ?  And you want to regress back to such medieval practices and bylaws ? Never said that.  But I expected you to vilify me rather than address the facts presented. Who’s statue is on top of the Capital Building?

    What!?!?!?     Oh my, how rich, I have to ask who do YOU think it is ?     Hint, it is a -Female-, did you think it was Jesus ?     BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!     So, now you argue rather than Xian,      they worshipped the _Goddess_  ?     The Nature based religion ?     You may be -right-, from the DOI: "When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."    She is, after all, Natures God.   :P   But, they -still- kept the State and Church separate, irrespective.   BTW: The Statue is _FREEDOM_.   As in freedom from religious oppression from a Church-State.   Respecting -common practices- of the time, does not a -combination- of Church and State make… The term "Separation of Church and State" spouted as constitutional by the left is from a letter written by -Jefferson.  So your argument is that it was from then and since this is now… we should adopt it?  Hu?

   It was a Founding principal of this nation…. we had experienced too much of the Tyranny of the religious based system. Many of the early settlers came here to -escape- religious persecution by a State-Church.    The letter was explaining the reasoning behind the Constitutional clauses demanding Separation… so, really, the argument is we should support it because it is IN the Constitution. It is merely being clarified by Jefferson’s letter, for those people foolish enough to believe that it doesn’t -really- mean what it does.   Like, Duhh!   I guess all those cases ruled on by the Supreme Court,  (USSC) regarding the Separation of Church and State, were mere misnomers, huh ? They were/are political activism.  The 1st says what it says.  It does not mention SOCAS and frankly…. these 10 items show that the USSC was wrong….

    You really should give credit to the web sites you cut and paste from… That is called plagiarism, and is wrong. 1) Separation of Church and State does not appear in the Constitution nor was it ever mentioned in the framing of the first amendment.

   But is -mentioned- in the real one… in the form of the establishment   clause… and Jefferson’s letter explains it quite clearly.     And I have no intention of point by point refuting all the rest of the rationalizations of some else’s site, that isn’t cited.     Now, back to the Original Point, Bush is a traitor to the founding principals of America.    And self deluded fools like -you-, are his sheep.    Can you say "Hoodwink" ?      I -knew- you could. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – 2) The same day Congress passed the First Amendment (Sept. 25, 1789); they approved a resolution requesting President George Washington to proclaim "…a day of public thanksgiving and prayer…." clearly showing that what the ACLU and the Christ-O-Phobes in Amercian push is not what the first was intended to be. 3) Jefferson was an ambassador in France during the time of the Constitutional Convention. However, while President of the United States, Thomas Jefferson was also made president of the Washington, DC public school system in which he placed the Bible and the Isaac Watt’s hymnal as the two primary reading texts! Showing clearly that his letter to the Danbury Baptists does not mean what it has been spun to mean. 4) The first Amendment only limits legislation 5) First English language Bible printed in America was by Congress in 1782 "for use of schools." 6) The founding fathers gave speeches, read from the Bible, and prayed at public school graduations. They [The founding fathers] also used the U.S. Capitol as a church building. 7) Founding father judges had prayer in their court rooms with the jurors. 8) The Northwest Ordinance, which outlines the requirement for statehood reads in SECTION 13, ARTICLE III: "Religion, morality, and knowledge being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged." Let us not forget that this law was passed from July 17 – August 7, 1789; during the midst of the framing of the First Amendment, which was June 7 – September 25, 1789. 9) The Constitution of the United States not only recognizes the Sabbath day as a day of rest but also mentions the Christian God and refers to Him as "our Lord". 10) Sunday, the Christian Sabbath, is recognized by all the departments of Government? In the law, Sunday is a ‘dies non;’ it cannot be used for the service of legal process, the return of writs, or other judicial purposes. The executive departments, the public establishments, are all closed on Sundays; …neither House of Congress sits."  Or all those Quotes,    from our Founding fathers, are just "out of context", huh ? You seem to be taking them that way. "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of

… read more »

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Utterly ridiculous and unsubstantiated. I see the Dems are still looking for an excuse as to why they lost the 2000 election…  Well -of course-, silly. -No one- can accept that we -intentionally- put a fascist in office…. Posts such as yours confirm that the left has lost it big time…   Such -witty- repartee, I am left flabbergasted. You don’t deal with reality, so why in the fuck should anyone take you seriously?     Oh My… now we are resorting to baseless ad hominem.    Lets see, to follow the -depths- of your incredible logic.     "Your ugly, and your breath stinks too!"     :D

Pot/Kettle/Black – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Utterly ridiculous and unsubstantiated. I see the Dems are still looking for an excuse as to why they lost the 2000 election…   Well -of course-, silly. -No one- can accept that we -intentionally- put a fascist in office…. Posts such as yours confirm that the left has lost it big time…    Such -witty- repartee, I am left flabbergasted. That doesn’t seem too dificult to do when it comes to you.  Just a few facts and you get flabbergasted.   What is next, a resounding "Oh yeah! Says you !" As opposed to your labeling people and name calling?

Pot/Kettle/Black – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –     :D

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Utterly ridiculous and unsubstantiated. I see the Dems are still looking for an excuse as to why they lost the 2000 election…   Well -of course-, silly. -No one- can accept that we -intentionally- put a fascist in office…. Posts such as yours confirm that the left has lost it big time… What can you expect from those who base their political opinions on hate of the current president and nothing else.   And NOTHING ELSE ?????    Have you had your head in a hole for the past 4 years, or something ?

No, that’s why i hold that opinion.  All you on the left have is hate.     The President took an Oath to the very -God- he claims to believe in, to uphold and protect the Constitution, something he has -repeatedly- failed to do, and in many cases even illegally attempted to ignore or supersede.

Nonsense.    He, simply put, broke that Oath.

Nonsense.  That’s just rhetoric aka hate.    -That- provides the Foundation of my, and -many- others dislike of this President.    A: He is a liar, and broke an Oath to God.

Nonsense and hate    B: If he can’t be honest to God, what makes you think he is going       to be honest to us ?

Nonsense and hate.    C: The very Foundation of this Country, and Freedom and Liberty is       predicated upon one of the Greatest Documents of all times,       the -Constitution-. So much so, not only does the President       take an Oath to support it,         but so does every Man and Woman in the Military.

The one that the left has shredded for decades?  Surely you jest.       To break -that- Oath, is akin to Treason, and  at minimum A dire     threat to every Americas Security.

When can we try Kerry and the Democrats for Treason for the "Crime Bill"?      And don’t think for a second, such dislike is limited to just his    anti-Constitutional agenda…

It’s all hate.      I don’t like his constant attempts to deceive and mislead the    Americans, like they were Sheep…

Then why are you voting for Kerry?  It’s all he does.  Bush has not done so.      I don’t like the way he raided the Tax coffers, in a fashion that    screwed the common man… but benefited the Wealthy.

Rhetoric.  Look at thelast 50 years and what the left and Democrats have done.      I don’t like his ignorant superstitious Bad Science, that always     seems to benefit Big Business, while screwing natural resources,     or the cause of common man… how convenient.

Rhetoric.  We have some of the worlds toughest EPA standards.       I don’t like the way he thinks he is a "ruler", instead of a public      servant..

He is in charge.  That is his job.  Your comment just shows hate.      And I don’t like the way he uses every dirty trick in the book to further    his reich wing agenda…

Ya… "reich" wouldn’t be hate driven…now would it.  LOL  for example, the Patriot II portions being hidden    in other unrelated bills… or trying to appoint Supreme Court Judges who    were neither qualified, nor even believed in the Constitution as the Supreme    law of the land…

I don;t like the patriot act either.  But this is a war.     He has no sense of remorse, no sense of right or wrong.

We’re talking about Bush… not Kerry and the Democrats.      And I -really- don’t like that he is a mirror of the very people we are at    war with, just the other side of the coin.

Utterly rediculous.  In fact laughable except it reflects so pitiously on you to say such a wacked thing.    A Fundamentalist Religious Zealot, hellbent on on forcing his views on

others. Ya, heavens forbid Bush have core beliefs and a sense of right and wrong instead of a poll driven set of beliefs like the left has.  And frankly Darkness, the very notion that he is not allowed to be religious speaks to why I am so opposed to the left in this country.  That the 1st Amendment protects our rights to freedom of religion seems to escape you people. Vilifying a man for his faith is bigotry.  PERIOD!    If I wanted an ignorant superstitious leader, running a country based upon   some psychotic religious laws, instead of our -own- laws, I would move

to Islam. More bigotry.  News flash Darkness…. all of western civilizations laws arebasedon Judeo Christian Ethics.  In fact our entire civilization is built on them. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –    The US was founded to get away from -just- such crap.    This Countries Government is supposed to be         "By the People, and for the People".    And Bush -hates- that concept, he thinks it is by the Government for the Government. –

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Utterly ridiculous and unsubstantiated. I see the Dems are still looking for an excuse as to why they lost the 2000 election…    Well -of course-, silly. -No one- can accept that we -intentionally- put a fascist in office…. Posts such as yours confirm that the left has lost it big time…

What can you expect from those who base their political opinions on hate of the current president and nothing else. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Utterly ridiculous and unsubstantiated. I see the Dems are still looking for an excuse as to why they lost the 2000 election…   Well -of course-, silly. -No one- can accept that we -intentionally- put a fascist in office…. Posts such as yours confirm that the left has lost it big time…    Such -witty- repartee, I am left flabbergasted.

That doesn’t seem too dificult to do when it comes to you.  Just a few facts and you get flabbergasted.   What is next, a resounding "Oh yeah! Says you !"

As opposed to your labeling people and name calling? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –     :D

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Utterly ridiculous and unsubstantiated. I see the Dems are still looking for an excuse as to why they lost the 2000 election…  Well -of course-, silly. -No one- can accept that we -intentionally- put a fascist in office….  :P No no no…The fascist Al Gore lost.   Suuuuuure.. It was Al Gore that over-rode the constitutional separation of church and state, with an edict… There is no constitutional separation of Church and state.  If their were, Jesus, refered to as our Lord, would not have been put in the Constitution itself.

    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!     That "cite" was the -DATING SYSTEM- used at the time.     As in "Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord     one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven"     What thin straws you guys are grasping at… And legal principles like ‘dies non;’ would not exist.  Dies Non is about how Sunday, the Christian Sabbath cannot be used for the service of legal process, the return of writs, or other judicial purposes.  In fact, in our country…. executive departments and the public establishments, are all closed on Sundays; …neither House of Congress sits.

    Yeah, there were lots of leftover superstitions, commonly known as colloquiialisms that were cultural artifacts of the time. We call those Blue Laws, and most are have been abolished in modern times.   Did you know in Maryland, for example, it is illegal to have sex with your wife on Sunday ?   Or, have -oral- sex, -any- day ?   And you want to regress back to such medieval practices and bylaws ?    Respecting -common practices- of the time, does not a -combination- of Church and State make…    I guess all those cases ruled on by the Supreme Court,  (USSC) regarding the Separation of Church and State, were mere misnomers, huh ?   Or all those Quotes,     from our Founding fathers, are just "out of context", huh ? "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state." — Thomas Jefferson – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – As to what else you’re sqwauking about… who knows but you.  And it was Al Gore that disregarded the Constitutional protection of American Citizens from unreasonable search and seizure.. No, he was toobusy trying to disarm us all an crushing the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.  And, it was Al Gore that decided that Habeas Corpus should be abolished. Rhetoric.  No citizen is denied the ability to file a writ.  And it was Al Gore that tried to create an amendment to the US Constitution to -take away- rights of the Citizens…. Gays have the same rights as I do in that department.  Marriage is a union between man and women and takes its traditions from Religion.  Specifically the Judeo Christian Ethic.  I can’t marry a man either.  And frankly…70+ % of American’s oppose gay marriage for the reason I state above.  Showing you and those like you are on the fringe.   Uh-huh.  Suuuuure. The first thing you said that makes any sense.  Glad you agree with me. And I guess this quote is from Al Gore, as well: "I told all four that there are going to be some times where we don’t agree with each other, but that’s OK. If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I’m the dictator," Bush joked. — CNN.com, December 18, 2000 The same Al Gore who’s President had a person arrested for telling him that he sucks? As in 2000, Gov. Jeb Bush’s private secret police are busy as hell these days, trying to frighten and bully black voters in Florida from voting in November’s presidential election. Have Americans really become so weak, so cowardly, so resigned to being slaves in their own country that they’ll stand for this? It’s ironic as hell, isn’t it?  Ask any true-blue American about the country’s famous obsession with firearms and you’ll get a lecture about how the Founding Fathers feared government tyranny above all else and were convinced that an armed populace was the best defence against the government falling into the hands of a dictatorial, undemocratic cabal that wants to suppress Americans’ constitutional rights. Here we are, a little over 200 years later.  The American government has indeed fallen into the hands of an unelected, undemocratic cabal of Texas goons who are working overtime to suppress Americans’ constitutional rights (as well as destroy the economy, wage illegal war for bogus reasons, lie to their constituents, govern for private gain rather than the public good and turn the nation into an international pariah). There’s no sign of the guns, however.  Those so-called guarantors of Americans’ freedoms remain locked in their cabinets and safes, well-oiled and presumably ready to deal death to their owners’ real perceived enemies — those four-footed, furry terrorists that lurk in the country’s forests and on its plains, plotting their next attack on those brave, courageous, fearless lovers of liberty. The Founding Fathers were wrong.  Americans — now grown morbidly obese on McDonald’s burgers and connected to the world only through their television sets — are a zillion miles from being able to take back their country, and too fucking dumb to even know that they should. How pathetic is this? Some people just don’t deserve freedom.  Some do but have it stolen from them.  And then you have Americans, who pissed theirs away for a Big Mac and an episode of Survivor. === Suppress the Vote? By BOB HERBERT New York Times Published: August 16, 2004 The big story out of Florida over the weekend was the tragic devastation caused by Hurricane Charley. But there’s another story from Florida that deserves our attention. State police officers have gone into the homes of elderly black voters in Orlando and interrogated them as part of an odd "investigation" that has frightened many voters, intimidated elderly volunteers and thrown a chill over efforts to get out the black vote in November. The officers, from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, which reports to Gov. Jeb Bush, say they are investigating allegations of voter fraud that came up during the Orlando mayoral election in March. Officials refused to discuss details of the investigation, other than to say that absentee ballots are involved. They said they had no idea when the investigation might end, and acknowledged that it may continue right through the presidential election. "We did a preliminary inquiry into those allegations and then we concluded that there was enough evidence to follow through with a full criminal investigation," said Geo Morales, a spokesman for the Department of Law Enforcement. The state police officers, armed and in plain clothes, have questioned dozens of voters in their homes. Some of those questioned have been volunteers in get-out-the-vote campaigns. I asked Mr. Morales in a telephone conversation to tell me what criminal activity had taken place. "I can’t talk about that," he said. I asked if all the people interrogated were black. "Well, mainly it was a black neighborhood we were looking at – yes,” he said. He also said, "Most of them were elderly." When I asked why, he said, "That’s just the people we selected out of a random sample to interview." Back in the bad old days, some decades ago, when Southern whites used every imaginable form of chicanery to prevent blacks from voting, blacks often fought back by creating voters leagues, which were organizations that helped to register, educate and encourage black voters. It became a tradition that continues in many places, including Florida, today. Not surprisingly, many of the elderly black voters who found themselves face to face with state police officers in Orlando are members of the Orlando League of Voters, which has been very successful in mobilizing the city’s black vote. The president of the Orlando League of Voters is Ezzie Thomas, who is 73 years old. With his demonstrated ability to deliver the black vote in Orlando, Mr. Thomas is a tempting target for supporters of George W. Bush in a state in which the black vote may well spell the difference between victory and defeat. The vile smell of voter suppression is all over this so-called

… read more »

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Utterly ridiculous and unsubstantiated. I see the Dems are still looking for an excuse as to why they lost the 2000 election…  Well -of course-, silly. -No one- can accept that we -intentionally- put a fascist in office….  :P No no no…The fascist Al Gore lost.   Suuuuuure.. It was Al Gore that over-rode the constitutional separation of church and state, with an edict… There is no constitutional separation of Church and state.  If their were, Jesus, refered to as our Lord, would not have been put in the Constitution itself.     BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!     That "cite" was the -DATING SYSTEM- used at the time.     As in "Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord     one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven"     What thin straws you guys are grasping at…

So then what Lord were they speaking of when givingthe date and why did they not use that same phrase when speaking to other dtaes in the document? Hmmmmm? And legal principles like ‘dies non;’ would not exist.  Dies Non is about how Sunday, the Christian Sabbath cannot be used for the service of legal process, the return of writs, or other judicial purposes.  In fact, in our country…. executive departments and the public establishments, are all closed on Sundays; …neither House of Congress sits.     Yeah, there were lots of leftover superstitions, commonly known as colloquiialisms that were cultural artifacts of the time. We call those Blue Laws, and most are have been abolished in modern times.

Left over…meaning our founders didn’t intend on the SOCAS that you are claiming.  Thanks for admitting it.   Did you know in Maryland, for example, it is illegal to have sex with your wife on Sunday ?

It’s illegal in GA and AL to own sex toys.   Or, have -oral- sex, -any- day ?   And you want to regress back to such medieval practices and bylaws ?

Never said that.  But I expected you to vilify me rather than address the facts presented. Who’s statue is on top of the Capital Building?    Respecting -common practices- of the time, does not a -combination- of Church and State make…

The term "Separation of Church and State" spouted as constitutional by the left is from a letter written by Jefferson.  So your argument is that it was from then and since this is now… we should adopt it?  Hu?    I guess all those cases ruled on by the Supreme Court,  (USSC) regarding the Separation of Church and State, were mere misnomers, huh ?

They were/are political activism.  The 1st says what it says.  It does not mention SOCAS and frankly…. these 10 items show that the USSC was wrong…. 1) Separation of Church and State does not appear in the Constitution nor was it ever mentioned in the framing of the first amendment. 2) The same day Congress passed the First Amendment (Sept. 25, 1789); they approved a resolution requesting President George Washington to proclaim "…a day of public thanksgiving and prayer…." clearly showing that what the ACLU and the Christ-O-Phobes in Amercian push is not what the first was intended to be. 3) Jefferson was an ambassador in France during the time of the Constitutional Convention. However, while President of the United States, Thomas Jefferson was also made president of the Washington, DC public school system in which he placed the Bible and the Isaac Watt’s hymnal as the two primary reading texts! Showing clearly that his letter to the Danbury Baptists does not mean what it has been spun to mean. 4) The first Amendment only limits legislation 5) First English language Bible printed in America was by Congress in 1782 "for use of schools." 6) The founding fathers gave speeches, read from the Bible, and prayed at public school graduations. They [The founding fathers] also used the U.S. Capitol as a church building. 7) Founding father judges had prayer in their court rooms with the jurors. 8) The Northwest Ordinance, which outlines the requirement for statehood reads in SECTION 13, ARTICLE III: "Religion, morality, and knowledge being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged." Let us not forget that this law was passed from July 17 – August 7, 1789; during the midst of the framing of the First Amendment, which was June 7 – September 25, 1789. 9) The Constitution of the United States not only recognizes the Sabbath day as a day of rest but also mentions the Christian God and refers to Him as "our Lord". 10) Sunday, the Christian Sabbath, is recognized by all the departments of Government? In the law, Sunday is a ‘dies non;’ it cannot be used for the service of legal process, the return of writs, or other judicial purposes. The executive departments, the public establishments, are all closed on Sundays; …neither House of Congress sits."   Or all those Quotes,     from our Founding fathers, are just "out of context", huh ?

You seem to be taking them that way. "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state." — Thomas Jefferson

What patrt of "make no law" are you failing to grasp?  How does, for example, the City of Los Angeles (The Angeles) having a cross in their seal equate to making a law?  How does the 10 Commandments in a courtroom equate to "making a law"?  hmmmmm? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – As to what else you’re sqwauking about… who knows but you.  And it was Al Gore that disregarded the Constitutional protection of American Citizens from unreasonable search and seizure.. No, he was toobusy trying to disarm us all an crushing the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.  And, it was Al Gore that decided that Habeas Corpus should be abolished. Rhetoric.  No citizen is denied the ability to file a writ.  And it was Al Gore that tried to create an amendment to the US Constitution to -take away- rights of the Citizens…. Gays have the same rights as I do in that department.  Marriage is a union between man and women and takes its traditions from Religion. Specifically the Judeo Christian Ethic.  I can’t marry a man either.  And frankly…70+ % of American’s oppose gay marriage for the reason I state above.  Showing you and those like you are on the fringe.   Uh-huh.  Suuuuure. The first thing you said that makes any sense.  Glad you agree with me. And I guess this quote is from Al Gore, as well: "I told all four that there are going to be some times where we don’t agree with each other, but that’s OK. If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I’m the dictator," Bush joked. — CNN.com, December 18, 2000 The same Al Gore who’s President had a person arrested for telling him that he sucks? As in 2000, Gov. Jeb Bush’s private secret police are busy as hell these days, trying to frighten and bully black voters in Florida from voting in November’s presidential election. Have Americans really become so weak, so cowardly, so resigned to being slaves in their own country that they’ll stand for this? It’s ironic as hell, isn’t it?  Ask any true-blue American about the country’s famous obsession with firearms and you’ll get a lecture about how the Founding Fathers feared government tyranny above all else and were convinced that an armed populace was the best defence against the government falling into the hands of a dictatorial, undemocratic cabal that wants to suppress Americans’ constitutional rights. Here we are, a little over 200 years later.  The American government has indeed fallen into the hands of an unelected, undemocratic cabal of Texas goons who are working overtime to suppress Americans’ constitutional rights (as well as destroy the economy, wage illegal war for bogus reasons, lie to their constituents, govern for private gain rather than the public good and turn the nation into an international pariah). There’s no sign of the guns, however.  Those so-called guarantors of Americans’ freedoms remain locked in their cabinets and safes, well-oiled and presumably ready to deal death to their owners’ real perceived enemies — those four-footed, furry terrorists that lurk in the country’s forests and on its plains, plotting their next attack on those brave, courageous, fearless lovers of liberty. The Founding Fathers were wrong.  Americans — now grown morbidly obese on McDonald’s burgers and connected to the world

… read more »

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Utterly ridiculous and unsubstantiated. I see the Dems are still looking for an excuse as to why they lost the 2000 election…   Well -of course-, silly. -No one- can accept that we -intentionally- put a fascist in office…. Posts such as yours confirm that the left has lost it big time… What can you expect from those who base their political opinions on hate of the current president and nothing else.

  And NOTHING ELSE ?????    Have you had your head in a hole for the past 4 years, or something ?     The President took an Oath to the very -God- he claims to believe in, to uphold and protect the Constitution, something he has -repeatedly- failed to do, and in many cases even illegally attempted to ignore or supersede.    He, simply put, broke that Oath.    -That- provides the Foundation of my, and -many- others dislike of this President.    A: He is a liar, and broke an Oath to God.    B: If he can’t be honest to God, what makes you think he is going       to be honest to us ?    C: The very Foundation of this Country, and Freedom and Liberty is       predicated upon one of the Greatest Documents of all times,       the -Constitution-. So much so, not only does the President       take an Oath to support it,         but so does every Man and Woman in the Military.       To break -that- Oath, is akin to Treason, and  at minimum A dire     threat to every Americas Security.      And don’t think for a second, such dislike is limited to just his    anti-Constitutional agenda…      I don’t like his constant attempts to deceive and mislead the    Americans, like they were Sheep…      I don’t like the way he raided the Tax coffers, in a fashion that    screwed the common man… but benefited the Wealthy.      I don’t like his ignorant superstitious Bad Science, that always     seems to benefit Big Business, while screwing natural resources,     or the cause of common man… how convenient.       I don’t like the way he thinks he is a "ruler", instead of a public      servant..      And I don’t like the way he uses every dirty trick in the book to further    his reich wing agenda… for example, the Patriot II portions being hidden    in other unrelated bills… or trying to appoint Supreme Court Judges who    were neither qualified, nor even believed in the Constitution as the Supreme    law of the land…     He has no sense of remorse, no sense of right or wrong.      And I -really- don’t like that he is a mirror of the very people we are at    war with, just the other side of the coin.    A Fundamentalist Religious Zealot, hellbent on on forcing his views on others.    If I wanted an ignorant superstitious leader, running a country based upon   some psychotic religious laws, instead of our -own- laws, I would move to Islam.    The US was founded to get away from -just- such crap.    This Countries Government is supposed to be         "By the People, and for the People".    And Bush -hates- that concept, he thinks it is by the Government for the Government. – – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Utterly ridiculous and unsubstantiated. I see the Dems are still looking for an excuse as to why they lost the 2000 election…  Well -of course-, silly. -No one- can accept that we -intentionally- put a fascist in office…. Posts such as yours confirm that the left has lost it big time…   Such -witty- repartee, I am left flabbergasted. That doesn’t seem too dificult to do when it comes to you.  Just a few facts and you get flabbergasted.  What is next, a resounding "Oh yeah! Says you !" As opposed to your labeling people and name calling?

    I supported the charges. That -isn’t- simple name calling. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –    :D

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Utterly ridiculous and unsubstantiated. I see the Dems are still looking for an excuse as to why they lost the 2000 election…  Well -of course-, silly. -No one- can accept that we -intentionally- put a fascist in office…. Posts such as yours confirm that the left has lost it big time…   Such -witty- repartee, I am left flabbergasted. You don’t deal with reality, so why in the fuck should anyone take you seriously?

    Oh My… now we are resorting to baseless ad hominem.    Lets see, to follow the -depths- of your incredible logic.     "Your ugly, and your breath stinks too!"     :D – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Utterly ridiculous and unsubstantiated. I see the Dems are still looking for an excuse as to why they lost the 2000 election…   Well -of course-, silly. -No one- can accept that we -intentionally- put a fascist in office….   :P No no no…The fascist Al Gore lost.    Suuuuuure.. It was Al Gore that over-rode the constitutional separation of church and state, with an edict…

There is no constitutional separation of Church and state.  If their were, Jesus, refered to as our Lord, would not have been put in the Constitution itself.  And legal principles like ‘dies non;’ would not exist.  Dies Non is about how Sunday, the Christian Sabbath cannot be used for the service of legal process, the return of writs, or other judicial purposes.  In fact, in our country…. executive departments and the public establishments, are all closed on Sundays; …neither House of Congress sits. As to what else you’re sqwauking about… who knows but you.   And it was Al Gore that disregarded the Constitutional protection of American Citizens from unreasonable search and seizure..

No, he was toobusy trying to disarm us all an crushing the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.   And, it was Al Gore that decided that Habeas Corpus should be abolished.

Rhetoric.  No citizen is denied the ability to file a writ.   And it was Al Gore that tried to create an amendment to the US Constitution to -take away- rights of the Citizens….

Gays have the same rights as I do in that department.  Marriage is a union between man and women and takes its traditions from Religion.  Specifically the Judeo Christian Ethic.  I can’t marry a man either.  And frankly…70+ % of American’s oppose gay marriage for the reason I state above.  Showing you and those like you are on the fringe.    Uh-huh.   Suuuuure.

The first thing you said that makes any sense.  Glad you agree with me. And I guess this quote is from Al Gore, as well: "I told all four that there are going to be some times where we don’t agree with each other, but that’s OK. If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I’m the dictator," Bush joked. — CNN.com, December 18, 2000

The same Al Gore who’s President had a person arrested for telling him that he sucks? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – As in 2000, Gov. Jeb Bush’s private secret police are busy as hell these days, trying to frighten and bully black voters in Florida from voting in November’s presidential election. Have Americans really become so weak, so cowardly, so resigned to being slaves in their own country that they’ll stand for this? It’s ironic as hell, isn’t it?  Ask any true-blue American about the country’s famous obsession with firearms and you’ll get a lecture about how the Founding Fathers feared government tyranny above all else and were convinced that an armed populace was the best defence against the government falling into the hands of a dictatorial, undemocratic cabal that wants to suppress Americans’ constitutional rights. Here we are, a little over 200 years later.  The American government has indeed fallen into the hands of an unelected, undemocratic cabal of Texas goons who are working overtime to suppress Americans’ constitutional rights (as well as destroy the economy, wage illegal war for bogus reasons, lie to their constituents, govern for private gain rather than the public good and turn the nation into an international pariah). There’s no sign of the guns, however.  Those so-called guarantors of Americans’ freedoms remain locked in their cabinets and safes, well-oiled and presumably ready to deal death to their owners’ real perceived enemies — those four-footed, furry terrorists that lurk in the country’s forests and on its plains, plotting their next attack on those brave, courageous, fearless lovers of liberty. The Founding Fathers were wrong.  Americans — now grown morbidly obese on McDonald’s burgers and connected to the world only through their television sets — are a zillion miles from being able to take back their country, and too fucking dumb to even know that they should. How pathetic is this? Some people just don’t deserve freedom.  Some do but have it stolen from them.  And then you have Americans, who pissed theirs away for a Big Mac and an episode of Survivor. === Suppress the Vote? By BOB HERBERT New York Times Published: August 16, 2004 The big story out of Florida over the weekend was the tragic devastation caused by Hurricane Charley. But there’s another story from Florida that deserves our attention. State police officers have gone into the homes of elderly black voters in Orlando and interrogated them as part of an odd "investigation" that has frightened many voters, intimidated elderly volunteers and thrown a chill over efforts to get out the black vote in November. The officers, from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, which reports to Gov. Jeb Bush, say they are investigating allegations of voter fraud that came up during the Orlando mayoral election in March. Officials refused to discuss details of the investigation, other than to say that absentee ballots are involved. They said they had no idea when the investigation might end, and acknowledged that it may continue right through the presidential election. "We did a preliminary inquiry into those allegations and then we concluded that there was enough evidence to follow through with a full criminal investigation," said Geo Morales, a spokesman for the Department of Law Enforcement. The state police officers, armed and in plain clothes, have questioned dozens of voters in their homes. Some of those questioned have been volunteers in get-out-the-vote campaigns. I asked Mr. Morales in a telephone conversation to tell me what criminal activity had taken place. "I can’t talk about that," he said. I asked if all the people interrogated were black. "Well, mainly it was a black neighborhood we were looking at – yes,” he said. He also said, "Most of them were elderly." When I asked why, he said, "That’s just the people we selected out of a random sample to interview." Back in the bad old days, some decades ago, when Southern whites used every imaginable form of chicanery to prevent blacks from voting, blacks often fought back by creating voters leagues, which were organizations that helped to register, educate and encourage black voters. It became a tradition that continues in many places, including Florida, today. Not surprisingly, many of the elderly black voters who found themselves face to face with state police officers in Orlando are members of the Orlando League of Voters, which has been very successful in mobilizing the city’s black vote. The president of the Orlando League of Voters is Ezzie Thomas, who is 73 years old. With his demonstrated ability to deliver the black vote in Orlando, Mr. Thomas is a tempting target for supporters of George W. Bush in a state in which the black vote may well spell the difference between victory and defeat. The vile smell of voter suppression is all over this so-called investigation by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. Joseph Egan, an Orlando lawyer who represents Mr. Thomas, said: "The Voters League has workers who go into the community to do voter registration, drive people to the polls and help with absentee ballots. They are elderly women mostly. They get paid like $100 for four or five months’ work, just to offset things like the cost of their gas. They see this political activity as an important contribution to their community. Some of the people in the community had never cast a ballot until the league came to their door and encouraged them to vote." Now, said Mr. Egan, the fear generated by state police officers going into people’s homes as part of an ongoing criminal investigation related to voting is threatening to undo much of the good work of the league. He said, "One woman asked me, ‘Am I going to go to jail now because I voted by absentee ballot?’ " According to Mr. Egan, "People who have voted by absentee ballot for years are refusing to allow campaign workers to come to their homes. And volunteers who have participated for years in assisting people, particularly the elderly or handicapped, are scared and don’t want to risk a criminal investigation."

… read more »

Response:

Utterly ridiculous and unsubstantiated. I see the Dems are still looking for an excuse as to why they lost the 2000 election…    Well -of course-, silly. -No one- can accept that we -intentionally- put a fascist in office….

Posts such as yours confirm that the left has lost it big time…

Response:

Utterly ridiculous and unsubstantiated. I see the Dems are still looking for an excuse as to why they lost the 2000 election…   Well -of course-, silly. -No one- can accept that we -intentionally- put a fascist in office…. Posts such as yours confirm that the left has lost it big time…

   Such -witty- repartee, I am left flabbergasted.   What is next, a resounding "Oh yeah! Says you !"     :D – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Utterly ridiculous and unsubstantiated. I see the Dems are still looking for an excuse as to why they lost the 2000 election…   Well -of course-, silly. -No one- can accept that we -intentionally- put a fascist in office…. Posts such as yours confirm that the left has lost it big time…    Such -witty- repartee, I am left flabbergasted.

You don’t deal with reality, so why in the fuck should anyone take you seriously?

Response:

Utterly ridiculous and unsubstantiated. I see the Dems are still looking for an excuse as to why they lost the 2000 election…    Well -of course-, silly. -No one- can accept that we -intentionally- put a fascist in office….    :P

No no no…The fascist Al Gore lost. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – As in 2000, Gov. Jeb Bush’s private secret police are busy as hell these days, trying to frighten and bully black voters in Florida from voting in November’s presidential election. Have Americans really become so weak, so cowardly, so resigned to being slaves in their own country that they’ll stand for this? It’s ironic as hell, isn’t it?  Ask any true-blue American about the country’s famous obsession with firearms and you’ll get a lecture about how the Founding Fathers feared government tyranny above all else and were convinced that an armed populace was the best defence against the government falling into the hands of a dictatorial, undemocratic cabal that wants to suppress Americans’ constitutional rights. Here we are, a little over 200 years later.  The American government has indeed fallen into the hands of an unelected, undemocratic cabal of Texas goons who are working overtime to suppress Americans’ constitutional rights (as well as destroy the economy, wage illegal war for bogus reasons, lie to their constituents, govern for private gain rather than the public good and turn the nation into an international pariah). There’s no sign of the guns, however.  Those so-called guarantors of Americans’ freedoms remain locked in their cabinets and safes, well-oiled and presumably ready to deal death to their owners’ real perceived enemies — those four-footed, furry terrorists that lurk in the country’s forests and on its plains, plotting their next attack on those brave, courageous, fearless lovers of liberty. The Founding Fathers were wrong.  Americans — now grown morbidly obese on McDonald’s burgers and connected to the world only through their television sets — are a zillion miles from being able to take back their country, and too fucking dumb to even know that they should. How pathetic is this? Some people just don’t deserve freedom.  Some do but have it stolen from them.  And then you have Americans, who pissed theirs away for a Big Mac and an episode of Survivor. === Suppress the Vote? By BOB HERBERT New York Times Published: August 16, 2004 The big story out of Florida over the weekend was the tragic devastation caused by Hurricane Charley. But there’s another story from Florida that deserves our attention. State police officers have gone into the homes of elderly black voters in Orlando and interrogated them as part of an odd "investigation" that has frightened many voters, intimidated elderly volunteers and thrown a chill over efforts to get out the black vote in November. The officers, from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, which reports to Gov. Jeb Bush, say they are investigating allegations of voter fraud that came up during the Orlando mayoral election in March. Officials refused to discuss details of the investigation, other than to say that absentee ballots are involved. They said they had no idea when the investigation might end, and acknowledged that it may continue right through the presidential election. "We did a preliminary inquiry into those allegations and then we concluded that there was enough evidence to follow through with a full criminal investigation," said Geo Morales, a spokesman for the Department of Law Enforcement. The state police officers, armed and in plain clothes, have questioned dozens of voters in their homes. Some of those questioned have been volunteers in get-out-the-vote campaigns. I asked Mr. Morales in a telephone conversation to tell me what criminal activity had taken place. "I can’t talk about that," he said. I asked if all the people interrogated were black. "Well, mainly it was a black neighborhood we were looking at – yes,” he said. He also said, "Most of them were elderly." When I asked why, he said, "That’s just the people we selected out of a random sample to interview." Back in the bad old days, some decades ago, when Southern whites used every imaginable form of chicanery to prevent blacks from voting, blacks often fought back by creating voters leagues, which were organizations that helped to register, educate and encourage black voters. It became a tradition that continues in many places, including Florida, today. Not surprisingly, many of the elderly black voters who found themselves face to face with state police officers in Orlando are members of the Orlando League of Voters, which has been very successful in mobilizing the city’s black vote. The president of the Orlando League of Voters is Ezzie Thomas, who is 73 years old. With his demonstrated ability to deliver the black vote in Orlando, Mr. Thomas is a tempting target for supporters of George W. Bush in a state in which the black vote may well spell the difference between victory and defeat. The vile smell of voter suppression is all over this so-called investigation by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. Joseph Egan, an Orlando lawyer who represents Mr. Thomas, said: "The Voters League has workers who go into the community to do voter registration, drive people to the polls and help with absentee ballots. They are elderly women mostly. They get paid like $100 for four or five months’ work, just to offset things like the cost of their gas. They see this political activity as an important contribution to their community. Some of the people in the community had never cast a ballot until the league came to their door and encouraged them to vote." Now, said Mr. Egan, the fear generated by state police officers going into people’s homes as part of an ongoing criminal investigation related to voting is threatening to undo much of the good work of the league. He said, "One woman asked me, ‘Am I going to go to jail now because I voted by absentee ballot?’ " According to Mr. Egan, "People who have voted by absentee ballot for years are refusing to allow campaign workers to come to their homes. And volunteers who have participated for years in assisting people, particularly the elderly or handicapped, are scared and don’t want to risk a criminal investigation." Florida is a state that’s very much in play in the presidential election, with some polls showing John Kerry in the lead. A heavy-handed state police investigation that throws a blanket of fear over thousands of black voters can only help President Bush. The long and ugly tradition of suppressing the black vote is alive and thriving in the Sunshine State. ===

Response:

Utterly ridiculous and unsubstantiated. I see the Dems are still looking for an excuse as to why they lost the 2000 election…

   Well -of course-, silly. -No one- can accept that we -intentionally- put a fascist in office….    :P – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – As in 2000, Gov. Jeb Bush’s private secret police are busy as hell these days, trying to frighten and bully black voters in Florida from voting in November’s presidential election. Have Americans really become so weak, so cowardly, so resigned to being slaves in their own country that they’ll stand for this? It’s ironic as hell, isn’t it?  Ask any true-blue American about the country’s famous obsession with firearms and you’ll get a lecture about how the Founding Fathers feared government tyranny above all else and were convinced that an armed populace was the best defence against the government falling into the hands of a dictatorial, undemocratic cabal that wants to suppress Americans’ constitutional rights. Here we are, a little over 200 years later.  The American government has indeed fallen into the hands of an unelected, undemocratic cabal of Texas goons who are working overtime to suppress Americans’ constitutional rights (as well as destroy the economy, wage illegal war for bogus reasons, lie to their constituents, govern for private gain rather than the public good and turn the nation into an international pariah). There’s no sign of the guns, however.  Those so-called guarantors of Americans’ freedoms remain locked in their cabinets and safes, well-oiled and presumably ready to deal death to their owners’ real perceived enemies — those four-footed, furry terrorists that lurk in the country’s forests and on its plains, plotting their next attack on those brave, courageous, fearless lovers of liberty. The Founding Fathers were wrong.  Americans — now grown morbidly obese on McDonald’s burgers and connected to the world only through their television sets — are a zillion miles from being able to take back their country, and too fucking dumb to even know that they should. How pathetic is this? Some people just don’t deserve freedom.  Some do but have it stolen from them.  And then you have Americans, who pissed theirs away for a Big Mac and an episode of Survivor. === Suppress the Vote? By BOB HERBERT New York Times Published: August 16, 2004 The big story out of Florida over the weekend was the tragic devastation caused by Hurricane Charley. But there’s another story from Florida that deserves our attention. State police officers have gone into the homes of elderly black voters in Orlando and interrogated them as part of an odd "investigation" that has frightened many voters, intimidated elderly volunteers and thrown a chill over efforts to get out the black vote in November. The officers, from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, which reports to Gov. Jeb Bush, say they are investigating allegations of voter fraud that came up during the Orlando mayoral election in March. Officials refused to discuss details of the investigation, other than to say that absentee ballots are involved. They said they had no idea when the investigation might end, and acknowledged that it may continue right through the presidential election. "We did a preliminary inquiry into those allegations and then we concluded that there was enough evidence to follow through with a full criminal investigation," said Geo Morales, a spokesman for the Department of Law Enforcement. The state police officers, armed and in plain clothes, have questioned dozens of voters in their homes. Some of those questioned have been volunteers in get-out-the-vote campaigns. I asked Mr. Morales in a telephone conversation to tell me what criminal activity had taken place. "I can’t talk about that," he said. I asked if all the people interrogated were black. "Well, mainly it was a black neighborhood we were looking at – yes,” he said. He also said, "Most of them were elderly." When I asked why, he said, "That’s just the people we selected out of a random sample to interview." Back in the bad old days, some decades ago, when Southern whites used every imaginable form of chicanery to prevent blacks from voting, blacks often fought back by creating voters leagues, which were organizations that helped to register, educate and encourage black voters. It became a tradition that continues in many places, including Florida, today. Not surprisingly, many of the elderly black voters who found themselves face to face with state police officers in Orlando are members of the Orlando League of Voters, which has been very successful in mobilizing the city’s black vote. The president of the Orlando League of Voters is Ezzie Thomas, who is 73 years old. With his demonstrated ability to deliver the black vote in Orlando, Mr. Thomas is a tempting target for supporters of George W. Bush in a state in which the black vote may well spell the difference between victory and defeat. The vile smell of voter suppression is all over this so-called investigation by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. Joseph Egan, an Orlando lawyer who represents Mr. Thomas, said: "The Voters League has workers who go into the community to do voter registration, drive people to the polls and help with absentee ballots. They are elderly women mostly. They get paid like $100 for four or five months’ work, just to offset things like the cost of their gas. They see this political activity as an important contribution to their community. Some of the people in the community had never cast a ballot until the league came to their door and encouraged them to vote." Now, said Mr. Egan, the fear generated by state police officers going into people’s homes as part of an ongoing criminal investigation related to voting is threatening to undo much of the good work of the league. He said, "One woman asked me, ‘Am I going to go to jail now because I voted by absentee ballot?’ " According to Mr. Egan, "People who have voted by absentee ballot for years are refusing to allow campaign workers to come to their homes. And volunteers who have participated for years in assisting people, particularly the elderly or handicapped, are scared and don’t want to risk a criminal investigation." Florida is a state that’s very much in play in the presidential election, with some polls showing John Kerry in the lead. A heavy-handed state police investigation that throws a blanket of fear over thousands of black voters can only help President Bush. The long and ugly tradition of suppressing the black vote is alive and thriving in the Sunshine State. ===

Response:

As in 2000, Gov. Jeb Bush’s private secret police are busy as hell these days, trying to frighten and bully black voters in Florida from voting in November’s presidential election.

No, the NYT and the rest of the whiny-whiny liberal crybabies are still looking for excuses as to why they lost the election in 2000. End of story.

Response:

Utterly ridiculous and unsubstantiated.

I see the Dems are still looking for an excuse as to why they lost the 2000 election… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – As in 2000, Gov. Jeb Bush’s private secret police are busy as hell these days, trying to frighten and bully black voters in Florida from voting in November’s presidential election. Have Americans really become so weak, so cowardly, so resigned to being slaves in their own country that they’ll stand for this? It’s ironic as hell, isn’t it?  Ask any true-blue American about the country’s famous obsession with firearms and you’ll get a lecture about how the Founding Fathers feared government tyranny above all else and were convinced that an armed populace was the best defence against the government falling into the hands of a dictatorial, undemocratic cabal that wants to suppress Americans’ constitutional rights. Here we are, a little over 200 years later.  The American government has indeed fallen into the hands of an unelected, undemocratic cabal of Texas goons who are working overtime to suppress Americans’ constitutional rights (as well as destroy the economy, wage illegal war for bogus reasons, lie to their constituents, govern for private gain rather than the public good and turn the nation into an international pariah). There’s no sign of the guns, however.  Those so-called guarantors of Americans’ freedoms remain locked in their cabinets and safes, well-oiled and presumably ready to deal death to their owners’ real perceived enemies — those four-footed, furry terrorists that lurk in the country’s forests and on its plains, plotting their next attack on those brave, courageous, fearless lovers of liberty. The Founding Fathers were wrong.  Americans — now grown morbidly obese on McDonald’s burgers and connected to the world only through their television sets — are a zillion miles from being able to take back their country, and too fucking dumb to even know that they should. How pathetic is this? Some people just don’t deserve freedom.  Some do but have it stolen from them.  And then you have Americans, who pissed theirs away for a Big Mac and an episode of Survivor. === Suppress the Vote? By BOB HERBERT New York Times Published: August 16, 2004 The big story out of Florida over the weekend was the tragic devastation caused by Hurricane Charley. But there’s another story from Florida that deserves our attention. State police officers have gone into the homes of elderly black voters in Orlando and interrogated them as part of an odd "investigation" that has frightened many voters, intimidated elderly volunteers and thrown a chill over efforts to get out the black vote in November. The officers, from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, which reports to Gov. Jeb Bush, say they are investigating allegations of voter fraud that came up during the Orlando mayoral election in March. Officials refused to discuss details of the investigation, other than to say that absentee ballots are involved. They said they had no idea when the investigation might end, and acknowledged that it may continue right through the presidential election. "We did a preliminary inquiry into those allegations and then we concluded that there was enough evidence to follow through with a full criminal investigation," said Geo Morales, a spokesman for the Department of Law Enforcement. The state police officers, armed and in plain clothes, have questioned dozens of voters in their homes. Some of those questioned have been volunteers in get-out-the-vote campaigns. I asked Mr. Morales in a telephone conversation to tell me what criminal activity had taken place. "I can’t talk about that," he said. I asked if all the people interrogated were black. "Well, mainly it was a black neighborhood we were looking at – yes,” he said. He also said, "Most of them were elderly." When I asked why, he said, "That’s just the people we selected out of a random sample to interview." Back in the bad old days, some decades ago, when Southern whites used every imaginable form of chicanery to prevent blacks from voting, blacks often fought back by creating voters leagues, which were organizations that helped to register, educate and encourage black voters. It became a tradition that continues in many places, including Florida, today. Not surprisingly, many of the elderly black voters who found themselves face to face with state police officers in Orlando are members of the Orlando League of Voters, which has been very successful in mobilizing the city’s black vote. The president of the Orlando League of Voters is Ezzie Thomas, who is 73 years old. With his demonstrated ability to deliver the black vote in Orlando, Mr. Thomas is a tempting target for supporters of George W. Bush in a state in which the black vote may well spell the difference between victory and defeat. The vile smell of voter suppression is all over this so-called investigation by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. Joseph Egan, an Orlando lawyer who represents Mr. Thomas, said: "The Voters League has workers who go into the community to do voter registration, drive people to the polls and help with absentee ballots. They are elderly women mostly. They get paid like $100 for four or five months’ work, just to offset things like the cost of their gas. They see this political activity as an important contribution to their community. Some of the people in the community had never cast a ballot until the league came to their door and encouraged them to vote." Now, said Mr. Egan, the fear generated by state police officers going into people’s homes as part of an ongoing criminal investigation related to voting is threatening to undo much of the good work of the league. He said, "One woman asked me, ‘Am I going to go to jail now because I voted by absentee ballot?’ " According to Mr. Egan, "People who have voted by absentee ballot for years are refusing to allow campaign workers to come to their homes. And volunteers who have participated for years in assisting people, particularly the elderly or handicapped, are scared and don’t want to risk a criminal investigation." Florida is a state that’s very much in play in the presidential election, with some polls showing John Kerry in the lead. A heavy-handed state police investigation that throws a blanket of fear over thousands of black voters can only help President Bush. The long and ugly tradition of suppressing the black vote is alive and thriving in the Sunshine State. ===

Response:

Utterly ridiculous and unsubstantiated.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – As in 2000, Gov. Jeb Bush’s private secret police are busy as hell these days, trying to frighten and bully black voters in Florida from voting in November’s presidential election. Have Americans really become so weak, so cowardly, so resigned to being slaves in their own country that they’ll stand for this? It’s ironic as hell, isn’t it?  Ask any true-blue American about the country’s famous obsession with firearms and you’ll get a lecture about how the Founding Fathers feared government tyranny above all else and were convinced that an armed populace was the best defence against the government falling into the hands of a dictatorial, undemocratic cabal that wants to suppress Americans’ constitutional rights. Here we are, a little over 200 years later.  The American government has indeed fallen into the hands of an unelected, undemocratic cabal of Texas goons who are working overtime to suppress Americans’ constitutional rights (as well as destroy the economy, wage illegal war for bogus reasons, lie to their constituents, govern for private gain rather than the public good and turn the nation into an international pariah). There’s no sign of the guns, however.  Those so-called guarantors of Americans’ freedoms remain locked in their cabinets and safes, well-oiled and presumably ready to deal death to their owners’ real perceived enemies — those four-footed, furry terrorists that lurk in the country’s forests and on its plains, plotting their next attack on those brave, courageous, fearless lovers of liberty. The Founding Fathers were wrong.  Americans — now grown morbidly obese on McDonald’s burgers and connected to the world only through their television sets — are a zillion miles from being able to take back their country, and too fucking dumb to even know that they should. How pathetic is this? Some people just don’t deserve freedom.  Some do but have it stolen from them.  And then you have Americans, who pissed theirs away for a Big Mac and an episode of Survivor. === Suppress the Vote? By BOB HERBERT New York Times Published: August 16, 2004 The big story out of Florida over the weekend was the tragic devastation caused by Hurricane Charley. But there’s another story from Florida that deserves our attention. State police officers have gone into the homes of elderly black voters in Orlando and interrogated them as part of an odd "investigation" that has frightened many voters, intimidated elderly volunteers and thrown a chill over efforts to get out the black vote in November. The officers, from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, which reports to Gov. Jeb Bush, say they are investigating allegations of voter fraud that came up during the Orlando mayoral election in March. Officials refused to discuss details of the investigation, other than to say that absentee ballots are involved. They said they had no idea when the investigation might end, and acknowledged that it may continue right through the presidential election. "We did a preliminary inquiry into those allegations and then we concluded that there was enough evidence to follow through with a full criminal investigation," said Geo Morales, a spokesman for the Department of Law Enforcement. The state police officers, armed and in plain clothes, have questioned dozens of voters in their homes. Some of those questioned have been volunteers in get-out-the-vote campaigns. I asked Mr. Morales in a telephone conversation to tell me what criminal activity had taken place. "I can’t talk about that," he said. I asked if all the people interrogated were black. "Well, mainly it was a black neighborhood we were looking at – yes,” he said. He also said, "Most of them were elderly." When I asked why, he said, "That’s just the people we selected out of a random sample to interview." Back in the bad old days, some decades ago, when Southern whites used every imaginable form of chicanery to prevent blacks from voting, blacks often fought back by creating voters leagues, which were organizations that helped to register, educate and encourage black voters. It became a tradition that continues in many places, including Florida, today. Not surprisingly, many of the elderly black voters who found themselves face to face with state police officers in Orlando are members of the Orlando League of Voters, which has been very successful in mobilizing the city’s black vote. The president of the Orlando League of Voters is Ezzie Thomas, who is 73 years old. With his demonstrated ability to deliver the black vote in Orlando, Mr. Thomas is a tempting target for supporters of George W. Bush in a state in which the black vote may well spell the difference between victory and defeat. The vile smell of voter suppression is all over this so-called investigation by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. Joseph Egan, an Orlando lawyer who represents Mr. Thomas, said: "The Voters League has workers who go into the community to do voter registration, drive people to the polls and help with absentee ballots. They are elderly women mostly. They get paid like $100 for four or five months’ work, just to offset things like the cost of their gas. They see this political activity as an important contribution to their community. Some of the people in the community had never cast a ballot until the league came to their door and encouraged them to vote." Now, said Mr. Egan, the fear generated by state police officers going into people’s homes as part of an ongoing criminal investigation related to voting is threatening to undo much of the good work of the league. He said, "One woman asked me, ‘Am I going to go to jail now because I voted by absentee ballot?’ " According to Mr. Egan, "People who have voted by absentee ballot for years are refusing to allow campaign workers to come to their homes. And volunteers who have participated for years in assisting people, particularly the elderly or handicapped, are scared and don’t want to risk a criminal investigation." Florida is a state that’s very much in play in the presidential election, with some polls showing John Kerry in the lead. A heavy-handed state police investigation that throws a blanket of fear over thousands of black voters can only help President Bush. The long and ugly tradition of suppressing the black vote is alive and thriving in the Sunshine State. ===

Response:

                As in 2000, Gov. Jeb Bush’s private secret                 police are busy as hell these days, trying to                 frighten and bully black voters in Florida from                 voting in November’s presidential election.                 Have Americans really become so weak,                 so cowardly, so resigned to being slaves in                 their own country that they’ll stand for this?                 It’s ironic as hell, isn’t it?  Ask any true-blue                 American about the country’s famous obsession                 with firearms and you’ll get a lecture about how                 the Founding Fathers feared government                 tyranny above all else and were convinced                 that an armed populace was the best                 defence against the government falling into                 the hands of a dictatorial, undemocratic cabal                 that wants to suppress Americans’ constitutional                 rights.                 Here we are, a little over 200 years later.  The                 American government has indeed fallen into the                 hands of an unelected, undemocratic cabal of                 Texas goons who are working overtime to                 suppress Americans’ constitutional rights (as well                 as destroy the economy, wage illegal war for                 bogus reasons, lie to their constituents, govern for                 private gain rather than the public good and                 turn the nation into an international pariah).                 There’s no sign of the guns, however.  Those so-called                 guarantors of Americans’ freedoms remain locked in                 their cabinets and safes, well-oiled and presumably                 ready to deal death to their owners’ real perceived                 enemies — those four-footed, furry terrorists that                 lurk in the country’s forests and on its plains,                 plotting their next attack on those brave, courageous,                 fearless lovers of liberty.                 The Founding Fathers were wrong.  Americans —                 now grown morbidly obese on McDonald’s burgers and                 connected to the world only through their television                 sets — are a zillion miles from being able to take                 back their country, and too fucking dumb to even                 know that they should.                 How pathetic is this?                 Some people just don’t deserve freedom.  Some do but                 have it stolen from them.  And then you have                 Americans, who pissed theirs away for a Big Mac and                 an episode of Survivor.                                 === Suppress the Vote? By BOB HERBERT New York Times Published: August 16, 2004 The big story out of Florida over the weekend was the tragic devastation caused by Hurricane Charley. But there’s another story from Florida that deserves our attention. State police officers have gone into the homes of elderly black voters in Orlando and interrogated them as part of an odd "investigation" that has frightened many voters, intimidated elderly volunteers and thrown a chill over efforts to get out the black vote in November. The officers, from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, which reports to Gov. Jeb Bush, say they are investigating allegations of voter fraud that came up during the Orlando mayoral election in March. Officials refused to discuss details of the investigation, other than to say that absentee ballots are involved. They said they had no idea when the investigation might end, and acknowledged that it may continue right through the presidential election. "We did a preliminary inquiry into those allegations and then we concluded that there was enough evidence to follow through with a full criminal investigation," said Geo Morales, a spokesman for the Department of Law Enforcement. The state police officers, armed and in plain clothes, have questioned dozens of voters in their homes. Some of those questioned have been volunteers in get-out-the-vote campaigns. I asked Mr. Morales in a telephone conversation to tell me what criminal activity had taken place. "I can’t talk about that," he said. I asked if all the people interrogated were black. "Well, mainly it was a black neighborhood we were looking at – yes,” he said. He also said, "Most of them were elderly." When I asked why, he said, "That’s just the people we selected out of a random sample to interview." Back in the bad old days, some decades ago, when Southern whites used every imaginable form of chicanery to prevent blacks from voting, blacks often fought back by creating voters leagues, which were organizations that helped to register, educate and encourage black voters. It became a tradition that continues in many places, including Florida, today. Not surprisingly, many of the elderly black voters who found themselves face to face with state police officers in Orlando are members of the Orlando League of Voters, which has been very successful in mobilizing the city’s black vote. The president of the Orlando League of Voters is Ezzie Thomas, who is 73 years old. With his demonstrated ability to deliver the black vote in Orlando, Mr. Thomas is a tempting target for supporters of George W. Bush in a state in which the black vote may well spell the difference between victory and defeat. The vile smell of voter suppression is all over this so-called investigation by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. Joseph Egan, an Orlando lawyer who represents Mr. Thomas, said: "The Voters League has workers who go into the community to do voter registration, drive people to the polls and help with absentee ballots. They are elderly women mostly. They get paid like $100 for four or five months’ work, just to offset things like the cost of their gas. They see this political activity as an important contribution to their community. Some of the people in the community had never cast a ballot until the league came to their door and encouraged them to vote." Now, said Mr. Egan, the fear generated by state police officers going into people’s homes as part of an ongoing criminal investigation related to voting is threatening to undo much of the good work of the league. He said, "One woman asked me, ‘Am I going to go to jail now because I voted by absentee ballot?’ " According to Mr. Egan, "People who have voted by absentee ballot for years are refusing to allow campaign workers to come to their homes. And volunteers who have participated for years in assisting people, particularly the elderly or handicapped, are scared and don’t want to risk a criminal investigation." Florida is a state that’s very much in play in the presidential election, with some polls showing John Kerry in the lead. A heavy-handed state police investigation that throws a blanket of fear over thousands of black voters can only help President Bush. The long and ugly tradition of suppressing the black vote is alive and thriving in the Sunshine State.                                 ===

Response:

Question:

I wished we had lived like this prior to Sept 11th 2001.

And you are very hopeful that we will live like this forever no doubt. But our liberal President had his head up his ass.  And his dick on the brain.

This inference that Clinton was not deligent regarding Bin Laden has been refuted many times and it has been shown that Bush rejected the Clinton administrations intel on this and that your war mongering pal Pinoccio Bush is accountable for the tragedy and certainly accountable for the total misuse of his office after the fact. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Today it’s Washington, D.C. and New York.  Tomorrow it’s a big city near you. Do you want to live like this?  With concrete barricades, police with flak jackets, attack dogs, automatic weapons every 100 yards, hindering your American freedom-loving movement around your town in the course of your day.  Do you think it’s not affecting our psyches, influencing the way we think and feel about everything else?  Living with constant reminders of imminent danger, the stress of constant vigilance taking precedence over all other activities in our lives, our uniquely AMERICAN lives. Israel’s lived like this for 30 years and it hasn’t solved their problems.  They’ve only gotten worse, as is happening here. If a car or person with explosives gets to the barricades/police/dogs, it’s too late. The brand of terrorism we are living with didn’t begin on 9/11/01.  Go back 20 years and you’ll find the wrong turns in our foreign policy that got us here.  Despite whatever party is in the White House, conservatives have been dictating our foreign policy for at least the last 50 years.  Conservatives can’t save or protect us from terrorism because it’s conservative policy that is CAUSING it! Are you prepared for unending wartime?  Iran is clearly next up, with a long list of others to follow, if Bush gets back into the White House after the election. Unending war is what a vote for Bush means.  Once that happens, everything that Bush voters think they are getting with him goes out the window.  To pay for these wars, taxes will get raised – most Republican analysts are saying that Bush has no other choice but to raise taxes anyway with this economy.  Bush and Republicans have run up the biggest deficit in history.  I didn’t think such a thing was possible, or could ever happen again after Reagan, but here we are again.  Can you say draft?  Sending our sons and daughters or hiring the expensive privatized armies of Halliburton/Bechtel/Blackwater? What’s it going to be?  It’s either our own flesh and blood or we pay somebody else to do it, and their rates are steep. My fellow countrymen&women, THINK what conservatism is doing to us, and everybody else in the world.  Do not take us down this path to ruin. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A43792-2004Aug5.html Security Checkpoints, Closures Grow Federal Reserve, U.S. Treasury Get Safeguards By Del Quentin Wilber Washington Post Staff Writer Friday, August 6, 2004; Police yesterday began conducting security checks near the Federal Reserve building, and authorities announced that they would temporarily shut down a sidewalk next to the Treasury Department in response to terror threats against financial institutions in the District. Officials stopped short of halting truck traffic next to the Treasury building on 15th Street NW as they continued to wrestle with how to balance security measures against traffic, commerce and tourism. Federal and city officials said yesterday that they still might ban truck traffic on the busy thoroughfare if the security situation changes. "We continue to monitor and evaluate changing events in order to implement the most appropriate and effective security measures," said Lorie Lewis, a spokeswoman with the U.S. Secret Service. In coming days, Lewis said, the Secret Service will use metal barriers to close the sidewalk on the west side of 15th Street from about Pennsylvania Avenue to Alexander Hamilton Place. The enhanced security measures follow Sunday’s announcement by Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge citing the terrorism threat to financial institutions in Washington, New York City and Newark, specifically naming the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank in the District. At the Federal Reserve yesterday, police began conducting checkpoints during the morning rush hour at four intersections surrounding the central bank: at Constitution Avenue at 20th and 21st streets NW, and Virginia Avenue at C and 21st streets. Federal Reserve and D.C. police officers allowed cars to pass with only a glance through the windshields. But they pulled over several trucks and vans to inspect manifests and peek at their cargo. Officers said the day had been relatively routine. Police are conducting similar checkpoints near the IMF and World Bank and have restricted parking near the institutions. D.C. Police Chief Charles H. Ramsey, who raised his department’s alert status after Ridge’s announcement, said yesterday that he did not yet know how much the added security would cost his agency. He has been promised that the city will be reimbursed by the federal government for the cost of protecting the IMF, World Bank and other buildings, he said. Early in the week, U.S. Capitol Police shut down part of First Street NE in response to the threat of truck bombs. The Capitol Police also set up more than a dozen checkpoints aimed at making it difficult for potential bombers to get near congressional buildings. D.C. leaders have assailed what they call an opportunistic encroachment on city streets by security officials taking advantage of terrorism threats. In an effort to prevent federal and local agencies from haphazardly instituting security measures, the National Capital Planning Commission yesterday approved its first development blueprint for the region in 20 years, aiming to coordinate long-term planning between federal and local jurisdictions. "We have to be very careful about ratcheting up the level of security beyond where it needs to be, for the simple reason that we do have to keep this an open city, a free city, a place where we all want to be proud of what we do and how we live," said John V. Cogbill III, chairman of the commission. The commission is the central planning agency for the federal government and provides guidance for federal land and buildings throughout the region. The comprehensive plan would not prevent officials from closing streets or erecting temporary barricades but encourages federal and local officials to work together to determine how to react to threats. "It’s something we continue to address, but I think in light of where we are today in the security environment, it’s always important to remember that we do have guidelines, that we do have ways to deal with this," Cogbill said.

– http://GreaterVoice.org (a work in progress)

Response:

Today it’s Washington, D.C. and New York.  Tomorrow it’s a big city near you. Do you want to live like this?  With concrete barricades, police with flak jackets, attack dogs, automatic weapons every 100 yards, hindering your American freedom-loving movement around your town in the course of your day.  Do you think it’s not affecting our psyches, influencing the way we think and feel about everything else?  Living with constant reminders of imminent danger, the stress of constant vigilance taking precedence over all other activities in our lives, our uniquely AMERICAN lives.

You can see the rapt adore on the face of the Republican Jack Boots as the proclaim that "9/11 changed the world forever".  They embrace it, honor it, bow to it, and lust for more.  It excuses everything, it brooks no rebuttal that is not painted as treason.  Osama is pleased.  He and his camel jockeys have been raised to the stature of Satan and the dragons from hell and the bogyman all rolled into one. The terrorists win when you let them change the way you live, when you let them dictate how you see the world. But terrorism is GOOD for the rightards and they will embrace it and suck on it as long as they can. Israel’s lived like this for 30 years and it hasn’t solved their problems.  They’ve only gotten worse, as is happening here. If a car or person with explosives gets to the barricades/police/dogs, it’s too late. The brand of terrorism we are living with didn’t begin on 9/11/01.  Go back 20 years and you’ll find the wrong turns in our foreign policy that got us here.  Despite whatever party is in the White House, conservatives have been dictating our foreign policy for at least the last 50 years.  Conservatives can’t save or protect us from terrorism because it’s conservative policy that is CAUSING it!

Yep.  They must have all of the world worshipping the Jewish and Christian God or they will not be safe in their little beds.  And they must be able to control middle east oil or the American Aristocracy will not survive.  We NEEEEEEEEEEEEED this aristocracy and the church to tell us all how to live and to tell all the people of the world how to live. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Are you prepared for unending wartime?  Iran is clearly next up, with a long list of others to follow, if Bush gets back into the White House after the election. Unending war is what a vote for Bush means.  Once that happens, everything that Bush voters think they are getting with him goes out the window.  To pay for these wars, taxes will get raised

Question:

As usual; how do you know? Luke wasn’t there, he just made the whole thing up.

Yes, Luke made it all up during a bad opium trip. It was *COINCIDENTALLY* the same story that appeared out of thin air under the name of Matthew… and *VERY* similar to the demented ramblings of old John… and contains almost *IDENTICAL* detail to what that Peter groupie Mark wrote during their swing through Rome, and *ENTIRELY* supports a complex oral tradition that’s lasted for two thousand years… Wow, man… that was *SOME* trip that dude Luke took…

Response:

This is quite illogical. If there is no time, then there no duration, no continuity, no existence. Eternity requires the concept of time, in order to be meaningful. If there is no time there, then your "Eternal kingdom", cannot exist.

Time is only a measure of change. It is NOTHING else. Something that doesn’t change, ie. God, has no use for time. Us, our world, and everything in it is constantly changing, therefore, we perceive time.

Response:

Sure there is. "before Abraham was, I am."

The tense is important here. ‘before’ is a reference to time, past tense. ‘I am’ is used in the same sentence, yet it is present tense. Bad grammer? Don’t think so. The Lord cannot be ‘was’ , He only ‘IS’.  He is before Abraham, He is now, He is at the end of ‘time’ To us uh… ‘advanced’ people it might mean a reference to some ancient mythological deity, but the Rabbis He spoke that line to… knew what He was inferring, That He was God Himself. H

Response:

He had to use language as we know it.

Why?  It is supposed to be an omnipotent god: Why is restricted? But he is using the present tense to describe the past.

No it aint. Your god is only stating that it existed before Adam. This indicates that to him there is no past or future, just the present. Hence no time.

No, it doesn’t.  All that it indicates, is that your god says that it is older than humanity, and you are trying to make a semantic argument out of it. I notice that you snipped everything else. —     Puck Greenman           #162      BAAWA Knight. Blesed is the self righteous xtian, for his is the sure and certain knowledge that no matter what load of tripe he comes out with:     God told him to say it.

Response:

"before Abraham was, I am." That says nothing, about how time, only that your god existed before Adam. The fact that your god uses the word "before", indicates that time exists in heaven, as well as here, and operates in much the same way. He had to use language as we know it. But he is using the present tense to describe the past. This indicates that to him there is no past or future, just the present. Hence no time. I haven’t been there but that’s the way it seems to me.

Use of the present tense "I am", rather than the more natural "I was before Abraham", could be construed as an attempt to assert that Jesus exists outside of time.

Response:

This is quite illogical. If there is no time, then there no duration, no continuity, no existence. Eternity requires the concept of time, in order to be meaningful. If there is no time there, then your "Eternal kingdom", cannot exist. Time is only a measure of change. It is NOTHING else. Something that doesn’t

Er, no, it something else. Or are you going to argue with Kronos, or tell Zu he is wrong. Good luck, I suspect they will ignore you, just like they do ypur godlet. change, ie. God, has no use for time. Us, our world, and everything in it is constantly changing, therefore, we perceive time.

Yes we do, but if your gods are unaffected by time, then they are immaterial to timer bound creatures, like you & me. Of course, due to a rather large amount of things & claims, your gods are immaterial to anyone that does not see a need to slave the delicate egos of your gods. walksalone who has always wondered how the ignorant of the god claims of the world can have the presumption to be taken seriously, but they do. — The folly of mistaking a paradox for a discovery, a metaphor for a proof, a torrent of verbiage for a spring of capital truths, and oneself for an oracle, is inborn in us. -Paul Valery, poet and philosopher (1871-1945)

Response:

Missing group returned, his fellow xians may as well share the abuse he has started. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – [snip] This is just total crap – but what I really dont understand is how people like you buy it, are you really that stupid that you have not thought this through?. You are going to be in this place for eternity – this is not just a long time – it wouldnt matter how magnificent, wonderful, loving, peaceful etc the place is, I suspect you might get a little bored after say a thousand years? a million years?  a billion years, a trillion years?. If I thought this had any possibility of being true I would be completely terrified. I think that a careful reading of the teachings of Jesus would convince you that time is a uniquely human concept. It does not exist in the kingdom, and in our life to come. No, actually, it does not.  There is no mention or reference whatsoever that time passes differently, or is experienced differently by man or God in heaven. Sure there is. "before Abraham was, I am." "Before my daughter was, I was."  No mystical alteration of time there. No kidding. That’s not the same thing.

Your inability to pay attention & lack of comprehension notwithstanding, how is it different? After all, I am is but an euphemism for Yahweh, sone of El & Asherah. But then, you haven’t a clue about the history of your myth, so study & learn already. You can verify that you have a clue but answering the following questions, without referring to your grimorie or any other sop called sacred teachings or church doctrine. These, BTW, are the easy ones. Who were the parents of Abraham. What astronomical events heralded his birth? What was unusual [other than being born in a nation that did not exist at the time] about him when he was born? & the easiest one of all, what evidence do we have for the five cities on the plains? No one will expect any answers from you, or any serious attempt for you are simply a parrot. According to your posting history in AA you are incapable of coherent or original thought & unable to do the most basic of research. walksalone who suspects that like Malcolm & jw, Homer is another rabbit hiding under a leopards skin thinking he fools everyone with its erroneous claims for its myth. —  The atheist does not say, there is no God, but he says I know not what you mean by God; I am without idea of God; the word ‘God’ is to me a sound conveying no clear or distinct affirmation. The Bible God I deny; the Christian God I disbelieve in; but I am not rash enough to say there is no God as long as you tell me you are unprepared to define God to me.                             Charles Bradlaugh,   Plea for Atheism  

Response:

No, actually, it does not.  There is no mention or reference whatsoever that time passes differently, or is experienced differently by man or God in heaven. Sure there is. "before Abraham was, I am."

That says nothing, about how time, only that your god existed before Adam. The fact that your god uses the word "before", indicates that time exists in heaven, as well as here, and operates in much the same way. —     Puck Greenman           #162      BAAWA Knight. Blesed is the self righteous xtian, for his is the sure and certain knowledge that no matter what load of tripe he comes out with:     God told him to say it.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – [snip] This is just total crap – but what I really dont understand is how people like you buy it, are you really that stupid that you have not thought this through?. You are going to be in this place for eternity – this is not just a long time – it wouldnt matter how magnificent, wonderful, loving, peaceful etc the place is, I suspect you might get a little bored after say a thousand years? a million years?  a billion years, a trillion years?. If I thought this had any possibility of being true I would be completely terrified. I think that a careful reading of the teachings of Jesus would convince you that time is a uniquely human concept. It does not exist in the kingdom, and in our life to come. No, actually, it does not.  There is no mention or reference whatsoever that time passes differently, or is experienced differently by man or God in heaven. Sure there is. "before Abraham was, I am."

"Before my daughter was, I was."  No mystical alteration of time there. — Enkidu aa 2165      Now playing: Manu Chao – Merry Blues American Military Deaths in Iraq      http://antiwar.com/casualties/

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – No, actually, it does not.  There is no mention or reference whatsoever that time passes differently, or is experienced differently by man or God in heaven. Sure there is. "before Abraham was, I am." That says nothing, about how time, only that your god existed before Adam. The fact that your god uses the word "before", indicates that time exists in heaven, as well as here, and operates in much the same way.

He had to use language as we know it. But he is using the present tense to describe the past. This indicates that to him there is no past or future, just the present. Hence no time. I haven’t been there but that’s the way it seems to me.

Response:

Luke 9:28-36 28 Now about eight days after these sayings he took with him Peter and John and James, and went up on the mountain to pray. As usual; how do you know? Luke wasn’t there, he just made the whole thing up.

I agree: everything about Jesus is entirely made up! Solomon WWW.HebrewRastafarian.com

Response:

I hope Homer realises, though it is not likely, that all the above passage could mean, if the lad existed, was that he finally changed his clothes. After all, given the region & era, hygiene would have been a greeting & personal hygiene an oxymoron. HTH, after all, Homer needs as much help as he can get. walksalone who suspects that Homer does not realise the bible quotes that can be made, & nothing need be added. — Fundamentalism means never having to say I’m wrong.   Author unkown

Response:

I think that a careful reading of the teachings of Jesus would convince you that time is a uniquely human concept. It does not exist in the kingdom, and in our life to come.

This is quite illogical. If there is no time, then there no duration, no continuity, no existence. Eternity requires the concept of time, in order to be meaningful. If there is no time there, then your "Eternal kingdom", cannot exist. A careful reading of the teachings of Jesus, tells you, (assuming such a person ever existed), what other people thought he said, or should have said, fifty, to a hundred-and-fifty, years after he died. Much of the NT, echoes other mythologies, and philosophys, already existent at that time.  There is nothing new in there, and certainly nothing to lead you to believe it was a special message from a god. —     Puck Greenman           #162      BAAWA Knight. Blesed is the self righteous xtian, for his is the sure and certain knowledge that no matter what load of tripe he comes out with:     God told him to say it.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – [snip] This is just total crap – but what I really dont understand is how people like you buy it, are you really that stupid that you have not thought this through?. You are going to be in this place for eternity – this is not just a long time – it wouldnt matter how magnificent, wonderful, loving, peaceful etc the place is, I suspect you might get a little bored after say a thousand years? a million years?  a billion years, a trillion years?. If I thought this had any possibility of being true I would be completely terrified. I think that a careful reading of the teachings of Jesus would convince you that time is a uniquely human concept. It does not exist in the kingdom, and in our life to come. No, actually, it does not.  There is no mention or reference whatsoever that time passes differently, or is experienced differently by man or God in heaven.

Sure there is. "before Abraham was, I am."

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – One day in alt.atheism, Also Sprach homer: It could be said that the entire message of Jesus was about the kingdom and what we must do to get there. This describes Christian Morality ™ to a tee.  It’s all about yourself, and screw everybody else – especially those that don’t agree with you.  The fact that the Muslims believe you are an infidel and are going to hell doesn’t scare you a bit. However, he really tells us very little about what it is actually like. You mean the writers of the bible don’t.  Of course not.  The fantasy differs from believer to believer. He does tell us that our joy will be complete and we will ask nothing of him. He gave us many earthly analogies. But still, very little detail as to what it is actually like. The obvious conclusion is that this place cannot be described to us with words. We could not understand the magnificence of it if he tried to tell us. It is too much for us. I’m sure that analogy convinces the non-thinking congregation.  It does not convince me.  I realize that science does not know everything about everything yet, but they also do not say anything is impossible to understand.  You christers have put limitations on humanity since your inception.  It used to be enforced with brutality, torture and murder.   Now it is enforced with guilt.  It’s called sin.  Shame on you. So here, instead of telling us something about it–he shows us. Like a door being opened just a crack, we get to peak inside. Show me.  Leave the bible out of it, and show me where this door exists outside of your religion. His countenance is altered. Just like after he rose, when he looked different so that no one recognized him. His face and garments shine like the sun. Others already passed are there–still alive–and in glory. Clouds speak.   Yadda yadda yadda. The magnificence, the wonder, the beauty, the love, the peace of this place is beyond human comprehension. It is greater than anything that you can imagine. Develop and maintain a good heart. Follow the teachings of Jesus. And one day that door will open all the way for you, and you will walk right in. Prove it, moron. Res ipsa loquitur.

Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione. (I’m not interested in your dopey religious cult.)

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –  It’s not like I’m not use to having superstitious morons ignore what I say and killfile me. How telling for the saved. Warlord Steve BAAWA www.sonic.net/~wooly killfile no, ignore yes. For example, at least truthunter is funny in his attacks on Jesus. Saying that they went up the mountain for some sort of homosexual romp is just disgusting. Hopefully you’ll do better in the future.

There is, however, some suggestion in the bible, that, that, was why they were up there. Suppose the plice came to arrest Jerry Falwell, and when they arived, a naked young man ran away. How would you translate it? Suppose that, instead of Falwell, it was an atheist that the police were arresting: *Then* how would you translate it? —     Puck Greenman           #162      BAAWA Knight. Blesed is the self righteous xtian, for his is the sure and certain knowledge that no matter what load of tripe he comes out with:     God told him to say it.

Response:

Luke 9:28-36 28 Now about eight days after these sayings he took with him Peter and John and James, and went up on the mountain to pray.

As usual; how do you know? Luke wasn’t there, he just made the whole thing up. — David V. UDP for WebTV

Response:

  It’s not like I’m not use to having superstitious morons ignore what I say and killfile me. How telling for the saved. Warlord Steve BAAWA www.sonic.net/~wooly

Response:

 It’s not like I’m not use to having superstitious morons ignore what I say and killfile me. How telling for the saved. Warlord Steve BAAWA www.sonic.net/~wooly

killfile no, ignore yes. For example, at least truthunter is funny in his attacks on Jesus. Saying that they went up the mountain for some sort of homosexual romp is just disgusting. Hopefully you’ll do better in the future.

Response:

Luke 9:28-36   28 Now about eight days after these sayings he took with him Peter and John and James, and went up on the mountain to pray. 29 And as he was praying, the appearance of his countenance was altered, and his raiment became dazzling white.

   Good fucking grief!    You ‘believe it’ don’t you.    Double!, good fucking grief!    Spanky, three guys going up to the mountain to ‘pray’ is gay for Bukakke. That’s why his raiment was white.    You need to get a grip on your interpretations.    Ask me anything. Warlord Steve BAAWA www.sonic.net/~wooly

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – One day in alt.atheism, Also Sprach homer: It could be said that the entire message of Jesus was about the kingdom and what we must do to get there. This describes Christian Morality ™ to a tee.  It’s all about yourself, and screw everybody else – especially those that don’t agree with you.  The fact that the Muslims believe you are an infidel and are going to hell doesn’t scare you a bit. However, he really tells us very little about what it is actually like. You mean the writers of the bible don’t.  Of course not.  The fantasy differs from believer to believer. He does tell us that our joy will be complete and we will ask nothing of him. He gave us many earthly analogies. But still, very little detail as to what it is actually like. The obvious conclusion is that this place cannot be described to us with words. We could not understand the magnificence of it if he tried to tell us. It is too much for us. I’m sure that analogy convinces the non-thinking congregation.  It does not convince me.  I realize that science does not know everything about everything yet, but they also do not say anything is impossible to understand.  You christers have put limitations on humanity since your inception.  It used to be enforced with brutality, torture and murder.   Now it is enforced with guilt.  It’s called sin.  Shame on you. So here, instead of telling us something about it–he shows us. Like a door being opened just a crack, we get to peak inside. Show me.  Leave the bible out of it, and show me where this door exists outside of your religion. His countenance is altered. Just like after he rose, when he looked different so that no one recognized him. His face and garments shine like the sun. Others already passed are there–still alive–and in glory. Clouds speak.   Yadda yadda yadda. The magnificence, the wonder, the beauty, the love, the peace of this place is beyond human comprehension. It is greater than anything that you can imagine. Develop and maintain a good heart. Follow the teachings of Jesus. And one day that door will open all the way for you, and you will walk right in. Prove it, moron.

Res ipsa loquitur.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Luke 9:28-36 28 Now about eight days after these sayings he took with him Peter and John and James, and went up on the mountain to pray. 29 And as he was praying, the appearance of his countenance was altered, and his raiment became dazzling white. 30 And behold, two men talked with him, Moses and Eli’jah, 31 who appeared in glory and spoke of his departure, which he was to accomplish at Jerusalem. 32 Now Peter and those who were with him were heavy with sleep, and when they wakened they saw his glory and the two men who stood with him. 33 And as the men were parting from him, Peter said to Jesus, "Master, it is well that we are here; let us make three booths, one for you and one for Moses and one for Eli’jah" — not knowing what he said. 34 As he said this, a cloud came and overshadowed them; and they were afraid as they entered the cloud. 35 And a voice came out of the cloud, saying, "This is my Son, my Chosen; listen to him!" 36 And when the voice had spoken, Jesus was found alone. And they kept silence and told no one in those days anything of what they had seen. It could be said that the entire message of Jesus was about the kingdom and what we must do to get there. However, he really tells us very little about what it is actually like. He does tell us that our joy will be complete and we will ask nothing of him. He gave us many earthly analogies. But still, very little detail as to what it is actually like. The obvious conclusion is that this place cannot be described to us with words. We could not understand the magnificence of it if he tried to tell us. It is too much for us. So here, instead of telling us something about it–he shows us. Like a door being opened just a crack, we get to peak inside. His countenance is altered. Just like after he rose, when he looked different so that no one recognized him. His face and garments shine like the sun. Others already passed are there–still alive–and in glory. Clouds speak. The magnificence, the wonder, the beauty, the love, the peace of this place is beyond human comprehension. It is greater than anything that you can imagine.

This is just total crap – but what I really dont understand is how people like you buy it, are you really that stupid that you have not thought this through?. You are going to be in this place for eternity – this is not just a long time – it wouldnt matter how magnificent, wonderful, loving, peaceful etc the place is, I suspect you might get a little bored after say a thousand years? a million years?  a billion years, a trillion years?. If I thought this had any possibility of being true I would be completely terrified. What defines us as humans is our creativity, our struggle against adversity, the light and dark of our lives, our finite existence – all these things define us – if you just take some part of your consciousness and plonk into some place of eternal bliss where nothing bad happens – this is not human and it certainly isnt a life. Develop and maintain a good heart. Follow the – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – teachings of Jesus. And one day that door will open all the way for you, and you will walk right in.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Luke 9:28-36 28 Now about eight days after these sayings he took with him Peter and John and James, and went up on the mountain to pray. 29 And as he was praying, the appearance of his countenance was altered, and his raiment became dazzling white. 30 And behold, two men talked with him, Moses and Eli’jah, 31 who appeared in glory and spoke of his departure, which he was to accomplish at Jerusalem. 32 Now Peter and those who were with him were heavy with sleep, and when they wakened they saw his glory and the two men who stood with him. 33 And as the men were parting from him, Peter said to Jesus, "Master, it is well that we are here; let us make three booths, one for you and one for Moses and one for Eli’jah" — not knowing what he said. 34 As he said this, a cloud came and overshadowed them; and they were afraid as they entered the cloud. 35 And a voice came out of the cloud, saying, "This is my Son, my Chosen; listen to him!" 36 And when the voice had spoken, Jesus was found alone. And they kept silence and told no one in those days anything of what they had seen. It could be said that the entire message of Jesus was about the kingdom and what we must do to get there. However, he really tells us very little about what it is actually like. He does tell us that our joy will be complete and we will ask nothing of him. He gave us many earthly analogies. But still, very little detail as to what it is actually like. The obvious conclusion is that this place cannot be described to us with words. We could not understand the magnificence of it if he tried to tell us. It is too much for us. So here, instead of telling us something about it–he shows us. Like a door being opened just a crack, we get to peak inside. His countenance is altered. Just like after he rose, when he looked different so that no one recognized him. His face and garments shine like the sun. Others already passed are there–still alive–and in glory. Clouds speak. The magnificence, the wonder, the beauty, the love, the peace of this place is beyond human comprehension. It is greater than anything that you can imagine. This is just total crap – but what I really dont understand is how people like you buy it, are you really that stupid that you have not thought this through?. You are going to be in this place for eternity – this is not just a long time – it wouldnt matter how magnificent, wonderful, loving, peaceful etc the place is, I suspect you might get a little bored after say a thousand years? a million years?  a billion years, a trillion years?. If I thought this had any possibility of being true I would be completely terrified.

I think that a careful reading of the teachings of Jesus would convince you that time is a uniquely human concept. It does not exist in the kingdom, and in our life to come. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -What defines us as humans is our creativity, our struggle against adversity, the light and dark of our lives, our finite existence – all these things define us – if you just take some part of your consciousness and plonk into some place of eternal bliss where nothing bad happens – this is not human and it certainly isnt a life.

Response:

One day in alt.atheism, Also Sprach homer: It could be said that the entire message of Jesus was about the kingdom and what we must do to get there.

This describes Christian Morality ™ to a tee.  It’s all about yourself, and screw everybody else – especially those that don’t agree with you.  The fact that the Muslims believe you are an infidel and are going to hell doesn’t scare you a bit. However, he really tells us very little about what it is actually like.

You mean the writers of the bible don’t.  Of course not.  The fantasy differs from believer to believer. He does tell us that our joy will be complete and we will ask nothing of him. He gave us many earthly analogies. But still, very little detail as to what it is actually like. The obvious conclusion is that this place cannot be described to us with words. We could not understand the magnificence of it if he tried to tell us. It is too much for us.

I’m sure that analogy convinces the non-thinking congregation.  It does not convince me.  I realize that science does not know everything about everything yet, but they also do not say anything is impossible to understand.  You christers have put limitations on humanity since your inception.  It used to be enforced with brutality, torture and murder.   Now it is enforced with guilt.  It’s called sin.  Shame on you. So here, instead of telling us something about it–he shows us. Like a door being opened just a crack, we get to peak inside.

Show me.  Leave the bible out of it, and show me where this door exists outside of your religion. His countenance is altered. Just like after he rose, when he looked different so that no one recognized him. His face and garments shine like the sun. Others already passed are there–still alive–and in glory. Clouds speak.  

Yadda yadda yadda. The magnificence, the wonder, the beauty, the love, the peace of this place is beyond human comprehension. It is greater than anything that you can imagine. Develop and maintain a good heart. Follow the teachings of Jesus. And one day that door will open all the way for you, and you will walk right in.

Prove it, moron. — Vic Sagerquist aa#2011 Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department The whole foundation of Christianity is based on the idea that intellectualism is the work of the Devil. Remember the apple on the tree? Okay, it was the Tree of Knowledge. "You eat this apple, you’re going to be as smart as God. We can’t have that."      [Frank Zappa]

Response:

Luke 9:28-36   28 Now about eight days after these sayings he took with him Peter and John and James, and went up on the mountain to pray. 29 And as he was praying, the appearance of his countenance was altered, and his raiment became dazzling white. 30 And behold, two men talked with him, Moses and Eli’jah, 31 who appeared in glory and spoke of his departure, which he was to accomplish at Jerusalem. 32 Now Peter and those who were with him were heavy with sleep, and when they wakened they saw his glory and the two men who stood with him. 33 And as the men were parting from him, Peter said to Jesus, "Master, it is well that we are here; let us make three booths, one for you and one for Moses and one for Eli’jah" — not knowing what he said. 34 As he said this, a cloud came and overshadowed them; and they were afraid as they entered the cloud. 35 And a voice came out of the cloud, saying, "This is my Son, my Chosen; listen to him!" 36 And when the voice had spoken, Jesus was found alone. And they kept silence and told no one in those days anything of what they had seen. It could be said that the entire message of Jesus was about the kingdom and what we must do to get there. However, he really tells us very little about what it is actually like. He does tell us that our joy will be complete and we will ask nothing of him. He gave us many earthly analogies. But still, very little detail as to what it is actually like. The obvious conclusion is that this place cannot be described to us with words. We could not understand the magnificence of it if he tried to tell us. It is too much for us. So here, instead of telling us something about it–he shows us. Like a door being opened just a crack, we get to peak inside. His countenance is altered. Just like after he rose, when he looked different so that no one recognized him. His face and garments shine like the sun. Others already passed are there–still alive–and in glory. Clouds speak.   The magnificence, the wonder, the beauty, the love, the peace of this place is beyond human comprehension. It is greater than anything that you can imagine. Develop and maintain a good heart. Follow the teachings of Jesus. And one day that door will open all the way for you, and you will walk right in.

Response:

Question:

But what the hell; religion gives people an excuse to murder millions!

Response:

In the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful. Allah is The Holy, The Sovereign Lord, The Mercifull, The Beneficent, The Compeller, The Mighty, The Protector, The Guardian Of Faith, The Source Of Peace, The Forgiver, The Fashioner, The Evolver and The Creator. Allah is The Majestic, The All Knowning, The Opner, The Provider, The Bestover, The Subduer, The Honourer, The Exalter, The Abaser, The Expender, The Constrictor, The Just, The Judge, The All Seeing, The All Hearing and The Dishonourer. Allah is The All-Forgiving, The Great One, The Forbearing One, The Aware, The Subtle One, The Maintainer, The Preserver, The Most Great, The Most High, The Appreciative, The Responsive, The Watchfull and The Generous One Allah is The Sublime One, The Resurrector, The Most Glorious One, The Loving, The Wise, The All-Embracing, The Firm One, The Most Strong, The Trustee, The Truth, The Witness, The Restorer, The Originator and The Reckoner Allah is The Praiseworthy, The Protecting Friend, The Finder, The Self-subsisting, The Alive, The Creator Of Death, The Giver Of Life, The Able, The Eternal, The One and The Unique Allah is The Noble, The Last, The First, The Delayer, The Expediter, The Powerful, The Source Of All Goodness, The Most Exalted, The Governor, The Hidden, The Manifest and The Eternal Owner Of Sovereignty Allah is The Compassionate, The Pardoner, The Avenger, The Acceptor Of Repentance, The Enricher, The Self-Sufficient, The Gatherer, The Equitable, The Lord Of Majesty and Bounty, The Guide, The Light, The Propitious, The Distresser, The Preventer, The Patient, The Everlasting and The Incomparable. Look… Arab xtians before islam called God Allah and after islam they call God Allah. So be careful what you say about Him? Dont forget who you are talking about. Its for your own good.. you have been warned. :) Peace – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – You are right.  Allah is a fallacious entity.  But how it is possible that millions of people which allegedly hold a brain believe in such non sense? Here is my explanation: It is just matter to break our a natural way of thinking logically.  And how is this done? 1 – Creating an entity which does not exist. (See Allah) 2 – Pretending that this entity is true and real. (This is usually done with the help of music, dance, chants and the like) 3 – Expecting that everyone (or most of the population) believe it. (Physical threat and intimidation are widely used). It is now our turn to threat the izlamo-babbono.  If they do not stop immediately to talk izlamo non sense, we will send their women to college to learn logics (not the izlamo crap).  We know well that the izlamo-wimp real fear is women. Allah is non existent. There is no Allah. Allah is a fallacious entity dreamed up by superstitious desert rats with no hope. Muhammed is not a prophet, eiher. Muhammed was a child molestor. Muslims are not our friends. Don’t believe it? Double dare you to go to Google and search the term "Honor Killings." See what you think of the Animal Muslims then….. Last year alone, in Saudia Arabia there were over 5,000 such "honor killings". Look it up. Still think Muslims are practicing a religion of peace?

Response:

Figment of what its all imaginative i mean you wont worship a pedo. if u knew he him in real life

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – How do you know?  And can you prove it?  What about Santa Claus? Peace

Response:

If humans (Both male and females) have no rights, what do they have?  You seem though in criticising the notion of human rights, but you use and abuse your right to speak (even non-sense), and by the way, since human rights are "silly", do you have a proposition of your own. "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal ….." Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The real question is not who the real God is or where he(she) stand, but how they have been used by the self appointed god’s representatives: Abrham, Moses, John the Baptist, Jesus, the pedophile muhammed (piss be upon him), (the list goes on …. You do not know the real question. It is only your foolish pride thinking you do. Question 1: It is not time to get rid of the Gods and start to talk about Human Rights (and responsibilities)? And your model for  Human Rights? Where did you EVER get the notions that humans have rights? Silly! What a notion and false through every study on earth. Certainly history, nor any other study support such foolishness. What makes you think humans even HAVE a "right"? Or are equal? Or that a life, or their life, has any worth or meaning? Certainly babies in bellies don’t and Harvard professors claim after birth, for up to the first two years, they don’t have the right to life itself. And they are "educated". So, who are you to claim such foolishness? From where do you get this stupidity? ==

"We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal ….." Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776

Response:

How do you know?  And can you prove it?  What about Santa Claus? Peace

Response:

The "good ones" need to speak and make clear where they stand.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – For those of you idiots who generalize and judge all muslims the same bad way, wake the hell up. Every religion has its own crazy people, every religion is explioted for bad intentions. Its just so happens that theres a huge number of muslims (over 1 billion), and if only 1 in 1000 of those was extreme radicalists, thats one million retarted-misguided assholes, not muslims. The rest of them need not be murderes or petophiles or any of that close minded garbage. Use your god damn head and think. –Shafik You made the point: "both gods are still used by some people to justify killing".  It is nice talking to an intelligent person, rather than a fanatic. The real question is not who the real God is or where he(she) stand, but how they have been used by the self appointed god’s representatives: Abrham, Moses, John the Baptist, Jesus, the pedophile muhammed (piss be upon him), (the list goes on …. Question 1: It is not time to get rid of the Gods and start to talk about Human Rights (and responsibilities)? Question 2: Would achieving my proposition make our life (and death)

easier?  Allah is non existent. There is no Allah. Allah is a fallacious  entity dreamed up by superstitious desert rats with no hope. And how is this different from the Christian God?  the Xtian ‘god’ does not exhort followers to KILL! KILL!! KILL!!!,  at least not anymore. Neither god has said anything to that effect (or anything at all, really). But both gods are still used by some people to justify killing. No difference, really. K

Response:

In the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful. Allah is The Holy, The Sovereign Lord, The Mercifull, The Beneficent, The Compeller, The Mighty, The Protector, The Guardian Of Faith, The Source Of Peace, The Forgiver, The Fashioner, The Evolver and The Creator. Allah is The Majestic, The All Knowning, The Opner, The Provider, The Bestover, The Subduer, The Honourer, The Exalter, The Abaser, The Expender, The Constrictor, The Just, The Judge, The All Seeing, The All Hearing and The Dishonourer. Allah is The All-Forgiving, The Great One, The Forbearing One, The Aware, The Subtle One, The Maintainer, The Preserver, The Most Great, The Most High, The Appreciative, The Responsive, The Watchfull and The Generous One Allah is The Sublime One, The Reckoner, The Resurrector, The Most Glorious One, The Loving, The Wise, The All-Embracing, The Firm One, The Most Strong, The Trustee, The Truth, The Witness, The Restorer, The Originator and The Reckoner Allah is The Praiseworthy, The Protecting Friend, The Finder, The Self-subsisting, The Alive, The Creator Of Death, The Giver Of Life, The Able, The Eternal, The One and The Unique Allah is The Noble, The Last, The First, The Delayer, The Expediter, The Powerful, The Source Of All Goodness, The Most Exalted, The Governor, The Hidden, The Manifest and The Eternal Owner Of Sovereignty Allah is The Compassionate, The Pardoner, The Avenger, The Acceptor Of Repentance, The Enricher, The Self-Sufficient, The Gatherer, The Equitable, The Lord Of Majesty and Bounty, The Guide, The Light, The Propitious, The Distresser, The Preventer, The Patient, The Everlasting and The Incomparable. Look… Arab xtians before islam called God Allah and after islam they call God Allah. So be careful what you say about Him? Dont forget who you are talking about. Its for your own good.. you have been warned. :) Peace

Response:

For those of you idiots who generalize and judge all muslims the same bad way, wake the hell up. Every religion has its own crazy people, every religion is explioted for bad intentions. Its just so happens that theres a huge number of muslims (over 1 billion), and if only 1 in 1000 of those was extreme radicalists, thats one million retarted-misguided assholes, not muslims. The rest of them need not be murderes or petophiles or any of that close minded garbage. Use your god damn head and think. –Shafik – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – You made the point: "both gods are still used by some people to justify killing".  It is nice talking to an intelligent person, rather than a fanatic. The real question is not who the real God is or where he(she) stand, but how they have been used by the self appointed god’s representatives: Abrham, Moses, John the Baptist, Jesus, the pedophile muhammed (piss be upon him), (the list goes on …. Question 1: It is not time to get rid of the Gods and start to talk about Human Rights (and responsibilities)? Question 2: Would achieving my proposition make our life (and death) easier? Allah is non existent. There is no Allah. Allah is a fallacious  entity dreamed up by superstitious desert rats with no hope. And how is this different from the Christian God? the Xtian ‘god’ does not exhort followers to KILL! KILL!! KILL!!!, at least not anymore. Neither god has said anything to that effect (or anything at all, really). But both gods are still used by some people to justify killing. No difference, really. K

Response:

And your model for  Human Rights? Where did you EVER get the notions that humans have rights? Silly! What a notion and false through every study on earth. Certainly history, nor any other study support such foolishness. What makes you think humans even HAVE a "right"? Or are equal? Or that a life, or their life, has any worth or meaning? Certainly babies in bellies don’t and Harvard professors claim after birth, for up to the first two years, they don’t have the right to life itself. And they are "educated". So, who are you to claim such foolishness? From where do you get this

stupidity? The most important result to be achieved is the formulation of a set of values – as mature and responsible as possible – and the development of the means to effectively disseminate these values. Here some to begin with: 1 – Individual sovereignty. The life of the individual is the greatest value. 2 – Self-ownership. Individuals own their lives, minds, and bodies. 3 – Property ownership. Individuals own the fruit of their labor and their property. 4 – Freedom of choice, voluntary association, and voluntary exchange. Anyone can do anything that doesn’t harm another or their property. 5 – Keep agreements. Contracts between humans are the bond. Do you really believe humans (including yourself) have no rights?  Sddam Hussein (and the likes) love you.

Response:

The real question is not who the real God is or where he(she) stand, but how they have been used by the self appointed god’s representatives: Abrham, Moses, John the Baptist, Jesus, the pedophile muhammed (piss be upon him), (the list goes on ….

You do not know the real question. It is only your foolish pride thinking you do. Question 1: It is not time to get rid of the Gods and start to talk about Human Rights (and responsibilities)?

And your model for  Human Rights? Where did you EVER get the notions that humans have rights? Silly! What a notion and false through every study on earth. Certainly history, nor any other study support such foolishness. What makes you think humans even HAVE a "right"? Or are equal? Or that a life, or their life, has any worth or meaning? Certainly babies in bellies don’t and Harvard professors claim after birth, for up to the first two years, they don’t have the right to life itself. And they are "educated". So, who are you to claim such foolishness? From where do you get this stupidity? == Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.

Response:

You made the point: "both gods are still used by some people to justify killing".  It is nice talking to an intelligent person, rather than a fanatic. The real question is not who the real God is or where he(she) stand, but how they have been used by the self appointed god’s representatives: Abrham, Moses, John the Baptist, Jesus, the pedophile muhammed (piss be upon him), (the list goes on …. Question 1: It is not time to get rid of the Gods and start to talk about Human Rights (and responsibilities)? Question 2: Would achieving my proposition make our life (and death) easier?

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Allah is non existent. There is no Allah. Allah is a fallacious entity dreamed up by superstitious desert rats with no hope. And how is this different from the Christian God? the Xtian ‘god’ does not exhort followers to KILL! KILL!! KILL!!!, at least not anymore. Neither god has said anything to that effect (or anything at all, really). But both gods are still used by some people to justify killing. No difference, really. K

Response:

"Islam is based on the word of God", revealed syllable by syllable to lecherous pedophile muhammad (piss be upon him) fourteen hundred years ago Muhammed was a disgusting pedophile and those who spread his teachings are more disgusting than him:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Oh, this is way too complicated and masturbatory! I have the perfect solution to your problem about the wheres and whys of mankind as it traipses through the world it was dealt by nature and superstition: Make a huge, and I mean HUGE, FUCKING HUGE, bonfire on which you will pile all the priests, pastors, vicars, popes, rabbis, imams, sheiks, and assorted agents of obscurantism and bullshit. Let’s add a goodly number of moonies, and the Dalai Lama on top for sweeteners. Let’s burn all these motherfuckers while chanting songs of glee and deliverance. And presto, all our problems are gone!!!! Naw. After you do US, you will turn on yourselves. Such hatred devours you. Your nature. Besides, somebody else will come along and say the same stuff all over again. OR, you could START with yourself, yes? I mean, the violent people should kill violence, no? == Talk to the finger, ’cause it don’t deserve a whole hand.

Response:

Oh, this is way too complicated and masturbatory! I have the perfect solution to your problem about the wheres and whys of mankind as it traipses through the world it was dealt by nature and superstition: Make a huge, and I mean HUGE, FUCKING HUGE, bonfire on which you will pile all the priests, pastors, vicars, popes, rabbis, imams, sheiks, and assorted agents of obscurantism and bullshit. Let’s add a goodly number of moonies, and the Dalai Lama on top for sweeteners. Let’s burn all these motherfuckers while chanting songs of glee and deliverance. And presto, all our problems are gone!!!!

Naw. After you do US, you will turn on yourselves. Such hatred devours you. Your nature. Besides, somebody else will come along and say the same stuff all over again. OR, you could START with yourself, yes? I mean, the violent people should kill violence, no? == Talk to the finger, ’cause it don’t deserve a whole hand.

Response:

You can have anything you want with that, as long you HAVE IT.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – You are right.  Allah is a fallacious entity.  But how it is possible that millions of people which allegedly hold a brain believe in such non sense? Here is my explanation: It is just matter to break our a natural way of thinking logically. And how is this done? 1 – Creating an entity which does not exist. (See Allah) 2 – Pretending that this entity is true and real. (This is usually done with the help of music, dance, chants and the like) 3 – Expecting that everyone (or most of the population) believe it. (Physical threat and intimidation are widely used). This analysis of yours works just dandy with the djeezus and christianity… You call this "analysis"? I’ll have fries with that. == Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.

Response:

You say "Allah IS  deceitful" You say "Muslims find The Universe (Allah) not using Reason based on Love, but Fear due to the sometimes Differing Nature of Allah. Deceitful, not Trustworthy or Constant in Nature. I say: Allah is a non existent entity  It is possible to believe in such childish ghost only if you break our a natural way of thinking logically.  And how is this done? 1 – Creating an entity which does not exist. (Allah is not the Universe, is an unreal entity, like Santa Klaus) 2 – Pretending that this entity is true and real. (This is usually done with the help of music, dance, chants and the like) 3 – Expecting that everyone (or most of the population) believe it.(Physical threat and intimidation are widely used). I said: Nature tells men to consult reason (I cannot see human species surviving without consulting or using reason). You said: BWAHAHAHAHA You said: Define what you will as civilization and then work from that. I say: For civilization I will a free associations of individuals who consult reason and enforce individual rights and responsibilities. You said: I know where Salvation is, but I do not know where it is not. I said:  Respect for people as individuals, are the values we have inherited from Greeks, Romans, Jews and Christians to rise from barbarity to civilisation. They are the ideals of the free western civilisation, and the ideals which izlamism are consistently rejecting and fighting against. I said: Nature tells man to enlighten himself, to search after truth, to instruct himself in his duties.  Religion enjoins him to examine nothing, to remain in ignorance, to fear truth. You said: Pizza for dinner tonight

My analysis is perfectely applicable to any system or situation which is trying to break the LOGIC OF REALITY.  Indeed teh Bible (like the Koran) is trying to break reality.  So what and where the solution to this mess is?  From what you write, you have broken the logic of reality. You’ve no ground in it, your "pretend" issue is fallacious, and as you pretend and then build upon that pretense you get the crap you are writing about.  You have broken the logic of reality. You are in a fantasy. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Here few sussgestions, which may help clearing the obfuscated minds of "men of faith". Nature tells man to consult reason, and to take it for his guide. So Nature "tells man to consult reason"? BWAHAHAHAHA. Religion teaches him that his reason is corrupted, that it is only a treacherous guide, given by a deceitful God to lead his creatures astray. One of the ways we are as God, or have His Nature is via Reason. Allah IS  deceitful, or the Nature of Reality, for the Muslim, is arbitrary and capricious, following the whims of man, much as the Greek gods, and thus the Muslims follow the same path. Allah is NOT a God of Love, as the world-view of the Nature of the Christian God as revealed by Jesus the Christ. We, in the West, approach the Nature of Things (God) via Reason which is born from Trust, born of Love. Muslims find The Universe (Allah) not using Reason based on Love, but Fear due to the sometimes Differing Nature of Allah. Deceitful, not Trustworthy or Constant in Nature, and thus those that are not of Allah may be disposed as they please. VERY different Entity and ontological findings. It is only Post Modern Man that has abandon the notion of Reason through Natural Law, also called "knowing God and His creation" and thus we find ourselves in this "existential plane". Oh well. Pizza for dinner tonight. Nature tells man to enlighten himself, to search after truth, to instruct himself in his duties.  Religion enjoins him to examine nothing, to remain in ignorance, to fear truth. Muslim religion does say that, as most primitive religions. Mature Christianity does not state what you wrote above. Sorry for you. By now we should have learned that if facts are your enemy, you are defending lies. And lies hurt the fraudulent-weak, and will crumble under the honest-strong. Insisting on truth and taking responsibility are great virtues. These, and a respect for people as individuals, are the values we have inherited from Greeks, Romans, Jews and Christians to rise from barbarity to civilisation. They are the ideals of the free western civilisation, and the ideals which izlamism are

consistently rejecting and – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – fighting against. What crap. Define what you will as civilization and then work from that. Otherwise you are spouting simple crap. I know where Salvation is, but I do not know where it is not.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – You are right.  Allah is a fallacious entity.  But how it is possible that millions of people which allegedly hold a brain believe in such non sense? Here is my explanation: It is just matter to break our a natural way of thinking logically.  And how is this done? 1 – Creating an entity which does not exist. (See Allah) 2 – Pretending that this entity is true and real. (This is usually done with the help of music, dance, chants and the like) 3 – Expecting that everyone (or most of the population) believe it. (Physical threat and intimidation are widely used).  This analysis of yours works just dandy with the djeezus and christianity. My analysis is perfectely applicable to any system or situation which is trying to break the LOGIC OF REALITY.  Indeed teh Bible (like the Koran) is trying to break reality.  So what and where the solution to this mess is? Here few sussgestions, which may help clearing the obfuscated minds of "men of faith" Nature tells man to consult reason, and to take it for his guide. Religion teaches him that his reason is corrupted, that it is only a treacherous guide, given by a deceitful God to lead his creatures astray. Nature tells man to enlighten himself, to search after truth, to instruct himself in his duties.  Religion enjoins him to examine nothing, to remain in ignorance, to fear truth. Paul Henry Thiry D’Holbach – - – By now we should have learned that if facts are your enemy, you are defending lies. And lies hurt the fraudulent-weak, and will crumble under the honest-strong. Insisting on truth and taking responsibility are great virtues. These, and a respect for people as individuals, are the values we have inherited from Greeks, Romans, Jews and Christians to rise from barbarity to civilisation. They are the ideals of the free western civilisation, and the ideals which izlamism are consistently rejecting and fighting against.

Oh, this is way too complicated and masturbatory! I have the perfect solution to your problem about the wheres and whys of mankind as it traipses through the world it was dealt by nature and superstition: Make a huge, and I mean HUGE, FUCKING HUGE, bonfire on which you will pile all the priests, pastors, vicars, popes, rabbis, imams, sheiks, and assorted agents of obscurantism and bullshit. Let’s add a goodly number of moonies, and the Dalai Lama on top for sweeteners. Let’s burn all these motherfuckers while chanting songs of glee and deliverance. And presto, all our problems are gone!!!!

Response:

Allah is non existent. There is no Allah. Allah is a fallacious entity dreamed up by superstitious desert rats with no hope. Muhammed is not a prophet, eiher. Muhammed was a child molestor. Muslims are not our friends. Don’t believe it? Double dare you to go to Google and search the term "Honor Killings." See what you think of the Animal Muslims then….. Last year alone, in Saudia Arabia there were over 5,000 such "honor killings". Look it up. Still think Muslims are practicing a religion of peace?

Response:

You are right.  Allah is a fallacious entity.  But how it is possible that millions of people which allegedly hold a brain believe in such non sense? Here is my explanation: It is just matter to break our a natural way of thinking logically.  And how is this done? 1 – Creating an entity which does not exist. (See Allah) 2 – Pretending that this entity is true and real. (This is usually done with the help of music, dance, chants and the like) 3 – Expecting that everyone (or most of the population) believe it. (Physical threat and intimidation are widely used). It is now our turn to threat the izlamo-babbono.  If they do not stop immediately to talk izlamo non sense, we will send their women to college to learn logics (not the izlamo crap).  We know well that the izlamo-wimp real fear is women.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Allah is non existent. There is no Allah. Allah is a fallacious entity dreamed up by superstitious desert rats with no hope. Muhammed is not a prophet, eiher. Muhammed was a child molestor. Muslims are not our friends. Don’t believe it? Double dare you to go to Google and search the term "Honor Killings." See what you think of the Animal Muslims then….. Last year alone, in Saudia Arabia there were over 5,000 such "honor killings". Look it up. Still think Muslims are practicing a religion of peace?

Response:

Allah is non existent. There is no Allah. Allah is a fallacious entity dreamed up by superstitious desert rats with no hope.

And how is this different from the Christian God? K

Response:

Allah is non existent. There is no Allah. Allah is a fallacious entity dreamed up by superstitious desert rats with no hope. And how is this different from the Christian God? K

the Xtian ‘god’ does not exhort followers to KILL! KILL!! KILL!!!, at least not anymore. Tom Seattle

Response:

You are right.  Allah is a fallacious entity.  But how it is possible that millions of people which allegedly hold a brain believe in such non sense? Here is my explanation: It is just matter to break our a natural way of thinking logically.  And how is this done? 1 – Creating an entity which does not exist. (See Allah) 2 – Pretending that this entity is true and real. (This is usually done with the help of music, dance, chants and the like) 3 – Expecting that everyone (or most of the population) believe it. (Physical threat and intimidation are widely used).

This analysis of yours works just dandy with the djeezus and christianity…

Response:

You are right.  Allah is a fallacious entity.  But how it is possible that millions of people which allegedly hold a brain believe in such non sense? Here is my explanation: It is just matter to break our a natural way of thinking logically.  And how is this done? 1 – Creating an entity which does not exist. (See Allah) 2 – Pretending that this entity is true and real. (This is usually done with the help of music, dance, chants and the like) 3 – Expecting that everyone (or most of the population) believe it. (Physical threat and intimidation are widely used).

 This analysis of yours works just dandy with the djeezus and christianity. My analysis is perfectely applicable to any system or situation which is trying to break the LOGIC OF REALITY.  Indeed teh Bible (like the Koran) is trying to break reality.  So what and where the solution to this mess is? Here few sussgestions, which may help clearing the obfuscated minds of "men of faith" Nature tells man to consult reason, and to take it for his guide. Religion teaches him that his reason is corrupted, that it is only a treacherous guide, given by a deceitful God to lead his creatures astray. Nature tells man to enlighten himself, to search after truth, to instruct himself in his duties.  Religion enjoins him to examine nothing, to remain in ignorance, to fear truth. Paul Henry Thiry D’Holbach – - – By now we should have learned that if facts are your enemy, you are defending lies. And lies hurt the fraudulent-weak, and will crumble under the honest-strong. Insisting on truth and taking responsibility are great virtues. These, and a respect for people as individuals, are the values we have inherited from Greeks, Romans, Jews and Christians to rise from barbarity to civilisation. They are the ideals of the free western civilisation, and the ideals which izlamism are consistently rejecting and fighting against.

Response:

You are right.  Allah is a fallacious entity.  But how it is possible that millions of people which allegedly hold a brain believe in such non sense? Here is my explanation: It is just matter to break our a natural way of thinking logically.  And how is this done? 1 – Creating an entity which does not exist. (See Allah) 2 – Pretending that this entity is true and real. (This is usually done with the help of music, dance, chants and the like) 3 – Expecting that everyone (or most of the population) believe it. (Physical threat and intimidation are widely used). This analysis of yours works just dandy with the djeezus and christianity…

You call this "analysis"? I’ll have fries with that. == Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.

Response:

Allah is non existent. There is no Allah. Allah is a fallacious entity dreamed up by superstitious desert rats with no hope. And how is this different from the Christian God? the Xtian ‘god’ does not exhort followers to KILL! KILL!! KILL!!!, at least not anymore.

Neither god has said anything to that effect (or anything at all, really). But both gods are still used by some people to justify killing. No difference, really. K

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -You are right.  Allah is a fallacious entity.  But how it is possible that millions of people which allegedly hold a brain believe in such non sense? Here is my explanation: It is just matter to break our a natural way of thinking logically.  And how is this done? 1 – Creating an entity which does not exist. (See Allah) 2 – Pretending that this entity is true and real. (This is usually done with the help of music, dance, chants and the like) 3 – Expecting that everyone (or most of the population) believe it. (Physical threat and intimidation are widely used). This analysis of yours works just dandy with the djeezus and christianity. My analysis is perfectely applicable to any system or situation which is trying to break the LOGIC OF REALITY.  Indeed teh Bible (like the Koran) is trying to break reality.  So what and where the solution to this mess is?

From what you write, you have broken the logic of reality. You’ve no ground in it, your "pretend" issue is fallacious, and as you pretend and then build upon that pretense you get the crap you are writing about. You have broken the logic of reality. You are in a fantasy. Here few sussgestions, which may help clearing the obfuscated minds of "men of faith". Nature tells man to consult reason, and to take it for his guide.

So Nature "tells man to consult reason"? BWAHAHAHAHA. Religion teaches him that his reason is corrupted, that it is only a treacherous guide, given by a deceitful God to lead his creatures astray.

One of the ways we are as God, or have His Nature is via Reason. Allah IS  deceitful, or the Nature of Reality, for the Muslim, is arbitrary and capricious, following the whims of man, much as the Greek gods, and thus the Muslims follow the same path. Allah is NOT a God of Love, as the world-view of the Nature of the Christian God as revealed by Jesus the Christ. We, in the West, approach the Nature of Things (God) via Reason which is born from Trust, born of Love. Muslims find The Universe (Allah) not using Reason based on Love, but Fear due to the sometimes Differing Nature of Allah. Deceitful, not Trustworthy or Constant in Nature, and thus those that are not of Allah may be disposed as they please. VERY different Entity and ontological findings. It is only Post Modern Man that has abandon the notion of Reason through Natural Law, also called "knowing God and His creation" and thus we find ourselves in this "existential plane". Oh well. Pizza for dinner tonight. Nature tells man to enlighten himself, to search after truth, to instruct himself in his duties.  Religion enjoins him to examine nothing, to remain in ignorance, to fear truth.

Muslim religion does say that, as most primitive religions. Mature Christianity does not state what you wrote above. Sorry for you. By now we should have learned that if facts are your enemy, you are defending lies. And lies hurt the fraudulent-weak, and will crumble under the honest-strong. Insisting on truth and taking responsibility are great virtues. These, and a respect for people as individuals, are the values we have inherited from Greeks, Romans, Jews and Christians to rise from barbarity to civilisation. They are the ideals of the free western civilisation, and the ideals which izlamism are consistently rejecting and fighting against.

What crap. Define what you will as civilization and then work from that. Otherwise you are spouting simple crap. I know where Salvation is, but I do not know where it is not.

Response:

Question:

For the love of money is THE root for ALL evil–1 Timothy 6:10 The so-called ‘elders of zion’ are lovers of money. Capitalists are lovers of money. Banksters are lovers of money. Politicians are lovers of money. Religionists are lovers of money. Fraternalists are lovers of money, with masons being but one example. ocCULTists are lovers of money, with masons being an example once again. Those that are greedy consumers of the monied evil that bankster capitalists create, are defacto lovers of money. How? By defending the rules of bankster capitalist designed monied rule of monied law that teaches that good is evil and evil is good. The problem is love of money. We are, or have been, all been guilty of believing the lies told by lovers of money. How to fix the problem? Learn to share. How to implement the solution? Talk about ways to means to attaining freedom FROM money. Put aside the past for a moment. Design a better future where ALL your basic needs are met…for free. Dream of a better future for all. Think about the endless opportunity in a world based in/on freedom FROM money. then Share the thoughts/dreams/findings with others. Simple solutions ALWAYS solve complex problems. Follow the money AFTER money is disempowered. abolishmoney.com ubarter.com reformation.org/moneychangers.html dorewilliamson.com/plan.html hope this helps pass it on d ‘Elders of Zion’ Shape Our Culture Mankind’s Luciferian Revolt By Henry Makow PhD 9-8-3 Like the blind man trying to describe an elephant, I am just beginning to appreciate the true dimensions of evil in the world. The problem is much more profound than I thought. Since the so-called "Enlightenment" in the 1700’s, Western culture has been based on an Lucifer-like rejection of God. The Enlightenment actually refers to Lucifer, the "light giver." Lucifer symbolizes the light of the human intellect, the defiant assertion that man can go it alone. Luciferians have an uncanny knack for making evil appear good, and good appear evil. For them, Lucifer represents the principle of good. He is the equal of the Christian God whom they describe as evil. The two exist together like light and darkness. Christianity holds that man’s salvation lies in doing God’s will, not his own. For them, Lucifer represents man’s rejection of God’s Plan with tragic results. Despite the lip service we still pay to God, modern western culture is fundamentally a rejection of Christianity. It is Luciferian in character. Our culture is premised on a tragic metaphysical revolt and a futile attempt to substitute sensual and material for spiritual fulfillment. We cannot feel good without being good but Luciferians have deceived us into thinking we can. They have us implicated in our own demise. HOW IT WORKS God’s Plan (universal love) naturally conflicts with the desire of a few to monopolize the world’s wealth and power. Luciferians in the service of wealth engineered the so-called Enlightenment, as well as the Revolutionary Period (1789-1917) that toppled the kings and the two World Wars (191901945) that ruined the great nations of Europe. Luciferians made people believe they were orphans in the universe by promoting Isaac Newton’s mechanistic vision. When Newton’s laboratory papers were finally examined, his actual "scientific work" turned out to be lurid and insane experiments in "black magic." Along with Isaac Newton, Lyndon LaRouche lists Francis Bacon, Hobbs, Walpole, Doestoevsky, Nietzsche, Jeremy Betham, John Ruskin, Bertram Russell, HG Wells as Satanists who have shaped our culture. http://www.econcrisis.homestead.com/The_REAL_History_of_Satanism.html The party of revolution and "progress" has been the party of Lucifer. It is backed by influential Jewish Luciferians. "Through the press we have gained the power to influence while remaining ourselves in the shade, " says the Protocols of the Elders of Zion (Fry,122). "The goyim have lost the habit of thinking unless prompted by the suggestion of our specialists." (124) "Think of the successes we arranged for Darwinianism, Marxism, Nietzcheism…it should be plain to see what a disintegrating effect these directives have had on the minds of the goyim." (121) The Jewish Luciferians are savvy enough to believe in God (but not obey Him.) This is revealed in their use of the concept of "freedom" to manipulate the masses. "The word ‘freedom’ brings out …men to fight against…every kind of authority, even against God and the laws of nature. For this reason we, when we come into our kingdom, shall have to erase this word from the lexicon of life as implying a principle of brute force which turns mobs into bloodthirsty beasts." (126, emphasis mine) The Elders of Zion say that freedom is viable when it rests "upon the foundation of faith in God, upon the brotherhood of humanity…This is why [we must] undermine all faith [in the] Godhead and the spirit, and to put in its place arithmetical calculations and material needs…Thus, all nations will be swallowed up in pursuit of gain and…will not take note of their common foe." "This intensified struggle…will create, nay, has already created disenchanted, cold and heartless communities…Their only guide is gain, that is Gold, which they will erect into a veritable cult…"(128) Isn’t our world confirmation of the authenticity of this document? EQUALITY What do the founders of Communism and class warfare really think about social equality? "When our kingdom comes [it will be] essential [to teach that] the structure of human life requires division of labor and consequently the division of men into classes and conditions…owing in the difference in the objects of human activity there cannot be any equality…" (124) Similarly, feminism is not about giving power to women but actually taking it away. Woman’s real power lies in sexual surrender, which they exchange for love (marriage). The Luciferians propose that women should indulge in sex without love. Albert Pike, the leader of 19th Freemasonry advised his fellow masons: "Woman fetters thee by thy desires; we say to the adept, …use women often and without passion; thou wilt thus become master of thy passions and thou wilt enchain woman." (Occult Theocracy, p.234) According to Lyndon Larouche, "reducing sexual practises to the level of bestiality is a crucial feature of Satanism in all historical periods…" THE MARQUIS DE SADE "Young maidens, do not defend your virtue," the Marquis de Sade wrote. Sade gave his name to sadism, which is the same thing as Satanism. Once discussed in horrified whispers, Sade is now often celebrated as a "heroic apostle of individual rights, a giant of philosophical thought, and a martyr for freedom of conscience." (Sade, A Biographical Essay" by Laurence Bongie,2000) The Hollywood film Quills (2001) portrays ordinary folk gathering together to enjoy Sade’s hard core pornography as though it were a wholesome songbook or the Sears Christmas catalogue. The young heroine, a laundry girl played by Kate Winslett explains that bondage and flagellation provides relief from her tedious chores. I doubt if it helps her become a faithful wife or devoted mother. "Let us give ourselves indiscriminately to everything our passions suggest, and we will always be happy…Conscience is not the voice of Nature but only the voice of prejudice," Sade wrote. This is what Luciferians want us to believe but the truth is that real morality is not prejudice but a proven guide to health and happiness. Oscar Wilde’s contends that the only way to overcome temptation is to succumb to it, but that assumes we will outgrow it. Satanists don’t. Sade was not imprisoned for his ideas but for "his repeated…criminal sexual assaults on women" according to Laurence Bongie. Hollywood bears responsibility for portraying him as a hero but this hasn’t stopped them from planning another eulogy for homosexual pedophile Dr. Alfred Kinsey, author of The Kinsey Report who died from a disease associated with self-abuse. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=29891 CONCLUSION The triumph of immorality in popular culture is not random, not a concession to popular taste, not commercially driven. The relentless attack on wholesomeness is part of an insidious multi century effort to subvert mankind, a cosmic struggle for the soul of man. God is beckoning us to discover our divinity, our destiny, and our true bliss. But Luciferians do not intend for this to happen. They are gradually converting mankind to their Satanic culture. They use concepts such as free and equal to create a world that will be anything but. They have recruited armies of well-intentioned people whose careers depend on them not seeing the big picture. Let me leave you with this thought. What if the whole universe was created so that God could one day know Himself through His creation? What if we represented His most advanced creation? It’s a heavy responsibility; one that mankind had better start taking seriously. Otherwise, we will miss our Divine Rendezvous, and may not get another chance.

Response:

For the love of money is THE root for ALL evil–1 Timothy 6:10 The so-called ‘elders of zion’ are lovers of money. Capitalists are lovers of money. Banksters are lovers of money. Politicians are lovers of money. Religionists are lovers of money.

Question:

1.)  You’ve produced several articles regarding the Church/State doctrine, but have failed to show any connection in law between this doctrine and any "right" gays have to State recognized marriages. You are of course correct. Most state laws are written in such a way that a gay union would not be defined as a marriage. But the question is whether we should change those laws so as not to be discriminatory.

Exactly, bearing in mind that discrimination is the protection of a right for one group without protection for the same right in another.  But then we’re right back to one of the two prongs to my argument…how do we determine what is a "right"?  If we can’t define them, they can’t be protected, and if they can’t be protected then discrimination is probably the default no matter what group we choose to focus on, and no matter how much of a majority or minority that group represents to the whole of society. 2.)  You have produced large amounts of rhetoric trying to turn this debate into a discussion of religion (or so it would seem), yet I’ve consistently resisted doing this, and have consistently maintained that my position (which I’ve gone to great pains to describe for you) has nothing to do with any religion. It has everything to do with religion and nothing to do with anything else. There is no secular benefit in barring gays from marriage.

So you say.  So many seem to be saying.  And if argument were mere assertion then debate wouldn’t exist.  I’m still waiting for some evidence that what you and others are saying is true. And you’re simply wrong to claim this issue is only about religion. Marriage exists in every human society you can think of and at all times.  I doubt almost as much that you could support your claim from that history as I do that anyone’s going to find any State recognizing gay marriages in that history.  Principles in law aren’t just about religion, but about the history of human society, and, hopefully how the development of these legal principles historically make these societies more "just" – better.  One of these principles we have after our long journey through history is that of precedence, and I think if you go look, you’ll find it one of the older ones.  It’s the principle of law that provides stability to any legal system, and keeps a society from changing too fast; from making too many blunders before all the facts are in…and it’s one of the planks of my argument here. 3.)  You have held out the Declaration of Independence (YOU brought it into this discussion…not me!!) as the founding document of this nation, and the one that guarantees a gay person’s "right" to State recognized marriages, yet you’ve completely ignored the fact that ACCORDING TO THAT DOCUMENT human "rights" are not granted by the State, but "endowed by their Creator",… One of the more unfortunate flaws in our founding documents was this kind of superstitious reference.

You have a "right" to your opinion because you have a mind capable of forming them. :-) Gay unions are present in the literature ever since "literature" began!

Of course I can’t say that with certainty, but that’s how low I’m willing to set the bar if anyone wants to refute me.  One single quote in the legal, historical, or philosophical literature demonstrating that ANY State has granted legal recognition to gay marriages in the past, or has even debated the subject of doing so is all it would take to destroy my argument completely. So maybe they are a normal part of the human experience and should be recognized as such.

Murder is a normal part of the human experience, so I think "normal" is a little broad to be the standard here. 6.)  You have consistently avoided coming to terms with my allegation that no where in the entire extant range of human literature concerning law, history, or philosophy, do we find debate on the "right" of homosexuals to marry and have the State recognize that marriage. It is being debated right now. What are you saying? No one ever discussed this before so the idea has no merit?

No.  I’m saying if we’re going to call it a "right", it needs to be shown that it is a right, and that if we’re going to argue that the State has some obligation to respond to this historically new idea of legal gay marriages then the legal principle of precedence puts the burden on those trying to create a new legal definition for marriage, not on a State (any State at any time in history) that has universally and at all times (with the exception of the last few months by the actions of a relatively *very* small number of people, acting in a *very* controversial [and possibly illegal when the dust settles a bit] fashion) held that a marriage contract exists only between a man and a woman, not just between to people. Chuck Stamford

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The above is just a little bit of "tidying up" before I leave. See ya Chuck.  Seems you have never been discussing the actual issue. the current debate has nothing to do with the religious rite of marriage – as you noted same gender couples have been able to be married for centuries, and specifically in several churches over the last few decades in the US.  This isn’t about same gender couples asking for something new to be created for them, but just giving them equal access to an already existing legal construct. So same gender couples don’t have to justify their right to access, it is the other side that has to justify their exclusion. From the "See ya Chuck" comment, I take it you don’t want to debate this either, which is fine, but I would like to respond to a couple of your points in your sign off:

Hmmm, I was responding to *YOUR* ‘tidying up before I leave’ comment. Feel free to stay. 1.)  You claim I haven’t ever discussed the actual issue, after simply asserting that the issue centers on the fact that marriage contracts already exist, so State recognition is merely an acknowledgment of what already exists.  However, since my position is that if the entire body of human literature from start to within the last few years is examined, there will be found no example of this "rubber stamping" of a marriage contract between same sex partners,

Immaterial – this is America we don’t do things just because that’s the way they’ve always done it before.   I don’t see how what you’re saying is relevant, even if true.  The fact is that marriage contracts recognized by the State DON’T begin until the State recognizes them for heterosexual marriages (the only exception here being "common-law" marriages), and the State reserves the right to prohibit marriages that the heterosexual partners may wish to enter.

it recognizes them for marriages.  You are confusing the qualification requirements for being issued the license with the license itself. Example:  they lower the age to get a hunting license from 18 to 16 years old.  Have they changed the license? No, they have merely changed the criteria of who it can be issued to.   Same with marriage – all same gender couples are asking for is a change in the qualification requirements for the issuing of the license, not the license itself. Once issued, all gendered couples can use the same license with its parameters.   2.)  You make a point of the fact that Thomas Jefferson was a Deist, and that somehow this fact, and the fact that several other of the founding fathers were at least nominal Deists makes "endowed by their Creator" meaningless to this argument.

Not in the context of your saying it somehow made the ’self evident rights’ less so, including your subsequent wandering about how heterosexual is supported by the Creator, but homosexual is not?!!! Sorry, one of the Diest precepts was that it was created exactly the way it was supposed to be – that includes homosexuals. I’ve read your comments carefully on this point and find them simply incoherent.  

As I did yours (well more misguided than incoherent.) First of all, the individual, personal beliefs of any given founding father do not change the words of the text that the signers put their names to.

of course it doesn’t.  They signed a document where human rights were considered self-evident and bestowed by the mere fact of existence in the universe. Second, what possible difference could it make to my argument that all human rights come from the innate biological nature of humans whether the "Creator" is the Deist God of Jefferson, the Judeo-Christian God whom I worship, or the materialistic universe of an atheist??

I don’t know – but you seemed to think it was important let’s quote: you’ve completely ignored the fact that ACCORDING TO THAT DOCUMENT human "rights" are not granted by the State, but "endowed by their Creator", which  means that to claim legal marriage for gays, one would first have to  establish that homosexual sexual orientation is a "Creator endowed" right.

Since homosexuals are a part of the Creator’s creation then need do no such thing anymore than heterosexuals do.   If one is a ‘creator endowed’ right than so is the other. The foundational issue here is what is the source of any "right", and how does the DOI define "right".  And using the reasoning apparent in the DOI, we have a right to think because we innately have minds; we have a right to choose, because we innately have will; we have a right to walk, because we have legs, and so on…  Therefore, before gay marriages should be recognized by the State as a "right" of homosexuals, I would maintain that homosexuality must be shown to be something on the order of a mind, will, or a pair of legs as innate to human beings, and I would further maintain that this demonstration has yet to be made by anyone.

But why are you saying this.  By that logic then heterosexual marriage must past the same test and any test it can pass so can homosexuals. Simply saying they are sexual by nature merely begs the entire debate, asserting, rather than demonstrating the conclusion.

But just assuming that heterosexuals have a ‘right’ to marriage and homosexual’s haven’t proven such a ‘right’ is avoiding the debate altogether! And, of course, its immaterial – this is the US of A, where the government exists to serve the people, not the other way around.  And that all government services are to be accessible to all citizens who need them without prejudice and unwarranted discrimination.  As such, since the 2 person contract of marriage is licensed, and couples can have exactly the same need for it regardless of their genders, AND that they and society benefit the same regardless of the genders, it would be up to the state to demonstrate some reason for the exclusion. Again, 4 state supreme courts when asked could find no such justification. 3.)  You also (as in you’re not the only one) would like to paint this issue as one of long standing in the history of humanity, and you simply attempt to do it by broadening definitions and expanding *my* argument until you can spin it so that it appears that way to you.

I only mentioned the topic because *YOU* did. As it stands it matters not if no one has ever done this before yesterday – doing something just because that’s the way we’ve always done it before is the mantra of stagnation and laziness.   Well, I’m not buying.  My argument has remained consistent and narrow, stated clearly and repeatedly. I’m not interested in defending the strawman you are trying to construct.

And so chuck declares victory, lights his hair on fire and exits stage left.   Why am I not surprised? Again,  - The contract of two person marriage exists.  - Same gender couples have the same need for it as opposite gender ones.  - Society and the couples gain the same benefits (and burdens) from it being issued regardless of the couple’ genders.  -  In America you have to demonstrate WHY you should discriminate, not why you shouldn’t. Again, with all these added together, allowing the tiny minority of additional couples that want access to this already existing legal construct is obviously the right thing to do and the American thing to do.  Having special classes of couples with special rights for no other reason than "that’s the way its always been before’ is childish and little better than foot stomping.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – :| You are entitled to your opinion, obviously, but I disagree.  I am an :| evangelcial Christian, but have chosen to make my argument against :| legalizing gay marriages from outside of that context. Believe it or not, accept it or not, there is nothing unique in your approach. You are offering all the usual that one can find on any religious website that opposes this, and all the basic reasons why not that one can find that was offered in books  articles  letters to editors  etc with regards to the various times when various groups had gained enough political clout to step up to the plate and begin to demand that they be given the same rights that the "majority" of the time were entitled to and receiving. Utter nonsense.  I’ve put forward no great number of relevant arguments here, just one more than you have, for you have, in my humble opinion, failed miserably to provide *any* relevant and compelling argument for your position that gay marriages should be recognized by the State as a "right". To wit: 1.)  You’ve produced several articles regarding the Church/State doctrine, but have failed to show any connection in law between this doctrine and any "right" gays have to State recognized marriages. True.  The right of same gender couples to have access to the existing civil contract of 2 person marriage is BECAUSE such a contract already exists:  what the state would have to show is that there is a reason why some couples are allowed access to this contract and others are not. 2.)  You have produced large amounts of rhetoric trying to turn this debate into a discussion of religion (or so it would seem), yet I’ve consistently resisted doing this, and have consistently maintained that my position (which I’ve gone to great pains to describe for you) has nothing to do with any religion. 3.)  You have held out the Declaration of Independence (YOU brought it into this discussion…not me!!) as the founding document of this nation, and the one that guarantees a gay person’s "right" to State recognized marriages, yet you’ve completely ignored the fact that ACCORDING TO THAT DOCUMENT human "rights" are not granted by the State, but "endowed by their Creator", which means that to claim legal marriage for gays, one would first have to establish that homosexual sexual orientation is a "Creator endowed" right. yes but the creator was the Diest Creator of the document’s author – Thomas Jefferson. When it was pointed out to you that you’re ignoring the source of these rights, and what that means to your argument, you began to pretend the words "endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights" had simply disappeared from the text, to be replaced by "certain inalienable rights"! A truly remarkable display of intellectual dishonesty!! Not at all – the Diest Creator was a force or whatever that created the universe and has not had a thing to do with it since that moment of creation.  You could call the big bang ‘the Creator’.  It most definitely wasn’t the Judeo/Christian God. 4.)  The only court cases you’ve actually cited and quoted involved interracial marriage, which are obviously irrelevant to this discussion because of #3 above.  No one has to "prove" that race is an "endowed by their Creator" human attribute; it’s pretty well established at present. No one has to "prove" heterosexual sexual orientation is an "endowed by their Creator" human attribute; it’s pretty well established at present.  But homosexual sexual orientation has currently NOT been proven to be an "endowed by their Creator" human attribute, and until it is (and it might even be reasonable to demand it be established with equal certainty to these others!), NOTHING unique to homosexuality, including gay marriage, can be more than a pretender to a "right" in the sense of that word in the DOI. Sure it has, as much as heterosexual sexual orientation has.  I think you are confusing the ‘Creator’ with some Judeo/Christian entity – it has nothing to do with that. And, of course, the contract of marriage has nothing directly to do with sexual orientation, merely gender.  A gay man and a lesbian could get issued a license without a problem.  Ditto a gay man and a straight woman, etc. The reason why same gender couple access to the secular civil contract of marriage should be allowed is because the contract already exists, the benefits to the couple and society are the same regardless of the couple’s genders, and all couples are tax paying citizens of this country and have a right to equal access to its purely secular legal constructs without unnecessary discrimination. 5.)  You’ve continually argued your position with an underlying implication (especially in this latest pitiful effort) that the societal condition of gays today is something new and unique to human history; that it presents us with political questions that no historical society has ever had to address before.  Yet you bring up the research of Boswell (endorsing it I might add!), and if there was ever a scholar better suited to dispute this notion, I certainly can’t think of one!  Anyone who knows anything about his historical research, knows that he’s identified numerous examples from antiquity of homosexual unions, and while many of his conclusions and interpretations of the data are held to be highly controversial, this narrow aspect of it is NOT.  Gay unions are present in the literature ever since "literature" began!  Therefore, your implications are unsubstantiated, even by your own reference! Again, irrelevant.  The situation is that the contract already exists, and as with all such civil contracts there has to be a reason NOT to allow someone to have access to it.  Four state supreme courts were asked if they could find such justification and they could not. 6.)  You have consistently avoided coming to terms with my allegation that no where in the entire extant range of human literature concerning law, history, or philosophy, do we find debate on the "right" of homosexuals to marry and have the State recognize that marriage.  You’ve charged me with making an "outlandish" claim, which leads one to conclude that if it is indeed outlandish, it should be just that much easier to disprove, yet you’ve never lifted a finger to disprove it.  What you have done instead is post reams of rhetoric about how extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proofs…which is the rhetoric of a salesman trying to sell me a car with no transmission.  And in case this assertion confuses you entirely, let me enlighten you a bit…IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO PROVE A NEGATIVE.  What possible intellect worthy of the name could honestly think I or anyone could possibly "prove" the ABSENCE of this debate in the literature, short of reproducing all of it for you and having you read through it all for yourself. Again no need for you to prove anything other than some valid reason why the state should not issue this license to same gender couples.  4 state supreme courts couldn’t find one – maybe you could provide some evidence that they missed? But you’re not that stupid are you.  You know as well as I do that there has been a recent spate of scholarship in this area of homosexuality from antiquity to the present (Boswell isn’t the only one, just one of the more controversial ones!), and so you have all grunt work done for you, just waiting for you to go get it, just like you went and got all of those meaningless links that bloat your posts.  And you know as well as I do why you haven’t resorted to this HUGE pile of data to silence my argument…because the goods just aren’t there!  You know before you go look that it’s not there!! You are looking at this situation bass ackwards.  Same gender couples aren’t asking for something new, they are asking for access to an already existing legal construct, one that is currently being limited to only opposite gender couples.   What with the 14th amendment, all citizen’s rights to ‘pursuit of happiness’ in a nation conceived around the then radical notion that government exists to serve the citizens and not the other way around, it is up to the government and its representatives to demonstrate some legal reason for limiting access to the secular contract of 2 person marriage.  If they can’t then same gender couples should obviously be given access.  Again, they and society reap the same benefits from its issuance regardless of the genders of the couple. Now, having said all this, let me add that I understand you don’t want to debate this by your statement that my argument was irrelevant to you, and you were just going to post whatever you wanted.  I’ve got exactly zero problem with that, for, after all, your Creator has obviously endowed you with a mind, free will, and access to the Internet…so that IS your right! The above is just a little bit of "tidying up" before I leave. See ya Chuck.  Seems you have never been discussing the actual issue. the current debate has nothing to do with the religious rite of marriage – as you noted same gender couples have been able to be married for centuries, and specifically

… read more »

Response:

:| 3.)  You have held out the Declaration of Independence (YOU brought it into :| this discussion…not me!!) as the founding document of this nation, and the Actually son, I didn’t say this was a "founding document" of the US. It is not a "founding document" of this nation.

Actually son, I wouldn’t be replying to you at all…except that for the first time since I began reading your canned posts you happen to be right. The Declaration of Independence *is* the founding document for this nation, but you didn’t say it was. My apologies for misrepresenting your comments. Chuck Stamford

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – :| You are entitled to your opinion, obviously, but I disagree.  I am an :| evangelcial Christian, but have chosen to make my argument against :| legalizing gay marriages from outside of that context. Believe it or not, accept it or not, there is nothing unique in your approach. You are offering all the usual that one can find on any religious website that opposes this, and all the basic reasons why not that one can find that was offered in books  articles  letters to editors  etc with regards to the various times when various groups had gained enough political clout to step up to the plate and begin to demand that they be given the same rights that the "majority" of the time were entitled to and receiving. I have arrived late in this thread so pardon me if some of the ground has been covered. Utter nonsense.  I’ve put forward no great number of relevant arguments here, just one more than you have, for you have, in my humble opinion, failed miserably to provide *any* relevant and compelling argument for your position that gay marriages They are not "gay marriages" that are same-sex marriages.  Once same-sex marriage is legally permitted, under the doctrine of EQUALITY before the law, *any* two consenting adult citizens of the same sex could enter into one.  The fact that the vast majority of those who will chose to do so are gay, is irrelevant.   should be recognized by the State as a "right". Because no less an authority than the SCOTUS has ruled that marriage is a *fundamental* rights, and the UNDHR states that marriage is a fundamental right.  The right is well known and enshrined in law, thus the onus is upon the state to show why such a right is being withheld. <snip 4.)  The only court cases you’ve actually cited and quoted involved interracial marriage, which are obviously irrelevant to this discussion because of #3 above. I respectfully disagree.  IN the Loving Vs. Virginia case, the state of Virginia claimed that the races were treated equally since the law applied to all races.  They weer touting equal *application* of the laws which is not necessarily equal *benefit* of the laws since some citizens were disadvantaged by those laws. Now people are making the claim that the sexes are treated equally since nobody can marry someone of the same sex [in human rights backwaters anyway].  IN actual face, opposite-sex-only marriage grants a right to men [the right to marry a women] that women do not have, and grants a right to women [the right to marry a man] that men do not have.   While there my be equal application of the law, there is no equal benefit since some citizens are discriminated against based on the *SEX* of the partner they which to marry – sex discrimination is generally frowned upon.

Sorry, but you have gone over old ground with most of this, and what little there is new here isn’t significant to my argument as far as I can see, which I believe I’ve stated pretty clearly in the post to which you’re responding. Chuck Stamford

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – :| You are entitled to your opinion, obviously, but I disagree.  I am an :| evangelcial Christian, but have chosen to make my argument against :| legalizing gay marriages from outside of that context. Believe it or not, accept it or not, there is nothing unique in your approach. You are offering all the usual that one can find on any religious website that opposes this, and all the basic reasons why not that one can find that was offered in books  articles  letters to editors  etc with regards to the various times when various groups had gained enough political clout to step up to the plate and begin to demand that they be given the same rights that the "majority" of the time were entitled to and receiving.

        I have arrived late in this thread so pardon me if some of the ground has been covered. Utter nonsense.  I’ve put forward no great number of relevant arguments here, just one more than you have, for you have, in my humble opinion, failed miserably to provide *any* relevant and compelling argument for your position that gay marriages

        They are not "gay marriages" that are same-sex marriages.  Once same-sex marriage is legally permitted, under the doctrine of EQUALITY before the law, *any* two consenting adult citizens of the same sex could enter into one.  The fact that the vast majority of those who will chose to do so are gay, is irrelevant.   should be recognized by the State as a "right".         Because no less an authority than the SCOTUS has ruled that marriage is a *fundamental* rights, and the UNDHR states that marriage is a fundamental right.  The right is well known and enshrined in law, thus the onus is upon the state to show why such a right is being withheld. <snip 4.)  The only court cases you’ve actually cited and quoted involved interracial marriage, which are obviously irrelevant to this discussion because of #3 above.

        I respectfully disagree.  IN the Loving Vs. Virginia case, the state of Virginia claimed that the races were treated equally since the law applied to all races.  They weer touting equal *application* of the laws which is not necessarily equal *benefit* of the laws since some citizens were disadvantaged by those laws.         Now people are making the claim that the sexes are treated equally since nobody can marry someone of the same sex [in human rights backwaters anyway].  IN actual face, opposite-sex-only marriage grants a right to men [the right to marry a women] that women do not have, and grants a right to women [the right to marry a man] that men do not have.   While there my be equal application of the law, there is no equal benefit since some citizens are discriminated against based on the *SEX* of the partner they which to marry – sex discrimination is generally frowned upon. <snip —       This represents my personal opinion and NOT Company policy   Goderich, Ont, Canada. To reply, post a request for my valid E-mail         "Life is a sexually transmitted, terminal, condition"

Response:

:| Believe it or not, accept it or not, there is nothing unique in your :| approach. You are offering all the usual that one can find on any :| religious :| website that opposes this, and all the basic reasons why not that one can :| find that was offered in books  articles  letters to editors  etc with :| regards to the various times when various groups had gained enough :| political clout to step up to the plate and begin to demand that they be :| given the same rights that the "majority" of the time were entitled to and :| receiving. :| :| Utter nonsense.

Your unsubstantiated claim is noted.  Ordinary or extraordinary claims require ordinary or  extraordinary proof. If you’re going to claim something and especially something outlandish you’re going to need some pretty extraordinary and/or irrefutable proof to back up such a claim.   "Where’s the beef?"  Where’s the ordinary or extraordinary proof for their ordinary or extraordinary claims?  If one is not responding with ordinary or extraordinary, *factual* proof, then the claim is not worth considering Why is asking for "proof" considered truculence? Do you consider it truculence for a judge to ask for evidence in a trial. Would you rather that people just testified that they believed in the guilt of the suspect? [as Gray Shockley said:]  (Your "opinion" is not an  adequate citation.) :| I’ve put forward no great number of relevant arguments :| here, just one more than you have, for you have, in my humble opinion, :| failed miserably to provide *any* relevant and compelling argument for your :| position that gay marriages should be recognized by the State as a "right".

        I am not here to "debate", not here to argue, not here to give legitimacy by even discussing  false, flawed, misrepresenting or otherwise bogus theories, personal opinions or personal beliefs.  I will point out and rebut with primary and secondary source data, facts, etc each of those that I find.  I will point out each and every improperly  cited quote, each bogus quote and to be quite honest, any improperly cited quote has to be viewed as being bogus until someone provides a proper cite for it.         If attacked personally, I will give as good as I get. Those who troll will be so labeled.  Those who are more concerned with spreading propaganda and or unsubstantiated claims and are not are not interested in facts, truth, etc will be so identified. I am very big on the following: Your unsubstantiated claim is noted.  Ordinary or extraordinary claims require ordinary or  extraordinary proof. If you’re going to claim something and especially something outlandish you’re going to need some pretty extraordinary and/or irrefutable proof to back up such a claim.   "Where’s the beef?"  Where’s the ordinary or extraordinary proof for their ordinary or extraordinary claims?  If one is not responding with ordinary or extraordinary, *factual* proof, then the claim is not worth considering Why is asking for "proof" considered truculence? Do you consider it truculence for a judge to ask for evidence in a trial. Would you rather that people just testified that they believed in the guilt of the suspect? [as Gray Shockley said:]  (Your "opinion" is not an  adequate citation.) I expect people to back up their claims and if their claims have any merit, they should be able to back them up with evidence from others, properly cited, of course.         Anyone can be incorrect  about something, but once a person has been shown with evidence that they were incorrect about something, and they ignore that and continue saying the same things in another thread in another newsgroup  or continue in the same thread and same newsgroup, they have lost any and all rights to respect and will be so identified for who and what they are.         A person doesn’t have to agree with the material, however, their saying they don’t agree with it, isn’t good enough. They are going to have to show, with their own evidence, point by point, that which   I have provided is "incorrect."  After all, that is what I do with the claims they have made.         I target my posts and replies to the REAL audience. The Real audience is not the person I am replying to. In all probability, their mind is already made up. The real audience are those who come into the various newsgroups and read posts and replies found there, but seldom if ever post or reply themselves.         The real audience that matters are those who came yesterday will come today and will come tomorrow and thanks to web crawlers like those run by Google many, many, many, tomorrows after that. Those are the people who in time may actually make a difference.         The above is what I am about.

Response:

:| 3.)  You have held out the Declaration of Independence (YOU brought it into :| this discussion…not me!!) as the founding document of this nation, and the

Actually son, I didn’t say this was a "founding document" of the US. It is not a "founding document" of this nation. What I did say was this: LAST BUT NOT LEAST: [ANOTHER HAD SAID] :| The fact is that government recognizes marriage between heterosexuals :| because stable family units are seen as a benefit to society.  Back :| when this controversy flared up I began asked these groups, "What is :| the benefit to society of recognizing homosexual marriage?"  I have :| yet to hear back on that.

You have that somewhat incorrect. If you are going to apply compelling interest it applies against the state, the state has to show a compelling interest why they should not allow something, not the other way around. What benefits, to the state, are you claiming exist in a heterosexual civil contractual marriage but would be absent in a same sex civil contractual marriage? If you can think of none, your question is irrelevant. A benefit to society which is the wrong standard to begin with can be answered as follows Justice, as in equal civil rights for all not just straights. It would move on step closer to living up to this " We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. –That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, . . . " and this Amendment XIV Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. and this Loving v. Virginia (1967) http://atheism.about.com/library/decisions/privacy/bldec_LovingVA.htm

Response:

1.)  You’ve produced several articles regarding the Church/State doctrine, but have failed to show any connection in law between this doctrine and any "right" gays have to State recognized marriages.

You are of course correct. Most state laws are written in such a way that a gay union would not be defined as a marriage. But the question is whether we should change those laws so as not to be discriminatory. 2.)  You have produced large amounts of rhetoric trying to turn this debate into a discussion of religion (or so it would seem), yet I’ve consistently resisted doing this, and have consistently maintained that my position (which I’ve gone to great pains to describe for you) has nothing to do with any religion.

It has everything to do with religion and nothing to do with anything else. There is no secular benefit in barring gays from marriage. 3.)  You have held out the Declaration of Independence (YOU brought it into this discussion…not me!!) as the founding document of this nation, and the one that guarantees a gay person’s "right" to State recognized marriages, yet you’ve completely ignored the fact that ACCORDING TO THAT DOCUMENT human "rights" are not granted by the State, but "endowed by their Creator",…

One of the more unfortunate flaws in our founding documents was this kind of superstitious reference. Gay unions are present in the literature ever since "literature"

began! So maybe they are a normal part of the human experience and should be recognized as such. 6.)  You have consistently avoided coming to terms with my allegation that no where in the entire extant range of human literature concerning law, history, or philosophy, do we find debate on the "right" of homosexuals to marry and have the State recognize that marriage.

It is being debated right now. What are you saying? No one ever discussed this before so the idea has no merit? BF

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – :| You are entitled to your opinion, obviously, but I disagree.  I am an :| evangelcial Christian, but have chosen to make my argument against :| legalizing gay marriages from outside of that context. Believe it or not, accept it or not, there is nothing unique in your approach. You are offering all the usual that one can find on any religious website that opposes this, and all the basic reasons why not that one can find that was offered in books  articles  letters to editors  etc with regards to the various times when various groups had gained enough political clout to step up to the plate and begin to demand that they be given the same rights that the "majority" of the time were entitled to and receiving. Utter nonsense.  I’ve put forward no great number of relevant arguments here, just one more than you have, for you have, in my humble opinion, failed miserably to provide *any* relevant and compelling argument for your position that gay marriages should be recognized by the State as a "right". To wit: 1.)  You’ve produced several articles regarding the Church/State doctrine, but have failed to show any connection in law between this doctrine and any "right" gays have to State recognized marriages.

True.  The right of same gender couples to have access to the existing civil contract of 2 person marriage is BECAUSE such a contract already exists:  what the state would have to show is that there is a reason why some couples are allowed access to this contract and others are not. 2.)  You have produced large amounts of rhetoric trying to turn this debate into a discussion of religion (or so it would seem), yet I’ve consistently resisted doing this, and have consistently maintained that my position (which I’ve gone to great pains to describe for you) has nothing to do with any religion. 3.)  You have held out the Declaration of Independence (YOU brought it into this discussion…not me!!) as the founding document of this nation, and the one that guarantees a gay person’s "right" to State recognized marriages, yet you’ve completely ignored the fact that ACCORDING TO THAT DOCUMENT human "rights" are not granted by the State, but "endowed by their Creator", which means that to claim legal marriage for gays, one would first have to establish that homosexual sexual orientation is a "Creator endowed" right.

yes but the creator was the Diest Creator of the document’s author – Thomas Jefferson. When it was pointed out to you that you’re ignoring the source of these rights, and what that means to your argument, you began to pretend the words "endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights" had simply disappeared from the text, to be replaced by "certain inalienable rights"! A truly remarkable display of intellectual dishonesty!!

Not at all – the Diest Creator was a force or whatever that created the universe and has not had a thing to do with it since that moment of creation.  You could call the big bang ‘the Creator’.  It most definitely wasn’t the Judeo/Christian God. 4.)  The only court cases you’ve actually cited and quoted involved interracial marriage, which are obviously irrelevant to this discussion because of #3 above.  No one has to "prove" that race is an "endowed by their Creator" human attribute; it’s pretty well established at present.  No one has to "prove" heterosexual sexual orientation is an "endowed by their Creator" human attribute; it’s pretty well established at present.  But homosexual sexual orientation has currently NOT been proven to be an "endowed by their Creator" human attribute, and until it is (and it might even be reasonable to demand it be established with equal certainty to these others!), NOTHING unique to homosexuality, including gay marriage, can be more than a pretender to a "right" in the sense of that word in the DOI.

Sure it has, as much as heterosexual sexual orientation has.  I think you are confusing the ‘Creator’ with some Judeo/Christian entity – it has nothing to do with that. And, of course, the contract of marriage has nothing directly to do with sexual orientation, merely gender.  A gay man and a lesbian could get issued a license without a problem.  Ditto a gay man and a straight woman, etc. The reason why same gender couple access to the secular civil contract of marriage should be allowed is because the contract already exists, the benefits to the couple and society are the same regardless of the couple’s genders, and all couples are tax paying citizens of this country and have a right to equal access to its purely secular legal constructs without unnecessary discrimination. 5.)  You’ve continually argued your position with an underlying implication (especially in this latest pitiful effort) that the societal condition of gays today is something new and unique to human history; that it presents us with political questions that no historical society has ever had to address before.  Yet you bring up the research of Boswell (endorsing it I might add!), and if there was ever a scholar better suited to dispute this notion, I certainly can’t think of one!  Anyone who knows anything about his historical research, knows that he’s identified numerous examples from antiquity of homosexual unions, and while many of his conclusions and interpretations of the data are held to be highly controversial, this narrow aspect of it is NOT.  Gay unions are present in the literature ever since "literature" began!  Therefore, your implications are unsubstantiated, even by your own reference!

Again, irrelevant.  The situation is that the contract already exists, and as with all such civil contracts there has to be a reason NOT to allow someone to have access to it.  Four state supreme courts were asked if they could find such justification and they could not. 6.)  You have consistently avoided coming to terms with my allegation that no where in the entire extant range of human literature concerning law, history, or philosophy, do we find debate on the "right" of homosexuals to marry and have the State recognize that marriage.  You’ve charged me with making an "outlandish" claim, which leads one to conclude that if it is indeed outlandish, it should be just that much easier to disprove, yet you’ve never lifted a finger to disprove it.  What you have done instead is post reams of rhetoric about how extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proofs…which is the rhetoric of a salesman trying to sell me a car with no transmission.  And in case this assertion confuses you entirely, let me enlighten you a bit…IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO PROVE A NEGATIVE.  What possible intellect worthy of the name could honestly think I or anyone could possibly "prove" the ABSENCE of this debate in the literature, short of reproducing all of it for you and having you read through it all for yourself.

Again no need for you to prove anything other than some valid reason why the state should not issue this license to same gender couples.  4 state supreme courts couldn’t find one – maybe you could provide some evidence that they missed? But you’re not that stupid are you.  You know as well as I do that there has been a recent spate of scholarship in this area of homosexuality from antiquity to the present (Boswell isn’t the only one, just one of the more controversial ones!), and so you have all grunt work done for you, just waiting for you to go get it, just like you went and got all of those meaningless links that bloat your posts.  And you know as well as I do why you haven’t resorted to this HUGE pile of data to silence my argument…because the goods just aren’t there!  You know before you go look that it’s not there!!

You are looking at this situation bass ackwards.  Same gender couples aren’t asking for something new, they are asking for access to an already existing legal construct, one that is currently being limited to only opposite gender couples.   What with the 14th amendment, all citizen’s rights to ‘pursuit of happiness’ in a nation conceived around the then radical notion that government exists to serve the citizens and not the other way around, it is up to the government and its representatives to demonstrate some legal reason for limiting access to the secular contract of 2 person marriage.  If they can’t then same gender couples should obviously be given access.  Again, they and society reap the same benefits from its issuance regardless of the genders of the couple. Now, having said all this, let me add that I understand you don’t want to debate this by your statement that my argument was irrelevant to you, and you were just going to post whatever you wanted.  I’ve got exactly zero problem with that, for, after all, your Creator has obviously endowed you with a mind, free will, and access to the Internet…so that IS your right! The above is just a little bit of "tidying up" before I leave.

See ya Chuck.  Seems you have never been discussing the actual issue. the current debate has nothing to do with the religious rite of marriage – as you noted same gender couples have been able to be married for centuries, and specifically in several churches over the last few decades in the US.  This isn’t about same gender couples asking for something new to be created for them, but just giving them equal access to an already existing legal construct. So same gender couples don’t have to justify their right to access, it is the other side that has to justify their exclusion.

Response:

You are entitled to your opinion, obviously, but I disagree.  I am an evangelcial Christian, but have chosen to make my argument against legalizing gay marriages from outside of that context.  

That must have been an "interesting" selection process. [As in, "What an 'interesting' looking baby you have".] – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – This makes any articles discussing the issue from a religious angle (be it how any given religion handles it, or a discussion of the church-state doctrine of separation) irrelevant to my argument. Perhaps the problem here is that I’ve not made this distinction clear in your mind.  I hope it is now, and that we can finally leave behind any discussion of, or allusions to, arguments based in religion or the nature of Religion as it relates to the nature of the State. What I AM arguing is the significance implicit in the total absence of any political debate on, or recognition of the legitimacy of gay marriages until just recently.  We can start from the earliest extant literature of man and work forward to VERY close to the present and not find any evidence of this specific issue in human society.  I’m maintaining this historical fact means "something", and that this narrow fact isn’t open to debate, but that what this "something" is (i.e., a reasonable understanding of what this fact means) may be.  And I’m still waiting for you to grasp this and address it in some cogent and coherent fashion.

                    Okay, gotcha.       Gays are to marriage as Jesus was to         previously established religion.           Does that about cover it?        [massive chomp - millions of     electrons have died for your sins.] Gray Shockley "One man’s religion is another man’s belly laugh."                                      - Jubal Harshaw                                       (Channeled through RAH)

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – You are entitled to your opinion, obviously, but I disagree.  I am an evangelcial Christian, but have chosen to make my argument against legalizing gay marriages from outside of that context. That must have been an "interesting" selection process. [As in, "What an 'interesting' looking baby you have".] This makes any articles discussing the issue from a religious angle (be it how any given religion handles it, or a discussion of the church-state doctrine of separation) irrelevant to my argument. Perhaps the problem here is that I’ve not made this distinction clear in your mind.  I hope it is now, and that we can finally leave behind any discussion of, or allusions to, arguments based in religion or the nature of Religion as it relates to the nature of the State. What I AM arguing is the significance implicit in the total absence of any political debate on, or recognition of the legitimacy of gay marriages until just recently.  We can start from the earliest extant literature of man and work forward to VERY close to the present and not find any evidence of this specific issue in human society.  I’m maintaining this historical fact means "something", and that this narrow fact isn’t open to debate, but that what this "something" is (i.e., a reasonable understanding of what this fact means) may be.  And I’m still waiting for you to grasp this and address it in some cogent and coherent fashion.                     Okay, gotcha.       Gays are to marriage as Jesus was to         previously established religion.           Does that about cover it?

I don’t even see your analogy, let alone know if it applies!        [massive chomp - millions of     electrons have died for your sins.]

And why would they be "my" sins, when the poster to whom I was posting turned in a 59kb response to my 16kb post, at least half of which owed its bulk to previous remarks of his I left in? Chuck Stamford

Response:

:| You are entitled to your opinion, obviously, but I disagree.  I am an :| evangelcial Christian, but have chosen to make my argument against :| legalizing gay marriages from outside of that context.  

Believe it or not, accept it or not, there is nothing unique in your approach. You are offering all the usual that one can find on any religious website that opposes this, and all the basic reasons why not that one can find that was offered in books  articles  letters to editors  etc with regards to the various times when various groups had gained enough political clout to step up to the plate and begin to demand that they be given the same rights that the "majority" of the time were entitled to and receiving. We must remember, that originally after the Constitution was ratified WASP males that owned property  was the only majority that had full and equal rights. That mans that everyone else at one time or another had to fight for their rightful share of those rights to end discrimination against them. and much of your "argument" would be the arguments that the current majority power structure offered time and time again seeking to deny the most recent groups from having their right share. This makes any :| articles discussing the issue from a religious angle (be it how any given :| religion handles it, or a discussion of the church-state doctrine of :| separation) irrelevant to my argument.

Your entire position is irrelevant to me. I presented the data I presented. :| :| Perhaps the problem here is that I’ve not made this distinction clear in :| your mind.  I hope it is now, and that we can finally leave behind any :| discussion of, or allusions to, arguments based in religion or the nature of :| Religion as it relates to the nature of the State.

If I were interested in continuing this with you, which I am not, laving the "religious angle" as you call it out would be the last thing I would do. The "religious angle" is very much a part and parcel of this regardless of all your denials otherwise. :| What I AM arguing is the significance implicit in the total absence of any :| political debate on, or recognition of the legitimacy of gay marriages until :| just recently.  

Two problems         I am not here to "debate", not here to argue, not here to give legitimacy by even discussing  false, flawed, misrepresenting or otherwise bogus theories, personal opinions or personal beliefs.  I will point out and rebut with primary and secondary source data, facts, etc each of those that I find.  I will point out each and every improperly  cited quote, each bogus quote and to be quite honest, any improperly cited quote has to be viewed as being bogus until someone provides a proper cite for it.         If attacked personally, I will give as good as I get. Those who troll will be so labeled.  Those who are more concerned with spreading propaganda and or unsubstantiated claims and are not are not interested in facts, truth, etc will be so identified. I am very big on the following: Your unsubstantiated claim is noted.  Ordinary or extraordinary claims require ordinary or  extraordinary proof. If you’re going to claim something and especially something outlandish you’re going to need some pretty extraordinary and/or irrefutable proof to back up such a claim.   "Where’s the beef?"  Where’s the ordinary or extraordinary proof for their ordinary or extraordinary claims?  If one is not responding with ordinary or extraordinary, *factual* proof, then the claim is not worth considering Why is asking for "proof" considered truculence? Do you consider it truculence for a judge to ask for evidence in a trial. Would you rather that people just testified that they believed in the guilt of the suspect? [as Gray Shockley said:]  (Your "opinion" is not an  adequate citation.) I expect people to back up their claims and if their claims have any merit, they should be able to back them up with evidence from others, properly cited, of course.         Anyone can be incorrect  about something, but once a person has been shown with evidence that they were incorrect about something, and they ignore that and continue saying the same things in another thread in another newsgroup  or continue in the same thread and same newsgroup, they have lost any and all rights to respect and will be so identified for who and what they are.         A person doesn’t have to agree with the material, however, their saying they don’t agree with it, isn’t good enough. They are going to have to show, with their own evidence, point by point, that which   I have provided is "incorrect."  After all, that is what I do with the claims they have made.         I target my posts and replies to the REAL audience. The Real audience is not the person I am replying to. In all probability, their mind is already made up. The real audience are those who come into the various newsgroups and read posts and replies found there, but seldom if ever post or reply themselves.         The real audience that matters are those who came yesterday will come today and will come tomorrow and thanks to web crawlers like those run by Google many, many, many, tomorrows after that. Those are the people who in time may actually make a difference.         The above is what I am about. (2) History doesn’t exactly bear you. There were so called Gay mariages in the past as was shown by some of the items that was included in my articles. [snip] :| As you’ve posted a 59kb response that is largely off point, I’ll be snipping :| a lot of the remainder:

Son, the only thing off point is you. When you start assuming people are this or that with no facts to back that up, your credibility is zilch Now to finish this up. I posted the following information. I stand by that. I have ni interest in your unsubstianted arguments, your opinions etc. [snip] Already done that son.  C&S Sep. Gay Marriage PART I http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=j1bna09fpi3ov… http://makeashorterlink.com/?O11422D78 PART II http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=ok9pa01kqkogs… http://makeashorterlink.com/?D63414D78 You sure haven’t done anything to undo it. A lot of people made a lot of points and in some or many cases cited data supporting those points in the above two items.  Nothing you said changed any of that. Disproved any of that, even addressed any of that. All I see is a bunch of "you say" opinion which is totally, meaningless. Your personal opinion doesn’t mean anything, nor for that matter does mine. What matters is the evidence that one can provide that people can read and further research  to make up their own minds. Then you lose be default. In your opinion it was simply uniformed propaganda. However, since you didn’t read the material that the above  comes from, nor did you research any cites, etc that author provided, you don’t have a clue  about it. http://groups.google.com/groups?q=John+Boswell&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=… http://makeashorterlink.com/?Z3C813E87 The fact of the matter is, the books by John Boswell are completely cited with a great deal of documented historical data You may disagree with him but you are going to have to do more than hold your hands over your eyes while you yell "aint’t so, ain’t so" if you want to convince anyone. Boswell, John (1947-1994) HISTORIAN Born in Boston, Boswell attended both the College of William and Mary and Harvard University. He became part of the Yale University history department in 1975 and was its chairman from 1990-1992. In 1987 he helped found the school’s Lesbian and Gay Studies Center. In 1981 Boswell won the American Book Award for History for his groundbreaking and controversial work Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality. Shortly before dying of complications from AIDS in 1994 he published another book controversial among scholars, Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe. I don’t recognize the Bible as an authority on any subject. It has been shown to have a number of errors, for much of it, the authors are unknown. However, if you are citing the Bible as the authority you may find yourself having  some problems with the Establishment Clause of the  Constitution. I suggest you look around on the web for take some info on law if you feel that compelling interests places the burden of proof  on the individual rather than the state. Compelling state interest. One which the state is forced or obliged to protect. Term used to uphold state action in the face of attack grounded on Equal Protection or First Amendment rights because of serious need for such state action. Also employed to justify state action under police power of state. Black’s Law Dictionary, Abridged 6th Edition, Centennial Edition (1891-1991) West Publishing Co., (1991) p. 194 Actually and legally speaking "marriage" has been in a state of redefining for some time now. In addition, you sidestepped the point. What compelling interest does the state have to withhold from one class of people that which is pretty much freely extended to other classes of people? Because something * _____(fill in the blank) has always been, therefore, it should always be*  is losing any validity it may ever of had as a valid argument  and particularly so when it is offered as a excuse to deny and deprive certain classes … read more »

Response:

:| You are entitled to your opinion, obviously, but I disagree.  I am an :| evangelcial Christian, but have chosen to make my argument against :| legalizing gay marriages from outside of that context. Believe it or not, accept it or not, there is nothing unique in your approach. You are offering all the usual that one can find on any religious website that opposes this, and all the basic reasons why not that one can find that was offered in books  articles  letters to editors  etc with regards to the various times when various groups had gained enough political clout to step up to the plate and begin to demand that they be given the same rights that the "majority" of the time were entitled to and receiving.

Utter nonsense.  I’ve put forward no great number of relevant arguments here, just one more than you have, for you have, in my humble opinion, failed miserably to provide *any* relevant and compelling argument for your position that gay marriages should be recognized by the State as a "right". To wit: 1.)  You’ve produced several articles regarding the Church/State doctrine, but have failed to show any connection in law between this doctrine and any "right" gays have to State recognized marriages. 2.)  You have produced large amounts of rhetoric trying to turn this debate into a discussion of religion (or so it would seem), yet I’ve consistently resisted doing this, and have consistently maintained that my position (which I’ve gone to great pains to describe for you) has nothing to do with any religion. 3.)  You have held out the Declaration of Independence (YOU brought it into this discussion…not me!!) as the founding document of this nation, and the one that guarantees a gay person’s "right" to State recognized marriages, yet you’ve completely ignored the fact that ACCORDING TO THAT DOCUMENT human "rights" are not granted by the State, but "endowed by their Creator", which means that to claim legal marriage for gays, one would first have to establish that homosexual sexual orientation is a "Creator endowed" right. When it was pointed out to you that you’re ignoring the source of these rights, and what that means to your argument, you began to pretend the words "endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights" had simply disappeared from the text, to be replaced by "certain inalienable rights"! A truly remarkable display of intellectual dishonesty!! 4.)  The only court cases you’ve actually cited and quoted involved interracial marriage, which are obviously irrelevant to this discussion because of #3 above.  No one has to "prove" that race is an "endowed by their Creator" human attribute; it’s pretty well established at present.  No one has to "prove" heterosexual sexual orientation is an "endowed by their Creator" human attribute; it’s pretty well established at present.  But homosexual sexual orientation has currently NOT been proven to be an "endowed by their Creator" human attribute, and until it is (and it might even be reasonable to demand it be established with equal certainty to these others!), NOTHING unique to homosexuality, including gay marriage, can be more than a pretender to a "right" in the sense of that word in the DOI. 5.)  You’ve continually argued your position with an underlying implication (especially in this latest pitiful effort) that the societal condition of gays today is something new and unique to human history; that it presents us with political questions that no historical society has ever had to address before.  Yet you bring up the research of Boswell (endorsing it I might add!), and if there was ever a scholar better suited to dispute this notion, I certainly can’t think of one!  Anyone who knows anything about his historical research, knows that he’s identified numerous examples from antiquity of homosexual unions, and while many of his conclusions and interpretations of the data are held to be highly controversial, this narrow aspect of it is NOT.  Gay unions are present in the literature ever since "literature" began!  Therefore, your implications are unsubstantiated, even by your own reference! 6.)  You have consistently avoided coming to terms with my allegation that no where in the entire extant range of human literature concerning law, history, or philosophy, do we find debate on the "right" of homosexuals to marry and have the State recognize that marriage.  You’ve charged me with making an "outlandish" claim, which leads one to conclude that if it is indeed outlandish, it should be just that much easier to disprove, yet you’ve never lifted a finger to disprove it.  What you have done instead is post reams of rhetoric about how extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proofs…which is the rhetoric of a salesman trying to sell me a car with no transmission.  And in case this assertion confuses you entirely, let me enlighten you a bit…IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO PROVE A NEGATIVE.  What possible intellect worthy of the name could honestly think I or anyone could possibly "prove" the ABSENCE of this debate in the literature, short of reproducing all of it for you and having you read through it all for yourself. But you’re not that stupid are you.  You know as well as I do that there has been a recent spate of scholarship in this area of homosexuality from antiquity to the present (Boswell isn’t the only one, just one of the more controversial ones!), and so you have all grunt work done for you, just waiting for you to go get it, just like you went and got all of those meaningless links that bloat your posts.  And you know as well as I do why you haven’t resorted to this HUGE pile of data to silence my argument…because the goods just aren’t there!  You know before you go look that it’s not there!! Now, having said all this, let me add that I understand you don’t want to debate this by your statement that my argument was irrelevant to you, and you were just going to post whatever you wanted.  I’ve got exactly zero problem with that, for, after all, your Creator has obviously endowed you with a mind, free will, and access to the Internet…so that IS your right! The above is just a little bit of "tidying up" before I leave. Chuck Stamford

Response:

:| VERY nicely written :-) Is this in print? Which issue?

If you are referring to this: "I wrote this article for OutNow magazine. Since it was published, some people have suggested I forward this to web-sites with similar discussions. John Emery  Separation of Church and State – A Family History By John Emery Jr" instead of the reply I posted this morning I can find out which issue he was referring to. Since he is sending it out  to a number of people and sources that is basically giving permission to use it. However, I will email him and ask him for certain

Response:

:| [buckeye] :| Here is an answer for you: :| :| C&S Sep. Gay Marriage :| PART I :| :| http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=j1bna09fpi3ov…

58q6t8ahjslesbam1%404ax.com – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – :| http://makeashorterlink.com/?O11422D78 :| :| Actually, the link above leads me to an article that makes my case: :| :| "The Christian right’s disguising this issue as a moral and social one :| conveniently obscures its patently religious roots." Actually the article above contains a variety of opinions from a variety of sources. Some pro, some neutral and I would say a few leaning in the con direction. If you think you found one  out of the collection that supports you, good for you. There are more than one that doesn’t support you, something you failed to mention. The article above is made up of the following: GAY MARRIAGE, SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE  From a variety of sources with a variety of ideas and thoughts Banning Same-Sex Marriage Violates Church-State Separation by Allen Snyder www.dissidentvoice.org March 15, 2004 First Published in Op Ed News.com http://www.opednews.com/snyder031404_banning_same_Sex_marriage.htm http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Mar04/Snyder0315.htm Allen Snyder is an instructor of Philosophy and Ethics. He can be reached originally published by opednews.com but permission is granted for reprint in print, email, blog, or web media so long as this credit is attached. Marriage Amendment Violates Separation Of Church And State, Says Americans United Thursday May 13, 2004

http://www.au.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6649&abbr=pr&JServSe… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – http://makeashorterlink.com/?N2E612858 —– Church, State, and Gay Marriage http://atheism.about.com/b/a/062487.htm —— Legalizing Gay Marriage Critiques of the Ethical & Religious Arguments http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/phil/blphil_eth_gaym.htm —— Separation of Church and State 101 Issues, People, and Arguments http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/cs/blcs_101.htm Religious Right FAQ http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/rr/blfaq_rr_index.htm Evangelical Christianity & Homosexuality Understanding the Relationship http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/rr/blrr_gay_evangelicals.htm Religion vs. Sexual Orientation: A Clash of Human Rights? (Bertha Wilson Lecture, 2002) http://www.samesexmarriage.ca/equality/bertha_wilson.htm Does gay-marriage debate raise church-state concerns? Associated Baptist Press August 12, 2003 – Volume: 03-75 By Robert Marus http://www.abpnews.com/abpnews/story.cfm?newsId=3759 Is There a Religious Difference Between Same-Sex Marriages and Civil Unions? By Voices Sunday, May 2, 2004; Page C13 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A59831-2004May1.html Charges in Same-Sex Nuptials N.Y. Clergy Protest, Vow to Wed More By Alan Cooperman Washington Post Staff Writer Tuesday, March 16, 2004; Page A04 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61436-2004Mar15.html

Separation Of Church And State: Let Religion Define Matrimony By James Harold http://www.mtholyoke.edu/offices/comm/oped/Seperation.shtml

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –  Marriage Separation of Church and State http://blog.dbthoughts.com/C1616428771/E1474408386/ So you wanna know about Gay Marriage? Learn some background on the issue http://www.soyouwanna.com/site/pros_cons/gaymarriage/gaymarriage.html Hear some argument s agaisnt Gay Marriage http://www.soyouwanna.com/site/pros_cons/gaymarriage/gaymarriage2.html Hear some arguments for gay Marraige http://www.soyouwanna.com/site/pros_cons/gaymarriage/gaymarriage3.html Gay Marriage Blurs Church, State Roles By Kevin Lewis http://www.free-times.com/Editor/My%20Turn%20Archives/myturn031704.html Is gay marriage debate a church-state issue? – News Christian Century,  Sept 6, 2003  by Robert Marus

http://articles.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_18_120/ai_107…  Separation of Church and State: A Most Important Decision                                                        By Gerald A. Larue Emeritus Professor of Biblical History and Archaeology University of Southern California

http://www.teachingaboutreligion.org/WhitePapers/separation_church_st…  Alabama’s Chief Justice Declares Homosexuality ‘A Sin,’ Bases Custody Ruling Partly on Bible http://www.sodomylaws.org/usa/alabama/alnews09.htm Americans United Says Moore’s Church-State Views Echo Dark Ages  February 20, 2002  The Sensibilities of Our Forefathers The History of Sodomy Laws in the United States By George Painter http://www.sodomylaws.org/sensibilities/introduction.htm

History of Sodomy Laws http://www.sodomylaws.org/history/history.htm  Why Religious People Are Against Gay Marriage http://www.sodomylaws.org/usa/useditorial37.htm Your one little quote gathered from all that is available from above is really lame.

You are entitled to your opinion, obviously, but I disagree.  I am an evangelcial Christian, but have chosen to make my argument against legalizing gay marriages from outside of that context.  This makes any articles discussing the issue from a religious angle (be it how any given religion handles it, or a discussion of the church-state doctrine of separation) irrelevant to my argument. Perhaps the problem here is that I’ve not made this distinction clear in your mind.  I hope it is now, and that we can finally leave behind any discussion of, or allusions to, arguments based in religion or the nature of Religion as it relates to the nature of the State. What I AM arguing is the significance implicit in the total absence of any political debate on, or recognition of the legitimacy of gay marriages until just recently.  We can start from the earliest extant literature of man and work forward to VERY close to the present and not find any evidence of this specific issue in human society.  I’m maintaining this historical fact means "something", and that this narrow fact isn’t open to debate, but that what this "something" is (i.e., a reasonable understanding of what this fact means) may be.  And I’m still waiting for you to grasp this and address it in some cogent and coherent fashion. The whole of this response by you centers on two erroneous and fatal assumptions: a) that you’ve correctly identified what my argument entails, and b) that because I have chosen not to waste my time reading your referenced material that I’m ignorant of its content. Both are assumptions assigning a truth value to that which is false.  And while my characterization of (a) may not be entirely correct, due to the nature of misunderstandings in any attempt to communicate ideas, (b) clearly is, as prior to our conversation I’ve invested considerable effort in examining as many arguements supporting homosexuality as simply an "alternate lifestyle", governed by genetics, as I could find…and I’ve found in that effort what I presume to be a representative number of the total.  However, even in this last opinion, I’m open to correction if you can point me to any argument in this area that breaks new ground, but I’m certainly not going to invest hours of my time carefully reading, and critically analyzing dozens of articles that are either irrelevant to my specific arguement here, or simply rhetorical rehashes of older arguments I’m very familiar with.  I’ll leave it to you to cull through the list you provided if you’d still like to "educate" me. As you’ve posted a 59kb response that is largely off point, I’ll be snipping a lot of the remainder: :| :| It’s the same strawman you tried to erect, and it doesn’t hold water, nor :| does it even try to address a historical argument that cripples your :| position. Your unsubstantiated claim is noted.

I hope by now that you at least understand my use of the … read more »

Response:

:| VERY nicely written :-) Is this in print? Which issue?

Well actually the following two items C&S Sep. Gay Marriage PART I http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=j1bna09fpi3ov… http://makeashorterlink.com/?O11422D78 PART II http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=ok9pa01kqkogs… http://makeashorterlink.com/?D63414D78 make up an  article which is waiting to be placed on our web site        THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:     SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html That article, BTW, is not separated, but for posting in Usenet, especially if i want Google to pick it up long items are best broken up into parts This: LAST BUT NOT LEAST: [ANOTHER HAD SAID] :| The fact is that government recognizes marriage between heterosexuals :| because stable family units are seen as a benefit to society.  Back :| when this controversy flared up I began asked these groups, "What is :| the benefit to society of recognizing homosexual marriage?"  I have :| yet to hear back on that.

You have that somewhat incorrect. If you are going to apply compelling interest it applies against the state, the state has to show a compelling interest why they should not allow something, not the other way around. What benefits, to the state, are you claiming exist in a heterosexual civil contractual marriage but would be absent in a same sex civil contractual marriage? If you can think of none, your question is irrelevant. A benefit to society which is the wrong standard to begin with can be answered as follows Justice, as in equal civil rights for all not just straights. It would move on step closer to living up to this " We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. –That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, . . . " and this Amendment XIV Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. and this Loving v. Virginia (1967) http://atheism.about.com/library/decisions/privacy/bldec_LovingVA.htm Although the State also argued that they have a valid role in regulating marriage as a social institution, the Court rejected the notion that the State’s powers here were limitless. Instead, the Court found the institution of marriage, while social in nature, is also a basic civil right and cannot be restricted without very good reason:     Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. (Skinner v. Oklahoma) …To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.  ". . . We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race. . . " Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535 (1942) http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/skinner.html http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/354/ These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State. These convictions must be reversed. LOVING v. VIRGINIA U.S.  388 U.S. 1 (1967) http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/loving.html wasn’t originally part of the above article but is now. If you want a copy ahead of time, because I am not sure exactly when it will be posted on th web site (there is actually about six articles all waiting to be posted their presently and I am not sure in what order they will finally be posted on the site) I can email it to you as a attachment in a email. Everything else are things I put together for my reply to the fella I was replying to and  are not part of the article for the web site. However, in looking over some of the stuff, I might include it in the article since it gets more into equal rights and so on than some sections of the original article does.   If you want to use it  the entire reply  go ahead.  You can ask the other fella for permission  to use his parts as they stand, if he refuses, I am sure you can reword them enough to satisfy any  gripes he might have  and just say another said in place of his name, if you don’t want to use his name or feel he would object to his name being used. If you do use his name delete his email addy even if a bogus one for privacy sake. Actually, I don’t think he can gripe at all since  he published it in a public forum, a public forum that is harvested daily by search engines such as those run by Google and Google doesn’t ask me for my permission to use my words in my posts and replies. Google then posts them on their servers where anyone can access them (I suspect someday they will charge for that but then they might hav all sorts of copyright problems since they are charging, if they do charge — grin). In addition, I am discovering that there are other outfits that harvest posts and replies from Usenet  and you can find them verbatim all over the internet. After I put this all together this morning and thought about it some, then rad your comments. I may very well expand that original article  by including some of this reply of this morning.

Response:

VERY nicely written :-) Is this in print? Which issue? — Gregory Gadow for Washington State House Independent, District 43 http://www.gregory-gadow.info

Response:

:| [buckeye] :| Here is an answer for you: :| :| C&S Sep. Gay Marriage :| PART I :| :| http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=j1bna09fpi3ov… :| http://makeashorterlink.com/?O11422D78 :| :| Actually, the link above leads me to an article that makes my case: :| :| "The Christian right’s disguising this issue as a moral and social one :| conveniently obscures its patently religious roots."

Actually the article above contains a variety of opinions from a variety of sources. Some pro, some neutral and I would say a few leaning in the con direction. If you think you found one  out of the collection that supports you, good for you. There are more than one that doesn’t support you, something you failed to mention. The article above is made up of the following: GAY MARRIAGE, SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE  From a variety of sources with a variety of ideas and thoughts Banning Same-Sex Marriage Violates Church-State Separation by Allen Snyder www.dissidentvoice.org March 15, 2004 First Published in Op Ed News.com http://www.opednews.com/snyder031404_banning_same_Sex_marriage.htm http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Mar04/Snyder0315.htm Allen Snyder is an instructor of Philosophy and Ethics. He can be reached originally published by opednews.com but permission is granted for reprint in print, email, blog, or web media so long as this credit is attached. Marriage Amendment Violates Separation Of Church And State, Says Americans United Thursday May 13, 2004 http://www.au.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6649&abbr=pr&JServSe… http://makeashorterlink.com/?N2E612858 Church, State, and Gay Marriage http://atheism.about.com/b/a/062487.htm Legalizing Gay Marriage Critiques of the Ethical & Religious Arguments http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/phil/blphil_eth_gaym.htm Separation of Church and State 101 Issues, People, and Arguments http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/cs/blcs_101.htm Religious Right FAQ http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/rr/blfaq_rr_index.htm Evangelical Christianity & Homosexuality Understanding the Relationship http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/rr/blrr_gay_evangelicals.htm Religion vs. Sexual Orientation: A Clash of Human Rights? (Bertha Wilson Lecture, 2002) http://www.samesexmarriage.ca/equality/bertha_wilson.htm Does gay-marriage debate raise church-state concerns? Associated Baptist Press August 12, 2003 – Volume: 03-75 By Robert Marus http://www.abpnews.com/abpnews/story.cfm?newsId=3759 Is There a Religious Difference Between Same-Sex Marriages and Civil Unions? By Voices Sunday, May 2, 2004; Page C13 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A59831-2004May1.html Charges in Same-Sex Nuptials N.Y. Clergy Protest, Vow to Wed More By Alan Cooperman Washington Post Staff Writer Tuesday, March 16, 2004; Page A04 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61436-2004Mar15.html Separation Of Church And State: Let Religion Define Matrimony By James Harold http://www.mtholyoke.edu/offices/comm/oped/Seperation.shtml  Marriage Separation of Church and State http://blog.dbthoughts.com/C1616428771/E1474408386/ So you wanna know about Gay Marriage? Learn some background on the issue http://www.soyouwanna.com/site/pros_cons/gaymarriage/gaymarriage.html Hear some argument s agaisnt Gay Marriage http://www.soyouwanna.com/site/pros_cons/gaymarriage/gaymarriage2.html Hear some arguments for gay Marraige http://www.soyouwanna.com/site/pros_cons/gaymarriage/gaymarriage3.html Gay Marriage Blurs Church, State Roles By Kevin Lewis http://www.free-times.com/Editor/My%20Turn%20Archives/myturn031704.html Is gay marriage debate a church-state issue? – News Christian Century,  Sept 6, 2003  by Robert Marus http://articles.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_18_120/ai_107…  Separation of Church and State: A Most Important Decision                                                        By Gerald A. Larue Emeritus Professor of Biblical History and Archaeology University of Southern California http://www.teachingaboutreligion.org/WhitePapers/separation_church_st…  Alabama’s Chief Justice Declares Homosexuality

Question:

Cross-posting is rude.  This is one thing the non-believing world has correct in regard to netiquette. Please stop.

Response:

Shirley: you can find something better than that to moan about Shirley. — Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

Response:

Shirley: you can find something better than that to moan about Shirley.

I woke up on the roadside daydreaming about the way things sometimes are visions of your chestnut mare shoot thru my head and are makin’ me see stars you hurt the ones that I love best and cover up the truth with lies one day you’ll be in the ditch flys buzzin’ around your eyes blood on your saddle – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -bob dylan<

Response:

Shirley: you can find something better than that to moan about Shirley. — Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

Dear Janet, please stop crossposting to the Baptist group. You would not want me to crosspost to the Catholic group this way either. If you really want to discuss something with the Baptists, and if it is relevant to our group, please post in separate posts. Nothing personal… Thanks for your understanding. Love and Peace, ::: vera ::: — "Growing Deeper" and "Growing Deeper Bridge" on :::::::::: http://www.acc-growing-deeper.de :::::::::::::::::::: http://www.acc-growing-deeper.de/Israel.htm ::::::::::

Response:

D.W.Suiter, you are a breath of fresh air in a public sewer. You really hit the nail on the head my friend.The pentecostals around you must see you as a real heretic. But then the truth always hurts.These people won’t even pay taxes.They won’t go to Iraq to fight because killing is a sin, that is, they start a christianX jihad in the middle east and then send the sinner mans son to die, and christ forbid they would pay any taxes to support their own jihad. Why aren’t these holier than thou asswipes lining up at the recruitment office? Because they only supply the cheaptalk and justification to go and steal someones else’s oil and murder the population. Those ungodly muslums deserve to die like the animals they are.  "Kill a muslum for Jesus" would make a good bumpersticker for most christianX americans. The muslums are all going to hell anyway, so killing them is doing the "work of the Lord". The christian god sends everyone that isn’t an american christian straight to hell. And we all know that God is a republican. Sick ain’t it. — Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

Response:

We are a nation of addicts in denial. We are addicted to money. We are addicted to monied instant gratification. We are addicted to monied greed. We are addicted to monied war. We are addicted to monied slavery to money. We are addicted to monied materialism. We are addicted to monied control while controlling others with money. We are addicted to monied fear. We are addicted to monied drugs and alcohol. We are addicted to monied denial of these assertions. In short, we defend our slavery to those that create money meant to enslave all to money. Why…? I would opine that we are in fact, generationally enslaved by our desires, wants, wishes, and dreams sold to us by those bankster priests that create, mint, and print the tool that supposedly satiates our desires, wants, wishes, and dreams…created by those who create, mint, and print the tool called money…but why do we allow money to enslave each of us and the world…? Instead…why not learn how to share by thinking, talking, and writing about ways to learn how to share WITHOUT money…? I will guarantee that all will prosper and all will grow as money is abolished. So why keep defending money? Why would anyone choose to slavery to money instead of slavery from money…? Can anyone debunk my assertions or answer my questions…? utopianow.cjb.net abolishmoney.com infowars.com ubarter.com freedom peace love understanding for the good of ALL our relations hope this helps

Response:

Careful, you are promoting principles of God in a religious newsgroup. You may be crucified by the religionists. Religionists believe prosperity = money. God declares prosperity = spiritual gifts. DW Suiter Son of God – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – We are a nation of addicts in denial. We are addicted to money. We are addicted to monied instant gratification. We are addicted to monied greed. We are addicted to monied war. We are addicted to monied slavery to money. We are addicted to monied materialism. We are addicted to monied control while controlling others with money. We are addicted to monied fear. We are addicted to monied drugs and alcohol. We are addicted to monied denial of these assertions. In short, we defend our slavery to those that create money meant to enslave all to money. Why…? I would opine that we are in fact, generationally enslaved by our desires, wants, wishes, and dreams sold to us by those bankster priests that create, mint, and print the tool that supposedly satiates our desires, wants, wishes, and dreams…created by those who create, mint, and print the tool called money…but why do we allow money to enslave each of us and the world…? Instead…why not learn how to share by thinking, talking, and writing about ways to learn how to share WITHOUT money…? I will guarantee that all will prosper and all will grow as money is abolished. So why keep defending money? Why would anyone choose to slavery to money instead of slavery from money…? Can anyone debunk my assertions or answer my questions…? utopianow.cjb.net abolishmoney.com infowars.com ubarter.com freedom peace love understanding for the good of ALL our relations hope this helps

Response:

Question:

Scripture: John 20:19-23 19 On the evening of that day, the first day of the week, the doors being shut where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said to them, "Peace be with you." 20 When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. Then the disciples were glad when they saw the Lord. 21 Jesus said to them again, "Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you." 22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained." It is interesting that in every appearance after he was raised from the dead, his disciples had a hard time recognizing Jesus. On the road to Emmaus he had a lengthy conversation with two disciples and they did not know it was him.  Here he has to show them his wounds, before they were glad and knew it was him. But here he gives us the holy spirit. Notice how he immediately says they now have the power to forgive sins. Remember when he was working the miracles, how he would always say first–your sins are forgiven. He was clearly stating that this is by far a greater power than the power of curing them of their blindness or whatever ailment they had. Remember how he said to one man– sin no more that nothing worse befall you. So the power to forgive sins is the greatest power. He is telling us that with the holy spirit comes the greatest powers there are.  It is all encompassing. He is not holding back on us. Do not underestimate the holy spirit. Remember it is spiritual in nature. But if we are able to accept it we have the greatest power there is with us.   And remember the power of forgiveness that you now have by way of the holy spirit. It is the power to forgive all those who trespass against you. And remember that if you forgive others their sins against you, then your sins will be forgiven, but if you do not forgive others their sins against you, then neither will your sins be forgiven.

Response:

It is interesting that in every appearance after he was raised from the dead, his disciples had a hard time recognizing Jesus.

Yes, it is. Why do you suppose that might be? I wouldn’t have a difficult time recognizing my grandmother if she came back to life, and I haven’t seen her in 19 years. How do eleven disciples fail to recognize someone who they’ve just spent the last three years traveling with 24/7?

Response:

Scripture: John 20:19-23 19 On the evening of that day, the first day of the week, the doors being shut where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews….

Yet they themselves were Jews. This sounds like something added later to make people think the Jews are a bad people. Oh, don’t forget that not one of the people writing this part was a witness to the event. — David V. UDP for WebTV

Response:

Yet they themselves were Jews. This sounds like something added later to make people think the Jews are a bad people. Oh, don’t forget that not one of the people writing this part was a witness to the event.

The Jews *were* actively persecuting the new faith. The Acts was written by St. Luke, who was around at the time, and had as his main source of information Mary, the mother of Jesus, (who was in that room on that fateful day.) H.

Response:

Yet they themselves were Jews. This sounds like something added later to make people think the Jews are a bad people. Oh, don’t forget that not one of the people writing this part was a witness to the event. The Jews *were* actively persecuting the new faith….

There was no "new faith." — David V. UDP for WebTV

Response:

snip And remember the power of forgiveness that you now have by way of the holy spirit. It is the power to forgive all those who trespass against you. And remember that if you forgive others their sins against you, then your sins will be forgiven, but if you do not forgive others their sins against you, then neither will your sins be forgiven.

  Homer, nobody gives a shit in alt.atheism. All the stuff you’re bleating is dogmatic crap. Your bible is utterly useless. It has no more validity to atheists than the Koran or a Superman comic book.    You believers in fantasy are so locked into a ‘holy’ book that you can’t fathom, or even relate to atheist witnessing. It’s pretty incredible when you think about. You think you have ’such’ an important thing to say, that when you say it, to us,  you’re pissing on your shoe.    Here’s the problem. You have to prove a god exists. Then prove it’s the christian god. All without using your bible. Plus, you might try and bone up on logical fallacies, critical thinking and the burden of proof.    Homer, are you one of those post it and believe assholes or do you engage in debate? Warlord Steve BAAWA www.sonic.net/~wooly

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Scripture: John 20:19-23 19 On the evening of that day, the first day of the week, the doors being shut where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said to them, "Peace be with you." 20 When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. Then the disciples were glad when they saw the Lord. 21 Jesus said to them again, "Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you." 22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained." It is interesting that in every appearance after he was raised from the dead, his disciples had a hard time recognizing Jesus.

Gee, ya don’t suppose that might be because Jesus was freaking DEAD and this guy was someone else claiming to be Jesus for some less than honorable reason do ya? <G <remainder of religious drivel snipped

Response:

It is interesting that in every appearance after he was raised from the dead, his disciples had a hard time recognizing Jesus. Yes, it is. Why do you suppose that might be? I wouldn’t have a difficult time recognizing my grandmother if she came back to life, and I haven’t seen her in 19 years. How do eleven disciples fail to recognize someone who they’ve just spent the last three years traveling with 24/7?

People who have had a near death experience also talk about this sort of thing. Apparently in the next life we will still have a body but it will look different from the one we have here.

Response:

Scripture: John 20:19-23 19 On the evening of that day, the first day of the week, the doors being shut where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews…. Yet they themselves were Jews. This sounds like something added later to make people think the Jews are a bad people. Oh, don’t forget that not one of the people writing this part was a witness to the event.

John, writer of the fourth gospel, was the disciple John. He was an eyewitness to it all. He says it at the very end: When Peter saw him, he said to Jesus, "Lord, what about this man?" 22: Jesus said to him, "If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you? Follow me!" 23: The saying spread abroad among the brethren that this disciple was not to die; yet Jesus did not say to him that he was not to die, but, "If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you?" 24: This is the disciple who is bearing witness to these things, and who has written these things; and we know that his testimony is true. 25: But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. Mathew, mark and Luke of the first three gospels were not eyewitnesses, but wrote their accounts just after it happened, and so their accounts are based on eyewitness testimony.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – It is interesting that in every appearance after he was raised from the dead, his disciples had a hard time recognizing Jesus. Yes, it is. Why do you suppose that might be? I wouldn’t have a difficult time recognizing my grandmother if she came back to life, and I haven’t seen her in 19 years. How do eleven disciples fail to recognize someone who they’ve just spent the last three years traveling with 24/7? People who have had a near death experience also talk about this sort of thing. Apparently in the next life we will still have a body but it will look different from the one we have here.

Which is irrelevant to the Resurrection, in which Jesus’s supposedly dead body was reanimated.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Scripture: John 20:19-23 19 On the evening of that day, the first day of the week, the doors being shut where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews…. Yet they themselves were Jews. This sounds like something added later to make people think the Jews are a bad people. Oh, don’t forget that not one of the people writing this part was a witness to the event. John, writer of the fourth gospel, was the disciple John. He was an eyewitness to it all.

No, he wasn’t, and no serious scholar makes such a claim.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Scripture: John 20:19-23 19 On the evening of that day, the first day of the week, the doors being shut where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews…. Yet they themselves were Jews. This sounds like something added later to make people think the Jews are  a bad people. Oh, don’t forget that not one of the people writing this part was a witness to the event. John, writer of the fourth gospel, was the disciple John.

Wrong John. — David V. UDP for WebTV

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Scripture: John 20:19-23 19 On the evening of that day, the first day of the week, the doors being shut where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews…. Yet they themselves were Jews. This sounds like something added later to make people think the Jews are  a bad people. Oh, don’t forget that not one of the people writing this part was a witness to the event. John, writer of the fourth gospel, was the disciple John. Wrong John.

20: Peter turned and saw following them the disciple whom Jesus loved, who had lain close to his breast at the supper and had said, "Lord, who is it that is going to betray you?" 21: When Peter saw him, he said to Jesus, "Lord, what about this man?" 22: Jesus said to him, "If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you? Follow me!" 23: The saying spread abroad among the brethren that this disciple was not to die; yet Jesus did not say to him that he was not to die, but, "If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you?" 24: This is the disciple who is bearing witness to these things, and who has written these things; and we know that his testimony is true. 25: But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. John, writer of the fourth gospel, was the disciple John.

Response:

It is interesting that in every appearance after he was raised from the dead, his disciples had a hard time recognizing Jesus. Yes, it is. Why do you suppose that might be?

What do you suppose "recognize" means?  Or can mean.  Three days earlier a man that looked like this was dead on the cross. I wouldn’t have a difficult time recognizing my grandmother if she came back to life, and I haven’t seen her in 19 years. How do eleven disciples fail to recognize someone who they’ve just spent the last three years traveling with 24/7?

And now you know the rest of the answer. duke ***** John 6 53Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. *****

Response:

It is interesting that…

…anybody believes this mystical drivel anymore… — Mark K. Bilbo  -  a.a. #1423 EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion "I think it’s the worst kept secret in Washington. That everybody – everybody I talk to in Washington has known and fully knows what [the neo-conservative] agenda was and what they were trying to do." [Retired General Anthony Zinni]

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Scripture: John 20:19-23 19 On the evening of that day, the first day of the week, the doors being shut where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews…. Yet they themselves were Jews. This sounds like something added later to make people think the Jews are  a bad people. Oh, don’t forget that not one of the people writing this part was a witness to the event. John, writer of the fourth gospel, was the disciple John. Wrong John. 20: Peter turned and saw following them the disciple whom Jesus loved, who had lain close to his breast at the supper and had said, "Lord, who is it that is going to betray you?" 21: When Peter saw him, he said to Jesus, "Lord, what about this man?" 22: Jesus said to him, "If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you? Follow me!" 23: The saying spread abroad among the brethren that this disciple was not to die; yet Jesus did not say to him that he was not to die, but, "If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you?" 24: This is the disciple who is bearing witness to these things, and who has written these things; and we know that his testimony is true. 25: But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. John, writer of the fourth gospel, was the disciple John.

None of what you quoted establishes that the books attributed to "John" were written by that John. — Mark K. Bilbo  -  a.a. #1423 EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion "I think it’s the worst kept secret in Washington. That everybody – everybody I talk to in Washington has known and fully knows what [the neo-conservative] agenda was and what they were trying to do." [Retired General Anthony Zinni]

Response:

John, writer of the fourth gospel, was the disciple John.

Afraid not. None of the gospels were written by the disciples. — Jez "The condition of alienation, of being asleep, of being unconscious, of being out of one’s mind, is the condition of the normal man. Society highly values its normal man.It educates children to lose themselves and to become absurd,and thus to be normal. Normal men have killed perhaps 100,000,000 of their fellow normal men in the last fifty years." R.D. Laing

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – It is interesting that in every appearance after he was raised from the dead, his disciples had a hard time recognizing Jesus. Yes, it is. Why do you suppose that might be? What do you suppose "recognize" means?  Or can mean.  Three days earlier a man that looked like this was dead on the cross. I wouldn’t have a difficult time recognizing my grandmother if she came back to life, and I haven’t seen her in 19 years. How do eleven disciples fail to recognize someone who they’ve just spent the last three years traveling with 24/7? And now you know the rest of the answer.

Ah, yes, I can always count on you for a bizarre non sequitur.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Scripture: John 20:19-23 19 On the evening of that day, the first day of the week, the doors being shut where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews…. Yet they themselves were Jews. This sounds like something added later to make people think the Jews are a bad people. Oh, don’t forget that not one of the people writing this part was a witness to the event. John, writer of the fourth gospel, was the disciple John. Wrong John. 20: Peter….

Bible quotes prove nothing. You got the wrong guy. Any biblical scholar will tell you. — David V. UDP for WebTV

Response:

John, writer of the fourth gospel, was the disciple John. Afraid not. None of the gospels were written by the disciples.

Isn’t it fascinating that a bunch of Atheists know more about the bible than many christians? — David V. UDP for WebTV

Response:

John, writer of the fourth gospel, was the disciple John. Afraid not. None of the gospels were written by the disciples. Isn’t it fascinating that a bunch of Atheists know more about the bible than many christians?

Yes, it is a bit amazing isn’t it ! I wonder why ? Perhaps an education just never occurred to them ! — Jez "The condition of alienation, of being asleep, of being unconscious, of being out of one’s mind, is the condition of the normal man. Society highly values its normal man.It educates children to lose themselves and to become absurd,and thus to be normal. Normal men have killed perhaps 100,000,000 of their fellow normal men in the last fifty years." R.D. Laing

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – John, writer of the fourth gospel, was the disciple John. Afraid not. None of the gospels were written by the disciples. Isn’t it fascinating that a bunch of Atheists know more about the bible than many christians? Yes, it is a bit amazing isn’t it ! I wonder why ? Perhaps an education just never occurred to them !

They’re not allowed to get that educated. Once they do they stop believing and then the preachers would loose money. — David V. UDP for WebTV

Response:

John, writer of the fourth gospel, was the disciple John. Wrong John. 20: Peter…. Bible quotes prove nothing. You got the wrong guy. Any biblical scholar will tell you.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia, The Gospel of St. John, http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08438a.htm III. AUTHORSHIP If we except the heretics mentioned by Irenaeus (Adv. haer., III, xi, 9) and Epiphanius (Haer., li, 3), the authenticity of the Fourth Gospel was scarcely ever seriously questioned until the end of the eighteenth century. Evanson (1792) and Bretschneider (1820) were the first to run counter to tradition in the question of the authorship, and, since David Friedrich Strauss (1834-40) adopted Bretschneider’s views and the members of the T