"Come talk to us, honey. We pay cash..."
 

On Sun, 17 Dec 2017 14:03:48 -0500, Keyser Soze
wrote:

"One Nation, under God ...."

Probably the worst mistake of the Eisenhower presidency. And sadly
funny. After all, with no proof of the existence of any god, it might
have been termed, one nation under Zeus or one nation under Ra, or some
Egyptian stone god. And if there were a god, how would a mere mortal
know whether his or her nation were under it?

I think the pledge as modified in the Eisenhower presidency violates the
Establishment Clause.

The term "god" is far from establishing any particular religion as you
so eloquently pointed out. In fact Jefferson used the term "nature's
god" in the DOI which might have made him our first evangelical
environmentalist.

"Come talk to us, honey. We pay cash..."
 

On 12/17/2017 2:09 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 12/17/17 2:07 PM, Its Me wrote:
On Sunday, December 17, 2017 at 1:57:08 PM UTC-5, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 12/17/17 1:32 PM, Its Me wrote:
On Sunday, December 17, 2017 at 12:53:48 PM UTC-5, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 12/17/17 12:44 PM, Its Me wrote:
On Sunday, December 17, 2017 at 12:39:10 PM UTC-5, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 12/17/17 12:09 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 17 Dec 2017 05:15:03 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

It's interesting that of the 35 major denominations of
Christianity in
the United States you focus on one of the smallest
...evangelical ...
with your complaints about shoving religion down your throat.
Of the
others, I don't know of any that purposely go out and try to
convert
anyone.Â* Maybe there are a few but I've never heard of it or
experienced
it.

https://undergod.procon.org/view.background-resource.php?resourceID=000087


Harry thinks any thing remotte;y related to religion is "ramming
Jesus
down his throat".
I bet he thinks this is a great policy
https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=10278



I may laugh at beliefs based on speculation and superstition and
hypocrisy, but it doesn't bother me until or unless it intrudes into
public policy, is supported by tax dollars, influences laws, et
cetera.
I don't give a ****, really, what "religious folk" practice in their
churches, religious schools, homes, et cetera. I just wish they'd
keep
it in those venues.

But you have no problem with non-religious folk injecting their
beliefs into public policy, especially when it coincides with your
beliefs.Â* Funny how that works, eh?


Non-religious folks aren't injecting religious beliefs,
****-for-brains.
The Constitution calls for *separation* of religion and state. Go
read it.

I never said the were injecting their "religious" beliefs into
public policy, ****-for-brains.Â* Just their beliefs.Â* Got it now?

What an idiot you are.Â* And on purpose.


Nope. There's no law against injecting non-religious beliefs. I figured
you were bright enough to realize that, eh? But apparently not.

There's also no law against injecting beliefs that might be aligned
with religious beliefs.Â* That's the magic of our democratic system.
We just can't have a state supported religion.Â* Majority rules, eh?


Fortunately, we have the ACLU to fight religious nonsense.


Funny that when "under God" was added to the pledge in 1954 the ACLU
had no objections. They thought it was just fine.

"Come talk to us, honey. We pay cash..."
 

On Sun, 17 Dec 2017 14:04:31 -0500, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 12/17/17 1:34 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 12/17/2017 12:53 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:

Non-religious folks aren't injecting religious beliefs,
****-for-brains. The Constitution calls for *separation* of religion
and state. Go read it.


He didn't say "religious" beliefs.



Non-religious folk don't have religious beliefs to insert, do they?

No, you inject words into the constitution that don't exist and let
them justify your beliefs

"Come talk to us, honey. We pay cash..."
 

On Sun, 17 Dec 2017 14:30:39 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 17 Dec 2017 12:53:46 -0500, Keyser Soze
wrote:

Non-religious folks aren't injecting religious beliefs, ****-for-brains.
The Constitution calls for *separation* of religion and state. Go read it.

The words "separation of religion and state" do not exist in the 1st
amendment. You should "go read it"
It says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ..."
It is just revisionist thinkers like you who bend that around to suit
your beliefs. You really need more "discipline" in your reading
comprehension.

LOL!

"Come talk to us, honey. We pay cash..."
 

On 12/17/17 2:11 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 17 Dec 2017 17:55:55 -0000 (UTC), Bill
wrote:


Very limited definition of “disciplined�. Engineering is considered a
discipline, and probably a more disciplined course of study than 90%of the
Liberal Arts studies.

When you are talking classic math and some aspects of science
"discipline" is an admirable trait but if you are too disciplined in
believing what is true now, will always be true, even science will not
advance. It was not that long ago that "science" believed we could not
break the sound barrier or split the atom. They could prove it to you
on paper. Those "facts" became obsolete in a little over a decade.


I wasn't talking about discipline as Bill "defined" it. I was describing
a carefully thought out plan of study.

"Come talk to us, honey. We pay cash..."
 

On 12/17/17 2:13 PM, Its Me wrote:
On Sunday, December 17, 2017 at 2:09:55 PM UTC-5, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 12/17/17 2:07 PM, Its Me wrote:
On Sunday, December 17, 2017 at 1:57:08 PM UTC-5, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 12/17/17 1:32 PM, Its Me wrote:
On Sunday, December 17, 2017 at 12:53:48 PM UTC-5, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 12/17/17 12:44 PM, Its Me wrote:
On Sunday, December 17, 2017 at 12:39:10 PM UTC-5, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 12/17/17 12:09 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 17 Dec 2017 05:15:03 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

It's interesting that of the 35 major denominations of Christianity in
the United States you focus on one of the smallest ...evangelical ...
with your complaints about shoving religion down your throat. Of the
others, I don't know of any that purposely go out and try to convert
anyone. Maybe there are a few but I've never heard of it or experienced
it.

https://undergod.procon.org/view.background-resource.php?resourceID=000087

Harry thinks any thing remotte;y related to religion is "ramming Jesus
down his throat".
I bet he thinks this is a great policy
https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=10278



I may laugh at beliefs based on speculation and superstition and
hypocrisy, but it doesn't bother me until or unless it intrudes into
public policy, is supported by tax dollars, influences laws, et cetera.
I don't give a ****, really, what "religious folk" practice in their
churches, religious schools, homes, et cetera. I just wish they'd keep
it in those venues.

But you have no problem with non-religious folk injecting their beliefs into public policy, especially when it coincides with your beliefs. Funny how that works, eh?


Non-religious folks aren't injecting religious beliefs, ****-for-brains.
The Constitution calls for *separation* of religion and state. Go read it.

I never said the were injecting their "religious" beliefs into public policy, ****-for-brains. Just their beliefs. Got it now?

What an idiot you are. And on purpose.


Nope. There's no law against injecting non-religious beliefs. I figured
you were bright enough to realize that, eh? But apparently not.

There's also no law against injecting beliefs that might be aligned with religious beliefs. That's the magic of our democratic system. We just can't have a state supported religion. Majority rules, eh?


Fortunately, we have the ACLU to fight religious nonsense.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Ah, the "free exercise" of religion when it come to electing politicians of the same mindset. Sweet.



I don't give a **** what the religious beliefs are of the assholes you
elect down there...all I ask is they keep their religious beliefs out of
Congress.

"Come talk to us, honey. We pay cash..."
 

On 12/17/17 2:24 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 17 Dec 2017 12:56:47 -0500, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 12/17/17 12:47 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 17 Dec 2017 09:27:21 -0500, Keyser Soze
wrote:

Let's try this again:

My comment was that the Jews do not go looking for converts, nor do most
orthodox, conservative, or reform jews evangelize. Are you claiming the
Israelis are converting Muslims to Judaism?

That was not the issue. You said you did not like the idea of state
religions. I also bet the Muslims in Israel will tell you they are
second class citizens. Separate but equal is now OK with you?



There is no state religion in Israel:

Secularism on the Edge: Rethinking Church-State Relations in the United
States, France, and Israel. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 167–169.
ISBN 978-1-137-38115-6. "The compromise, therefore, was to choose
constructive ambiguity: as surprising as it may seem, there is no law
that declares Judaism the official religion of Israel. However, there is
no other law that declares Israel's neutrality toward all confessions.
Judaism is not recognized as the official religion of the state, and
even though the Jewish, Muslim and Christian clergy receive their
salaries from the state, this fact does not make Israel a neutral state.
This apparent pluralism cannot dissimulate the fact that Israel displays
a clear and undoubtedly hierarchical pluralism in religious matters. ...
It is important to note that from a multicultural point of view, this
self-restrained secularism allows Muslim law to be practiced in Israel
for personal matters of the Muslim community. As surprising as it seems,
if not paradoxical for a state in war, Israel is the only Western
democratic country in which Sharia enjoys such an official status."

Maybe someone should tell the leaders of Israel. They say it is a
Jewish state and their flag demonstrates that.
Only 21% of Israeli Arabs get to vote.
I agree they will not remain a Jewish state if they actually let all
of the Arabs there vote because they will lose all of the elections.
It is the price you pay when you conquer your neighbors and assimilate
their population.



If the Arabs living in Israel are Israeli citizens, they get to vote.

"Come talk to us, honey. We pay cash..."
 

On 12/17/17 2:30 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 17 Dec 2017 12:53:46 -0500, Keyser Soze
wrote:

Non-religious folks aren't injecting religious beliefs, ****-for-brains.
The Constitution calls for *separation* of religion and state. Go read it.

The words "separation of religion and state" do not exist in the 1st
amendment. You should "go read it"
It says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ..."
It is just revisionist thinkers like you who bend that around to suit
your beliefs. You really need more "discipline" in your reading
comprehension.



I didn't say it was written as you posted. I said it was called for.

"Come talk to us, honey. We pay cash..."
 

On Sun, 17 Dec 2017 11:36:49 -0800 (PST), Its Me
wrote:

On Sunday, December 17, 2017 at 2:30:49 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Sun, 17 Dec 2017 12:53:46 -0500, Keyser Soze
wrote:

Non-religious folks aren't injecting religious beliefs, ****-for-brains.
The Constitution calls for *separation* of religion and state. Go read it.

The words "separation of religion and state" do not exist in the 1st
amendment. You should "go read it"
It says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ..."
It is just revisionist thinkers like you who bend that around to suit
your beliefs. You really need more "discipline" in your reading
comprehension.

Heh. Couldn't agree more.


===

He probably didn't get enough "discipline" in his education.

http://assets.rebelcircus.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/19ab2d7b54caa72eaecde4f9e9ec480f.jpg

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

"Come talk to us, honey. We pay cash..."
 

On Sunday, December 17, 2017 at 3:22:29 PM UTC-5, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 12/17/17 2:13 PM, Its Me wrote:
On Sunday, December 17, 2017 at 2:09:55 PM UTC-5, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 12/17/17 2:07 PM, Its Me wrote:
On Sunday, December 17, 2017 at 1:57:08 PM UTC-5, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 12/17/17 1:32 PM, Its Me wrote:
On Sunday, December 17, 2017 at 12:53:48 PM UTC-5, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 12/17/17 12:44 PM, Its Me wrote:
On Sunday, December 17, 2017 at 12:39:10 PM UTC-5, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 12/17/17 12:09 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 17 Dec 2017 05:15:03 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

It's interesting that of the 35 major denominations of Christianity in
the United States you focus on one of the smallest ...evangelical ...
with your complaints about shoving religion down your throat. Of the
others, I don't know of any that purposely go out and try to convert
anyone. Maybe there are a few but I've never heard of it or experienced
it.

https://undergod.procon.org/view.background-resource.php?resourceID=000087

Harry thinks any thing remotte;y related to religion is "ramming Jesus
down his throat".
I bet he thinks this is a great policy
https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=10278



I may laugh at beliefs based on speculation and superstition and
hypocrisy, but it doesn't bother me until or unless it intrudes into
public policy, is supported by tax dollars, influences laws, et cetera.
I don't give a ****, really, what "religious folk" practice in their
churches, religious schools, homes, et cetera. I just wish they'd keep
it in those venues.

But you have no problem with non-religious folk injecting their beliefs into public policy, especially when it coincides with your beliefs. Funny how that works, eh?


Non-religious folks aren't injecting religious beliefs, ****-for-brains.
The Constitution calls for *separation* of religion and state. Go read it.

I never said the were injecting their "religious" beliefs into public policy, ****-for-brains. Just their beliefs. Got it now?

What an idiot you are. And on purpose.


Nope. There's no law against injecting non-religious beliefs. I figured
you were bright enough to realize that, eh? But apparently not.

There's also no law against injecting beliefs that might be aligned with religious beliefs. That's the magic of our democratic system. We just can't have a state supported religion. Majority rules, eh?


Fortunately, we have the ACLU to fight religious nonsense.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Ah, the "free exercise" of religion when it come to electing politicians of the same mindset. Sweet.



I don't give a **** what the religious beliefs are of the assholes you
elect down there...all I ask is they keep their religious beliefs out of
Congress.

And I don't give a **** what the atheist beliefs are of the asshole you vote into office are... all I ask is they keep their ****ty beliefs out of
Congress.