Text 6162, 100 rader
Skriven 2009-05-09 16:25:10 av Ed Hulett (1:123/789.0)
   Kommentar till text 6146 av Ross Sauer (1:123/789.0)
Ärende: COGNITIVE DIFFICULTY.....
=================================
Ross Sauer -> Ed Hulett wrote:
 RS> "Ed Hulett -> Ross Sauer" <1:123/789.0> wrote in
 RS> news:10266$HOLYSMOKE@JamNNTPd:

 RS>>>>>>> Most notably the "holier than thou" fake Christians.

 RS>>>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/qbr2ux

 EH>>>>>> Are you trying to say congressmen can't introduce bills for
 EH>>>>   vote?

 RS>>>>> Yes, they can, *UNLESS* those bills fail the "lemon" test,
 EH>>>>   namely putting RS> Christianity as above all others.

 EH>>>> There is no "lemon test" and it is up to the USSC to decide
 EH>>   whether a


 RS>>> The Lemon Test


 EH>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
 RS> -
 EH>> ----
 RS>>> -----
 RS>>> Research by Jim Allison.

 EH>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
 RS> -
 EH>> ----
 RS>>> -----
 RS>>> The Lemon test was formulated by Chief Justice Warren Burger in
 EH>>   the RS> majority opinion in Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971). Lemon dealt
 EH>>   with
 EH>> Rhode Island

 EH>> Notice who your little article is referring to -- Chief Justice Warren
 EH>> Burger. He was in the USSC. There is no "Lemon Test" in Congress.

 RS> So? You want to Islam to be mandated?

Huh? Could you type in complete sentences?

 RS>>> You are a theocratic cultist.

 EH>> You are hilarious. Where you get the idea I'm theocratic is a mystery.
 EH>> I haven't once said I wanted a theocracy. I'm quite happy with the way
 EH>> things are now. You and Ceppa making the "cultist" charge is just down
 EH>> right personal insult based on your ignorance.

 RS> You are a theocrat, you have stated you want *YOUR* cult to be official.

That is a blatant lie. I have made no such statement.

 RS> And don't whine, "No I don't," you do.

And you try to "protect" your lie by making it a bigger lie.

 RS>>> And that congressjerk is full of it.

 EH>> He may well be, but there is no law that says he can't introduce his
 EH>> pet bill. There are 434 other members of the House who are full of it
 EH>> and have introduced some real zany bills. Just look at the current
 EH>> "Hate Crime" bill being pushed through Congress. They aren't even
 EH>> allowing any debate on the turkey.

 RS> The hate crime bill is for *ACTIONS* not anything else.

It is still a turkey and open debate should be allowed on *ALL* bills. There is
no need for "hate crime" legislation as it is completely subjective and is
nothing more than making some thoughts illegal.

 EH>> You and your fellow atheists get your panties in a wad for nothing.

 RS> Because the US is a religious *NEUTRAL* country.

The restriction is on government (Congress specifically) and people of all
faiths and even those without faith can contribute.

 RS> That is what you fake "Christians" keep whining about.

You had to edit out my comment that I am happy with it just the way it is now
to make your silly claim.

Ed

-- 
"Wise politicians will be cautious about fettering the government with
restrictions that cannot be observed, because they know that every
break of the fundamental laws, though dictated by necessity, impairs
that sacred reverence which ought to be maintained in the breast of
rulers towards the constitution of a country."

--Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 25, 21 December 1787

Linux User #416016
Linux Machine #385030

--- Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (X11/20090318)
 * Origin: Fidonet Via Newsreader - http://www.easternstar.info (1:123/789.0)