|
Author
|
Topic: constitutionality of using public funds to promote religion
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
|
Message 2 of 78 (259164)
11-12-2005 7:57 PM
|
Reply to: Message 1 by nator
11-12-2005 7:49 PM
|
|
Can you prove that Shraf? Military and prison chaplains promote religion And there have been news stories about this and how wrong it is. Because this behavior exists that doesn't make it right or constitutional.
Is opening Congress with prayer in the name of Jesus wrong? My understanding is that the prayers are usually non-sectarian (or used to be anyway ... with this GOP congress ...) as a way to get around the seperation issue. Not that it makes it any more constitutional.
... and even that we have a pledge oa allegance at all. Yes. The founding fathers and mothers certainly didn't need one to be patriotic. But this is not about patriotism - it is jingoism.
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1 by nator, posted 11-12-2005 7:49 PM | | nator has not replied |
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
|
|
Message 5 of 78 (259177)
11-12-2005 8:26 PM
|
Reply to: Message 4 by Chiroptera
11-12-2005 8:13 PM
|
|
It appears that the U.S. military has had chaplains in the service since the beginning of the Republic. Aren't they supposed to be there for those in the service -- one for each faith as near as possible -- so that service to the country doesn't restrict the soldiers from their religion?
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 4 by Chiroptera, posted 11-12-2005 8:13 PM | | Chiroptera has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 6 by Silent H, posted 11-13-2005 11:05 AM | | RAZD has replied |
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
|
|
Message 7 of 78 (259339)
11-13-2005 1:03 PM
|
Reply to: Message 6 by Silent H
11-13-2005 11:05 AM
|
|
... I was never the kind of person to get bent out of shape by a prayer before a school ball game either ... The idea that god would be concerned with who won a sports game between two teams from the same {ethnic\cultural\religious} society has always been highly amusing to me. Removing that from the discussion then it just becomes another greedily taken opportunity for proselytization by commandeering a community program.
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 6 by Silent H, posted 11-13-2005 11:05 AM | | Silent H has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 9 by Silent H, posted 11-13-2005 1:50 PM | | RAZD has not replied |
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
|
|
Message 11 of 78 (259383)
11-13-2005 4:04 PM
|
Reply to: Message 8 by nwr
11-13-2005 1:36 PM
|
|
Re: Two issues I have never understood
A required recital of the pledge has always seemed foolish. ... and one learned by rote and not a personal message as well. More like slogans force learned in totalitarian social systems eh?
Why the concern about school prayer? What does prayer accomplish in this format? Does it add to learning? It seems some people can't tie their shoes without praying about the outcome first, which is pretty helpless, imh(sa)o, but if they want to do that it is okay with me as long as they don't ask that I participate. Maybe it's more about abrogating vs recognizing personal responsibility in accomplishing goals.
Why aren't fundy groups opposed to such prayer? Because it's about making you pray. Or showing off. Those are the only purposes served by public prayer: coercion & pride. Any other purpose is served better by private prayer.
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 8 by nwr, posted 11-13-2005 1:36 PM | | nwr has not replied |
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
my pledge
I pledge allegiance
To the founding concepts of our country
That inspired a new way of living To freedom, liberty, equality and justice,
To the pursuit of happiness
And the inalienable rights of all people
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 15 by nwr, posted 11-13-2005 10:21 PM | | RAZD has not replied | | | Message 18 by Silent H, posted 11-14-2005 4:36 AM | | RAZD has not replied |
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
|
|
Message 19 of 78 (259553)
11-14-2005 7:04 AM
|
Reply to: Message 16 by randman
11-13-2005 10:30 PM
|
|
Re: why did the founding Congress open with prayer?
Because they lived with christians? This does not alter the fact that they supported a government of the people by the people for the people Read "The Christian Nation Myth" by Farrel Till The Christian Nation Myth » Internet Infidels Note in particular that the constitutional convention voted on whether to include god in the constitution and that it was defeated. Read how Jefferson and Washington and many other founders -- specifically the ones that were the movers and shakers of creating this country -- were not christian or were christian and had no problem with a separation between government by people and religions of all stripes. The simple fact is that it is you that is wishful thinking reading something that is NOT there. What a surprise. {abe}There is one place - and only one place - that {god or religion} is mentioned in the constitution .... do you know what it says? {/abe} Enjoy. This message has been edited by RAZD, 11*14*2005 07:06 AM Edited by RAZD, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 16 by randman, posted 11-13-2005 10:30 PM | | randman has replied |
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
|
|
Message 21 of 78 (259733)
11-14-2005 6:36 PM
|
Reply to: Message 20 by randman
11-14-2005 6:13 PM
|
|
Deist gods.
Yawn Yes, read the address, ... with the understanding that Washington was a deist and NOT a christian. Look at the wording in detail. Better yet read what the religious people of the time -- that knew him -- had to say, the ones that are the forefathers of the fundamentalists, and who actively campaigned against Jefferson ... because of the purposeful exclusion of religion from the constitution. As completely covered in the "infidel" site. Methinks you won't read the site or accept anything from it because you have labelled it before opening it. You also haven't answered the question about what part in the constitution talks about {god\religion}. Enjoy.
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 20 by randman, posted 11-14-2005 6:13 PM | | randman has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 22 by randman, posted 11-14-2005 6:44 PM | | RAZD has not replied |
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
|
|
Message 24 of 78 (259750)
11-14-2005 10:53 PM
|
Reply to: Message 23 by randman
11-14-2005 6:55 PM
|
|
Re: why did the founding Congress open with prayer?
It's a political speech, by a leader that knows that it is not necessary to antagonise the troops ... ... and he still refers to a deist god -- that rules the universe by natural laws. You didn't answer the question on that issue again. This does not make him an advocate for making a theocracy out of the USA or to bend it to one religion over others. Note:
After George Washington's death, Christians made an intense effort to claim him as one of their own. This effort was based largely on the grounds that Washington had regularly attended services with his wife at an Episcopal Church and had served as a vestryman in the church. Wilson had inquired of the Reverend Abercrombie [identified earlier as the rector of the church Washington had attended] concerning Washing ton's religious views. Abercrombie's response was brief and to the point "Sir, Washington was a Deist" (Remsberg, p. 110). ... when the clergy addressed General Washington, on his departure from the government, it was observed in their consultation that he had never, on any occasion, said a word to the public which showed a belief in the Christian religion, ... Dr. Moncure D. Conway, ... "In editing a volume of Washington's private letters for the Long Island Historical Society, I have been much impressed by indications that this great historic personality represented the Liberal religious tendency of his time. That tendency was to respect religious organizations as part of the social order, which required some minister to visit the sick, bury the dead, and perform marriages. It was considered in nowise inconsistent with disbelief of the clergyman's doctrines to contribute to his support, or even to be a vestryman in his church. In his many letters to his adopted nephew and younger relatives, he admonishes them about their manners and morals, but in no case have I been able to discover any suggestion that they should read the Bible, keep the Sabbath, go to church, or any warning against Infidelity." "The last and least skeptical of these rationalists [Washington] loaded his First Inaugural Address with appeals to the 'Great Author,' 'Almighty Being,' 'invisible hand,' and 'benign parent of the human race,' but apparently could not bring himself to speak the word 'God' ('The United States in 1787,' 1787 The Grand Convention, New York W, W, Norton & Co., 1987, p. 36)."
These terms by which Washington referred to "God" in his inaugural address are dead giveaways that he was Deistic in his views. The uninformed see the expression "nature's God" in documents like the Declaration of Independence and wrongly interpret it as evidence of Christian belief in those who wrote and signed it, but in reality it is a sure indication that the document was Deistic in origin. Deists preferred not to use the unqualified term "God" in their conversation and writings because of its Christian connotations. Accordingly, they substituted expressions like those that Washington used in his inaugural address or else they referred to their creator as "nature's God," the deity who had created the world and then left it to operate by natural law. Moncure Conway also stated that "(t)here is no evidence to show that Washington, even in early life, was a believer in Christianity" (Ibid.). Remsberg also noted that Conway stated that Washington's father had been a Deist and that his mother "was not excessively religious" (Ibid.). The people poking there little noses into the personal life of Washington and his family about his personal private religious beliefs were the forefathers of the fundamentalists. Why can't they let people be?
randman writes: All in all, I think Washington's first address is the most religious and religiously motivated speech any president has probably ever given as president to the nation. So therefore we should teach Deist theology in public high school science classes? Enjoy.
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 23 by randman, posted 11-14-2005 6:55 PM | | randman has not replied |
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
|
|
Message 28 of 78 (259765)
11-14-2005 11:23 PM
|
Reply to: Message 26 by mikehager
11-14-2005 11:09 PM
|
|
Re: why did the founding Congress open with prayer?
This mention is of course in addition to the more famous reference in the First Amendment. That is the one instance that it is mentioned IN the constitution. Congrats, you answered what randman dodged. The big question back to those who think religion should be ensconced in government is -- why would they word it that way UNLESS the founders envisaged a seperation between religions and government. Thanks, but Ferrel Till did the heavy lifting. And if randman had read the article he would have known what to expect.
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 26 by mikehager, posted 11-14-2005 11:09 PM | | mikehager has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 29 by mikehager, posted 11-14-2005 11:29 PM | | RAZD has not replied |
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
|
|
Message 30 of 78 (259770)
11-14-2005 11:36 PM
|
Reply to: Message 27 by AK-7
11-14-2005 11:21 PM
|
|
welcome to the fray AK-7.
Couldn't you even justify forcing religion upon people if that made them better members of society? Some could. I wouldn't. All that is needed is non-anti-social behavior, it doesn't require us all to be "saints" eh? The purpose of a Free Government is to allow people to pursue their happiness as long as it does not interfere with the happiness\rights of others. And first you would have to demonstrate that it actually is the religion that is really responsible (and which one was most efficacious in that effect), and it would be very difficult to remove all the contributing elements. Certainly you can try refute this with prison beliefs data (that show a slightly higher proportion of believers in prison than in the general population), but there are other factors involved: you would have to control for education, economic status and political pull for instance.
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 27 by AK-7, posted 11-14-2005 11:21 PM | | AK-7 has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 31 by AK-7, posted 11-14-2005 11:57 PM | | RAZD has replied |
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
|
|
Message 35 of 78 (260144)
11-16-2005 7:15 AM
|
Reply to: Message 31 by AK-7
11-14-2005 11:57 PM
|
|
If I were running for public office (don't worry, NOT gonna happen) I'd be wearing a cross every day... it's literally that easy to manipulate people (gee, don't I sound a little antisocial myself now?) I wouldn't say that was antisocial, just sardonically cynical. Or is that cynically sardonic?
... and just go with the flow. Why tell these people what what they do is unconstitutional if it doesn't hurt you? Because it does hurt me and it hurts future generations when you give up rights and liberties to satiate someone elses thirst for more {power\say} We are about to see a transition in the supreme court, not because of popular demand but because of the demands of an extremist bunch and the toadying of congress. Particularly the toadying GOP. If this comes to pass this could result in the loss of several civil rights that have been fought for and recognized by all except such extremists: womens rights in general, abortion in particular, workers rights, and many more. Be careful of what you are ignorant of eh?
sp? Is the salad and the guy different? No. Except if you mean in physical reality ...  Enjoy.
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 31 by AK-7, posted 11-14-2005 11:57 PM | | AK-7 has not replied |
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
|
|
Message 37 of 78 (260315)
11-16-2005 6:23 PM
|
Reply to: Message 23 by randman
11-14-2005 6:55 PM
|
|
Washington and religion
I will add to what holmes has said as well, seeing as the other thread is closed (temporarily) and this one is not being used and the topic has already been introduce (and discussed). The following are responses a post you made on that other thread in reply to my post that is the same as Message 24 here ... thus we have a direct link to the discussion. for the record your reply was (in two posts yet) http://< !--UB EvC Forum: DATELINE - Rise of Evangelism in America --> http://EvC Forum: DATELINE - Rise of Evangelism in Americahttp://< !--UB EvC Forum: DATELINE - Rise of Evangelism in America --> http://EvC Forum: DATELINE - Rise of Evangelism in America
randman, DATELINE - Rise of Evangelism in America thread, msg 35 writes: So are you admitting that George Washington was a deeply religious man, but a Deist, or what are you claiming? The simple fact is he was deeply religious, and so was his inaugural speech. It was not some flim-flam speech created to deceive people as to his true beliefs, as you claim. For starters I did not say that he was trying to "flim-flam" or "deceive people," so you can apologize for that little bit of randman falsehood (The president doing that, imh(sa)o, is "W" ... but that's a different issue). I also would not characterize Washington as "deeply" religious ... Let's start with his public display of religious behavior:
On August 13, 1835, a Colonel Mercer, involved in the effort, wrote to Bishop William White, who had been one of the rectors at the church Washington had attended. In the letter, Mercer asked if "Washington was a communicant of the Protestant Episcopal church, or whether he occasionally went to the communion only, or if ever he did so at all..." (John Remsberg, Six Historic Americans, p. 103). On August 15, 1835, White sent Mercer this replyIn regard to the subject of your inquiry, truth requires me to say that Gen. Washington never received the communion in the churches of which I am the parochial minister. Mrs. Washington was an habitual communicant.... I have been written to by many on that point, and have been obliged to answer them as I now do you (Remsberg, p. 104).
In his Annals of the American Pulpit, The Reverend William B. Sprague, D.D., wrote a biographical sketch of the Reverend James Abercrombie, the other pastor of the congregation Washington attended. In this work, Sprague quoted Abercrombie in confirmation of what White had written to MercerOne incident in Dr. Abercrombie's experience as a clergyman, in connection with the Father of his Country, is especially worthy of record; and the following account of it was given by the Doctor himself, in a letter to a friend, in 1831 shortly after there had been some public allusion to it "With respect to the inquiry you make I can only state the following facts; that, as pastor of the Episcopal church, observing that, on sacramental Sundays, Gen. Washington, immediately after the desk and pulpit services, went out with the greater part of the congregation--always leaving Mrs. Washington with the other communicants--she invariably being one--I considered it my duty in a sermon on Public Worship, to state the unhappy tendency of example, particularly of those in elevated stations who uniformly turned their backs upon the celebration of the Lord's Supper. I acknowledge the remark was intended for the President; and as such he received it" (From Annals of the American Pulpit, Vol. 5, p. 394, quoted by Remsberg, pp. 104-105). Abercrombie went on to explain that he had heard through a senator that Washington had discussed the reprimand with others and had told them that "as he had never been a communicant, were he to become one then it would be imputed to an ostentatious display of religious zeal, arising altogether from his elevated station" (Ibid.). Abercrombie then said that Washington "never afterwards came on the morning of sacramental Sunday" (Ibid.).
In otherwords, both pastors that served the church that Washington attended say that he was only there with his wife and participated at the minimum level. Imagine how that would be regarded today ... somehow I cannot get to "deeply" religious on that evidence. Then there is his deathbed scene. but Conway made it very clear that Washington, even on his death bed, made no profession of faithWhen the end was near, Washington said to a physician present--an ancestor of the writer of these notes--"I am not afraid to go." With his right fingers on his left wrist he counted his own pulses, which beat his funeral march to the grave. "He bore his distress," so next day wrote one present, "with astonishing fortitude, and conscious, as he declared, several hours before his death, of his approaching dissolution, he resigned his breath with the greatest composure, having the full possession of his reason to the last moment." Mrs. Washington knelt beside his bed, but no word passed on religious matters. With the sublime taciturnity which had marked his life he passed out of existence, leaving no act or word which can be turned to the service of superstition, cant, or bigotry" (quoted by Remsberg, pp. 132-133). Again, not the behavior that I would characterise as "deeply" religious. We also have these little bits: In a separate submission to the New York Times, Conway said that "Washington, like most scholarly Virginians of his time, was a Deist.... Contemporary evidence shows that in mature life Washington was a Deist, and did not commune, which is quite consistent with his being a vestryman. In England, where vestries have secular functions, it is not unusual for Unitarians to vestrymen, there being no doctrinal subscription required for that office. Washington's letters during the Revolution occasionally indicate his recognition of the hand of Providence in notable public events, but in the thousands of his letters I have never been able to find the name of Christ or any reference to him" (quoted by Remsberg, pp. 129-130). In February 1800, after Washington's death, Thomas Jefferson wrote this statement in his personal journalDr. Rush told me (he had it from Asa Green) that when the clergy addressed General Washington, on his departure from the government, it was observed in their consultation that he had never, on any occasion, said a word to the public which showed a belief in the Christian religion, and they thought they should so pen their address as to force him at length to disclose publicly whether he was a Christian or not. However, he observed, the old fox was too cunning for them. He answered every article of their address particularly, except that, which he passed over without notice.... What I see is a person who was staunchly private about his beliefs and makes no divulgance to anyone in any record that anyone has found of what he personally believed, and who, when he did make public statements, used general terms that would be acceptable to a general public. A far cry from flim-flam deceit.
randman, DATELINE - Rise of Evangelism in America thread, msg 35 writes: I have posted his words, which are very clear. You refuse to accept them. Actually I posted more about them with more facts about his life than you are willing to accept and deal with.You are trying to make something out of them that just is not true. Denial is like that.
You fail to realize the discussion is about religion in general, and specifically God and the government,
To begin with you started with Christianity ... so dealing with the christianity issue comes first. That is easily dealt with: The Reverend Bird Wilson, who was just a few years removed from being a contemporary of the so-called founding fathers, said further in the above-mentioned sermon that "the founders of our nation were nearly all Infidels, and that of the presidents who had thus far been elected [George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, John Quincy Adams, and Andrew Jackson] _not a one had professed a belief in Christianity_" (Remsberg, p. 120). Then we move to "god in general" ... and we have this statement from that same sermon: Dr. Wilson's sermon, which was published in the Albany Daily Advertiser the month it was delivered also made an interesting observation that flatly contradicts the frantic efforts of present-day fundamentalists to make the "founding fathers" orthodox ChristiansWhen the war was over and the victory over our enemies won, and the blessings and happiness of liberty and peace were secured, the Constitution was framed and God was neglected. He was not merely forgotten. He was absolutely voted out of the Constitution. The proceedings, as published by Thompson, the secretary, and the history of the day, show that the question was gravely debated whether God should be in the Constitution or not, and after a solemn debate he was deliberately voted out of it.... There is not only in the theory of our government no recognition of God's laws and sovereignty, but its practical operation, its administration, has been conformable to its theory. (quoted by Remsberg, pp. 120-121, emphasis added). Personally I don't see how you can get any more cut and dried than that: even the forefathers of the fundamentalists recognized that there was no hidden intent to include religion in government. Perhaps you need to reread Article VI, Section 3, which states that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." What you fail to see is the big difference between having such a test and having a govenernment that allows the personal freedom for individuals to make statements of faith as they wish. What you fail to see is that having such a test means that you no longer have the personal freedom for individuals to make statements of faith as they wish.
randman, DATELINE - Rise of Evangelism in America thread, msg 36 writes: If Washington was a Deist, he must have been his own brand of Deism because ... Excuse me while I chuckle. There is no "brand" of Deism, every Deist has his "own brand" because there is no dogma or set of beliefs involved.
So you need to at least take some time to learn what you are talking about. What I notice is that I cite historical information and you post unsubstantiated assertions of your opinions as if they were facts.
Does that sound like a Deist to you? Excluding your personal hyperbole and mistatement of the facts, my opinion is that Washington was Washington. He made no public statement of what his beliefs were. People of his time called him a Deist, people that knew him personally, people that knew him a whole lot better than you or I can. The fact that he was recognized as a Deist by others of his time is good enough for me, so what more evidence would you need for that? Enjoy.
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 23 by randman, posted 11-14-2005 6:55 PM | | randman has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 38 by randman, posted 11-16-2005 11:53 PM | | RAZD has replied |
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
|
|
Message 67 of 78 (260513)
11-17-2005 7:13 AM
|
Reply to: Message 38 by randman
11-16-2005 11:53 PM
|
|
Re: Washington and religion
Your argument falls down in exactly the same areas as before. Then deal with the evidence presented that refutes your claims.
randman spinning writes: Washington was a very religious man in his political perspective Except you have not demonstrated "very" -- or "deeply" (your previous adjective) -- and this has been refuted by the evidence from Washingtons life rather than based on your opinion. The evidence says otherwise. You take an example from one specific instance in one moment of Washington's life and build a fantasy on that, while I show you the rest of his life was other than what your fantasy would require.
On the rest of your post, it seems a waste of time discussing this with you because you deny Washington made public statements after I quoted you the statements he made in his first inaugural address. In other words you reject it because it challenges your pet beliefs on the matter: they show Washingtons public and private attitude on religion.
If you wish to discuss reality, we can, but please don't make up stuff. ROFLOL. I post facts about Washingtons life and you are making up stuff about how religious he was ... stuff contradicted by the facts presented. Denial is like that. Enjoy your fantasy randman.
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 38 by randman, posted 11-16-2005 11:53 PM | | randman has not replied |
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
Re: addressing washington
It's true. Another "Brownie" point for the Botch administration.
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 71 by MangyTiger, posted 11-19-2005 9:40 PM | | MangyTiger has not replied |
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
|
|
Message 76 of 78 (261507)
11-20-2005 9:19 AM
|
Reply to: Message 75 by AdminJar
11-19-2005 10:13 PM
|
|
Re: Getting way OT
Really? when the people appointed promote religion instead of the science they are being paid a salary to uphold and that comes from public funds? When the "test" of appointability is faith and not competence or ability?
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 75 by AdminJar, posted 11-19-2005 10:13 PM | | AdminJar has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2