Re: Stupid Americans! -- Stupid... Stupid... STUPID!!! _____________---_ xywma

[Knowleman]

Tre' - let me give you another perspective from a close American ally
- the UK. We are of course all concerned with terrorism and are
largely in line with the American people on many other matters. There
are many Brits, however, who feel that the world is generally a more
risky place as a result of the Bush administration's approach to
international affairs.

The reason is that international politics is a bit like brain surgery
- you need need to use the right techniques, precision instruments and
know that if you cut here, there is likely to be an effect over there.
From where we are sitting, it looks a bit like Bush has stormed into
the operating theatre, pushed all of the highly qualified and
experience surgeons to one side and is now attempting brain surgury by
wielding a big club with a six in nail through it. The risk is that
all we end up with is a bloody mess, which is the direction is appears
to many to be heading in.

Added to this, the Brits are generally very historically aware and
understand that from the crusades through northern ireland to the
current situation in the middle east, religion has been used as an
excuse to promote ideallistic viewpoints through bloodshed and
torture. It is therefore very worrying to us that a world superpower
and the top man himself is becoming more and more driven by
fundamentalist christian ideals. The constitution separates church
from state, but Mr Bush and many Americans seem to want them pulled
back together, which makes dealing objectively with nations that
revolve around other faiths very difficult - if not in practice, then
in perceptional terms.

The US administration's attitude to the health of the planet is also
extremely worrying to us here in Europe, which is something that
should be of interest to the ecologically aware reef keeping community
(there you go - a legitimate link to this forum). We understand the
delicate balance of biological systems more than most so I would
expect the average reefer to be extremely concerned at Bush dismissing
the worries of the European community in this area.

There is more if we get into discussions on the economy, but I will
stop there.

The point is though, that a lot of what America does has a direct
impact on the health and safety of the rest of us. It is therefore not
just simply a case of letting the mad, delusional, misguided Americans
get on with it (this is the language of the local press here, not me).
We need America to act responsibily on the world stage and when it
doesn't we get either ****ed off or afraid. Right now, I have to admit
to being personally a bit afraid of what America will do in Iran,
North Korea, etc.

The comment about America deserving another attack is clearly hot
helpful to the debate, but the fact is that the course pursued by Bush
and Co has almost certainly raised the chances of another major
strike, which is probably the point the person was trying to make.
America is now much more of a target than it was on 9/11 (as is the
UK) and the only way to reduce this risk is for the responsible
members of the world community to pull together.

We all hope that the Bush second term will be more about building
bridges rather than tearing them down. That's the real key to reducing
the risk to all of us.

To achieve a stable and harmonious reef aquarium requires patience, a
well informed methodical approach and taking it one step at a time.
Building a stable and harmonious world is much harder but the
principle is the same. I cannot make a new tank cycle more quickly
through brute force and neither can I use it to achieve peace in
Middle East.

"Tre' Landrum" > wrote in message news:<Cmzjd.14785$233.5983@okepread05>...
> OK, I am confused... why exactly do we deserve to "get hit again" and have
> our economy go "into a deep depression"? Is it because we reelected Bush?
> Wow, that is something. We "deserve" to have Americans killed. So I deserve
> to be killed. You wish me dead... wow. Well, if this is really have you feel
> why don't you just pick up a gun back up your words face to face... with
> honor. None of this name calling and back stabbing... you pick up a gun
> gather all your buddies and float right on over there and back it up. Till
> then we will elect who ever we like, this is our country. Thank you very
> much.
>
> Tre' .... backing any American in the face of terror... no matter who they
> voted for!
>
>

[Tre' Landrum]

Wow, now I am impressed. I can talk all about how America has stopped the
next Nazi regime, they have done everything in their power to make the world
a safer place. Not only for Americans, but for the rest of the world as
well. (Outside of Sadam's family). But, even if I said all of that and went
into it.... you are still totally correct. There are people you can sit on
different sides of an argument and walk away more strong in the position you
[now] stand (it often isn't the same as it was before). And then there are
those that are... well viewed as idiots. I respect your position greatly,
even the parts I do not agree with. That is one of the greatest things about
America (as well as the UK and other free nations) we can totally disagree
and still get along. But, I still say... if you start wishing my death....
that is beyond any level of logic and civil discussion. Thank you greatly
for your words. Peace.

Tre'


"Knowleman" > wrote in message
om...
> Tre' - let me give you another perspective from a close American ally
> - the UK. We are of course all concerned with terrorism and are
> largely in line with the American people on many other matters. There
> are many Brits, however, who feel that the world is generally a more
> risky place as a result of the Bush administration's approach to
> international affairs.
>
> The reason is that international politics is a bit like brain surgery
> - you need need to use the right techniques, precision instruments and
> know that if you cut here, there is likely to be an effect over there.
> From where we are sitting, it looks a bit like Bush has stormed into
> the operating theatre, pushed all of the highly qualified and
> experience surgeons to one side and is now attempting brain surgury by
> wielding a big club with a six in nail through it. The risk is that
> all we end up with is a bloody mess, which is the direction is appears
> to many to be heading in.
>
> Added to this, the Brits are generally very historically aware and
> understand that from the crusades through northern ireland to the
> current situation in the middle east, religion has been used as an
> excuse to promote ideallistic viewpoints through bloodshed and
> torture. It is therefore very worrying to us that a world superpower
> and the top man himself is becoming more and more driven by
> fundamentalist christian ideals. The constitution separates church
> from state, but Mr Bush and many Americans seem to want them pulled
> back together, which makes dealing objectively with nations that
> revolve around other faiths very difficult - if not in practice, then
> in perceptional terms.
>
> The US administration's attitude to the health of the planet is also
> extremely worrying to us here in Europe, which is something that
> should be of interest to the ecologically aware reef keeping community
> (there you go - a legitimate link to this forum). We understand the
> delicate balance of biological systems more than most so I would
> expect the average reefer to be extremely concerned at Bush dismissing
> the worries of the European community in this area.
>
> There is more if we get into discussions on the economy, but I will
> stop there.
>
> The point is though, that a lot of what America does has a direct
> impact on the health and safety of the rest of us. It is therefore not
> just simply a case of letting the mad, delusional, misguided Americans
> get on with it (this is the language of the local press here, not me).
> We need America to act responsibily on the world stage and when it
> doesn't we get either ****ed off or afraid. Right now, I have to admit
> to being personally a bit afraid of what America will do in Iran,
> North Korea, etc.
>
> The comment about America deserving another attack is clearly hot
> helpful to the debate, but the fact is that the course pursued by Bush
> and Co has almost certainly raised the chances of another major
> strike, which is probably the point the person was trying to make.
> America is now much more of a target than it was on 9/11 (as is the
> UK) and the only way to reduce this risk is for the responsible
> members of the world community to pull together.
>
> We all hope that the Bush second term will be more about building
> bridges rather than tearing them down. That's the real key to reducing
> the risk to all of us.
>
> To achieve a stable and harmonious reef aquarium requires patience, a
> well informed methodical approach and taking it one step at a time.
> Building a stable and harmonious world is much harder but the
> principle is the same. I cannot make a new tank cycle more quickly
> through brute force and neither can I use it to achieve peace in
> Middle East.
>
> "Tre' Landrum" > wrote in message
> news:<Cmzjd.14785$233.5983@okepread05>...
>> OK, I am confused... why exactly do we deserve to "get hit again" and
>> have
>> our economy go "into a deep depression"? Is it because we reelected Bush?
>> Wow, that is something. We "deserve" to have Americans killed. So I
>> deserve
>> to be killed. You wish me dead... wow. Well, if this is really have you
>> feel
>> why don't you just pick up a gun back up your words face to face... with
>> honor. None of this name calling and back stabbing... you pick up a gun
>> gather all your buddies and float right on over there and back it up.
>> Till
>> then we will elect who ever we like, this is our country. Thank you very
>> much.
>>
>> Tre' .... backing any American in the face of terror... no matter who
>> they
>> voted for!
>>
>>

[Wayne Sallee]

In article >,
(Knowleman) writes:

>It is therefore very worrying to us that a world superpower
>and the top man himself is becoming more and more driven by
>fundamentalist christian ideals. The constitution separates church
>from state, but Mr Bush and many Americans seem to want them pulled
>back together


Actualy that's not correct. The seperation of church and state simply means
that the state can't tell the church what to do.

And it's NOT in the constitution.

Look at the constitution at http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html
and do a search for the word "church". You won't find it.

It was in a letter written by Thomas Jefferson.
You can read the letter at http://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html

Wayne Sallee

[Knowleman]

Thanks for the correction and links Wayne; much appreciated.

Regarding your comment:
>
> Actualy that's not correct. The seperation of church and state simply means
> that the state can't tell the church what to do.
>
Whatever the legislation, it is the church telling the state what to
do, or at least unduly influencing it, that is worrying to many
Europeans. That's where the real danger lies. Here in the UK, for
example, I vigorously object to the government dictating that my kids
have christianity thrust at them for 15 minutes a day at school during
morning assembly. It's bad enough for us as a non-religious family,
but worse for those with another faith.

Whether you are gay or straight, carnivore or vegitarian, christian or
hindu, like golf or like reef keeping - I don't care. Whatever people
do with their personal lives is their business. It is not my place to
criticise or judge, but neither is it the government's place to force
any of these on me or my family.

[4G Mitsubishi]

Interesting infoon teh Church and state been pulled together.
http://64.180.102.203/clips/3_two_beasts_become_friends.wmv

I just watched this and am amazed, it is going to happen and soon by the
looks of things?
Let me know what ya think if u watch it.

Cheers
Glen K

"Wayne Sallee" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> (Knowleman) writes:
>
>>It is therefore very worrying to us that a world superpower
>>and the top man himself is becoming more and more driven by
>>fundamentalist christian ideals. The constitution separates church
>>from state, but Mr Bush and many Americans seem to want them pulled
>>back together
>
>
> Actualy that's not correct. The seperation of church and state simply
> means
> that the state can't tell the church what to do.
>
> And it's NOT in the constitution.
>
> Look at the constitution at
> http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html
> and do a search for the word "church". You won't find it.
>
> It was in a letter written by Thomas Jefferson.
> You can read the letter at http://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html
>
> Wayne Sallee
>
>

[PaulB]

It is frightening to think that there are so many of these people. Anyone
who can read and has read the constitution knows that it does include a
separation between church and state.

But people who are in touch with reality wouldn't be looking to the iron age
for their beliefs.

"4G Mitsubishi" > wrote in message
...
> Interesting infoon teh Church and state been pulled together.
> http://64.180.102.203/clips/3_two_beasts_become_friends.wmv
>
> I just watched this and am amazed, it is going to happen and soon by the
> looks of things?
> Let me know what ya think if u watch it.
>
> Cheers
> Glen K
>
> "Wayne Sallee" > wrote in message
> ...
>> In article >,
>> (Knowleman) writes:
>>
>>>It is therefore very worrying to us that a world superpower
>>>and the top man himself is becoming more and more driven by
>>>fundamentalist christian ideals. The constitution separates church
>>>from state, but Mr Bush and many Americans seem to want them pulled
>>>back together
>>
>>
>> Actualy that's not correct. The seperation of church and state simply
>> means
>> that the state can't tell the church what to do.
>>
>> And it's NOT in the constitution.
>>
>> Look at the constitution at
>> http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html
>> and do a search for the word "church". You won't find it.
>>
>> It was in a letter written by Thomas Jefferson.
>> You can read the letter at http://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html
>>
>> Wayne Sallee
>>
>>
>
>

[4G Mitsubishi]

so many of what ppl?
forget tho whole church and state thing, its the freedom of religion that's
the problem,
everyone should have the right to have no religion just as everyone should
have the right to
be a Satanist or anything else so long as it doesn't infringe on someone
else's rights.

Like knowleman said
"Here in the UK, for
example, I vigorously object to the government dictating that my kids
have Christianity thrust at them for 15 minutes a day at school during
morning assembly. It's bad enough for us as a non-religious family,
but worse for those with another faith."

tho to combat this problem I think they will have a healthy dose of every
religion thrust upon each morning.

where do ppl in touch with reality look for the truth, or there "beliefs" ?
not the past, so the present or the future?
We are were we are today because of yesterday, and tomorrow we will be where
we are because of today.

Glen



"PaulB" > wrote in message
...
> It is frightening to think that there are so many of these people. Anyone
> who can read and has read the constitution knows that it does include a
> separation between church and state.
>
> But people who are in touch with reality wouldn't be looking to the iron
> age for their beliefs.
>
> "4G Mitsubishi" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Interesting infoon teh Church and state been pulled together.
>> http://64.180.102.203/clips/3_two_beasts_become_friends.wmv
>>
>> I just watched this and am amazed, it is going to happen and soon by the
>> looks of things?
>> Let me know what ya think if u watch it.
>>
>> Cheers
>> Glen K
>>
>> "Wayne Sallee" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> In article >,
>>> (Knowleman) writes:
>>>
>>>>It is therefore very worrying to us that a world superpower
>>>>and the top man himself is becoming more and more driven by
>>>>fundamentalist christian ideals. The constitution separates church
>>>>from state, but Mr Bush and many Americans seem to want them pulled
>>>>back together
>>>
>>>
>>> Actualy that's not correct. The seperation of church and state simply
>>> means
>>> that the state can't tell the church what to do.
>>>
>>> And it's NOT in the constitution.
>>>
>>> Look at the constitution at
>>> http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html
>>> and do a search for the word "church". You won't find it.
>>>
>>> It was in a letter written by Thomas Jefferson.
>>> You can read the letter at http://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html
>>>
>>> Wayne Sallee
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

[WayneSallee.com]

LOL, Well Paul, you just won the "Stupid Americans" award. hehehehe

Try reading the constitution instead of just relying on what you have heard
from people that don't use their brain for anything but abuse.

Wayne Sallee


In article >, "PaulB"
> writes:

>
>It is frightening to think that there are so many of these people. Anyone
>who can read and has read the constitution knows that it does include a
>separation between church and state.
>
>But people who are in touch with reality wouldn't be looking to the iron age
>for their beliefs.

[PaulB]

Of course, I did.

I have been dealing with idiots like yourself since the days of FIDONET,
long before anyone heard of the internet, and that sort of juvenile crap has
been standard for decades. And that is why I just say what I think without
trying to conduct any sort of rational discussion with people like you, or
expecting any discussion to end differently.

Anyone who bothers to read the constitution can see for themselves what it
says, and nothing you or I say will change it. The difference between us
is that one of us thinks he is really fooling someone.




"WayneSallee.com" > wrote in message
...
> LOL, Well Paul, you just won the "Stupid Americans" award. hehehehe
>
> Try reading the constitution instead of just relying on what you have
> heard
> from people that don't use their brain for anything but abuse.
>
> Wayne Sallee
>
>
> In article >, "PaulB"
> > writes:
>
>>
>>It is frightening to think that there are so many of these people. Anyone
>>who can read and has read the constitution knows that it does include a
>>separation between church and state.
>>
>>But people who are in touch with reality wouldn't be looking to the iron
>>age
>>for their beliefs.
>
>

[WayneSallee.com]

In article >, "PaulB"
> writes:

>Anyone who bothers to read the constitution can see for themselves what it
>says, and nothing you or I say will change it. The difference between us
>is that one of us thinks he is really fooling someone.

Yes Paul, we know that you are capable of fooling someone. Tell us something we
don't know.

Wayne Sallee

[PaulB]

If I was good at fooling people I would be an demagogic "evangelist", and
take money from ignorant people who need someone to tell them what to think,
and fill their heads with nonsense so that I could gain political power and
influence.

Unfortunately, someone beat me to that gig a long time ago.

If you ever grow tired of ignorance, here is a link you might find
interesting, from a source you might find interesting.
http://www.theology.edu/journal/volume2/ushistor.htm



"WayneSallee.com" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "PaulB"
> > writes:
>
>>Anyone who bothers to read the constitution can see for themselves what it
>>says, and nothing you or I say will change it. The difference between us
>>is that one of us thinks he is really fooling someone.
>
> Yes Paul, we know that you are capable of fooling someone. Tell us
> something we
> don't know.
>
> Wayne Sallee
>

[4G Mitsubishi]

> People in touch with reality don't seize on one small group of writings,
> written for uneducated farmers and herders a couple of thousand years ago
> and then choose someone who distorts it into what they want to hear to
> tell them what it says?

I assume u are talking about the constitution? I ask as this started with a
reply to my post with a link to a video on bible prophecy. Either way, bible
or constitution the below is valid.
I agree mostly agree with what u said. But these same ppl also seize on any
other writings right up to currant day weather they be intended for
uneducated farmers and herders or the educated. I also don't thing they
choose someone who distorts it into what they want to hear but rather hear
someone that distorts it and choose to believe them. There is a difference,
as other wise implies they knew the truth but wanted it distorted. Not that
one is really any worse than the other, there is really no excuse for this
level of ignorance that is a result of them been so religious.


> For instance the belief that the separation of the church and state
> contained in the constitution merely protects churches, or the more common
> one that it merely prohibits the federal government from formally
> declaring an official religion when it is clearly intended to keep the
> government from pushing religion on people.

I don't know of anyone that disagrees with that. But that is exactly what is
going to happen (gov will push religion on ppl) just like Rome did.
Personally I don't care what the constitution does or doesn't say, its what
happening and going to happen weather it be in accordance or in contrary to
the constitution that is the concern.

[PaulB]

"4G Mitsubishi" > wrote in message
...
>
>> People in touch with reality don't seize on one small group of writings,
>> written for uneducated farmers and herders a couple of thousand years ago
>> and then choose someone who distorts it into what they want to hear to
>> tell them what it says?
>
> I assume u are talking about the constitution? I ask as this started with
> a
> reply to my post with a link to a video on bible prophecy. Either way,
> bible
> or constitution the below is valid.
> I agree mostly agree with what u said. But these same ppl also seize on
> any
> other writings right up to currant day weather they be intended for
> uneducated farmers and herders or the educated. I also don't thing they
> choose someone who distorts it into what they want to hear but rather hear
> someone that distorts it and choose to believe them. There is a
> difference,
> as other wise implies they knew the truth but wanted it distorted. Not
> that
> one is really any worse than the other, there is really no excuse for this
> level of ignorance that is a result of them been so religious.

No, I am talking about fundamentalists and their tendancy to be controled by
demagogues. Personally, I think fundamentalist religiosity is a result of
ignorance not the reverse. There are religious people who aren't ignorant,
but they aren't fundamentalists.

Many people are just looking for someone who tells them what they want to
hear. A simple black and white world view, certainty about the future,
reassurance that the future will be better than the past or present, a
feeling of superiority and or power over others. Also insecure people need
to feel part of a community of like minded people. Organized religion fills
these needs, and do some other ideologies, such as nationalisim, racisim,
classisim. Any existing prejudice. Fear of a foreign enemy and / or an
internal conspiracy also fills many of these needs.

Demagoges are people who take advantage of the situation by promoting a
message that fills those needs and also promotes the needs of the demagogue.
The usual way to do this is to pick some of the above, and modify them to
suit the needs of the demagogue, to that people feel they need a "strong
leader" to protect them or increase their importance.

For instance, religion isn't really about political power, so if you want
political power, you have to introduce some connection between the two.
Give people a religious reason to want political influence for you. Claim
that federal judges have banned god from schools (rather than simply
protecting people from being captive audiances to prostylization), will
allow gays to destroy marriage (rather than participate in it), and are out
of control activists, abusing their power to suppress religion (rather than
protecting the rights of minorities such as smaller religious denominations,
agnostics and gays which is their function).

>> For instance the belief that the separation of the church and state
>> contained in the constitution merely protects churches, or the more
>> common one that it merely prohibits the federal government from formally
>> declaring an official religion when it is clearly intended to keep the
>> government from pushing religion on people.
>
> I don't know of anyone that disagrees with that. But that is exactly what
> is
> going to happen (gov will push religion on ppl) just like Rome did.
> Personally I don't care what the constitution does or doesn't say, its
> what
> happening and going to happen weather it be in accordance or in contrary
> to
> the constitution that is the concern.

I know of many who do, but I live in the Southeastern US. As for it
happening, it will happen to some extent. But there have been demagogues
throughout history, and sometimes they win and sometimes they don't.

The framers of the constitution examined history, especially the Roman
republic and designed the constitution to resist the maladies that affect
republics, one of which is demagoguery. One of the ways they did this is
separating the government into different branches, so that a faction that
obtains power through a surge in popularity can't easily change the laws or
use the military to keep themselves in power once that surge wears off, or
eliminate enemies using he judicial system. The separation of church and
state makes it difficult to control religion and strengthen their hold on
power that way. If their popularity wanes before they gain control of all
three branches of government, they just get voted out.

And that is why it matters what the constitution says.

[WayneSallee.com]

Yea I don't agree with everything that Jefferson thought and did, but that does
not negate the reason that the pilgrims came to this land. There were also
others that came with other ideas. As it was written in one of the logs stating
that there were both them and strangers on the ship.

Wayne Sallee


In article >, "PaulB"
> writes:

>here is a link you might find
>interesting, from a source you might find interesting.
>http://www.theology.edu/journal/volume2/ushistor.htm

[PaulB]

You have lost me now. I don't know what the pilgrims had to do with the
constitution or separation of church or state, but I thought they were
fleeing religious persecution, not looking for a place to practice it.

Whatever.





"WayneSallee.com" > wrote in message
...
> Yea I don't agree with everything that Jefferson thought and did, but that
> does
> not negate the reason that the pilgrims came to this land. There were also
> others that came with other ideas. As it was written in one of the logs
> stating
> that there were both them and strangers on the ship.
>
> Wayne Sallee
>
>
> In article >, "PaulB"
> > writes:
>
>>here is a link you might find
>>interesting, from a source you might find interesting.
>>http://www.theology.edu/journal/volume2/ushistor.htm
>
>

[PaulB]

Which is probably why they included the separation of church and state in
the constitution when they formed an independent nation?

Have you ever gotten around to reading the US constitution?



"WayneSallee.com" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "PaulB"
> > writes:
>
>>You have lost me now. I don't know what the pilgrims had to do with the
>>constitution or separation of church or state, but I thought they were
>>fleeing religious persecution, not looking for a place to practice it.
>
>
> Yes they were separatists fleeing persecution for forming a church
> sepperate
> from the church of England, and were looking for a place to live for the
> Lord
> without the persecution and corruption.
>
> Wayne Sallee
>

[John]

>Which is probably why they included the separation of church and state in
>the constitution when they formed an independent nation?

Hmmm, can you state which Article, Section and Clause that is stated? The only
separation I noticed was in the Bill of Rights, which in Amendment I it states:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof;...". That protects us from zealots who
want to put....let's say....the Ten Commandments in a judicial building. If
they are allowed to put that in, then every other religion has the right to as
well, so its just easier to prevent all of them from entering. It doesnt
prevent someone with religious beliefs to be elected.
~John

[PaulB]

Yes it is in the first amendment to the constitution and you have quoted it
below.

Where did you get the bizarre notion that separation of church and state
meant that religious people couldn't be elected?


"John" > wrote in message
...
> >Which is probably why they included the separation of church and state in
>>the constitution when they formed an independent nation?
>
> Hmmm, can you state which Article, Section and Clause that is stated? The
> only
> separation I noticed was in the Bill of Rights, which in Amendment I it
> states:
> "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
> prohibiting the free exercise thereof;...". That protects us from zealots
> who
> want to put....let's say....the Ten Commandments in a judicial building.
> If
> they are allowed to put that in, then every other religion has the right
> to as
> well, so its just easier to prevent all of them from entering. It doesnt
> prevent someone with religious beliefs to be elected.
> ~John

[WayneSallee.com]

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-wall/wal-g004.html

Wayne Sallee

[John]

>Where did you get the bizarre notion that separation of church and state
>meant that religious people couldn't be elected?

*scratching head* I thought thats what your opinion was. What is YOUR
position Paul?
~John

[PaulB]

Reed my post on demagogues.

"WayneSallee.com" > wrote in message
...
> http://www.christiananswers.net/q-wall/wal-g004.html
>
> Wayne Sallee
>

[PaulB]

That the principle of church and state is contained in the constitution?
Where did you get any idea otherwise?

"John" > wrote in message
...
> >Where did you get the bizarre notion that separation of church and state
>>meant that religious people couldn't be elected?
>
> *scratching head* I thought thats what your opinion was. What is YOUR
> position Paul?
> ~John

[PaulB]

I like that! "stories about America's history that most adults aren't even
aware of! " I will bet that most historians aren't aware of them either!

This is standard stuff I have been hearing as a kid. Try to spin offence as
defense.

Here is a question for you: if political power is necessary to preserve
freedom to prostylize, why is it that Muslims and Buddhists and Monists and
such have that freedom despite having no political power? Is it maybe
BECAUSE of the separation of church and state and not in spite of it?

Here is another: Considering that Jefferson and Madison had something to do
with the " Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom " and that Madison had a
little something to do with something called the "bill of rights", and Do
you think Jefferson (and Madison) might know a little something about what
the constitution means?



"WayneSallee.com" > wrote in message
...
> http://www.christiananswers.net/q-wall/wal-g004.html
>
> Wayne Sallee
>

[PaulB]

What does that have to do with this thread John? This thread is about the
election of George Bush and how Americans could be so stupid. Did you
notice the title? Did you read the first post?

You are posting, in a thread about politics, on a reef tank newsgroup, a
message accusing ME of being off topic because I am tanking about politics
instead of superstitious prophesy!? I can't think of anything appropriately
witty to say, but that is truly funny!

Besides you never told me where you got the idea that I was claiming that
religious freedom meant that religious people couldn't hold elected office?
I am still wondering where that came from, but I will bet the answer is that
some right wing "Christian" religious group is claiming that separation of
church and state is some plot to do just that.

On the other hand, that is why I participate in these discussions. I am a
"lefty" and I have never heard of any movement to prohibit religious people
from holding public office. It certainly isn't reported by any news
organization I know of. Yet you not only believe it, you seem surprised
that I don't! Someone can control your beliefs to that extent!

If I could understand that I could understand people like Rove, Falwell,
Goebbels and Clodius.




"John" > wrote in message
...
> >That the principle of church and state is contained in the constitution?
>
> What does that have to do with this thread Paul? What does it have to do
> with
> the url posted to the video where the guy is linking world events to
> religion?
>
> ~John