Re: Re[4]: [Biofuel] Our Godless Constitution - [OT] = very yes
actually, i'm guessing, but i thought the reference was to 'homey' the clown from the t.v. series 'in living color' and played by one of the wayan's brothers. to quote homey don't like that! rbury - Original Message - From: DHAJOGLO [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, February 18, 2005 5:14 PM Subject: Re: Re[4]: [Biofuel] Our Godless Constitution - [OT] = very yes Todd et. al... Danger, high sacharsim content: And as a noun? homey - noun - 1) _; 2); 3 Apples to apples please. According to your usage of the word Homey, and presuming we follow the rules of English grammar, as opposed to the rules of chess or synchronized swiming, the definitions would be as follows: Homey - Proper Noun - 1) Marge Simpson's pet name for Homer Simpson. 2) Any other given name of an individual - pronoun - 3) A synonym for he, she, or it. I think the point is that we are always changing the definitions of words to fit a style (or the lack of it), an agenda, or lyrics to songs writen by Snoop Dog, the esteemed rap artist. However, I would intrepret Homey as you refering to yourself in a jovial manner (ding ding ding... he gets a prize). And while its grammitaclly incorrect perhaps it fits your style. Perhaps Allen was using religion to fit an agenda. Perhaps, That jive turkey de prez is all up in our bidness 'bout his peps 'n dier problem wif de crack rock! Piece out Homey! ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: Re[4]: [Biofuel] Our Godless Constitution - [OT] = very yes
Todd et. al... Danger, high sacharsim content: And as a noun? homey - noun - 1) _; 2); 3 Apples to apples please. According to your usage of the word Homey, and presuming we follow the rules of English grammar, as opposed to the rules of chess or synchronized swiming, the definitions would be as follows: Homey - Proper Noun - 1) Marge Simpson's pet name for Homer Simpson. 2) Any other given name of an individual - pronoun - 3) A synonym for he, she, or it. I think the point is that we are always changing the definitions of words to fit a style (or the lack of it), an agenda, or lyrics to songs writen by Snoop Dog, the esteemed rap artist. However, I would intrepret Homey as you refering to yourself in a jovial manner (ding ding ding... he gets a prize). And while its grammitaclly incorrect perhaps it fits your style. Perhaps Allen was using religion to fit an agenda. Perhaps, That jive turkey de prez is all up in our bidness 'bout his peps 'n dier problem wif de crack rock! Piece out Homey! ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: [Biofuel] Our Godless Constitution
homey [h#601;#650;mi:]Aadjective1 homelike, homely, homey, homy having a feeling of home; cozy and comfortable; the homely everyday atmosphere; a homey little inn Appal Energy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Homey doesn't buy this either. Don't know about Todd's age and TV viewing habits, but this may or may not be a variant of the circa 1990 pop culture phrase Homey don't play dat. Homey the Clown was a disaffected ex-con turned children's clown played by Damon Wayans on the sketch comedy show In Living Color. Homey's typical response to pretty much everything was I don't think so...Homie don't play dat! This ends today's lesson in Americana. Now back to the religious war already in progress. jh ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: Re[4]: [Biofuel] Our Godless Constitution - [OT] = very yes
ties; a friend, bro. See homes. - Original Message - From: B. Nostrand [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 18, 2005 8:24 PM Subject: Re: Re[4]: [Biofuel] Our Godless Constitution - [OT] = very yes actually, i'm guessing, but i thought the reference was to 'homey' the clown from the t.v. series 'in living color' and played by one of the wayan's brothers. to quote homey don't like that! rbury - Original Message - From: DHAJOGLO [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, February 18, 2005 5:14 PM Subject: Re: Re[4]: [Biofuel] Our Godless Constitution - [OT] = very yes Todd et. al... Danger, high sacharsim content: And as a noun? homey - noun - 1) _; 2); 3 Apples to apples please. According to your usage of the word Homey, and presuming we follow the rules of English grammar, as opposed to the rules of chess or synchronized swiming, the definitions would be as follows: Homey - Proper Noun - 1) Marge Simpson's pet name for Homer Simpson. 2) Any other given name of an individual - pronoun - 3) A synonym for he, she, or it. I think the point is that we are always changing the definitions of words to fit a style (or the lack of it), an agenda, or lyrics to songs writen by Snoop Dog, the esteemed rap artist. However, I would intrepret Homey as you refering to yourself in a jovial manner (ding ding ding... he gets a prize). And while its grammitaclly incorrect perhaps it fits your style. Perhaps Allen was using religion to fit an agenda. Perhaps, That jive turkey de prez is all up in our bidness 'bout his peps 'n dier problem wif de crack rock! Piece out Homey! ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ -- Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.8.7 - Release Date: 2/10/2005 -- Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.8.7 - Release Date: 2/10/2005 ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: [Biofuel] Our Godless Constitution
Remember duck and cover? and TV viewing habits, I don't. Haven't for fifteen years. Didn't much before that. - Original Message - From: John Hayes [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, February 18, 2005 9:14 PM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Our Godless Constitution Michael Redler wrote: homey [h#601;#650;mi:]Aadjective1 homelike, homely, homey, homy having a feeling of home; cozy and comfortable; the homely everyday atmosphere; a homey little inn Appal Energy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Homey doesn't buy this either. Don't know about Todd's age and TV viewing habits, but this may or may not be a variant of the circa 1990 pop culture phrase Homey don't play dat. Homey the Clown was a disaffected ex-con turned children's clown played by Damon Wayans on the sketch comedy show In Living Color. Homey's typical response to pretty much everything was I don't think so...Homie don't play dat! This ends today's lesson in Americana. Now back to the religious war already in progress. jh ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ -- Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.8.7 - Release Date: 2/10/2005 -- Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.8.7 - Release Date: 2/10/2005 ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: [Biofuel] Our Godless Constitution -- Thanks John
LOL Thanks John :-) John Hayes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Michael Redler wrote: homey [h#601;#650;mi:]Aadjective1 homelike, homely, homey, homy having a feeling of home; cozy and comfortable; the homely everyday atmosphere; a homey little inn Appal Energy wrote: Homey doesn't buy this either. Don't know about Todd's age and TV viewing habits, but this may or may not be a variant of the circa 1990 pop culture phrase Homey don't play dat. Homey the Clown was a disaffected ex-con turned children's clown played by Damon Wayans on the sketch comedy show In Living Color. Homey's typical response to pretty much everything was I don't think so...Homie don't play dat! This ends today's lesson in Americana. Now back to the religious war already in progress. jh ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: Re[2]: [Biofuel] Our Godless Constitution
If you'll notice, the exception that I took was to the absolutism that you expressed. The Founding Fathers were not religious men, This bit is absolutely false. The problem I have with your reply is not with you, but with letting others, whether those others be contemporary society or Webster's dictionary for that matter, control my world and conception of reality by controlling the language. Well? Just exactly how do you propose that humans communicate if there aren't some ground rules and consistencies, such as definitions? Websters isn't exactly the same fount of mis-understanding as Rush Limbrain, Tom Reed, Bill O'Really, Haley Barber, Donald Rumsfeld, et al, who conveniently alter their definitions on the turn of a dime to suit their ends. Surely the proposal wouldn't be to discontinue the use of relatively static definitions and throw the doors open to whatever interpretation anyone wants to offer at any given second. Would it? From Websters New World, Third College Edition: religious - adjective - 1) characterized by adherence to religion or a religion; devout; pious; godly. 2) of, concerned with, appropriate to, or teaching religion. 3) belonging to a community of monk, nuns, etc. 4) conscientiously exact; careful; scrupulous Only line item one of these definitions is applicable relative to the founding fathers' personal dispositions toward religion(s), with the operable words being adherence. and religion. While most of these gentlemen acknowledged that there was almost surely something bigger than they, and by and large held to the principal tenants of healthy human behavior found in the doctrines of many religions, none of them appear to have exhibited adherance to religion in any other fashion than it held occassionally (or perhaps more frequently) to be constructive in societal stability and the development of individual character. adhere - intransitive verb - 1) to stick fast; stay attached. 2) to stay firm in supporting or approving Take a look again at the definitions. Then take a look at Brooke Allen's statement. The founding fathers certainly valued the rights of others to adhere to their doctrine/dogma of choice. They were firm in a belief that religions held value in society. They were equally as adherant to the belief that no people or person of any religion(s) should ever possess the right from a podium of national influence to disenfranchise others of their right to pursue differing spiritual beliefs, or any lack of spiritual belifs for that matter. That's not to say that anyone of any religious persuasion should not hold office, only that the office should not be used to pillory and/or subjugate any person or people. These were not pious, necessarily devout or godly men. Certainly they were reasonably intelligent, well aware of the inevitable chaos of permitting either church or state to achieve authority or superiority over the other. Couple that with their personal biographies and you have a collective of men who certainly weren't thrilled in the slightest with religion from the sectarian perspective, nor what the zeal of sectarian pursuit can do to the offense of human kind. And while they appeared to hold respect for the better principles of religions in general, none of them appear to have adhered to any religion in specific - unless, perhaps, attending Sunday service at the same church two weekends in a row constitutes adherance. What could be said is that these men may have been spiritually inclined or perhaps adherant, but by definition it's a far reach to declare that they were religious. Todd Swearingen - Original Message - From: Gustl Steiner-Zehender [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Appal Energy [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2005 6:56 AM Subject: Re[2]: [Biofuel] Our Godless Constitution Hallo Todd, (Sorry this is so late. I have been out of town and unwell.) Tuesday, 15 February, 2005, 10:56:35, you wrote: If you will notice you will see that I took no exception with the essay aside from this: The Founding Fathers were not religious men, This bit is absolutely false. The problem I have with your reply is not with you, but with letting others, whether those others be contemporary society or Webster's dictionary for that matter, control my world and conception of reality by controlling the language. We give up enough control of our own lives as it is without allowing the few to mainpulate the many through our respective languages whether the few happen to be political, economic, religious or any other kind of authorities. What you are describing below is organized religion not religion itself. A deist is still a religious person whether they are part of an organized group or sit alone in a cave in a mountain. The concern of the founding fathers was with ones personal liberty and freedom and that folks not be required
Re: Re[4]: [Biofuel] Our Godless Constitution
Better to build bridges than to grind axes. It takes a sharp axe to build a bridge. And better to keep the edge than to let others dull it into disrepair with their abuse. Todd Swearingen - Original Message - From: Gustl Steiner-Zehender [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: DHAJOGLO [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2005 5:48 PM Subject: Re[4]: [Biofuel] Our Godless Constitution Hallo Dave, Thursday, 17 February, 2005, 17:20:19, you wrote: ...snip... D Gustl, D After re-reading the text I do see that Allen did indeed say they D wern't religious. Though, I take it as a contridiction in her D writing in that she (as we know know) says they are deists. I D missed it, but she makes the claim that if your not christian your D not religious... and I know a few jewish people who are very D religious and definitly not christian. But her point still stands D in that the documents and rhetoric for the founding of my country D is not based on the teachings of jesus christ and the new D testament. And we are all in agreement that Bush himself doesn't D run the country as if its based on christiantiy (espically when you D look at Bush's love of war and the death penalty and Matthew D 5:38-48) D -dave We are not in disagreement here which is why I only pointed out the inaccurate bit and didn't criticize the rest. Her essay didn't need that bit and detracted from it. Better to build bridges than to grind axes. Happy Happy, Gustl -- Je mehr wir haben, desto mehr fordert Gott von uns. Mitglied-Team AMIGA ICQ: 22211253-Gustli The safest road to Hell is the gradual one - the gentle slope, soft underfoot, without sudden turnings, without milestones, without signposts. C. S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters Es gibt Wahrheiten, die so sehr auf der Stra§e liegen, da§ sie gerade deshalb von der gewhnlichen Welt nicht gesehen oder wenigstens nicht erkannt werden. Those who dance are considered insane by those who can't hear the music. George Carlin The best portion of a good man's life - His little, nameless, unremembered acts of kindness and of love. William Wordsworth -- Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.8.7 - Release Date: 2/10/2005 ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: [Biofuel] Our Godless Constitution
Jesse, I hadn't even heard of it. I'm so glad you brought it up. I'm hoping that it was recorded by someone at some time. As you know, there were and are some efforts to record native traditions and languages before they are all lost. These efforts are not nearly as timely or vigorous as I would like. The efforts to record this information were rigorous indeed since lives and fortunes depended on it. Some background: 1) In the first half of the 18th century, the copyright laws were an effective way to control the proliferation of those seditious devices otherwise known as printing presses. By restricting the printing of material to only those presses which were licensed by the author, the Crown was able to limit the number of them. One side effect was that this placed a premium on new content, since popular works could only be printed by shops in contract with the author. 2) In the first half of the 18th century, the largest army on the continent belonged to the Iroquois Confederacy which just happened to be situated smack in between the French settlements on the Great Lakes, and the British Colonies along the Atlantic seaboard. The fate of the colonies, British and French alike, hinged on whether the Confederacy decided to remain neutral, or come in on one side or the other. 3) The British colonial delegates had to learn the customs and procedures of the Confederacy in order to be able to argue their case effectively. When success is a matter of life or death, one tends to pay very close attention indeed. 4) The colonials were very interested in the proceedings of the Confederate conclaves because the Confederacy was the primary buffer between them and the French, but it also went far beyond that - there was also a tremendous interest in the raw fact that such an organization could even exist as a voluntary association without a king. It wasn't the democratic aspects of the Confederacy that fascinated the colonials, but rather the fact that it was non-aristocratic - that it's prestigious men were recognized by virtue of their demonstrated merit rather than by their bloodline. 5) This was the age of Rousseau and the dream of the noble savage unspoiled by tyrannical kings and predatory aristocrats. The fact that savages had manifestly created a system of governance that had been stable for centuries was very heady stuff to Europeans eager for any lever they could use to topple the towers of aristocratic privilege. 6) The clerks who attended the delegates sent to fourteen of the Confederate conclaves took full and careful notes, which upon their return were snapped up by an eager young printer in Philadelphia who cranked out hundreds and hundreds of copies that were immediate best sellers - high priced volumes which sold out as soon as they hit the docks of Europe. Indeed, it was the incredible financial success reaped by his aggressive printer which allowed him to later indulge his interests in science and politics. 7) Two other points for those interested in the behind the scenes details. The first is that the Confederacy was too eager to confine its power to the six tribes, and by refusing to allow others to join into the Confederacy, they weakened themselves and set the stage for thedivide and conquer end game that worked out the only way it could. 8) And second, while it is true that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are littered with Confederate principles, it shouldn't be forgot that the founders also leaned heavily on the history of the Republic of Venice, a powerful and independent entity which, while lacking the leadership of a King, still was able to dominated European affairs for almost a thousand years. It later fell to Napoleon's cannons, but back when the founders were founding, it's history as an independent republic made it the envy of libertarians everywhere. Walt ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: [Biofuel] Our Godless Constitution
Walt, I am confused, are you suggesting that documents could not be written before 1200 to 1500 and are you suggesting that manual production of documents (books) were not done? That's the generally accepted understanding, that the only groups capable of making a written record prior to 1500 were down in central America. None of the Six Nations had a system of written records, at least not that I've heard tell of. In fact, what are you trying to tell us? I can not figure out what you mean. Keith seems to have the same problem ;-) Are you sure that Six Nations had no way to document things, or that it had not been documented by someone else at the time. If so, I'd love to hear about it. Walt ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
RE: Re[2]: [Biofuel] Our Godless Constitution
So, based on these sources, a christian is one who believes in christ. One is technically not a christian if they don't believe in jesus. Thats not ment to be offensive, just a definition. To be technically correct a Christian is one who believes Christ was the son of God. Muslims believe in Christ but only as a Christian prophet. Chris. -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.8.8 - Release Date: 14/02/2005 ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re[6]: [Biofuel] Our Godless Constitution
Hallo Todd, Of course, but if you're going to grind an axe you ought to know how to do so properly. I've been heating with wood for over 30 years and have seen a lot of folks grind at wrong angles and screw the thing up and have seen them grinding when they should have been honing and so forth. I guess it's the same with debates. ;o) Happy Happy, Gustl Thursday, 17 February, 2005, 20:07:38, you wrote: AE Gustl, Better to build bridges than to grind axes. AE It takes a sharp axe to build a bridge. And better to keep the edge than to AE let others dull it into disrepair with their abuse. AE Todd Swearingen -- Je mehr wir haben, desto mehr fordert Gott von uns. Mitglied-Team AMIGA ICQ: 22211253-Gustli The safest road to Hell is the gradual one - the gentle slope, soft underfoot, without sudden turnings, without milestones, without signposts. C. S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters Es gibt Wahrheiten, die so sehr auf der Stra§e liegen, da§ sie gerade deshalb von der gewhnlichen Welt nicht gesehen oder wenigstens nicht erkannt werden. Those who dance are considered insane by those who can't hear the music. George Carlin The best portion of a good man's life - His little, nameless, unremembered acts of kindness and of love. William Wordsworth ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
RE: Re[2]: [Biofuel] Our Godless Constitution
Chris, On Friday, February 18, 2005 6:28 AM, Chris Lloyd wrote: So, based on these sources, a christian is one who believes in christ. From: Chris Lloyd One is technically not a christian if they don't believe in jesus. Thats not ment to be offensive, just a definition. To be technically correct a Christian is one who believes Christ was the son of God. Muslims believe in Christ but only as a Christian prophet. Chris, I believe that jesus christ existed. But I don't believe in the miracle of resurrection or that he was the son of god (or even that he was a profit). Therefore, I'm not a christian just as muslims are not christians. I think its presumed that to say that if one believes in jesus one generally believes in the teachings of the new testament. But, I'm not clear on what you are saying. So, the question to you is, do muslims believe jesus was the son of god? (I'm guessing no... just a profit... but I have no idea). ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re[4]: [Biofuel] Our Godless Constitution
Hallo Todd, Thursday, 17 February, 2005, 20:02:00, you wrote: AE Gustl, AE If you'll notice, the exception that I took was to the absolutism AE that you expressed. The Founding Fathers were not religious men, This bit is absolutely false. Yes, responding in kind to her absolutist remark. Perhaps if not probably not a wise choice, but I did limit it to ONLY that remark and hers is a false premise. The problem I have with your reply is not with you, but with letting others, whether those others be contemporary society or Webster's dictionary for that matter, control my world and conception of reality by controlling the language. Webster's reflects current usage and it seems to me it does conveniently alter meanings with time. Besides this, you know that I makeacleardistinction between religion-religious and organized-religion-religious and you also know that I believe in individual liberty and a reasonable separation of church and state. Yet you end this up by apparently arguing against something I didn't say. Nowhere have I ever advocated any specific religion. You are arguing against things in your own head brother, not mine. It is not a far reach to declare that at least 13 of them were religious, and that makes the they portion of Allen's proposition false. It would be a far and impossible reach however to declare that the advocated any specific religion. The drive towards religious thought may be as innate as the drive towards personal survival. Religion comes from the inward out and has been with us since before words. I will not allow the Holy Roman church or the Baptist church or any religious authority to define for me what is possibly my most fundamental urge. I will certainly not allow Webster's to do so nor will I allow another to control the definitions. To control the definitions is to control the argument which is why, in debate, definitions are first agreed upon. I believe the founding fathers viewed religion much the same as I view religion and that is strictly personal and subjective and not imposed by some outside authority. Ones religion defines for that person ones relation to the cosmos. It is just a person and their relationship to the other. It begins before we are able to understand and once we have that ability we realize how much we will never be able to understand. Perhaps that is where the organized church started...taking this bit and that bit and claiming this is all there is and they know because they have religious authority. Who knows? But I haven't bought that lie and I won't bend over and allow any authority to stick definitions which control my thoughts and world up where the sun doesn't shine. I also will not reject everything any religion says out of hand just because I have found some or even most of their teachings to be false. The baby doesn't go out with the bathwater. I have learned to be selective and to keep the flowers growing in the manure and let the manure lay. We have been on this list for a while and I believe you are aware of how I define religion and that I make a distinction between religion and organized religion. I also believe that you know that Allen was not making that distinction and that the founding fathers do fall into the category of religious men under the terms of my definition and at least for the 13 Freemasons under their terms. So Todd, with whom are you arguing? It appears to me that you are arguing with your own religious background. I have defined my terms from day one here and those men fit my definition which is broad but specific. It allows for anyone regardless of affiliation or lack thereof. It gives one breathing space and allows for differences of not only opinion but also in understanding, discernment, apprehension and definition. Allen would have everyone painted with the same brush and I do not accept that. To go back to an old subject. There are places in this world where cows are sacred and some where they are not. Are those who revere cows religious or not? And those who don't? How about the proverbial ascetic living in the cave in the mountain? Would you be willing to let Webster's narrow and erroneous definition define you? How about if they put Todd Swearington in the dictionary and then put down what they thought described you? That wouldn't float. But we constantly let authorities shape and control our world by accepting how they define it and fitting ourselves into their mold. It boggles ones mind. This is why I keep repeating myself. We are not talking about religious differences we are talking about sectarian, creedal differences. Differences in our cultures and upbringing and how we are taught to express our understanding. If three people are
Re: [Biofuel] Our Godless Constitution
Homey don't buy this one Robert, at least not hook, line and sinker like the author would prefer. The whole point of posting the article was to stimulate discussion. I'm not asking you to accept it. My eldest sister sent me the article in rebuttal to the Brooke Adams essay. I thought that it was typical of a conservative response. Second, the author slightly oversteps reality in the last half of the very first paragraph, when he states that there is no question about [the states] being founded on Christian principles. Uh...did the author just conveniently forget that most of the colonies (they weren't really calling them states until the mid-1770's) were founded on principles of economic investment and return? Do you think that he could spell Massachusetts Bay Company, or the numerous other ongoing concerns? Surely he's not saying that pursuit of monetary gain is a Christian principle. Or is he? That would be slightly contradictory to the vignette of the money changers in the temple, now wouldn't it? Excellent point, Todd. However, we cannot overlook the fact that many of the original colonists came to North America to rid themselves of religious intolerance. This principle informs the decision making process of the founding fathers, who strictly divided the realm of government from that of religion. I've not read the individual state constitutions from whence the author derives his thesis that several states were founded on Christian principles, so it would be unfair for me to comment further. My view in this matter is that the United States government has never behaved in a manner consistent with Christian principles. The claim that our founders were God fearing men does nothing to influence the policies our nation has espoused since its inception. I strenuously object to the concept that because our money has the motto In God We Trust inscribed thereon, or the fact that our Masonic founding fathers accepted the existence of God, we have somehow managed to transcend the foibles common to humanity and the attendant, messy business of governing people. Third, the author interprets Year of our Lord according to his own fancy. The term lord is rather all encompassing in the bible, not to mention general societal references, whether contemporary or historical, social or spiritual. To attribute the term to but one leaf of the triune clover is a bit deceptive. While it may work for the author, it would be contextually inaccurate with great frequency. The use of a culturally accepted figure of speech does not necessarily indicate an espousal of divine eminence. That comment raised my eyebrows, too. So what of this? The French revolutionaries reconstructed the seven-day biblical week and turned it into a ten-day metric week in hopes of ridding the nation of every vestige of Christianity. Nothing like this was done in America. Might the refrain on the part of the founding fathers have had something to do with lunar rhythms (seven days) instead of lunacy (abandonment of natural cycles)? Or might it have something to do with a founding principle of inclusion, rather than exclusion? DeMar seems to think, or at least wish others to think, that anything which rubs against a horse must necessarily be a horse. Another good point, Todd. Then, wonder of wonders, DeMar further jumps the tracks with the body of the paragraph that starts, The U. S. Constitutions lack of a Christian designation had little to do with a radical secular agenda. Rather than addressing the individual beliefs of the founding fathers as Allen did, he not only creates a strawman on which to focus, but completely sidesteps that part of the Allen's thesis and brings in 'evidence to the contrary' which has essentially nothing to do with their personal holdings. And the reader is expected to continue reading in this thick haze of intentionally layed smoke and obfuscation? There were some problems with the Brooke Adams essay, especially in her contention that the Constitution writers did not personally espouse religious beliefs. However, I believe she was trying to address the current fantasy among many Americans that the Constitution is divinely inspired to the same degree that Christians maintain for the scriptures, and that this level of inspiration could ONLY have derived from men who were deeply committed to Jesus Christ. This problem is widespread, it's patently false, and the defensive reaction characteristic of Mr. DeMar's rebuttal is an excellent example of what motivates my concern. He's written a number of statements that indicate he is projecting a modern, evangelical view upon the Constitution writers; including the blatantly ridiculous claim that giving the president Sunday off when counting the days before a bill must be signed was done in deference to the fourth commandment. (The fourth commandment specifies the seventh day as Sabbath,
RE: Re[2]: [Biofuel] Our Godless Constitution
So, the question to you is, do muslims believe jesus was the son of god? No just another Jewish prophet, I should not have written Christian prophet. Chris. -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.8.8 - Release Date: 14/02/2005 ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: Re[4]: [Biofuel] Our Godless Constitution
Holy cow! ...going into sensory overload here! There is a lot to soak in. But, If I could add my two cents, I think that the spirit of what you both are saying is in the right place (IMHO). ** strictly my opinion ** I think that I'm cut from a similar cloth to Gusl and would like to comment on certain words like ground rules and the interpretation of facts. As far as I'm concerned, if it occurs outside the scope of the physical sciences, fact is a relative term (I'm intentionally leaving out the metaphysical arguments involving fact and reality). Politics, religion, language, and music are examples of what the human mind can synthesis within its own domain and is (or should be) constantly challenged and changed -- even if at first, it leads us in a direction that offers nothing helpful. If we are talking about the consistency and apparent meaning of words in the dictionary, there is no doubt that it is always changing and that the very best proof of an argument in these subjects is consensus. ...not especially reassuring for someone looking for ground rules. Mike Gustl Steiner-Zehender [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hallo Todd, Thursday, 17 February, 2005, 20:02:00, you wrote: AE Gustl, AE If you'll notice, the exception that I took was to the absolutism AE that you expressed. The Founding Fathers were not religious men, This bit is absolutely false. Yes, responding in kind to her absolutist remark. Perhaps if not probably not a wise choice, but I did limit it to ONLY that remark and hers is a false premise. The problem I have with your reply is not with you, but with letting others, whether those others be contemporary society or Webster's dictionary for that matter, control my world and conception of reality by controlling the language. Webster's reflects current usage and it seems to me it does conveniently alter meanings with time. Besides this, you know that I make a clear distinction between religion-religious and organized-religion-religious and you also know that I believe in individual liberty and a reasonable separation of church and state. Yet you end this up by apparently arguing against something I didn't say. Nowhere have I ever advocated any specific religion. You are arguing against things in your own head brother, not mine. It is not a far reach to declare that at least 13 of them were religious, and that makes the they portion of Allen's proposition false. It would be a far and impossible reach however to declare that the advocated any specific religion. The drive towards religious thought may be as innate as the drive towards personal survival. Religion comes from the inward out and has been with us since before words. I will not allow the Holy Roman church or the Baptist church or any religious authority to define for me what is possibly my most fundamental urge. I will certainly not allow Webster's to do so nor will I allow another to control the definitions. To control the definitions is to control the argument which is why, in debate, definitions are first agreed upon. I believe the founding fathers viewed religion much the same as I view religion and that is strictly personal and subjective and not imposed by some outside authority. Ones religion defines for that person ones relation to the cosmos. It is just a person and their relationship to the other. It begins before we are able to understand and once we have that ability we realize how much we will never be able to understand. Perhaps that is where the organized church started...taking this bit and that bit and claiming this is all there is and they know because they have religious authority. Who knows? But I haven't bought that lie and I won't bend over and allow any authority to stick definitions which control my thoughts and world up where the sun doesn't shine. I also will not reject everything any religion says out of hand just because I have found some or even most of their teachings to be false. The baby doesn't go out with the bathwater. I have learned to be selective and to keep the flowers growing in the manure and let the manure lay. We have been on this list for a while and I believe you are aware of how I define religion and that I make a distinction between religion and organized religion. I also believe that you know that Allen was not making that distinction and that the founding fathers do fall into the category of religious men under the terms of my definition and at least for the 13 Freemasons under their terms. So Todd, with whom are you arguing? It appears to me that you are arguing with your own religious background. I have defined my terms from day one here and those men fit my definition which is broad but specific. It allows for anyone regardless of affiliation or lack thereof. It gives one breathing space and allows for differences of not only opinion but also in understanding, discernment, apprehension and definition. Allen would have everyone painted with
Re: Re[4]: [Biofuel] Our Godless Constitution
Homey doesn't buy this either. Webster's reflects current usage and it seems to me it does conveniently alter meanings with time. Conveniently? Sure, definitions may occassionally need to be modified with time to reflect changes in contemporary usage. But conveniently changed? That implies something akin to overnight change rather than a progressive change. True accademecians loathe outside manipulation. Perhaps you can point to a for instance? Brooke Allen used contemporary definition, in a contemporary writ. Are you proposing that she should have dusted off an aged dictionary of two and one-quarter centuies and use that meaning, when all of the contemporary world is using a different reference book? Perhaps she should have written the article in the King's English as well? Doubtful that such a measure would somehow convey the message more clearly, much less more accurately. Do we even have at hand's length an exact reproduction of the century old definition of religious? If so, or even if not, my bet is that it's not that much different than what exists today. And substituting personal interpretation of a word with the standardized contemporary interpretation isn't exactly a fair exchange. Doing so would force everyone to adopt hundreds of different definitions for the same thing. 1) The generally accepted definition in the public space, and 2) the personal interpretation of any and all, slightly nuanced and tweaked to suit the purpose of each. If you don't much care for double standards, why would you advocate double meanings when none are necessary? Besides this, you know that I makeacleardistinction between religion-religious and organized-religion-religious Okay. So pray tell, exactly which religions aren't organized? I can't think of one, certainly none within the mainstream of the past four centuries. Yet you end this up by apparently arguing against something I didn't say. Nowhere have I ever advocated any specific religion. You are arguing against things in your own head brother, not mine. You declared Brooke Allen's statement to be patently or absolutely false. That point is what I took contention with and still do.She lent far more substance to her arguement than others have to the contrary. Beyond that, I don't see anyplace in my response where I interjected any comment as to your personal beliefs or what you personally advocate. The matter of religious relative to the founding fathers was left to reside strictly within their practical exhibition and the definition of the word. If somehow you interpret that as a matter of me directing my remarks against you personally or your personal beliefs, I'll leave that up to you. It's not what was written and the exception which you have taken and/or your apparent umbrage is certainly not warranted. Todd Swearingen - Original Message - From: Gustl Steiner-Zehender [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Appal Energy [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, February 18, 2005 11:00 AM Subject: Re[4]: [Biofuel] Our Godless Constitution Hallo Todd, Thursday, 17 February, 2005, 20:02:00, you wrote: AE Gustl, AE If you'll notice, the exception that I took was to the absolutism AE that you expressed. The Founding Fathers were not religious men, This bit is absolutely false. Yes, responding in kind to her absolutist remark. Perhaps if not probably not a wise choice, but I did limit it to ONLY that remark and hers is a false premise. The problem I have with your reply is not with you, but with letting others, whether those others be contemporary society or Webster's dictionary for that matter, control my world and conception of reality by controlling the language. Webster's reflects current usage and it seems to me it does conveniently alter meanings with time. Besides this, you know that I makeacleardistinction between religion-religious and organized-religion-religious and you also know that I believe in individual liberty and a reasonable separation of church and state. Yet you end this up by apparently arguing against something I didn't say. Nowhere have I ever advocated any specific religion. You are arguing against things in your own head brother, not mine. It is not a far reach to declare that at least 13 of them were religious, and that makes the they portion of Allen's proposition false. It would be a far and impossible reach however to declare that the advocated any specific religion. The drive towards religious thought may be as innate as the drive towards personal survival. Religion comes from the inward out and has been with us since before words. I will not allow the Holy Roman church or the Baptist church or any religious authority to define for me what is possibly my most fundamental urge. I will certainly not allow Webster's to do so nor will I allow
Re: Re[4]: [Biofuel] Our Godless Constitution
homey [h#601;#650;mi:]Aadjective1 homelike, homely, homey, homy having a feeling of home; cozy and comfortable; the homely everyday atmosphere; a homey little inn Appal Energy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:Sorry Gustl, Homey doesn't buy this either. Webster's reflects current usage and it seems to me it does conveniently alter meanings with time. Conveniently? Sure, definitions may occassionally need to be modified with time to reflect changes in contemporary usage. But conveniently changed? That implies something akin to overnight change rather than a progressive change. True accademecians loathe outside manipulation. Perhaps you can point to a for instance? Brooke Allen used contemporary definition, in a contemporary writ. Are you proposing that she should have dusted off an aged dictionary of two and one-quarter centuies and use that meaning, when all of the contemporary world is using a different reference book? Perhaps she should have written the article in the King's English as well? Doubtful that such a measure would somehow convey the message more clearly, much less more accurately. Do we even have at hand's length an exact reproduction of the century old definition of religious? If so, or even if not, my bet is that it's not that much different than what exists today. And substituting personal interpretation of a word with the standardized contemporary interpretation isn't exactly a fair exchange. Doing so would force everyone to adopt hundreds of different definitions for the same thing. 1) The generally accepted definition in the public space, and 2) the personal interpretation of any and all, slightly nuanced and tweaked to suit the purpose of each. If you don't much care for double standards, why would you advocate double meanings when none are necessary? Besides this, you know that I make a clear distinction between religion-religious and organized-religion-religious Okay. So pray tell, exactly which religions aren't organized? I can't think of one, certainly none within the mainstream of the past four centuries. Yet you end this up by apparently arguing against something I didn't say. Nowhere have I ever advocated any specific religion. You are arguing against things in your own head brother, not mine. You declared Brooke Allen's statement to be patently or absolutely false. That point is what I took contention with and still do.She lent far more substance to her arguement than others have to the contrary. Beyond that, I don't see anyplace in my response where I interjected any comment as to your personal beliefs or what you personally advocate. The matter of religious relative to the founding fathers was left to reside strictly within their practical exhibition and the definition of the word. If somehow you interpret that as a matter of me directing my remarks against you personally or your personal beliefs, I'll leave that up to you. It's not what was written and the exception which you have taken and/or your apparent umbrage is certainly not warranted. Todd Swearingen - Original Message - From: Gustl Steiner-Zehender To: Appal Energy Sent: Friday, February 18, 2005 11:00 AM Subject: Re[4]: [Biofuel] Our Godless Constitution Hallo Todd, Thursday, 17 February, 2005, 20:02:00, you wrote: AE Gustl, AE If you'll notice, the exception that I took was to the absolutism AE that you expressed. The Founding Fathers were not religious men, This bit is absolutely false. Yes, responding in kind to her absolutist remark. Perhaps if not probably not a wise choice, but I did limit it to ONLY that remark and hers is a false premise. The problem I have with your reply is not with you, but with letting others, whether those others be contemporary society or Webster's dictionary for that matter, control my world and conception of reality by controlling the language. Webster's reflects current usage and it seems to me it does conveniently alter meanings with time. Besides this, you know that I make a clear distinction between religion-religious and organized-religion-religious and you also know that I believe in individual liberty and a reasonable separation of church and state. Yet you end this up by apparently arguing against something I didn't say. Nowhere have I ever advocated any specific religion. You are arguing against things in your own head brother, not mine. It is not a far reach to declare that at least 13 of them were religious, and that makes the they portion of Allen's proposition false. It would be a far and impossible reach however to declare that the advocated any specific religion. The drive towards religious thought may be as innate as the drive towards personal survival. Religion comes from the inward out and has been with us since before words. I will not allow the Holy Roman church or the Baptist church or any religious authority to define for me what is possibly my most fundamental urge
Re[6]: [Biofuel] Our Godless Constitution
Hallo Todd, Friday, 18 February, 2005, 14:55:40, you wrote: ...snip before and after... AE It's not what was written and the exception which you have taken AE and/or your apparent umbrage is certainly not warranted. AE Todd Swearingen My grandson has come to spend the next 3 days with us so my keyboard time will be non-existent until I take him home so I won't be able to get back to this properly until at least Tuesday. First and foremost Todd, there is no anger or resentment or ill will at all on my part directed towards you or anyone else. If you feel there is then I apologize for not being clear enough. Friends can disagree, even strongly disagree, without umbrage being taken and I don't have a gram of it in me over this or anything else you have ever said. It is neither constructive nor beneficial and besides, you and I have a lot more in common than we have differences. Reasonable people can disagree without rancor. We can get back to disagreeing on Tuesday or Wednesday if that will suit. ;o) Happy Happy, Gustl -- Je mehr wir haben, desto mehr fordert Gott von uns. Mitglied-Team AMIGA ICQ: 22211253-Gustli The safest road to Hell is the gradual one - the gentle slope, soft underfoot, without sudden turnings, without milestones, without signposts. C. S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters Es gibt Wahrheiten, die so sehr auf der Stra§e liegen, da§ sie gerade deshalb von der gewhnlichen Welt nicht gesehen oder wenigstens nicht erkannt werden. Those who dance are considered insane by those who can't hear the music. George Carlin The best portion of a good man's life - His little, nameless, unremembered acts of kindness and of love. William Wordsworth ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: Re[4]: [Biofuel] Our Godless Constitution
homey - noun - 1) _; 2); 3 Apples to apples please. Todd Swearingen - Original Message - From: Michael Redler [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, February 18, 2005 3:49 PM Subject: Re: Re[4]: [Biofuel] Our Godless Constitution homey [h#601;#650;mi:]Aadjective1 homelike, homely, homey, homy having a feeling of home; cozy and comfortable; the homely everyday atmosphere; a homey little inn Appal Energy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:Sorry Gustl, Homey doesn't buy this either. Webster's reflects current usage and it seems to me it does conveniently alter meanings with time. Conveniently? Sure, definitions may occassionally need to be modified with time to reflect changes in contemporary usage. But conveniently changed? That implies something akin to overnight change rather than a progressive change. True accademecians loathe outside manipulation. Perhaps you can point to a for instance? Brooke Allen used contemporary definition, in a contemporary writ. Are you proposing that she should have dusted off an aged dictionary of two and one-quarter centuies and use that meaning, when all of the contemporary world is using a different reference book? Perhaps she should have written the article in the King's English as well? Doubtful that such a measure would somehow convey the message more clearly, much less more accurately. Do we even have at hand's length an exact reproduction of the century old definition of religious? If so, or even if not, my bet is that it's not that much different than what exists today. And substituting personal interpretation of a word with the standardized contemporary interpretation isn't exactly a fair exchange. Doing so would force everyone to adopt hundreds of different definitions for the same thing. 1) The generally accepted definition in the public space, and 2) the personal interpretation of any and all, slightly nuanced and tweaked to suit the purpose of each. If you don't much care for double standards, why would you advocate double meanings when none are necessary? Besides this, you know that I make a clear distinction between religion-religious and organized-religion-religious Okay. So pray tell, exactly which religions aren't organized? I can't think of one, certainly none within the mainstream of the past four centuries. Yet you end this up by apparently arguing against something I didn't say. Nowhere have I ever advocated any specific religion. You are arguing against things in your own head brother, not mine. You declared Brooke Allen's statement to be patently or absolutely false. That point is what I took contention with and still do.She lent far more substance to her arguement than others have to the contrary. Beyond that, I don't see anyplace in my response where I interjected any comment as to your personal beliefs or what you personally advocate. The matter of religious relative to the founding fathers was left to reside strictly within their practical exhibition and the definition of the word. If somehow you interpret that as a matter of me directing my remarks against you personally or your personal beliefs, I'll leave that up to you. It's not what was written and the exception which you have taken and/or your apparent umbrage is certainly not warranted. Todd Swearingen - Original Message - From: Gustl Steiner-Zehender To: Appal Energy Sent: Friday, February 18, 2005 11:00 AM Subject: Re[4]: [Biofuel] Our Godless Constitution Hallo Todd, Thursday, 17 February, 2005, 20:02:00, you wrote: AE Gustl, AE If you'll notice, the exception that I took was to the absolutism AE that you expressed. The Founding Fathers were not religious men, This bit is absolutely false. Yes, responding in kind to her absolutist remark. Perhaps if not probably not a wise choice, but I did limit it to ONLY that remark and hers is a false premise. The problem I have with your reply is not with you, but with letting others, whether those others be contemporary society or Webster's dictionary for that matter, control my world and conception of reality by controlling the language. Webster's reflects current usage and it seems to me it does conveniently alter meanings with time. Besides this, you know that I make a clear distinction between religion-religious and organized-religion-religious and you also know that I believe in individual liberty and a reasonable separation of church and state. Yet you end this up by apparently arguing against something I didn't say. Nowhere have I ever advocated any specific religion. You are arguing against things in your own head brother, not mine. It is not a far reach to declare that at least 13 of them were religious, and that makes the they portion of Allen's proposition false. It would be a far and impossible reach however to declare that the advocated any specific religion
Re: [Biofuel] Our Godless Constitution
- Original Message - From: Legal Eagle [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2005 4:07 PM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Our Godless Constitution : G'day Ken; : Nice of you to denigrate CHRISTians like that . We are not X anything : thank you very much. Either learn some respect or please keep your crap to : yourself. You don't have to agree, but you don't get to denigrate either. : Someone had a whack at sacred cows a while back, you should have learned : from that. : Luc * Ah Luc? Respectfully, don't be so quick to feel disrespected by a centuries old practice and the modern day adaptation of that practice. X, XP and P super-imposed over X is understood to represent the word and the man Christ. The P super-imposed over the X is a symbol found in many church buildings. See http://landru.i-link-2.net/shnyves/Christian_Symbolism.html [ http://tinyurl.com/4lxr9 ] and http://landru.i-link-2.net/shnyves/xp.gif [ http://tinyurl.com/6saa7 ] Doug, N0LKK [EMAIL PROTECTED] E Pluribus Unum Motto of the USA since 1776 ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: [Biofuel] Our Godless Constitution
- Original Message - From: robert luis rabello [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2005 9:40 PM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Our Godless Constitution : : Allens article is filled with so many half truths that it would take : a book to deal with them adequately. For those of you who are new to : the work of American Vision, there are numerous books on the subject : that easily refute Allens assertions. The words that where attributed to the founding brothers in the article are accurate as are the words of the same founding brothers that, morally ambiguous moral majority use to make their case. The problem is that the body of the recorded words of the founding brothers is like, the Bible and would seem the Koran as well. By picking and choosing one can find support/ justification for most everything. Many of the first Christians coming to the Americas came fleeing religious oppression only to become the oppressors themselves here in the Americas. IMO opinion they are still at it. To call the USA Christian is to insult God become man and his teachings, still IMO. Doug ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: [Biofuel] Our Godless Constitution
Of course it wasn't then a written document but an oral tradition and a model of a working democracy from which the founding fathers drew more than heavily Rather than facts and substance, the prejudice (which is all it amounts to) against oral traditions and oral history, dating from the colonial era, has been shown to be without much basis. No doubt there are exceptions but generally, oral peoples with no written language were and are most rigorous in maintaining the veracity and accuracy of what enters their traditions. African historians have shown that on many occasions the oral histories have been more accurate than the written ones were, such as for instance Lord Lugard's much-hailed establishment of indirect rule in Nigeria a hundred years ago, admired at the time and long afterwards, even now, as a shining example of colonial liberalism. In fact it was intended to destabilise, divide and conquer and was established at the barrel of a Gatling gun with widespead loss of life - but Lord Lugard's wife was foreign editor of The Times, don't you know, and a different story thus entered the history books, as intended. The African oral histories told the truth of it, since proven and corroborated, and were consistent, furthermore, more so than written historians tend be. It's not a safe assumption that print and literacy are necessarily superior. If it's just an automatic assumption and not based on the facts of the case, it's quite likely to be not only wrong but arrogant. Best wishes Keith Jess From: Walt Patrick [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 10:41:04 -0800 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Our Godless Constitution At 10:57 AM 2/15/2005, you wrote: Has anyone else ever seen a copy of the Six Nations Constitution? It's hard to imagine that any such document could exist. The agreement was formulated sometime between 1200 and 1500, long before the Six Nations had a way to write such an agreement down. Any document prepared in modern times would be analogous to a modern copy of the works of Homer; i.e. the product of a long oral tradition separating the author from the present age. Walt ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: [Biofuel] Our Godless Constitution
- Original Message - From: Kirk McLoren [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] : Noahide or Noachide law is actually Jewish although : some Christians apparently want to practice Judaism. : : I'm afraid it will only get worse at least for a time. : : Kirk * Well there is no profit in following Christ's instructions. But then after following the link provided I'm confused way my Congress and President would, declare as the law of the land, law they routinely and habitually break or ignore. I agree it will only get worse and I hope you are correct in least for a time. Doug ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
[Biofuel] Our Godless Constitution
Jesse, I hadn't even heard of it. I'm so glad you brought it up. I'm hoping that it was recorded by someone at some time. As you know, there were and are some efforts to record native traditions and languages before they are all lost. These efforts are not nearly as timely or vigorous as I would like. If you discover that it has been published by someone, please forward the information to me. That constitution is something that I'd like to share on my website. As I can't find it in my searches, it clearly needs to be made available online by someone. If I ever find it, I'll put it online. Demian == [Biofuel] Our Godless Constitution mark manchester mgripeh at pathcom.com Tue Feb 15 18:57:54 GMT 2005 Has anyone else ever seen a copy of the Six Nations Constitution? There weren't many other democracies at hand in the mid 1700's, and apparently this quite venerable Native document was very useful. It gives a context to the Godless document. Jesse Content-Description: signature Content-Disposition: Inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII [1]kcom.gif References 1. http://www.knoton.com/ ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: [Biofuel] Our Godless Constitution
Walt, I am confused, are you suggesting that documents could not be written before 1200 to 1500 and are you suggesting that manual production of documents (books) were not done? In fact, what are you trying to tell us? I can not figure out what you mean. Are you sure that Six Nations had no way to document things, or that it had not been documented by someone else at the time. Democracy by itself is an old Greek definition and since then there are many variations that had been tried. It is very hard to find any variation that not been tried and documented, even before the Americas was discovered. The founding fathers did not create anything new and had a very large and documented knowledge base to draw from. What is it that is new in the US constitution or unique in the US version of democracy? It might be that the US corporations have extended rights, compared to the people and in reality the US in a Corpracy not a Democracy. LOL I have no idea, but if it was something called democracy in US before its discovery, it is a quite remarkable discovery. Hakan At 12:42 AM 2/17/2005, you wrote: Of course it wasn't then a written document but an oral tradition and a model of a working democracy from which the founding fathers drew more than heavily Jess From: Walt Patrick [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 10:41:04 -0800 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Our Godless Constitution At 10:57 AM 2/15/2005, you wrote: Has anyone else ever seen a copy of the Six Nations Constitution? It's hard to imagine that any such document could exist. The agreement was formulated sometime between 1200 and 1500, long before the Six Nations had a way to write such an agreement down. Any document prepared in modern times would be analogous to a modern copy of the works of Homer; i.e. the product of a long oral tradition separating the author from the present age. Walt ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re[2]: [Biofuel] Our Godless Constitution
Hallo Todd, (Sorry this is so late. I have been out of town and unwell.) Tuesday, 15 February, 2005, 10:56:35, you wrote: If you will notice you will see that I took no exception with the essay aside from this: The Founding Fathers were not religious men, This bit is absolutely false. The problem I have with your reply is not with you, but with letting others, whether those others be contemporary society or Webster's dictionary for that matter, control my world and conception of reality by controlling the language. We give up enough control of our own lives as it is without allowing the few to mainpulate the many through our respective languages whether the few happen to be political, economic, religious or any other kind of authorities. What you are describing below is organized religion not religion itself. A deist is still a religious person whether they are part of an organized group or sit alone in a cave in a mountain. The concern of the founding fathers was with ones personal liberty and freedom and that folks not be required by the state to believe or disbelieve one way or the other by anyone particularly the state. They didn't want a state church established. Their intent was very clear and and obvious and was clearly stated. We have allowed partisan interests with what I would consider extreme and unreasonable views to manipulate us into this situation to further their own agendas and to assert their will in order to control the rest of us. If we are going to allow others who are unreasonable to define and control us then we are going to have to accept that a blowjob isn't sex, an outright lie is a failure of intel, that allowing private banks to collect interest called the nationl debt on money that neither exists nor has anything of worth to back it is in the best interests of people (fractional banking), and that there is such a thing as a good war. Religion comes from the inside out and although worship may be corporate and beliefs shared, religion is personal and subjective. Anything else may have name and form but it lacks substance. Creed and sectarianism not religion. They don't teach religion in the seminaries and theological schools they teach their own partisan apprehension of religion. That doesn't make it genuine or valid. But anyway, to say that the founding fathers were not religious men is just patently absurd. Some were some weren't. What they definitely were is not willing to have what the believed or didn't believe shoved down their throats and they weren't willing to shove it down others throats either. Seems to me they were relatively reasonable men unlike today. We don't seem to have evolved enough to be reasonable folks. I would imagine that suits Big Brother just fine because then he can step in and make the rules and define our words and lives for us because we are too stupid to learn to get along with one another and resolve our differences reasonably and peacefully. Leben und leben lassen. Jeder spinnt anders. Happy Happy, Gustl AE Gustl, AE I don't think you'd find it as false a claim as you might think if you apply AE the generally accepted, contemporary, rough translation of religion and AE religious to the matter. Even if you strictly applied the definitions AE found in Websters, you would quickly see that they don't stick very well to AE those who don't adhere to the extremes of worship and systemized ritual. AE Their beliefs were by-and-large all encompassing, incorporating AE fundamental tenants found in almost all religions, not specifically the AE tenants and doctrines of any one religion. AE When you combine their almost unanimous acknowledgements of diety with their AE discord for organized religion, its constructs and decripitudes, you would AE probably come up with a more precise akin to 'The founding fathers were AE deists, not men of religion,' which the author does go to great lengths to AE verify. AE All in all his statement is to a very large degree correct. And, as you may AE have noticed, it certainly gets the dander up for some, eh? AE :-) AE Quite the nicely written and well thought out piece of work - far more AE accurate than the habitual abuse of historic fact for the purpose of AE idealogical gain being rendered by the self-appointed elitists of the day. AE Todd Swearingen AE - Original Message - AE From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] AE To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] AE Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2005 10:17 AM AE Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Our Godless Constitution On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 18:38:52 -0800 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (knoton) wrote: Our Godless Constitution by BROOKE ALLEN [from the February 21, 2005 issue] The Founding Fathers were not religious men, This bit is absolutely false. What our founding fathers were were religious men who knew the importance
Re: Re[2]: [Biofuel] Our Godless Constitution
Message - AE From: AE To: AE Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2005 10:17 AM AE Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Our Godless Constitution On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 18:38:52 -0800 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (knoton) wrote: Our Godless Constitution by BROOKE ALLEN [from the February 21, 2005 issue] The Founding Fathers were not religious men, This bit is absolutely false. What our founding fathers were were religious men who knew the importance of not letting sectarian predilicition intefere with the rights they were espousing and the government they were establishing. They were giving the people the right to choose their religion or to choose to not have any religion, a purely private decision. Unfortunately the modern state has instituted radical and mindless patriotism as the state religion. A sad situation. Happy Happy, Gustl -- Je mehr wir haben, desto mehr fordert Gott von uns. Mitglied-Team AMIGA ICQ: 22211253-Gustli The safest road to Hell is the gradual one - the gentle slope, soft underfoot, without sudden turnings, without milestones, without signposts. C. S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters Es gibt Wahrheiten, die so sehr auf der Straße liegen, daß sie gerade deshalb von der gewöhnlichen Welt nicht gesehen oder wenigstens nicht erkannt werden. Those who dance are considered insane by those who can't hear the music. George Carlin The best portion of a good man's life - His little, nameless, unremembered acts of kindness and of love. William Wordsworth ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re[4]: [Biofuel] Our Godless Constitution
Hallo Mike, Thursday, 17 February, 2005, 08:16:47, you wrote: MR Hi Gustl, MR There is a little known fact about the founding fathers that might MR shed some additional light as to whether or not they were MR religious. MR Thirteen signers of the constitution were Freemasons. In order to MR be a member of the fraternity, you need to declare your faith in MR God. You do not have to subscribe to a particular religion. But, MR you must be monotheistic. Yes, I am aware of that. However, a discussion of Freemasonry is not a subject I am willing to broach on the list. Just as in the anti-zionist/anti-semetic debate there would be a lot of dissention, harsh language and hard feelings over this. I purposely kept my mouth shut on this. I just don't understand how folks allow themselves to get so worked up over some subjects, particularly about things which they have little first hand experience and which they cannot change, not to mention that lumping all people of one belief or another into one pot just doesn't work. Individuals are individuals and although they may be part of some group of whatever sort they need to be given a chance to show themselves as themselves and be judged on that rather than whatever organization, ethnic group, religion or whatever they happen to be a member of. I will check out your reference here. Never too old to learn. :o) MR http://www.freemasonry.org/psoc/masonicmyths.htm MR Mike MR P.S. Maybe we're related. My Grandmother's last name is MR Rombach-Steiner. She's an Emmentaler. ...any relatives in MR Switzerland? :-) Well, the Steiners are from Austria/Bavaria, the Zehenders from Bavaria/Baden-Wrtemburg but the Farners are nearly all from Canton Zrich in Switzerland. That doesn't mean that there are no Steiners there. Just none I am aware of but I also have never done any geneaology research in the family. I just listen to those who have. At any rate, whether by creation or by evolution we are, somewhere down the line, related. Nice to make your acquaintance cousin. ;o) Happy Happy, Gustl -- Je mehr wir haben, desto mehr fordert Gott von uns. Mitglied-Team AMIGA ICQ: 22211253-Gustli The safest road to Hell is the gradual one - the gentle slope, soft underfoot, without sudden turnings, without milestones, without signposts. C. S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters Es gibt Wahrheiten, die so sehr auf der Stra§e liegen, da§ sie gerade deshalb von der gewhnlichen Welt nicht gesehen oder wenigstens nicht erkannt werden. Those who dance are considered insane by those who can't hear the music. George Carlin The best portion of a good man's life - His little, nameless, unremembered acts of kindness and of love. William Wordsworth ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: Re[2]: [Biofuel] Our Godless Constitution
Hi Gustl, ... Thirteen signers of the constitution were Freemasons. In order to be a member of the fraternity, you need to declare your faith in God. You do not have to subscribe to a particular religion. But, you must be monotheistic. http://www.freemasonry.org/psoc/masonicmyths.htm Mike Lets look at what the first article (Allen's article) stated: First, it implied that the founders were NOT religious (hook). Then, it pointed out that the bulk of them believed in god but didn't necessarily endorse christ to the extent that say, Pat Roberston does. Then, it detailed information regarding founders such as Franklyn and Paine. I think the author was trying, in earnest, to separate the concept of christianity from the documents used to define the creation of a sovereign nation. To presume god and jesus are the same is a christian belief. I think its difficult for many christians to comprehend that others don't hold this belief; just as its difficult for many to comprehend that god and Ala are also not the same. So it stands to reason that Bush claims to be a christian (albiet a hypocritical one) and as such he is giving his opinion that the cretion of the USA was based on christianity because he believes any mention of god is also a mention of jesus christ. And its my belief, like many, that Bush is trying to push his set of beliefs into the government in order to fit the agenda of his followers (not the least of which think they too can talk to god). Well, I can talk to god and I'm giving him an ear full of what I think of this nonsense. I'll report back as soon as I get a reply. regards, dave ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re[4]: [Biofuel] Our Godless Constitution
Hallo Dave, No, Allen specifically states that the founders were not religious men. I quoted that in my first mail to Todd and that was my only beef with the article. It is patently false. Where he is right he is right and where he is wrong he is wrong and he was wrong in that statement. Bending the truth or bending definitions in order to prevail in an argument don't impress me much.Intellectually dishonest. Idiots all around on either side of the question if you ask me, which you admittedly didn't. What the author was trying to do was sway an audience and right out of the box he came out with a statement which was demontratively false. It did not seem good enough to him evidently to demonstrate that the founding fathers wanted a separation of church and state and the individual right to choose what one wanted to believe or disbelieve, but he appears to have some need to twist facts to prove or give credence to his theme. He didn't do his homework and he was running on assumptions which can be falsified. A valid argument perhaps but certainly not sound. Mike is absolutely correct about the Freemason connection of the signers and also correct that one must declare oneself a religious person with faith in God to become a Freimauer. So brother, that case is closed. Allen is either intellectually sloppy or dishonest in any case and why should one waste ones time reading such a shoddily researched piece? If he knew about the connection to the Freemasons then he was dishonest and building his case around a false premise and if he didn't know then he was either lazy or sloppy and in a hurry to prove them wrong and us right. We wouldn't take this from a chemist or mathmatician so why on God's green earth should we take it from an obviously partisan essayist? Please note that while I do consider myself a religious person I also am a firm believer in ones personal liberty to choose or reject any belief system without prejudice or penalty. Even Allens. From my perspective this whole thing is not about whether or not the founding fathers were religious or not or whether they wanted separation of church and state. For me this isn't about God or Christianity or religion at all. This is about truth and accuracy and accountability...discipline, reason, restraint, honesty. If we can't even get from A to C with integrity how are we going to make it to Z? It seems to me we have to be honest with ourselves if we are going to be honest with others and that if we are going to sell a good product we have to work at it properly or it will end up shoddy. Mr. Allen is selling a shoddy project whether by design or accident. Happy Happy, Gustl Thursday, 17 February, 2005, 11:26:52, you wrote: Hi Gustl, D ... Thirteen signers of the constitution were Freemasons. In order to be a member of the fraternity, you need to declare your faith in God. You do not have to subscribe to a particular religion. But, you must be monotheistic. http://www.freemasonry.org/psoc/masonicmyths.htm Mike D Lets look at what the first article (Allen's article) stated: D First, it implied that the founders were NOT religious (hook). D Then, it pointed out that the bulk of them believed in god but D didn't necessarily endorse christ to the extent that say, Pat D Roberston does. Then, it detailed information regarding founders D such as Franklyn and Paine. D I think the author was trying, in earnest, to separate the concept D of christianity from the documents used to define the creation of a D sovereign nation. To presume god and jesus are the same is a D christian belief. I think its difficult for many christians to D comprehend that others don't hold this belief; just as its D difficult for many to comprehend that god and Ala are also not the D same. D So it stands to reason that Bush claims to be a christian (albiet a D hypocritical one) and as such he is giving his opinion that the D cretion of the USA was based on christianity because he believes D any mention of god is also a mention of jesus christ. D And its my belief, like many, that Bush is trying to push his set D of beliefs into the government in order to fit the agenda of his D followers (not the least of which think they too can talk to god). D Well, I can talk to god and I'm giving him an ear full of what I D think of this nonsense. I'll report back as soon as I get a reply. D regards, D dave -- Je mehr wir haben, desto mehr fordert Gott von uns. Mitglied-Team AMIGA ICQ: 22211253-Gustli The safest road to Hell is the gradual one - the gentle slope, soft underfoot, without sudden turnings, without milestones, without signposts. C. S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters Es gibt Wahrheiten, die so sehr auf der Stra§e liegen, da§ sie gerade deshalb von der gewhnlichen
Re: [Biofuel] Our Godless Constitution
Hallo Dave, No, Allen specifically states that the founders were not religious men. I quoted that in my first mail to Todd and that was my only beef with the article. It is patently false. Where he is right he is right and where he is wrong he is wrong and he was wrong in that statement. Sorry to butt into your discussion, Gustl, but the author was a woman. Brooke Allen has an axe to grind, and you're right about her errors. However, she does make some excellent points. The contemporary tendency to view America's founding fathers as evangelical, dispensationalist believing, born again Bible thumpers is the perspective she tried to counter. robert luis rabello The Edge of Justice Adventure for Your Mind http://www.authorhouse.com/BookStore/ItemDetail.aspx?bookid=9782 Ranger Supercharger Project Page http://www.members.shaw.ca/rabello/ ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: Re[2]: [Biofuel] Our Godless Constitution
Mike Gustl I politely take exception to a couple of comments: I think its difficult for many Christians to comprehend that others don't hold this belief; just as its difficult for many to comprehend that god and Ala are also not the same. My first response to this was that you are referring to many Christians as ignorant without any way to justify the argument. I think that this is a bit presumptuous -- especially since many of the Christians I knew from church as a boy (Mom was into taking us to church sometimes) questioned the role of Jesus in the bible and had no faith whatsoever in the trinity. Mike first: Its hard to prove such statements. But its not an ignorant point of view... its based on perspective. I can say, with 100% accuracy that all of the christians I know personally believe that god and jesus are 3 entities (sorry, just had to do it ;). Check my email address if you think my exposure is limited. Further, it's a christian tenant that jesus and god are/were the same. My statement is to be taken at face value. I take the definition of christian to be one who believes in christ. The 2 links below sums it up well in talking about god and jesus. So, based on these sources, a christian is one who believes in christ. One is technically not a christian if they don't believe in jesus. Thats not ment to be offensive, just a definition. http://christianity.com/partner/Article_Display_Page/0,,PTID1000|CHID74|CIID1537642,00.html Christianity came to regard Jesus as in some sense God's presence in human form. This was unacceptable to most Jews. (http://geneva.rutgers.edu/src/christianity/major.html) Typically my proof is in a simple question, What if jesus isn't lord. If they answer something like, But he is lord, the bible says so then I know that this person does not have the ability to even consider that a reference to god isn't also a reference to jesus. Try it out on people you don't know and see if you get a better than 50% hit rate (provided they claim to be christian). If not I'll amend my claim to some christians (though, Pat Robertson and his followers are definitly on the list). Gustl, After re-reading the text I do see that Allen did indeed say they wern't religious. Though, I take it as a contridiction in her writing in that she (as we know know) says they are deists. I missed it, but she makes the claim that if your not christian your not religious... and I know a few jewish people who are very religious and definitly not christian. But her point still stands in that the documents and rhetoric for the founding of my country is not based on the teachings of jesus christ and the new testament. And we are all in agreement that Bush himself doesn't run the country as if its based on christiantiy (espically when you look at Bush's love of war and the death penalty and Matthew 5:38-48) -dave ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re[2]: [Biofuel] Our Godless Constitution
Hallo Robert, Thursday, 17 February, 2005, 15:46:06, you wrote: rlr Gustl Steiner-Zehender wrote: Hallo Dave, No, Allen specifically states that the founders were not religious men. I quoted that in my first mail to Todd and that was my only beef with the article. It is patently false. Where he is right he is right and where he is wrong he is wrong and he was wrong in that statement. rlr Sorry to butt into your discussion, Gustl, but the author was a rlr woman. Brooke Allen has an axe to grind, and you're right about her rlr errors. No, not at all. Mistakes need to be corrected and I appreciate you pointing out mine. rlr However, she does make some excellent points. The rlr contemporary tendency to view America's founding fathers as rlr evangelical, dispensationalist believing, born again Bible thumpers rlr is the perspective she tried to counter. Yes, she does make some excellent point which is why I confined my initial comment to her false assertion. And it should be countered, but with accuracy. No good in grinding on an axe where it doesn't need to be ground. Happy Happy, Gustl -- Je mehr wir haben, desto mehr fordert Gott von uns. Mitglied-Team AMIGA ICQ: 22211253-Gustli The safest road to Hell is the gradual one - the gentle slope, soft underfoot, without sudden turnings, without milestones, without signposts. C. S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters Es gibt Wahrheiten, die so sehr auf der Stra§e liegen, da§ sie gerade deshalb von der gewhnlichen Welt nicht gesehen oder wenigstens nicht erkannt werden. Those who dance are considered insane by those who can't hear the music. George Carlin The best portion of a good man's life - His little, nameless, unremembered acts of kindness and of love. William Wordsworth ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re[4]: [Biofuel] Our Godless Constitution
Hallo Dave, Thursday, 17 February, 2005, 17:20:19, you wrote: ...snip... D Gustl, D After re-reading the text I do see that Allen did indeed say they D wern't religious. Though, I take it as a contridiction in her D writing in that she (as we know know) says they are deists. I D missed it, but she makes the claim that if your not christian your D not religious... and I know a few jewish people who are very D religious and definitly not christian. But her point still stands D in that the documents and rhetoric for the founding of my country D is not based on the teachings of jesus christ and the new D testament. And we are all in agreement that Bush himself doesn't D run the country as if its based on christiantiy (espically when you D look at Bush's love of war and the death penalty and Matthew D 5:38-48) D -dave We are not in disagreement here which is why I only pointed out the inaccurate bit and didn't criticize the rest. Her essay didn't need that bit and detracted from it. Better to build bridges than to grind axes. Happy Happy, Gustl -- Je mehr wir haben, desto mehr fordert Gott von uns. Mitglied-Team AMIGA ICQ: 22211253-Gustli The safest road to Hell is the gradual one - the gentle slope, soft underfoot, without sudden turnings, without milestones, without signposts. C. S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters Es gibt Wahrheiten, die so sehr auf der Stra§e liegen, da§ sie gerade deshalb von der gewhnlichen Welt nicht gesehen oder wenigstens nicht erkannt werden. Those who dance are considered insane by those who can't hear the music. George Carlin The best portion of a good man's life - His little, nameless, unremembered acts of kindness and of love. William Wordsworth ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: [Biofuel] Our Godless Constitution
i suppose you have a problem with christmas being spelled with an X as well. you know XMAS! i never thought it was intended as any form of denegration. seems we're awfully sensitive here...rbury - Original Message - From: Legal Eagle [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2005 2:07 PM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Our Godless Constitution G'day Ken; Nice of you to denigrate CHRISTians like that . We are not X anything thank you very much. Either learn some respect or please keep your crap to yourself. You don't have to agree, but you don't get to denigrate either. Someone had a whack at sacred cows a while back, you should have learned from that. Luc - Original Message - From: Ken Provost [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, February 14, 2005 11:34 PM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Our Godless Constitution on 2/14/05 6:38 PM, knoton at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Our Godless Constitution by BROOKE ALLEN [from the February 21, 2005 issue] http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20050221s=allen A breath of fresh air -- thanks! Having been an unabashed atheist for 90% of my long life, it's great to know that my hero Tom Jefferson wasn't even a real Deist (as I've always been taught), much less an X-tian like our rulers would have you believe. 'Course Tom has almost been drummed out of the Founding Father's Klub already, and our Revolution has been renamed the War of Independ- ence for decades now.. -K ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: [Biofuel] Our Godless Constitution
- Original Message - From: Hakan Falk [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2005 6:10 PM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Our Godless Constitution Luc, Sorry but my earlier reply was sent by itself and without following comment. You are right, but I think that many Christians also should learn respect or please keep their crap for them self. It is numerous times that I met representatives for the Christian religion, that in an abusive way promote their religion and demand respect for it, without them self having any respect for what others belive in. This I say, even because my denomination would officially and by birth be Christian protestant. I am sorry, but I fail to see in what way Ken did not show respect, he declared what be belive and did a general comment about religious variant in general. In mathematics X stand for unknown denomination And were we speaking of mathematics I would agree. and I think that in this case it was meant as such. You can believe that if you want to,however anyone who has been around confirmed atheists for any amount of time knows more than well that the X is a lot more than a generic symbol. It is meant the way it was used. Like Xmas is. Why are you so upset by not being especially mentioned, was it the lack of attention to your specific case? I am sorry to disappoint you but I do not suffer from adolescent temper tantrumus (my word). Luc - pinning for attention.ha! Hakan X-tian or whatever. ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
[Biofuel] Our Godless Constitution
Using X as shorthand for cross and by extension Christ is not universally offensive among Christians. I see it used for both X-tians and X-mas by other practicing Christians. That this abbreviation offends your particular Christian cult is your personal problem by your personal choice. I think it's a definitive example of one particular cult's extremism, or perhaps one cult member's extremism. That you chose not to use that particular abbreviation is your personal business. That you wish to impose a ban on it's use by other folks who are not members of your particular little cult is inappropriate IMHO. Demian == Luc, I find your response rather amusing but all too much a double standard.. First of all, if the archives are any indicator, you spend a great deal of time bashing your favorite sects du jour. Second of all, Ken Provost didn't bash christians. He did make note of the type of christians who choose to misappropriate the power of public office in pursuit of enforcing their theological ideology upon others. From this vantage point it is an apology owed by you for jumping to sweeping conclusions. How you came to them one can only hazard to guess, probably with a fair degree of accuracy. You expect or demand respect but don't exactly reciprocate. Should others presume that this too is a tenant of your religion of choice? What? A person is allowed to have their opinion but they aren't allowed to express it? What is it about such a double standard that sounds oh so Bushwellian? You can hold your opinion, express it, but others are to be denigrated for their opinion and expected to remain silent? If such truly is the case, then someone should take a moment to point out your extreme form of hypocrisy. Why this should even have to be said is beyond me...almost. Todd Swearingen - Original Message - From: Legal Eagle abogado at sympatico.ca To: biofuel at wwia.org Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2005 5:07 PM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Our Godless Constitution G'day Ken; Nice of you to denigrate CHRISTians like that . We are not X anything thank you very much. Either learn some respect or please keep your crap to yourself. You don't have to agree, but you don't get to denigrate either. Someone had a whack at sacred cows a while back, you should have learned from that. Luc - Original Message - From: Ken Provost provo at apple.com To: biofuel at wwia.org Sent: Monday, February 14, 2005 11:34 PM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Our Godless Constitution on 2/14/05 6:38 PM, knoton at knoton at webtv.net wrote: Our Godless Constitution by BROOKE ALLEN [from the February 21, 2005 issue] http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20050221s=allen A breath of fresh air -- thanks! Having been an unabashed atheist for 90% of my long life, it's great to know that my hero Tom Jefferson wasn't even a real Deist (as I've always been taught), much less an X-tian like our rulers would have you believe. 'Course Tom has almost been drummed out of the Founding Father's Klub already, and our Revolution has been renamed the War of Independ- ence for decades now.. -K Content-Description: signature Content-Disposition: Inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII [1]kcom.gif References 1. http://www.knoton.com/ ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
[Biofuel] Our Godless Constitution
Dave,
Bingo! That's my read on it. To be more specific, they want THEIR
god's law (that god of Judaism and Christianity) to be the law of the
land.
You can google the same same criteria {dominionism and christian
reconstructionism} as mentioned earlier, but specify death penalty
and see what they intend to do with that ~both by expanding the list of
crimes eligible, and the METHODs of execution to be employed. The
Constitution Restoration Act will PROHIBIT judicial review of these
extremist goals. Not even the U.S. Supreme Court will have
jurisdiction.
Try googling by specifying Pat Robertson to the before mentioned
search criteria and see what you learn. Presbyterian yields some
interesting background, too. Poke around enough and you'll find several
people and orgs that you recognize.
Where the Constitution Restoration Act may be specific to the United
States, you'll soon learn that they do not intend to stop with just the
United States.
Demian
==
DHAJOGLO at smumn.edu
I found the text of this act and some things about it. Am I right in
thinking that they are trying to make god's law part of our
constitutional law?
-dave
Knoton,
Try googling the following:
Constitution Restoration Act
which was introduced in both houses of the U.S. Congress one year ago
this month.
Content-Description: signature
Content-Disposition: Inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
[1]kcom.gif
References
1. http://www.knoton.com/
___
Biofuel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel
Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable):
http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: [Biofuel] Our Godless Constitution
on 2/15/05 5:24 PM, knoton at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You can google the same same criteria {dominionism and christian
reconstructionism} as mentioned earlier, but specify death penalty
and see what they intend to do with that ~both by expanding the list of
crimes eligible, and the METHODs of execution to be employed.
Yup, it's clear that they're CRAZY (i.e., CERTIFIABLE). It's enuf to
make any good Christian disavow the term, 'till the insanity blows
over... Meanwhile, we (poor Amerikan schmucks) have to figger out
how to survive this assault -- more later. -K
___
Biofuel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel
Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable):
http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: [Biofuel] Our Godless Constitution
A breath of fresh air -- thanks! Having been an unabashed atheist for 90% of my long life, it's great to know that my hero Tom Jefferson wasn't even a real Deist (as I've always been taught), much less an X-tian like our rulers would have you believe. 'Course Tom has almost been drummed out of the Founding Father's Klub already, and our Revolution has been renamed the War of Independ- ence for decades now.. While I agree in substance with much of the article Brooke Allen composed, here is a rebuttal that my eldest sister (the one who is happy to stay in Oakland, where she lives) sent for my perusal: http://www.americanvision.org/articlearchive/02-09-05.asp Did George Bush Lie About America Being Founded on Christian Principles? By Gary DeMar The lesson the President has learned bestand certainly the one that has been the most useful to himis the axiom that if you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it. One of his Administrations current favorites is the whopper about America having been founded on Christian principles. Our nation was founded not on Christian principles but on Enlightenment ones. God only entered the picture as a very minor player, and Jesus Christ was conspicuously absent. Thus begins an article by Brooke Allen that was posted on the website of The Nation on February 3, 2005.1 Its obvious that Allen has not done a thorough study of American history as it relates to its founding documents. There is much more to Americas founding than the Constitution. America was not born in 1877 or even in 1776. The Constitution did not create America, America created the Constitution. More specifically, the states created the national government. The states (colonial governments) were a reality long before the Constitution was conceived, and there is no question about their being founded on Christian principles. Allens article is filled with so many half truths that it would take a book to deal with them adequately. For those of you who are new to the work of American Vision, there are numerous books on the subject that easily refute Allens assertions. * Americas Christian History: The Untold Story by Gary DeMar (1995). * Americas Christian Heritage by Gary DeMar (2003). * The United States: A Christian Nation by Supreme Court Justice David J. Brewer (1905). * The Christian Life and Character of the Civil Institutions of the United States Developed in the Official and Historical Annals of the Republic by B. F. Morris (1864). * Christianity and the American Commonwealth by Charles B. Galloway (1898).2 Here is Allens first assertion: Our Constitution makes no mention whatever of God. No mention whatever is pretty absolute. Given this bold claim, then how does she explain that the Constitution ends with DONE in the year of our Lord? Our Lord is a reference to Jesus Christ. This phrase appears just above the signature of George Washington, the same George Washington who took the presidential oath of office with his hand on an open Bible, the same George Washington who was called upon by Congress, after the drafting of the First Amendment, to proclaim a national day of prayer and thanksgiving. The resolution read as follows: That a joint committee of both Houses be directed to wait upon the President of the United States to request that he would recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging, with grateful hearts, the many signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a Constitution for their safety and happiness. It seems rather odd that the constitutional framers would thank God for allowing them to draft a Constitution that excluded Him from the Constitution and the civil affairs of government. Allen is correct that there were a number of Enlightenment principles floating around the colonies in the late eighteenth century as well as anti-clericalism. And there is no doubt that some of these principles made their way into the Constitution, although its hard to tell where when compared to the obvious Enlightenment principles inherent in the French Declaration of the Rights of Man (1789). But we should be reminded of Allens absolutist claim of a complete dissolution of religion from political considerations in the Constitution. She has set the evaluative standard. If she is correct, then why didnt the framers presage the French revolutionaries by starting the national calendar with a new Year One? Why did the Constitutional framers set aside Sundaythe Fourth Commandment of the Decalogueas a day of rest for the President (Art. 1, sec. 7) if it was their desire to secularize the nation as Allen suggests? The French revolutionaries reconstructed the seven-day biblical week and turned it into a ten-day metric week in hopes of ridding the nation of every vestige of
Re: [Biofuel] Our Godless Constitution
It is worse than that
See
http://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/7laws.html
The U.S. Congress officially recognized the Noahide
Laws in legislation which was passed by both houses.
Congress and the President of the United States,
George Bush, indicated in Public Law 102-14, 102nd
Congress, that the United States of America was
founded upon the Seven Universal Laws of Noah, and
that these Laws have been the bedrock of society from
the dawn of civilization. They also acknowledged that
the Seven Laws of Noah are the foundation upon which
civilization stands and that recent weakening of these
principles threaten the fabric of civilized society,
and that justified preoccupation in educating the
Citizens of the United States of America and future
generations is needed. For this purpose, this Public
Law designated March 26, 1991 as Education Day, U.S.A.
Noahide or Noachide law is actually Jewish although
some Christians apparently want to practice Judaism.
I'm afraid it will only get worse at least for a time.
Kirk
--- knoton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dave,
Bingo! That's my read on it. To be more specific,
they want THEIR
god's law (that god of Judaism and Christianity) to
be the law of the
land.
You can google the same same criteria {dominionism
and christian
reconstructionism} as mentioned earlier, but
specify death penalty
and see what they intend to do with that ~both by
expanding the list of
crimes eligible, and the METHODs of execution to be
employed. The
Constitution Restoration Act will PROHIBIT judicial
review of these
extremist goals. Not even the U.S. Supreme Court
will have
jurisdiction.
Try googling by specifying Pat Robertson to the
before mentioned
search criteria and see what you learn.
Presbyterian yields some
interesting background, too. Poke around enough and
you'll find several
people and orgs that you recognize.
Where the Constitution Restoration Act may be
specific to the United
States, you'll soon learn that they do not intend to
stop with just the
United States.
Demian
==
DHAJOGLO at smumn.edu
I found the text of this act and some things about
it. Am I right in
thinking that they are trying to make god's law
part of our
constitutional law?
-dave
Knoton,
Try googling the following:
Constitution Restoration Act
which was introduced in both houses of the U.S.
Congress one year ago
this month.
[1]kcom.gif
References
1. http://www.knoton.com/
___
Biofuel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel
Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable):
http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
__
Do you Yahoo!?
Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today!
http://my.yahoo.com
___
Biofuel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel
Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable):
http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
[Biofuel] Our Godless Constitution ~ Expanded
Gary DeMar is one of the founding crackpots of Christian Reconstructionism or Christian Dominionism. AmericanVision.org is one of the main sites for that movement. Here are some excerpts from some of that movement's articles, speeches, and books quoted in a report: Ê By Katherine Yurica September 14, 2004 Paul Weyrich's Secret Manual on How to Win Politically One document not mentioned in The Despoiling of America is the closeted manual that reveals how the right wing in American politics can get and keep power. It was created under the tutelage of Paul Weyrich, the man who founded the Free Congress Foundation. Conservative leaders consider Weyrich to be the most powerful man in American politics today. There is no question of his immense influence in conservative circles. He is also considered the founder of the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank made possible with funding from Joseph Coors and Richard Mellon-Scaife. Weyrich served as the Founding President from 1973-1974. To get a sense of how revolutionary the political fight for power in the U.S. is, we need to look at a few quotes from what has been dubbed, Paul Weyrich's Teaching Manual, the Free Congress Foundation's strategic plan on how to gain control of the government of the U.S. Written by Eric Heubeck, and titled, The Integration of Theory and Practice: A Program for the New Traditionalist Movement, the document is no longer available at the Free Congress Foundation's website for obvious reasons. But excerpts are published at the Yurica Report. The excerpts explain why the Dominionists are winning; the tactics they endorse are sheer Machiavellian: Ê I have paraphrased the four immoral principles of the Dominionist movement as the following: Ê 1)Ê Falsehoods are not only acceptable, they are a necessity. The corollary is: The masses will accept any lie if it is spoken with vigor, energy and dedication. 2)Ê It is necessary to be cast under the cloak of goodness whereas all opponents and their ideas must be cast as evil. 3)Ê Complete destruction of every opponent must be accomplished through unrelenting personal attacks. 4)Ê The creation of the appearance of overwhelming power and brutality is necessary in order to destroy the will of opponents to launch opposition of any kind. Ê According to Jeffry Sharlet, Hitler's Mein Kampf and William L. Shirer's The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich are studied as textbooks in a particular leadership training group he wrote about in Harper's magazine. Ê Eric Heubeck, the author of Mr. Weyrich's manual, does not mince words. Here is a sample of the most immoral political program ever adopted by a political movement in this country. Notice that the manual begins with the adoption of the fundamental fact of Machiavellianism: Ê This essay is based on the belief that the truth of an idea is not the primary reason for its acceptance. Far more important is the energy and dedication of the idea's promoters÷in other words, the individuals composing a social or political movement· Ê We must, as Mr. Weyrich has suggested, develop a network of parallel cultural institutions existing side-by-side with the dominant leftist cultural institutions. The building and promotion of these institutions will require the development of a movement that will not merely reform the existing post-war conservative movement, but will in fact be forced to supersede it÷if it is to succeed at all÷because it will pursue a very different strategy and be premised on a very different view of its role in society·. Ê There will be three main stages in the unfolding of this movement. The first stage will be devoted to the development of a highly motivated elite able to coordinate future activities. The second stage will be devoted to the development of institutions designed to make an impact on the wider elite and a relatively small minority of the masses. The third stage will involve changing the overall character of American popular culture·. Ê Our movement will be entirely destructive, and entirely constructive. We will not try to reform the existing institutions. We only intend to weaken them, and eventually destroy them. We will endeavor to knock our opponents off-balance and unsettle them at every opportunity. All of our constructive energies will be dedicated to the creation of our own institutions·. Ê We will maintain a constant barrage of criticism against the Left. We will attack the very legitimacy of the Left. We will not give them a moment's rest. We will endeavor to prove that the Left does not deserve to hold sway over the heart and mind of a single American.Ê We will offer constant reminders that there is an alternative, there is a better way. When people have had enough of the sickness and decay of today's American culture, they will be embraced by and welcomed into the New Traditionalist movement. The rejection of the existing society by the people will thus be accomplished by pushing them and
Re: [Biofuel] Our Godless Constitution
G'day Hakan; - Original Message - From: Hakan Falk [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2005 6:10 PM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Our Godless Constitution Luc, Sorry but my earlier reply was sent by itself and without following comment. You are right, but I think that many Christians also should learn respect or please keep their crap for them self. It is numerous times that I met representatives for the Christian religion, that in an abusive way promote their religion and demand respect for it, without them self having any respect for what others belive in. This I say, even because my denomination would officially and by birth be Christian protestant. I am sorry, but I fail to see in what way Ken did not show respect, he declared what be belive and did a general comment about religious variant in general. In mathematics X stand for unknown denomination And were we speaking of mathematics I would agree. and I think that in this case it was meant as such. You can believe that if you want to,however anyone who has been around confirmed atheists for any amount of time knows more than well that the X is a lot more than a generic symbol. It is meant the way it was used. Like Xmas is. There's some kind of denigration implicit in Xmas? It's just informal, short for Christmas. Hakan's meaning for X is the second one listed, a symbol for an unknown or variable factor; 6th is the symbol for Christ, Christian, from the form of the Greek letter khi, X, first letter of Khristos, Christ. I read X-tian in this case as a mix of #6 and #2. I didn't see any lack of respect in it. I think I'd not be alone in that, when someone says they're a Christian, I'd want to know what kind of Christian - an unknown, variable factor indeed. If I didn't know that, X-tian might be rather apt. He's religious, he says he's a Christian. Ken said: ... much less an X-tian like our rulers would have you believe. What those particular rulers would definitely have you believe is that that would be *their* version of a Christian. Many Christians here, and many others too, don't accept that that is a genuine Christian at all. I don't think you accept it either, do you? Rightwing so-called fundamentalist allegedly Christian dispensationalists who are utterly intolerant and seem to know nothing of God is love or the Sermon on the Mount but rather crave the destruction of all life and make it soon? Have these people even read the Gospels? There's not much evidence of it. I've called them an evil cult before this. Christians? I don't think so. I was brought up as Hakan was but I'm neither a Christian nor an atheist. I've had much experience of both, and though there've been many exceptions on both sides, in general I've seen more intolerance in Christians than in atheists. Whatever they might have believed, as far as the way they behaved was concerned, some of the atheists were better Christians than some of the Christians were. Christians even joke about their intolerance, like this one: A man was walking across a bridge one day, and he saw a man standing on the edge about to jump off. He said, I ran over to him and, said Stop; don't do it'. Why shouldn't I? the man said. I said, Well there is so much to live for. He said, Like what? I said, Well are you religious or atheist? He said, Religious. I said, Me too. Are you Christian or Buddhist? He said, Christian. I said, Me too! Are you Catholic or Protestant? He said, Protestant. I said, You are?!? Wow, I said, so am I! Are you Protestant Church of God, or Protestant Church of God the Lord? He said, Protestant Church of God. I said in my excitement, My brother, me too! Are you original Protestant Church of God, or Reformed Church of God? He said, Reformed Church of God. I could hardly contain myself. My brother, me too! Are you Reformed Protestant Church of God of 1879, or are you Reformed Protestant Church of God Reformed 1915? He said, Reformed Protestant Church of God Reformation of 1915. I shouted, Die heretic, and pushed him off the bridge. You can find that story in several different church sermons on the web, with quite a wide variety of lessons drawn from it, according to the type of church. I don't think the sacred cow case is a good comparison, or any comparison. That was a case of a disparaging colonial-era usage surviving in common parlance well past its use-by date, everybody accepted Pan's objection as valid, some valuable lessons came from it and we found a resolution (false sacred cow). I don't see that it has anythng in common with this. Regards Keith Why are you so upset by not being especially mentioned, was it the lack of attention to your specific case? I am sorry to disappoint you but I do not suffer from adolescent temper tantrumus (my word). Luc - pinning for attention.ha! Hakan X-tian or whatever
Re: [Biofuel] Our Godless Constitution
with your truly excellent discourse on the American heritage. I am a naturalized citizen, from Austria, and I studied things American in great quantity at our University in Vienna before I finally came over here in the hand luggage of a liberal school teacher from California. I became a US citizen as one of those who are willing to pick up the luggage and carry it, too. Funny, how this discourse on the authors of the constitution and their religious angles and beliefs just couldn't be happening in Europe (well Austria, anyway) because we know they were all practicing Catholics. But for Europeans of today to try to write ones' religious beliefs and Dogma into the constitution, no way, or to argue whether the constitution is following Christian principles, or for a presidential candidate to announce that he is or is not a practicing whatever, so who would listen to that? And who would vote for someone who puts so much emphasis on this issue? After a recent visit I vividly remember a bunch of kids sitting in the subway in Vienna discussing robotics projects and micro controllers and the girl, maybe 12 ys old saying that she hoped her parents wouldn't make her go to the Mosque again next weekend, speaking without any accent. I don't know my friends, it just drives home to me the need to set aside this self righteousness that plagues America and to concentrate on furthering the peace (now that sounds like a Christian principle, doesn't it) and to talk of some REAL ISSUES, and I believe this is exactly what we are doing most of the time. . So, I have no intention to move back to Europe, but I do want to make BD and I discussed with my son (14) your article on the constitution just to instill some healthy scepticism in the boy. Thank you immensly for your work, Gentlemen.! Regards, Stephan Ken Provost wrote: A breath of fresh air -- thanks! Having been an unabashed atheist for 90% of my long life, it's great to know that my hero Tom Jefferson wasn't even a real Deist (as I've always been taught), much less an X-tian like our rulers would have you believe. 'Course Tom has almost been drummed out of the Founding Father's Klub already, and our Revolution has been renamed the War of Independ- ence for decades now.. While I agree in substance with much of the article Brooke Allen composed, here is a rebuttal that my eldest sister (the one who is happy to stay in Oakland, where she lives) sent for my perusal: http://www.americanvision.org/articlearchive/02-09-05.asp Did George Bush Lie About America Being Founded on Christian Principles? By Gary DeMar The lesson the President has learned bestand certainly the one that has been the most useful to himis the axiom that if you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it. One of his Administrations current favorites is the whopper about America having been founded on Christian principles. Our nation was founded not on Christian principles but on Enlightenment ones. God only entered the picture as a very minor player, and Jesus Christ was conspicuously absent. Thus begins an article by Brooke Allen that was posted on the website of The Nation on February 3, 2005.1 Its obvious that Allen has not done a thorough study of American history as it relates to its founding documents. There is much more to Americas founding than the Constitution. America was not born in 1877 or even in 1776. The Constitution did not create America, America created the Constitution. More specifically, the states created the national government. The states (colonial governments) were a reality long before the Constitution was conceived, and there is no question about their being founded on Christian principles. Allens article is filled with so many half truths that it would take a book to deal with them adequately. For those of you who are new to the work of American Vision, there are numerous books on the subject that easily refute Allens assertions. * Americas Christian History: The Untold Story by Gary DeMar (1995). * Americas Christian Heritage by Gary DeMar (2003). * The United States: A Christian Nation by Supreme Court Justice David J. Brewer (1905). * The Christian Life and Character of the Civil Institutions of the United States Developed in the Official and Historical Annals of the Republic by B. F. Morris (1864). * Christianity and the American Commonwealth by Charles B. Galloway (1898).2 Here is Allens first assertion: Our Constitution makes no mention whatever of God. No mention whatever is pretty absolute. Given this bold claim, then how does she explain that the Constitution ends with DONE in the year of our Lord? Our Lord is a reference to Jesus Christ. This phrase appears just above the signature of George Washington, the same George Washington who took the presidential oath of office with his hand on an open Bible, the same George Washington who was called upon by
Re: [Biofuel] Our Godless Constitution
on 2/15/05 11:04 PM, Keith Addison at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think I'd not be alone in that, when someone says they're a Christian, I'd want to know what kind of Christian - an unknown, variable factor indeed. If I didn't know that, X-tian might be rather apt. He's religious, he says he's a Christian. Rightwing so-called fundamentalist allegedly Christian dispensationalists who are utterly intolerant and seem to know nothing of God is love or the Sermon on the Mount but rather crave the destruction of all life and make it soon? Have these people even read the Gospels? There's not much evidence of it. I've called them an evil cult before this. Christians? I don't think so. Here's an idea -- if you believe that Jesus is gonna come back on a cloud and pull all the true believers (you and your friends) out of their clothes, that God talks to Bush, that gays and socialists are gonna burn in hell for all eternity, etc, etc, you should continue to use the word Christian to describe yourself. If OTOH, you believe that your personal calling in life is to attempt to live according to the teachings of one Yeshua bin Pantera (or possibly Yeshua bin Yusef) as (hopefully) recorded in a particular body of writings called the Gospel of Jesus Christ, then you call yourself a Yeshuite. In other words, when a word gets co-opted by the opposition, you pick a different word, to avoid being confused with them. Easy. -K ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: [Biofuel] Our Godless Constitution
http://www.americanvision.org/articlearchive/02-09-05.asp Did George Bush Lie About America Being Founded on Christian Principles? By Gary DeMar Its interesting to note that this article makes the very foolish leap from god to jesus. God is referenced several times but jesus is only refernced 3 times and the author claims that the words lord and god really mean jesus. Further, the bulk of christian principles are also reflected in every other major (and minor) religon. So, while the country was founded by primarily christians, and such principles were present, I read the message authors like DeMar are sending as, We should emulate the Bible and as such persecute those who don't endorse it. Last I checked, my country (USA) was founded on principles that stood in defiance of just such persecutions. ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: [Biofuel] Our Godless Constitution
Its interesting to note that this article makes the very foolish leap from god to jesus. There are problems with the article my sister sent to me, as there were with Brooke Allen's essay, but from the perspective of a mainstream Christian, equating Jesus with God would not be among them. There seems to be a great concern in the United States that we have somehow departed from the deeply religious beliefs of our founding fathers. Brooke Adams was right to point out, however, that the religious views of early American leadership were profoundly influenced by Enlightenment ideals; much more so than many of us understand or care to admit. Many of these men were Masons, a perspective which has left an indelible mark on the symbols used to represent America. They were NOT Christians in the same sense that my evangelical brethren like to make them. Equating fundamentalist Christianity (as it is now practiced in the United States) with men like Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin and George Washington removes their clearly articulated thinking from the context in which it should be placed. This historical sublimation (I can't think of another way to express this, and I hope I'll not be misunderstood!) of modern ideas represents a dangerous trend: one that equates righteousness with assent and evil with dissent. From what I have read of early American political and religious thought, our leadership remained consistently opposed to the idea that the government should become involved in the realm of religion. The Constitution gives clear counsel on this matter. Further, the bulk of christian principles are also reflected in every other major (and minor) religon. So, while the country was founded by primarily christians, and such principles were present, I read the message authors like DeMar are sending as, We should emulate the Bible and as such persecute those who don't endorse it. The people who founded the United States were Christians, but let me pose some questions: Do national policies reflect Christian principles? (Indeed, have they ever?) Do our courts interpret law in light of Jesus' gospel teaching? Does our leadership espouse the servitude and humility of Jesus Christ? Silly questions? Indeed! I can argue, from a completely secular perspective, that my nation does not, has not, and has NEVER espoused Christianity. Last I checked, my country (USA) was founded on principles that stood in defiance of just such persecutions. Can I say Amen to that? robert luis rabello The Edge of Justice Adventure for Your Mind http://www.authorhouse.com/BookStore/ItemDetail.aspx?bookid=9782 Ranger Supercharger Project Page http://www.members.shaw.ca/rabello/ ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: [Biofuel] Our Godless Constitution
Did George Bush Lie About America Being Founded on Christian Principles? By Gary DeMar Its interesting to note that this article makes the very foolish leap from god to jesus. God is referenced several times but jesus is only refernced 3 times and the author claims that the words lord and god really mean jesus. Further, the bulk of christian principles are also reflected in every other major (and minor) religon. So, while the country was founded by primarily christians, and such principles were present, I read the message authors like DeMar are sending as, We should emulate the Bible and as such persecute those who don't endorse it. Last I checked, my country (USA) was founded on principles that stood in defiance of just such persecutions. Aarghhh! I can't stand it! I just got to do this... From previous: I don't think we can casually dismiss these folks as a minor fruitcake fringe anymore. Only now??? Let's go back 23.5 years, to... Frank Zappa, September 1981 Dumb All Over http://globalia.net/donlope/fz/lyrics/You_Are_What_You_Is.html#Dumb Whoever we are Wherever we're from We shoulda noticed by now Our behavior is dumb And if our chances Expect to improve It's gonna take a lot more Than tryin' to remove The other race Or the other whatever From the face Of the planet altogether They call it THE EARTH Which is a dumb kinda name But they named it right 'Cause we behave the same . . . We are dumb all over Dumb all over, Yes we are Dumb all over, Near 'n far Dumb all over, Black 'n white People, we is not wrapped tight Nurds on the left Nurds on the right Religious fanatics On the air every night Sayin' the Bible Tells the story 'N makes the details Sound real gory 'Bout what to do If the geeks over there Don't believe in the book We got over here You can't run a race Without no feet 'N pretty soon There won't be no street For dummies to jog on Or doggies to dog on Religious fanatics Can make it be all gone (I mean it won't blow up 'N disappear It'll just look ugly For a thousand years . . . ) You can't run a country By a book of religion Not by a heap Or a lump or a smidgeon Of foolish rules Of ancient date Designed to make You all feel great While you fold, spindle And mutilate Those unbelievers From a neighboring state TO ARMS! TO ARMS! Hooray! That's great Two legs ain't bad Unless there's a crate They ship the parts To mama in For souvenirs: two ears (Get Down!) Not his, not hers (but what the hey?) The Good Book says: It gotta be that way! But their book says: REVENGE THE CRUSADES . . . With whips 'n chains 'N hand grenades . . . TWO ARMS? TWO ARMS? Have another and another Our God says: There ain't no other! Our God says It's all okay! Our God says This is the way! It says in the book: Burn 'n destroy . . . 'N repent, 'n redeem 'N revenge, 'n deploy 'N rumble thee forth To the land of the unbelieving scum on the other side 'Cause they don't go for what's in the book 'N that makes 'em BAD So verily we must choppeth them up And stompeth them down Or rent a nice French bomb To poof them out of existance While leaving their real estate just where we need it To use again For temples in which to praise OUR GOD (Cause he can really take care of business!) And when his humble TV servant With humble white hair And humble glasses And a nice brown suit And maybe a blonde wife who takes phone calls Tells us our God says It's okay to do this stuff Then we gotta do it, 'Cause if we don't do it, We ain't gwine up to hebbin! (Depending on which book you're using at the time . . . Can't use theirs . . . it don't work . . . it's all lies . . . Gotta use mine . . . ) Ain't that right? That's what they say Every night . . . Every day . . . Hey, we can't really be dumb If we're just following God's Orders Hey, Let's get serious . . . God knows what he's doin' . . . He wrote this book here An' the book says: He made us all to be just like Him, so . . . If we're dumb . . . Then God is dumb . . . (An' maybe even a little ugly on the side) DUMB ALL OVER A LITTLE UGLY ON THE SIDE More... http://www.getlyrical.com/lyrics.html?Type=SongId=44016 Lyrics for ZAPPA FRANK THE MEEK SHALL INHERIT NOTHING http://www.getlyrical.com/lyrics.html?Type=SongId=44019 Lyrics for ZAPPA FRANK HEAVENLY BANK ACCOUNT ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: [Biofuel] Our Godless Constitution
Keith et. al., When you quote Frank Zappa from the first Frank Zappa album I ever purchased and listened to from beginning to end (rinse, repeat,) it reminds me that when folks start publically espouse their faith, keep one hand on your wallet and the other on your wife (or husband.) They want something from you and they will do anything to get it. When they start bringing it into politics they are more determined to take it rather than ask. Become a member of the flock or you will not get your government funds for insert program here. Religion and politics bring out the absolute worst in people!! Perhaps that is why it should be avoided by people as a general rule. (And no, I am not an Athiest.) fred On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 02:42:40 +0900, Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.americanvision.org/articlearchive/02-09-05.asp Did George Bush Lie About America Being Founded on Christian Principles? By Gary DeMar Its interesting to note that this article makes the very foolish leap from god to jesus. God is referenced several times but jesus is only refernced 3 times and the author claims that the words lord and god really mean jesus. Further, the bulk of christian principles are also reflected in every other major (and minor) religon. So, while the country was founded by primarily christians, and such principles were present, I read the message authors like DeMar are sending as, We should emulate the Bible and as such persecute those who don't endorse it. Last I checked, my country (USA) was founded on principles that stood in defiance of just such persecutions. Aarghhh! I can't stand it! I just got to do this... From previous: I don't think we can casually dismiss these folks as a minor fruitcake fringe anymore. Only now??? Let's go back 23.5 years, to... Frank Zappa, September 1981 Dumb All Over http://globalia.net/donlope/fz/lyrics/You_Are_What_You_Is.html#Dumb Whoever we are Wherever we're from We shoulda noticed by now Our behavior is dumb And if our chances Expect to improve It's gonna take a lot more Than tryin' to remove The other race Or the other whatever From the face Of the planet altogether They call it THE EARTH Which is a dumb kinda name But they named it right 'Cause we behave the same . . . We are dumb all over Dumb all over, Yes we are Dumb all over, Near 'n far Dumb all over, Black 'n white People, we is not wrapped tight Nurds on the left Nurds on the right Religious fanatics On the air every night Sayin' the Bible Tells the story 'N makes the details Sound real gory 'Bout what to do If the geeks over there Don't believe in the book We got over here You can't run a race Without no feet 'N pretty soon There won't be no street For dummies to jog on Or doggies to dog on Religious fanatics Can make it be all gone (I mean it won't blow up 'N disappear It'll just look ugly For a thousand years . . . ) You can't run a country By a book of religion Not by a heap Or a lump or a smidgeon Of foolish rules Of ancient date Designed to make You all feel great While you fold, spindle And mutilate Those unbelievers From a neighboring state TO ARMS! TO ARMS! Hooray! That's great Two legs ain't bad Unless there's a crate They ship the parts To mama in For souvenirs: two ears (Get Down!) Not his, not hers (but what the hey?) The Good Book says: It gotta be that way! But their book says: REVENGE THE CRUSADES . . . With whips 'n chains 'N hand grenades . . . TWO ARMS? TWO ARMS? Have another and another Our God says: There ain't no other! Our God says It's all okay! Our God says This is the way! It says in the book: Burn 'n destroy . . . 'N repent, 'n redeem 'N revenge, 'n deploy 'N rumble thee forth To the land of the unbelieving scum on the other side 'Cause they don't go for what's in the book 'N that makes 'em BAD So verily we must choppeth them up And stompeth them down Or rent a nice French bomb To poof them out of existance While leaving their real estate just where we need it To use again For temples in which to praise OUR GOD (Cause he can really take care of business!) And when his humble TV servant With humble white hair And humble glasses And a nice brown suit And maybe a blonde wife who takes phone calls Tells us our God says It's okay to do this stuff Then we gotta do it, 'Cause if we don't do it, We ain't gwine up to hebbin! (Depending on which book you're using at the time . . . Can't use theirs . . . it don't work . . . it's all lies . . . Gotta use mine . . . ) Ain't that right? That's what they say Every night . . . Every day . . . Hey, we can't really be dumb If we're just following God's Orders Hey, Let's get serious . . . God knows what he's doin' . . . He wrote this book here An' the book says: He made us all to be just like Him, so . . . If we're dumb . . . Then God is
Re: [Biofuel] Our Godless Constitution
Hi Stephan, Gruss Gott I concur. I can also relate to what you are saying. Christian symbols in government (like in Bavaria) are everywhere. I happened to be in Vienna on Ash Wednesday a few years ago. I counted the percentage of people who have been to mass that day (easy to do on Ash Wednesday). It was more than 1/3. Despite all that, governments appear to be more secular than in the United States. It seems as though generations of former Europeans growing up in the US have forgotten the atrocities done in the name of religion. ** Strictly my opinion ** Religion is an exercise in faith. Everyone has an interpretation but there is no evidence that everyone can use (or see) that causes them to agree on a particular set of beliefs. So, in my opinion, religion can be the motivation to both help and hurt people, depending on one's interpretation. Based on at least one interpretation, even the bible shows both sides of the same coin. Teach a man to fish and he can become healthy enough to stone his wife. Mike stephan torak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dear fellow enthusiasts, please forgive me, again, for interfering with your truly excellent discourse on the American heritage. I am a naturalized citizen, from Austria, and I studied things American in great quantity at our University in Vienna before I finally came over here in the hand luggage of a liberal school teacher from California. I became a US citizen as one of those who are willing to pick up the luggage and carry it, too. Funny, how this discourse on the authors of the constitution and their religious angles and beliefs just couldn't be happening in Europe (well Austria, anyway) because we know they were all practicing Catholics. But for Europeans of today to try to write ones' religious beliefs and Dogma into the constitution, no way, or to argue whether the constitution is following Christian principles, or for a presidential candidate to announce that he is or is not a practicing whatever, so who would listen to that? And who would vote for someone who puts so much emphasis on this issue? After a recent visit I vividly remember a bunch of kids sitting in the subway in Vienna discussing robotics projects and micro controllers and the girl, maybe 12 ys old saying that she hoped her parents wouldn't make her go to the Mosque again next weekend, speaking without any accent. I don't know my friends, it just drives home to me the need to set aside this self righteousness that plagues America and to concentrate on furthering the peace (now that sounds like a Christian principle, doesn't it) and to talk of some REAL ISSUES, and I believe this is exactly what we are doing most of the time. . So, I have no intention to move back to Europe, but I do want to make BD and I discussed with my son (14) your article on the constitution just to instill some healthy scepticism in the boy. Thank you immensly for your work, Gentlemen.! Regards, Stephan Ken Provost wrote: A breath of fresh air -- thanks! Having been an unabashed atheist for 90% of my long life, it's great to know that my hero Tom Jefferson wasn't even a real Deist (as I've always been taught), much less an X-tian like our rulers would have you believe. 'Course Tom has almost been drummed out of the Founding Father's Klub already, and our Revolution has been renamed the War of Independ- ence for decades now.. While I agree in substance with much of the article Brooke Allen composed, here is a rebuttal that my eldest sister (the one who is happy to stay in Oakland, where she lives) sent for my perusal: http://www.americanvision.org/articlearchive/02-09-05.asp Did George Bush Lie About America Being Founded on Christian Principles? By Gary DeMar The lesson the President has learned bestand certainly the one that has been the most useful to himis the axiom that if you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it. One of his Administrations current favorites is the whopper about America having been founded on Christian principles. Our nation was founded not on Christian principles but on Enlightenment ones. God only entered the picture as a very minor player, and Jesus Christ was conspicuously absent. Thus begins an article by Brooke Allen that was posted on the website of The Nation on February 3, 2005.1 Its obvious that Allen has not done a thorough study of American history as it relates to its founding documents. There is much more to Americas founding than the Constitution. America was not born in 1877 or even in 1776. The Constitution did not create America, America created the Constitution. More specifically, the states created the national government. The states (colonial governments) were a reality long before the Constitution was conceived, and there is no question about their being founded on Christian principles. Allens article is filled with so many half truths that it
Re: [Biofuel] Our Godless Constitution
Has anyone else ever seen a copy of the Six Nations Constitution? It's hard to imagine that any such document could exist. The agreement was formulated sometime between 1200 and 1500, long before the Six Nations had a way to write such an agreement down. Any document prepared in modern times would be analogous to a modern copy of the works of Homer; i.e. the product of a long oral tradition separating the author from the present age. Walt ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: [Biofuel] Our Godless Constitution
author would prefer. First, if the author is going to give references, how about not giving an entire littany of books. And notice the source of the littany no less. No bias or bent there, eh? Generally page and paragraph are sufficient. Leave it to those who would like to further indoctrinate others in their peculiar perceptions to force them to weed through multiple volumes of mental briars, brambles, doctrine and manipulations to find the frisbee. Second, the author slightly oversteps reality in the last half of the very first paragraph, when he states that there is no question about [the states] being founded on Christian principles. Uh...did the author just conveniently forget that most of the colonies (they weren't really calling them states until the mid-1770's) were founded on principles of economic investment and return? Do you think that he could spell Massachusetts Bay Company, or the numerous other ongoing concerns? Surely he's not saying that pursuit of monetary gain is a Christian principle. Or is he? That would be slightly contradictory to the vignette of the money changers in the temple, now wouldn't it? And with that minor oversight he has the gall to accuse the author of the article he's attempting to discredit of not [having] done a thorough study of American history as it relates to its founding documents? It would appear that he's the one that hasn't researched too many founding charters. Third, the author interprets Year of our Lord according to his own fancy. The term lord is rather all encompassing in the bible, not to mention general societal references, whether contemporary or historical, social or spiritual. To attribute the term to but one leaf of the triune clover is a bit deceptive. While it may work for the author, it would be contextually inaccurate with great frequency. And then DeMar chooses to largely forego what was actually written by Brooke Allen, not to mention the very words of the founders whom he's attempting to enlist in his convoluted attempt at persuasion. So what of this? The French revolutionaries reconstructed the seven-day biblical week and turned it into a ten-day metric week in hopes of ridding the nation of every vestige of Christianity. Nothing like this was done in America. Might the refrain on the part of the founding fathers have had something to do with lunar rhythms (seven days) instead of lunacy (abandonment of natural cycles)? Or might it have something to do with a founding principle of inclusion, rather than exclusion? DeMar seems to think, or at least wish others to think, that anything which rubs against a horse must necessarily be a horse. Then, wonder of wonders, DeMar further jumps the tracks with the body of the paragraph that starts, The U. S. Constitutions lack of a Christian designation had little to do with a radical secular agenda. Rather than addressing the individual beliefs of the founding fathers as Allen did, he not only creates a strawman on which to focus, but completely sidesteps that part of the Allen's thesis and brings in 'evidence to the contrary' which has essentially nothing to do with their personal holdings. And the reader is expected to continue reading in this thick haze of intentionally layed smoke and obfuscation? Apparently Mr. DeMar is so accustomed to preaching to the choir that he must think that everyone else is simply going to nod their heads accordingly rather than exercising a prudent measure of discernment. Thank you no. Humans aren't sheep and this nation was founded upon on a good bit more than one way principles. Todd Swearingen - Original Message - From: robert luis rabello [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2005 10:40 PM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Our Godless Constitution Ken Provost wrote: A breath of fresh air -- thanks! Having been an unabashed atheist for 90% of my long life, it's great to know that my hero Tom Jefferson wasn't even a real Deist (as I've always been taught), much less an X-tian like our rulers would have you believe. 'Course Tom has almost been drummed out of the Founding Father's Klub already, and our Revolution has been renamed the War of Independ- ence for decades now.. While I agree in substance with much of the article Brooke Allen composed, here is a rebuttal that my eldest sister (the one who is happy to stay in Oakland, where she lives) sent for my perusal: http://www.americanvision.org/articlearchive/02-09-05.asp Did George Bush Lie About America Being Founded on Christian Principles? By Gary DeMar The lesson the President has learned bestand certainly the one that has been the most useful to himis the axiom that if you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it. One of his Administrations current favorites is the whopper about America having been founded on Christian principles. Our nation was founded not on Christian principles but on Enlightenment ones. God only entered the picture
Re: [Biofuel] Our Godless Constitution
Of course it wasn't then a written document but an oral tradition and a model of a working democracy from which the founding fathers drew more than heavily Jess From: Walt Patrick [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 10:41:04 -0800 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Our Godless Constitution At 10:57 AM 2/15/2005, you wrote: Has anyone else ever seen a copy of the Six Nations Constitution? It's hard to imagine that any such document could exist. The agreement was formulated sometime between 1200 and 1500, long before the Six Nations had a way to write such an agreement down. Any document prepared in modern times would be analogous to a modern copy of the works of Homer; i.e. the product of a long oral tradition separating the author from the present age. Walt ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
[Biofuel] Our Godless Constitution
Our Godless Constitution by BROOKE ALLEN [from the February 21, 2005 issue] http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20050221s=allen It is hard to believe that George Bush has ever read the works of George Orwell, but he seems, somehow, to have grasped a few Orwellian precepts. The lesson the President has learned best--and certainly the one that has been the most useful to him--is the axiom that if you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it. One of his Administration's current favorites is the whopper about America having been founded on Christian principles. Our nation was founded not on Christian principles but on Enlightenment ones. God only entered the picture as a very minor player, and Jesus Christ was conspicuously absent. Our Constitution makes no mention whatever of God. The omission was too obvious to have been anything but deliberate, in spite of Alexander Hamilton's flippant responses when asked about it: According to one account, he said that the new nation was not in need of foreign aid; according to another, he simply said we forgot. But as Hamilton's biographer Ron Chernow points out, Hamilton never forgot anything important. In the eighty-five essays that make up The Federalist, God is mentioned only twice (both times by Madison, who uses the word, as Gore Vidal has remarked, in the only Heaven knows sense). In the Declaration of Independence, He gets two brief nods: a reference to the Laws of Nature and Nature's God, and the famous line about men being endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights. More blatant official references to a deity date from long after the founding period: In God We Trust did not appear on our coinage until the Civil War, and under God was introduced into the Pledge of Allegiance during the McCarthy hysteria in 1954 [see Elisabeth Sifton, The Battle Over the Pledge, April 5, 2004]. In 1797 our government concluded a Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli, or Barbary, now known simply as the Treaty of Tripoli. Article 11 of the treaty contains these words: As the Government of the United States...is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion--as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity of Musselmen--and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries. This document was endorsed by Secretary of State Timothy Pickering and President John Adams. It was then sent to the Senate for ratification; the vote was unanimous. It is worth pointing out that although this was the 339th time a recorded vote had been required by the Senate, it was only the third unanimous vote in the Senate's history. There is no record of debate or dissent. The text of the treaty was printed in full in the Philadelphia Gazette and in two New York papers, but there were no screams of outrage, as one might expect today. The Founding Fathers were not religious men, and they fought hard to erect, in Thomas Jefferson's words, a wall of separation between church and state. John Adams opined that if they were not restrained by legal measures, Puritans--the fundamentalists of their day--would whip and crop, and pillory and roast. The historical epoch had afforded these men ample opportunity to observe the corruption to which established priesthoods were liable, as well as the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, as Jefferson wrote, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavoring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world and through all time. If we define a Christian as a person who believes in the divinity of Jesus Christ, then it is safe to say that some of the key Founding Fathers were not Christians at all. Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and Tom Paine were deists--that is, they believed in one Supreme Being but rejected revelation and all the supernatural elements of the Christian Church; the word of the Creator, they believed, could best be read in Nature. John Adams was a professed liberal Unitarian, but he, too, in his private correspondence seems more deist than Christian. George Washington and James Madison also leaned toward deism, although neither took much interest in religious matters. Madison believed that religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprize. He spoke of the almost fifteen centuries during which Christianity had been on trial: What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in
Re: [Biofuel] Our Godless Constitution
on 2/14/05 6:38 PM, knoton at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Our Godless Constitution by BROOKE ALLEN [from the February 21, 2005 issue] http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20050221s=allen A breath of fresh air -- thanks! Having been an unabashed atheist for 90% of my long life, it's great to know that my hero Tom Jefferson wasn't even a real Deist (as I've always been taught), much less an X-tian like our rulers would have you believe. 'Course Tom has almost been drummed out of the Founding Father's Klub already, and our Revolution has been renamed the War of Independ- ence for decades now.. -K ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: [Biofuel] Our Godless Constitution
Our Godless Constitution by BROOKE ALLEN [from the February 21, 2005 issue] - Original Message - From: knoton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, February 14, 2005 9:38 PM Subject: [Biofuel] Our Godless Constitution Our Godless Constitution by BROOKE ALLEN [from the February 21, 2005 issue] http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20050221s=allen It is hard to believe that George Bush has ever read the works of George Orwell, but he seems, somehow, to have grasped a few Orwellian precepts. The lesson the President has learned best--and certainly the one that has been the most useful to him--is the axiom that if you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it. One of his Administration's current favorites is the whopper about America having been founded on Christian principles. Our nation was founded not on Christian principles but on Enlightenment ones. God only entered the picture as a very minor player, and Jesus Christ was conspicuously absent. Our Constitution makes no mention whatever of God. The omission was too obvious to have been anything but deliberate, in spite of Alexander Hamilton's flippant responses when asked about it: According to one account, he said that the new nation was not in need of foreign aid; according to another, he simply said we forgot. But as Hamilton's biographer Ron Chernow points out, Hamilton never forgot anything important. In the eighty-five essays that make up The Federalist, God is mentioned only twice (both times by Madison, who uses the word, as Gore Vidal has remarked, in the only Heaven knows sense). In the Declaration of Independence, He gets two brief nods: a reference to the Laws of Nature and Nature's God, and the famous line about men being endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights. More blatant official references to a deity date from long after the founding period: In God We Trust did not appear on our coinage until the Civil War, and under God was introduced into the Pledge of Allegiance during the McCarthy hysteria in 1954 [see Elisabeth Sifton, The Battle Over the Pledge, April 5, 2004]. In 1797 our government concluded a Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli, or Barbary, now known simply as the Treaty of Tripoli. Article 11 of the treaty contains these words: As the Government of the United States...is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion--as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity of Musselmen--and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries. This document was endorsed by Secretary of State Timothy Pickering and President John Adams. It was then sent to the Senate for ratification; the vote was unanimous. It is worth pointing out that although this was the 339th time a recorded vote had been required by the Senate, it was only the third unanimous vote in the Senate's history. There is no record of debate or dissent. The text of the treaty was printed in full in the Philadelphia Gazette and in two New York papers, but there were no screams of outrage, as one might expect today. The Founding Fathers were not religious men, and they fought hard to erect, in Thomas Jefferson's words, a wall of separation between church and state. John Adams opined that if they were not restrained by legal measures, Puritans--the fundamentalists of their day--would whip and crop, and pillory and roast. The historical epoch had afforded these men ample opportunity to observe the corruption to which established priesthoods were liable, as well as the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, as Jefferson wrote, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavoring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world and through all time. If we define a Christian as a person who believes in the divinity of Jesus Christ, then it is safe to say that some of the key Founding Fathers were not Christians at all. Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and Tom Paine were deists--that is, they believed in one Supreme Being but rejected revelation and all the supernatural elements of the Christian Church; the word of the Creator, they believed, could best be read in Nature. John Adams was a professed liberal Unitarian, but he, too, in his private correspondence seems more deist than Christian. George Washington and James Madison also leaned toward deism, although neither took much interest in religious matters. Madison believed
Re: [Biofuel] Our Godless Constitution
On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 18:38:52 -0800 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (knoton) wrote: Our Godless Constitution by BROOKE ALLEN [from the February 21, 2005 issue] The Founding Fathers were not religious men, This bit is absolutely false. What our founding fathers were were religious men who knew the importance of not letting sectarian predilicition intefere with the rights they were espousing and the government they were establishing. They were giving the people the right to choose their religion or to choose to not have any religion, a purely private decision. Unfortunately the modern state has instituted radical and mindless patriotism as the state religion. A sad situation. Happy Happy, Gustl ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: [Biofuel] Our Godless Constitution
I don't think you'd find it as false a claim as you might think if you apply the generally accepted, contemporary, rough translation of religion and religious to the matter. Even if you strictly applied the definitions found in Websters, you would quickly see that they don't stick very well to those who don't adhere to the extremes of worship and systemized ritual. Their beliefs were by-and-large all encompassing, incorporating fundamental tenants found in almost all religions, not specifically the tenants and doctrines of any one religion. When you combine their almost unanimous acknowledgements of diety with their discord for organized religion, its constructs and decripitudes, you would probably come up with a more precise akin to 'The founding fathers were deists, not men of religion,' which the author does go to great lengths to verify. All in all his statement is to a very large degree correct. And, as you may have noticed, it certainly gets the dander up for some, eh? :-) Quite the nicely written and well thought out piece of work - far more accurate than the habitual abuse of historic fact for the purpose of idealogical gain being rendered by the self-appointed elitists of the day. Todd Swearingen - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2005 10:17 AM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Our Godless Constitution On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 18:38:52 -0800 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (knoton) wrote: Our Godless Constitution by BROOKE ALLEN [from the February 21, 2005 issue] The Founding Fathers were not religious men, This bit is absolutely false. What our founding fathers were were religious men who knew the importance of not letting sectarian predilicition intefere with the rights they were espousing and the government they were establishing. They were giving the people the right to choose their religion or to choose to not have any religion, a purely private decision. Unfortunately the modern state has instituted radical and mindless patriotism as the state religion. A sad situation. Happy Happy, Gustl ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.8.7 - Release Date: 2/10/2005 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.8.7 - Release Date: 2/10/2005 ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: [Biofuel] Our Godless Constitution
Hello Gustl, I agree with this, This bit is absolutely false. The Founding Fathers were not religious men, However, I am sure that you know a hook when you see one. Reading through this article, one becomes aware that, while it meanders through more distant, and sometimes obscure historic details, it's focal point, and yours, are basically the same, the absolute necessity for the separation of church and state. Personally, I see another separation even higher on the nation's priority list at the present time, that of Bush and state. AntiFossil Mike Krafka USA - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2005 9:17 AM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Our Godless Constitution On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 18:38:52 -0800 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (knoton) wrote: Our Godless Constitution by BROOKE ALLEN [from the February 21, 2005 issue] The Founding Fathers were not religious men, This bit is absolutely false. What our founding fathers were were religious men who knew the importance of not letting sectarian predilicition intefere with the rights they were espousing and the government they were establishing. They were giving the people the right to choose their religion or to choose to not have any religion, a purely private decision. Unfortunately the modern state has instituted radical and mindless patriotism as the state religion. A sad situation. Happy Happy, Gustl ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
[Biofuel] Our Godless Constitution
Try googling the following: Constitution Restoration Act which was introduced in both houses of the U.S. Congress one year ago this month. Dominionism Christian Reconstructionism It all sounds way too incredible, but the Constitution Restoration Act of 2004 caught my attention. I don't think we can casually dismiss these folks as a minor fruitcake fringe anymore. Demian Content-Description: signature Content-Disposition: Inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII [1]kcom.gif References 1. http://www.knoton.com/ ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: [Biofuel] Our Godless Constitution
Has anyone else ever seen a copy of the Six Nations Constitution? There weren't many other democracies at hand in the mid 1700's, and apparently this quite venerable Native document was very useful. It gives a context to the Godless document. Jesse From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (knoton) Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 18:38:52 -0800 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [Biofuel] Our Godless Constitution Our Godless Constitution by BROOKE ALLEN [from the February 21, 2005 issue] http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20050221s=allen It is hard to believe that George Bush has ever read the works of George Orwell, but he seems, somehow, to have grasped a few Orwellian precepts. The lesson the President has learned best--and certainly the one that has been the most useful to him--is the axiom that if you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it. One of his Administration's current favorites is the whopper about America having been founded on Christian principles. Our nation was founded not on Christian principles but on Enlightenment ones. God only entered the picture as a very minor player, and Jesus Christ was conspicuously absent. Our Constitution makes no mention whatever of God. The omission was too obvious to have been anything but deliberate, in spite of Alexander Hamilton's flippant responses when asked about it: According to one account, he said that the new nation was not in need of foreign aid; according to another, he simply said we forgot. But as Hamilton's biographer Ron Chernow points out, Hamilton never forgot anything important. In the eighty-five essays that make up The Federalist, God is mentioned only twice (both times by Madison, who uses the word, as Gore Vidal has remarked, in the only Heaven knows sense). In the Declaration of Independence, He gets two brief nods: a reference to the Laws of Nature and Nature's God, and the famous line about men being endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights. More blatant official references to a deity date from long after the founding period: In God We Trust did not appear on our coinage until the Civil War, and under God was introduced into the Pledge of Allegiance during the McCarthy hysteria in 1954 [see Elisabeth Sifton, The Battle Over the Pledge, April 5, 2004]. In 1797 our government concluded a Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli, or Barbary, now known simply as the Treaty of Tripoli. Article 11 of the treaty contains these words: As the Government of the United States...is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion--as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity of Musselmen--and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries. This document was endorsed by Secretary of State Timothy Pickering and President John Adams. It was then sent to the Senate for ratification; the vote was unanimous. It is worth pointing out that although this was the 339th time a recorded vote had been required by the Senate, it was only the third unanimous vote in the Senate's history. There is no record of debate or dissent. The text of the treaty was printed in full in the Philadelphia Gazette and in two New York papers, but there were no screams of outrage, as one might expect today. The Founding Fathers were not religious men, and they fought hard to erect, in Thomas Jefferson's words, a wall of separation between church and state. John Adams opined that if they were not restrained by legal measures, Puritans--the fundamentalists of their day--would whip and crop, and pillory and roast. The historical epoch had afforded these men ample opportunity to observe the corruption to which established priesthoods were liable, as well as the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, as Jefferson wrote, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavoring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world and through all time. If we define a Christian as a person who believes in the divinity of Jesus Christ, then it is safe to say that some of the key Founding Fathers were not Christians at all. Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and Tom Paine were deists--that is, they believed in one Supreme Being but rejected revelation and all the supernatural elements of the Christian Church; the word of the Creator, they believed, could best be read in Nature. John Adams
re: [Biofuel] Our Godless Constitution
Knoton, Try googling the following: Constitution Restoration Act which was introduced in both houses of the U.S. Congress one year ago this month. I found the text of this act and some things about it. Am I right in thinking that they are trying to make god's law part of our constitutional law? -dave ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: [Biofuel] Our Godless Constitution
Nice of you to denigrate CHRISTians like that . We are not X anything thank you very much. Either learn some respect or please keep your crap to yourself. You don't have to agree, but you don't get to denigrate either. Someone had a whack at sacred cows a while back, you should have learned from that. Luc - Original Message - From: Ken Provost [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, February 14, 2005 11:34 PM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Our Godless Constitution on 2/14/05 6:38 PM, knoton at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Our Godless Constitution by BROOKE ALLEN [from the February 21, 2005 issue] http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20050221s=allen A breath of fresh air -- thanks! Having been an unabashed atheist for 90% of my long life, it's great to know that my hero Tom Jefferson wasn't even a real Deist (as I've always been taught), much less an X-tian like our rulers would have you believe. 'Course Tom has almost been drummed out of the Founding Father's Klub already, and our Revolution has been renamed the War of Independ- ence for decades now.. -K ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: [Biofuel] Our Godless Constitution
G'day Ken; Nice of you to denigrate CHRISTians like that . We are not X anything thank you very much. Either learn some respect or please keep your crap to yourself. You don't have to agree, but you don't get to denigrate either. Someone had a whack at sacred cows a while back, you should have learned from that. Luc - Original Message - From: Ken Provost [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, February 14, 2005 11:34 PM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Our Godless Constitution on 2/14/05 6:38 PM, knoton at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Our Godless Constitution by BROOKE ALLEN [from the February 21, 2005 issue] http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20050221s=allen A breath of fresh air -- thanks! Having been an unabashed atheist for 90% of my long life, it's great to know that my hero Tom Jefferson wasn't even a real Deist (as I've always been taught), much less an X-tian like our rulers would have you believe. 'Course Tom has almost been drummed out of the Founding Father's Klub already, and our Revolution has been renamed the War of Independ- ence for decades now.. -K ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: [Biofuel] Our Godless Constitution
Luc, Sorry but my earlier reply was sent by itself and without following comment. You are right, but I think that many Christians also should learn respect or please keep their crap for them self. It is numerous times that I met representatives for the Christian religion, that in an abusive way promote their religion and demand respect for it, without them self having any respect for what others belive in. This I say, even because my denomination would officially and by birth be Christian protestant. I am sorry, but I fail to see in what way Ken did not show respect, he declared what be belive and did a general comment about religious variant in general. In mathematics X stand for unknown denomination and I think that in this case it was meant as such. Why are you so upset by not being especially mentioned, was it the lack of attention to your specific case? Hakan X-tian or whatever. At 11:07 PM 2/15/2005, you wrote: G'day Ken; Nice of you to denigrate CHRISTians like that . We are not X anything thank you very much. Either learn some respect or please keep your crap to yourself. You don't have to agree, but you don't get to denigrate either. Someone had a whack at sacred cows a while back, you should have learned from that. Luc - Original Message - From: Ken Provost [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, February 14, 2005 11:34 PM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Our Godless Constitution on 2/14/05 6:38 PM, knoton at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Our Godless Constitution by BROOKE ALLEN [from the February 21, 2005 issue] http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20050221s=allen A breath of fresh air -- thanks! Having been an unabashed atheist for 90% of my long life, it's great to know that my hero Tom Jefferson wasn't even a real Deist (as I've always been taught), much less an X-tian like our rulers would have you believe. 'Course Tom has almost been drummed out of the Founding Father's Klub already, and our Revolution has been renamed the War of Independ- ence for decades now.. -K ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: [Biofuel] Our Godless Constitution
I find your response rather amusing but all too much a double standard.. First of all, if the archives are any indicator, you spend a great deal of time bashing your favorite sects du jour. Second of all, Ken Provost didn't bash christians. He did make note of the type of christians who choose to misappropriate the power of public office in pursuit of enforcing their theological ideology upon others. From this vantage point it is an apology owed by you for jumping to sweeping conclusions. How you came to them one can only hazard to guess, probably with a fair degree of accuracy. You expect or demand respect but don't exactly reciprocate. Should others presume that this too is a tenant of your religion of choice? What? A person is allowed to have their opinioin but they aren't allowed to express it? What is it about such a double standard that sounds oh so Bushwellian? You can hold your opinion, express it, but others are to be denegrated for their opinion and expected to remain silent? If such truly is the case, then someone should take a moment to point out your extreme form of hypocrisy. Why this should even have to be said is beyond me...almost. Todd Swearingen - Original Message - From: Legal Eagle [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2005 5:07 PM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Our Godless Constitution G'day Ken; Nice of you to denigrate CHRISTians like that . We are not X anything thank you very much. Either learn some respect or please keep your crap to yourself. You don't have to agree, but you don't get to denigrate either. Someone had a whack at sacred cows a while back, you should have learned from that. Luc - Original Message - From: Ken Provost [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, February 14, 2005 11:34 PM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Our Godless Constitution on 2/14/05 6:38 PM, knoton at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Our Godless Constitution by BROOKE ALLEN [from the February 21, 2005 issue] http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20050221s=allen A breath of fresh air -- thanks! Having been an unabashed atheist for 90% of my long life, it's great to know that my hero Tom Jefferson wasn't even a real Deist (as I've always been taught), much less an X-tian like our rulers would have you believe. 'Course Tom has almost been drummed out of the Founding Father's Klub already, and our Revolution has been renamed the War of Independ- ence for decades now.. -K ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.8.7 - Release Date: 2/10/2005 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.8.7 - Release Date: 2/10/2005 ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
