See other Religion Articles
Title: College removes cross – from chapel!
Source:
WND
URL Source: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52646
Published: Oct 27, 2006
Author: Staff
Post Date: 2006-10-27 12:39:53 by bluegrass
Ping List: *New History*
Keywords: None
Views: 4193
Comments: 252
The cross from the altar area of the chapel at the College of William & Mary in Williamsburg, Va., has been removed to ensure the space is seen as a nondenominational area, explains Melissa Engimann, assistant director for Historic Campus. "In order to make the Wren Chapel less of a faith-specific space, and to make it more welcoming to students, faculty, staff and visitors of all faiths, the cross has been removed from the altar area," Engimann announced in an e-mail to staff. The cross will be returned to the altar for those who wish to use it for events, services or private prayer. The cross was in place because of the college's former association with the Anglican Church. Though the college is now nondenominational and became publicly supported in 1906, the room will still be considered a chapel, college officials said.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: bluegrass (#0)
This is kind of a private matter - it's not like this came from a court order, etc. So it really is non of our business.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
That's an OUTRAGE! Why, a Republican would never let that happen. He might bugger an altarboy in the chapel, but he'd never let them take the cross away!
the law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal bread.
The chapel is part of the Wren Building, the oldest academic building in America. It's had a cross in it since the chapel was added in 1732. This is akin to what the Bolsheviks did to Russian religious history during their tyranny.
"Stiff-necked and thin-skinned is no way to go through life, son."
It's amusing how you still think there's a difference between Republicans and Democrats.
"Stiff-necked and thin-skinned is no way to go through life, son."
Diference?? If you find any, let me know. To show there is no difference, I once ran a dem and a pub together as a team,in county wide election, both won by landslides.
They spell their labels differently. Isn't that enough?
"...it is unlawful in the ordinary course of things or in a private house to murder a child; it should not be permitted any sect then to sacrifice children." -Thomas Jefferson
It's a private matter - none of my business or yours.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
I live in Virginia. W&M is a "public" school. It's my biz.
"...it is unlawful in the ordinary course of things or in a private house to murder a child; it should not be permitted any sect then to sacrifice children." -Thomas Jefferson
Then the cross should be removed since the state should not fund a religous specific chapel.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
By that reasoning, the publicly funded 'Holocaust' Museum in DC should have all of the six-pointed stars removed. The larger issue is that the State has no business supporting universities.
"...it is unlawful in the ordinary course of things or in a private house to murder a child; it should not be permitted any sect then to sacrifice children." -Thomas Jefferson
A) I am against the existence of the Holocaust musuem in America - if it should exist anywhere it should be in Berlin/Europe. With that said: B) The Star of David was used as a identifying symbol by the Nazis so you could not have it removed from a museum that touches on the subject. C) Was not the schismatic and heretical Anglican church founded by an overweight serial killer?
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
It's a symbol of the Jewish faith. It doesn't belong in a publicly funded building by Jewish reasoning. Was not the schismatic and heretical Anglican church founded by an overweight serial killer? No idea. The cross is the symbol of Christianity, not the Anglican church.
"...it is unlawful in the ordinary course of things or in a private house to murder a child; it should not be permitted any sect then to sacrifice children." -Thomas Jefferson
It's a symbol of the Zionist faith..
The German Nazis used the genocide and 'ethnic cleansing' of Native Americans as one of the models to plan and execute their genocide and ethnic cleansing of those they found odious. I would keep the museum and make the Shoah exhibit a wing. It needs exhibits showing what happened to 'New World' peoples, and to peoples in all the other corners of the world when their particular 'holocausts' happened. The lesson that the museum teaches is an important one, it just need to be reorganized and changed to show that this is a sort of thing that has happened in different degrees at different times in human history. To make it just cover the Shoah, it sends the false message that what the Nazis did was highly unusual, when in fact, it isn't. The museum is needed because this sort of thing will happen again if we don't use all the tools at our disposal to remember history to keep from repeating it.
You and I know that. The world associates it with Judaism.
"...it is unlawful in the ordinary course of things or in a private house to murder a child; it should not be permitted any sect then to sacrifice children." -Thomas Jefferson
Only if one ignores the purposeful distortion of history to benefit Jewish power in America and the world.
"...it is unlawful in the ordinary course of things or in a private house to murder a child; it should not be permitted any sect then to sacrifice children." -Thomas Jefferson
That's an acceptable compromise to me - a museum dedicated to world wide acts of genocide. America had nothing to do with the Nazi Holocaust and ending it was incidental to the allied war effort. It was created because of ethnic American politics. I don't mean that in the context that Jews control the world - only that the Holocaust is now part of the American Jewish culture and politicians love to curry favors with politically connected minority groups. In other words the museum exists for American political reasons.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
When I was in Los Angeles I went into the old city hall bldg (the one on the cops' badges) and there in the middle of the lobby was a 12 ft high Star of David and a banner that read "The B'nai Brith wishes the people of Los Angeles a Happy Hannukah". As you know the CA ACLU and others are very energetic in pursuit of Christian symbols on public property, and someone wants the city the remove the old mission (with the cross on top) from the decals on the police cars and city vehicles. There's also a monument in San Diego that has to go for the same reason, and even the attempt to donate it to a private org to defeat the effort to "secularize the WW One monument" was over ruled by a federal judge. Edit "people" to "B'nai Brith'
I don't know if any Nazi ever said that but they did openly modeled their laws on the Jews on the American South's Jim Crow laws.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
Clarification: they curry favor with those groups that can do them benefit or destroy them. Where's the Black Museum, the Indian Museum or even the Irish Museum in DC? We all know why the "holocaust" museum is in DC. It's the temple in Shushan West.
"...it is unlawful in the ordinary course of things or in a private house to murder a child; it should not be permitted any sect then to sacrifice children." -Thomas Jefferson
I see all people of all races, creeds, and ethnic groups as capable of doing genocide and ethnic cleansing by virtue that so many of all varieties have. And I see nothing wrong with a museum that teaches about that in order to help prevent that from happening again. I don't want to see anyone doing this for any reason. No human has a right to judge themselves better and more fitting to own, run or control things then another. So I support a museum like this one. To make it just cover one episode of the problem only helps compound the problems being addressed though. I just do not see the Jewish people as the monsters or monolith of a source of all human greed and intrigue. They are merely a player that has their saints and scoundrels like anyone else. I see using a group to form wedge issues as a component of the problem the museum should be addressing in more expansive a form. Thus I refuse to make people targets based on their race, creed or ethnic background at all. That horrifies me and my mind absolutely rejects doing that. If someone is exploiting someone through economic games, they should be investigated prosecuted and punished for this. But making their faith or ethnic background a paramount aspect of doing so is flat wrong. Whatever a Jewish banker can do, Goyem bankers can do after the Jewish ones are gone. I see a niche that exists that will be filled regardless of who does the filling as nature abhors a vacuum. The important thing is to get rid of the niche, not pick on the occupants and all others like her or him of the same variety. You are free to not agree, but that is how I see the situation and should be addressed to some extent. Example of how the problem is more complex: Mormons, (who also call non believers Goyem) are very fast building a huge financial empire as a component to what is perceived as an attempt for religious, political and economic hegemony. Many want them slapped down systemically, with all Mormons paying for the sins of the leadership. I am also against this, and just want the scammers and power and capital hungry criminals among them investigated, prosecuted and punished too. Get rid of all Jewish people, a faith like the Mormon one will move in and flesh out where they were in every aspect and endeavor any Jews now are engaged in. I feel you look at the problem in too one dimensional and narrow a manner, you likely feel the same about how I look at this. That's politics for you.
Only an anti-semite would notice such a subtle and inconspicuous thing.
"...it is unlawful in the ordinary course of things or in a private house to murder a child; it should not be permitted any sect then to sacrifice children." -Thomas Jefferson
The Nazis modeled their race laws on the Jewish race laws in the Old Testament.
"...it is unlawful in the ordinary course of things or in a private house to murder a child; it should not be permitted any sect then to sacrifice children." -Thomas Jefferson
Do you also support the purposeful and pointed lies about history that are enshrined in the temple?
"...it is unlawful in the ordinary course of things or in a private house to murder a child; it should not be permitted any sect then to sacrifice children." -Thomas Jefferson
In Nazi Germany, Jews were prohibited by law from marrying non-Jews. There's only one country in the world that still has this law: Israel.
"...it is unlawful in the ordinary course of things or in a private house to murder a child; it should not be permitted any sect then to sacrifice children." -Thomas Jefferson
I didn't know that. A slight change in the works, but it won't help the rapture monkeys
The Jim Crow laws of the South - including laws against race mixing - were defended by referring to the Old Testament as recently as the 1960s. The Nazi legal system was based on the American Jim Crow laws.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
As you yourself stated that the Jim Crow laws were also based on the OT, it's only logical that the Nazi laws were based on the same older source. It's a pretzel twisting of logic otherwise. Streicher himself says that the Nazi race laws were based on the Mosaic laws.
"...it is unlawful in the ordinary course of things or in a private house to murder a child; it should not be permitted any sect then to sacrifice children." -Thomas Jefferson
BTW, is Jim Crow also the source of Israel's current marriage laws?
"...it is unlawful in the ordinary course of things or in a private house to murder a child; it should not be permitted any sect then to sacrifice children." -Thomas Jefferson
Which is why our Founding Fathers made this a secular nation.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
That's beside the point. The Nazi race laws were based on Mosaic laws. The followers of that Mosaic law are now ensconced in the power structure of this so-called "secular nation".
"...it is unlawful in the ordinary course of things or in a private house to murder a child; it should not be permitted any sect then to sacrifice children." -Thomas Jefferson
That's exactly the point of this article - secular republic - see conversation above before you introduced the 'Star of David' into the duscussion.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
Who cares? I don't live there. Do you get all upset women can't drive cars in Saudi Arabia? That girls get their labia sliced off in Africa? Mind your business.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
You brought up Jim Crow laws and then you inadverently proved that Jim Crow and the Nazi race laws have the same source. So why should we have a museum in DC dedicated to one group of racists over another?
"...it is unlawful in the ordinary course of things or in a private house to murder a child; it should not be permitted any sect then to sacrifice children." -Thomas Jefferson
Israel takes so much from America that what they do is my biz. An Israeli runs Homeland Security so it's even more my biz. Mind yours if you're not an American.
"...it is unlawful in the ordinary course of things or in a private house to murder a child; it should not be permitted any sect then to sacrifice children." -Thomas Jefferson
So why should we have a museum in DC dedicated to one group of racists over another? Nutso logic on your part as always - a twister of words and thinking - badly done twisting I may add - I questioned why we need that holocaust museum funded by the taxpayer - then I agreed with Feret Mike that museum of the evils done by Americans (to answer your: So why should we have a museum in DC dedicated to one group of racists over another? ) would be more acceptable than a museum dedicated to the crimes committed by another nation in an episode of history America had little part in.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
What about Saudi Arabia? You can hate them too - they are Semetic after all and also run homeland security and take much $$$ from America.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
Well, then, whatcha doing here?
Just kidding, BTW.
I think the article deals with how political correctness overtakes what should be common sense. This college has a historic association with Christianity, ergo the cross in its chapel. The US gov't did not ram a cross into this chapel and promote Christianity as the nation's favorite religion. This cross was in this chapel for how many decades with how many hundreds of students of various denominations coming into the chapel to pray to their own individual Lord, without feeling they were being brow beaten into converting to Protestantism. And now some idiot PC ( or maybe aetheist) desk jockey at W&M is using the excuse of "well this is a tax supported school now" and "well the chapel should be non-denominational because it's all the room we've got for prayer and someone (?) might get offended if we don't make this change"...puhleaze this is so transparent. How can you argue that this obvious PC ploy relates to separation of state and religion...you are better than pushing this type of limp wristed milque toast rationale, destro...
I believe they call us Gentiles, not Goyem. And, if you support this museum in DC, do you also support the mandatory viewing of SCHINDLER'S LIST by all New Jersey public school students at the order of then Gov. Christine Todd Whitman?
If that goddamned snake in the "gardenofEden" hadn't been Jewish, we'd still be in a state of nirvana now.
It's not an example of political correctness - the chapel is being designated for non denominational use - like thousands of such chapels in school and hospitals all over America including the military. Such chapels have no outward signs of religous denomination and symbols are brought ina nd out depending on the services given. This school long ago gave up its denominational links. W&M is not the property of you or the people - they can do whatever they like. This is like me getting upset some Protestnat denominations ordain women while at the same time I am not a Protestant. None of my business.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
Enough with the ad hominem.
"...it is unlawful in the ordinary course of things or in a private house to murder a child; it should not be permitted any sect then to sacrifice children." -Thomas Jefferson
Saudi Arabia is as corrupt as Israel and America. The big difference is that a Saudi doesn't run the Federal Reserve and Homeland Security. Americans don't control the money or the Federal police. Two Jews do. Bush's life is literally in Chertoff's hands.
"...it is unlawful in the ordinary course of things or in a private house to murder a child; it should not be permitted any sect then to sacrifice children." -Thomas Jefferson
That is exactly the problem in the minds of those that had this cross removed.
"...it is unlawful in the ordinary course of things or in a private house to murder a child; it should not be permitted any sect then to sacrifice children." -Thomas Jefferson
This is like me getting upset some Protestnat denominations ordain women while at the same time I am not a Protestant. None of my business. This is a taxpayer supported college. W&M is not private; it used to be private but not any longer. It is "our" property. And why are you jumping all over the map with your arguments to support W&M's decision? At first you said that there should be separation between gov't and religion. Now you're claiming this is a private matter even though it says quite clearly in the article that W&M receives taxpayer (gov't) support. "Though the college is now nondenominational and became publicly supported in 1906..."
C'mon, doggie. That movie is 100% true fact and you know it. Hollywood doesn't lie.
"...it is unlawful in the ordinary course of things or in a private house to murder a child; it should not be permitted any sect then to sacrifice children." -Thomas Jefferson
It wasn't a lie but an omission that upset me. Oskar Schindler bribed an official and purchased guns and trained his factory workers in their use, in case the fleeing Joymans decided to slaughter them. This didn't make it into the film because A) much of the organized gun control movement today is funded and driven by non-Christians, particularly those in New York City, and B) it would raise the question of why Jews didn't defend themselves, but allowed one Hitler youth with an unloaded rifle to herd them into box cars?
A good point and one that seems to be lost when the "holocaust" is taught at the various museums. An armed populace is safer from tyranny than an unarmed populace.
"...it is unlawful in the ordinary course of things or in a private house to murder a child; it should not be permitted any sect then to sacrifice children." -Thomas Jefferson
I would keep the museum and make the Shoah exhibit a wing. It needs exhibits showing what happened to 'New World' peoples, and to peoples in all the other corners of the world when their particular 'holocausts' happened. The lesson that the museum teaches is an important one, it just need to be reorganized and changed to show that this is a sort of thing that has happened in different degrees at different times in human history. To make it just cover the Shoah, it sends the false message that what the Nazis did was highly unusual, when in fact, it isn't. The museum is needed because this sort of thing will happen again if we don't use all the tools at our disposal to remember history to keep from repeating it. Hell Mike it's going to happen again no matter how many museums are put up; you can't change human nature and human beings are warlike creatures. In fact it is happening in the Middle East, and other parts of the world that we don't hear much about. If there is one thing I have learned these past few years, it's that people in general can and do behave like monsters. I think your claim about the nazis using the extermination of American Indians as a model is an urban legend of sorts, as the vast majority of Indians died from diseases they had no immunity against, and there was no concrete policy carried out to exterminate Native Americans, it happened over a long period of time, an incident here, incident there, and was not an organized effort. As long as there are people, there will be selfishness, cruelty and cowardly behavior. As this country descends further into dictatorship, look for many cowards to come crawling out of the woodwork (for instance those who rat on others in order to score brownie points with those they perceive as being the powerful ones).
Nice post, Diana. Exactly as you say.
I think you are mistaken. Making the Cherokees walk the Trail of Tears from the Carolinas to Oklahoma may not have been sold as racial extermination but that's pretty much what it accomplished. Killing en masse the "praying" ie Christianized Indians of New England was pretty much the same thing. Handing out smallpox infected blankets as Gen Amherst did was as blatant as it gets. Massacring the families of the tribes encamped in the Palo Duro Canyon was pure genocidal behavior. Take off those rose colored glasses and subscribing to the whitewashing of history. It's nasty.
Right now in Alaska they are having the annual AFN convention that most white people and some native Alaskans dread. It's a convention where Eskimos and other Native Alaskan groups fly to Anchorage, and the PTB in this state (mostly Jewish) put on this convention for them, with lots of speakers outlining the evils of white people and all the bad things they have done to Alaska Natives. They play it on our radio station, and a couple years ago I was listening and a woman was giving a speech, saying something like, "before the white man came, we had no alcohol to destroy our families. before the white man came, we lived by our traditional values. before the white man came..." The AFN (Alaska Federation of Natives) is more than anything an excercise is white- people bashing. Last year I heard a bit of the tail end of it on the radio, and they were thanking the organizers, most all who had Jewish names. The convention lasts about a week, and for a while after that the Natives have very negative feelings towards white people, even though there is a lot of intermarriage, and by nature they are one of the most peaceful people on this earth. I think it's a crime to provoke them or anyone into hatred. People already hate enough as it is.
I cited this once and a fellow took me to task for it. He showed me a quote from a letter that was the source of this, and otherwise there is no evidence that such a thing ever took place.
"I'd like you to meet the representative who will run this trading post for the Hudson's Bay Company, Mr. Herschel Goldstein. BTW, have you ever tasted this? We call it fire water...." There is ample evidence that the first Jews in North America were posted at HBC trading posts.
I beg to differ. IMO, it's part of the whitewashing of history. This link takes you to some of the source documents and actual statements. Now, as to whether he personally handed them out or ordered it, fine, but there is no doubt as to his sentiments concerning them. http://www.na tiveweb.org/pages/legal/amherst/lord_jeff.html There are links to microfiche records and biographies and historical documents including William Trent's journal from the 1760's in which he describes certain incidents. The judgement of all these is up to you. Some quotes from Bouquet to Amherst - "...that Vermine ... have forfeited all claim to the rights of humanity" (Bouquet to Amherst, 25 June) [149k] "I would rather chuse the liberty to kill any Savage...." (Bouquet to Amherst, 25 June) [121k] "...Measures to be taken as would Bring about the Total Extirpation of those Indian Nations" (Amherst to Sir William Johnson, Superintendent of the Northern Indian Department, 9 July) [229k] "...their Total Extirpation is scarce sufficient Attonement...." (Amherst to George Croghan, Deputy Agent for Indian Affairs, 7 August) [145k] "...put a most Effectual Stop to their very Being" (Amherst to Johnson, 27 August [292k]; emphasis in original). In short, it's almost immaterial now, but the sentiment to exterminate is very well documented among the writings of that time.
Mind your business. Does Israel mind it's own business? NOOOOOOOO! Very hypocritical Destro.
Please tell me you are kidding!
Racial extermination is an old form of warfare. The European/Jewish genoplex has been engaging in it for centuries. What's happening to Africans and West Asians/Arabs is a replay of what happened to the natives in North and South America. See here for the playbook: "The genocide and conquest committed by Columbus and his men against the peaceful Native people of the Caribbean were sanctioned by the above mentioned documents of the Catholic Church. These papal documents were frequently used by Europeans in the Americas to justify an very inhuman style of colonization - which dehumanized the indigenous people by regarding their territories as being "inhabited only by brute animals." - Ferret Mike "At least five members of the expedition, including the surgeon, Marco, the ship's doctor, Bernal, and the interpreter, Louis Torres, were Jews. Torres was the first European to tread on American soil and also the first to discover the use of tobacco. He won the good-will of a Cuban chief and received from him large grants of land and many slaves as presents." -B'nai B'rith, 1926
"...it is unlawful in the ordinary course of things or in a private house to murder a child; it should not be permitted any sect then to sacrifice children." -Thomas Jefferson
"...that Vermine ... have forfeited all claim to the rights of humanity" (Bouquet to Amherst, 25 June) [149k] "I would rather chuse the liberty to kill any Savage...." (Bouquet to Amherst, 25 June) [121k] "...Measures to be taken as would Bring about the Total Extirpation of those Indian Nations" (Amherst to Sir William Johnson, Superintendent of the Northern Indian Department, 9 July) [229k] "...their Total Extirpation is scarce sufficient Attonement...." (Amherst to George Croghan, Deputy Agent for Indian Affairs, 7 August) [145k] "...put a most Effectual Stop to their very Being" (Amherst to Johnson, 27 August [292k]; emphasis in original). In short, it's almost immaterial now, but the sentiment to exterminate is very well documented among the writings of that time. His "sentiment to exterminate" is not a point that I wished to controvert. The operative word was "evidence".
there was no concrete policy carried out to exterminate Native Americans, I think you are mistaken. Making the Cherokees walk the Trail of Tears from the Carolinas to Oklahoma may not have been sold as racial extermination but that's pretty much what it accomplished. Killing en masse the "praying" ie Christianized Indians of New England was pretty much the same thing. Handing out smallpox infected blankets as Gen Amherst did was as blatant as it gets. Massacring the families of the tribes encamped in the Palo Duro Canyon was pure genocidal behavior. Take off those rose colored glasses and subscribing to the whitewashing of history. It's nasty. Believe me I know history is nasty, but my point was that there was not a concerted effort to exterminate the Native Americans all at once in the way the nazis went after the Jews. I'm not saying Indians were not exterminated here and there (also remember there were/are different tribes with totally different customs and beliefs; they were not a monolithic people), it did happen but there were separate incidents that happened under different rulers, presidents, etc, and they happened at different time periods, and some groups were spared altogether. They were not all part of a massive, organized effort to destroy such as the "War on Terror" we now have.
What temple are you talking about?
I'll play your game if you wish. Do you also support the purposeful and pointed lies about history that are enshrined in the Holocaust Museum in DC?
"...it is unlawful in the ordinary course of things or in a private house to murder a child; it should not be permitted any sect then to sacrifice children." -Thomas Jefferson
There was a policy to destroy Native American culture and any indigenous people who resisted at best. This policy's cornerstone is 'the Doctrine of Discovery' that denied sovereignty or recognition of non-Christian people. Under various theological and legal doctrines formulated during and after the Crusades, non-Christians were considered enemies of the Catholic faith and, as such, less than human. Accordingly, in the bull of 1452, Pope Nicholas directed King Alfonso to "capture, vanquish, and subdue the saracens, pagans, and other enemies of Christ," to "put them into perpetual slavery," and "to take all their possessions and property." [Davenport: 20-26] Acting on this papal privilege, Portugal continued to traffic in African slaves, and expanded its royal dominions by making "discoveries" along the western coast of Africa, claiming those lands as Portuguese territory. Thus, when Columbus sailed west across the Sea of Darkness in 1492 - with the express understanding that he was authorized to "take possession" of any lands he "discovered" that were "not under the dominion of any Christian rulers" - he and the Spanish sovereigns of Aragon and Castile were following an already well- established tradition of "discovery" and conquest. [Thacher:96] Indeed, after Columbus returned to Europe, Pope Alexander VI issued a papal document, the bull Inter Cetera of May 3, 1493, "granting" to Spain - at the request of Ferdinand and Isabella - the right to conquer the lands which Columbus had already found, as well as any lands which Spain might "discover" in the future. In the Inter Cetera document, Pope Alexander stated his desire that the "discovered" people be "subjugated and brought to the faith itself." [Davenport:61] By this means, said the pope, the "Christian Empire" would be propagated. [Thacher:127] When Portugal protested this concession to Spain, Pope Alexander stipulated in a subsequent bull - issued May 4, 1493 - that Spain must not attempt to establish its dominion over lands which had already "come into the possession of any Christian lords." [Davenport:68] Then, to placate the two rival monarchs, the pope drew a line of demarcation between the two poles, giving Spain rights of conquest and dominion over one side of the globe, and Portugal over the other. I wonder what part of the Old Testament the Catholics got that from?
"...it is unlawful in the ordinary course of things or in a private house to murder a child; it should not be permitted any sect then to sacrifice children." -Thomas Jefferson
No, before Christie was elevated to the job of EPA head she was the governor of NJ, and she ordered that all PS students would view the film to make sure they "never forget" and to make sure that it "never happens again." The message? "But for timely intervention every kid is a potential Nazi!"
Those naughty, naughty catholics....
When the going gets weird the weird turn pro. - Hunter S Thompson
Do you also support the purposeful and pointed lies about history that are enshrined in the Holocaust Museum in DC?" Dude, I just walked in the door a minute ago and yours' was the first post I read and you are talking about a temple, something Jewish people call their buildings, why don't you at ease the suspicion and sarcasm. It is a trait you have that does not serve you well. I figured out what you meant as I read down, but I resist the impulse to change posts after I make them as someone might be answering them already. I have not been to the museum yet so I can't talk specifics. If you are again asking whether I believe the Nazis systematically murdered innocent men women and children, yes they did. I also see no point to Holocaust denial either. I am absolutely against the death penalty, and the death penalty for a whole people is the most repugnant thing one group can impose on another. You speak of dishonesty in the demographics, I see holocaust deniers playing games like taking photographs done to demonstrate how parachute harnesses were used in high altitude human guinea pig experiments and claiming these photos taken by the prosecution at Nuremberg were proof that these experiments were lies because American harnesses were in these demonstration pictures, not German ones. Debunkers of the Shoah claim they are German photos, they actually were taken by Allied photographers preparing material to explain and demonstrate what these doctors were doing when they experimented on people. American harnesses are very unique, I know as a former paratrooper. You condemn the Shoah based on what you claim is a vested interest in fabrication and exaggeration. That coin has two sides. Those denying that the Shoah is history have axes of their own to grind and a vested interest in exaggerating in the other direction. I see no real point in changing the record of history unless it is done by a third party that starts with no conclusion and examines the record and evidence remaining and ultimately reach the conclusion the Shoah was a hoax.
Good question. As someone profoundly glad I am not Catholic who was inflicted with that faith growing up -- I have not much sympathy nor love for that organization. I don't have much love for organized religion anyway, but as far as the Catholic Church goes, familiarity breed contempt, I know it so well wild horses couldn't drag me to another Mass.
There is loads and loads of documentation such as this about all the horrific things Europeans have done. Does this imply that Europeans are the cruelest and most violent of all people? Or could it be that there is more material written, especially in recent decades, about the viciousness and cruelty which one would now think is inherent only in white people? I still maintain that what happened to the peoples in the Americas happened over a period of time, in various locations, under various rulers and policies. It was not as concentrated an effort as Nazi policy against Jews. It was a take-over of this land, and the people already here for the most part were displaced by disease and murder. So how does that reconcile with the OT where God tells the Jewish people to kill all Caananites when they arrived in the promised land? Any thoughts on that? So since there is so much literature to be found, does this mean white people are responsible for 90% of the misery in this world? Or could it mean that there is an effort to collect as much documentation as possible to put in peoples' minds that white people are demons in disguise? There has been an on-going war in Sudan with Arabs against the Blacks in the south of that country, but we haven't heard a whole lot about that until recently when it became fashionable to demonize Arabs. And remember, much of what you read anymore has an agenda, and the "facts" don't always add up. Oh, and while Russia owned Alaska, they didn't treat the Eskimos badly, in fact part of their treaty for selling Alaska to the US was to state that the Eskimos were to be left alone. The US did not do this though, they sent them to boarding schools and made them speak English, but they haven't meddled that way in a long time. Now they have special rights such as free medical care, land, and that conference is put on for them once a year in an attempt to urge them to hate white people. However that won't work because as I said they are very gentle people and there are many diluted Eskimos from all the intermarriages in these rural areas. It's difficult to hate the white part of one's own child for instance.
No my dear, just people, with the same amount of good and bad inherent to them as any people. Sometimes a culture exaggerates and intensifies the worst in a people, but no one demographic group is better or worse as human beings than any other.
Some of the Indian tribes were composed of horrendous savages. They slaughtered without regard to age or sex -- tortured people to death, bashed babies' brains out against rocks. This is what they did to other tribes. The Pawnee, for example, allied themselves with the white man to save themselves from the more savage tribes. Some of the tribes deserved to be exterminated.
"We become what we behold. We shape our tools and thereafter our tools shape us." -- Marshall McLuhan, after Alexander Pope and William Blake.
There was always a plan to drive off native americans, or at least subjugate them. Heck, Diana, many of the Cherokee were landholders, gentleman planters even until gold was discovered in them thar hills of Georgia. Early Victorian Era at best. !
When the going gets weird the weird turn pro. - Hunter S Thompson
Remind me never to entrust my followers to the likes of you.
When the going gets weird the weird turn pro. - Hunter S Thompson
Again, I KNOW what happened to the native peoples in the Americas. My point is that it did not happen all at once and there were many different peoples involved and many incidents, I fail to understand why this concept is unable to penetrate some thick skulls. I guess people have forgotten what happened in Cambodia too during the 70s, but that extermination doesn't count since white people were not involved.
That's the same vibe I get from reading comments at Jerusalem Post, Y-Net, and Paranoids Illustrated.
When the going gets weird the weird turn pro. - Hunter S Thompson
Oh. come on. You know that some of those tribes were nothing but murderers who killed children, babies, women -- everyone. What about the Aztecs? The tribes they used for human sacrifice allied themselves with the Spanish invaders because they got tired of having tens of thousands of their people getting their hearts ripped out.
"We become what we behold. We shape our tools and thereafter our tools shape us." -- Marshall McLuhan, after Alexander Pope and William Blake.
Look guys, there are indeed some evil white people, white people who have tortured and killed (or would like to) and have no conscience. However it's not a white people trait, it's a human being trait. We're just hearing more about the bad white people deeds lately (with much exaggeration mixed in with in with truth) because there is an underground war of sorts being waged against them these days. It's similar to the mounds and mounds of the bad propaganda being put out against Arabs and Islam.
What the hell does right or wrong have to do with it, I just want more followers.
When the going gets weird the weird turn pro. - Hunter S Thompson
It's globalism. Resistance is futile, all your slackers are be anihilated.
When the going gets weird the weird turn pro. - Hunter S Thompson
I'm glad you realize this, though it's hard for people to see it with all the anti-white material all over the place. I suppose all races/ethnic groups have their turn at this. The older I get the more disillusioned I get with human nature, though I suppose it's good to see the truth even if it is ugly.
now that is funny.
And on the subject of political party hypocrisy...the Democrats may do lots of chest beating about how terrible it was that the GOP leadership turned a blind eye to a gay pubie pederast placed in a position of authority (page board) that put him in regular contact with young Capitol Hill interns...HOWEVER, in the same breath, those same "protect the children" Democrat politicians promote gay marriage and adoption as a party platform, which would amount to doing the same thing as the aforementioned GOP crime of blind neglect but causing a risky situation in significantly larger proportions. Pot kettle and all that irony good stuff…
oh, i know. think ted kennedy. there are plenty of his ilk in the dem leadership. in general though, the dems don't say that theirs is the party of family values.
In short, it's almost immaterial now, but the sentiment to exterminate is very well documented among the writings of that time. Well then, you've fingered some unsavory characters. I just didn't see the order to send the sick blankets out to the natives. There's no question that they probably would if the opportunity to execute it criminally and with stealth presented. There were some people in positions of power who dealt with natives, and they had no sense of entitlement toward the gritty savages. Probably because they had a history of going ape and getting bloody, and the notion of the white man's burden to educate and shoe them had not yet matured as fashion. But, I didn't see any general order there or anywhere up the line to authorize the wholesale reduction in native numbers through microbe contamination.
National Minority Health Month Foundation Sponsors Free HIV Testing at California NAACP Convention - priceless, I suppose next I'll have to get rabies shots and heartworm dope if I want to unfreeze my bank account...
When the going gets weird the weird turn pro. - Hunter S Thompson
With all due respect, christine, I think you are confusing the reprehensible actions and human flaws of individual bad apples ( who are present in both parties) with the focused and concerted legislation that 1 party, specifically the Democrat Party, promotes as an important aspect of its party platform, gay marriage and adoption, both of which are the antithesis of family values and which would create a potentially risky environment for children and youth in more ways than one. It is one thing to say GOP individuals did not demonstrate good family values in their behavior, but the GOP supports the traditional family unit as being the best for raising children, while the opposite is true of the Democrat Party whose left wing liberal orientation causes it to support legislation aimed at dismantling one of the cornerstones of our society - the traditional family unit.
The problem is the two (niches and occupants) are not wholly independent things. There are no solutions, only trade-offs.
Nobody's all bad. Not even Nazis.
She's got a point there about the crazy water. Races with lower rates of alcoholism have had much longer exposure to alcohol. The drunkard is a gentile because the gentile is a drunkard. :/
Absolutely. The decimating diseases were a godsend, from the point of view of the white colonists. All the great European empires followed the same patterns, and the British furnish as good an example as any of racial incoherence and even naïveté. A surprising example of the latter was the establishment of the first permanent settlement in Jamestown in 1607 (see AR, Jan. 2004). By then, the Spanish had been in the New World for over a century, and had a reputation for massacre. The English were determined to do better, bringing civilization and Christianity to what they expected would be grateful natives. As one backer of the Virginia Company wrote of the Indians he had never seen: “Their children when they come to be saved, will blesse the day when first their fathers saw your faces.” The colonists did not consider themselves superior to the “naturals,” no matter how primitive. They reasoned that the ancient Britons had been savages, civilized by the Romans, and that this process would be repeated. Although the colonists considered themselves racially different from Africans and “Moors,” they thought the Indians were born white and turned dark from exposure to the sun and to skin dyes. The president of the colony, Edward-Maria Wingfield, was so determined to set a loving example that he forbade construction of fortifications and training in the use of weapons. The colony was only ten days old when hundreds of Indians attacked it. If the English had not panicked them with canon fire, the Indians would probably have massacred them all. It was only after this edifying encounter that the colonists built their famous three-sided stockade. The Indian reaction to colonization was the mirror-image of what became the rule in European attitudes towards natives: The tribes that lived closest to Jamestown hated the English and tried to kill them. The more distant ones were friendly and willing to trade. Despite frequent attacks, the English did not give up hope that benevolence would win over the Indians. After the first conversions to Christianity, they set aside 10,000 acres for a college where Indians would be instructed in the faith. One English leader, George Thorpe, was especially insistent on kindness to Indians, and even publicly hanged dogs whose barking had frightened them. As the years went by, Indians and colonists began to mingle, with hired Indians working together with the English in shops and in the field. The appearance of friendliness was false. In 1622, Indians carried out a carefully-hatched extermination plan, turning on the colonists with whom they worked, killing as many as they could. In some areas, they lost the element of surprise and therefore killed only 400 of Jamestown’s 1,200 whites. For Thorpe, the special friend of the Indians, they reserved a particularly cruel death and elaborate mutilation. The remaining colonists launched a war of revenge, but after a year or so relations returned to an appearance of friendliness. Amazingly, in 1644, Indians carried out an identical sneak attack, and managed to kill 400 to 500 people. This time, the English retaliated mercilessly, and in 1646, the Virginia General Assembly noted that the natives were “so routed and dispersed that they are no longer a nation, and we now suffer only from robbery by a few starved outlaws.” What is remarkable about Jamestown is the behavior of the English, not that of the Indians. The English approached the Indians with as much good will as it was probably possible for colonizers to approach the colonized. It was the Indians who recognized that colonization meant dispossession, and they resisted in every way they could. Eventually, of course, the English lost their illusions. By 1690, Governor John Archdale of the Carolinas was praising God for the diseases that killed so many natives: “The Hand of God has been eminently seen in thinning the Indians to make room for the English.” Still, it is sobering to note that even 400 years ago, whites were capable of dangerous illusions in their dealings with non-whites, though they did come to their senses before it was too late. Races with lower rates of alcoholism have had much longer exposure to alcohol. I was thinking about that the other day, how peoples who have been exposed to alcohol for eons don't have problems with it. Interestingly the Aztecs had alcohol, pulque I think it was called, made from fermented cactus. And Mexican natives tend to have less problems with alcohol than others who never had it in their culture until the white man brought it in.
The govt will want to dip you for ticks and other parasites, of course.
It didn't happen all at once because of the scale of the country and the lack of modern industrial methods. Who's forgotten Cambodia? Cambodians haven't, it's the US that ignored the brutality of the Khmer Rouge after creating the chaotic conditions that allowed them to flourish.
Evidence. LOL. What a copout.
You see antiwhite, I see an accurate rendition of facts. Some whites seem to have a persecution complex making them whiney/ As far as Arabs and Muslims, look at their blood stained wars all around the globe and then talk to me about propaganda.
Even more reason to remove the cross since this "space is seen as a nondenominational area".
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
What does Israel have to do with this college removing a cross from a non denominational chapel?
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
Pagans as well as Christians carried out policies that we would label genocide today. What the then arriving pagan Anglo-Saxon Jutes did to the native Welsh who were Celtic Christian at that time could be labeled as genocide.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
"Well....the other kids do it to" doesn't work on parents who have a brain, and you are going to have to do much much better then this to impress me. Thanks for the eye roller.
I was commenting on Bluegrass' repeated assertions that genocide was a Jewish invention. Work on reading comprehension.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
I know what you said, and you got my honest gut reation. Don't like it? Tough. Insults don't impress me either.
Their deeds nullify any good they feel or do.
I doubt that because your response was based on your reading that I was excusing genocide rather than indicating that it is not a Jewish orgin notion.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
Listen; first of all, Pagan originated as a label of people like me in a derogatory sense. And I have listened to Christians and others attack my religion enough so I don't like it thrown out there as the originator of something like genocide. I agree with you that the notion that Jewish people started genocide is absurd. Genocide is older than human history. The mere fact that there were more then one species of intelligent hominid and we are the only one left standing speaks volumes of genocide. By virtue of us surviving, one good assumption one can make is that we are the most violent and warlike of the species of intelligent apes that once roamed this planet. I like you Distro, and I mean nothing personal by snapping at you, but your post was not clear on what point you were making, and it is very understandable for me as a Wicca practitioner to see that post and immediately get aggrivated.
scrapper: This is a taxpayer supported college. W&M is not private; it used to be private but not any longer. It is "our" property. And why are you jumping all over the map with your arguments to support W&M's decision? At first you said that there should be separation between gov't and religion. Now you're claiming this is a private matter even though it says quite clearly in the article that W&M receives taxpayer (gov't) support. "Though the college is now nondenominational and became publicly supported in 1906..." destro: Even more reason to remove the cross since this "space is seen as a nondenominational area". Oh stop it, your flip flops in the positions you have taken in the course of arguing the merits of W&M's decision fool no one and the ensuing spin only give me a headache like watching the theatrics of a Linda Blair understudy for the Exorcist role.
That's a cross you in the west have to bear - pagan as a derogatory word does not exist in Eastern Christianity. Pagan just means peasant folk. In the east they attack the idolator rather than pagan. That's why you had witch burnings in the west but no witch burnings in the east.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
What is the contradiction there? W&M is not my property nor yours - mind your business.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
And you use a Roman torture device Christians use as a symbol because...? And what proof of this can you cite? I am curious where you get this factoid.
Easy enough - find one case of witch burnings in the eastern world. It was a Latin Catholic and Protestant error not an Eastern Christian one. Pagan just means the folk beliefs of the rural people. As such the eastern church viewed such beliefs as legitimate and potions and the like on par with folk medicines. For example the Orthodox church accepts the pagan (folk) belief evil eye phenomenon which predates Christianity.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
Eastern Orthodox countries had few Witch trials. "In parts of the Orthodox East, at least, witch hunts such as those experienced in other parts of Europe were unknown...."The Orthodox Church is strongly critical of sorcerers (among whom it includes palmists, fortune tellers and astrologers), but has not generally seen the remedy in accusations, trials and secular penalties, but rather in confession and repentance, and exorcism if necessary...." 1 "The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
Just to give you an idea where I was coming from.
Like I said - That's a cross you in the west have to bear - pagan as a derogatory word does not exist in Eastern Christianity. Pagan just means peasant folk. In the east they attack the idolator rather than pagan. That's why you had witch burnings in the west but no witch burnings in the east. See #110 above.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
W&M is a tax payer supported school - it receives BOTH state and federal funding. I am a taxpayer and therefore and thusly I have every right to consider critically the decisions of the politically correct minions sitting behind desks who are minding my investments in education, as it were. Speak for yourself if this is not your business - maybe you do not pay taxes - but I do - so shove your condescending remarks up your unemployed welfare consuming a** ( if that's your current situation). I stand my the comments which I made in my initial #41 post to you( which I re- list below), and your subsequent contradictory arguments that have hopped all over the map have not pursuaded me otherwise. destro: That's exactly the point of this article - secular republic scrapper: I think the article deals with how political correctness overtakes what should be common sense. This college has a historic association with Christianity, ergo the cross in its chapel. The US gov't did not ram a cross into this chapel and promote Christianity as the nation's favorite religion. This cross was in this chapel for how many decades with how many hundreds of students of various denominations coming into the chapel to pray to their own individual Lord, without feeling they were being brow beaten into converting to Protestantism. And now some idiot PC ( or maybe aetheist) desk jockey at W&M is using the excuse of "well this is a tax supported school now" and "well the chapel should be non-denominational because it's all the room we've got for prayer and someone (?) might get offended if we don't make this change"...puhleaze this is so transparent. How can you argue that this obvious PC ploy relates to separation of state and religion...you are better than pushing this type of limp wristed milque toast rationale, destro...
Wiccans don't bear or wear crosses, thanks. Let the blessings be.
So? Want to return teh school to the Anglican church? Then America should not have fought the American revolution.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
There are no such things - if you say neo-wiccans then I would accept that term. Neo-Wiccans is a modern recreation of wiccan practice the way Civil War reenactors can't claim they are directly connected with the Civil War. Unless you can trace me your wiccan teachers generation to generation you can't claim to be from them just a recreation of them.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
Wicca is a living, breathing religion. The faith is based on religiosity that has been greatly suppressed and rubbed out to the point much of the culture of the religion that recognizes the power of the Divine Feminine is not existent any longer. The word Wicca was not used for Wicca based religious observance, therefore as this is the first genesis of this word's use for this sort of faith, calling it neo anything can only be done if you have a general desire to pick on my faith, not fact. As far as war reenactors go, they are acting and simulating, Wicca practitioners are involved in real life, present day religious observance. We are in no way reenacting anything, we are living a faith, not simulating our faith as it was done before as actors.
Wicca is a modern recreation of a belief system from the past.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
Want to return teh school to the Anglican church? Then America should not have fought the American revolution. No we fought the revolution to have our own nation, not to be dominated by others, to be captains of our destiny. In the course of building a nation we have accumulated traditions and a good deal of history. Why not leave traditions, history alone when they harm no one except for a small group of politically correct (often bordering on Christophobia)who wish to dominate our nation with their narrow and selfish point of view? For how many decades have students of various denominations used this chapel to pray to their own faith's Lord and only now a Ms. Melissa Engifinkelstein oops Engimann, assistant director for the historic Campus, wants to remove the cross? I'm sorry but our forefathers did not fight the revolution to take on the yoke of political correctness and self-serving views as promoted by the likes of Ms. Engimann. The fedgov't did not thrust a cross into the chapel of W&M out of the blue to promote a federally sanctioned religion. This cross has historical import to the school and no contemporary fast fade mortal has the right to dissolve history and tradition with a stroke of a pen to a memo. This self- important administrator should be over ruled forthwith by the university's board of governors. Let Ms. Engimann find a job elsewhere maybe flipping burgers at a non-denominational food outlet - she does not appreciate tradition or history and should be allowed near repositories of those values.
This is what these Founding Fathers had to say on tradition and history: "During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution." -- James Madison "Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man" -- Thomas Jefferson
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
I didn't say it did you word-twister you.
Some whites seem to have a persecution complex making them whiney/ As far as Arabs and Muslims, look at their blood stained wars all around the globe and then talk to me about propaganda. People don't like being blamed for things that other people did, especially when those things go against a person's nature and values. There's just so much blame and finger-pointing going on for things that happened when we were not alive yet. For instance I am anti-war and I believe all living things have souls and we all matter equally. I would never want to be associated with bad acts commited by whites just because I am white.
It was recreated because the Goddess never died. It is people celebrating a religion and is a living breathing faith.
I accept that. I am glad you accepted my characterization of Wicca as a recreation - I attempt to convert no one.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
Then why did you and Bluegrass harp on about Israel?
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution." -- James Madison "Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man" -- Thomas Jefferson Oh really? What a clever response. Well you given me 2 out of context quotations and nothing from or about the man who laid down the principles of our Bill of Rights - George Mason - and whom George Washington (Mason's neighbor) and Thomas Jefferson greatly admired. Fyi, George Mason was a heavy duty man of faith and along with his neighbor, George Washington, served on the [church] building committee of Truro Parish, which consisted of three churches. There have been books published with George Washington's Prayers and his addresses to the churches. James Madison declared January 12, 1815 " A Day of Public Humiliation and Fasting"..."The two houses of the National Legislature having, by a joint resolution expressed their desire that, in the present time of public calamity and war, a day may be recommended to be observed by the people of the United States as a day of public humiliation and fasting, and of prayer to Almighty god for the safety and welfare of these States, his blessing on their arms and a speedy restoration of peace..." So all in all I have every reason to believe that George Mason, George Washington, and James Madison would be appalled to see Ms. Engimann's somewhat small minded Christophic behavior. W&M became a public college in 1906, so for 60 long years students and administrators came and went without being offended by the cross in the college chapel and only now, 60 years later, an anti-Christian bureaucrat decides to tear assunder history and tradition "for the common good." Pardon me but I smell something rather odiferous and selfish in Ms. Engifinkelstein ooops Ms. Engimann's action.
These shrill, hysterical, hate filled, mindless rants of yours do nothing to convnice others of your point of view. Try presenting facts or a logical argument instad. Read up on what you wnat to pontificate on. Remember that Wikipedia is not a souce. Being able to shriek mindless hate louder than anyone else in the room just makes you come off as a hot flash buffoon on a hormone binge.
.
Being able to shriek mindless hate louder than anyone else in the room just makes you come off as a hot flash buffoon on a hormone binge. Uh...did I quote wikipedia to you in this thread? Errr...how am I supposed to respond to your post?...thank you for your educated calm response (NOT). I am always struck but your intellectual gravitas (NOT). What is your point with this post? You have not added one single iota of fact or considered opinion or new insight to our discussion about the W&M article. Indeed, you did not even allude to W&M once in your tirade against me personally. Your empty ad hominem attack is rather self-revealing, I'm afraid.
Less of an error religious fundamentalists in America make when they try and usurp the Founding Fathers and portray the Founding Fathers as Southern Evangelical interpretations of what Old Testament patriarchs were like. Washington like Jefferson accepted Christianity up to a point - the philosophy of Christ devoid of the supernatural - a common deist/Freemason line of thinking. It is no accident that blue blooded WASP Freemason/Skull&Bones man like Bush called Jesus his favorite philosopher. To a student of the esoteric - such a statement was telling even if it went over people's heads.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
Have another glass of Chardonnay and tell Ferret what a worthless idiot he is again. Are you buckeroo on another ID?
.
Now what are you referring to? I thought I was harping on about how what happened to the American Indians.
He's very good at that sort of thing. Now I have to go through this thread to see where I was harping on about Israel. Perhaps he is referring to my response when he said, "mind your own business" and said Israel does not mind it's own business. So that must mean I went on and on and on putting down Israel, in his mind anyway. I'm glad to see you running circles around him. He likes to distort and twist things though I know you see it too.
It is no accident that blue blooded WASP Freemason/Skull&Bones man like Bush called Jesus his favorite philosopher. Whether our nation's founding fathers were deists and church going Christians in name only is not the point. They believed in freedom to practice religion without interference from the government and they did not fear Christian symbols because the vast majority of early Americans were practising Christians and Christian symbolism has been embedded in every nook and corner of our nation's foundation - from our monies to our federal government building decor to our national anthem to our judicial system, heavens even our most powerful elected executive is sworn into office with a New Testament Bible. Our founding fathers did not fear history or tradition - many of them admired Greek and Roman philosophers and also period architecture whose styles were integrated into our lovely DC federal government buildings. Secularism is a post modern concept that a minority of followers have used to tyrannize our country, to rob our nation of commonly understood and respected history and traditions. It is people like the Michael Newhouse's and the Ms. Engimann's who are even more dangerous than the fundies because the fundies rarely get into a position to impose their will on our nation's rich heritage. Who cares what George Bush believes in? His religious beliefs are irrelevant. The historical underpinnings of this Christian nation are immortal. This is a Christian nation - always has and always will be. No mere mortal passing through time should have any right to "delete" history due to personal fear or prejudice against a Christian symbol in her midst. This administrator at W&M should be fired. She has no appreciation of history, of what far better people than her have contributed to this nation generally, to W&M specifically, in times past. She should not be allowed to work in a college with history like W&M. If she likes a so called secular modern national environment, let her immigrate to Israel. She most likely could apply for citizenship there.
Are you buckeroo on another ID? What it is your point or rather what is your problem? Did I tell Ferret he was a worthless idiot? I believe I did not. You however view Ferret as a worthless idiot. I notice there's a heck of a lot of self- projected insult to Ferret going on but that's a problem between him and you, don't drag me into it. You have not contributed 1 single salient good idea to this discussion thread about the W&M issue. Buzz off and read some books on google, go to the library and borrow some books, or go to a bookstore and stand around books, whatever it takes to fill our head with something other than the sense of inadequacy, inferiority you obviously feel since you are unable to discuss politics or even come up with a cyber moniker that is a derivative of an English word. I feel sorry for you but I'm not a psychiatrist.
The Treaty of Tripoli gives a good insight into the mindset of the founding fathers on the issue of relgion. Article 11 of the Treaty says in part: "As the Government of the United States of America 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." The preliminary treaty began with a signing on 4 November, 1796 (the end of George Washington's last term as president). Joel Barlow, the American diplomat served as counsel to Algiers and held responsibility for the treaty negotiations. Barlow had once served under Washington as a chaplain in the revolutionary army. He became good friends with Paine, Jefferson, and read Enlightenment literature. Later he abandoned Christian orthodoxy for rationalism and became an advocate of secular government. Barlow, along with his associate, Captain Richard O'Brien, et al, translated and modified the Arabic version of the treaty into English. From this came the added Amendment 11. Barlow forwarded the treaty to U.S. legislators for approval in 1797. Timothy Pickering, the secretary of state, endorsed it and John Adams concurred (now during his presidency), sending the document on to the Senate. The Senate approved the treaty on June 7, 1797, and officially ratified by the Senate with John Adams signature on 10 June, 1797. All during this multi-review process, the wording of Article 11 never raised the slightest concern. The treaty even became public through its publication in The Philadelphia Gazette on 17 June 1797. Also recall that almost from the inception there was an active movement to pass a Constitutional Amendment declaring the US a Christian Nation. This effort repeatedly failed and the effort was eventually abandonned sometime around the Civil War.
.
To support my contention that America always has been a Christian nation from its founding to the present: a. Historic foundation Courtesy of the Library of Congress historical archives: "Religion and the founding of the American Republic" http://www.loc.gov/exhibi ts/religion/rel04.html b. Christian religious identification continues today "American Religious Identification Survey" http ://www.gc.cuny.edu/faculty/research_briefs/aris/key_findings.htm * the proportion of the population that can be classified as Christian has declined from eighty-six in 1990 to seventy-seven percent in 2001; * although the number of adults who classify themselves in non-Christian religious groups has increased from about 5.8 million to about 7.7 million, the proportion of non-Christians has increased only by a very small amount - from 3.3 % to about 3.7 %; * the greatest increase in absolute as well as in percentage terms has been among those adults who do not subscribe to any religious identification; their number has more than doubled from 14.3 million in 1990 to 29.4 million in 2001; their proportion has grown from just eight percent of the total in 1990 to over fourteen percent in 2001 "Secularists" represent an insignificant minority in this nation - they better get used to seeing Christian symbolism in their midst because the trend for self- identification with Christianity will only become more pronounced after the 20- 40 MILLION illegal CATHOLIC Hispanics get legalized, which will happen post haste after the November elections. Within the next 25-50 years I predict we will have a CATHOLIC Hispanic President and there will be crosses here, there will be crosses there, there will be crosses everywhere, so the Missy Engimanns better invest in blinders for their "secular" ( wink, wink) eyes, if they want to stick around America.
Btw, nice informative post.
The type of Christians the Founding Fathers were in no way resembles how the fundamentalists in America make them out to be when they try and usurp the Founding Fathers and portray the Founding Fathers as Southern Evangelical interpretations of what Old Testament patriarchs were like. Washington like Jefferson accepted Christianity up to a point - the philosophy of Christ devoid of the supernatural - a common deist/Freemason line of thinking. The Treaty of Tripoli gives a good insight into the mindset of the founding fathers on the issue of relgion. Article 11 of the Treaty says in part: "As the Government of the United States of America 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."
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
The USA is and was a Christian nation. The founding fathers were practising Christians. The first amendment of the constitution guarantees a citizens right to practice his/her religion without interference from government. This article has nothing to do with government interfering or imposing a religion. W&M was established as a private college and is the second oldest campus in the USA. W&M's chapel with its cross has been there since the college's founding. The cross remained in its chapel for 60 ( count them 6-0) long years after W&M was made a public college without causing problems for the students and professors. Suddenly in 2006 one non-Christian administrator has imposed her personal Christophobic beliefs on tradition and history. Her decision has ZERO to do with a federal or state order. No court order was issued to our best knowledge. She should be fired for imposing her will, her personal beliefs on a chapel that reflects Americana history and Christian tradition. P.S. I'm not a Protestant but I am an American who respects tradition and history. I do not respect tyrants. I do not respect Ms. Engimann's decision.
Which ones? "I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of...Each of those churches accuse the other of unbelief; and for my own part, I disbelieve them all." From: The Age of Reason by Thomas Paine, pp. 8,9 (Republished 1984, Prometheus Books, Buffalo, NY) "The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
It's been a chapel since 1732. I've never encountered a Christian that was in favor of removing Christian symbols from historically Christian buildings. I was commenting on Bluegrass' repeated assertions that genocide was a Jewish invention. Quit word twisting. Where did I assert that? The Old Testament is a codification of racial law and genocide, not the genesis of those Stone Age beliefs.
"...it is unlawful in the ordinary course of things or in a private house to murder a child; it should not be permitted any sect then to sacrifice children." -Thomas Jefferson
Thomas Paine wasn't a "Founding Father".
"...it is unlawful in the ordinary course of things or in a private house to murder a child; it should not be permitted any sect then to sacrifice children." -Thomas Jefferson
What a moronic statement.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
Here are some good quotes from the founding fathers on this subject: John Adams: "I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved -- the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!" In his letter to Samuel Miller, 8 July 1820, Adams admitted his unbelief of Protestant Calvinism: "I must acknowledge that I cannot class myself under that denomination." JOHN ADAMS In his, "A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America" [1787-1788], John Adams wrote: "The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses. ". . . Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind." James Madison: "During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution." "What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not." James Madison, perhaps the greatest supporter for separation of church and State, and whom many refer to as the father of the Constitution, also held similar views which he expressed in his letter to Edward Livingston, 10 July 1822: "And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together." Ben Franklin: His Autobiography revels his skepticism, "My parents had given me betimes religions impressions, and I received from my infancy a pious education in the principles of Calvinism. But scarcely was I arrived at fifteen years of age, when, after having doubted in turn of different tenets, according as I found them combated in the different books that I read, I began to doubt of Revelation itself. ". . . Some books against Deism fell into my hands. . . It happened that they wrought an effect on my quite contrary to what was intended by them; for the arguments of the Deists, which were quoted to be refuted, appeared to me much stronger than the refutations; in short, I soon became a through Deist." In an essay on "Toleration," Franklin wrote: "If we look back into history for the character of the present sects in Christianity, we shall find few that have not in their turns been persecutors, and complainers of persecution. The primitive Christians thought persecution extremely wrong in the Pagans, but practiced it on one another. The first Protestants of the Church of England blamed persecution in the Romish church, but practiced it upon the Puritans. These found it wrong in the Bishops, but fell into the same practice themselves both here [England] and in New England." Dr. Priestley, an intimate friend of Franklin, wrote of him: "It is much to be lamented that a man of Franklin's general good character and great influence should have been an unbeliever in Christianity, and also have done as much as he did to make others unbelievers" (Priestley's Autobiography) Thomas Paine: This freethinker and author of several books, influenced more early Americans than any other writer. Although he held Deist beliefs, he wrote in his famous The Age of Reason: "I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my church. " "Of all the systems of religion that ever were invented, there is no more derogatory to the Almighty, more unedifiying to man, more repugnant to reason, and more contradictory to itself than this thing called Christianity. " Thomas Jefferson: ven most Christians do not consider Jefferson a Christian. In many of his letters, he denounced the superstitions of Christianity. He did not believe in spiritual souls, angels or godly miracles. Although Jefferson did admire the morality of Jesus, Jefferson did not think him divine, nor did he believe in the Trinity or the miracles of Jesus. In a letter to Peter Carr, 10 August 1787, he wrote, "Question with boldness even the existence of a god." Jefferson believed in materialism, reason, and science. He never admitted to any religion but his own. In a letter to Ezra Stiles Ely, 25 June 1819, he wrote, "You say you are a Calvinist. I am not. I am of a sect by myself, as far as I know." Thomas Jefferson interpreted the 1st Amendment in his famous letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in January 1, 1802: "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State." Some Religious activists try to extricate the concept of separation between church and State by claiming that those words do not occur in the Constitution. Indeed they do not, but neither does it exactly say "freedom of religion," yet the First Amendment implies both. As Thomas Jefferson wrote in his Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom: "Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination." George Washington: To the United Baptist Churches in Virginia in May, 1789, Washington said that every man "ought to be protected in worshipping the Deity according to the dictates of his own conscience." After Washington's death, Dr. Abercrombie, a friend of his, replied to a Dr. Wilson, who had interrogated him about Washington's religion replied, "Sir, Washington was a Deist."
.
You can cherry pick quotations from the Founding Fathers to allege they feared or loathed religion but the fact of the matter is that the Founding Fathers for the most part as well as the founding peoples of America were practising Christians and America today above all other Western nations has its majority of citizens self-identify as Christians. See the links included in my post #140. The first amendment of the Bill of Rights would not support the decision of Ms. Engimann and she is not even referring to it as a reason for her decision. Her decision is based on politically correct hooey at best or her own Christophobic sentiments at worst. Whatever case scenario has motivated this short sighted decision, the ending of the story may not have been written yet. W&M only receives 18% of its budget from taxpayer funding. W&M depends on alumni endowments to a very large degree. So we'll see how this small minded PC decision goes down with W&M's alumni benefactors. Sometimes misguided decisions have a way of righting themselves when $, or lack thereof, is involved. We'll see...
Didn't you claim to be a Greek Orthodox, or was that just for our benefit?
Same here, I find it quite odd.
Well of course, what do you expect from a bunch of American Christians who all live in trailers, have missing teeth and never made it past 8th grade? We are all married to our first cousins, and our children are all mentally retarded, and we don't have souls either, but you already know that. We also listen to banjo music in our free time and live on MacDonalds hamburgers. I suppose we should feel honored that you would connect with lowly creatures such as us.
What does that mean? I will enforce religion on the people? Did you not learn from the Pope's comment on what the Byzantine emperor had tos ay about religion and force?
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
NOT!
Another point that you might want to keep in mind is that before 1800 only about 10% of the population of the US were members of Christian Congregations. I've seen this figure as low as 6.5% and as high as 15%, but the point is that only a very small percentage belonged to organized Christian Churches. At the time, organized religion had a bad name. The excessess of the inquisition and the witch trials were not that far away from these people. Many of the religious adherents in the colonies were kooks who had been kicked out of Europe for being intolerent trouble makers. They didn't sell with the general population. Among others, Robert, T. Handy documents this in his book "A History of the Churches in U.S. and Canada," New York: Oxford University Press, 1977. The American Revolution was driven by Enlightenment Thinkers. By and large these people were Diests (Jefferson) or Rational Theists (Franklin). They believed in the Masonic tradition of preserving the Enlightenment from over bearing kings, popes and wild eyed religious nuts. From what I have read of Jefferson (and some of which is bolded above) he did believe in a "wall" of separation between church and state least Christian Taliban types seek to establish a theocracy over rest. Also recall that true to Jefferson's fear, the Christian Taliban types tried to do exactly what Jefferson feared. For almost 80 years after the Bill of Rights was ratified the minority Christian contingent sought an amendment declaring the US a "Christian Nation". They were shot down time and time again by the founding fathers and finally gave up as the Civil War got underway.
.
The Second Great Awakening - which saw a rise in the hostility towards Freemasons. Which is when the Freemasons went underground forming true secret societies like Skull&Bones (no coincidence it was founded during that Second Awakening) and created a dichotomy in America. Before the Second Great Awakening fervent Christians and those Americans that were deists lived side by side with each tolerating each other. Then the Second great Awakening changed that and drove the deists underground. That is why the upper crust seem to worship a different God than the great unwashed Americans and why there exists a hostility between the upper and lower crusts and maybe why there exists a mood in lower crust America that the upper crust conspires against them.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
Not, what? I never said I was Orthodox - I just defend them against what America does to them.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
I suggest you read through the historic archives of Library of Congress which clearly demonstrates the Christain connection to the early history of America. The page heading that Library of Congress associates with the founding of the American Republic is rather telling: "Religion and the founding of the American Republic"
Religion and the founding of the American Republic" The url keeps getting fragmented by Neil's program. Copy and paste the url and then remove the erroneous space that for whatever reason appears in the word "exhibits."
Interesting you divide America into upper-class Deists and the great unwashed, i.e., Christians. You forgetting the Sons of Satan, despised in every country that's stupid enough to allow them in, because of their lying, stealing, cowardice, and attempts to destroy both culture and the country itself.
"We become what we behold. We shape our tools and thereafter our tools shape us." -- Marshall McLuhan, after Alexander Pope and William Blake.
http://www.loc.gov/exhibi ts/religion/rel04.html Why did you post this? It does absolutely nothing advance your argument or disprove anything that was said on the other side. It simply says that there were deeply religious men -- amonst others -- in the group the we call the founding fathers. No one disputes that. The article is fluff for Jr. High School kids writing term papers. If you disagree, post the relevant portion that proves your point. Use your cut and paste function. My point is that the actual founding fathers published a docment clearly stating that this was NOT a christian nation. It was ratified by Congress. I posted quotes from the primary founding fathers to show that this was no fluke and was in accordance with thier wishes.
.
The pure Deism has all be died out. It is kind of a hard sell and it seems to promise very little to the adherent. At least from what I've read and seen. For example, Jefferson did not believe that prayers were answered or that God was necessarily involved with him personally. He believed that God had a plan for the world and that the plan was no doubt unfolding as it should. Essentially, God was busy and an indvidual person wasn't that unimportant. The rationalists were even having trouble with free will as Newton gave them a clockwork universe where all outcomes were pre-determined. Postulating a soul was one way out of this logical bind. It makes me wonder how religious these types would have been had they known of the uncertainty principle. The Rational Theists believed that God listened to them, and was no doubt involved in their personal lives, but that the divine itself was probably unknowable. One became acquainted with portions of God through a life of simple morality. I think the Quakers, and later Unity and some Methodist denominations still practice versions of this - as well as the newer earth based religions that seem to be popping up. I think both of these philosophies are a bit too abstract for the average person. They are something that people like Jefferson or Descartes arrived at after a long analysis. It's not very comforting to a person being driven into the church doors because his job went overseas.
.
Is there a puke icon around here?
Destro please, things are not so black and white as they appear to you. You only seem to see two extreme ends without recognising the many shades of grey inbetween.
Actually this sounds somewhat like Russian history starting in late 1800s. Substitute the word Russian for Amerian. I'm afraid history is about to repeat itself.
Considering the sick bastard infesting the White House now believes his God speaks to him directly, you have to admire a President like Jefferson who was so lacking in hubris he felt the creator felt he was too unimportant to bother with personally.
Sounds almost biblical.
Not really - just trying to use descriptive language of how I think the situation is viewd by our elites. See the movie 'Caddyshack'. The ruling elite of this nation - especially the leading lights of the Revolution where not Christians - call them deists if you will - I would call them post-Christians - which is why it confuses uneducated Americans because they seem Christian on the outside but they are devoid of religious Christianity. by the early 1800s, the Second Great Awakening challenged this group of what we would now call secularists - even if they were not secularists in the modern sense. The Second Great Awakening freaked out the 'deists' who were always a minority - but they were an open and powerful minority. So they went underground. This is what Americans don't understand about America. That America is a two tiered nation and the origins of this is that time in America. Freemasons/Deists went underground - but when the smoke cleared the freemasons that reformed were not the same freemasons of old. They were split in two. The open freemasons just became a gentleman's club while the elite founded secret societies like Skull&Bones. Over time this 'upper crust' no longer saw the uninitiated as fellow Americans - just dangerous rabble to be controlled. This has created over the centuries a disconnect between the rulers and the ruled. This is the origin of the almost gut feeling that people have that there are conspiracies directed against them from the top. PS: Did you know that the Marine Corps was founded in the first Freemasonic temple in the states? By Freemasons? officered by Freemasons? and developed a training based on Freemasonic principals? If there was ever a Freemasonic armed force it is the USMC.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
The level of discourse among Americans is shocking. Where did I say it was black and white? America is all grey. If you can't understand where I am coming from I am sorry.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
Who are you to criticize my Library of Congress link to archival US history material that has copies of original documents with commentary text that covers multi decades of history of what is known as America, when you and your compadre, Destro, have posted selective quotations out of context and links to a website of a tired old man called Loeflin who has a hard on about fundie Christians (like who doesn't, duh?) Get off your high horse. And fyi the reason I did not cut and paste "relevent portions" is because the whole damn url deals with material that proves that the Founding Fathers were for the most part PRACTISING CHRISTIANS ( cover your eyes!) and that the founding settlers of this great nation were by and large PRACTISING CHRISTIANS! Hello. Everything at the site is pertinent to that point. The Library of Congress is replete with history that supports that common sense observation about the nation called America. The fact that you and Destro say well, the founding fathers voted against naming America a Christian nation and a couple of Founding Fathers might be cynical church goers means what exactly? The 2 of you are high 5-ing about what revelation that only the 2 of you apparently are seeing. Spit it out. Tell us posters who have post graduate degrees. What do you 2 bright lights see that others of us possibly with far better academic credentials do not? The founding fathers did not want to establish a national religion. They wanted Americans to be able to practice their religion free from gov't interference. That is obvious except to someone living under a rock. But you and Destro are trying to jump from that widely known historical fact to promote an false idea about America - that it was not founded by Christians nor is it a Christian nation today. That theory has no support whatsoever. Have you heard of the Pilgrims? Have you looked at US currency? Have you ever watched the inaugural ceremony of the most important executive officer in the land? Have you ever visited the Supreme Court bldg - the highest court in the nation? There are Christian symbols in all aspects of American political and judicial and everyday life - do you think that comes by random chance? "The facts on the ground" speak to America as being founded by Christians as it is peopled by a majority of Christians today. If you don't like living in a Christian nation, sorry, move to Israel or to India or to Saudi Arabia. Perhaps some of those countries will offer you a non-Christian religious ambience which you may care for better. The US gov't has never established Christianity as the official religion but the majority of people who live in this country are Christians. Try as you may to fool yourself that history and facts on the ground today are different, you are wrong. You are in the midst of a Christian nation. Its founders were Christians. Its first settlers were Christians - they were known not as Buddhists, not as Muslims, not as Jews. The first Americans after the Revolution were still primarily CHRISTIANS, just as the first settlers under British rule were known as Christians. Regardless of the serenade that you and Destro sing to one another, this article - you know what we are supposed to be addressing - has zero to do with the First Amendment or the religion of the Founding Fathers or the early American settlers. Ms. Engimann does not refer to either subject that you and Destro run off at the mouth about. Ms. Engimann is making the decision to remove the cross from the chapel because of either a) PC hooey or b) because she is Christophobic and wants to take advantage of her position to impose her will and beliefs on W&M. . Stick to the material at hand. Thank you very much. And btw, just because you are still sore that I shot you down on another thread where you were trying to drum up votes for the Dimwit Party as being oh so different than the Repukes, you don't need to carry a grudge for days on end. Get over it.
Red Herring. As you know, and as anyone can see from reading above, I didn't criticize the Library of Congress page you posted, I simply said it wasn't on point. And it wasn't or you could have posted the relevant portions here as I asked. I said before, the article was general fluff put up to help kids do term papers. And that's precisely what it is. As I also said above, the article basically says that some of the founding fathers were very religious. Nobody disputes this and it has no real bearing on the current discussion. Over the years I've learned how to counter your tactic of very specific claim allegedly backed up with overly general reference. Becky Saunders on LP used to make very specific claims regarding the Iraq war tactics and then post a reference to the home page of Janes Military Hardware to back them up. Similarly, you claimed that the United States was founded as a Christian Nation - and not as a secular nation - and you then cite the entire Library of congress for support. In addition, you post a link to an article that is pure fluff and which discusses a collateral point, i.e., that some of the founding fathers were religious. I counter this tactic by asking you to cut and paste the particular sentence or paragraph in the article that backs up your claim. Reading the artcile at the link you posted, I don't think you can do this.
.
Dear Ms. Clueless, I don't need to cut and paste - the whole text and original documents at the Library of Congress url speaks to the fact that the USA was founded by Christians, both settlers and framers of the Constitution. The material also addresses the fact that Christianity was not legislated to be the official national religion - a point that you and Destro appear to believe is known only to the two of you. No one is arguing with you on that point. The LC site that I provide makes this clear. What all other posters including myself are at odds with you and Destro is over your flight of fancy about America not being a Christian nation. That supposition is not born out in fact. Just because Christianity is not legislated to be an official government approved religion does not prove that America is not a Christian nation. America was founded by Christian settlers. America's framers were by and large Christians and church going ones at that regardless of what Destro and old Mr. Loeflin, the owner of the site he refers to, may think. I don't have a clue who "Becky at LP" is. I don't "know" her. I don't post at LP. If she played games with you, I'm sorry for that. I am not Becky. If you truly believe that America has no Christian foundation, that today's Americans are in the main a group of non-religious amorphous blobs with no religious identities, good luck to you in surviving the truth when it strikes - Presidential inaugural day when the highest officer in this country puts one hand on the N.T. Bible, when you glance at some currency, when the national anthem is sung... I'm done with you. Your naivity is too much to bear. I suspect you are quite young. That's probably why you think America is what you make it to be,history and facts on the ground not withstanding. See you. I'm not laying any bread crumbs around, so don't bother following me. I think you have found an intellectual equal and mentor in Destro. God speed.
No it doesn't and this is why you can't give us the cite. And you know this. That is why you are hiding in these genearalities and very, very, very childish personal insults and attacks. I read the article. It says that some of the founding fathers were religious. No more, no less. As such, it provides no support for what you say. In fact, it provides no support for anything. It is generalized fluff put up for students and casual visitors to the site - not a essay intended to make a point. But you know that and that is why you are again running your nasty mouth as a distraction. Why don't you try to go one hour without losing it, going completely emotional and tossing out a hate filled insult to someone. Is there one person on this site you have not insulted this way? If so, I would be curious to hear the name.
.
America was a place of refuge for many persecuted Christians. The German Palatinates (Lutherans) escaping the 30 Years' War, and the Puritans and Quakers before that. There distinct Protestant denominations in America long before the Revolution. In NY were the Dutch Reformists, in the midwest the Methodists and Weslayans, the Presbyterians (from Ulster and Scotland), in PA, west and south. America invented the Baptists (in 1787 on 2 sides of my family tree, in KY and VA). Then a little later the starving Irish Catholics. Then some more Germans, this time Catholics. Then there were those crazy French Canadians (Catholics) who sailed down the Mississippi (the Cajuns). The Scandinavians were Lutheran. The Italians Catholic. Around WWI the Armenians escaping the Turks, some made it CA, who were Greek Orthodox. So many people from so many countries from the Pilgrims onward were all Christians. Up until a few decades ago, all the stores were closed on Sunday. People were not even inclined to travel on Sunday. Everyone went to church. These were real Christians, who studied and worshipped and prayed together. Not the lazy, backsliding apologists we've become today. I cannot think of one good reason to rewrite American history as being anything other than predominately Christian, but I can think of a few bad reasons.
Actually that is not my point. The religious mindset of the Americans at the time of the Revolution was not the same religious mindset of Americans today. The Christians of that time were not as the Christians of today and the secularists of that time were not as the secularists of today are. Today, a so called right wing Christian would not even shake the hand of someone in public life who declares like Thomas Jefferson did that Jesus was not the son of God, just a good man. In that time it seems most religious folk, while I am sure uncomfortable with the positions of the deists did not care what one of them like Thomas Jefferson had to say because it was his private business. America was founded by people of faith - but it was not faith specific - very much in keeping with the Freemasonic concept that anyone could be a lodge brother as long as they had a faith in some sort of deity or religion - though the Founding Fathers went beyond their Freemasonic roots to even accept atheists. So when you claim the Founding Fathers were Christians, it is like a Protestant claiming a Catholic Saint or an Orthodox Church father as his own. While the Protestant is a Christian, he bares little resemblance to the Christians of the early church. So to, American religionists on the right and the left and American secularists bare little resemblance to the first generation Americans. Would the Congress of today pass a peace treaty with Muslims saying that the USA is not a Christian nation like was done in the example posted above?
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
God of Our Fathers By GEORGE F. WILL: What Allen calls Washington’s “famous gift of silence” was particularly employed regarding religion. But his behavior spoke. He would not kneel to pray, and when his pastor rebuked him for setting a bad example by leaving services before communion, Washington mended his ways in his austere manner: he stayed away from church on communion Sundays. He acknowledged Christianity’s “benign influence” on society, but no ministers were present and no prayers were uttered as he died a Stoic’s death.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
I think the stores were closed on Sunday because there were blue laws in place. Some of these were put in place during the Christian revival of the mid 1800s and some came about during the labor reform that took place in the 1880s and then again after WW I. When the blue laws were rescended in the late 1960s Sunday shopping immediately came on line. I don't think it was general holiness that prevented the shopping. Were that the case, it would not be profitable to keep Wall-Mart open on Sunday today. I could be wrong, but the figures I remember never show church attendance topping about 50%. But the point isn't whether or not there are Christians in the United States, the question is whether the United States was founded as a Christian Nation. It wasn't and thet's why the effort to pass a constitutional amendment to this effect failed. That's also why the founding fathers clearly stated that this was not a Christian nation in the treaty of tripoli. That is why there is such an thing as the fist Amendment "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion ..". Note that if the United states was founded as a "Christian Nation" Congress, or whoever, would have already made a law "respecting the founding of religion". The words of the fist amendment are plain on their face and 200 years of case law bears out this interpretation.
.
The Magna Carta is not mentioned in the Constitution either, but its influence is obvious. So is the influence of Christian men as the signers of the Declaration of Independence. Sunday was a day of worship, before the blue laws. The blue laws are because of this belief. No one needed a law not to shop and travel on Sunday, it was a day that Christian America simply observed in worship. Do you know why there is a morning and then evening service? To allow time for people to go home, have a midday meal a few farm chores; then return to church. Midweek there was bible study. The majority of Americans went to church. That you don't see this anymore is no reason rewrite history.
Protestants do not kneel to pray, perhaps he agreed with that group. Not staying to take communion is a very personal reason between a human being and God. The Scripture says not to partake in Holy Communion unless you are spiritually prepared. Maybe he was honoring that, and not ready for whatever personal reason. You must have never read that Washington was a Christian man of prayer: "The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
I wonder if anyone actually uses this "chapel"? or if the students care. Ordinarily I wouldn't care much about what this private school does except that I'm so totally sick of the PC crap.
"I woke up in the CRAZY HOUSE."
The Magna Carta was 1215, well after Christianity was introduced, so using Jefferson's logic, Christianity had influence to its inception and influence in the creation of statute law over common law. The common laws of the time were not very fair to the serfs, that's what made the Magna Carta so important. Thank you for continuing to make my point of the wonderful influence of Christianity on Western Civilization, this nation and the Constitution.
I am persuaded, you will permit me to observe that the path of true piety is so plain as to require but little political direction. To this consideration we ought to ascribe the absence of any regulation, respecting religion, from the Magna-Charta of our country. -- George Washington, responding to a group of clergymen who complained that the Constitution lacked mention of Jesus Christ, in 1789, Papers, Presidential Series, 4:274, the "Magna-Charta" here refers to the proposed United States Constitution "Dr. Rush told me (he had it from Asa Green) that when the clergy addressed General Washington, on his departure from the government, it was observed in their consultation that he had never, on any occasion, said a word to the public which showed a belief in the Christian religion, and they thought they should so pen their address as to force him at length to disclose publicly whether he was a Christian or not. However, he observed, the old fox was too cunning for them. He answered every article of their address particularly, except that, which he passed over without notice." -- Thomas Jefferson, quoted from Jefferson's Works, Vol. iv., p. 572. (Asa Green "was probably the Reverend Ashbel Green, who was chaplain to congress during Washington's administration." -- Farrell Till in "The Christian Nation Myth.") "[Washington was] a total stranger to religious prejudices, which have so often excited Christians of one denomination to cut the throats of those of another." -- John Bell, in 1779, in Paul F Boller, George Washington & Religion, Dallas: Southern Methodist University Press, 1963, p. 118, quoted from Ed and Michael Buckner, "Quotations that Support the Separation of State and Church" "I know that Gouverneur Morris, who claimed to be in his secrets, and believed himself to be so, has often told me that General Washington believed no more in that system [Christianity] than he did." -- Thomas Jefferson, in his private journal, February, 1800, quoted from Jefferson's Works, Vol. iv., p. 572 ("Gouverneur Morris was the principal drafter of the Constitution of the United States; he was a member of the Continental Congress, a United States senator from New York, and minister to France. He accepted, to a considerable extent, the skeptical views of French Freethinkers." -- John E Remsberg, Six Historic Americans.) "I never witnessed his private devotions. I never inquired about them." -- Eleanor "Nellie" Parke Custis Lewis, Martha Washington's granddaughter from a previous marriage, quoted from Sparks' Washingon, also from Franklin Steiner, The Religious Beliefs of Our Presidents, p. 22
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
That's the bottom line in all of these quotes. It is about equality and tolerance of beliefs that was so important. This is what Christianity allows. Just go to Israel if you want to see how another Democracy that has no Christianity is devoid of equality and tolerance. For example: A Jew cannot marry a non-Jew in Israel. At the time of Washington, there were many religious prejudices among the individual and distinct Christian denominations (as directly referenced in the quote above). Washington was trying to avoid all that mess, and he did.
America uses English Common law which predates Christianity - the Magna Carta is not part of the common law. The magna carta was a deal between nobles and the king on what powers he could have over them - it is not a religous inspired document of law.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
But English Common Law now includes the influence of the Magna Carta and Christianity. As I pointed out the common laws of the time Jefferson refers to were so inferior, they did not protect the average serf at all. That's why the Magna Carta was so important. And not until 1215, after Christianity had had plenty of time to influence everything. from Wikipedia about Statute Law, also used by the United States. A statute is a formal, written law of a country or state, written and enacted by its legislative authority, perhaps to then be ratified by the highest executive in the government, and finally published. Typically, statutes command, prohibit, or declare policy. Statutes are sometimes referred to as legislation or "black letter law." In many countries, published statutes are organized in topical arrangements called codes, such as the Civil Code of Quebec or the United States Code. Washington pointedly avoided the inter-denominational infighting among the various Christian groups, as the quotes you posted are evidence. And why don't you tell me what makes Israel so racist and intolerant if it is a Democracy with a rule of law? You have stated that afterall you are not a Greek Orthodox, although you certainly led many of us to believe that. So what do you believe?
Do I have to be a worshiper to defend what was done to the Orthodox peoples in by the USA? I don't understand why also you assume that if I am an Orthodox believer that means I would lie about the nature of the USA like some Protestants do? Or that I want a theocracy? Orthodoxy is against a theocracy - unlike in England where the king/queen is head of the church which is impossible under Orthodoxy or how the pope is king of the Papal States and heads his own govt in the Vatican - forbidden under Orthodoxy or how Calvinists and other Protestant churches ran there own city-states as seen in Switzerland and Germany.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
That the USA was not founded on religous principles and was founded to be a secular republic. Something that pissed off the religous folk even then. "I am persuaded, you will permit me to observe that the path of true piety is so plain as to require but little political direction. To this consideration we ought to ascribe the absence of any regulation, respecting religion, from the Magna-Charta of our country." -- George Washington, responding to a group of clergymen who complained that the Constitution lacked mention of Jesus Christ, in 1789, Papers, Presidential Series, 4:274, the "Magna-Charta" here refers to the proposed United States Constitution
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
The facts do not lie. Your chosen faith or lack of it, may be the reason you fail to see the importance of the influence of Christianity in the foundation of this nation. Orthodoxy is against a theocracy - unlike in England where the king/queen is head of the church which is impossible under Orthodoxy or how the pope is king of the Papal States and heads his own govt in the Vatican - forbidden under Orthodoxy or how Calvinists and other Protestant churches ran there own city-states as seen in Switzerland and Germany. Thanks to the American Revolution and the French Revolution monarchies are mere figure-heads today, and the Vatican has no influence over governments today. America is not a theocracy, but Christianity has played a huge part in its very inception and growth. Those Calvinist and Protestant churches who ran their own city-states in Switzerland and Germany were undoubtedly very fair, equitable, tolerant and safe places to live. Twice I have mentioned Israel as having a rule of law, a so-called Democracy, yet totally racist and intolerant. Its very laws are racist and intolerant. You have not answered my question, how that happened. I will answer it for you. Because Israel's laws are not founded in Christianity. They are influenced by the Torah, which hates anything non-Jew. Christianity makes a difference, it is that difference that makes Western Civilization and America different, in a good way; not perfect, but you cannot perfection anywhere on this planet.
That is because these were Christian men who understood that religious freedom should be available to all within our borders. Where did they get that understanding? Perhaps some history into the intense differences of opinions about the various Christian denominiations at the time would help you understand why Washington avoided taking any sides. Israel has a rule of law that is racist and intolerant. There is a difference when the laws are written by true Christians, not the Hagees and Robertsons of today.
Twice I have mentioned Israel as having a rule of law, a so-called Democracy, yet totally racist and intolerant. Its very laws are racist and intolerant Those Calvinist and Protestant churches who ran their own city-states in Switzerland and Germany were undoubtedly very fair, equitable, tolerant and safe places to live???? Except for those they burned at the stake I assume. As for Israel? I don't get your point? I don't support a theocratic state like Israel and I consider democracies a form of mob rule. Beyond that I don't get how bringing in Israel out of the blue has any bearing on this conversation.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
Which is why the Founding Fathers gave the boot to you religous impositionists.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
And I mentioned that they were not perfect, but that no place is. I don't support a theocratic state like Israel and I consider democracies a form of mob rule. So what form of govt do you admire? Israel is an example of a democracy that has a rule of law but is intolerant and racist. And I submitted that one difference would be that the laws were written without any Christian influence.
I am not a religious impositionist, just the opposite. You really are missing my point. Among the teachings of Christianity are tolerance, equality of man and free will. These teachings influenced our Constitution. I should add, that ancient Rome found the ideas of Christianity very radical and not good for their totalitarian government, ruled by a small elite.
The Constitution of our Founding Fathers - a Constitution not based on religion - which went out if it's way not to include God or the Bible in its formulation. If you are a nut job that thinks Calvinist Geneva was a just place then you are no better than the Israelis you claim you hate.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
You cannot compare the attitudes and superstitions of people from centuries ago to those of today. Well if you can compare them that shows just how "advanced" that modern nation must actually be. And again, the reason the Founding Fathers went out of their way not to specify any Christian denomination over another, but to insure religious freedom for all, including future generations, is because they were learned Christians, who understood the teachings of Christianity itself; free will, the equality of man, do unto others as you would have them do unto you (The Golden Rule), etc..
Some where Christians some were not. The 'some were not' part is what you deny.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
Jefferson was not, but a deist; Washington and most of them were. And even those who were not, would have had the benefit of early Christian teachings to help form their ideas.
Stop dancing around the issue - you are for the imposition of religious values on people.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
If by "imposition of religious values" you mean I think that all men are created equal, that all men are equal under that law, that a man has the right to stand before his accuser, and the right to a speedy trial, that torture is morally wrong, that murder is morally wrong, that we all have the right to private property, freedom of speech, to learn to read, etc; yes, these values (religious or otherwise), I would impose on people. These are also values that Christians hold dear and I gave the example of Israel to make my point that not all democracies believe these values are important to uphold. Of course, GW Bush has changed all that, we're looking more like Israel everyday. They have 9,000 Palestinians rotting in jail, without any due process. We're new at this, and the Bush govt won't even say how many they have tortured and sent to secret prisons.
teaching creationisim or having prayer in school.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
I don't think these should be mandatory, but private schools should be allowed to, of course. I don't see a problem with "a moment of silence", no one is saying how to spend those few minutes. I would prefer that Evolution be taught as a theory, not as fact (which in a way it is, without any other choice).
Can you direct me to the quotes where the founding fathers advocate the removal of crosses from Christian chapels on campuses? What if we were to go into synagogues and mosques on campuses and remove their symbols, turning their houses of worship into 'non-denominational' spaces? They wouldn't mind, would they? I'm appalled that anyone would agree with this outrage to Christianity, and to religious belief in general, in America.
"...it is unlawful in the ordinary course of things or in a private house to murder a child; it should not be permitted any sect then to sacrifice children." -Thomas Jefferson
The West, including America, is determined to commit cultural suicide. There is so much self-loathing among our "intelligentsia" that they really should all just join hands and jump off the Golden Gate Bridge in one mass plunge.
"I woke up in the CRAZY HOUSE."
We committed cultural suicide in 1913. It's taken this long for the corpse to rot.
"...it is unlawful in the ordinary course of things or in a private house to murder a child; it should not be permitted any sect then to sacrifice children." -Thomas Jefferson
Nah, it's all for a good cause. I forget what is the purpose?
that wouldn't be PC !
Theory in relation to science does not mean a guess. Like Music theory. Art theory. The theory of gravity.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
If it's not my church why should I care? I consider female clergy an abomination before God - you don't see me torching heretical Protestant churches with female priests and bishops do you? (All Protestants are heretics). Plenty of Protestant churches change with the wind. Their right. None of my business. Thank God.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
Dunno. You're all over this thread so you must care on some level. You certainly don't seem to care about Christian chapels being de-Christianized.
"...it is unlawful in the ordinary course of things or in a private house to murder a child; it should not be permitted any sect then to sacrifice children." -Thomas Jefferson
A) I tend not to consider Protestants true Christians so that may be why I don't get all upset also and most importantly - none of my business. B) I do care if others use these issues to make up a crusade.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
So why are you on this thread?
"...it is unlawful in the ordinary course of things or in a private house to murder a child; it should not be permitted any sect then to sacrifice children." -Thomas Jefferson
The basic doctrine of Christianity is shared by Protestants, Roman Catholics and Greek Orthodox. That is, that Christ is God Incarnate, the existence of the Holy Spirit, the Holy Trinity, the virgin birth. The Vatican acknowledges this shared faith, permitting Protestants to participate in Communion; I don't know about the Orthodox. There are certainly differences in tradition and interpretation of some Scripture, but not the really important ones that define Christianity.
Dunno. You're all over this thread so you must care on some level. You certainly don't seem to care about Christian chapels being de-Christianized. He also advocates disunity among Christendom. What's that about if he is not a Christian? He posted he is not Greek Orthodox, so why bother? Yet this American government that he hates, he backs completely when it comes to the official story about 9/11. Correct me if I have mischaracterized you Destro.
When it comes to separating the conditioned sheep from the other barnyard animals, that's the new line of demarcation for me.
"...it is unlawful in the ordinary course of things or in a private house to murder a child; it should not be permitted any sect then to sacrifice children." -Thomas Jefferson
It could mean even more than that. Did you catch this Madsen report? Lani Kass: Israeli Defense Force veteran heading up Air Force Cyberpace warriors. (WMR)
Correct me if I have mischaracterized you Destro. Wrong on all counts.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
How so?
I don't hate America - I hate her foreign policy (see Kosovo and Bosnia) and in some cases how she has strayed from her constitution where so called conservatives like you actually want the govt involved in some areas but not involved in others. Basically, you types what the govt on your side and when its not on your side advocating your position then you bitch about govt interference. I don't accept the whole govt story on 9/11 - I just scoff at the notion of a Rube Goldberg like conspiracy where there is coordination between the flights and a whole ground team of demolition experts who prepped the sight with explosives days or hours in advance. That's an example of limited American intellect not able to grasp how the real world works. I try not to hate Muslims but what's to like? Their whole belief system is alien to my classical Western sensibilities and they are hostile to the way the West thinks - while other alien cultures like Hinduisim for example and Japanese Shintoisim seem to co-exist fine with the West.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
What Christians? American Christians who did what they did to Serbia? That back Turkey over Greek Cyprus? Those Christians? I am sure you guys are the exception - sorry in America the exception is not the rule.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
We've been over this and you could not disprove any of the evidence presented on any of the 9/11 threads. how she has strayed from her constitution where so called conservatives like you actually want the govt involved in some areas but not involved in others. I want the government involved only as far as the Constitution allows, which is some but not much. Labels don't mean much anymore.
1) You can't prove a negative. 2) You guys have not proved a thing - where are your court cases? If your evidence is good enough go to court and charge the govt with wrongful death and get a jury of your peers to agree or rise up and start killing the govt men.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
It's not about proving negatives. There's no evidence to back up the original claims of 19 Arabs hijacking planes.
"...it is unlawful in the ordinary course of things or in a private house to murder a child; it should not be permitted any sect then to sacrifice children." -Thomas Jefferson
Why not? I saw America training and arming thousands of jihadi Muslims in the 90s so they can do their master's bidding. See Bosnia and Kosovo (where the 9/11 Muslims organized from with help from MI6 and the CIA and Pentagon).
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
Then post the hard evidence of 19 Arabs hijacking planes on 9/11. It should be easy to do.
"...it is unlawful in the ordinary course of things or in a private house to murder a child; it should not be permitted any sect then to sacrifice children." -Thomas Jefferson
Prove they were not. Like I said I accept the hypothesis of collusion between the CIA and al-Qaeda. I accept that 9/11 was either a collusion (they worked with al-Qaeda) or omission (it was allowed to happen) or blow-back. You on the other hand are a deluded dogmatist who thinks he has all the inside knowledge by virtue of some sort of psychic osmosis of fact you have no first hand knowledge about.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
You just contradicted yourself. Gain a little consistency and you'll be worth debating.
"...it is unlawful in the ordinary course of things or in a private house to murder a child; it should not be permitted any sect then to sacrifice children." -Thomas Jefferson
Pray tell show me where. I am used to the prattling of dim witted Americans - I relish this opportunity for one to show me up.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
In post #223, you stated: "You can't prove a negative" and then you asked that a negative be proven. A little consistency would serve you well.
"...it is unlawful in the ordinary course of things or in a private house to murder a child; it should not be permitted any sect then to sacrifice children." -Thomas Jefferson
Several posters have many times on several threads. Your cartoon identity was also revealed.
A little consistency would serve you well. Occam's razor. The simplest explanation is usually the right one. Evidence does exist which I am sure you do not accept of Arabs in the airplanes. The communication with air traffic controllers by the Arabs, the video from the security cameras showing them at the airport. I am sure that you will find reasons enough to reject such facts but what that is not a sign of no evidence - just evidence you discount. On the other hand you have nothing to indicate that what took the place on those airplanes to make them act as they did - unless you delve into robot planes and such. Americans are not a bright people - hence their being butchered in Iraq.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
There's no video from Logan. None. Please post all the links to video that you know of. You'd be the first person to be able to find any video from the primary airports. Address the issue of why you insist that others debate in a manner that you're not willing to also follow.
"...it is unlawful in the ordinary course of things or in a private house to murder a child; it should not be permitted any sect then to sacrifice children." -Thomas Jefferson
Sorry, Occam's Razor still slices to ribbons your robot airplane theory. Come up with something that trumps Occam's razor if you can.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
Invoking Occam's razor after a blatant self-contradiction is lame. Take the beam out of your eye before trying to tell me what's wrong with my sight.
"...it is unlawful in the ordinary course of things or in a private house to murder a child; it should not be permitted any sect then to sacrifice children." -Thomas Jefferson
The Bush Cabal is full of idiots, especially in Cheney's office; they're NeoConservatives who sprang from Straussian Trotskyites. Wolfowitz promised it would be a cake walk that would require just a few troops, since our troops would be welcomed as liberators. That's the NeoCons that are running this war, not the American people, the polls show the people want out of this war. That the WTC was a demolition is the simplest explanation. Pancaking buildings do not fall at that rate. They fell into their own footprint, there are even variously sourced videos showing the typical squibs known to the industry. But then, this has been explained to you many times now. It looks just like a demolition. That's the simplest answer. And then there's Lucky Larry Silverstein. Plenty of motive too. The NeoCons published how much they wanted "a new Pearl Harbor" event to justify all their wars.
Only if you are ignorant.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
That's not even a logical answer, but it's all you have just personal attacks.
Ah, yes - dogma as science.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
All of what you speak there is more a matter of culture than religion. People tend to impose their cultural values onto their religion.
Is dogma how you justify holding one standard for everyone but yourself?
"...it is unlawful in the ordinary course of things or in a private house to murder a child; it should not be permitted any sect then to sacrifice children." -Thomas Jefferson
That's all that's left when reason is gone.
"...it is unlawful in the ordinary course of things or in a private house to murder a child; it should not be permitted any sect then to sacrifice children." -Thomas Jefferson
Very logical answer to anyone who thinks demolition work on that scale is easy and can be camouflaged and set off with Rube Goldberg like precision timing.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
Many Americans were outraged over what happened to Serbia, and American Christianity had nothing to do with it as the Albanians were some sort of Muslim.
Yet, America is still enforcing the loss of Kosovo on the Serbian Christians in favor of Albanian gangster Muslims. And you left out American support for Turkey still over the Greek Cypriots. So spare me. America has no moral leg to stand on. This is a nation of butchers who butcher.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
I saw those pictures too where they had the real Mohammad Atta and another guy at the airport. Funny how small and gentle he looked compared to the monster wearing eyeliner with the massive jaw/chin we all saw who was identified as Mohammad Atta in that now famous picture that appeared shortly after 911.
I saw some pictures of the real Mohammad Atta at an airport, he was with another guy, but I don't know which airport now. I've seen a few pictures of the real guy and he looks nothing like the scary-looking guy we are all now so familiar with.
It looks like I will have to go hunting for Mohommad Atta pictures now.
Mark The FBI, rather than trying to prevent a terrorist attack, was merely gathering intelligence so they would know who to arrest when a terrorist attack occurred.— Robert Wright - Former FBI agent "At temperatures above 800º C structural steel loses 90 percent of its strength. Yet even when steel structures are heated to those temperatures, they never disintegrate into piles of rubble, as did the Twin Towers and Building 7."-http://www.911research.net
Buildings are demolished with that timing all the time. Yes it takes lots of preparation and there is eyewitness testimony to just such a possibility.
No one's associated you personally with any bad acts. Don't be so touchy. These are facts, or not, as your POV may be. Though considering how any Israeli or Jew gets slammed here, that's a pretty funny comment. I mean, aren't Jews white after all? To go off on a tangent ;>
Jews are individuals first like the rest of us, and should also be judged as individuals and not be held responsible for past acts by other Jews they never knew.
#2. To: bluegrass (#0)
College removes cross – from chapel!
#3. To: Destro, bluedogtxn (#1)
#4. To: bluedogtxn (#2)
Why, a Republican would never let that happen.
#5. To: bluegrass (#4)
difference between Republicans and Democrats.
#6. To: Cynicom (#5)
#7. To: bluegrass, bluedogtxn (#3)
The chapel is part of the Wren Building, the oldest academic building in America. It's had a cross in it since the chapel was added in 1732.
#8. To: Destro (#7)
It's a private matter - none of my business or yours.
#9. To: bluegrass (#8)
I live in Virginia. W&M is a "public" school.
#10. To: Destro (#9)
#11. To: bluegrass (#10)
By that reasoning, the publicly funded 'Holocaust' Museum in DC should have all of the six-pointed stars removed.
#12. To: Destro (#11)
The Star of David was used as a identifying symbol by the Nazis so you could not have it removed from a museum that touches on the subject.
#13. To: bluegrass (#12)
It's a symbol of the Jewish faith
#14. To: Destro (#11)
#15. To: Lady X (#13)
It's a symbol of the Zionist faith..
#16. To: Ferret Mike (#14)
The lesson that the museum teaches is an important one
#17. To: Ferret Mike (#14)
I would keep the museum and make the Shoah exhibit a wing. It needs exhibits showing what happened to 'New World' peoples, and to peoples in all the other corners of the world when their particular 'holocausts' happened.
#18. To: bluegrass, Lady X (#15)
(Edited)
The world associates [The Star of David] with Judaism.
#19. To: bluegrass (#12)
(Edited)
It's a symbol of the Jewish faith. It doesn't belong in a publicly funded building by Jewish reasoning.
#20. To: Ferret Mike (#14)
The German Nazis used the genocide and 'ethnic cleansing' of Native Americans as one of the models to plan and execute their genocide and ethnic cleansing of those they found odious.
#21. To: Destro, Ferret Mike (#17)
the Holocaust is now part of the American Jewish culture and politicians love to curry favors with politically connected minority groups.
#22. To: bluegrass (#16)
"Only if one ignores the purposeful distortion of history to benefit Jewish power in America and the world."
#23. To: HOUNDDAWG (#19)
When I was in Los Angeles I went into the old city hall bldg (the one on the cops' badges) and there in the middle of the lobby was a 12 ft high Star of David and a banner that read "The B'nai Brith wishes the people of Los Angeles a Happy Hannukah".
#24. To: Destro (#20)
I don't know if any Nazi ever said that but they did openly modeled their laws on the Jews on the American South's Jim Crow laws.
#25. To: Ferret Mike (#22)
So I support a museum like this one.
#26. To: Destro, Ferret Mike (#20)
#27. To: bluegrass (#26)
In Nazi Germany, Jews were prohibited by law from marrying non-Jews. There's only one country in the world that still has this law: Israel.
#28. To: bluegrass, Ferret Mike (#26)
In Nazi Germany, Jews were prohibited by law from marrying non-Jews. There's only one country in the world that still has this law: Israel.
#29. To: Destro, Ferret Mike, Cynicom (#28)
The Nazi legal system was based on the American Jim Crow laws.
#30. To: Destro, Ferret Mike (#28)
#31. To: bluegrass (#29)
#32. To: Destro (#31)
#33. To: bluegrass (#32)
That's beside the point.
#34. To: bluegrass, Ferret Mike (#30)
(Edited)
BTW, is Jim Crow also the source of Israel's current marriage laws?
#35. To: Destro (#33)
#36. To: Destro (#34)
Mind your business.
#37. To: bluegrass (#35)
You brought up Jim Crow laws and then you inadverently proved that Jim Crow and the Nazi race laws have the same source.
#38. To: bluegrass (#36)
Israel takes so much from America that what they do is my biz. An Israeli runs Homeland Security so it's even more my biz.
#39. To: Ferret Mike (#22)
I just do not see the Jewish people as the monsters or monolith of a source of all human greed and intrigue
#40. To: Ferret Mike (#22)
#41. To: Destro (#33)
That's exactly the point of this article - secular republic
#42. To: Ferret Mike, bluegrass, christine (#22)
Example of how the problem is more complex: Mormons, (who also call non believers Goyem)
#43. To: Ferret Mike (#22)
#44. To: scrapper2 (#41)
I think the article deals with how political correctness overtakes what should be common sense.
#45. To: Destro (#37)
Nutso
#46. To: Destro (#38)
#47. To: scrapper2 (#41)
This college has a historic association with Christianity
#48. To: Destro (#44)
W&M is not the property of you or the people - they can do whatever they like.
#49. To: HOUNDDAWG, Ferret MIke, christine (#42)
SCHINDLER'S LIST
#50. To: bluegrass (#49)
C'mon, doggie. That movie is 100% true fact and you know it. Hollywood doesn't lie.
#51. To: HOUNDDAWG (#50)
it would raise the question of why Jews didn't defend themselves, but allowed one Hitler youth with an unloaded rifle to herd them into box cars?
#52. To: Ferret Mike, Jethro Tull (#14)
The German Nazis used the genocide and 'ethnic cleansing' of Native Americans as one of the models to plan and execute their genocide and ethnic cleansing of those they found odious.
#53. To: Diana (#52)
#54. To: Diana (#52)
there was no concrete policy carried out to exterminate Native Americans,
#55. To: Ferret Mike (#22)
Thus I refuse to make people targets based on their race, creed or ethnic background at all.
#56. To: swarthyguy (#54)
Handing out smallpox infected blankets as Gen Amherst did was as blatant as it gets.
#57. To: Diana, christine, Zipporah, bluegrass (#55)
"before the white man came, we had no alcohol to destroy our families. before the white man came, we lived by our traditional values. before the white man came...
#58. To: HOUNDDAWG (#56)
#59. To: Destro, Ferret Mike (#34)
BTW, is Jim Crow also the source of Israel's current marriage laws? Who cares? I don't live there. Do you get all upset women can't drive cars in Saudi Arabia? That girls get their labia sliced off in Africa?
#60. To: HOUNDDAWG (#42)
And, if you support this museum in DC, do you also support the mandatory viewing of SCHINDLER'S LIST by all New Jersey public school students at the order of then Gov. Christine Todd Whitman?
#61. To: swarthyguy, HOUNDDAWG, Destro, Ferret Mike, Diana (#54)
Making the Cherokees walk the Trail of Tears from the Carolinas to Oklahoma may not have been sold as racial extermination but that's pretty much what it accomplished.
#62. To: swarthyguy (#58)
Some quotes from Bouquet to Amherst -
#63. To: swarthyguy (#54)
To: Diana
#64. To: bluegrass (#25)
"Do you also support the purposeful and pointed lies about history that are enshrined in the temple?"
#65. To: Ferret Mike (#64)
#66. To: Diana (#52)
"I think your claim about the Nazis using the extermination of American Indians as a model is an urban legend of sorts, as the vast majority of Indians died from diseases they had no immunity against, and there was no concrete policy carried out to exterminate Native Americans, it happened over a long period of time, an incident here, incident there, and was not an organized effort."
To understand the connection between Christendom's principle of discovery and the laws of the United States, we need to begin by examining a papal document issued forty years before Columbus' historic voyage In 1452, Pope Nicholas V issued to King Alfonso V of Portugal the bull Romanus Pontifex, declaring war against all non-Christians throughout the world, and specifically sanctioning and promoting the conquest, colonization, and exploitation of non- Christian nations and their territories.
#67. To: Ferret Mike (#66)
non-Christians were considered enemies of the Catholic faith and, as such, less than human.
#68. To: Diana (#60)
Please tell me you are kidding!
#69. To: Ferret Mike (#66)
#70. To: bluegrass (#65)
(Edited)
"I'll play your game if you wish.
#71. To: bluegrass (#67)
"I wonder what part of the Old Testament the Catholics got that from?"
#72. To: Ferret Mike, scrapper2, bluegrass (#66)
Thus, when Columbus sailed west across the Sea of Darkness in 1492 - with the express understanding that he was authorized to "take possession" of any lands he "discovered" that were "not under the dominion of any Christian rulers" - he and the Spanish sovereigns of Aragon and Castile were following an already well- established tradition of "discovery" and conquest. [Thacher:96] Indeed, after Columbus returned to Europe, Pope Alexander VI issued a papal document, the bull Inter Cetera of May 3, 1493, "granting" to Spain - at the request of Ferdinand and Isabella - the right to conquer the lands which Columbus had already found, as well as any lands which Spain might "discover" in the future.
#73. To: Diana (#72)
(Edited)
"There is loads and loads of documentation such as this about all the horrific things Europeans have done. Does this imply that Europeans are the cruelest and most violent of all people?"
#74. To: Diana (#72)
#75. To: Diana, Ferret Mike (#66)
there was no concrete policy carried out to exterminate Native Americans, it happened over a long period of time,
#76. To: YertleTurtle (#74)
Some of the tribes deserved to be exterminated.
#77. To: Ferret Mike, Swarthy Guy (#66)
There was a policy to destroy Native American culture and any indigenous people who resisted at best.
#78. To: HOUNDDAWG (#68)
"But for timely intervention every kid is a potential Nazi!"
#79. To: Dakmar (#76)
Some of the tribes deserved to be exterminated. Remind me never to entrust my followers to the likes of you.
#80. To: Ferret Mike, Swarthy Guy (#66)
#81. To: YertleTurtle (#79)
#82. To: Diana (#80)
However it's not a white people trait, it's a human being trait. We're just hearing more about the bad white people deeds lately (with much exaggeration mixed in with in with truth) because there is an underground war of sorts being waged against them these days. It's similar to the mounds and mounds of the bad propaganda being put out against Arabs and Islam.
#83. To: Ferret Mike, Swarthy Guy (#73)
No my dear, just people, with the same amount of good and bad inherent to them as any people. Sometimes a culture exaggerates and intensifies the worst in a people, but no one demographic group is better or worse as human beings than any other.
#84. To: Dakmar, Diana (#82)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lQbOr_mJpE
#85. To: bluedogtxn (#2)
He might bugger an altarboy in the chapel, but he'd never let them take the cross away!
#86. To: bluedogtxn, christine (#2)
Why, a Republican would never let that happen. He might bugger an altarboy in the chapel, but he'd never let them take the cross away!
#87. To: scrapper2 (#86)
#88. To: swarthyguy (#58)
"...that Vermine ... have forfeited all claim to the rights of humanity" (Bouquet to Amherst, 25 June) [149k] "I would rather chuse the liberty to kill any Savage...." (Bouquet to Amherst, 25 June) [121k] "...Measures to be taken as would Bring about the Total Extirpation of those Indian Nations" (Amherst to Sir William Johnson, Superintendent of the Northern Indian Department, 9 July) [229k] "...their Total Extirpation is scarce sufficient Attonement...." (Amherst to George Croghan, Deputy Agent for Indian Affairs, 7 August) [145k] "...put a most Effectual Stop to their very Being" (Amherst to Johnson, 27 August [292k]; emphasis in original).
#89. To: HOUNDDAWG (#88)
#90. To: christine (#87)
oh, i know. think ted kennedy. there are plenty of his ilk in the dem leadership. in general though, the dems don't say that theirs is the party of family values.
#91. To: Ferret Mike (#22)
The important thing is to get rid of the niche, not pick on the occupants and all others like her or him of the same variety.
Buy Flantasy Flan™
#92. To: Destro (#28)
The Nazi legal system was based on the American Jim Crow laws.
Buy Flantasy Flan™
#93. To: Diana (#55)
"before the white man came, we had no alcohol to destroy our families.
Buy Flantasy Flan™
#94. To: swarthyguy (#58)
In short, it's almost immaterial now, but the sentiment to exterminate is very well documented among the writings of that time.
The British
Buy Flantasy Flan™
#95. To: Tauzero (#93)
She's got a point there about the crazy water.
#96. To: Dakmar (#89)
National Minority Health Month Foundation Sponsors Free HIV Testing at California NAACP Convention - priceless, I suppose next I'll have to get rabies shots and heartworm dope if I want to unfreeze my bank account..
#97. To: Diana (#77)
#98. To: HOUNDDAWG (#88)
I just didn't see the order to send the sick blankets out to the natives
#99. To: Diana (#80)
#100. To: scrapper2 (#48)
This is a taxpayer supported college. W&M is not private; it used to be private but not any longer. It is "our" property.
#101. To: Diana (#59)
Does Israel mind it's own business? NOOOOOOOO!
#102. To: Ferret Mike, bluegrass (#71)
#103. To: Destro (#102)
"Pagans as well as Christians carried out policies that we would label genocide today. What the then arriving pagan Anglo-Saxon Jutes did to the native Welsh who were Celtic Christian at that time could be labeled as genocide."
#104. To: Ferret Mike, Bluegrass (#103)
"Well....the other kids do it to" doesn't work on parents who have a brain, and you are going to have to do much much better then this to impress me.
#105. To: Destro (#104)
"Work on reading comprehension."
#106. To: Tauzero (#92)
(Edited)
"Nobody's all bad. Not even Nazis."
#107. To: Ferret Mike (#105)
I know what you said, and you got my honest gut reation. Don't like it? Tough. Insults don't impress me either.
#108. To: Destro (#104)
(Edited)
#109. To: Destro (#100)
destro: W&M is not the property of you or the people - they can do whatever they like. This is like me getting upset some Protestnat denominations ordain women while at the same time I am not a Protestant. None of my business.
#110. To: Ferret Mike (#108)
Listen; first of all, Pagan originated as a label of people like me in a derogatory sense. And I have listened to Christians and others attack my religion enough so I don't like it thrown out there as the originator of something like genocide.
#111. To: scrapper2 (#109)
(Edited)
At first you said that there should be separation between gov't and religion. Now you're claiming this is a private matter even though it says quite clearly in the article that W&M receives taxpayer (gov't) support.
#112. To: Destro (#110)
"That's a cross you in the west have to bear..."
"That's why you had witch burnings in the west but no witch burnings in the east."
#113. To: Ferret Mike (#112)
And what proof of this can you cite? I am curious where you get this factoid.
#114. To: Ferret Mike (#112)
And what proof of this can you cite? I am curious where you get this factoid.
#115. To: Destro (#113)
"Historically, the term "pagan" has usually had pejorative connotations among westerners, comparable to heathen, infidel and kafir in Islam."
#116. To: Ferret Mike (#115)
"Historically, the term "pagan" has usually had pejorative connotations among westerners, comparable to heathen, infidel and kafir in Islam."
#117. To: Destro (#111)
What is the contradiction there? W&M is not my property nor yours - mind your business.
#118. To: Destro (#116)
"That's a cross you in the west have to bear..."
#119. To: scrapper2 (#117)
W&M is a tax payer supported school - it receives BOTH state and federal funding.
#120. To: Ferret Mike (#118)
Wiccans don't bear or wear crosses, thanks.
#121. To: Destro (#120)
Main Entry: Wic·ca
Pronunciation: 'wi-k&
Function: noun
Etymology: probably from Old English wicca wizard -- more at WITCH : a religion influenced by pre-Christian beliefs and practices of western Europe that affirms the existence of supernatural power (as magic) and of both male and female deities who inhere in nature and that emphasizes ritual observance of seasonal and life cycles
- Wic·can /'wi-k&n/ adjective or noun
#122. To: Ferret Mike (#121)
Wicca practitioners are involved in real life, present day religious observance.
#123. To: Destro (#119)
W&M is a tax payer supported school - it receives BOTH state and federal funding. So?
#124. To: scrapper2 (#123)
(Edited)
Why not leave traditions, history alone when they harm no one except for a small group of politically correct (often bordering on Christophobia)who wish to dominate our nation with their narrow and selfish point of view?
#125. To: Destro (#101)
What does Israel have to do with this college removing a cross from a non denominational chapel?
#126. To: swarthyguy (#99)
You see antiwhite, I see an accurate rendition of facts.
#127. To: Destro (#122)
"Wicca is a modern recreation of a belief system from the past."
#128. To: Ferret Mike (#127)
It was recreated because the Goddess never died. It is people celebrating a religion and is a living breathing faith.
#129. To: Diana (#125)
What does Israel have to do with this college removing a cross from a non denominational chapel?
#130. To: Destro (#124)
This is what these Founding Fathers had to say on tradition and history:
#131. To: scrapper2 (#117)
Speak for yourself if this is not your business - maybe you do not pay taxes - but I do - so shove your condescending remarks up your unemployed welfare consuming a** ( if that's your current situation).
#132. To: ... (#131)
Remember that Wikipedia is not a souce.
#133. To: scrapper2 (#130)
Well you given me 2 out of context quotations.......
#134. To: scrapper2 (#132)
#135. To: Destro (#129)
Then why did you and Bluegrass harp on about Israel?
#136. To: scrapper2, Destro (#130)
Well you given me 2 out of context quotations and nothing from or about the man who laid down the principles of our Bill of Rights -
#137. To: Destro (#133)
Washington like Jefferson accepted Christianity up to a point - the philosophy of Christ devoid of the supernatural - a common deist/Freemason line of thinking.
#138. To: ... (#134)
Have another glass of Chardonnay and tell Ferret what a worthless idiot he is again.
#139. To: Destro (#133)
Less of an error religious fundamentalists in America make when they try and usurp the Founding Fathers and portray the Founding Fathers as Southern Evangelical interpretations of what Old Testament patriarchs were like. Washington like Jefferson accepted Christianity up to a point - the philosophy of Christ devoid of the supernatural - a common deist/Freemason line of thinking.
#140. To: Destro (#133)
Washington like Jefferson accepted Christianity up to a point - the philosophy of Christ devoid of the supernatural - a common deist/Freemason line of thinking.
#141. To: ... (#139)
#142. To: scrapper2 (#141)
#143. To: Destro (#142)
The Treaty of Tripoli gives a good insight into the mindset of the founding fathers on the issue of relgion. Article 11 of the Treaty says in part:
#144. To: scrapper2 (#143)
The founding fathers were practising Christians.
#145. To: ... (#134)
"Have another glass of Chardonnay and tell Ferret what a worthless idiot he is again."
Keep that up Commander and you'll never get that four pip and make captain.
#146. To: Destro, scrapper2, Diana, HOUNDDAWG, christine, Ferret Mike (#100)
(Edited)
Even more reason to remove the cross since this "space is seen as a nondenominational area".
#147. To: Destro, scrapper2 (#144)
From: The Age of Reason by Thomas Paine
#148. To: bluegrass, scrapper2 (#147)
Thomas Paine wasn't a "Founding Father".
#149. To: Destro (#144)
#150. To: Destro, bluegrass (#148)
#151. To: Destro (#142)
#152. To: bluegrass (#146)
It's been a chapel since 1732. I've never encountered a Christian that was in favor of removing Christian symbols from historically Christian buildings.
#153. To: Destro, Bluegrass (#148)
What a moronic statement.
#154. To: Diana (#151)
Didn't you claim to be a Greek Orthodox, or was that just for our benefit?
#155. To: Destro (#154)
Greek Orthodox
#156. To: Destro (#154)
(Edited)
#157. To: ... (#156)
(Edited)
Also recall that true to Jefferson's fear, the Christian Taliban types tried to do exactly what Jefferson feared. For almost 80 years after the Bill of Rights was ratified the minority Christian contingent sought an amendment declaring the US a "Christian Nation". They were shot down time and time again by the founding fathers and finally gave up as the Civil War got underway.
#158. To: Diana (#155)
#159. To: Destro, bluegrass, ..., Diana (#157)
#160. To: All (#159)
Courtesy of Library of Congress archives:
#161. To: Destro (#157)
#162. To: scrapper2 (#159)
"Religion and the founding of the American Republic"
#163. To: YertleTurtle (#161)
Interesting you divide America into upper-class Deists and the great unwashed, i.e., Christians.
#164. To: Destro, All (#157)
That is why the upper crust seem to worship a different God than the great unwashed Americans and why there exists a hostility between the upper and lower crusts and maybe why there exists a mood in lower crust America that the upper crust conspires against them.
#165. To: Destro (#157)
#166. To: Destro, Scrapper2, bluegrass, robin, All (#157)
Then the Second great Awakening changed that and drove the deists underground. That is why the upper crust seem to worship a different God than the great unwashed Americans and why there exists a hostility between the upper and lower crusts and maybe why there exists a mood in lower crust America that the upper crust conspires against them.
#167. To: ... (#163)
"For example, Jefferson did not believe that prayers were answered or that God was necessarily involved with him personally"
#168. To: Ferret Mike (#106)
Mmmmmmm. Three-screams rat. -- Homer Liddy
#169. To: YertleTurtle (#161)
(Edited)
Interesting you divide America into upper-class Deists and the great unwashed, i.e., Christians.
#170. To: Diana (#165)
Destro please, things are not so black and white as they appear to you.
#171. To: ..., destro, All (#162)
Why did you post this? It does absolutely nothing advance your argument or disprove anything that was said on the other side. It simply says that there were deeply religious men -- amonst others -- in the group the we call the founding fathers. No one disputes that. The article is fluff for Jr. High School kids writing term papers. If you disagree, post the relevant portion that proves your point. Use your cut and paste function.
#172. To: scrapper2 (#171)
Who are you to criticize my Library of Congress link to archival US history material that has copies of original documents with commentary text that covers multi decades of history of what is known as America,
#173. To: ... (#172)
I counter this tactic by asking you to cut and paste the particular sentence or paragraph in the article that backs up your claim. Reading the artcile at the link you posted, I don't think you can do this.
#174. To: scrapper2 (#173)
I don't need to cut and paste - the whole text and original documents at the Library of Congress url speaks to the fact that the USA was founded by Christians, both settlers and framers of the Constitution.
#175. To: scrapper2, ... (#173)
(Edited)
#176. To: scrapper2, ... (#173)
America was founded by Christian settlers. America's framers were by and large Christians and church going ones at that regardless of what Destro and old Mr. Loeflin, the owner of the site he refers to, may think.
#177. To: robin, scrapper2, ... (#175)
Up until a few decades ago, all the stores were closed on Sunday. People were not even inclined to travel on Sunday. Everyone went to church. These were real Christians, who studied and worshipped and prayed together. Not the lazy, backsliding apologists we've become today.
#178. To: robin (#175)
Up until a few decades ago, all the stores were closed on Sunday. People were not even inclined to travel on Sunday. Everyone went to church.
#179. To: ..., scrapper2 (#178)
#180. To: Destro, ..., scrapper2 (#177)
#181. To: robin (#179)
#182. To: bluegrass (#0)
#183. To: Destro, scrapper2 (#181)
Thomas Jefferson's letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, from Monticello, February 10, 1814.
#184. To: robin, ..., scrapper2 (#179)
The Magna Carta is not mentioned in the Constitution either, but its influence is obvious. So is the influence of Christian men as the signers of the Declaration of Independence.
#185. To: Destro, scrapper2 (#184)
"[Washington was] a total stranger to religious prejudices, which have so often excited Christians of one denomination to cut the throats of those of another." -
A Christian cannot become a citizen of Israel.
#186. To: robin, ..., scrapper2 (#183)
The Magna Carta was 1215,
#187. To: Destro, scrapper2 (#186)
(Edited)
#188. To: robin (#187)
You have stated that afterall you are not a Greek Orthodox, although you certainly led many of us to believe that.
#189. To: robin (#187)
So what do you believe?
#190. To: Destro, scrapper2 (#188)
I don't understand why also you assume that if I am an Orthodox believer that means I would lie about the nature of the USA like some Protestants do?
#191. To: Destro (#189)
#192. To: robin (#190)
Those Calvinist and Protestant churches who ran their own city-states in Switzerland and Germany were undoubtedly very fair, equitable, tolerant and safe places to live.
#193. To: robin (#191)
Perhaps some history into the intense differences of opinions about the various Christian denominiations at the time would help you understand why Washington avoided taking any sides.
#194. To: Destro (#192)
#195. To: Destro (#193)
Which is why the Founding Fathers gave the boot to you religous impositionists.
#196. To: robin (#194)
So what form of govt do you admire?
#197. To: Destro, scrapper2 (#196)
#198. To: robin (#197)
#199. To: Destro (#198)
#200. To: robin (#199)
#201. To: Destro (#200)
Stop dancing around the issue - you are for the imposition of religious values on people.
#202. To: robin (#201)
If by "imposition of religious values" you mean
#203. To: Destro (#202)
teaching creationisim or having prayer in school.
#204. To: ..., Destro, scrapper2, robin, Diana, christine, Cynicom, Ferret Mike, mehitable (#149)
Here are some good quotes from the founding fathers on this subject:
#205. To: bluegrass (#204)
#206. To: mehitable (#205)
The West, including America, is determined to commit cultural suicide.
#207. To: bluegrass (#204)
What if we were to go into synagogues and mosques on campuses and remove their symbols, turning their houses of worship into 'non-denominational' spaces? They wouldn't mind, would they?
#208. To: bluegrass (#204)
What if we were to go into synagogues and mosques on campuses and remove their symbols, turning their houses of worship into 'non-denominational' spaces?
#209. To: robin (#203)
I would prefer that Evolution be taught as a theory, not as fact (which in a way it is, without any other choice).
#210. To: bluegrass, ..., scrapper2, robin, Diana, christine, Cynicom, Ferret Mike, mehitable (#204)
Can you direct me to the quotes where the founding fathers advocate the removal of crosses from Christian chapels on campuses?
#211. To: Destro, ..., scrapper2, robin, Diana, christine, Cynicom, Ferret Mike, mehitable (#210)
If it's not my church why should I care?
#212. To: bluegrass, ..., scrapper2, robin, Diana, christine, Cynicom, Ferret Mike, mehitable (#211)
Dunno. You're all over this thread so you must care on some level. You certainly don't seem to care about Christian chapels being de-Christianized.
#213. To: Destro (#212)
most importantly - none of my business.
#214. To: Destro (#212)
#215. To: bluegrass, Destro (#211)
(Edited)
If it's not my church why should I care?
And he hates America and he hates Muslims; he has posted so in very strong terms that would have him in trouble if it were another group he was posting about.
#216. To: robin (#215)
the official story about 9/11.
#217. To: bluegrass (#216)
#218. To: robin (#215)
Yet this American government that he hates, he backs completely when it comes to the official story about 9/11.
#219. To: Destro (#218)
Wrong on all counts.
#220. To: robin (#219)
#221. To: robin (#215)
He also advocates disunity among Christendom. What's that about if he is not a Christian?
#222. To: Destro (#220)
I don't accept the whole govt story on 9/11 - I just scoff at the notion of a Rube Goldberg like conspiracy where there is coordination between the flights and a whole ground team of demolition experts who prepped the sight with explosives days or hours in advance. That's an example of limited American intellect not able to grasp how the real world works.
#223. To: robin (#222)
We've been over this and you could not disprove any of the evidence presented on any of the 9/11 threads.
#224. To: Destro, robin (#223)
1) You can't prove a negative.
#225. To: bluegrass (#224)
There's no evidence to back up the original claims of 19 Arabs hijacking planes.
#226. To: Destro (#225)
#227. To: bluegrass (#226)
Then post the hard evidence of 19 Arabs hijacking planes on 9/11. It should be easy to do.
#228. To: Destro (#227)
Prove they were not.
#229. To: bluegrass (#228)
You just contradicted yourself. Gain a little consistency and you'll be worth debating.
#230. To: Destro, robin (#229)
#231. To: Destro (#229)
Pray tell show me where. I am used to the prattling of dim witted Americans - I relish this opportunity for one to show me up.
#232. To: robin, bluegrass (#231)
In post #223, you stated: "You can't prove a negative" and then you asked that a negative be proven.
#233. To: Destro, robin (#232)
The simplest explanation is usually the right one.
#234. To: bluegrass (#233)
#235. To: Destro (#234)
#236. To: Destro (#232)
Americans are not a bright people - hence their being butchered in Iraq.
#237. To: robin (#236)
That the WTC was a demolition is the simplest explanation.
#238. To: Destro (#237)
#239. To: bluegrass (#235)
Invoking Occam's razor after a blatant self-contradiction is lame.
#240. To: Destro (#220)
I try not to hate Muslims but what's to like? Their whole belief system is alien to my classical Western sensibilities and they are hostile to the way the West thinks - while other alien cultures like Hinduisim for example and Japanese Shintoisim seem to co-exist fine with the West.
#241. To: Destro (#239)
dogma
#242. To: robin (#238)
personal attacks.
#243. To: robin (#238)
#244. To: Destro (#221)
American Christians who did what they did to Serbia?
#245. To: Diana (#244)
#246. To: Destro (#232)
The communication with air traffic controllers by the Arabs, the video from the security cameras showing them at the airport.
#247. To: bluegrass (#233)
There's no video from Logan. None. Please post all the links to video that you know of. You'd be the first person to be able to find any video from the primary airports.
#248. To: bluegrass, Destro (#233)
#249. To: Diana (#247)
That was in Portland, Maine.
#250. To: Destro (#243)
#251. To: Diana (#126)
I would never want to be associated with bad acts commited by whites just because I am white.
#252. To: swarthyguy (#251)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest