From: Pete Stavrakoglou on
<stephe_k(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:hqbfvi$5gr$4(a)news.albasani.net...
> Pete Stavrakoglou wrote:
>> <stephe_k(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:hq7veu$hmp$1(a)news.albasani.net...
>>> Pete Stavrakoglou wrote:
>>>> <stephe_k(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:hq7okb$6e0$2(a)news.albasani.net...
>>>>> David Ruether wrote:
>>>>>> "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Again thanks. I've always been annoyed by that intrusion of
>>>>>> religion into the pledge, and also with the words, "in god we
>>>>>> trust" on our money, as if that represents the views of all who
>>>>>> use the money, and therefore of all US citizens. The tendency
>>>>>> of a majority of people to believe that their *beliefs* are
>>>>>> universal and "true" can be oppressive.
>>>>>> --DR
>>>>> While I do believe in God and go to church every sunday, I also don't
>>>>> think it has any place in the government because who knows if what
>>>>> "Their God wants" is the same as my view of God. Clearly in this case
>>>>> we are discussing it isn't and given the wide range of denominations,
>>>>> there are a variety of ways He is viewed.
>>>>>
>>>>> Stephanie
>>>> Are you suggesting that people of faith have no business being active
>>>> in government?
>>> They have no business trying to impose their faith on other people if
>>> that is why they are being active.
>>>
>>> They also have no business trying to control what other people do based
>>> on their faith or religious beliefs. As I stated, I am a person of
>>> faith, I am active in government but would NEVER use the government to
>>> force my religious beliefs on other people.
>>>
>>> While the founding fathers felt religion was needed to guide the
>>> country, they also created separation of church and state for good
>>> reason.
>>>
>>> Stephanie
>>
>> I'm still looking for that "separation of church and state" clause in the
>> Constitution but still haven't found it. What I do find in the
>> Constitution is that the governement cannot involve itself in religion
>> but those of religious faith have the right to be involved in government.
>> There is separation of the state from the church but not vice versa.
>
>
> So you think the constitution allows you to enforce your religious beliefs
> on other people, just because it doesn't specifically say a church can't
> do this?
>
> Stephanie

Do you believe that your beliefs should be imposed on others? Only the
beliefs of religious people should not be considered? I am free to use my
influence to affect public policy just as you are. Whether I am a religious
person or not has no bearing on that.


From: Bruce on
On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 19:36:15 -0400, "Peter"
<peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote:
>"Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:2cGdnYKPS8_3VVbWnZ2dnUVZ_rWdnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>>
>>
>> I am saying, and have said several times before, that the people I am
>> talking about are not those who are disabled to the extent that they find
>> it impossible to work. I never wanted to cut these people off.....As a
>> matter of fact, I would like to cut off the other 98% (a good statistic)
>> who have all their fingers and toes and mental capabilities and could
>> work, but don't, and give this money to those of whom you speak who can't
>> work for one reason or another. The people of whom I speak, who could work
>> but don't, ate (and have been) subsidized by the state of California all
>> of my life...<BS rant snipped>
>
>And the reliable source for your statistics is?


Fox "News", of course!

From: tony cooper on
On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 08:18:49 +0100, Chris H <chris(a)phaedsys.org>
wrote:

>In message <k7vps5p8322jlgvjo81finc57nm4rsmldm(a)4ax.com>, tony cooper
><tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> writes
>>On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 14:16:19 +0100, Alan LeHun <try(a)reply.to> wrote:
>>
>>>In article <hqhi98$2se$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>,
>>>ntotrr(a)optonline.net says...
>>>> I am free to use my
>>>> influence to affect public policy just as you are. Whether I am a
>>>>religious
>>>> person or not has no bearing on that.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>If you are a religious person, have not effectively signed your
>>>influence away to the church?
>>>
>>>Religion is, after all, simply a means of control.
>>>
>>>I agree that certain churches exercise differing amounts of control, and
>>>some exercise very little, but the point is still valid. A catholic for
>>>example, could not vote for a candidate standing on a pro abortion
>>>stance not because they have made up their mind on the issue, but
>>>because the church has made its mind for them.
>>
>>You either know nothing about Catholicism or nothing about Catholics.
>
>We do know that most, like you, are in denial over the churches support
>and protection of Child Abusers. In some posts in the thread you were
>even blaming the victims and the Police.

If someone else wrote that, I'd be offended. However, since you
specialize in lies, misrepresentations, and fabricated "facts", I'll
chalk it off to just another Chris H tactic of dishonesty.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
From: Chris H on
In message <873rs55kvrdthoit2iiaq9vuvt72i24bb4(a)4ax.com>, tony cooper
<tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> writes
>On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 08:18:49 +0100, Chris H <chris(a)phaedsys.org>
>wrote:
>
>>In message <k7vps5p8322jlgvjo81finc57nm4rsmldm(a)4ax.com>, tony cooper
>><tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> writes
>>>On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 14:16:19 +0100, Alan LeHun <try(a)reply.to> wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <hqhi98$2se$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>,
>>>>ntotrr(a)optonline.net says...
>>>>> I am free to use my
>>>>> influence to affect public policy just as you are. Whether I am a
>>>>>religious
>>>>> person or not has no bearing on that.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>If you are a religious person, have not effectively signed your
>>>>influence away to the church?
>>>>
>>>>Religion is, after all, simply a means of control.
>>>>
>>>>I agree that certain churches exercise differing amounts of control, and
>>>>some exercise very little, but the point is still valid. A catholic for
>>>>example, could not vote for a candidate standing on a pro abortion
>>>>stance not because they have made up their mind on the issue, but
>>>>because the church has made its mind for them.
>>>
>>>You either know nothing about Catholicism or nothing about Catholics.
>>
>>We do know that most, like you, are in denial over the churches support
>>and protection of Child Abusers. In some posts in the thread you were
>>even blaming the victims and the Police.
>
>If someone else wrote that, I'd be offended. However, since you
>specialize in lies, misrepresentations, and fabricated "facts", I'll
>chalk it off to just another Chris H tactic of dishonesty.

Denial as usual. As pointed out by many of the others in the same
thread.


--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/



From: Peter on
"Bruce" <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
news:fc2rs59ori71h1n5bo6981v3tjlh2lf3c1(a)4ax.com...
> On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 19:36:15 -0400, "Peter"
> <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote:
>>"Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
>>news:2cGdnYKPS8_3VVbWnZ2dnUVZ_rWdnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>>>
>>>
>>> I am saying, and have said several times before, that the people I am
>>> talking about are not those who are disabled to the extent that they
>>> find
>>> it impossible to work. I never wanted to cut these people off.....As a
>>> matter of fact, I would like to cut off the other 98% (a good statistic)
>>> who have all their fingers and toes and mental capabilities and could
>>> work, but don't, and give this money to those of whom you speak who
>>> can't
>>> work for one reason or another. The people of whom I speak, who could
>>> work
>>> but don't, ate (and have been) subsidized by the state of California all
>>> of my life...<BS rant snipped>
>>
>>And the reliable source for your statistics is?
>
>
> Fox "News", of course!
>

Not even Faux noise goes that far. Except perhaps for some of its wing nuts

--
Peter