Our Godless Constitution
by BROOKE ALLEN
[from the February 21, 2005 issue]
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20050221&s=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 Presi
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
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"
To:
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2005 5:07 PM
Subject: Re: [Biofue
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
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 democra
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=20050221&s=allen
>
A breath of fresh air -- thanks! Having been an
unabashed atheist for 90% of my long life, it
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
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
n 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
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) wr
ECTED] (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.thenatio
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 consti
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 PR
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, knot
;[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
>
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:
aid 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
- 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
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
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
o
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
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
Se
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 follow
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
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, h
>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 refe
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.
>
>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
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
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 Wed
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 mod
dent 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]>
t; 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 formul
- 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
- 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
:
: Allen’s article is filled with so many half truths that it would take
: a
cts 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 Godles
- 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
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 Godle
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 tha
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
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
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
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, bu
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
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> - Ori
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. I
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
s
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
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
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
f
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 abs
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 u
te 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:
AE> To:
AE> Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2005 10:17 AM
AE
>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
>
>M
Hi Dave,
I'm not impressed with the article. I would add that most of those who were
influential in the building of our country and were of a particular faith,
didn't declare their faith as "the one and only...". They usually kept their
beliefs private (as it should be) and certainly didn't t
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 ref
erify.
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 hist
;
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
> 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
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 tech
> 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 D
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 commen
d/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] Ou
n 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.
t: 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 <
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 does
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 rul
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
" <[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) _;
69 matches
Mail list logo
