~ Bush: "I'm God's Delivery Boy" ~

After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, "Tarver
Engineering" confessed the following:

Einstein's black box radiation work led directly to the discreditation of
evolution which continues today through DNA.

Seriously? Do a google search and point me to a source, or cite your
source for this claim. I've never read that Einstein disproved
evolution. And what exactly continues today through DNA...discrediting
evolution or evolution?

The evolutionist was confronted with "Jew science" by 1930
demonstrating a vacuum fluctuation...

Umm, which evolutionist are you specifying when you say, "the
evoluntionist?" NASA seems to think the prediction of the vacuum
fluctuation or Zero Energy Point was in 1948. Which really makes me
wonder where it is you're going with whatever it is you're talking
about now...

Attempting to use 20th century science to validate 19th
century "dog breeder science" can only demonstrate a paradox when taken to
it's conclusion.

Nah...Einstein had no problem validating Newton. The more man learns,
the more god-like he becomes.

Perhaps this is more along the lines of your line of :

LOL...too funny, this is getting to be hysterical! JT you're such a
nutty guy.

Archatecture and art that would be completely acceptable in the public
square in the 1960s is not acceptable in the public square today.

Oh yeah, let's go back to the 1960's, "separate but equal." No thanks.
In the 1960s WHITE guys were making all the decisions for women,
minorities, you name it...some god-fearing white guy had the answer.
We've made a great deal of progress since then.

All who call upon the name of God will be saved.

Ah yes, our buds the islamist ****s that hi-jacked those four jets.

I find that fascinating bit quite useful in understanding a society.

Hey everybody thinks their way is THE way, it shouldn't come as a big
surprise that of the 5.8B people on planet earth, ROUGHLY 17% are
christian and the other 83% nod their craniums and mutter, "yeah,
whatever..."

Is it OK for Phil Miller to marry his pony?

Hey if the pony has reached the age of majority, can repeat the vows
and sign the papers, go for it.

Or is it a moral question.

Uhhh...moral IMO, something that can be decided without the benefit of
mythical characters. See that wasn't so hard, no psycosis.

Juvat

"Robey Price" wrote in message
...
After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, "Tarver
Engineering" confessed the following:

Einstein's black box radiation work led directly to the discreditation of
evolution which continues today through DNA.

Seriously? Do a google search and point me to a source, or cite your
source for this claim. I've never read that Einstein disproved
evolution. And what exactly continues today through DNA...discrediting
evolution or evolution?

The removal of Neanderthal as an ancestor of man using DNA fact is one way
modern science is discrediting evolution as science.

If you want to understand why "Jew Science" discredits the dog breeder's
religion you would need to read "In Search of Schrodinger's Cat" and "In
Search of Schrodinger's Kittens". It is the same basis upon which Einstein
proclaimed, "God does not play dice".

The evolutionist was confronted with "Jew science" by 1930
demonstrating a vacuum fluctuation...

Umm, which evolutionist are you specifying when you say, "the
evoluntionist?" NASA seems to think the prediction of the vacuum
fluctuation or Zero Energy Point was in 1948. Which really makes me
wonder where it is you're going with whatever it is you're talking
about now...

I think you are trying to get by on bull****.

Attempting to use 20th century science to validate 19th
century "dog breeder science" can only demonstrate a paradox when taken
to
it's conclusion.

Nah...Einstein had no problem validating Newton. The more man learns,
the more god-like he becomes.

Do you know Darwin from Newton?

Perhaps this is more along the lines of your line of :

LOL...too funny, this is getting to be hysterical! JT you're such a
nutty guy.

Archatecture and art that would be completely acceptable in the public
square in the 1960s is not acceptable in the public square today.

Oh yeah, let's go back to the 1960's, "separate but equal." No thanks.
In the 1960s WHITE guys were making all the decisions for women,
minorities, you name it...some god-fearing white guy had the answer.
We've made a great deal of progress since then.

The Constitution didn't change.

All who call upon the name of God will be saved.

Ah yes, our buds the islamist ****s that hi-jacked those four jets.

Quite possibly.

I find that fascinating bit quite useful in understanding a society.

Hey everybody thinks their way is THE way, it shouldn't come as a big
surprise that of the 5.8B people on planet earth, ROUGHLY 17% are
christian and the other 83% nod their craniums and mutter, "yeah,
whatever..."

Here in the US the numbers run a little different than the numbers you made
up.

Is it OK for Phil Miller to marry his pony?

Hey if the pony has reached the age of majority, can repeat the vows
and sign the papers, go for it.

Couldn't Phil just claim the pony agrees?

Or is it a moral question.

Uhhh...moral IMO, something that can be decided without the benefit of
mythical characters. See that wasn't so hard, no psycosis.

Lots of psycosis.

After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, "Tarver
Engineering" confessed the following:

Einstein's black box radiation work led directly to the discreditation of
evolution which continues today through DNA.

and this as a followup when he was asked to explain how Einstein's
work discredited/disproved evolution...

The removal of Neanderthal as an ancestor of man using DNA fact is one way
modern science is discrediting evolution as science.

OK, you have no response. No Problem.

If you want to understand why "Jew Science" discredits the dog breeder's
religion you would need to read "In Search of Schrodinger's Cat" and "In
Search of Schrodinger's Kittens".

Nah...not interesting to me, I passed on both books.

I think you are trying to get by on bull****.

Hey pot...meet kettle.

Do you know Darwin from Newton?

Never met either guy.

The Constitution didn't change.

True...but society does, and mostly for the better.

Here in the US the numbers run a little different than the numbers you made
up.

Not made up. I guessed 20% of the world is christian, a christian
co-worker told me the number is closer to 17%. The 5.8B population I
got from John Allan Paulos, or Michael Starbird...numbers guys.

Couldn't Phil just claim the pony agrees?

Nope.

Lots of psycosis.

Perhaps mostly in the great state of CA.

"Robey Price" wrote in message
...
After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, "Tarver
Engineering" confessed the following:

Einstein's black box radiation work led directly to the discreditation
of
evolution which continues today through DNA.

and this as a followup when he was asked to explain how Einstein's
work discredited/disproved evolution...

The removal of Neanderthal as an ancestor of man using DNA fact is one
way
modern science is discrediting evolution as science.

OK, you have no response. No Problem.

I'd say the elimination of the "chain of life to man" as evolutionist dogma
is a major discreditation.

If you want to understand why "Jew Science" discredits the dog breeder's
religion you would need to read "In Search of Schrodinger's Cat" and "In
Search of Schrodinger's Kittens".

Nah...not interesting to me, I passed on both books.

Denial is probably better for you.

" wrote:

Guy Alcala wrote:

WalterM140 wrote:

Separation of church and state, anyone?

The president doesn't speak for the state in the same way that the Queen of
England does, for instance.

Lincoln quotes snipped

The framers wanted Americans to have freedom -of- religion, not freedom -from-
religion.

In order to have freedom -of- religion, one must also have the option of freedom
-from- religion, or no freedom exists.

Guy (a life-long agnostic)

That's akin to saying that freedom doesn't exist unless everyone
is free to do whatever they wish. I don't think that I'd like to
live in a country where that was the case, would you?.
--

-Gord.

It's saying nothing of the sort, Gord. If I am not free to _not_ profess a religion,
then I lack freedom of religion. If I am not guaranteed freedom from religion if I
so choose, then you are implying that the Constitution requires me to profess one.
That being the case, am I to be assigned a religion, since I don't have religious
beliefs? And who makes the decision which religion is acceptable for me? The
Government? No, they can't do that, that would run afoul of the 1st Amendment. Can
I be denied civil rights and be treated as a second class citizen? Nope, 14th
Amendment. But see my piggy-backed reply on Ed's post, as the author quoted therein
put the matter far better than I ever could.

Guy

Ed Rasimus wrote:

On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 17:47:24 GMT, "Gord Beaman" )
wrote:

Guy Alcala wrote:

WalterM140 wrote:

Separation of church and state, anyone?

The president doesn't speak for the state in the same way that the Queen of
England does, for instance.

Lincoln quotes snipped

The framers wanted Americans to have freedom -of- religion, not freedom -from-
religion.

In order to have freedom -of- religion, one must also have the option of freedom
-from- religion, or no freedom exists.

Guy (a life-long agnostic)

That's akin to saying that freedom doesn't exist unless everyone
is free to do whatever they wish. I don't think that I'd like to
live in a country where that was the case, would you?.

Time for the ol' Political Science professor to drop in and point out
some things.

First, the president speaks for the state in a much greater way than
the Queen. The US President is both head of state and head of
government. That being said, however, when a President professes his
own faith and trust in divine providence, he isn't speaking for the
state. And, when an historic presidential statement is made it
reflects more on the sociology of the time than the politics. It
definitely does not speak to Constitutional interpretation.

Then, the oft-quoted conundrum of "freedom-of" versus "freedom from"
is found nowhere in Constitutional law. The religion guarantees in the
First Amendment are in two clauses--separate and not contradictory.

First, the "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion"--that means not only that the Congress shall not establish a
religion, i.e. a governmentally endorsed faith. But goes a step
further in specifiying that the law shall not "respect" a particular
establishment of religion. In other words, no favoritism for one
religion over another. This is a restriction on the government, not
the citizens. And, by virtue of the 14th Amendment's "equal
protection" provisions it applies to the lesser levels of government
in our federal system as well.

Second, the sentence goes on, "...or restricting the free exercise
thereof." That part applies to the citizens. Citizens are free to
practice the rituals of their individual faiths without governmental
interference. (Of course if that practice interferes with the rights
of others, or the 'general welfare" of society, we can constrain the
practice of religion--hence no more virgins in the volcanoes.)

As for the God-fearing attributes of the Framers, they were
politicians of the time and the custom was to express a level of
civility and piety in their public discourse.

And very little has changed in that regard today, when even the most secular pols feel
a need to make a fetish of religious belief and piety (prayer breakfasts, well-covered
church attendance, etc.), at least when they're up for (re)election or involved in
some scandal.


Many belonged to
Protestant denomination churches, but many were also agnostic or (as
in the case of Thomas Jefferson,) deists--believers in a Supreme Being
without espousal of a particular liturgy. There's little evidence to
link anything in the Constitution to Christianity.

Speaking of TJ, here's the text of his "Virginia Statute For Religious Freedom," which
he got adopted into that state's constitution (actually, Jefferson wrote it but
Madison handled the political maneuvering):

"Well aware that Almighty God hath created the mind free; that all
attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burdens, or by civil
incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness,
and are a departure from the plan of the Holy Author of our religion,
who being Lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by
coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do; that the
impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as
ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men
have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own
opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as
such endeavoring to impose them on others, hath established and
maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world, and
through all time; that to compel a man to furnish contributions of money
for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves is sinful and
tyrannical; that even the forcing him to support this or that teacher of his
own religious persuasion is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of
giving his contributions to the particular pastor whose morals he would
make his pattern, and whose powers he feels most persuasive to
righteousness, and is withdrawing from the ministry those temporal
rewards, which proceeding from an approbation of their personal
conduct, are an additional incitement to earnest and unremitting labors
for the instruction of mankind; that our civil rights have no dependence
on our religious opinions, more than our opinions in physics or
geometry; that, therefore, the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the
public confidence by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to
offices of trust and emolument unless he profess or renounce this or that
religious opinion is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and
advantages to which in common with his fellow citizens he has a natural
right.; that it tends also to corrupt the principles of that very religion it is
meant to encourage, by bribing, with emoluments, those who will
externally profess and conform to it; that though indeed these are
criminal who do not withstand such temptation, yet neither are those
innocent who lay the bait in their way; that to suffer the civil magistrate
to intrude his powers into the field of opinion and to restrain the
profession and propagation of principles, on the supposition of their ill
tendency is a dangerous fallacy, which at once destroys all religious
liberty , because he being of course judge of that tendency, will make his
opinions the rule of judgement, and approve or condemn the sentiments
of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own; that it is
time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government for its officers
to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and
good order; and finally, that truth is great and will prevail if left to
herself, that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has
nothing to fear from the conflict, unless by human interposition
disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate, errors
ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them.

"Be it therefore enacted by the General Assembly, That no man shall be
compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place or
ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or
burdened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of
his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess,
and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and
that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil
capacities.

"And though we all know this Assembly, elected by the people for the
ordinary purposes of legislation only, have no power to restrain the acts
of succeeding Assemblies, constituted with the powers equal to our
own, and that therefore to declare this act irrevocable would be of no
effect in law, yet we are free to declare, and do declare, that the rights
hereby asserted are of the natural rights of mankind, and that if any act
shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present or to narrow its operation,
such act will be an infringement of natural right."

The bill was introduced in 1779, and becamepart of Virginia's consitution on January
16, 1786, i.e. three years before the Constitution went into effect. The 1st
Amendment was based on the view expressed in it. Jefferson considered it one of his
three greatest accomplishments, and made sure his epitaph read:

"Here was buried Thomas Jefferson, Author of the Declaration of American Independence,
of the Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom, And Father of the University of
Virginia."

Guy

"Guy Alcala" wrote in message
. ..
" wrote:

Guy Alcala wrote:

WalterM140 wrote:

Separation of church and state, anyone?

The president doesn't speak for the state in the same way that the
Queen of
England does, for instance.

Lincoln quotes snipped

The framers wanted Americans to have freedom -of- religion, not
freedom -from-
religion.

In order to have freedom -of- religion, one must also have the option
of freedom
-from- religion, or no freedom exists.

Guy (a life-long agnostic)

That's akin to saying that freedom doesn't exist unless everyone
is free to do whatever they wish. I don't think that I'd like to
live in a country where that was the case, would you?.
--

-Gord.

It's saying nothing of the sort, Gord. If I am not free to _not_ profess
a religion,
then I lack freedom of religion. If I am not guaranteed freedom from
religion if I
so choose, then you are implying that the Constitution requires me to
profess one.

The Constitution guarantees the "free expression thereof" and what you are
claiming as a right is the repression of the constitutional rights of
others, Guy.

That being the case, am I to be assigned a religion, since I don't have
religious
beliefs? And who makes the decision which religion is acceptable for me?
The
Government?

No, but you do have to put up with "the free exercise thereof".

No, they can't do that, that would run afoul of the 1st Amendment.

No, you have run afoul of the first Amendment.


Can
I be denied civil rights and be treated as a second class citizen?

It is you that is attacking the civil rights of others, Guy.


Nope, 14th
Amendment. But see my piggy-backed reply on Ed's post, as the author
quoted therein
put the matter far better than I ever could.

Ed is pretty funny.

After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, "Tarver
Engineering" confessed the following:

The Constitution guarantees the "free expression thereof" and what you are
claiming as a right is the repression of the constitutional rights of
others, Guy.

You are one seriously f*cked up dude. You have the right to watch gay
porn...I have the right NOT to watch. You have the right to worship as
you choose...I have the right NOT to worship.

It is you that is attacking the civil rights of others, Guy.

It bears repeating...you are one seriously f*cked up dude. Funny, but
mo' debly f*cked up.

Juvat

Robey Price wrote:

snip

Actually I'm paraphrasing the secular humanist view, we'd never call
ourselves christians.

Or, as the televangelists would have it, "Sekoolar Hoomanist," with roughly the
same intonation they use when saying "Spawn of Satan" ;-)

Guy

Guy Alcala wrote:

Ed Rasimus wrote:

As for the God-fearing attributes of the Framers, they were
politicians of the time and the custom was to express a level of
civility and piety in their public discourse.

And very little has changed in that regard today, when even the most secular pols feel
a need to make a fetish of religious belief and piety (prayer breakfasts, well-covered
church attendance, etc.), at least when they're up for (re)election or involved in
some scandal.

I think it's interesting that any politician publicly embracing
religion seems always portrayed as either partaking in demagoguery
or attempting to create a state religion.

Seems secularists want religion strictly confined within the walls
of church, temple, mosque, whatever, not be seen in public on pain
of "promoting religion".

Allowing nativity scenes on public commons is NOT "promoting
religion", and is actually suppressing it! The founding fathers
were keenly aware of all the problems that resulted from government
promoting religion. On the other hand, they were deeply religious
and were not prone to create an agnostic or atheist US either.

Bush has every right as an individual to make the religious based
statements he has. He apparently is sort of "born again" and his
words more than likely aren't pandering to a religious audience.

Until he starts giving a particular religious group tax breaks or
government funding, I'm not too concerned that the important
Constitutional principle of church/state separation is being
violated.


SMH