speaking of quotes GG, i have done research into your signature and after many hours searching the web, i have yet to find one time where the pope actually said that. care to supply proof or a link that the pope did indeed say that, or did you just make that up also and just attribute it to him?
------------------------------------------ debating conservatives is easy. so easy, even a caveman can do it!
"if this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck lot easier, just so long as im the dictator" -GWB Dec 18,2002
Posts: 1614 | Location: ft myers florida area | Registered: 23 September 2006
speaking of quotes GG, i have done research into your signature and after many hours searching the web, i have yet to find one time where the pope actually said that. care to supply proof or a link that the pope did indeed say that, or did you just make that up also and just attribute it to him?
It is on the first page of the 32 page Document "Love & Responsibility".
John Paul II on Love & Responsibility , which includes a range of excerpts from the Pope's philosophical, literary, official, and personal writings on love . . . .
* * * * * * * * Without traditional regular moral principles that may be consulted confidently, justice cannot long endure anywhere.
Posts: 6275 | Location: Maine | Registered: 31 December 2005
GG: More on the distortion of Thomas Jefferson's quote:
You have some sins to take care of before you offer up more distortions about a lie regarding Jefferson's words.
And I repeat:
quote:
GG:You proof to me your source is correct, Jason. I have faith and trust in my source and I am in great suspect of whom you are quoting.
My sources are the Library of Congress (the official record) and Yale University. You have not provided any sources at all for your lying quotes. Your deceit is disappointing given that you're a devout Christian. But that sin will be between you and God.
Until you address this, I will continue to ask you to. And until you do, none of what you say has any credibility because you've proven you're now capible of lying -- and that is the ultimate insult to us here.
When you come clean, I am prepared to forgive you.
quote:
GG's false Jefferson quote: "The First Amendment has erected a wall of separation between church and state, but that wall is a one directional wall; it keeps the government from running the church, but it makes sure that Christian principles will always stay in government."
Thomas Jefferson, President of the United States January 1, 1802 in an address to the Danbury Baptists.
This is a false quote, GG. And now that you've been informed, it is your moral duty to apologize and retract, lest you commit the sin of deceit.
To messers Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.
Gentlemen
The affectionate sentiments of esteem & approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful & zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more & more pleasing.
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, 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. [Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from presenting even occasional performances of devotion presented indeed legally where an Executive is the legal head of a national church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.] Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.
As you can see, not only didn't he describe it as a one way wall (which would render the metaphor ridiculous as there is no such thing as a one way wall and Jefferson was smarter than that) what he does describe is indeed the need to keep government out of church and church out of government.
quote:
GG's false Washingtion quote: "Do not let anyone claim the tribute of American patriotism if they ever attempt to remove religion from politics."
George Washington from his Farewell Address to the Nation.
Another false quote, GG. While his address is way too long to repost, here is the link. That quote is no where in his farewell address.
Washington does address the need to be moral and that religion plays a vital role in that. But no where does even hint that public policy and/or law should be based on a particular religious doctrine.
Here is the portion of his speech I think the above misquote was trying to rewrite.
quote:
Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice ? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.
actually GG, u DID alter the popes quote. here is the actual quote:
----------- To understand why, we need to return to where we began: “Man must reconcile himself to his natural greatness.” The Church insists that we revere that most precious part of ourselves: our ability to bring new life, new love into this world. As the Pope emphatically declares, “any attempt to diminish human beings by...denying the central social importance of maternity and paternity is incompatible with the natural development of man.”
The Church does not demand that families have as many children as possible. The Church advocates, instead, “responsible parenthood” through the practice of Natural Family Planning — which relies on awareness of the wife’s fertility cycle and self-possession on the part of the couple. Couples who practice NFP — which is highly effective using modern methods — report not only a deeper appreciation for the mystery of life but also an enriched married and family life -------------
NOWHERE DOES THE PHRASE "he must not forget that he is a person." appear in there. the quote you have did appear on the first page of the document but nowhere else in it.
so you are now resorting to altering the quotes of a pope . you are disgraceful GG. you have no conscience at all and a disgrace to actual catholics who are not hell bent on promoting their own agenda. you are worthless of an intelligent debate, as you even abuse and alter the quotes of your church leader.
------------------------------------------ debating conservatives is easy. so easy, even a caveman can do it!
"if this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck lot easier, just so long as im the dictator" -GWB Dec 18,2002
Posts: 1614 | Location: ft myers florida area | Registered: 23 September 2006
so you are now resorting to altering the quotes of a pope . you are disgraceful GG. you have no conscience at all and a disgrace to actual catholics who are not hell bent on promoting their own agenda. you are worthless of an intelligent debate, as you even abuse and alter the quotes of your church leader.
The quote is on the first page of the document.
"Man must reconcile himself to his natural greatness...he must not forget that he is a person."
quote:
The Church does not demand that families have as many children as possible.
I have stated 'responsible parenting'. Why would you infer differently?
Conjugal loving, is with the mind of procreation. "Love must be affirmative...if love is to flourish".
quote:
NFP
Are you aware of Natural Family Planning and its benefits; one is that it does not involve a withholding a portion of a person. In other words, to love another is to love the total person including their fertility.
quote:
NOWHERE DOES THE PHRASE "he must not forget that he is a person." appear in there. the quote you have did appear on the first page of the document but nowhere else in it.
This is the excerpts of the book, "Love & Responsibility". I could not have created that statement.
quote:
as you even abuse and alter the quotes of your church leader.
C'mon, fisherman. You're really stretching to fault me.
quote:
GG since you love misquoting and altering quotes, i have reinstated your infamous quote on wanting to destroy. enjoy
quote:
you should be the one begging for forgiveness GG
Not me but the ACLU should be tarred and feathered.
quote:
Congress shall make no law restricting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". this states simply that christians CANNOT restrict other religions.
And it does not restrict others but gives them freedom. Currently we are experiencing a shutting down of that freedom by hereticals.
quote:
there are no losers, only winners. perhaps you should be forced to listen to a nice jewish ceramony
Just mailed a 'Batmisvah' card today to a friend's granddaughter. Don't forget, my Father was a Jewish carpenter. (Do you know what I mean?)
quote:
we are absolved from your religious rules. to us, they have no meaning at all
Who gave you exemption from the Ten Commandments?
quote:
because we are not religious fanatics like you GG. you are truely a world threat and should be dealt with accordingly
REALLY!! Your persuasion is not to be dealt with? The world is to go silent?
quote:
our 'reality' protects alot more than yuor fantasy laws ever will
Special rights to one group violates and is deadly for another group.
quote:
how many ppl have condoms killed?
Naturally flawed condoms give a false sense of protection and they do not prevent the spread of STDs.
quote:
only vote how they are told to vote by party leaders or by the religious leaders. sounds to me like they dont know how to think for themselves. sounds like a dependancy of party votes to me!
We decide with calm, faith and reason.
quote:
until you fix the above quotes by jefferson and washington, as well as the quote you altered in the fish thread, my signature wont change!
You've charge the wrong person with error.
* * * * * * * * Without traditional regular moral principles that may be consulted confidently, justice cannot long endure anywhere.
Posts: 6275 | Location: Maine | Registered: 31 December 2005
yes it is, however the way is is labeled means it is also included somewhere in the speech, which it isnt. so you are just spreading falsehoods. ------------------ "This is the excerpts of the book, "Love & Responsibility". I could not have created that statement"
but can you also find where else beside page one that phrase is located? i didnt think so -------------------
" C'mon, fisherman. You're really stretching to fault me"
no im not. PJP even stated that the iraq war doesnt fall under the catholic ideal of 'just war' yet you continue to advocate it. that is an abuse of the teachings of your leader. ------------------ "Not me but the ACLU should be tarred and feathered"
funny how neo cons such as yourself werent crying foul when the ACLU protect Rush Limbaurg and is drug filled exploits. ------------------
"And it does not restrict others but gives them freedom. Currently we are experiencing a shutting down of that freedom by hereticals"
if it gives other religions freedom, then where is the islamic star hanging all over the place, instead of crosses? where is the star of david or hanhakah candles instead of christmas trees in town squares? what about the recent development of 6 muslims arrested at the minniapolis airport because they said their evening prayers? they were not allowed to fly only because they said prayers. yet, somehow, i feel you will justify the action of the police in one way or another. the only ones trying to kill these rights are ppl such as yourself GG. dont you remember the quote you made about a week ago when u stated that any muslim voted into office will fail to uphold the american way of life? sounds a little bit racial and biased to me. -----------------
"Just mailed a 'Batmisvah' card today to a friend's granddaughter. Don't forget, my Father was a Jewish carpenter. (Do you know what I mean?)"
who are you trying to fool, you damn anti semitic? you are no differnt than catholic follower Mel Gibson, only wishing to put down the jews at any moment you can. you even mock their religious culture by send a "batmisvah" card. how would you like it if someone sent you a 'piss-mas' card? or how about instead of a lent card, they send you a 'lint' card, full of nice bellybutton lint instead of ashes? -----------------------
"Who gave you exemption from the Ten Commandments"
are you? you seem to break quite a few of them. thou shall not kill also means not supporting the killing of innocents, which you do on a reg basis. by not condemning the killing of innocents in unjust wars, you are only empowering the ones doign the killing, making it just as if you pulled the trigger yourself. you have also broken the worship false idols, as you pray to mary and statues. you also compare yuorself to "angels in disguise" and "moses, begging to let your people go". you are FAR from either of those 2 examples. if anything, you are closer to an antichrist than an actual human. you have good company with yuor friends lucifer, bush, and cheney. ------------------------
"REALLY!! Your persuasion is not to be dealt with? The world is to go silent"
my persuasion doesnt involve religious fanaticism like your does.
------------------------
"Special rights to one group violates and is deadly for another group"
its not special rights if it makes it equal for all. the right winged christians have attempted to keep a religious monopoly in this nation for too long, and im glad a muslim was elected by our election process to a post in the US house of representatives. i know that is burning ppl like you up GG, but its the best thing for democracy. -----------------------
"Naturally flawed condoms give a false sense of protection and they do not prevent the spread of STDs."
they dont give a false sense of security. it even says on the package that it is not for use to stop the spread of stds, as well as saying its not 100% effective in stopping pregnacy. just because you couldnt use your condom right doesnt mean they are flawed. ------------------------------ "We decide with calm, faith and reason"
so your party calmly decieded to invade another nation. reason? your party has no reason at all. they dont know how to handle iraq. the current president has less IQ than a chimp. faith? you mean thou shall not kill? or thou shal not covet thy neighbors pages (like foley did) ? who are you trying to kid? lol antifacist and AJ have listed HUNDREDS of times ppl in the catholic religion have sinned. so if your party votes by faith, it must mean you are all part of a satanic cult. ---------------------------
"You've charge the wrong person with error"
no ive checked the facts. AJ is right. you altered quotes by both washington AND jefferson. you, GG , are not an american!! you are no worse than terrorist scum. you dont want whats best for america, only for your minority group of catholic anti semitic sinners who wish to surpress equal rights and religious freedoms for everyone else.
now dont you wish i was studying more?
------------------------------------------ debating conservatives is easy. so easy, even a caveman can do it!
"if this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck lot easier, just so long as im the dictator" -GWB Dec 18,2002
Posts: 1614 | Location: ft myers florida area | Registered: 23 September 2006
Shots rang out as President John F. Kennedy was assassinated November 22, 1963, in Dallas, Texas. The youngest President ever elected, he was the youngest to die, barely serving 1,000 days. The 46-year-old Kennedy was on his way to the Dallas Trade Mart. The speech he prepared, but never gave, stated: "We in this country, in this generation, are-by destiny rather than choice-the watchmen on the walls of world freedom. We ask, therefore, that we may be worthy of our power and responsibility, that we may exercise our strength with wisdom and restraint, and that we may achieve in our time and for all time the ancient vision of peace on earth, goodwill toward men. That must always be our goal-and the righteousness of our cause must always underlie our strength. For as was written long ago, 'Except the Lord keep the city, the watchman waketh but in vain.'" Just three weeks after his Inauguration, February 9, 1961, President Kennedy told a Breakfast for International Christian Leadership: "Every President of the United States has placed special reliance upon his faith in God...The guiding principle and prayer of this Nation has been, is now, and shall ever be 'In God We Trust.'"
* * * * * * * * Without traditional regular moral principles that may be consulted confidently, justice cannot long endure anywhere.
Posts: 6275 | Location: Maine | Registered: 31 December 2005
dont you remember the quote you made about a week ago when u stated that any muslim voted into office will fail to uphold the american way of life? sounds a little bit racial and biased to me.
Once again you are misquoting me.
* * * * * * * * Without traditional regular moral principles that may be consulted confidently, justice cannot long endure anywhere.
Posts: 6275 | Location: Maine | Registered: 31 December 2005
ACLU: AMERICAN CHRISTIAN LOATHERS UNION Posted By: Professor on 9/11/2006 2:12:05 PM in ACLU "The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has been called the “most dangerous organization in America.” And rightly so.
The ACLU is a secular organization that exploits the law to impose their anti-God agenda. Its lawyers litigate lawsuits that aim to take away our Constitutional right to freedom of religion. The ACLU wants to erase any mention of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob found in public places. They have fought to remove "One nation, under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance, they want to erase "In God we trust" from our currency and rid the country of all religious displays such as the Ten Commandments, Christian holiday displays and state mottos. They do this under the guise of the so-called wall of separation of church and state, or what has come to be known as the establishment-clause of the First Amendment. What is the ACLU's position on church-state separation? There shall be no mention of God on public property. Period.
* * * * * * * * Without traditional regular moral principles that may be consulted confidently, justice cannot long endure anywhere.
Posts: 6275 | Location: Maine | Registered: 31 December 2005
fisherman quote: dont you remember the quote you made about a week ago when u stated that any muslim voted into office will fail to uphold the american way of life? sounds a little bit racial and biased to me.
Once again you are misquoting me
really? then what do you call this quote you made on the 12th of november? (in this same thread):
"There is no such thing as a Muslim who can support American freedom"
what a short memory you have GG. do you also deny altering a quote that appeared in the fish thread?
------------------------------------------ debating conservatives is easy. so easy, even a caveman can do it!
"if this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck lot easier, just so long as im the dictator" -GWB Dec 18,2002
Posts: 1614 | Location: ft myers florida area | Registered: 23 September 2006
do you deny ever making that quote about muslims? because guess what! we have one in elected office right now. so you automatically stereotyped him as a person who cannot support american freedom or values. such is the thinking ways of a racist and a bigot, which apparently you are GG.
and do you still deny altering a quote in the fish thread? want to look stupid yet again? i can make it happen. just say the words "i did no such thing" and ill prove you wrong once more.
------------------------------------------ debating conservatives is easy. so easy, even a caveman can do it!
"if this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck lot easier, just so long as im the dictator" -GWB Dec 18,2002
Posts: 1614 | Location: ft myers florida area | Registered: 23 September 2006
well since you seem to be for a loss of words, i will prove you altered yet another quote. heres what YOU wrote on nov 8th:
"Scientists have suspected for years that estrogen from humans is at least partially to blame for strange animal oddities - . . .and thought to disrupt animals' endocrine systems"
--- and heres the ACTUAL article quote. notice the words in red. those are the ones you conviently left out. so dont give me that crap that you dont alter quotes. that seems to be the only thing your good at:
"Scientists have suspected for years that estrogen from humans is at least partially to blame for strange animal sexual oddities - such as hermaphrodites, which have both male and female characteristics - but other hormones and common chemicals also are thought to disrupt animals' endocrine systems. As a result, scientists have had a difficult time finding a direct cause-and-effect example in the wild. Kidd's study shows that link"
so how are you going to attempt to deny this one? so now that i proved you wrong once again, would you like me to prove your stupidity once again by showing your quote of jefferson, along with the REAL one thats not altered? i have time.
------------------------------------------ debating conservatives is easy. so easy, even a caveman can do it!
"if this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck lot easier, just so long as im the dictator" -GWB Dec 18,2002
Posts: 1614 | Location: ft myers florida area | Registered: 23 September 2006
GG:You proof to me your source is correct, Jason. I have faith and trust in my source and I am in great suspect of whom you are quoting.
My sources are the Library of Congress (the official record) and Yale University. You have not provided any sources at all for your lying quotes. Your deceit is disappointing given that you're a devout Christian. But that sin will be between you and God.
Until you address this, I will continue to ask you to. And until you do, none of what you say has any credibility because you've proven you're now capible of lying -- and that is the ultimate insult to us here.
When you come clean, I am prepared to forgive you.
quote:
GG's false Jefferson quote: "The First Amendment has erected a wall of separation between church and state, but that wall is a one directional wall; it keeps the government from running the church, but it makes sure that Christian principles will always stay in government."
Thomas Jefferson, President of the United States January 1, 1802 in an address to the Danbury Baptists.
This is a false quote, GG. And now that you've been informed, it is your moral duty to apologize and retract, lest you commit the sin of deceit.
To messers Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.
Gentlemen
The affectionate sentiments of esteem & approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful & zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more & more pleasing.
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, 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. [Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from presenting even occasional performances of devotion presented indeed legally where an Executive is the legal head of a national church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.] Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.
As you can see, not only didn't he describe it as a one way wall (which would render the metaphor ridiculous as there is no such thing as a one way wall and Jefferson was smarter than that) what he does describe is indeed the need to keep government out of church and church out of government.
quote:
GG's false Washingtion quote: "Do not let anyone claim the tribute of American patriotism if they ever attempt to remove religion from politics."
George Washington from his Farewell Address to the Nation.
Another false quote, GG. While his address is way too long to repost, here is the link. That quote is no where in his farewell address.
Washington does address the need to be moral and that religion plays a vital role in that. But no where does even hint that public policy and/or law should be based on a particular religious doctrine.
Here is the portion of his speech I think the above misquote was trying to rewrite.
quote:
Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice ? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.
Jason. As a Catholic I believe the the Church has been infiltrated by some who want to tear it down from within. To differentiate what the Catholic Church teaches and from the actions of those within who are demoralizing it is a major challenge.
I think you need to admit that same kind of infiltration is within the US in order to subvert other social institutions like schools, mass media, and government - focused upon controlling the world.
You say I should apologize. I think we have some MAJOR issues that we need to look at. We have an organization within that is so far been successful in hyjacking the founders of this nation's intention of the US documents' protections and intentions. The 'ACLU' scares individuals and organizations into believing they are committing a crime by including references to God. These same individuals and organizations are not as well funded as these trial ACLU attorneys and they cave in, not because they believe them, but because they have not not the financial backing.
The ACLU wants to replace "freedom of religion" to "freedom from religion". The documents do not state 'a particular religion', but the freedom to practice one's religious beliefs.
speaking of quotes GG, i have done research into your signature and after many hours searching the web, i have yet to find one time where the pope actually said that. care to supply proof or a link that the pope did indeed say that, or did you just make that up also and just attribute it to him?
The book, "Love & Responsibility", by Harol Wojtyla, and "Theology of the Body", by JPIIsummarizes that statement. For Instance:
pg.22 Love and Resp. - . . man has the ability to reason, he is a rational being, which cannot be said of any other entity in the visible world, for in none of them doe we find any trace of conceptual thinking.
pg. 239 - sexual intercourse in marriage takes place at the level of a union of loving persons only if they do not deliberately exclude the possibility of procreation and parenthood. When the idea that I may become a father - I may become a mother is totally rejected in the mind and will of husband and wife nothing is left of the marital relationship - except mere sexual enjoyment. One person becomes an object of use for another person, is incompatible with the personalistic norm.
Man is endowed with reason not primarily to'calculate' the max. of pleasure - - but to seek knowledge of objective truth - - he must live in a manner worthy of what he is - to live justly.
Other random thoughts of the nature of persons:
inwardness/inner ethical dimension of personhood
cosmic/anthropological dimension of the dignity of persons
betrothel love, the conjugal life and loving relationships of man and woman
self mastery
sacramental/theological personalistic revelation of the body
vocation of personhood to be a witness and interpretation of the eternal plan of love.
Does this help at all?
* * * * * * * * Without traditional regular moral principles that may be consulted confidently, justice cannot long endure anywhere.
Posts: 6275 | Location: Maine | Registered: 31 December 2005
As a Catholic I believe the the Church has been infiltrated by some who want to tear it down from within. To differentiate what the Catholic Church teaches and from the actions of those within who are demoralizing it is a major challenge.
I think you need to admit that same kind of infiltration is within the US in order to subvert other social institutions like schools, mass media, and government - focused upon controlling the world.
You say I should apologize. I think we have some MAJOR issues that we need to look at.
This is simply you're usual way of obfuscating the debate every time you have been shown to be wrong and in this case lying. You run around the issue after trying to put in false quotes and then even had the nerve, the gall to question the documents themselves as false.
Instead of facing the fact that your nutcase conservative sources lied to you, almost every quote you have from these sources is an outright lie and when confronted with that you claim everyone else is wrong. But yet you never look beyond your narrow little world for any answers you only try and convince everyone that the entire outside world is thouroughly dishonest, out to harm you individually and only the people who have you brainwashed are reliable or true.
You are so thouroughly wrong, you pass off fantasy as truth and mostly everyone except Fisherman, Art Junky and now Jason avoid the hassle of trying to correct any thing you writr out of the way you refuse to expand your world. Thank god for these gentlemen who are intent on getting to the truth or you would just post your lies without confrontation to your blind following of religious fanatics and right wingnuts. I personally despise conflict but more than even that, I abhor dishonesty and fiction passed off as absolute truth you are human and have no more edge on "the truth" than any one else here.
We are all students stuck on this earth together to learn from each other, but not one of us has the truth not even your Nazi Youth member Pope Benedict, and the edicts he condemns the world with.
You are in no position to tell anyone here how wrong their beliefs or ideas are especially when every one of your back up sources are lies from lying groups who have people like you under their mind control to advance a dangerous and distorted agenda, skewed enough to make people, who need leaders to tell them what to do, believe it soundsd like absolute truth. These conservative scam artists laugh at your gullibility, your readiness to blindly follow without any question, and not ever to even consider evidence to the contrary of what fits in the narrow little world the force you to follow.
You still owe Jason an apology, and no one could give two shakes about whether or not your catholic church is being "infiltrated" from insiders who want to tear it down, go fight these catholics instead of us.
You have proven that you have no integrity or honesty here and aren't these qualities important to catholics? You are just so intent on insulting the ideas that are important to most people here, that you forsake any semblance of morality to do it.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: deniport,
Posts: 231 | Location: MA | Registered: 26 June 2006
deniport - Are you saying you patronize the ACLU? You also, Jason?
quote:
quote: ACLU: AMERICAN CHRISTIAN LOATHERS UNION Posted By: Professor on 9/11/2006 2:12:05 PM in ACLU "The American Civil Liberties Union ((ACLU)) has been called the “most dangerous organization in America.” And rightly so.
The ACLU is a secular organization that exploits the law to impose their anti-God agenda. Its lawyers litigate lawsuits that aim to take away our Constitutional right to freedom of religion. The ACLU wants to erase any mention of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob found in public places. They have fought to remove "One nation, under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance, they want to erase "In God we trust" from our currency and rid the country of all religious displays such as the Ten Commandments, Christian holiday displays and state mottos. They do this under the guise of the so-called wall of separation of church and state, or what has come to be known as the establishment-clause of the First Amendment. What is the ACLU's position on church-state separation? There shall be no mention of God on public property. Period.
* * * * * * * * Without traditional regular moral principles that may be consulted confidently, justice cannot long endure anywhere.
Posts: 6275 | Location: Maine | Registered: 31 December 2005
The book, "Love & Responsibility", by Harol Wojtyla, and "Theology of the Body", by JPIIsummarizes that statement. For Instance
summerizes the statement. that means is not what he actually said. so in other words, you have once again been proved wrong and once again it was proven that you LIED and altered a quote. PJPII NEVER said the quote you have in your signature. so dont give me your crap that its in there.
"pg.22 Love and Resp. - . . man has the ability to reason, he is a rational being, which cannot be said of any other entity in the visible world, for in none of them doe we find any trace of conceptual thinking.
pg. 239 - sexual intercourse in marriage takes place at the level of a union of loving persons only if they do not deliberately exclude the possibility of procreation and parenthood. When the idea that I may become a father - I may become a mother is totally rejected in the mind and will of husband and wife nothing is left of the marital relationship - except mere sexual enjoyment. One person becomes an object of use for another person, is incompatible with the personalistic norm."
where is the signature in there? oh ya its not! GG go back to your little dark church of sexual perverts and pedaphiles and leave the actual intelligent debate to ppl who really want it. because its apparent that you will stoop to the status of a worm to promote your agenda, even lieing about your own church leader. you truely are hopeless and a perpetual lier. you know that they have 'help' for ppl like you.
here you go GG. this link will give you alot of info you need to beat your addiction. i seriously hope you look at the link and try to get the help you truely need. remember, its not your fault!! its a medical condition, but you can beat this thing if you just try.
------------------------------------------ debating conservatives is easy. so easy, even a caveman can do it!
"if this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck lot easier, just so long as im the dictator" -GWB Dec 18,2002
Posts: 1614 | Location: ft myers florida area | Registered: 23 September 2006
deniport - Are you saying you patronize the ACLU? You also, Jason?
Don't change the subject, the ACLU has nothing to do with this. You have been caught in lies and are trying to turn the conversation again by another disparaging remark about groups you have been instructed to hate. BTW I am a non financially supporing member of the ACLU, and yes if I was financially secure enough they would be the group I'd most likely donate in large amounts to. Your conservative leaders who spew hate speach on the group have run to the ACLU whenever they feel their individual rights are being trampled.Once they are finished with what they use the ACLU to provide them they go back to the airwaves spreading hate about the very group they've used for their own selfish needs. So your hate speach on the ACLU is in effect insulting me as a member.
That aside if you can't own up to the issue at hand I can no longer bother with your posts because I will only be able to see them as disingenuous and without merit.
Posts: 231 | Location: MA | Registered: 26 June 2006
Don't change the subject, the ACLU has nothing to do with this.
We would not be having this discussion at all if it were not for the destruction of the ACLU, one of the forces intended to destroy this nation. It is not a distraction but the intention of this organization.
For instance, the ACLU will sue and bankrupt any school district that will even dare to breathe a word in the class room about 'intelligent design'. Teaching even with Open-mindedness to the ACLU is a violation when it does not support their cause. Lower courts are handing to them on a silver platter what cannot be proven.
The ACLU is hehind demoting of prayer, Bibles, and Christmas songs. Religious expressions and references are considered hate crimes.
The ACLU's intention is to break the Ten Commandments one by one. They have created a 'new priesthood', new myths to justify their rejection of Judeo-Christianity's role in the universe. Sneering at Christians is perfectly acceptable and never considered hate speech all-the-while the ACLU defends sticking a fork in a baby's head.
God and religion must be removed, thwarted, twisted, ridiculed. After all we are just apes. Constitutional Rights are becoming whatever powerful elitists want. Unreasonableness has become reasonable. Believing that human beings are just another animal, sexual depravities of all kinds are acceptable. Teaching fisting to 4th graders because they will have sex is considerered appropriate teaching in public classrooms. However, not so with abstinence until marriage. God needs to be removed in order to have these convoluted evil perverted kinds of thinking taught in a class room. Bible truth in the class room has been replaced with playboy philosophies and women have become more of a slave group and considered objects of sexual pleasure. Masculinized feminists are raising boys that feminists will hate.
It is not the Constitution that prevents public schools from mentioning God. It is the reasoning of "hating God and hating America". If you want examples, I've got them.
We are imploding from within and our tax dollars are doing it to us.
* * * * * * * * Without traditional regular moral principles that may be consulted confidently, justice cannot long endure anywhere.
Posts: 6275 | Location: Maine | Registered: 31 December 2005
PJPII NEVER said the quote you have in your signature. so dont give me your crap that its in there.
The books, "Love and Responsibility", and "Theology of the Body", are about "Man must reconcile himself to his natural greatness...he must not forget that he is a person."-JPII
All life and the living depend on its survival within human's capapcity to understand this. All of life is doomed if we do not get the order of creation. It is a responsibility of love and it is not a lording over.
John Paul II begins in Genesis to teach us the understaning of the human person as a whole. The nuptial meaning of the body is the self realization of the total person. If we do not treat ourselves and each person appropriately, with dignity, than no other living and unliving in the universe will be considered any value and can easily be discarded claiming human 'rights'.
quote:
PJPII NEVER said the quote you have in your signature. so dont give me your crap that its in there
Did you read the first page, first column of "Love and Responsibiliy" excerpts?
* * * * * * * * Without traditional regular moral principles that may be consulted confidently, justice cannot long endure anywhere.
Posts: 6275 | Location: Maine | Registered: 31 December 2005
You are in no position to tell anyone here how wrong their beliefs or ideas are .
I am proving my position, deniport, that's what discussion is all about, is it not?
quote:
Instead of facing the fact that your nutcase conservative sources lied to you
You are attacking me and not the issue and you make no attempt to prove any sense of a root goodness in the ACLU.
quote:
dishonest,
I am attempting to discuss and support my position; giving you reasons for my conclusions. To call me dishonest is a personal attack.
quote:
You are so thouroughly wrong
About the ACLU?
quote:
Thank god for these gentlemen who are intent on getting to the truth
I do for you and for them and the freedom while we have it for discussion.
quote:
I abhor dishonesty and fiction passed off as absolute truth you are human and have no more edge on "the truth" than any one else here.
I stand on what has not been humanly instituted and in existence for 2000 years. There is no human organization that has or is in existence that compares to it.
quote:
We are all students stuck on this earth together to learn from each other,
"Stuck" - I do not feel 'stuck' - difficult circumstances maybe, but not stuck. Yes we can learn from each other, but you know with humans how we easily can be distracted and deceived.
quote:
not even your Nazi Youth member Pope Benedict, and the edicts he condemns the world with.
That is a slanderous erroneous statement. Have you heard what the president of Iran has been saying? And you state that Pope Benedict XVI condemns!!!
quote:
You have proven that you have no integrity or honesty here and aren't these qualities important to catholics? You are just so intent on insulting the ideas that are important to most people here, that you forsake any semblance of morality to do it.
Yikes!!, you are one tough lady, deniport.
* * * * * * * * Without traditional regular moral principles that may be consulted confidently, justice cannot long endure anywhere.
Posts: 6275 | Location: Maine | Registered: 31 December 2005
this is our problem, Jason - the protection to practice religious beliefs and NOT remove them.
quote:
Renew serious debate on the role of religion in American life and affirm the right of private associations and individuals to publicly uphold religious tenets. This should include further investigation by policymakers into the relationship between religious practice and the life of the nation, on the health of America’s families and the content of its culture. Religious practice can and should be factored into the planning and debate on the nation’s urgent social problems. Americans cannot build their future without drawing on the strengths that come to them from the practice of their religious beliefs.
Continue to appoint and confirm judges who understand the important contributions of religion to public life. The religion clauses of the First Amendment—“Congress shall make no The Founders, in their passionate love of freedom, promoted the freedom of all Americans to practice their religious beliefs (or not to practice any), law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”—are intended to safeguard religious liberty. The Constitution’s prohibition against an establishment of religion does not imply that religion should be barred from political or civic life. but Congress and the courts have begun to crowd religion out of the public square. It is time to bring it back. Competent judges, appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, will work to accommodate religious belief in the public square wherever possible so that it may at times be religious, not only agnostic.
* * * * * * * * Without traditional regular moral principles that may be consulted confidently, justice cannot long endure anywhere.
Posts: 6275 | Location: Maine | Registered: 31 December 2005
I am proving my position, deniport, that's what discussion is all about, is it not?
You have proven nothing you refuse to look beyond a limited source for your "theories" uou spout of verbatim what they say you donot enter your opinion or own ideas at all it is simply quotes from only far right wingnut writers and thinkers. You have refused repeatedly to look at any sources provided by the other members here because they don't fit your preordained view of things. So there is no point in putting the work into providing sources even non biased ones that you immediately dismiss as "anti catholic", " agents for the ACLU" or what ever your dismissive insult du jour happens to be .
When facts prove you're wrong instead of admitting something or providing further proof to back your side you start on a long nonsensical religious rant condemning people's opinions as not reaching your Catholic ideals. Discussion is about finishing the debate,not switching to a fantasy rant and not avoiding addressing what people have presented you as the truth whenever you are stumped. To avoid saying your wrong or if things get beyond your scope of providing some canned answer is not discussion, it's as far from discussion than someone can get.
Posts: 231 | Location: MA | Registered: 26 June 2006
Instead of facing the fact that your nutcase conservative sources lied to you You are attacking me and not the issue and you make no attempt to prove any sense of a root goodness in the ACLU.
This is not an attack on you it is an attack on who you go to for your answers and sources, which you do without holding back in at least every other thing you post. Every group every ideal and me personally has been slurred by your postings. You ask how me personally?
You have accused me of being a Pharisee, in other words a hypocrit, you make massive amounts of disparaging comments on the gay community, using terms like "linqueeni" and "masculinized women" Here's one right in one of today's posting from you "Masculinized feminists are raising boys that feminists will hate." both followed with lies and hurtful statements as if the disgusting titles were not enough. You say all feminists are trying to force women into abortion, it's their agenda. You have torn down people who have Buddhist beliefs in the past When you attack who I am and who I identify with then all bets are off the table lady and I do not then have to only speak nicely about who and what you're a part of there isn't one set of rules for GG and another for everyone else.
quote:
Teaching fisting to 4th graders because they will have sex is considerered appropriate teaching in public classrooms.
That is a lie and inappropriate!!! What kind of sick people are those you listen to. You had better have proof for a slanderous statement like that that doesn't come from Fox news, Rush Limpballs, or any other right wing or religious group with an agenda against the ACLU. Provide an unbiased main stream source otherwise you will earn a place on my ignore list for being over the top inflammatory dishonesty in your postings.
quote:
For instance, the ACLU will sue and bankrupt any school district that will even dare to breathe a word in the class room about 'intelligent design'. Teaching even with Open-mindedness to the ACLU is a violation when it does not support their cause.
There is no "open mind" on fact vs religious belief. Only accepted science belongs being taught in science classes and creationism belongs in religious studies class or philosophy. It is not accepted science, case closed.
quote:
The ACLU's intention is to break the Ten Commandments one by one. They have created a 'new priesthood', new myths to justify their rejection of Judeo-Christianity's role in the universe. Sneering at Christians is perfectly acceptable and never considered hate speech all-the-while the ACLU defends sticking a fork in a baby's head.
This sounds like the rantings of an insane person, I'd think it was if I hadn't read the exact words in the exact order in some of your "sources" they're insane, you seem to need to believe everything they say and never have one of your own thoughts. Appearing as blind faith in insanity. Show me the case files here not someones opinion of what they want to use against the ACLU.
You are so offended about being slurred as a christian, try living in my lesbian shoes for one day and you'll get how it feels to have an entire nation think they can call you every disgusting profanity and I'm supposed to take it and shut up, because I'm in the minority. I'm not talking about in connection with wanting to marry, just simply for existing. The beatings and murders by Christians that occur in this country against the gay community regularly. Having people point at you, laugh and make horribly hateful statements not to you but loudly with the intent to intimidate you like it was a perfectly normal way of treating another person. If you could live a day in my shoes then you'd have a right to complain about "sneering at Christians" who are the massive majority and responsible for 99% of the hate I face on a daily basis. That often has potential for violence unless I act as though I don't hear it.
Again, prove the existence of a case file in the supposed "fork in the baby's head" story you cite, that the ACLU is supposedly defending
Posts: 231 | Location: MA | Registered: 26 June 2006
I am attempting to discuss and support my position; giving you reasons for my conclusions. To call me dishonest is a personal attack.
Once again it is not a personal attack it is stating a fact that has been pointed out by several other members because of your postings of changed quotes or misquote historical documents for your benefit not in the interest of the truth, and also responding to things that were never said by someone in an attempt to make it appear that something was stated that wasn't. This is dishonest and hence you are being dishonest in these message boards.
quote:
quote: I abhor dishonesty and fiction passed off as absolute truth you are human and have no more edge on "the truth" than any one else here. I stand on what has not been humanly instituted and in existence for 2000 years. There is no human organization that has or is in existence that compares to it.
So, as long as the church says it or some crazy priest then even if it's a lie then it's ok, just because there is nothing that compares to it? Oh, Hinduism, Judaism, Buddhism to name a few.
quote:
not even your Nazi Youth member Pope Benedict, and the edicts he condemns the world with.
That is a slanderous erroneous statement. Have you heard what the president of Iran has been saying? And you state that Pope Benedict XVI condemns!!!
I don't care what the leader of Iran said he is not a spiritual leader. This is about the man who is the world wide leader of the Catholic faith. He is supposed to represent the expression of the love of Jesus throughout the world to reach out in love not statements to anger other religions. Benedict was a member of the Nazi Youth indeed it is historical and he has even written about it, he joined at 14. He was conscripted into the Nazi armed forces at 16 and guarded prisoners who were forced into labor from a concentration camp. He deserted at 18 only after the Americans invaded Germany and he felt they would protect him and he heard that Hitler killed himself. Those are facts Linklink link link link link link link link link link link linklink link link link link link link link linkThere are hundreds more these were all I could save until I had to go to sleep last night
Posts: 231 | Location: MA | Registered: 26 June 2006
. Benedict XVI AKA: Pope Benedict XVI Papacy: 2005.04.19 to Status: Pope #265 Previous: John Paul II (1978-2005) Next: Name: Joseph Alois Ratzinger Born: 1927.04.16 in Bavaria, Germany Died: Cause of Death: Biography: Born in Marktl am Inn, Germany. Son of a policeman.
Ratzinger joined the Nazi Youth in 1941 at the age of 14. Although it's been widely reported that he was forced to join, in his book, Memoires, he doesn't mention being forced or of any resistance at all. In his autobiography, Salt of the Earth (1997), he wrote that his older brother Georg was obliged to join, but that he later registered himself in it. By 1939, the Nazi Youth was mandatory for boys 10 and up, so in all probability his father registered him knowing it would otherwise be expected. His brother Georg told The Times of London recently, that their "father was a bitter enemy of the Nazis". However, with the exception of listening to foreign news radio, his family made no passive resistance, as many other German families had in his area, by hiding their children or other fugitives from the Nazis.
At least one of his family, a grand-uncle Georg Ratzinger, who was a Catholic priest and also a member of the Reichstag (parliament), wrote many anti-Semetic pamphlets. Some critics have also pointed out that there were many Catholic families in his town that resisted, and that his father, who was a policeman, would have been very much aware. In his second autobiography Milestones: Memoirs, 1927-77 (1998), he writes that his father was very vocal in public against the Nazis. In his earlier book though Salt of the Earth, he seems to contradict this, stating that his father "made no public opposition" to the Nazis, and further that it "wouldn't have been possible". White Rose Members There were many Germans who resisted, even in his home town. The well-known resistance group called the White Rose operated in his area, handing out anti-Nazi pamphlets. Some of the leaflets were critical of those Germans who did nothing. Their leaders were eventually executed for their bravery, and considered heros today. In 1937, only a short distance from his home, one family hid the resistance fighter, Hans Braxenthaler, from the SS who searched door to door looking for him in the area. Eventually he was betrayed and chose to shoot himself. Elizabeth Lohner, who also lived in Traunstein at the time, and who's brother-in-law was sent to Dachau as a conscientious objector, was quoted in The Times of London, "It was possible to resist, and those people set an example for others," she said. "The Ratzingers were young and had made a different choice." Dachau Slave Labour In 1943, at the age of 16, Ratzinger's seminary class were conscripted as anti-aircraft soldiers, responsible for defending a BMW plant outside Munich that made aircraft engines. This was the same factory where the prisoners of the Dachau concentration camp were forced to labour at that time. In September, 1944, he was moved to a post by the Hungarian border where he was tasked with digging anti-tank ditches. Here he saw many Jews being herded off to death camps. In Dec 1944, he was drafted into the Army and stationed near Traunstein.
• Desertion In May, 1945 Ratzinger wrapped his arm in a fake sling and deserted the army. Many News publications have claimed this was evidence that he was strongly anti-Nazi. However, Benedict wrote that he deserted "after" hearing of Hitler's suicide, which was actually when most of the soldiers deserted their posts, especially with the fear of being captured by the advancing Russian troops. Critical of the Allies In his Milestones, Benedict XVI actually criticises the American liberation as slow, "unhurried". He also comments how the soldiers forced him to stand with his family to take pictures so they could "take home with them souvenirs of a defeated army". A far less consequence compared to what Nazi soldiers did to their prisoners. There is no critique of the German army.
Posts: 231 | Location: MA | Registered: 26 June 2006
You are attacking me and not the issue and you make no attempt to prove any sense of a root goodness in the ACLU.
You are the one making the disparaging claims you have to prove your point not the other way around and YOU have made no legitimate case foe your claims. How does anyone present claims against those made from unresearched right wing "throw a bunch of lies to the wind and see what sticks" way of presenting things. I want copies of legal documents and actual case files to support this theory you put forth. Otherwise, I don't have to prove anything to you. I can only defend against facts not religious nutty lies, it's your responsibility to present facts when making a case, not merely slanderous opinions, because I'm not the one here making the scandolous claims
Posts: 231 | Location: MA | Registered: 26 June 2006
so GG, are you saying that your werent dishonest when you altered the quote you made in the fish thread? you have lost what little respectability you might have had on this site by constantly saying you didnt alter anything. so then tell me how did the majority of the following paraghaph "disappear" when you posted it? your dishonest omits are in red. funny how you ommitted only things that destroy the arguement you were trying to make in the first place.
---------------- "Scientists have suspected for years that estrogen from humans is at least partially to blame for strange animal sexual oddities - such as hermaphrodites, which have both male and female characteristics - but other hormones and common chemicals also are thought to disrupt animals' endocrine systems. As a result, scientists have had a difficult time finding a direct cause-and-effect example in the wild. Kidd's study shows that link." -----------------
so GG, care to dispute what you actually wrote and what the actual quote was? the only words you supplied in the paragraph above were the ones in black. you purposely ommitted the ones in red, which outnumber the black ones btw. you know God hates liars and decievers, so you are probably right up there on his shit list about now. you talk as if your religion is the moral authority and you are the judge, jury, and executioner. it couldnt be any further from the truth. if anything, you have less morals than serial rapists, theives, and murderers.
pretty soon you will be talking to an empty crowd GG, as almost everyone will have you on their ignore list. i might not have agreed with alot of what you have said in the past, but i even defended you from ppl who wanted you banned, as i am against censorship. but it is apparent to me that some people, such as yourself, need to be censored for the good of humanity and for the good of this site.
you have not said a single truth in the months i have been here, resorting to distortions, alternate realities, and outright lies. when people catch you in the act red handed, you either deny it, talk some religious mumbo jumbo, ignore the fact you are wrong, or change the subject to one of your radical catholic viewpoints.
you dont read other peoples links, yet expect us to read yours. i stopped reading any of your links after the fish post, as every link you post has some sort of religious or radical agenda or tone to it. you are jsut wasting your time by posting now. the threads will continue on without you and if anything, will be more spirited and full of life, as we dont have to deal with the habitual liar in our midst.
you obviously are very unintelligent as you dont even research the links you post. if you had, you would know that some links you supply either do nothing to support your idiotic agruement of the day or have not even been active in a long time. your quotes and statements are so flawed and so easy to rebute, that its not even worth my time anymore to dispute them. i now actually automatically assume that the statements you make are lies and dont even give them more than a 5 sec glance. after i post this, i wont give them any time at all, as you will be on ignore list. after all, im sure thats all you give us, as you dont bother looking at the links or facts we supply.
have you looked at the habitual liar hotline link i supplied so you can get help? probably not. thats ok, as you are now officially on my ignore list. congrats! you are the first one i have place on it in my entire time on this site! what a nice dubious honor it is GG! not even Popping Turtle was placed on it. you remind me of the little boy (or in your case, the little catholic) who cried wolf (or in your case, invoking God as your character witness)once too many times. but im sure that you know that God doesnt negotiate with evil, so you are out of luck with your constant lies and alterations. i bid thee adeau! get some profession help. (like an exorist)
------------------------------------------ debating conservatives is easy. so easy, even a caveman can do it!
"if this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck lot easier, just so long as im the dictator" -GWB Dec 18,2002
Posts: 1614 | Location: ft myers florida area | Registered: 23 September 2006
Every group every ideal and me personally has been slurred by your postings.
My references to the ACLU began long before you came to this forum.
quote:
You have accused me of being a Pharisee,
Why are you saying that? I've never called you or anyone a Pharisee.
quote:
you make massive amounts of disparaging comments on the gay community,
Once again, Denise, I have not.
quote:
using terms like "linqueeni" and "masculinized women" Here's one right in one of today's posting from you "Masculinized feminists are raising boys that feminists will hate."
spineey linqueenies are spineless people who refuse to do their job such as judges and politicians appropriately. Doug Giles has written a series on young boys in the classroom.
quote:
"theories" uou spout of verbatim
They are in quotes.
quote:
This is not an attack on you it is an attack on who you go to for your answers and sources, which you do without holding back in at least every other thing you post.
I have defined who I am and I substantiate my posts.
quote:
Every group every ideal and me personally has been slurred by your postings. You ask how me personally?
Denise, I think you said you were reading my postings for awhile before you came into the forum. I've not changed who I am and what I believe and I do not know about others, only what they share. I've shared very little about myself because I get nailed to the wall; I get a huge amount of criticisms.
quote:
You have torn down people who have Buddhist beliefs in the past
??????????
quote:
When you attack who I am and who I identify with then all bets are off the table lady and I do not then have to only speak nicely about who and what you're a part of there isn't one set of rules for GG and another for everyone else.
I've not known who you are, Denise. How could I? As you can see I receive alot of criticism because I am a Catholic and as for the ACLU, I have ample references for their purposeful destruction of our freedoms.
I've looked at the references that Jason has posted. Has he looked at my references?
quote:
Again, prove the existence of a case file in the supposed "fork in the baby's head" story you cite, that the ACLU is supposedly defending
It is called partial birth abortion.
quote:
that has been pointed out by several other members because of your postings of changed quotes or misquote historical documents for your benefit not in the interest of the truth
Several?? I've given you my sources. Can you prove they have misquoted? It is easy to check out my sources and their credibility or lack thereof. Not so with Jasons.
quote:
and also responding to things that were never said by someone in an attempt to make it appear that something was stated that wasn't. This is dishonest and hence you are being dishonest in these message boards.
Once again, I trust these sources who have studied the intention of the founding fathers of this nation. The ACLU does not have the reputation for defending freedom for the common good.
quote:
throughout the world to reach out in love not statements to anger other religions
Pope Benedict XVI is not responsible how people chose to react. The reactions were the same in France burning, the cartoons - - - . How did you react when the Muslims cut of the head of the 14 year old because he was a Christian?
* * * * * * * * Without traditional regular moral principles that may be consulted confidently, justice cannot long endure anywhere.
Posts: 6275 | Location: Maine | Registered: 31 December 2005
I don't care what the leader of Iran said he is not a spiritual leader. This is about the man who is the world wide leader of the Catholic faith.
Ahmadinejad wants to wipe Israel of the face of the earth and then he is coming for the US. Infidels will live as slaves or be dead. Party affliation will not be a protection.
quote:
he joined at 14. He was conscripted into the Nazi armed forces at 16 and guarded prisoners who were forced into labor from a concentration camp.
From your referenced link: Following his 14th birthday in 1941, he joined the Hitler Youth, membership in which was legally required from March 25, 1939.[7] . . . Ratzinger was an unenthusiastic member who refused to attend meetings. Ratzinger has mentioned that a Nazi mathematics professor arranged reduced tuition payments for him at seminary. This theoretically required documentation of attendance at Hitler Youth activities - however, according to Ratzinger, his professor arranged that the young seminary student did not need to attend those gatherings to receive a scholarship.
Military service (1943–1945) In 1943, when he was 16, Ratzinger was drafted with many of his classmates into the Luftwaffenhelfer programme. They were posted first to Ludwigsfeld, north of Munich, as part of a detachment responsible for guarding a BMW aircraft engine plant. Next they were sent to Unterföhring, northwest of Munich, and briefly to Innsbruck. From Innsbruck their unit went to Gilching to protect the jet fighter base and to attack Allied bombers as they massed to begin their runs towards Munich. At Gilching, Ratzinger served in a telephone communications post.[citation needed]
On September 10, 1944, his class was released from the Corps. Returning home, Ratzinger had already received a new draft notice for the Reichsarbeitsdienst. He was posted to the Hungarian border area of Austria which had been annexed by Germany in the Anschluss of 1938. When Hungary was occupied by the Red Army Ratzinger was put to work setting up anti-tank defences in preparation for the expected Red Army offensive. While there, he saw Jews being herded to death camps.[8] On November 20, 1944 his unit was released from service.[citation needed]
Ratzinger again returned home. After three weeks passed, he was drafted into the German army at Munich and assigned to the infantry barracks in the center of Traunstein, the city near which his family lived. After basic infantry training, Ratzinger served at various posts around the city with his unit. They were never sent to the front.[citation needed]
In late April or early May, days or weeks before the German surrender, Ratzinger deserted. Desertion was widespread during the last weeks of the war, even though punishable by death (executions, frequently extrajudicial, continued to the end); diminished morale and the greatly diminished risk of prosecution from a preoccupied and disorganized German military contributed to the growing wave of soldiers looking toward self-preservation. Ratzinger left the city of Traunstein and headed for his nearby village. "I used a little-known back road hoping to get through unmolested. But, as I walked out of a railroad underpass, two soldiers were standing at their posts, and for a moment the situation was extremely critical for me. Thank God that they, too, had had their fill of war and did not want to become murderers." They used the excuse of his arm being in a sling to let him go home.[citation needed]
* * * * * * * * Without traditional regular moral principles that may be consulted confidently, justice cannot long endure anywhere.
Posts: 6275 | Location: Maine | Registered: 31 December 2005
Denise - Your second link is a blog site. "Born in Bavaria on April 16, 1927, the son of a police chief, he served in the Hitler Youth during World War II when membership was compulsory, according to his autobiography.
But he was never a member of the Nazi party and his family opposed Adolf Hitler's regime, biographers have said."
you had several links to the same above ?????
National Cath. Reporter ref.
quote:
The question of Ratzinger and the Third Reich also merits special attention. Neither Ratzinger nor any member of his family was a National Socialist. Ratzinger has said several times that his father's criticism of the Nazis was responsible for the four moves the family made during Ratzinger's first ten years. Such opposition by itself is unremarkable; many German Catholics complained about the party's encroachment on the church. Neither the elder Ratzinger nor either of the two sons took part in any kind of resistance. Although Ratzinger today calls such resistance "impossible," there were in fact several models in his immediate orbit, including members of the Communist Party, Jehovah's Witnesses, and fellow Catholics.
Your links are repetitious. What's going on you would link to same blogs and same sites over and over again.
* * * * * * * * Without traditional regular moral principles that may be consulted confidently, justice cannot long endure anywhere.
Posts: 6275 | Location: Maine | Registered: 31 December 2005
If i had provided only a few you would have complained, maybe some duplicate but only a few. I can't help if historical fact is historical fact and there is no way to state it that varies enough for you, as a matter of fact it shouldn't vary, many of those links are to news reports not blogs.
You have lied in the first of today's postings I have had it with your dishonesty and hatred and have placed you on ignore and won't deal with someone who has an open mind like a locked dark box, who misrepresents things like "fork in the head of a baby" and "teaches second graders on how fisting is done" you said these lies and you deserve no attention it only makes you more ridiculous in what you claim to be true. Also, talk about repetative have you looked at your sources and postings? You say nothing ever beyond neocon talking points unless you are side tracked for a post or two.
As far as benedict is concerned you said I was lying to state he was a member of the Nazi Youth so I wanted to "prove" to you as you demand that the statement was true. We can debate from here until eternity on his motives for that and joining the Nazi military as an adult but it's not important. The point is I wasn't lying and I won't be accused of such when the truth is historical. All I'll say is he didn't resist.
I really don't know you true motivations for posting in this message board. One thing is clear it's not to discuss or try to be open to others. You jam your religious hatred and name calling down everyone's throat and believe you may win converts. You lady, have done nothing but antagonize everyone you have come into contact with and drive people as far away from your beliefs as possible. Your points are meaningless to most people here liberals and conservatives alike trying to keep open minds and carry on lively debate. You have shut off any chance of winning even one person to your view of things by name calling the groups and people involved in anything you don't like but never one have given a reasoned adult argument for your points. You have probably have turned some people off to your ideas that would have been able to see your point if presented in a way of calm intelligence not emotional hysteria that every Muslim is trying to kill you or that feminist have secret agenda's to force everyone into abortion or that liberal groups are trying to take all your rights away. It sounds crazy and very paranoid not reasoned and clear. I will still post on some of the same threads but just to warn you I will no longer be responding to you.
I must say it has not been very pleasurable dealing with you but you certainly have sparked me into more clearly defining what I believe in to myself. You asked who or what I would die for, GG I'd die for you or any American to continue to have the right to speak their minds and maintain freedom in the face of tyrrany. That your right to believe and practice as you choose will always be guaranteed as long as your right to do so doesn't interfere with my right to do the same. That even when people like you are willing to immediately relinquish those rights in the face of perceived threat, that I hope I would still stand true and individually if need be would stand up and die. Hopefully this would be an example that there are some things worse than death to us Americans, and that is the voluntary relinquishment of one's freedom out of fear.
I believe strongly in the words of Franklin I use in my signature it has been a bumper sticker on my car for 5 years now it has had strong meaning for many more years than that. It was hung in the office of another nurse when I worked as a psych nurse many years ago, he was a conservative/libertarian and we argued politics often but we truly did like each other. The saying made me angry sometimes given it was viewable by even the "locked up" patients. It was one of those saying though, that burned permanently on to my brain and I thought of it often. Within weeks after 9/11 and watching what a bunch of people with evil on their minds could do. They decided to start exploiting the national hysteria and panic and that's when I pulled out the saying again. Daily, as yet another freedom is gleefully surrendered by frightened sheep it holds even more meaning to me. It describes the courage that one needs to be an American and sadly allowed an attack to turn us into quivering idiots needing to be taken care of even if it means under tyrrany control.
If anyone doesn't take a stand against this slimey evil and cowardice that has swept this country then maybe the truths of this country aren't for them and they should go to a place where the government will give them no rights but protect them diligently. I want to get back the America where courageous men and women would stand up and die to be free and would die for their neighbor to protect their freedom. A place that believes the saying "Give me liberty or give me death". To not be afraid of perceived threats and let them change our way of life (and I don't mean financially) the day we willingly gavwe away our rights trusting an evil dictator would protect us was the day the terrorists won the war on terror.
Yes, the war on terror is over and the USA lost, the terrorists won already. What does their title imply? An which nation, tricked by their president, lives in a unending state of TERROR? They hated our freedoms is true, and what many refuse to see in their childish fear is thay already won that fight because we have lost some of our most important freedoms already, willingly as a nation.
Posts: 231 | Location: MA | Registered: 26 June 2006
With all sincerity, I wish you no harm. I do not even know where to begin with the many accusations.
It would be much easier if I were a neutral person.
I've done poorly in expressing my care for you and for all others in this forum. Yes, of course we differ on issues.
These are my defenses:
1. I have not accused 'you' of anything.
2. I've attempted to stay on issues and have not targeted you or any other individuals in this forum. In fact, it is part of the rules of the forum to stay on topic and not attack the person.
3. I have an inherent desire to debate issues and perceive it to be very important.
I am sorry for your conclusions about me - deeply , and truly.
I offer to you once again an expression of friendship. Please forgive me if I have directly caused you harm and suffering.
GG
P.S. I just read your post in "Happiness & Being in the Present". You and I have ALOT in common, Denise.
My experience of sharing that there were 4 reasons why I could not attend my own son's wedding was difficult in the responses here; therefore, I will not risk sharing my life in this forum since I am a conservative.
I know it's difficult, but I wish you could think of me as not your enemy. I extend to you friendship, a respect for your positions on topics, and a sincere desire for your total wellbeing, peace, and happiness.
* * * * * * * * Without traditional regular moral principles that may be consulted confidently, justice cannot long endure anywhere.
Posts: 6275 | Location: Maine | Registered: 31 December 2005
I know it's difficult, but I wish you could think of me as not your enemy. I extend to you friendship, a respect for your positions on topics, and a sincere desire for your total wellbeing, peace, and happiness.
GG, I signed off forgetting to put you on the ignore list before I did which is probably a good thing. Personally I do like you we've shared some real pleasantries as well as debate. I think for the sake of that connection I do think I need to bow out of this type of discussion and debate based on religios belief. I think yours and my connection should remain out of the realm of religion and I will stop my response to such issues with you and hopefully connect here and there on less volitile issues in my life. I would like to remain cordial with you not upset. I do like you and I love your spunk and in reality your kind concern for each person you deal with on a personal level even if not for a debate level, is a wonderful feature about you.
I am very opinionated from my own experiences in life and coming from a place of some moderate pain in Catholism but not horrible followed by massive harm and attempted brainwashing with generic nondenominational fundamentalist "born again" evangelicals. Granted the deception of the latter was much worse than the former. I'd hear these evangelicals discuss the plans for absolute Christian Dominionism in this country and the forbidding of practicing any realigion they didn't deem as "Christian" which Catholism was first on the list. This was in the mid 70's and everything they planned then has been happenning just as they planned. Previous to this president there was enough will and understanding to keep this from happening. Then this moronic person who can't even speak on his own, the dummy to a bunch of evil ventriliquists, and he happens to be an evangelical. He started pushing the Dominionist agenda from the start of his presidency giving social services over to churches who then were allowed to not provide for people they didn't approve of.
He then used a horrible attack on the US one that rightly frightened everyone, and he exploited that fear over and over pushing this Christian agenda and telling everyone over and over how frightened they should be that they were coming to kill us all because they hated our freedom and were an evil people. After several weeks/months of this balony I, as well as many liberal people started to wake up to the scam and have watched in horror as our rights and freedom has been taken away piece by piece.
This is a group who wants to replace those rights with radical evangelicism, a group so extreme that you as a Catholic would be in violation of the state religion they are attempting to put in place. The thing is they need the Catholic influence to get their agenda in place. They used to tell me that if I even ever attended a Catholic mass again then I would be worshipping Satan and that I had to break free from my family to save my soul.
I do not trust or believe the motives of Evangelism and it causes me to become very upset to see people fooled by this deception they don't have your right to practice your religion as part of the ultimate plan.
What put the final nail in the coffin with the Catholic church was the sex abuse scandal in Boston and knowing several of the priests, one who is actually a cousin of mine, and many of the victims. Then seeing the outright distain for these victims, they were called liars and worse.
Catholic groups were forbidden to give any support to the survivors. Then, when records were exposed in court and all was done, it was the church throughout the country that had a massive coverup and protection of the perpetrators. The church was the Liar not the victims. The rebuke of victims continued and rose all the way to the vatican, with statements penned by none other than Cardinal Josef Ratzinger as a representative of the pope blaming the victims, saying it was blown out of proportion and that the victims were lying in their assertions.
When I heard the vaticans response I was horrified. After that I have not stepped in a catholic church other than for my mothers funeral,to respect her wishes. I thank God she was suffering from alzheimers disease and my father was already dead when all this broke about the church, the pain would have been too much for them.
So that is why I shouldn't discuss christianity or any religion with you GG, They're my issues and my responsibility , and I am going to take on the responsibility to stay clear of these discussions with you. You have a perfect right to practice your religion in peace with out constant attacks on it and I have the right to keep myself out of an issue that causes me so much anger. You, unfortunately, in your defense of this administraion are not really representing catholism but believing in the motives of present government have fallen sway to these Dominionists and trusts what they say. They scare me more than any Islamic fundamentalists extremists they are similar but instead christian fundamentalist extremists intent on destroying the very freedoms you fear happening by Islam.
The difference is Islamic extremists aren't here in any great number but the Dominionists are and are doing the job while telling you watch out for outside threats. The only threat the US faces is within by the destruction of our rights
Personally I will continue to work against them taking control of our country not just for my sake, a non christian but for your sake as well. I will continue connection on a non controversial level as I already am clear on my beliefs and don't need to argue them out with you it is just making the both of us angry and hurt. That ok with you? Denise
Posts: 231 | Location: MA | Registered: 26 June 2006
Thank you for your extended gift of friendship. I don't quite know how I'm going to proceed in this forum based on your evaluation, which I do respect. It's tough to hear, but I need and want to hear heartfelt reactions to what I post.
It is only by the grace of God go I and I have nothing in and of myself to boast about. You bring me to my knees. That's good - a good place for me to be. I think of you with kindness and want to be considerate of your journey as we are all pilgrims on a journey. We have met in a strange way and I am the better person that you trusted me enough to share with me your experiences, goals, and desires. Neither one of us can be charged with apathy. We care too much. That's good!
Once again, Denise, thank you. May you continue on your road to healing. Maybe someday we will actually intersect in our journeys in a more tangible way all the while continuously respecting and caring for one another.
In gratitude of your friendship,
JoAn
* * * * * * * * Without traditional regular moral principles that may be consulted confidently, justice cannot long endure anywhere.
Posts: 6275 | Location: Maine | Registered: 31 December 2005
GG (JoAn) Back at you lady A toast to connections, on our sometimes difficult and lonely journeys, yes even when we see the world from different prisms, such connections can only make us better people. God bless you (and I know He has) I'll be saying hello and still reading what you say to deepen my knowledge Denise
Posts: 231 | Location: MA | Registered: 26 June 2006
We have a real battle on our hands, Jason. You are targeting the wrong people. "We need to be wise as serpents and gentle as doves."
I don't have any major issues with your point of view. From what you've written, there are certainly some areas of disagreement, but I know there are more areas of agreement than disagreement.
But I simply can not tolerate dishonesty. If a point has merit, only the truth is needed to make it. I personally am not hung up on the intentions of the Founders -- they certainly would rather we follow our hearts than their words.
But you brought them into the conversation, and you misrepresented their writings. Your quotes aren't even written in the literary style of that time period and do not match up with any accepted record with any credible source.
I'm much more open minded than I let on -- but when I'm lied to I hear nothing else.
Admit and repent -- and I will forgive, move on, and consider your arguments.
One more point -- you should actively research and fact check the plethora of propaganda you post here. And when you do, and discover you too are being lied to, I would invite you to ponder why these sources feel the need to use lies in order to make their points.
Propaganda is a good thing, but only when it's the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Propaganda is a good thing, but only when it's the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Good - then let's begin with the propaganda that religion and any connection thereof is to be removed.
The first separation of religious' principles in public ed was the removal of prayer in school. There were no precedents cited, no quotes from previous legal cases or historical incidents in Engel v. Vitale, June 25, 1962.
The Declaration of Independence acknowledges God 4 times in the document.
Jason, my kind sir, you are begging for enslavement; and that is the bottom line of your attack upon the US Constitution and what the founding fathers intended.
We are reading the same words and interpretation is key. The major question is "Who, why, what, and how" is behind the "tyranny of the minority", implementing wrong interpretations of our precious document? That is our discovery process, is it not?
What is being challenged:
morality, natural law, goodness of humanity if it focuses upon ultimate good
putting a wedge between citizens
question the wisdom of our type of government
educate humanbeings into the belief of their animalistic nature
removal of individual endeavors and accomplishments; they are to be frowned upon
the foistering that salvation of humanbeings is to be in adjusting completely to the environment
man's soul is non-existent
Christianity's beliefs are a liability and a mental disorder
degrade all in connection to tradition, spiritual endurance, and nobility
religion is to be UNfashionable, ridiculed, and defamed
any organization to improve youth are to be corrupted and discredited for it will interfere with increasing criminal delinquency, various mind altering addictions, and sexual promiscuity
Cultural reformers have formed a new philosophy of humanism, a declared religion BTW (can't remember date of its inception) that transfers faith in God to faith in man. The premise is that man can make a better world than God.
The invention of the birth control pill sparked the sexual revolution. Stick with me I am not going off track! Humanists gained control of public education in the early 60's and caused a paradigm shift in education, most of all sex education. God was out, and free sex in!
What was propagandized was that there are no consequences with birth control and abortion. I'm not changing the subject. Hang in there. Can you not see the values REclarification and situational ethics indoctrination.
One cannot teach a classrom on the pleasures of sex and information on its services availability if the Ten Commandments and school prayer are visible and expressed.
More later.
* * * * * * * * Without traditional regular moral principles that may be consulted confidently, justice cannot long endure anywhere.
Posts: 6275 | Location: Maine | Registered: 31 December 2005
Good - then let's begin with the propaganda that religion and any connection thereof is to be removed.
When a perceived foe points out one's sins, the temptation to ignore it an go fishing for their sins is only a natural reaction. But I don't think you understand what I'm trying to tell you. What I'm telling you is that everything you write here is a waste of time because all your intended audience can see is that you lie and avoid facing it when you're called out for it.
If you want to actually reach people here, repent for your sins. Without integrity, words have no value.
I repeat:
quote:
GG:You proof to me your source is correct, Jason. I have faith and trust in my source and I am in great suspect of whom you are quoting.
My sources are the Library of Congress (the official record) and Yale University. You have not provided any sources at all for your lying quotes. Your deceit is disappointing given that you're a devout Christian. But that sin will be between you and God.
Until you address this, I will continue to ask you to. And until you do, none of what you say has any credibility because you've proven you're now capible of lying -- and that is the ultimate insult to us here.
When you come clean, I am prepared to forgive you.
quote:
GG's false Jefferson quote: "The First Amendment has erected a wall of separation between church and state, but that wall is a one directional wall; it keeps the government from running the church, but it makes sure that Christian principles will always stay in government."
Thomas Jefferson, President of the United States January 1, 1802 in an address to the Danbury Baptists.
This is a false quote, GG. And now that you've been informed, it is your moral duty to apologize and retract, lest you commit the sin of deceit.
To messers Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.
Gentlemen
The affectionate sentiments of esteem & approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful & zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more & more pleasing.
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, 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. [Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from presenting even occasional performances of devotion presented indeed legally where an Executive is the legal head of a national church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.] Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.
As you can see, not only didn't he describe it as a one way wall (which would render the metaphor ridiculous as there is no such thing as a one way wall and Jefferson was smarter than that) what he does describe is indeed the need to keep government out of church and church out of government.
quote:
GG's false Washingtion quote: "Do not let anyone claim the tribute of American patriotism if they ever attempt to remove religion from politics."
George Washington from his Farewell Address to the Nation.
Another false quote, GG. While his address is way too long to repost, here is the link. That quote is no where in his farewell address.
Washington does address the need to be moral and that religion plays a vital role in that. But no where does even hint that public policy and/or law should be based on a particular religious doctrine.
Here is the portion of his speech I think the above misquote was trying to rewrite.
quote:
Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice ? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.
Jason, you fail to acknowledge the social engineers, the well-funded organizations of NARAL, ACLU, PPH, Americans United for the Separation of Church and State that are removing the right to religion. These organizations are constantly bombarding moral values intending to dismantle constitutional freedom. (Remember the Declaration of Independence makes reference to God four times in the document.)
For fifty years the ACLU has had its way in America's courtrooms. It has succeeded in:
creating the concept of a 'wall of separation between church and state' (Everson v. Board of Education, 1947).
banning school prayer (Engel v. Vitale, 1962).
Stopping Bible reading in public schools (Abington School District v. Schempp, 1963).
Removing the Ten Commandments from school walls (Stone v. Graham, 1980).
These are only four rulings the ACLU helped win in its pursuit to de-Christianize America.
* * * * * * * * Without traditional regular moral principles that may be consulted confidently, justice cannot long endure anywhere.
Posts: 6275 | Location: Maine | Registered: 31 December 2005
THE FOUNDATION “And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God?” —Thomas Jefferson
* * * * * * * * Without traditional regular moral principles that may be consulted confidently, justice cannot long endure anywhere.
Posts: 6275 | Location: Maine | Registered: 31 December 2005
jason, i wouldnt pay GG any mind. i have her on ignore and i would recommend that you also put her on your list. she will constantly distort the truth, spew her religious lies, and alter quotes to suit her agenda.
she is not worth our time even acknowledging her. trying to reason with her is like trying to climb mt everest with summer clothes, its a lost cause. people like her arent intersted in the truth, only forcing their blasphemous rhetoric onto others. she is part of the problem with this nation and the only way to shut her up is to treat her like a child, ignore her and the problem will get bored and go elsewhere. a simple solution for a simple mind.
------------------------------------------ debating conservatives is easy. so easy, even a caveman can do it!
"if this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck lot easier, just so long as im the dictator" -GWB Dec 18,2002
Posts: 1614 | Location: ft myers florida area | Registered: 23 September 2006
Why do you continue to defame yourself and thus the causes you promote? Do you hate yourself that much? Do you hate God that much?
I'm not your foe, nor am I working against you. I am trying to help you better communicate. I'm trying to show you that you need not tell lies. And I'm trying to let you know the consequences of telling lies.
Nothing that you say has any meaning until you work toward rebuilding your integrity. There is no shame in admitting sins. In fact, it is the most honorable action a servant of God can take.
You have been caught lying, and your avoidance of the subject only lets me know that you are aware that you lied.
I firmly believe that when you originally posted those fake Jefferson and Washington quotes that you thought them to be real. At that point, your only sin was naivety. But once you learned they were lies, and you didn't retract, your sin became deceit.
GG: THE FOUNDATION “And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God?” —Thomas Jefferson
This is an interesting lie. Because now the words are right, but you've attempted to completely change their meaning by leaving out the very next sentence.
quote:
"Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath?"
--Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia Q.XVIII, 1782. ME 2:227
Sometimes we lie not by what we say, but by what we don't say. The very meaning of this quote is that government is no place to enforce God's laws, that God himself is fully capable.
The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. That's all you need to properly engage me.
You have been caught lying, and your avoidance of the subject only lets me know that you are aware that you lied.
Repent, I will forgive.
Jason, we are reading the same documents and we are getting different interpretations of the intention and meanings of the documents by the writers of them. I've tried to show why this is happening and you keep avoiding the acknowledgement of it. You believe in those whom I abhor, whom I have been tracking for quite some time. They are not benevolent groups - they are groups who are intending to wear down our American patriotism. They are cohorts of the likes of G. Soros 'Open Borders Society' moving towards removal of national boundaries into globalist one world order. The ultimate in earthly danger.
It appears to me, Jason, that you want to interpret our National Documents to what suits you as do many Christian sola scripturists (individual interpretation that is not scriptural) in reading Scripture and because of it we have at least 40,000 different Christian denominations.
Are we at an impasse? I have plenty more I could say about the ACLU and similar organizations who fights to defend the killing of babies, fights to defend pornography and viewing of it by children, fights to prevent informing parents or getting parental consent before teen girls opt for abortion or uses birth control pills, fights to defend predatory men, fights to defend wifes not having to inform husbands before aborting their child, fights to not inform women of the grave dangers and consequences of abortion, fights for women to go to an early grave because of breast, cervical, and liver cancers, fights for the removal of parental rights to educate their own children, - - - - - -.
You keep ignoring it as so many do and they keep getting momentum because of misplaced sympathies.
I wish I was wrong about all this - I hope you believe that much.
* * * * * * * * Without traditional regular moral principles that may be consulted confidently, justice cannot long endure anywhere.
Posts: 6275 | Location: Maine | Registered: 31 December 2005
NO WE ARE NOT! You are reading 20th century rewrites of old documents, rewrites that completely change their meanings.
I have no problem with the two of us coming to different conclusions out of reading the same thing -- BUT WE ARE NOT READING THE SAME THING.
You have lied about what they said. I'm not even really arguing what they meant so much as pointing out that you are lying about the words they said.
And I repeat:
quote:
GG:You proof to me your source is correct, Jason. I have faith and trust in my source and I am in great suspect of whom you are quoting.
My sources are the Library of Congress (the official record) and Yale University. You have not provided any sources at all for your lying quotes. Your deceit is disappointing given that you're a devout Christian. But that sin will be between you and God.
Until you address this, I will continue to ask you to. And until you do, none of what you say has any credibility because you've proven you're now capible of lying -- and that is the ultimate insult to us here.
When you come clean, I am prepared to forgive you.
quote:
GG's false Jefferson quote: "The First Amendment has erected a wall of separation between church and state, but that wall is a one directional wall; it keeps the government from running the church, but it makes sure that Christian principles will always stay in government."
Thomas Jefferson, President of the United States January 1, 1802 in an address to the Danbury Baptists.
This is a false quote, GG. And now that you've been informed, it is your moral duty to apologize and retract, lest you commit the sin of deceit.
To messers Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.
Gentlemen
The affectionate sentiments of esteem & approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful & zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more & more pleasing.
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, 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. [Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from presenting even occasional performances of devotion presented indeed legally where an Executive is the legal head of a national church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.] Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.
As you can see, not only didn't he describe it as a one way wall (which would render the metaphor ridiculous as there is no such thing as a one way wall and Jefferson was smarter than that) what he does describe is indeed the need to keep government out of church and church out of government.
quote:
GG's false Washingtion quote: "Do not let anyone claim the tribute of American patriotism if they ever attempt to remove religion from politics."
George Washington from his Farewell Address to the Nation.
Another false quote, GG. While his address is way too long to repost, here is the link. That quote is no where in his farewell address.
Washington does address the need to be moral and that religion plays a vital role in that. But no where does even hint that public policy and/or law should be based on a particular religious doctrine.
Here is the portion of his speech I think the above misquote was trying to rewrite.
quote:
Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice ? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.
btw GG, even though i cant see yur responce to this post, i just want you to know i did some research and found out the email address of the writer of one of the articles you quoted in the fish thread.
which one? you know, the one you deliberately misquoted and altered. i told this person how you purposely changed the wording of the article to suit your agenda. i supplied the quote you made, along with the actual paragraph of the article. i expressed how legal action in some way or form should be taken. i also supplied the link to this site as well as your name on the site. i dont know what will become of this in the end, but hopefully you will learn a tough lesson about copyright issues as well as altering others quotes.
i also notified a moderator about your alterations. since its not a quote by a member of this site, technically you did not break any site TOS rules. however, i also notified them of the email i sent to the author of the article and of possible legal actions that may possibly take place.
------------------------------------------ debating conservatives is easy. so easy, even a caveman can do it!
"if this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck lot easier, just so long as im the dictator" -GWB Dec 18,2002
Posts: 1614 | Location: ft myers florida area | Registered: 23 September 2006
But no where does even hint that public policy and/or law should be based on a particular religious doctrine.
Why the word 'particular'? That's the point of religious freedom is not to have a "particular" but to have religious freedom, to be able to acknowledge "God". That's it isn't it? You don't want God in the picture, but he's in the Declaration of Independence. The Creator was understood and intended as well as the word "religion" was not to be blacked out in the Constitution.
* * * * * * * * Without traditional regular moral principles that may be consulted confidently, justice cannot long endure anywhere.
Posts: 6275 | Location: Maine | Registered: 31 December 2005
You are right, Jason. I apologize. I've assumed too much.
Apology accepted.
I am a fellow Christian. As to your comments about various organizations, I do not follow any organization that has become too large to notice the needs of its constituents.
All collective organizations have within them a mechanism of self preservation. And ALL of them eventually put that as their top priority. This ultimately corrupts them. In essence, they begin to manipulate their constituents in order to gain more constituents (and thus more capital) -- and they spend more of their energy on that than on whatever their original goal was.
This is just as true for right wing organizations (like the ones feeding the lies you regurgitate here) as it is for left wing organizations. And it is also true of most churches. It is such a common problem that Jesus himself spent a great deal of time addressing it. Of course, during his tenure on Earth the most problematic organization was his own "church." The "scribes and the pharisees" were common targets of his criticism of corrupt collective organizing.
As to the Founding Fathers, they too saw this as a major problem and a priority for the new government they were creating. While their solutions haven't proved perfect, they have proved the best we've come up with so far. The solution is simple -- all collective organizations are to be viewed by government as equals with the Natural right to exist -- and none are to be given preference through government endorsement.
Jason, before we can fight for a cause we must be fully convinced of the truth of it to the best of human capacity.
There is more truth in this statement than I think was intended. Notice how you didn't list as a prerequisite that the cause be based in truth, only that its fighters are convinced that it's true.
Fighting is not the answer, although I admit to committing that sin all too often.
Slowing I am learning the wisdom of truly loving your "enemy." And I aspire to achieve such a state of being.
Fighting is not the answer, although I admit to committing that sin all too often.
I believe somethings are worth standing and fighting for, Jason. Somethings are worth taking risks because if we do not many will suffer and die as a consequence of our inability or inaction.
quote:
Slowing I am learning the wisdom of truly loving your "enemy."
Yes, I agree that is a tough commandment.
quote:
There is more truth in this statement than I think was intended. Notice how you didn't list as a prerequisite that the cause be based in truth, only that its fighters are convinced that it's true.
Convinced, yes, and able to impart and defend its truth with 'calm, and with faith and reason'.
* * * * * * * * Without traditional regular moral principles that may be consulted confidently, justice cannot long endure anywhere.
Posts: 6275 | Location: Maine | Registered: 31 December 2005
I believe somethings are worth standing and fighting for, Jason. Somethings are worth taking risks because if we do not many will suffer and die as a consequence of our inability or inaction.
Only a lack of faith leads us to make these conclusions. Ironically, fighting will cause way more death and suffering than not fighting.
I realize that "fighting" was mostly a metaphor in your statement, but metaphor is very powerful and not to be used lightly.
Of course, "not fighting" and "inaction" are not the same. Action is very important, fighting is not.
For example, you as a Christian want to promote Christian values. Yet your decision to fight for it has caused you to believe that any means justifies the ends, and you thus act in ways that are contrary to Christian values in order to promote them. Namely, you've convinced yourself that the sin of lying is acceptable in the "fight" to promote Christianity.
Nothing could be further from the truth. And this type of hypocrisy is *exactly* what Jesus spoke against in criticizing his Jewish leaders.
You will promote Christian values much more by living them than by fighting for them. You needn't look any further than the crucifix to understand that.
But no where does even hint that public policy and/or law should be based on a particular religious doctrine.
Why the word 'particular'? That's the point of religious freedom is not to have a "particular" but to have religious freedom, to be able to acknowledge "God". That's it isn't it? You don't want God in the picture, but he's in the Declaration of Independence. The Creator was understood and intended as well as the word "religion" was not to be blacked out in the Constitution.
Perhaps this is an inaccurate assumption on my part, but it seems to me as if you're suggesting the our government was formed with the intention of promoting Christianity, which is a particular doctrine.
I don't personally have any issues with government mentioning God, especially the way it currently does. But I also understand why some do. There are government sanctioned preferences present is using the term "God." It begins the path of promoting more specific doctrines when government is supposed to be neutral and treat all religions equally. Yet mentioning "God" discounts religions that believe in more than one God, or religions that believe in Goddesses, and of course those that choose not to be religious at all (which is, ironically, a religion for some people).
You want "God" mentioned, but what if the money you held said "In Buddha We Trust?" What if it said, "In Allah We Trust?" (which means the exact same thing as "God" but obviously triggers different emotions and reactions.)
You have the right to speak of, promote, and influence the religious beliefs of others through your right to free speech. Government does not have that right, and must be very careful in what speech it exercises. If you succeed in getting government to promote Christianity, then who is to stop the KKK from getting it to promote their particular brand of Christianity? Or devil worshipers from doing the same with their doctrine?
History proves beyond any doubt that governments, whatever form, corrupt religion, and that religions, whatever form, corrupt governments. The United States has proven that separating them causes both of them to be more pure and focused on their mandates. The reason religion flourishes here is because government stays out of the way.
The reason religion flourishes here is because government stays out of the way.
You have cozied up with all who want God removed and that violates the intention of the founding fathers of this nation.
American's are threatened by judges state & federal who are imposing their will instead of interpreting the laws as actually written. These judges (special appointees) are diminishing the authority of citizens and the ability to enjoy freedom. Think about the major upheveals we are experiencing because of legislation from the bench, because of these activist judges. Why were the citizens not given the RIGHT to decide at the ballot box?? You know as well as I that they would not have turned the laws in to favors that diminish and demean and corrupt our nation. Connivingly they have found a way to strike at the hearts of the US citizens. These same activists judges have already used foreign law citations to transform and demoralize the heritage of our country. Where is your outrage at that!
quote:
History proves beyond any doubt that governments, whatever form, corrupt religion, and that religions, whatever form, corrupt governments. The United States has proven that separating them causes both of them to be more pure and focused on their mandates.
Quite the contrary, Jason. That is a very sick and digusting statement. Why are you cozying with the ACLU and alikes?
Government is you and I, and you and I have a right, a freedom to practice religion.
Separating is the key. Get God out and get those condoms in - get uninhibited sex in - get more cancer causing birth control pills to teens - get parental control away from their children - get more single female family units - and OH YES let's increase the STDs while we are at it - let's get more infertility more cancers because of fertility controlling choices - and how about a bunch more increased suicides, depression, drug and alcohol addictions - let's not forget school shootings and what's the root cause of these. The latest is that 4 out of 10 babies are born out of wedlock - imagine 40%. Statistics show that 1 out of 10 in 1961. What's happened Jason? Gosh, it can't be because humanists think they know better than God??
Take a look at the 60 plus nations who have removed their affiliation with roots of their Christian formation. They now are experiencing a population dirth, population implotion. They standing more often by the coffin than by the crib. Even offer of money to women to have babies will not change their destruction. A nation that does not reproduce itself will die.
Our Constitution has a fixed objective meaning and it is not to be changed by who is in power. We need to speak against the dishonorable efforts of those who want to change it.
The Constituion is very much alive and relevent to the protection of our freedoms today. It is still fashionable and it will always be so to want references to God. It is a rule of law and it is to be protected and not subverted.
Did you post once that you have studied law?
* * * * * * * * Without traditional regular moral principles that may be consulted confidently, justice cannot long endure anywhere.
Posts: 6275 | Location: Maine | Registered: 31 December 2005
You want "God" mentioned, but what if the money you held said "In Buddha We Trust?" What if it said, "In Allah We Trust?"
You are side stepping the intentions of our founding fathers. They intended God to be mentioned. BTW, people are free to practice other beliefs and they are not jailed, beheaded, nor put into a slave state status. The majority of Americans believe in God and trust in Him.
quote:
Government does not have that right, and must be very careful in what speech it exercises.
We have been given the right. We have been founded and formed for that right. People have died for the right. Have you ever visted Arlington Cemetery or any of the veterans graves?
quote:
If you succeed in getting government to promote Christianity,
I'm defending that right to acknowledge religion and Christianity. Our US documents were not built upon the other brands. That's the cold hard fact of it. You are referring to the tyranny of the minority. If we are to change the Constitution it is not to be done by activist dismantling judges!
* * * * * * * * Without traditional regular moral principles that may be consulted confidently, justice cannot long endure anywhere.
Posts: 6275 | Location: Maine | Registered: 31 December 2005
Jason, when I posted what we serve and defend is in its origins, has alot of meaning to it that I cannot totally explain. But the origin of what forms me and gives me purpose is the Church that was formed at the moment when the soldier pierced the side of Jesus Christ the Redeemer who died on the Cross.
That brings me to the ACLU. Possibly 95% of what they defend opposes our freedom. Take a look it's shocking legacy. I've not the time to recap this article now and I have more and varied references on the same. The enemy is within our borders and we appease, tax support, and fail to resist it.
* * * * * * * * Without traditional regular moral principles that may be consulted confidently, justice cannot long endure anywhere.
Posts: 6275 | Location: Maine | Registered: 31 December 2005
I'm defending that right to acknowledge religion and Christianity. Our US documents were not built upon the other brands. That's the cold hard fact of it.
Not quite Geeg. Many of the founders were practising Freemason's, whose membership required only a belief in God. Christianity as you know has many strands and belief structures. Which one would you advocate being the wishes of the founding fathers?
When the world is run by fools it is the duty of intelligence to disobey
Posts: 1723 | Location: Perth, Australia | Registered: 02 August 2001
I'm glad to see you've stopped just copying and pasting talking points and engaged actual conversation with me. However, you still need to fix your integrity issues. God does not want you to lie to promote him, because that sends the wrong message.
And I repeat:
quote:
GG:You proof to me your source is correct, Jason. I have faith and trust in my source and I am in great suspect of whom you are quoting.
My sources are the Library of Congress (the official record) and Yale University. You have not provided any sources at all for your lying quotes. Your deceit is disappointing given that you're a devout Christian. But that sin will be between you and God.
Until you address this, I will continue to ask you to. And until you do, none of what you say has any credibility because you've proven you're now capible of lying -- and that is the ultimate insult to us here.
When you come clean, I am prepared to forgive you.
quote:
GG's false Jefferson quote: "The First Amendment has erected a wall of separation between church and state, but that wall is a one directional wall; it keeps the government from running the church, but it makes sure that Christian principles will always stay in government."
Thomas Jefferson, President of the United States January 1, 1802 in an address to the Danbury Baptists.
This is a false quote, GG. And now that you've been informed, it is your moral duty to apologize and retract, lest you commit the sin of deceit.
To messers Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.
Gentlemen
The affectionate sentiments of esteem & approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful & zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more & more pleasing.
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, 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. [Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from presenting even occasional performances of devotion presented indeed legally where an Executive is the legal head of a national church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.] Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.
As you can see, not only didn't he describe it as a one way wall (which would render the metaphor ridiculous as there is no such thing as a one way wall and Jefferson was smarter than that) what he does describe is indeed the need to keep government out of church and church out of government.
quote:
GG's false Washingtion quote: "Do not let anyone claim the tribute of American patriotism if they ever attempt to remove religion from politics."
George Washington from his Farewell Address to the Nation.
Another false quote, GG. While his address is way too long to repost, here is the link. That quote is no where in his farewell address.
Washington does address the need to be moral and that religion plays a vital role in that. But no where does even hint that public policy and/or law should be based on a particular religious doctrine.
Here is the portion of his speech I think the above misquote was trying to rewrite.
quote:
Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice ? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.
Christianity as you know has many strands and belief structures. Which one would you advocate being the wishes of the founding fathers?
The one that acknowledges the Incarnation - the Word made flesh.
I don't know what you mean about 'strands'. I know there are many interpretations of scripture, and I do accept the freedom of will.
I perceive an intention to misalign the intent of the founding fathers of the US similar to the misaligning of the Fathers of the Church in the first 700 hundred years of Christianity.
Is collectivism a modern term for socialism?
* * * * * * * * Without traditional regular moral principles that may be consulted confidently, justice cannot long endure anywhere.
Posts: 6275 | Location: Maine | Registered: 31 December 2005
Individuals are legally responsible for their views. Messages or parts of messages may be quoted or read on the radio, or reprinted in Thom's books and other materials.
Discussion Community 
C'mon, fisherman. You're really stretching to fault me.
, and truly.
