Submariner wrote:


Speak condescendingly to them, like their minister does every Sunday.


Oh,yeah! Check out Joyce Meyers, the multimillionaire high priestess
of "abuse theology" (my newly coined term). She shouts verbal abuse
at the women (mostly) in her audience. I can't even stand to listen
to her services anymore.

I started to figure this stuff out about 4-5 years ago, when in a
different evangelical church in St. Louis, yet another of the women
in the congregation told her horrible story of abuse. Then, the
PASTOR'S WIFE got up and told another story of mental/verbal abuse.
I was shocked, and then realized that practically the ONLY person
in the congregation that hadn't told of some level of family abuse
was ME! Hmm, I know abuse is well hidden and more prevalent than
most people think, but this congregation was practically 100% abused!
What the HELL is going on here? Ahh, this kind of church must DRAW
these abused souls in! YES, of COURSE, that's it!

Then, the next thing that clicked was a televised Joyce Myers service,
when she started SCREAMING at the audience. She was screaming at these
people about how WEAK, incapable, illogical, unable, helpless, defeated,
........ they were without Jesus. And, I realized that this whole
evangelical (sub)movement was actually MORE abuse! Yes, these people
are drawn in to get MORE of the same abuse they suffered when kids!

Without Jesus, you can't do ANYTHING. So, my wife does NOTHING but
pray. I swear, sometimes, I worry that if the house were to catch
fire, she'd sit in the middle of the flames instead of getting herself
and the kids out! But, she gets wound tighter and tighter, because
the praying does nothing to change the situation, even though she lies
to herself and everyone else that "yes, things are getting better every
day". But, of course, it is a lie, and she knows it. People she prays
for die, or continue being debilitated by horrible disease. Etc.

I, on the other hand, fix stuff with my own hands, and maybe these
things need to be fixed a few times before I get the magic formula
just right, but they do get fixed, and I move on to the next thing.

Don't get me started! Oops, somebody DID get me started.

Jon

Adam Smith wrote:
Hi Jon,

My first serious girlfriend "went evangelical" during the time we were
together. Very painful. Eventually it split us up. You have my sympathy.

Boy, were you LUCKY! This thing didn't hit her until we were married,
and had a 2nd kid on the way. She actually disparaged these far-out
evangelists before and shortly after we were married.
My friend did finally move on from it (though not when I knew her), so
perhaps there is some hope.
She's going to bible school for 9 months 1000 miles away from here.
That puts a bit of a strain on a marriage, too. I am hoping that they
"lift the curtain" for her a bit during all this, and she realizes
that it is all a big scam. Maybe this hook-up with Monavie is starting
to raise some doubts in her mind. The whole church down there is
pushing this stuff real hard. As far as I can tell, it is just the next
MLM scam, and the literature they are using is full of claims that will
have the FDA jumping all over them as soon as they get wind of it.
They have these cleverly made up with no mention of the Monavie outfit,
so they will claim it is not THEY who are making the medical claims,
but the FDA won't fall for that line, they've seen it all before.
They are selling 750 ml of berry juice for $30+! None of these people
would spend $30 for a bottle of wine more than once every 5-10 years.
But, they are gobbling up CASES of the stuff. My wife just got
snookered into placing an $1100 order.

Jon

On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 00:05:36 -0600, Jon Elson wrote:

Boy, were you LUCKY! This thing didn't hit her until we were married,
and had a 2nd kid on the way. She actually disparaged these far-out
evangelists before and shortly after we were married.

Ask her why God hates amputees, then have her read this:

http://whydoesgodhateamputees.com/god5.htm


--

-JN-

That sounds like a cult not main stream evangelicals. I hope she gets
away from it.

On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 13:37:53 +0100, J. Nielsen
wrote:

On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 00:05:36 -0600, Jon Elson wrote:

Boy, were you LUCKY! This thing didn't hit her until we were married,
and had a 2nd kid on the way. She actually disparaged these far-out
evangelists before and shortly after we were married.

Ask her why God hates amputees, then have her read this:

http://whydoesgodhateamputees.com/god5.htm

And check on this:
[
Dear Dr. Laura,

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's law. I
have learned a great deal from you, and I try to share that knowledge
with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend
homosexuality, for example, I will simply remind him or her that
Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the other
laws in Leviticus and Exodus and how to best follow them. To wit:

When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a
pleasing odor for the Lord (Leviticus 1:9). The problem is my
neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. How should I
deal with this?
I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as stated in Exodus
21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for
her?
I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her
period of menstrual uncleanliness (Leviticus 15:19-24). The problem
is, how can I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
Leviticus 25:44 states that I may buy slaves from the nations that
are around us. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Canadians,
but not Mexicans. Can you clarify?
I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2
clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to
kill him myself?
A friend of mine says that even though eating shellfish is an
abomination (Leviticus 10:10), it is a lesser abomination than
homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?
Leviticus 20:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I
have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading
glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room
here?
I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident
you can help.

Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and
unchanging.

Sincerely,
A devoted listener
]
--
Cliff

J. Nielsen wrote:
On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 00:05:36 -0600, Jon Elson wrote:


Boy, were you LUCKY! This thing didn't hit her until we were married,
and had a 2nd kid on the way. She actually disparaged these far-out
evangelists before and shortly after we were married.


Ask her why God hates amputees, then have her read this:

http://whydoesgodhateamputees.com/god5.htm
An interesting read. Of course, they make no mention of the real
reason Jeanna Giesse lived, which was that doctors, in deperation,
tried a treatment that had never been tried before. She is not the
first perdon to survive rabies, but at least the second. She had
a much easier time of it that the first recorded case.

But, my wife has a *** closed*** mind. This is not the ordinary
closed mind that you run into on occasion. This is a mind closed
tighter than the vault at the local bank, a person who will actually
tell you to your face that she will not listen to you because you
are preaching satan's message (or some similar comeback). When you
get down to it, she will tell you that she believes what she
wants to believe, and will not accept what she sees with her own
eyes. Literally, this woman drives a van full of kids using "the
force" a la star wars! You can't see out the damn windows unless
I clean them! (Needless to say, her van looks like it has been put
through the crusher, but the crusher maybe had a slight hydraulic
leak and couldn't completely flatten it. A few months ago I was
razzing her that there wasn't a square foot of the van that was
not dented, scraped or crumpled. She said I was exaggerating, so
we went out and looked at it, and she had quite a bit of trouble
finding so much as a square foot that didn't have something wrong
with it. A few weeks ago, in broad daylight, she drive the
DRIVER'S SIDE door into a lamppost in a parking lot, knocking
off the mirror and door handle, and caving in the door. I could
understand bashing the RIGHT side door, but the left side is only
INCHES from her nose! How could she NOT SEE that huge lamp post?
Because she is so inside her own head, she can't see large objects
approaching from just a foot away.

So, she would find fault with about a dozen premises in the link
you provided. Of course, the most important one is the premise that
God doesn't regrow limbs. She will tell you she has not only
seen limbs regrown, but has participated in DOING IT HERSELF!
Of course, if you beat on this for half an hour, you will eventually
pare it down and find out it was the parlour trick of "growing out"
a short leg. You have somebody sit down, and lift up their feet
and pull them out horizontal. Unless the person is sitting perfecly
straight, you will be holding their feet slightly to one side, and
it will appear one leg is shorter. You do some hocus-pocus, lots
of praying in tongues and laying on of hands, and somebody pulls
the "shorter" leg, causing the person's hips to rotate a little,
and suddently, their legs "are the same length"! An appallingly
simple and stupid parlour trick, but it convinces people with weak
minds that these other people are bringing God's mercy down to
heal the "sick".

I could go on, and on, with this. But, it is all a sort of hypnosis,
to get the neophyte to split from reality. They are literally making
these people psychotic, at least in some ways.

If a plane crashes, and 119 die, but one survives, that IS TOTAL PROOF
that God saved that one person! (What about the 119? They must have
been terrible sinners, I suppose!)

To finish : I mean, you just can't TALK to someone who will tell you
in all sincerity that she sat on the couch for a couple hours in the
middle of the night talking to Jesus!

Jon
Jon

G.W. wrote:
That sounds like a cult not main stream evangelicals. I hope she gets
away from it.

Ho ho ho! She's going to school to BECOME ONE OF THEM! Cult? You
better believe it, they are a cult! But, who is main stream, any more?
Check out Joyce Myers, or Benny Hinn! He claims to have brought many
dead back to life! It is quite a spectacle - they wheel the crippled
up on stage in their wheelchairs, Pastor Hinn lays hands on them for a
minute, and they jump out of the wheelchair and whoop in exultation of
their miraculous healing. Then, they sit back in the wheelchair, and
are wheeled off the stage. Huh? HUH? What the HELL? If somebody
healed me of a severe infirmity, it would take 5 gorillas to put ME
back in that wheelchair! NO WAAY would I sit back down in that thing!
(So, obviously, these are people who are infirm, and have difficulty
walking, but with a little help, they can get up and walk around a bit.)
It is no big deal for them to sit back in the chair again.

But, if you check into this stuff, this is not one guy off in some wierd
little church with 15 members. Check out the Smithton Outpouring (now
moved to Kansas City, whre there is a lot more money), the Toronto
Airport Church, Revival Minstries in Tampa, and there are more, many
more, in this realm. These far-out evangelists have taken over, and
appear to still be growing.

Jon

On Wed, 28 Dec 2005 00:52:11 -0600, Jon Elson
wrote:

But, my wife has a *** closed*** mind.

Direct her to a better church:
http://landoverbaptist.org/
--
Cliff

On Wed, 28 Dec 2005 00:52:11 -0600, Jon Elson
wrote:

she will not listen to you because you
are preaching satan's message

Learn the language ....
http://richardgingras.com/devilsdictionary/
--
Cliff

Jon Elson wrote:
G.W. wrote:
That sounds like a cult not main stream evangelicals. I hope she gets
away from it.

Ho ho ho! She's going to school to BECOME ONE OF THEM! Cult? You
better believe it, they are a cult! But, who is main stream, any more?
Check out Joyce Myers, or Benny Hinn! He claims to have brought many
dead back to life! It is quite a spectacle - they wheel the crippled
up on stage in their wheelchairs, Pastor Hinn lays hands on them for a
minute, and they jump out of the wheelchair and whoop in exultation of
their miraculous healing. Then, they sit back in the wheelchair, and
are wheeled off the stage. Huh? HUH? What the HELL? If somebody
healed me of a severe infirmity, it would take 5 gorillas to put ME
back in that wheelchair! NO WAAY would I sit back down in that thing!
(So, obviously, these are people who are infirm, and have difficulty
walking, but with a little help, they can get up and walk around a bit.)
It is no big deal for them to sit back in the chair again.

But, if you check into this stuff, this is not one guy off in some wierd
little church with 15 members. Check out the Smithton Outpouring (now
moved to Kansas City, whre there is a lot more money), the Toronto
Airport Church, Revival Minstries in Tampa, and there are more, many
more, in this realm. These far-out evangelists have taken over, and
appear to still be growing.

Jon

I agree that your examples are false teachers at best and maybe
criminals at worst. Benny Hinn puts on a show and thousands fall for it
and he isn't the only one. They not only fool the people that attend
their "service" but they turn-off others who can easily see through
their baloney. People who are turned-off by it tend to think that this
is the way they all are.

I wouldn't count these folks anywhere close to main stream. The
thousands of local churches across the country that are faithful to
God's word is what I would call main stream.
Good luck,
GW

Cliff wrote:

On Wed, 28 Dec 2005 00:52:11 -0600, Jon Elson
wrote:



But, my wife has a *** closed*** mind.



Direct her to a better church:
http://landoverbaptist.org/


If I showed her THAT site, you guys might miss me for a couple
of months, until I got out of the hospital!

Jon

On Wed, 28 Dec 2005 17:03:13 -0600, Jon Elson
wrote:


Cliff wrote:

On Wed, 28 Dec 2005 00:52:11 -0600, Jon Elson
wrote:



But, my wife has a *** closed*** mind.



Direct her to a better church:
http://landoverbaptist.org/


If I showed her THAT site, you guys might miss me for a couple
of months, until I got out of the hospital!

Perhaps she just needs some advice:
http://bettybowers.com/newsad.html
There seem to be several ministries listed ....

Or perhaps a few quick sermons would do the trick:
http://www.landoverbaptist.org/60second/

HTH
--
Cliff

Jon Elson wrote:
Adam Smith wrote:
Hi Jon,

My first serious girlfriend "went evangelical" during the time we were
together. Very painful. Eventually it split us up. You have my sympathy.

Boy, were you LUCKY! This thing didn't hit her until we were married,
and had a 2nd kid on the way. She actually disparaged these far-out
evangelists before and shortly after we were married.


Hmmmm.... at what point does a religious experience become a mental
illness? Or could it mask a mental illness? Phobias, depression, and
panic disorder are pretty common.

On 29 Dec 2005 13:46:26 -0800, "Dave" wrote:

Jon Elson wrote:
Adam Smith wrote:
Hi Jon,

My first serious girlfriend "went evangelical" during the time we were
together. Very painful. Eventually it split us up. You have my sympathy.

Boy, were you LUCKY! This thing didn't hit her until we were married,
and had a 2nd kid on the way. She actually disparaged these far-out
evangelists before and shortly after we were married.


Hmmmm.... at what point does a religious experience become a mental
illness?

On day 1.

Or could it mask a mental illness? Phobias, depression, and
panic disorder are pretty common.

Then they start muttering about "WMDs" ......
http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a1...pad/1143pe.jpg
--
Cliff

Cliff wrote:
On Wed, 28 Dec 2005 00:52:11 -0600, Jon Elson
wrote:


But, my wife has a *** closed*** mind.


Direct her to a better church:
http://landoverbaptist.org/

Man! Somebody spent a LOT of time writing all that content!
What a riot! To bad I can't show it to my wife, she would be
totally offended. I don't need any MORE trouble!

Jon

Dave wrote:
Jon Elson wrote:

Adam Smith wrote:

Hi Jon,

My first serious girlfriend "went evangelical" during the time we were
together. Very painful. Eventually it split us up. You have my sympathy.


Boy, were you LUCKY! This thing didn't hit her until we were married,
and had a 2nd kid on the way. She actually disparaged these far-out
evangelists before and shortly after we were married.



Hmmmm.... at what point does a religious experience become a mental
illness? Or could it mask a mental illness? Phobias, depression, and
panic disorder are pretty common.

Oh, these groups are PREYING on the people with weak minds! And, they
gravitate to this stuff like the proverbial moth to the flame!

Jon

On Fri, 30 Dec 2005 00:06:06 -0600, Jon Elson
wrote:

Cliff wrote:
On Wed, 28 Dec 2005 00:52:11 -0600, Jon Elson
wrote:


But, my wife has a *** closed*** mind.


Direct her to a better church:
http://landoverbaptist.org/

Man! Somebody spent a LOT of time writing all that content!
What a riot! To bad I can't show it to my wife, she would be
totally offended.

Probably be good for her by the sound of it. Or you could
play the sermons abit on the loud side ...

I don't need any MORE trouble!

http://members.aol.com/porchnus/sinschat.htm
http://twc.sshunet.nl/~djstronk/ircb...s/archive.html
--
Cliff

Jon Elson wrote:
Dave wrote:
Jon Elson wrote:
Adam Smith wrote:

Hi Jon,

My first serious girlfriend "went evangelical" during the time we were
together. Very painful. Eventually it split us up. You have my sympathy.

Boy, were you LUCKY! This thing didn't hit her until we were married,
and had a 2nd kid on the way. She actually disparaged these far-out
evangelists before and shortly after we were married.

Hmmmm.... at what point does a religious experience become a mental
illness? Or could it mask a mental illness? Phobias, depression, and
panic disorder are pretty common.

Oh, these groups are PREYING on the people with weak minds! And, they
gravitate to this stuff like the proverbial moth to the flame!

Well, I am reminded of the Gary Larson cartoon, where the scientists
look through the one-way glass and say something like "We know they are
fools, but WHAT KIND?" There is a degree of religious entanglement that
is considered fairly normal and then there are the extreme cases...

Cliff wrote:
"Dave" wrote:
Jon Elson wrote:
Adam Smith wrote:
Hi Jon,

My first serious girlfriend "went evangelical" during the time we were
together. Very painful. Eventually it split us up. You have my sympathy.

Boy, were you LUCKY! This thing didn't hit her until we were married,
and had a 2nd kid on the way. She actually disparaged these far-out
evangelists before and shortly after we were married.


Hmmmm.... at what point does a religious experience become a mental
illness?

On day 1.

But they are a vast majority and they vote. You will be assimilated.
OTOH I don't see anything wrong with Deism.

wrote in message
oups.com...
Cliff wrote:
"Dave" wrote:
Jon Elson wrote:
Adam Smith wrote:
Hi Jon,

My first serious girlfriend "went evangelical" during the time we
were
together. Very painful. Eventually it split us up. You have my
sympathy.

Boy, were you LUCKY! This thing didn't hit her until we were
married,
and had a 2nd kid on the way. She actually disparaged these far-out
evangelists before and shortly after we were married.


Hmmmm.... at what point does a religious experience become a mental
illness?

On day 1.

But they are a vast majority and they vote. You will be assimilated.

The hard-boiled born-again are not a vast majority. Those who believe in God
are a vast majority, but they have always been. And we have shown no real
tendency to become a theocracy despite that fact.

The issue now is that certain evangelicals are getting a little frisky and
are trying to intrude their religion into government and into the schools.
They are being resisted. They are not likely to succeed, nor are they likely
to become a "vast majority."

This is a time in US history when there are no clear goals, no direction, no
generally agreed idea of "progress." It is a time of stagnancy and ennui. It
will pass, but, until it does, absolutist religion is an answer that is
attractive to the many people who are extremely uncomfortable with all of
the uncertainty and lack of direction.

It isn't the first time it's happened and it probably won't be the last.

--
Ed Huntress

In article , Ed Huntress says...

The issue now is that certain evangelicals are getting a little frisky and
are trying to intrude their religion into government and into the schools.
They are being resisted. They are not likely to succeed, nor are they likely
to become a "vast majority."

Damn Ed, they *paid* for the shrubbie to get elected, why shouldn't
they get what they paid for? They give him money and he does what
they want, even if means calling out the federal army to force
the Dover, PA courts and schools to quit being treasonous and
knuckle under!

After all, there's a war on. Any sign of dissent from King George's
plans should be considered aid and comfort to the enemy.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

Ed Huntress wrote:
The hard-boiled born-again are not a vast majority. Those who believe in God
are a vast majority, but they have always been. And we have shown no real
tendency to become a theocracy despite that fact.

Absolutely.


The issue now is that certain evangelicals are getting a little frisky and
are trying to intrude their religion into government and into the schools.
They are being resisted. They are not likely to succeed, nor are they likely
to become a "vast majority."

It seems to me that the anti-religion forces have been trying to remove
any mention of god from public places for about 40 years or so. They
appear to want to change our society to fit their views. Now some
people have had enough and are resisting. Their goal seems to be to
keep things the same, not change anything.


This is a time in US history when there are no clear goals, no direction, no
generally agreed idea of "progress." It is a time of stagnancy and ennui. It
will pass, but, until it does, absolutist religion is an answer that is
attractive to the many people who are extremely uncomfortable with all of
the uncertainty and lack of direction.

It isn't the first time it's happened and it probably won't be the last.

--
Ed Huntress

In article .com, Gus says...

people have had enough and are resisting. Their goal seems to be to
keep things the same, not change anything.

Their goal is pure and simple: to teach religion in public
schools. Read the court decsion about the Dover, PA case.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

On Fri, 30 Dec 2005 11:11:29 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

wrote in message
roups.com...
Cliff wrote:
"Dave" wrote:
Jon Elson wrote:
Adam Smith wrote:
Hi Jon,

My first serious girlfriend "went evangelical" during the time we
were
together. Very painful. Eventually it split us up. You have my
sympathy.

Boy, were you LUCKY! This thing didn't hit her until we were
married,
and had a 2nd kid on the way. She actually disparaged these far-out
evangelists before and shortly after we were married.


Hmmmm.... at what point does a religious experience become a mental
illness?

On day 1.

But they are a vast majority and they vote. You will be assimilated.

The hard-boiled born-again are not a vast majority. Those who believe in God
are a vast majority, but they have always been. And we have shown no real
tendency to become a theocracy despite that fact.

The issue now is that certain evangelicals are getting a little frisky and
are trying to intrude their religion into government and into the schools.
They are being resisted. They are not likely to succeed, nor are they likely
to become a "vast majority."

This is a time in US history when there are no clear goals, no direction, no
generally agreed idea of "progress." It is a time of stagnancy and ennui. It
will pass, but, until it does, absolutist religion is an answer that is
attractive to the many people who are extremely uncomfortable with all of
the uncertainty and lack of direction.

It isn't the first time it's happened and it probably won't be the last.

Damn..not a bad post. Get religion or somethin?

G

Gunner

"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.

Think of it as having your older brother knock the **** out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner

jim rozen wrote:
In article .com, Gus says...

people have had enough and are resisting. Their goal seems to be to
keep things the same, not change anything.

Their goal is pure and simple: to teach religion in public
schools. Read the court decsion about the Dover, PA case.

Jim

And how does that balance out what the ACLU has been doing for 40 years?

On 30 Dec 2005 09:09:36 -0800, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Ed Huntress says...

The issue now is that certain evangelicals are getting a little frisky and
are trying to intrude their religion into government and into the schools.
They are being resisted. They are not likely to succeed, nor are they likely
to become a "vast majority."

Damn Ed, they *paid* for the shrubbie to get elected, why shouldn't
they get what they paid for? They give him money and he does what
they want, even if means calling out the federal army to force
the Dover, PA courts and schools to quit being treasonous and
knuckle under!

After all, there's a war on. Any sign of dissent from King George's
plans should be considered aid and comfort to the enemy.

Jim

Jim...a large number of Libertairans are atheist or agnostics..and
they paid heavily. I kicked in a bit, and Im far from a born againer.

Once again, you display MooreOns Syndrome..where you have been
conditioned by the Left to kneejerk at the slightest mention of
religion, or Bush.

I actually feel sorry for you, and if you would like..Id be happy to
suggest some deprogrammers. They have done pretty good with Moonies
and the like.

Gunner

"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.

Think of it as having your older brother knock the **** out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner

On 30 Dec 2005 09:52:38 -0800, "Gus" wrote:


Ed Huntress wrote:
The hard-boiled born-again are not a vast majority. Those who believe in God
are a vast majority, but they have always been. And we have shown no real
tendency to become a theocracy despite that fact.

Absolutely.


The issue now is that certain evangelicals are getting a little frisky and
are trying to intrude their religion into government and into the schools.
They are being resisted. They are not likely to succeed, nor are they likely
to become a "vast majority."

It seems to me that the anti-religion forces have been trying to remove
any mention of god from public places for about 40 years or so. They
appear to want to change our society to fit their views. Now some
people have had enough and are resisting. Their goal seems to be to
keep things the same, not change anything.

Indeed..even here in Politically Correct California..I noticed many
many more defiant Merry Christmas wishes, than in the past number of
years. Folks are just tired of the "war on Christmas" and the war on
religion. The Left had best watch their step....the last time they
****ed off the People to this extent..Bush got elected twice..and they
lost control of the Congress for the foreseeable future.

Gunner



This is a time in US history when there are no clear goals, no direction, no
generally agreed idea of "progress." It is a time of stagnancy and ennui. It
will pass, but, until it does, absolutist religion is an answer that is
attractive to the many people who are extremely uncomfortable with all of
the uncertainty and lack of direction.

It isn't the first time it's happened and it probably won't be the last.

--
Ed Huntress

"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.

Think of it as having your older brother knock the **** out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner

On 30 Dec 2005 06:56:42 -0800, wrote:

There is a degree of religious entanglement that
is considered fairly normal and then there are the extreme cases...

Once you deny the fairies you are doomed.

http://www.mythome.org/celtic.html -- which are true?

"It's a god-eat-god world." -- (Terry Pratchett, Small Gods)

"You can't trample infidels when you're a tortoise. I mean, all you
could do is give them a meaningful look." -- (Terry Pratchett, Small
Gods)

And it came to pass that in time the Great God Om spake unto Brutha,
the Chosen One: "Psst!" -- (Terry Pratchett, Small Gods)

The trouble with being a god is that you've got no one to pray to.
-- (Terry Pratchett, Small Gods)

There are hardly any excesses of the most crazed psychopath that
cannot easily be duplicated by a normal kindly family man who just
comes in to work every day and has a job to do. -- (Terry Pratchett,
Small Gods)

Most gods find it hard to walk and think at the same time. -- (Terry
Pratchett, Small Gods)

"He says gods like to see an atheist around. Gives them something to
aim at." -- (Terry Pratchett, Small Gods)

The figures looked more or less human. And they were engaged in
religion.
You could tell by the knives (it's not murder if you do it for a
god). -- (Terry Pratchett, Small Gods)

--
Cliff

On Fri, 30 Dec 2005 11:11:29 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

It isn't the first time it's happened and it probably won't be the last.

Just getting warmed up again ....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisition
--
Cliff

On 30 Dec 2005 09:52:38 -0800, "Gus" wrote:

It seems to me that the anti-religion forces have been trying to remove
any mention of god from public places for about 40 years or so.

Which specific "god"?
--
Cliff

In article .com, Gus says...

Their goal is pure and simple: to teach religion in public
schools. Read the court decsion about the Dover, PA case.

And how does that balance out what the ACLU has been doing for 40 years?

News Flash: Relgion is not to be taught in public schools. Never
was, never will be.

Does it matter if the courts, the constitution, the aclu, or
the school board, says it? Which one convinces you?

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

In article , Gunner Asch says...

Jim...a large number of Libertairans are atheist or agnostics..and
they paid heavily. I kicked in a bit, and Im far from a born againer.

Once again, you display MooreOns Syndrome..where you have been
conditioned by the Left to kneejerk at the slightest mention of
religion, or Bush.

Ah, now I understand. The shrubbie has become a libertarian now?

How do you, as a card-carrying member, feel about that?

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

"Gus" wrote in message
oups.com...

Ed Huntress wrote:
The hard-boiled born-again are not a vast majority. Those who believe in
God
are a vast majority, but they have always been. And we have shown no
real
tendency to become a theocracy despite that fact.

Absolutely.


The issue now is that certain evangelicals are getting a little frisky
and
are trying to intrude their religion into government and into the
schools.
They are being resisted. They are not likely to succeed, nor are they
likely
to become a "vast majority."

It seems to me that the anti-religion forces have been trying to remove
any mention of god from public places for about 40 years or so.

Yeah, well, that corresponds roughly to the span of time over which the
theocrats have been trying to stick them in. Notice that the big issues, the
Ten Commandments in the courthouse and so on, are of pretty recent vintage.
Likewise, introducing religion into biology classes.

They
appear to want to change our society to fit their views. Now some
people have had enough and are resisting. Their goal seems to be to
keep things the same, not change anything.

It's a little like racial discrimination, as I see it. We've had a law
against discrimination for a very long time, but it's still a task to get
some people to live up to the law. Likewise, living up to the Constitution,
which says we won't establish religion, is a never-ending battle.

FWIW, I happen to believe that the fundamental constitutional principle is
that the government will not encourage or promote any religion, or any group
of religions. But I don't think it was intended for the government to
prevent citizens from expressing their religion in public settings. There
was a Supreme Court ruling that drew a fine line between the two, and I
think it was a fine decision.

In other words, at Christmastime, if the people of a town want a manger and
a Christmas display in the town square, I'm all for it. But they'd better
also allow any other religious display, at the appropriate religious
holidays.

--
Ed Huntress

"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
...
snip


The hard-boiled born-again are not a vast majority. Those who believe in
God
are a vast majority, but they have always been. And we have shown no real
tendency to become a theocracy despite that fact.

The issue now is that certain evangelicals are getting a little frisky
and
are trying to intrude their religion into government and into the
schools.
They are being resisted. They are not likely to succeed, nor are they
likely
to become a "vast majority."

This is a time in US history when there are no clear goals, no direction,
no
generally agreed idea of "progress." It is a time of stagnancy and ennui.
It
will pass, but, until it does, absolutist religion is an answer that is
attractive to the many people who are extremely uncomfortable with all of
the uncertainty and lack of direction.

It isn't the first time it's happened and it probably won't be the last.

Damn..not a bad post. Get religion or somethin?

G

Gunner

g I'm where I've always been on that. I try to respect others' religious
views. If they push me, I push back. Otherwise, I don't pre-judge, nor would
I try to suppress religious expression.

We have some problem now with people promoting violence in the name of
religion. And a little non-violent trouble with people trying to push their
religious beliefs into government. But the issue I have trouble with is
their actions, not the beliefs themselves.

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:


This is a time in US history when there are no clear goals, no direction, no
generally agreed idea of "progress." It is a time of stagnancy and ennui. It
will pass, but, until it does, absolutist religion is an answer that is
attractive to the many people who are extremely uncomfortable with all of
the uncertainty and lack of direction.


Yep we were watching some documentary a week or so ago on
Fundamentalist/Creationist/IDers and there was an overwhelming sense
that here was a group of people looking for absolute assurances,
something solid they could cling to whilst the world around them shifted.

"Guido" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:


This is a time in US history when there are no clear goals, no
direction, no
generally agreed idea of "progress." It is a time of stagnancy and
ennui. It
will pass, but, until it does, absolutist religion is an answer that is
attractive to the many people who are extremely uncomfortable with all
of
the uncertainty and lack of direction.


Yep we were watching some documentary a week or so ago on
Fundamentalist/Creationist/IDers and there was an overwhelming sense
that here was a group of people looking for absolute assurances,
something solid they could cling to whilst the world around them shifted.

Oh, yeah. You can see it here among the intensely religious. It's happened
many times.

Nobody likes injustice, uncertainty, not knowing the ultimate realities, or
the thought that everything is over when you die. Different people have
different limits on how much they can internalize and live with. When
uncertainty is running high, a lot of them reach the tipping point and get
born again.

This is a different phenomenon from basic, common faith.

--
Ed Huntress

Guido wrote:
Ed Huntress wrote:


This is a time in US history when there are no clear goals, no
direction, no generally agreed idea of "progress." It is a time of
stagnancy and ennui. It will pass, but, until it does, absolutist
religion is an answer that is attractive to the many people who are
extremely uncomfortable with all of the uncertainty and lack of
direction.


Yep we were watching some documentary a week or so ago on
Fundamentalist/Creationist/IDers and there was an overwhelming sense
that here was a group of people looking for absolute assurances,
something solid they could cling to whilst the world around them
shifted.

The entire issue reminds me of the "Red Scare" of the 50's.
I have yet to see a credible piece of objective evidence that anyone is
being denied the right to practice religion outside the confines of
Publicly financed places. There does, on the other hand, appear to be an
ongoing effort to subvert and divert public moneys to support an entire host
of religious groups or perspectives. That effort isn't meeting with much
success and it won't in all likelyhood.
Noone in the US is denied their religious preference or the ability to
practice it. That isn't the same thing as being able to use public resources
to promote the same.

--
John R. Carroll
Machining Solution Software, Inc.
Los Angeles San Francisco
www.machiningsolution.com

Ed Huntress wrote:

"Gus" wrote in message
roups.com...


Ed Huntress wrote:


The hard-boiled born-again are not a vast majority. Those who believe in


God


are a vast majority, but they have always been. And we have shown no


real


tendency to become a theocracy despite that fact.


Absolutely.



The issue now is that certain evangelicals are getting a little frisky


and


are trying to intrude their religion into government and into the


schools.


They are being resisted. They are not likely to succeed, nor are they


likely


to become a "vast majority."



It seems to me that the anti-religion forces have been trying to remove
any mention of god from public places for about 40 years or so.



Yeah, well, that corresponds roughly to the span of time over which the
theocrats have been trying to stick them in. Notice that the big issues, the
Ten Commandments in the courthouse and so on, are of pretty recent vintage.
Likewise, introducing religion into biology classes.



They
appear to want to change our society to fit their views. Now some
people have had enough and are resisting. Their goal seems to be to
keep things the same, not change anything.



It's a little like racial discrimination, as I see it. We've had a law
against discrimination for a very long time, but it's still a task to get
some people to live up to the law. Likewise, living up to the Constitution,
which says we won't establish religion, is a never-ending battle.

FWIW, I happen to believe that the fundamental constitutional principle is
that the government will not encourage or promote any religion, or any group
of religions. But I don't think it was intended for the government to
prevent citizens from expressing their religion in public settings. There
was a Supreme Court ruling that drew a fine line between the two, and I
think it was a fine decision.

In other words, at Christmastime, if the people of a town want a manger and
a Christmas display in the town square, I'm all for it. But they'd better
also allow any other religious display, at the appropriate religious
holidays.


I tend to agree..however, people would also have to understand that
should a small group wish to install a pentagram and have a note saying
"glory to Satan", that would be acceptible under the same provisions.
Clearly, though, the debate about the "war on christmas" and similar
religious displays on public property is about imposing one religion
that may have a majority in the USA over minority religions.

There's a simple test of this....IF the pledge of allegience had the
words "one nation, under Satan", would these same people be battling to
have that removed? Would they refuse to participate in the reciting of
this line? Clearly, if the reference were to a religion that didn't fit
their viewpoint, the same that are now fighting to keep their God
references would be fighting to remove the references to anyone else's god.

The Constitution is written to protect a minority from the impositions
of a majority on certain and very specific issues like religion and
speech. Accept that the best role for the government is to stay out of
anything that imposes any notion of religion or risk having your money
say "I'm a Buddha Buddy" should the population of Asians (and others who
practice the same) ever increase to become a majority....or Virgin Mary
statues and confessionals in government buildings should the population
of hispanic catholics ever increase to a majority. Neither tradition
nor majority percentages make it right for a goverment to act in the
role of promoting one religious viewpoint over another....even in minor
ways like "God" references in pledges and on money.

Koz

--
Ed Huntress

jim rozen wrote:
In article .com, Gus says...

Their goal is pure and simple: to teach religion in public
schools. Read the court decsion about the Dover, PA case.

And how does that balance out what the ACLU has been doing for 40 years?

News Flash: Relgion is not to be taught in public schools. Never
was, never will be.

Does it matter if the courts, the constitution, the aclu, or
the school board, says it? Which one convinces you?

Jim

I agree that public schools should not "teach" religion but I also
think that the ban on even mentioning Christmas or the ban on school
kids from mentioning God has gone too far.
I don't know, I've read the constitution and I can't find a lot of the
stuff that the ACLU says is in there. School boards are running scared
of ACLU threats so they aren't a good source of what's right either.
I suppose the Dover case you're mentioning has to do with intelligent
design. The way I heard it, there was no "teaching" of it. A
4-paragraph statement was to be read at the start of the year's science
class stating that there was another theory of origins and if anyone
was interested they could check out a certain book.
Now the good judge apparently called this "teaching of religion" but I
personally think he was out to lunch. Atheism is also a religion of
sorts but schools don't mind teaching that.

GW

jim rozen wrote:

In article .com, Gus
says...

Their goal is pure and simple: to teach religion in public
schools. Read the court decsion about the Dover, PA case.

And how does that balance out what the ACLU has been doing for 40 years?

News Flash: Relgion is not to be taught in public schools. Never
was, never will be.

Never? When the Constitution was ratified several US states had state
religions and part of the reason for the First Amendment was that there was
concern on the part of those states that the Federal government would
institute a _different_ religion as the national religion. It was _not_
intended that that Amendment would abolish the state religions in those
states.

Does it matter if the courts, the constitution, the aclu, or
the school board, says it? Which one convinces you?

The ACLU is just an advocacy group, and as such their views hold no more
force than those of the Mormons, less in fact if you believe in
democracy--there are 400,000 ACLU members vs 4 million Mormons.

If the school board decides that the schools _will_ teach religion, which
has happened on a number of occasions, then do you still stand by their
view?

The Constitution doesn't say anything about what can or cannot be taught in
public schools--in fact one can argue that any attempt to restrict
discourse in schools runs afoul of the guarantees of freedom of speech.
One could even question the authority of the government, under the
Constitution, to fund such schools from the taxpayer's pocket--there is
certainly no _explicit_ power to do so. If one can come up with a good
argument and catch the Supreme Court on the right day then public schools
might very well be abolished in their entirety on that basis.

That leaves the courts, which are in fact the bodies that have made the
determination that the Constitution prevents the teaching of religion in
public schools. This ruling is, I believe, based on an early decision
regarding the powers of the Federal government, extended to the states by
the 14th Amendment, which was not intended to abolish the teaching of
religion or religious values in public schools but to guarantee the civil
rights of freed slaves.

That being the case, it really gets down to the will of the Justices of the
Supreme Court overriding the will of the majority of the population, and
that being the case the will of those Justices may very well change at some
point.



Jim



--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)