Text 8529, 121 rader
Skriven 2005-02-03 17:26:49 av John Hull (1:379/1.99)
   Kommentar till text 8521 av Darryl Perry (1:106/324)
Ärende: Re: Unborn
==================
03 Feb 05 12:54, Darryl Perry wrote to John Hull:

 DP> On 02-03-05, John Hull said...

 JH>> 03 Feb 05 08:41, Darryl Perry wrote to Ed Connell:
 JH>> 
 JH>>  DP> On 02-02-05, Ed Connell said...
 JH>> 
 JH>>  EC>> Hey, Darryl.
 JH>>  EC>> 
 JH>>  EC>>  EC>> DP> Yeah, all the way back to Jesus Christ.  The 
 JH>>  EC>>  EC>original > DP> liberal, a certainly a wack-job =P
 JH>>  EC>>  EC>>
 JH>>  EC>>  EC>> As a Christian, I am puzzled by your characterization 
 JH>>  EC>>  EC>of > Jesus.
 JH>>  EC>> 
 JH>>  EC>>  DP> In what way, beyond the obvious sarcasm?
 JH>>  EC>> 
 JH>>  EC>> I cetainly didn't take it that you believe that Jesus is a 
 JH>>  EC>> wack-job.  On t other hand, the implication is there, and I 
 JH>>  EC>> think you do believe it, that conservative cannot be a 
 JH>>  EC>> follower of Christ.  That is what puzzles me sinc I consider 
 JH>>  EC>> myself both.
 JH>> 
 JH>>  DP> oh, I certainly believe that a conservative can be a follower 
 JH>>  DP> of Christ, but I havn't seen too many instances of it.
 JH>> 
 JH>> Come on, Darryl, do you really expect us to believe that?  In 
 JH>> order for th to be true you must never have heard the term 
 JH>> "Christian Right" or noticed that most of the Christian bashing is 
 JH>> coming from the left.  That's been 

 DP> I've never heard that particular term.  I've heard of the "Moral 
 DP> Majority", and the "Religious Right", but not the "Christian Right".  
 DP> Also, it's one thing to say you are a follower of Christ, but another to 
 DP> actually BE a follower, ie his teachings.

Means the same thing.  Also, whether or not you believe in Christ isn't
germaine to the point of this discussion.  People either identify with that
segment of voters or they don't.

 JH>> reported on as well.  Every time we turn around, some ACLU liberal 
 JH>> is fili suit to get prayer squelched somewhere, or prevent a 
 JH>> Nativity scene from b put up at Xmas, or get the 10 Commandments 
 JH>> removed from the wall of a cour house.  It isn't so much that 
 JH>> they've reported on Christian bashing as the have appearing to 
 JH>> support it.

 DP> You patently forgot to mention that all those areas were public 
 DP> areas, not private areas.  Forced prayer in school is ok if it is a 
 DP> private school.

There is not and never has been "forced prayer" in public schools.  Nor does
the Constitution, IN ANY WAY, prohibit prayer in schools.  Not even one iotas
worth.
 
 DP> I've got stories that a friend of mine was telling me.  She got 
 DP> relocated here to the bible-belt of Houston like I did, and now her child 
 DP> is being castigated for not participating in the required prayer time at 
 DP> his school.

If there is a required prayer time, then it isn't a public school.  Its a
private church affiliated school, possibly Catholic or Lutheran.  In any case,
that is hearsay and not admissable as proof of anything.
 
 DP> The militant right strikes again!  Courthouses are places of 
 DP> Justice, and justice is supposed to be blind.  Our country was founded 
 DP> with the bill of rights which is a proclimation of how justice can best be

 DP> served for our people.  The 10 commandments are not of the 10 ammendments.
 
 DP> If anything should be place at the courthouse, it's the Bill of Rights.

You obviously don't know anything of the history of English common law and the
Magna Carta, which forms the basis of American law in the colonies, and
subsequently US law as codified in the Constitution.  There has NEVER BEEN ANY
PROHIBITION of religion, prayer, the 10 Commandments, or anything else in that
vein.  I invite you to prove otherwise if you think you are able.

 JH>> This country was founded by Christians of various denominations 
 JH>> who left England because they didn't want to be forced to pray in 
 JH>> the state sponsor Church of England.  That's why the 1st Amendment 
 JH>> carries a prohibition aga

 DP> Your words: "Not wanteing to be forced in to prayer" still holds 
 DP> true. Freedom FROM religion is as fundimental as freedom OF religion.  
 DP> Nowhere in that 1st Amendment does it say that a citizen MUST adhear to 
 DP> ANY religion.

You left out the rest of the sentence.  I said "didn't want to be forced to
pray in the state sponsored Church of England."

 JH>> state-sponsored religion.  It says NOTHING, however, about 
 JH>> requiring a separation of church and state.  That phrase was 
 JH>> lifted from a private let that Thomas Jefferson wrote to a Baptist 
 JH>> minister, and even then it is lif out of context.

 DP> Regardless, there is NOTHING in the Constitution and the Bill of 
 DP> rights that guarantees that one religious factor can elevate their agenda 
 DP> over another.

Regardless nothing.  You liberals love to quote that separation of church and
state garbage, but it had no legal substance then, and it doesn't now,
regardless of what the USSC says.  And, I don't see any denomination trying to
elevate itself over the rest, unless you are referring to Islam.

 DP> Christian tho the FF's may have been, the Country they founded was 
 DP> no a
 DP> country based on religion.

You had better go back and read what the Founders had to say, then, because
that is pure poppycock.


John 

America:  First, Last, and Always!
Go to www.madgorilla.us for all your Domain Name Services at the lowest rates.

--- Msged/386 TE 05
 * Origin:  (1:379/1.99)