klunk
9/7/2008 5:06:00 PM
"Palin Ain't Failin!" <palin_aint_failin@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f0b5ec2e-957f-4145-8d6a-05d97ba85eb8@z11g2000prl.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 7, 9:16 am, "klunk" <kl...@theothershoo.org> wrote:
> "Palin Ain't Failin!" <palin_aint_fai...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> messagenews:366f0319-be67-42e7-957b-ce8af2f62316@r15g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 7, 8:37 am, "klunk" <kl...@theothershoo.org> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Palin Ain't Failin!" <palin_aint_fai...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> > messagenews:378969ae-9664-4d87-b5ee-9d7573fe8aa0@t1g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
> > On Sep 7, 5:50 am, "klunk" <kl...@theothershoo.org> wrote:
>
> > by twisting around the sacred importance of such a separation of
> > church and
> > state as you have, you only demonstrate that it is YOU whom are
> > motivated by
> > fear and hatred... ;-)
>
> > Sir, I was wondering if you might point out just where in the
> > constitution it makes reference to "separation of church and state?"
> > And don't cite the establishment clause of the 1st Amendment because
> > it says merely:
>
> > Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
> > prohibiting the free exercise thereof -
>
> > Sorry, Klunk, but what your crowd has done over the last 40 years or
> > so has been to convince stupid, ill-tutored imbeciles that this phrase
> > actually exists in the constitution. People have come to believe that
> > separation of church and state means freedom FROM, not freedom OF
> > religion. Big difference here, Twinky.
>
> > About the closest you're going to get to that separation language is
> > Jefferson's 1802 letter to the Danbury (Connecticut) Baptist
> > Association in which he made reference to a "wall" of separation
> > between church and state. However, in the last four or five decades
> > that has been siezed upon by secularists to totally pervert the intent
> > of the 1st Amendment.
>
> > Sorry, but it's your crowd who are the whacks - fanatical secular
> > whackos.
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> > lol... nope... if you were actually being honest in your reply, you
> > would
> > not have trimmed out my quote from jesus... and quite frankly, you only
> > prove yourself to be a hypocrite and a poor example of a decent
> > christian
> > by
> > responding in the manner you did....
>
> > the separation of church and state protects you and your freedom to
> > observe
> > the religion of your choice. period.
>
> > and the concept of separation of church and state has a long and
> > venerated
> > tradition that, as i stated was supported by jesus, "render onto Caesar
> > what
> > is Caesar's, and render onto God what is God's."
>
> > and because this fundamental principle of preserving an individual's
> > right
> > to worship has had a long and venerated history... from jesus to the
> > romans
> > through to the baptists in england, your response is simply nothing more
> > than a response by a fanatical whacko... best described by the following
> > quote from your buybull:
>
> > "Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but
> > inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits."
> > Matthew 7:15-16
>
> > the fruit of your tree is nothing more than removing rights from
> > people...
> > and it's pretty rotten fruit indeed...
>
> > have you bothered to consider your position of it so happened that your
> > particular sect was not sanctioned by government...?.... what makes you
> > think that your specific version of bastardized christianity would be
> > the
> > dominant one....?... why should you argue for a theocracy...?...
> > particularly since religion is the MAIN reason why people have been
> > dying
> > in
> > wars for centuries...
>
> > clearly, you are motivated by hatred... not the love that jesus
> > taught...
> > you spit in his face with your hypocrisy...
>
> Um, where did I say I was a Christian, Twinky? I belong to no
> religion, sir, and am a simple Desist, which is to say I believe in
> intelligent design. That is the extent ot if.
>
> Quite apart from this, your rambling post did not address the central
> issue, which is that of you atheists and secularlists (yes, I believe
> you are in fact an atheist) perverting the 1st Amendment's real
> meaning, which is simply that of ensuring that an official state
> religion is not established, and that people can worship God as they
> so choose.
>
> Again, it's your crowd who are the fanatics.
> --------------------------------------------------------------
>
> lol... considering you're arguing in circles, it's become increasingly
> clear
> that such behaviour is far more consistent with fanaticism.... but...
> since
> you are arguing against the separation of church and state... how exactly
> do
> you see it providing any benefit...?... and how exactly can "ensuring that
> an official religion is not established" not be explicit support for the
> separation of church and state...?... by what measure do you determine
> integration...?... and what religious belief(s) would achieve measure(s)
> of
> integration...?... and by what means does one accommodate such integration
> while preserving the first amendment...?...
>
> btw... if you are claiming your sole religious belief is to support
> intelligent design, it seems rather hypocritical of you to make
> assumptions
> about my religious beliefs...- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Sir, I can spot your type a mile away, and your numbers are legion in
these Google Groups. Most of you pretend to be Christians by way of
lending an air of impartial analysis and thoughtful dialoge to the
debate. However, like wolves in sheeps clothing, you despise not only
Christianity but Christians as well and see them as fools to be
manipulated and ridiculed.
What you ultimately want is to remove Christians from the political
calculus altogether, to deny them a seat at the table. Effectively,
most of you secularists are trying to shape the debate by
incrementally introducing the notion that not only should every last
vestige of religion be removed from public life, from the political
discousre, but even those who profess any religion should also be
removed from the political arena at all government levels.
It won't be long before your crowd shapes the debate in such a manner
that we're discussing whether people of faith should even be voting!
-------------------------------------------------------------
wow... and here i was hoping by your last reply that you were actually going
to be challenging... i'm sad to say i'm disappointed... you've whined about
me jumping to conclusions about your system of belief, but you have no
problem slotting me and my beliefs into some bitter fantasy of yours without
any evidence to support your conclusions.... and all the while avoiding the
very simple questions i asked you... hmmmm... you do know that your
behaviour only makes you a hypocrite, don't you...?...
i have no desire to remove anyone from any calculus... that IS the
fundamental premise of the separation of church and state... no single
system of belief is either favoured or discriminated against...
i have no problem with anyone's particular beliefs... but i have serious
problems when someone uses those beliefs to discriminate against others...
so, it would seem to me... that what it comes right down to is, that i have
firmer spiritual values than you... but... don't worry... i won't hold that
against you... such is the nature of achieving higher levels of
enlightenment... perhaps you will one day be fortunate enough to escape your
little box of bigoted hatreds and learn to accept and celebrate that which
makes us all uniquely special human beings with a fundamental right to
believe what they wish... and hopefully, you will realize that it is this
value which is the backbone of the separation of church and state... and
that it has absolutely nothing to do with denying anyone any seat at any
table... but in fact is a guarantee that everyone has a right to sit at any
table they choose without fear of discrimination...
oh... and while you're pondering my reply... or dismissing it outright while
fomenting over yet another hate-filled response... do make an effort to
answer my questions... here, i've reposted them below for your
convenience...
since you are arguing against the separation of church and state... how
exactly do you see it providing any benefit...?... and how exactly can
"ensuring that an official religion is not established" not be explicit
support for the separation of church and state...?... by what measure do you
determine integration...?... and what religious belief(s) would achieve
measure(s) of integration...?... and by what means does one accommodate
such integration while preserving the first amendment...?...