Thomas Jefferson's admiration and financial support of Christianity

[DOC]

I've not been alive all that long, but I have learned a few things in my 43 years. One is something of the nature of evil, which, in part, is to do bad and call it good. DOC, your last post contains evil.

I'm disgusted by your behavior in this thread.

What exactly about my last post did you find evil? Then maybe I'll be able to better respond to your opinion.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

What exactly about my last post did you find evil? Then maybe I'll be able to better respond to your opinion.

Perhaps that is the very problem.

 

[DOC]

Perhaps that is the very problem.

Its easy to put out derogatory terms, backing them up with a reasoned explanation is something else.

 

[DOC]

Originally Posted by DOC View Post

And maybe things like Columbine and Virginia Tech would not have happened if those killers (and the students who made fun of them) had said prayers everyday when they grew up. That's why this matters. And I believe its only going to get worse the more the ACLU and others fight to get rid of God in public life.

DOC, the above post* of yours is an embarrassment to humankind. It is full of hatred and idiocy. Shame on you, Mr. Fake Christian.

Please explain your reasoning. Once again anybody can throw out derogatory terms; but not everybody can back them up with a sound reasoned explanation.

If people in this forum our going to use derogatory terms against me please give an explanation as to why you feel that way, because there is a good chance I'm going to ask you to explain yourself.

 

[Ducky]

Maybe this will help you to see why this matters. Take for example the case where a Nativity scene , that the majority of a community enjoyed for 80 years, could no longer be enjoyed because of an ACLU lawsuit. If the ACLU could only refer to the simple wording of the 1st amendment, they wouldn't have a case. It's only because of the "legal concept" invented in the 1947 case by Hugo Black and Leo Pfeffer are they able to deny the wishes of the majority of the citizens. Thomas Jefferson can go to church in the Rotunda of Congress building for seven years but a community can't enjoy a nativity scene because of the invention of a legal concept.

The above can also be applied to school prayer. If the majority of a community feels a non-denominational optional prayer would be to the benefit of their children and to society (like it was for 185 years) they can't have it because someone invented a non-constitutional legal concept in 1947. If the courts could only refer to the wording of the 1st amendment than individual communities would be allowed to have school prayer if they so chose. If we just would stuck to the wording of the founding fathers in the 1st amendment the wishes of the people, by the people, and for the people could be adhered to.

And maybe things like Columbine and Virginia Tech would not have happened if those killers (and the students who made fun of them) had said prayers everyday when they grew up. That's why this matters. And I believe its only going to get worse the more the ACLU and others fight to get rid of God in public life.

You should be ashamed of this post, Doc.

 

[wahrheit]

Originally Posted by DOC View Post

And maybe things like Columbine and Virginia Tech would not have happened if those killers (and the students who made fun of them) had said prayers everyday when they grew up. That's why this matters. And I believe its only going to get worse the more the ACLU and others fight to get rid of God in public life.





Please explain your reasoning. Once again anybody can throw out derogatory terms; but not everybody can back them up with a sound reasoned explanation.

If people in this forum our going to use derogatory terms against me please give an explanation as to why you feel that way, because there is a good chance I'm going to ask you to explain yourself.

You want to know, why I used the term "Mr. Fake Christian"?

DOC, one of the core tenets of Christians is, for example, the love your neighbor as yourself thing.

Your reasoning, however, goes like this:

- DOC watches his neighbor kill 60 people, then his neighbor puts the gun to his head and shoots himself.

- DOC walks over, bends forward over the splattered head of his neighbor and says "See, told'ya! Had you mumbled some more prayer back in school, this would not have happend! It's all the fault of them ACLU Pfeffer Hugo guys! Told ya!"

Your very hero, Jesus, would turn in his grave (or wherever he is) would he see your post here. And since moral values are not exclusive to faithful Christians—all people have them, including us atheists—we here are just as upset about your evil post as would have Jesus been. Understood? I hope so.

 

[fuelair]

If DOC really has no idea how wrong that paragraph was, it is time to let him dry up here. I won't be bothering to respond anymore.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Its easy to put out derogatory terms, backing them up with a reasoned explanation is something else.

You belittle the dead. You belittle the heinous evil transgressed against them. And for what? To serve your puny argument that is a wrongheaded abortion from conception.

And you follow with:

David Berkowitz: What? What did I do that was so wrong? Its easy to put out derogatory terms, backing them up with a reasoned explanation is something else.

Fuelair is right. I've never been so disgusted by anyone's comments on this forum before. Why anyone would discuss anything with you is beyond my ken.

 

[Cleon]

 

[DOC]

I guess you didnt know that the ALCU won a lawsuit for a high school student who wanted to use a bible verse as her quote next to her senior picture and the school didnt let her. They sued and won and helped a girl publish a bible verse in her schools yearbook, because it was a personal expression of religion and had nothing to do with the schools feelings about religion. The aclu helps people both ways, if there is an unfair restriction on someones religious freedom they help, and if theres an unfair official endorsement of religion they help, so really, get off your high horse and see that they are completely fair in how they give out aid to people suffering injustice. demonizing them is pretty much impossible because they help so many different kinds of people.

Well the ACLU is not stupid. They know they have to purvey a certain public image and I could easily see how they might take a token case here and there for image purposes but the case you referred to above seems to be more of a free speech case than a religion freedom case. They would have probably also represented a student if he or she was advocating non-conventional sex in a yearbook entry. I know they represented the Man-Boy Association in a controversial case.

I'm not saying I disagree with everything the ACLU does but I do believe they have a specific agenda against Christianity and Christian morals. Why do you think that the number #1 listened to presbyterian preacher in the world, Dr. James Kennedy, has a website with the following books listed:

"Indefensible: 10 Ways the ACLU is Destroying America"

"ACLU: The Devil's Advocate"

"Taking Liberties: The Legacy of the ACLU"

"The ACLU vs. America"

http://www.coralridge.org/CRMMinResDetail.asp?ID=crm&pc=114421&ec=I1301

 

[drkitten]

Why do you think that the number #1 listened to presbyterian preacher in the world, Dr. James Kennedy, has a website with the following books listed:

Because, as has been amply demonstrated on this thread alone -- he lies if he thinks it will increase his audience.

 

[DOC]

You belittle the dead. You belittle the heinous evil transgressed against them. And for what? To serve your puny argument that is a wrongheaded abortion from conception.

Another post whose sole purpose is to attack the messenger and does not offer anything of value... I wasn't belittling anyone. I was proposing a possible reason/solution for this tragedy. Somebody needs to analyze the cause of this event -- unless you just want us to cross our fingers and hope it doesn't happen again.

And you follow with:

David Berkowitz: What? What did I do that was so wrong? Its easy to put out derogatory terms, backing them up with a reasoned explanation is something else.

This is bizzare -- you attribute me with saying "David Berkowitz: What? What did I do that was so wrong?'' (which I never did) Once again this post adds nothing of value to the forum, and is strictly designed to attack the messenger.

 

[skeptifem]

Well the ACLU is not stupid. They know they have to purvey a certain public image and I could easily see how they might take a token case here and there for image purposes but the case you referred to above seems to be more of a free speech case than a religion freedom case. They would have probably also represented a student if he or she was advocating non-conventional sex in a yearbook entry. I know they represented the Man-Boy Association in a controversial case.

they help everyone who has their civil liberties violated, including people being censored for saying religious things personally AND people saying disgusting things about how pedophelia is ok. they help when no one else does, wether or not they agree (believe me, no one likes NAMBLA except their members, even hardcore liberals hate nambla), and i have respect for the integrity that they have. the aclu defends nambla because they do have the right to say those disgusting things, not because of what they say. you bringing up nambla counts against you, not for you.

I'm not saying I disagree with everything the ACLU does but I do believe they have a specific agenda against Christianity and Christian morals.

which is why they help christians whose rights are being violated for personal religious expression. oh wait, even doing the exact opposite of what you alledge they do doesnt prove anything to you. jesus, you really, really need to learn how to think critically.

Why do you think that the number #1 listened to presbyterian preacher in the world, Dr. James Kennedy, has a website with the following books listed:

"Indefensible: 10 Ways the ACLU is Destroying America"

"ACLU: The Devil's Advocate"

"Taking Liberties: The Legacy of the ACLU"

"The ACLU vs. America"

http://www.coralridge.org/CRMMinResDetail.asp?ID=crm&pc=114421&ec=I1301

this is supposed to prove something? it proves that a man wrote a bunch of books about how he dislikes the alcu, nothing more. Anyone can write endless numbers of books about ANYTHING, it doesnt mean its true.

in conclusion, use your friggin brain. THINK.

 

[skeptifem]

And maybe things like Columbine and Virginia Tech would not have happened if those killers (and the students who made fun of them) had said prayers everyday when they grew up. That's why this matters. And I believe its only going to get worse the more the ACLU and others fight to get rid of God in public life.

this is absolutely, 100% not true. ed geins hallucinations stemmed from how deeply religious he was, and how religious his mother was. he was MENTALLY ILL, he was more devout than most non killers.

oh yeah, and then theres the inquisition. those people were extremely religious.

watch him trot out the 'no true scotsman' fallacy in response.

 

[DOC]

they help everyone who has their civil liberties violated, including people being censored for saying religious things personally AND people saying disgusting things about how pedophelia is ok. they help when no one else does, wether or not they agree (believe me, no one likes NAMBLA except their members, even hardcore liberals hate nambla), and i have respect for the integrity that they have. the aclu defends nambla because they do have the right to say those disgusting things, not because of what they say. you bringing up nambla counts against you, not for you.

The ACLU fights the boy scouts (and pockets 700,000 dollars of taxpayer money) but defends (at no charge) a child-molester group (accused of contributing to the murder-rape of a 10 year old boy). If that's your definition of integrity than I guess we have a difference of opinion.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=18029

 

[Skeptic Guy]

The ACLU fights the boy scouts (and pockets 700,000 dollars of taxpayer money) but defends (at no charge) a child-molester group (accused of contributing to the murder-rape of a 10 year old boy). If that's your definition of integrity than I guess we have a difference of opinion.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=18029

Worldnet Daily? Yep, there's a bastion of truth, honesty, and integrity.

 

[DOC]

Worldnet Daily? Yep, there's a bastion of truth, honesty, and integrity.

What in the following article is not true.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=18029

 

[Achán hiNidráne]

Worldnet Daily? Yep, there's a bastion of truth, honesty, and integrity.

Not to mention jingoism, militarism, theocracy, and not so thinly veiled homophobia, racism, and sexism.

This, along with his disgusting use of the VT shooting to prop-up his jackbooted religious beliefs, tells us everything we ever wanted to know about DOC.

 

[Achán hiNidráne]

What in the following article is not true.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=18029

The entire context.

ACLU Statement on Defending Free Speech of Unpopular Organizations (8/31/2000)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

NEW YORK--In the United States Supreme Court over the past few years, the American Civil Liberties Union has taken the side of a fundamentalist Christian church, a Santerian church, and the International Society for Krishna Consciousness. In celebrated cases, the ACLU has stood up for everyone from Oliver North to the National Socialist Party. In spite of all that, the ACLU has never advocated Christianity, ritual animal sacrifice, trading arms for hostages or genocide. In representing NAMBLA today, our Massachusetts affiliate does not advocate sexual relationships between adults and children.

What the ACLU does advocate is robust freedom of speech for everyone. The lawsuit involved here, were it to succeed, would strike at the heart of freedom of speech. The case is based on a shocking murder. But the lawsuit says the crime is the responsibility not of those who committed the murder, but of someone who posted vile material on the Internet. The principle is as simple as it is central to true freedom of speech: those who do wrong are responsible for what they do; those who speak about it are not.

It is easy to defend freedom of speech when the message is something many people find at least reasonable. But the defense of freedom of speech is most critical when the message is one most people find repulsive. That was true when the Nazis marched in Skokie. It remains true today.

Source: http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/protest/11289prs20000831.html

You do realize that Guilt By Association is a fallacy, don't you? Of course not, you used it earlier in the thread with your bull about the Hugo Black and the KKK and ACLU and Communism.

However, this stupidity is par for you.

 

[drkitten]

The ACLU fights the boy scouts (and pockets 700,000 dollars of taxpayer money)

The part in bold is also not true. Again, par for the course, I'm afraid.