Democrat Alderwoman hits poll worker with car
American Thinker ^ | September 16, 2010 | Thomas Lifson

Posted on Thursday, September 16, 2010 11:50:43 AM by jazusamo


As the nation turns against them, more and more Democrats are going nuts,
behaving in bizarre, and sometimes violent ways. Milwaukee television
station WTMJ reports:


Milwaukee Alderwoman Milele Coggs hit a poll worker with her car Tuesday
after what is described as a heated argument over results.


"She was out of line, she was very demanding," said Jennifer Hunt-Evans, a
poll worker who watched the Alderwoman get into an argument with the Chief
Inspector at the polling place where she was working.


According to the report, the Milwaukee Election Commissioner stated that the
alderwoman demanded information from poll workers on the results of her
cousin Elizabeth Coggs's race for the State legislature, and they failed to
satisfy her demands.

WISN TV elaborates:


Hunt-Evans said the inspector gave the women some election tallies, but
Coggs kept demanding numbers for other races. The inspector told her he'd
given her all he could.


"She wasn't willing to accept no for an answer. It got to the point where he
said he's calling the police. He started leading them out. We stayed in.
Next thing we know, he's on the ground. Nobody can seem to know what
happened. It's his word against theirs," Evans said.


Milele Coggs represents Milwaukee's sixth aldermanic district. She came from
a political family. Her cousins Elizabeth Coggs and Leon Young vied for
seats in the Legislature in Tuesday's primary election. Another cousin,
state Sen. Spencer Coggs, lost his bid for lieutenant governor.


The news reports don't identify her political affiliation, so we know she
must be a Democrat. In fact, she is from a large family of Democrat office
holders in Wisconsin. From Elizabeth Coggs' campaign website:


I continue the legacy of politics as a family tradition. My dad, Isaac N.
Coggs, was one of the first African-Americans elected to the State
Legislature in 1952 and the Milwaukee County Board in 1964. My mom Marcia P.
Coggs was the first African-American woman elected to the Wisconsin State
Legislature in 1976. I wonder if my dad ever envisioned the legacy he
started in 1952; we are more than likely the only family who has a
representative in four levels of government and whose family has given over
100 years of representation in government. My cousins State Senator Spencer
Coggs, State Representative Leon Young and Alderwoman Milele Coggs stand in
full support of my candidacy for the seat of Wisconsin State
Representative-10th District.


Alderwoman Milel Coggs also has friends at the national level.




I am the Sword of my Family
and the Shield of my Nation.
If sent, I will crush everything you have built,
burn everything you love,
and kill every one of you.
(Hebrew quote)

On Fri, 17 Sep 2010 21:42:55 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:



Democrat Alderwoman hits poll worker with car
American Thinker ^ | September 16, 2010 | Thomas Lifson

Posted on Thursday, September 16, 2010 11:50:43 AM by jazusamo


As the nation turns against them, more and more Democrats are going nuts,
behaving in bizarre, and sometimes violent ways. Milwaukee television
station WTMJ reports:

After reading that story, I am certain that she studied The Acorn Plan
under Barry.

--
Some people are like Slinkies ... not really good for
anything, but you can't help smiling when you see one
tumble down the stairs.

"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
...


Democrat Alderwoman hits poll worker with car
American Thinker ^ | September 16, 2010 | Thomas Lifson

Posted on Thursday, September 16, 2010 11:50:43 AM by jazusamo


As the nation turns against them, more and more Democrats are going nuts,
behaving in bizarre, and sometimes violent ways. Milwaukee television
station WTMJ reports:

snip

These power hungry witches that want to rule have a mental problem. They
need to get off their feminist bandwagon and face the fact that men and
women are different, it's a biological fact. Men can't get pregnant and
women aren't fit to rule anything beyond their children, it's just the facts
of life. I hope the realize it before they destroy the country.

RogerN

On Sep 18, 10:59*am, "RogerN" wrote:
"Gunner Asch" wrote in message

...

Democrat Alderwoman hits poll worker with car
American Thinker ^ | September 16, 2010 | Thomas Lifson

Posted on Thursday, September 16, 2010 11:50:43 AM by jazusamo

As the nation turns against them, more and more Democrats are going nuts,
behaving in bizarre, and sometimes violent ways. Milwaukee television
station WTMJ reports:

snip

These power hungry witches that want to rule have a mental problem. *They
need to get off their feminist bandwagon and face the fact that men and
women are different, it's a biological fact. *Men can't get pregnant and
women aren't fit to rule anything beyond their children, it's just the facts
of life. *I hope the realize it before they destroy the country.

RogerN

In the dictionary where it says "misogynist," there ought to be a
picture of RogerN. Roger - did you have a bad breast feeding
experience or something?

"rangerssuck" wrote in message
...
On Sep 18, 10:59 am, "RogerN" wrote:
"Gunner Asch" wrote in message

...

Democrat Alderwoman hits poll worker with car
American Thinker ^ | September 16, 2010 | Thomas Lifson

Posted on Thursday, September 16, 2010 11:50:43 AM by jazusamo

As the nation turns against them, more and more Democrats are going
nuts,
behaving in bizarre, and sometimes violent ways. Milwaukee television
station WTMJ reports:

snip

These power hungry witches that want to rule have a mental problem. They
need to get off their feminist bandwagon and face the fact that men and
women are different, it's a biological fact. Men can't get pregnant and
women aren't fit to rule anything beyond their children, it's just the
facts
of life. I hope the realize it before they destroy the country.

RogerN
\
\In the dictionary where it says "misogynist," there ought to be a
\picture of RogerN. Roger - did you have a bad breast feeding
\experience or something?
\

Nope, just seen a lot of women in positions of power prove that they should
not be in positions of power. Examples include Hillary, Pelosi, Obama's
supreme court appointees, women judges, etc... A woman judge declared The
National Day of Prayer unconstitutional in 2010, even though the practice
has gone on since the founding fathers. I read her decision and it was
based on false reasoning throughout the document. The very first part of
her argument was about the controversy over differences in prayer dating
back to the founding fathers. Notice their controversy was not over
"separation of Church and State", it was not over a day of prayer being
unconstitutional, it was over peoples differences in how they pray. The
reasoning had absolutely nothing to do with Constitutionality of Prayer but
the misguided judge misused it in that way.

And before you get on your "Separation of Church and State" bandwagon, you
should find out the practices of the founding fathers. Thomas Jefferson was
one of the least religious of the founding fathers and he is the one that
penned the very words "Separation of Church and State"(these words aren't in
the US constitution but are in the USSR constitution, BTW) but Thomas
Jefferson gave government money to missionaries and attended church in a
government building. The ACLU and libtards would have a heck of a problem
with the practices of the founding fathers. But then again the libtards
change the meaning of things to mean what they never meant, thereby changing
the law of the land without using the legal process.

But since there is no God and we are all the product of evolution, what is
the order of races? In evolution it is important for the fit to survive and
the weak to die. What race do you suggest be killed off to best benefit
mankind? This is opposite of the Christian world view that all are equal.

RogerN

"RogerN" wrote:


"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
.. .


Democrat Alderwoman hits poll worker with car
American Thinker ^ | September 16, 2010 | Thomas Lifson

Posted on Thursday, September 16, 2010 11:50:43 AM by jazusamo


As the nation turns against them, more and more Democrats are going nuts,
behaving in bizarre, and sometimes violent ways. Milwaukee television
station WTMJ reports:

snip

These power hungry witches that want to rule have a mental problem. They
need to get off their feminist bandwagon and face the fact that men and
women are different, it's a biological fact. Men can't get pregnant and
women aren't fit to rule anything beyond their children, it's just the facts
of life. I hope the realize it before they destroy the country.

RogerN


I'm going to catch hell for this but I keep hearing from the feminists that women only
make 78% of what men make.

Well if you hire a man, he never takes weeks off at a time to have a baby or is on work
restrictions for being pregnant.

The pay disparity is just market forces at work.

Oh, and in a right world where the couple actually did more than hook up for a night and
got married and are having a stable relationship. The man is still at work making a full
check.

Wes

On Sat, 18 Sep 2010 16:53:15 -0500, "RogerN" wrote:


"rangerssuck" wrote in message
...
On Sep 18, 10:59 am, "RogerN" wrote:
"Gunner Asch" wrote in message

...

Democrat Alderwoman hits poll worker with car
American Thinker ^ | September 16, 2010 | Thomas Lifson

Posted on Thursday, September 16, 2010 11:50:43 AM by jazusamo

As the nation turns against them, more and more Democrats are going
nuts,
behaving in bizarre, and sometimes violent ways. Milwaukee television
station WTMJ reports:

snip

These power hungry witches that want to rule have a mental problem. They
need to get off their feminist bandwagon and face the fact that men and
women are different, it's a biological fact. Men can't get pregnant and
women aren't fit to rule anything beyond their children, it's just the
facts
of life. I hope the realize it before they destroy the country.

RogerN
\
\In the dictionary where it says "misogynist," there ought to be a
\picture of RogerN. Roger - did you have a bad breast feeding
\experience or something?
\

Nope, just seen a lot of women in positions of power prove that they should
not be in positions of power. Examples include Hillary, Pelosi, Obama's
supreme court appointees, women judges, etc... A woman judge declared The
National Day of Prayer unconstitutional in 2010, even though the practice
has gone on since the founding fathers. I read her decision and it was
based on false reasoning throughout the document. The very first part of
her argument was about the controversy over differences in prayer dating
back to the founding fathers. Notice their controversy was not over
"separation of Church and State", it was not over a day of prayer being
unconstitutional, it was over peoples differences in how they pray. The
reasoning had absolutely nothing to do with Constitutionality of Prayer but
the misguided judge misused it in that way.

And before you get on your "Separation of Church and State" bandwagon, you
should find out the practices of the founding fathers. Thomas Jefferson was
one of the least religious of the founding fathers and he is the one that
penned the very words "Separation of Church and State"(these words aren't in
the US constitution but are in the USSR constitution, BTW) but Thomas
Jefferson gave government money to missionaries and attended church in a
government building. The ACLU and libtards would have a heck of a problem
with the practices of the founding fathers. But then again the libtards
change the meaning of things to mean what they never meant, thereby changing
the law of the land without using the legal process.

But since there is no God and we are all the product of evolution, what is
the order of races? In evolution it is important for the fit to survive and
the weak to die. What race do you suggest be killed off to best benefit
mankind? This is opposite of the Christian world view that all are equal.

RogerN


Yall might want to take a look at this as well....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dlfEdJNn15E


Something the Leftists never seem to be aware of....

Gunner,
Rensai Buddhist




I am the Sword of my Family
and the Shield of my Nation.
If sent, I will crush everything you have built,
burn everything you love,
and kill every one of you.
(Hebrew quote)

Gunner,
Rensai Buddhist

Gunner, ****ing liar.

So from that list of a half-dozen or so women with whom you disagree -
and your disagreement is in policy, not in leadership ability - you
conclude that women are bilogically incapable of leadership. What
about the men you disagree with (and we all know there are many)?

Roger, it's not just women you hate. You (and many others in this
group, both on the left and the right) hate everyone who doesn't think
just like you do. There are no gray areas left.

I said something (in another thread) about Obama leaving out the word
"creator" in a speech, and was asked what the Koran had to say about
it. How the **** would I know? Just because I don't practice your
religion doesn't make me evil.

In another thread last week, It was suggested that I'm a lousy
mechanic because Larry disagrees with my politics.

Genner's been banging the drum for his "great cull" of all left
wingers. Now, last week, one of the lefties has begun calling for a
counter-cull of the righties.

What the **** is wrong with everyone around here?

On Sat, 18 Sep 2010 18:48:30 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dlfEdJNn15E

Oh, pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeease...
What is that guy doing there in our capitol, processing religious
freaks into missionaries?

Regarding education back then, pretty much only the wealthy (and
specifically those who attended the seminary) got much higher
education or access to libraries. Don't believe every word of his
presentation, please, about the significance of 29 of the forefathers
being ministers.

--
Some people are like Slinkies ... not really good for
anything, but you can't help smiling when you see one
tumble down the stairs.

On Sep 18, 9:48*pm, Gunner Asch wrote:

Yall might want to take a look at this as well....

*http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dlfEdJNn15E

So, I'm not a christian, so I should get the **** out of this place?
You are not a christian either (so you say), so you should get the
**** out as well.

On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 06:28:42 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Sat, 18 Sep 2010 18:48:30 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dlfEdJNn15E

Oh, pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeease...
What is that guy doing there in our capitol, processing religious
freaks into missionaries?

Regarding education back then, pretty much only the wealthy (and
specifically those who attended the seminary) got much higher
education or access to libraries. Don't believe every word of his
presentation, please, about the significance of 29 of the forefathers
being ministers.


You do have cites to your claims, right?

Trot em out.

Gunner


I am the Sword of my Family
and the Shield of my Nation.
If sent, I will crush everything you have built,
burn everything you love,
and kill every one of you.
(Hebrew quote)

"rangerssuck" wrote in message
...
On Sep 18, 9:48 pm, Gunner Asch wrote:

Yall might want to take a look at this as well....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dlfEdJNn15E
/
/So, I'm not a christian, so I should get the **** out of this place?
/You are not a christian either (so you say), so you should get the
/**** out as well.
/

That's not it at all, at least in my opinion. The problem is that
non-Christians have been telling Christians to "Get the **** out" when they
have every right to be where they are just as you do. They have taken
"Separation of Church and State" and applied it in ways that it has never
been applied before since the foundation of this country. I support the
original meaning, we should not have a state ran church or a church ran
state, but that doesn't mean it's wrong to have a nativity scene on public
property, or at least it hasn't meant that until a few years ago.

RogerN

On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 09:14:20 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 06:28:42 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Sat, 18 Sep 2010 18:48:30 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dlfEdJNn15E

Oh, pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeease...
What is that guy doing there in our capitol, processing religious
freaks into missionaries?

Regarding education back then, pretty much only the wealthy (and
specifically those who attended the seminary) got much higher
education or access to libraries. Don't believe every word of his
presentation, please, about the significance of 29 of the forefathers
being ministers.


You do have cites to your claims, right?

Trot em out.

Eventually.

--
Some people are like Slinkies ... not really good for
anything, but you can't help smiling when you see one
tumble down the stairs.

On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 09:14:20 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 06:28:42 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Sat, 18 Sep 2010 18:48:30 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dlfEdJNn15E

Oh, pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeease...
What is that guy doing there in our capitol, processing religious
freaks into missionaries?

Regarding education back then, pretty much only the wealthy (and
specifically those who attended the seminary) got much higher
education or access to libraries. Don't believe every word of his
presentation, please, about the significance of 29 of the forefathers
being ministers.


You do have cites to your claims, right?

Trot em out.

Regarding the significance, see the list (religious affiliations)
he http://www.adherents.com/gov/Foundin..._Religion.html
Read the notes for John Adams (Congregationalist,Unitarian), Jefferson
(Episcopalian;Deist), Franklin (Episcopalian;Deist), and Hancock
(Congregationalist). Tell me that these men were the bible thumpers
your speaker in the video made them out to be. The list came out to
204% because so many of them changed religions, some more than once.

Higher education back then was hard to come by. Unless you were rich,
you were out working for a living. Po folks couldn't waste the time or
money on foolish things like education if they wanted to stay alive.
I don't have links (and choose not to waste time to pursue 'em) but if
you can find conflicting info, please post it. I'll take a look.

--
Some people hear voices. Some see invisible people.
Others have no imagination whatsoever.

On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 10:17:31 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 09:14:20 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 06:28:42 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Sat, 18 Sep 2010 18:48:30 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dlfEdJNn15E

Oh, pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeease...
What is that guy doing there in our capitol, processing religious
freaks into missionaries?

Regarding education back then, pretty much only the wealthy (and
specifically those who attended the seminary) got much higher
education or access to libraries. Don't believe every word of his
presentation, please, about the significance of 29 of the forefathers
being ministers.


You do have cites to your claims, right?

Trot em out.

Regarding the significance, see the list (religious affiliations)
he http://www.adherents.com/gov/Foundin..._Religion.html
Read the notes for John Adams (Congregationalist,Unitarian), Jefferson
(Episcopalian;Deist), Franklin (Episcopalian;Deist), and Hancock
(Congregationalist). Tell me that these men were the bible thumpers
your speaker in the video made them out to be. The list came out to
204% because so many of them changed religions, some more than once.

Higher education back then was hard to come by. Unless you were rich,
you were out working for a living. Po folks couldn't waste the time or
money on foolish things like education if they wanted to stay alive.
I don't have links (and choose not to waste time to pursue 'em) but if
you can find conflicting info, please post it. I'll take a look.


So the video stating that the Capital building was used as a church for
most of American History is bogus?

Gunner


I am the Sword of my Family
and the Shield of my Nation.
If sent, I will crush everything you have built,
burn everything you love,
and kill every one of you.
(Hebrew quote)

"RogerN" wrote in message
...

"rangerssuck" wrote in message
...
On Sep 18, 9:48 pm, Gunner Asch wrote:

Yall might want to take a look at this as well....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dlfEdJNn15E
/
/So, I'm not a christian, so I should get the **** out of this place?
/You are not a christian either (so you say), so you should get the
/**** out as well.
/

That's not it at all, at least in my opinion. The problem is that
non-Christians have been telling Christians to "Get the **** out" when
they have every right to be where they are just as you do. They have
taken "Separation of Church and State" and applied it in ways that it has
never been applied before since the foundation of this country. I support
the original meaning, we should not have a state ran church or a church
ran state, but that doesn't mean it's wrong to have a nativity scene on
public property, or at least it hasn't meant that until a few years ago.

RogerN



Certain people don't like to be reminded that there might be something
greater than themselves. Wailing, teeth-gnashing and such.

Buerste wrote:

"RogerN" wrote in message
...

"rangerssuck" wrote in message
...
On Sep 18, 9:48 pm, Gunner Asch wrote:

Yall might want to take a look at this as well....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dlfEdJNn15E
/
/So, I'm not a christian, so I should get the **** out of this place?
/You are not a christian either (so you say), so you should get the
/**** out as well.
/

That's not it at all, at least in my opinion. The problem is that
non-Christians have been telling Christians to "Get the **** out" when
they have every right to be where they are just as you do. They have
taken "Separation of Church and State" and applied it in ways that it has
never been applied before since the foundation of this country. I support
the original meaning, we should not have a state ran church or a church
ran state, but that doesn't mean it's wrong to have a nativity scene on
public property, or at least it hasn't meant that until a few years ago.

RogerN



Certain people don't like to be reminded that there might be something
greater than themselves. Wailing, teeth-gnashing and such.

Don't forget: Dragging of knuckles!

--
Politicians should only get paid if the budget is balanced, and there is
enough left over to pay them.

On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 20:12:29 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

So the video stating that the Capital building was used as a church for
most of American History is bogus?


A video by and about a Jesus Freak tour is suspect to me from the get
go, yes, but I'm not doubting everything he said. Just most.
While the building may well have been used as a church in the early
days, you don't see any agenda there in the video? You don't see,
hear, or feel any bending of the facts to meet it? shrug

200+ years ago, being religious was a given, a norm. We're more open
as a people now and don't have to pretend (though most do, I feel) to
be devout whatevers. AFAIC, He's [She's?] not the kind you have to
wind up on Sundays.

--
Some people hear voices. Some see invisible people.
Others have no imagination whatsoever.

On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 06:32:54 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 20:12:29 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

So the video stating that the Capital building was used as a church for
most of American History is bogus?


A video by and about a Jesus Freak tour is suspect to me from the get
go, yes, but I'm not doubting everything he said. Just most.
While the building may well have been used as a church in the early
days, you don't see any agenda there in the video? You don't see,
hear, or feel any bending of the facts to meet it? shrug

Actually..no I dont. I find "jesus freaks" who give tours to large
groups of people in the US capital would appear to have most of their
facts in order. Else they would have been called on it long ago.

So you Im sure can provide cites that the building in question wasnt
used as a church on Sundays as late as 30 yrs ago, as the gentleman
claimed?


200+ years ago, being religious was a given, a norm. We're more open
as a people now and don't have to pretend (though most do, I feel) to
be devout whatevers. AFAIC, He's [She's?] not the kind you have to
wind up on Sundays.

Odd that 80% of Americans believe in God, and the churches dont seem to
be empty.

Btw..before you get all wound up..you do know that Im not Christian,
right?

Gunner, Buddhist



I am the Sword of my Family
and the Shield of my Nation.
If sent, I will crush everything you have built,
burn everything you love,
and kill every one of you.
(Hebrew quote)

On Sep 20, 11:03*am, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 06:32:54 -0700, Larry Jaques

wrote:
On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 20:12:29 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

So the video stating that the Capital building was used as a church for
most of American History is bogus?

A video by and about a Jesus Freak tour is suspect to me from the get
go, yes, but I'm not doubting everything he said. Just most. *
While the building may well have been used as a church in the early
days, you don't see any agenda there in the video? *You don't see,
hear, or feel any bending of the facts to meet it? *shrug

Actually..no I dont. I find "jesus freaks" who give tours to large
groups of people in the US capital would appear to have most of their
facts in order. Else they would have been called on it long ago.

So you Im sure can provide cites that the building in question wasnt
used as a church on Sundays as late as 30 yrs ago, as the gentleman
claimed?



200+ years ago, being religious was a given, a norm. *We're more open
as a people now and don't have to pretend (though most do, I feel) to
be devout whatevers. *AFAIC, He's [She's?] not the kind you have to
wind up on Sundays.

Odd that 80% of Americans believe in God, and the churches dont seem to
be empty.

Btw..before *you get all wound up..you do know that Im not Christian,
right?

Gunner, Buddhist

You can call yourself whatever you want, but it doesn't make it so.


I am the Sword of my Family

No you aren't

and the Shield of my Nation.

No you aren't

If sent, I will crush everything you have built,

No you won't

burn everything you love,

No you won't

and kill every one of you.

No you won't

* * * * *(Hebrew quote)

Once again, please provide a cite to the original this is quoted from.

On Sep 19, 12:34*pm, "RogerN" wrote:
"rangerssuck" wrote in message

...
On Sep 18, 9:48 pm, Gunner Asch wrote:

Yall might want to take a look at this as well....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dlfEdJNn15E

/
/So, I'm not a christian, so I should get the **** out of this place?
/You are not a christian either (so you say), so you should get the
/**** out as well.
/

That's not it at all, at least in my opinion. *The problem is that
non-Christians have been telling Christians to "Get the **** out" when they
have every right to be where they are just as you do. *They have taken
"Separation of Church and State" and applied it in ways that it has never
been applied before since the foundation of this country. *I support the
original meaning, we should not have a state ran church or a church ran
state, but that doesn't mean it's wrong to have a nativity scene on public
property, or at least it hasn't meant that until a few years ago.

RogerN

It is wrong, in my opinion, to have a government sponsored religion.
Displaying a nativity scene on public propoerty is government
sponsorship of religion. I would be as opposed to display, on
government propoerty or with government funds, of ANY religious
symbol. I live in a town with far more churches than schools. There
are plenty of non-government places to display such symbols.

I also have a problem with the tax-exempt status of religious
institutions.

I am NOT telling anyone to get the **** out of anywhere. You can spend
as much time in my city hall as you want. But don't erect a cross
there, OK?

Gunner Asch on Mon, 20 Sep 2010 08:03:41 -0700
typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
200+ years ago, being religious was a given, a norm. We're more open
as a people now and don't have to pretend (though most do, I feel) to
be devout whatevers. AFAIC, He's [She's?] not the kind you have to
wind up on Sundays.

Odd that 80% of Americans believe in God, and the churches dont seem to
be empty.

In Russia, after the Atheists took over, church was seen to be the
place for little old ladies to go. Eventually, they would die, and
there would be no more 'problems.' Save that all through the 70
years of the atheist's reign, they never seem to run out of little old
ladies.

And yes, a hundred years ago, - or even fifty, the United States
was a church going nation. Some meant it, some just went along
because it was expected. But nowadays, fewer are going to church
regularly, but those who do go, do mean it.
Many people would be "religious" if it was popular to do so, just
as they are now non-religious, because it is popular to not do so.

Btw..before you get all wound up..you do know that Im not Christian,
right?
--
pyotr filipivich
We will drink no whiskey before its nine.
It's eight fifty eight. Close enough!

On Sep 20, 12:53*am, "Buerste" wrote:
"RogerN" wrote in message

...







"rangerssuck" wrote in message
...
On Sep 18, 9:48 pm, Gunner Asch wrote:

Yall might want to take a look at this as well....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dlfEdJNn15E
/
/So, I'm not a christian, so I should get the **** out of this place?
/You are not a christian either (so you say), so you should get the
/**** out as well.
/

That's not it at all, at least in my opinion. *The problem is that
non-Christians have been telling Christians to "Get the **** out" when
they have every right to be where they are just as you do. *They have
taken "Separation of Church and State" and applied it in ways that it has
never been applied before since the foundation of this country. *I support
the original meaning, we should not have a state ran church or a church
ran state, but that doesn't mean it's wrong to have a nativity scene on
public property, or at least it hasn't meant that until a few years ago..

RogerN

Certain people don't like to be reminded that there might be something
greater than themselves. *Wailing, teeth-gnashing and such.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

If, by "certain people", you are referring to me, You simply don't
have even a clue of a clue. You don't know who I am or what I believe.
We agree on some things, we disagree on others. But don't pretend to
know me.

On Sep 20, 9:32*am, Larry Jaques
wrote:
On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 20:12:29 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

So the video stating that the Capital building was used as a church for
most of American History is bogus?

A video by and about a Jesus Freak tour is suspect to me from the get
go, yes, but I'm not doubting everything he said. Just most. *
While the building may well have been used as a church in the early
days, you don't see any agenda there in the video? *You don't see,
hear, or feel any bending of the facts to meet it? *shrug

200+ years ago, being religious was a given, a norm. *We're more open
as a people now and don't have to pretend (though most do, I feel) to
be devout whatevers. *AFAIC, He's [She's?] not the kind you have to
wind up on Sundays.

--
Some people hear voices. Some see invisible people.
Others have no imagination whatsoever.

Gunner is not well known for critical thinking. He thinks "Critical
Thinking" means criticizing everything. If it's spouted by a winger,
Gunner takes it as gospel. Then he claims to be a Buddhist.

As an atheist, I personally do not appreciate pro-God signs being
displayed in public institutions. This includes nativity scenes,
promotions of Jesus, Allah, and other religious things. I do not want
my tax money to be used to promote God and other religion.

Our understanding of Constitution evolves. For example, Constitution
mentions Army and Navy, but not Air Force. That's understandable, since
Air Force did not exist when Constitution was adopted.

Same applies to, say, nativity scenes in schools. They used to be
considered a part of general culture. Now, with many religions
prospering, and understanding of that, we realize that they are a part
of only one religion.

Freedom of religion is a good thing for any religion, because without
it, religion would become a tool of the state, instead of a matter of
conscience.

I heard mentions about how bad it was that Soviet Union was
suppressing religion. I agree that it was bad, even though I am an
atheist. Now Russia is a different state that actually promotes
certain religions. But the result of it is that those "supported
religions" are simply convenient tools of the state. It is hardly a
bastion of religious freedoms. In other words, state sponsored
religion is simply an extension of state.

i

On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 14:19:22 -0500, Ignoramus32604
wrote:

Same applies to, say, nativity scenes in schools. They used to be
considered a part of general culture. Now, with many religions
prospering, and understanding of that, we realize that they are a part
of only one religion.

Which one?

Freedom of religion is a good thing for any religion, because without
it, religion would become a tool of the state, instead of a matter of
conscience.

Yes.

I heard mentions about how bad it was that Soviet Union was
suppressing religion. I agree that it was bad, even though I am an
atheist. Now Russia is a different state that actually promotes
certain religions. But the result of it is that those "supported
religions" are simply convenient tools of the state. It is hardly a
bastion of religious freedoms. In other words, state sponsored
religion is simply an extension of state.

i
You seem to be under the misunderstanding that the State sponsors those
religious displays.

Tis the people who work for the State that do.

And Ive seen holiday displays from Christian beleevs, Jewish Bleeves,
Kwanza bleeves , Muslim Bleeves, and so on, so there doesnt appear to be
any preference or discrimination of one over another.

Now if Atheist holidays become popular, Id expect some sort of display
to be shown as well from that belief system.

Afterall..Atheism is just another faith based belief system

Gunner


I am the Sword of my Family
and the Shield of my Nation.
If sent, I will crush everything you have built,
burn everything you love,
and kill every one of you.
(Hebrew quote)

On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 08:03:41 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 06:32:54 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 20:12:29 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

So the video stating that the Capital building was used as a church for
most of American History is bogus?


A video by and about a Jesus Freak tour is suspect to me from the get
go, yes, but I'm not doubting everything he said. Just most.
While the building may well have been used as a church in the early
days, you don't see any agenda there in the video? You don't see,
hear, or feel any bending of the facts to meet it? shrug

Actually..no I dont. I find "jesus freaks" who give tours to large
groups of people in the US capital would appear to have most of their
facts in order. Else they would have been called on it long ago.

So you Im sure can provide cites that the building in question wasnt
used as a church on Sundays as late as 30 yrs ago, as the gentleman
claimed?


200+ years ago, being religious was a given, a norm. We're more open
as a people now and don't have to pretend (though most do, I feel) to
be devout whatevers. AFAIC, He's [She's?] not the kind you have to
wind up on Sundays.

Odd that 80% of Americans believe in God,

Belief in god and church attendance don't necessarily go hand in hand.


and the churches dont seem to be empty.

No, they're (mostly) chock full of hypocrites. (See Obama + Rev.
Wright + Rev. Farrakhan as a crystal clear definition.) All our
indicted officials also attend church regularly.



Btw..before you get all wound up..you do know that Im not Christian,
right?

Right, Renzi Buddhist, though I'm not quite sure what that is.

--
Some people hear voices. Some see invisible people.
Others have no imagination whatsoever.

On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 14:21:30 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 08:03:41 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 06:32:54 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 20:12:29 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

So the video stating that the Capital building was used as a church for
most of American History is bogus?


A video by and about a Jesus Freak tour is suspect to me from the get
go, yes, but I'm not doubting everything he said. Just most.
While the building may well have been used as a church in the early
days, you don't see any agenda there in the video? You don't see,
hear, or feel any bending of the facts to meet it? shrug

Actually..no I dont. I find "jesus freaks" who give tours to large
groups of people in the US capital would appear to have most of their
facts in order. Else they would have been called on it long ago.

So you Im sure can provide cites that the building in question wasnt
used as a church on Sundays as late as 30 yrs ago, as the gentleman
claimed?


200+ years ago, being religious was a given, a norm. We're more open
as a people now and don't have to pretend (though most do, I feel) to
be devout whatevers. AFAIC, He's [She's?] not the kind you have to
wind up on Sundays.

Odd that 80% of Americans believe in God,

Belief in god and church attendance don't necessarily go hand in hand.

True indeed.



and the churches dont seem to be empty.

No, they're (mostly) chock full of hypocrites. (See Obama + Rev.
Wright + Rev. Farrakhan as a crystal clear definition.) All our
indicted officials also attend church regularly.

Some truth, some opinion noted.



Btw..before you get all wound up..you do know that Im not Christian,
right?

Right, Renzi Buddhist, though I'm not quite sure what that is.

Google Rensai Buddhist

We are one of the Buddhists that can and do kill when necessary.

Shrug



I am the Sword of my Family
and the Shield of my Nation.
If sent, I will crush everything you have built,
burn everything you love,
and kill every one of you.
(Hebrew quote)

"rangerssuck" wrote in message
...
On Sep 19, 12:34 pm, "RogerN" wrote:
"rangerssuck" wrote in message

...
On Sep 18, 9:48 pm, Gunner Asch wrote:

Yall might want to take a look at this as well....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dlfEdJNn15E

/
/So, I'm not a christian, so I should get the **** out of this place?
/You are not a christian either (so you say), so you should get the
/**** out as well.
/

That's not it at all, at least in my opinion. The problem is that
non-Christians have been telling Christians to "Get the **** out" when
they
have every right to be where they are just as you do. They have taken
"Separation of Church and State" and applied it in ways that it has never
been applied before since the foundation of this country. I support the
original meaning, we should not have a state ran church or a church ran
state, but that doesn't mean it's wrong to have a nativity scene on public
property, or at least it hasn't meant that until a few years ago.

RogerN
/
/It is wrong, in my opinion, to have a government sponsored religion.
/Displaying a nativity scene on public propoerty is government
/sponsorship of religion. I would be as opposed to display, on
/government propoerty or with government funds, of ANY religious
/symbol. I live in a town with far more churches than schools. There
/are plenty of non-government places to display such symbols.
/
/I also have a problem with the tax-exempt status of religious
/institutions.
/
/I am NOT telling anyone to get the **** out of anywhere. You can spend
/as much time in my city hall as you want. But don't erect a cross
/there, OK?
/

What about American History? Should we lie about the fact that the very
author of "Separation of church and state", Thomas Jefferson, gave
government money to missionaries and went to church in a government
building? There are 2 possibilities, either Thomas Jefferson was violating
what he wrote, seems unlikely, or today it is taken to mean what it never
meant, seems very likely.

There is a reason for the tax exempt status of religious institutions. For
one they hopefully do some good for the community, helping with the sick,
visiting nursing homes, helping the poor, counseling, etc.. I think it you
were to ask pastors and active church members what they are doing I believe
you will find that the church does serve a secular purpose.

What about the art depicting religious activities and symbols on various
government buildings? None of these things were seen as a violation of
"Separation of church and state" (Not in US constitution but is in the USSR
constitution) from the founding of the country until recently.

RogerN

On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 15:00:39 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 14:21:30 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 08:03:41 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

and the churches dont seem to be empty.

No, they're (mostly) chock full of hypocrites. (See Obama + Rev.
Wright + Rev. Farrakhan as a crystal clear definition.) All our
indicted officials also attend church regularly.

Some truth, some opinion noted.

g


Btw..before you get all wound up..you do know that Im not Christian,
right?

Right, Renzi Buddhist, though I'm not quite sure what that is.

Google Rensai Buddhist

We are one of the Buddhists that can and do kill when necessary.

I did and didn't find a definition on the first seven pages of
searches for either "rensai buddhist" or "rensai buddhism". I only
found repeated brief dialog between Wuliheron and Sleeth which didn't
answer my question. A couple vaguely mention a Japanese monk who took
the name Rensai, but no more data. Got any real cites?

--
Some people hear voices. Some see invisible people.
Others have no imagination whatsoever.

On Sep 20, 7:46*pm, "RogerN" wrote:
"rangerssuck" wrote in message

...
On Sep 19, 12:34 pm, "RogerN" wrote:



"rangerssuck" wrote in message

...
On Sep 18, 9:48 pm, Gunner Asch wrote:

Yall might want to take a look at this as well....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dlfEdJNn15E

/
/So, I'm not a christian, so I should get the **** out of this place?
/You are not a christian either (so you say), so you should get the
/**** out as well.
/

That's not it at all, at least in my opinion. The problem is that
non-Christians have been telling Christians to "Get the **** out" when
they
have every right to be where they are just as you do. They have taken
"Separation of Church and State" and applied it in ways that it has never
been applied before since the foundation of this country. I support the
original meaning, we should not have a state ran church or a church ran
state, but that doesn't mean it's wrong to have a nativity scene on public
property, or at least it hasn't meant that until a few years ago.

RogerN

/
/It is wrong, in my opinion, to have a government sponsored religion.
/Displaying a nativity scene on public propoerty is government
/sponsorship of religion. I would be as opposed to display, on
/government propoerty or with government funds, of ANY religious
/symbol. I live in a town with far more churches than schools. There
/are plenty of non-government places to display such symbols.
/
/I also have a problem with the tax-exempt status of religious
/institutions.
/
/I am NOT telling anyone to get the **** out of anywhere. You can spend
/as much time in my city hall as you want. But don't erect a cross
/there, OK?
/

What about American History? *Should we lie about the fact that the very
author of "Separation of church and state", Thomas Jefferson, gave
government money to missionaries and went to church in a government
building? *There are 2 possibilities, either Thomas Jefferson was violating
what he wrote, seems unlikely, or today it is taken to mean what it never
meant, seems very likely.

Thomas Jefferson also owned slaves. Perhaps we should go back to those
good old days. It was also Government policy to kill Native Americans
(injuns). Perhaps you'd like to go back to THOSE good old days? As
Iggy wrote a few posts up from here, times change, and with time, so
does our understanding of the Constitution.


There is a reason for the tax exempt status of religious institutions. *For
one they hopefully do some good for the community, helping with the sick,
visiting nursing homes, helping the poor, counseling, etc.. *I think it you
were to ask pastors and active church members what they are doing I believe
you will find that the church does serve a secular purpose.

There is more than one large church in my town which do not have a
SINGLE congregant who lives in this town. They came here, mostly,
because our planning board is a pushover and never says no to a
church. They have tax-exempt status and do nothing at all for our
community. When I was asked (after a planning board meeting) why I
opposed the building of yet another church by an out-of-town
congregation, I told the minister exactly that. His response was,
"Well, perhaps we could endow a Christian Studies program at the high
school." I suggested that he brush up on separation of church and
state befor he brought that up in public.


What about the art depicting religious activities and symbols on various
government buildings? *None of these things were seen as a violation of
"Separation of church and state" (Not in US constitution but is in the USSR
constitution) from the founding of the country until recently.

I am not denying that religion, for better or worse, has played a part
in our history. But yes, I am opposed to using publicly funded
buildings to promote any religion. Our government has had a hard
enough time promoting government activites. Perhaps they need to
concentrate a little more on running the country (and state and
municipality) rather than advertising for whatever religion they
happen to be favoring?

RogerN

RS

On Sep 20, 3:54*pm, Gunner Asch wrote:


You seem to be under the misunderstanding that the State sponsors those
religious displays. *

Tis the people who work for the State that do.

If they are on State property then they are State sponsored. Nothing
more to discuss there.

"rangerssuck" wrote in message
...

snip
I also have a problem with the tax-exempt status of religious
institutions.


People that donate to churches have already paid taxes on that money. If
you want to tax churches, would all the left-wing institutions be taxed
also? It's about time for ACORN, PETA, unions, Greenpeace, and the Sierra
Club to lose their tax exemptions.

On Sep 21, 10:57*am, "Buerste" wrote:
"rangerssuck" wrote in message

...

snip

I also have a problem with the tax-exempt status of religious
institutions.

People that donate to churches have already paid taxes on that money. *If
you want to tax churches, would all the left-wing institutions be taxed
also? *It's about time for ACORN, PETA, unions, Greenpeace, and the Sierra
Club to lose their tax exemptions.

Specifically, I'm talking about property taxes. Churches typically
have large plots of land and huge buildings. THey use municipal
services and pay no taxes.

On Tue, 21 Sep 2010 10:57:39 -0400, "Buerste"
wrote:


"rangerssuck" wrote in message
...

snip
I also have a problem with the tax-exempt status of religious
institutions.


People that donate to churches have already paid taxes on that money. If
you want to tax churches, would all the left-wing institutions be taxed
also? It's about time for ACORN, PETA, unions, Greenpeace, and the Sierra
Club to lose their tax exemptions.

Hear Hear!!!



I am the Sword of my Family
and the Shield of my Nation.
If sent, I will crush everything you have built,
burn everything you love,
and kill every one of you.
(Hebrew quote)

"Buerste" wrote in message
...

"rangerssuck" wrote in message
...

snip
I also have a problem with the tax-exempt status of religious
institutions.


People that donate to churches have already paid taxes on that money. If
you want to tax churches, would all the left-wing institutions be taxed
also? It's about time for ACORN, PETA, unions, Greenpeace, and the Sierra
Club to lose their tax exemptions.

The donations to churches are tax deductible, so the donors have not paid
taxes on that money.

Personally, I think that the separation of church and state should be a two
way street.
The government should stay out of the church's business and the church
should stay out of the government's.

Paul K. Dickman

On Sep 21, 3:15*pm, "Paul K. Dickman" wrote:
"Buerste" wrote in message

...



"rangerssuck" wrote in message
...

snip
I also have a problem with the tax-exempt status of religious
institutions.

People that donate to churches have already paid taxes on that money. *If
you want to tax churches, would all the left-wing institutions be taxed
also? *It's about time for ACORN, PETA, unions, Greenpeace, and the Sierra
Club to lose their tax exemptions.

The donations to churches are tax deductible, so the donors have not paid
taxes on that money.

Personally, I think that the separation of church and state should be a two
way street.
The government should stay out of the church's business and the church
should stay out of the government's.

Paul K. Dickman

Thank you for putting it so succinctly. Those are points I've been
trying (and failing) to make.

On Tue, 21 Sep 2010 10:19:03 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Tue, 21 Sep 2010 10:57:39 -0400, "Buerste"
wrote:


"rangerssuck" wrote in message
...

snip
I also have a problem with the tax-exempt status of religious
institutions.


People that donate to churches have already paid taxes on that money. If
you want to tax churches, would all the left-wing institutions be taxed
also? It's about time for ACORN, PETA, unions, Greenpeace, and the Sierra
Club to lose their tax exemptions.

Rent-a-Thug, um, I mean ACORN is tax exempt?


Hear Hear!!!

Yeah, I can see where _real_ charities could benefit from tax
exemptions, but why churches? Two items in particular come to mind.
The $25 million Mormon temple in Sandy Eggo and the $400 million
dollar Catholic church in HelL.A. With buildings like that, why the
exemptions? If a church gives out meal, exempt that small portion of
their enormous rakeins of money from the sheeple.

--
Some people hear voices. Some see invisible people.
Others have no imagination whatsoever.

Larry Jaques wrote:

On Tue, 21 Sep 2010 10:19:03 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Tue, 21 Sep 2010 10:57:39 -0400, "Buerste"
wrote:


"rangerssuck" wrote in message
...

snip
I also have a problem with the tax-exempt status of religious
institutions.


People that donate to churches have already paid taxes on that money. If
you want to tax churches, would all the left-wing institutions be taxed
also? It's about time for ACORN, PETA, unions, Greenpeace, and the Sierra
Club to lose their tax exemptions.

Rent-a-Thug, um, I mean ACORN is tax exempt?



Apparently you can rent Alaska's State cops for that kind of work.


--
Politicians should only get paid if the budget is balanced, and there is
enough left over to pay them.